DCSIMG

Plans for Pinwherry windfarm are rejected

A view of Breaker Hill from Craig Hill.

A view of Breaker Hill from Craig Hill.

Plans which would have seen nine turbines built near Pinwherry have been rejected by South Ayrshire Council.

The regulatory panel heard an application from Wind Prospect UK on Thursday June 19 but councillors turned it down.

Over 350 objections had been received against the application with many of them turning up on Thursday to voice their opinion.

None of the 201 supporters of the proposal were in attendance.

Roger Pirrie, chair of Pinmore and Pinwherry Community Council said: “We are heartily sick of having to try and fight this.

“The only ones seeing the benefits from this are the developers and the landowners.

“These plans have been opposed by walking groups because they would upset the peace and tranquility of the area and the job impact from this would be minimal.”

Rory Carmichael, the Development Manager for the proposal said that Wind Prospect had listened since their initial proposals were rejected two years ago.

“We have listened to the feedback from that process two years ago and as such there is now a reduction by taking away the six most noticeable turbines.

“Breaker Hill would provide a range of benefits to locals.”

However, members of the regulatory panel lined up to reject the proposals.

Maybole and North Carrick councillor Ann Galbraith said: “I just find this proposal horrifying. I can find no reason to support it.”

Hugh Hunter commented: “There are certain proposals that shouldn’t see the light of day and this is one of them.”

And Maybole and North Carrick councillor Sandra Goldie said: “I’d like to congratulate the work done by those working against the proposals and I’m sorry but I can’t see a reason to support this.”

The proposals were rejected on the grounds that the site is located outwith the areas of search for windfarms, they would have had a direct and significant impact on the landscape, there would have been a significant cumulative impact and there would have been an adverse effect on tourism.

 

Comments

 
 

Back to the top of the page