A LEADING wind energy developer in Europe has launched an appeal after a controversial wind farm bid in the Borders was thrown out three times.

When members of Scottish Borders Council’s (SBC) planning committee met in July they were asked by officers to endorse a proposed eight-turbine project at Wull Muir, near Heriot.

The recommendation was made despite it previously being rejected by the local authority and on appeal by the Scottish Government.

SBC’s chief planning officer, Ian Aikman, told committee members the revised bid could be approved ‘on balance’ because of Holyrood’s new planning framework, which favours wind farm applications being granted.

But it was refused on a vote of six to three due to the negative visual impact it would have on the landscape.

Applicant Energiekontor has lodged an appeal against that decision with the Scottish Government’s planning and environmental appeals division.

The case will be allocated to a planning reporter who will consider evidence.

An appeal statement includes a detailed assessment of the project by planning consultant David Bell.

Mr Bell explains: “There is now a distinct shift in policy emphasis from the displacement of higher carbon electricity generation to extending the use of electricity as the critical energy response to the climate emergency. The proposed development would generate enough electricity to power approximately 38,000 average Scottish households.”

There was a raft of objections submitted against the scheme, most notably from Heriot Community Council which submitted a comprehensive and detailed objection which councillors and the planning officer agreed were legitimate concerns.

SBC’s landscape architect submitted a detailed report which stated that the developer has failed to address concerns and there was a danger of turning the Lammermuirs/Moorfoot escarpment, a much-valued natural amenity, into a “wind farm landscape”.

In her report the landscape architect said the new application “did not satisfactorily address the reporter’s concern at the highly adverse landscape impact of the disruption to the escarpment”.

She also made clear that her objection to the application fell within the parameters of the new planning framework and the issues surrounding the application were not matters of policy.

Although the design has been changed, the increased height of the proposed turbines, with a maximum tip height of 149.9 metres, continued to be an issue and the scheme “still created major landscape and visual impact”.