CADEAP

Ceres and District Environment and Amenity Protection Group

Home

Ceres - No to Ceres Wind Farm

About Us

Ceres and District Environment and Amenity Protection Group addresses issues arising from planning applications that adversely effect the environment and amenity of the area. We address these issues on relevant planning grounds and use Scottish national policy and the Fife development plan as our guide.

Blackfaulds Turbine – Update

In July 2014 the status of the application on Fife Council planning website changed to case closed. A few weeks later, although he knows very well the CADEAP position on wind turbines, we had a visit from William Buttercase the owner of Blackfaulds Farm and his son Jim. He explained that he had hoped a turbine would have provided some long term income and security for his son and entered into an agreement with Ashton Smith which restricted his ability to sell his land. He is aware that the case is closed but no idea why as he has had no communication from the agent and he cannot make any telephone contact.

We contacted Fife Council on behalf of Mr Buttercase and got the following reply.

I have examined the case file and there is to be honest limited information, it would appear that after the agent submitted the original application in August 2013 no further correspondence was received. As part of workload reviews where there has been no action from an agent and in this case as the screening response period had elapsed several months previously, the case was closed by the council. I cannot tell from the file whether Mr Buttercase’s agent was contacted prior to this but that would be normal procedure.

Our advice to Mr Buttercase is having done his best to contact the applicant and following CADEAP’s contact with Fife Council is to consider the matter closed.

Application Reference: 14/02522/SCR Date : 23.07.14
Proposal: Screening Opinion for erection of single wind turbine with a tip height of 77 metres
Address: West Mains Farm east of Baldinnie, Peat Inn, Fife

By lodging this screening application in July 2014 the applicant/developer asked Fife Council if they would require to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment with any future application for a single turbine with a blade tip height of 77 metres. They were advised that an Environmental Impact Assessment would not be required and given advice on what information would be required in the form of an Environmental Statement with any future application. Temporis have an interest in a number of other sites in East Fife but, as yet, have not lodged any full planning applications.

Watch this space.

Clatto Turbine

Application Reference: 13/02309/FULL Date : 08.08.13
Proposal: Erection of single Wind Turbine (45.5m total height to blade tip)
Address: Clatto Farm Cupar Fife KY15 7TG

In response to concerns by householders close to the site we objected to this proposal as did Ceres and District Community Council. The application came before the planning committee on 2nd July with a recommendation for approval. A motion for refusal was supported by a majority of the committee and it was refused by notice dated the 7th July 2014.

The Applicant appealed this decision. The appeal was upheld and planning permission duly granted on 7th November 2014 and the turbine erected in the Spring

Application Reference: 14/03510/FULL Date 20.10.14
Proposal: Erection of 500 kW wind turbine (79m to blade tip)
Address: Muirhead Farm Fife

In response to concerns by householders close to the site we objected to this proposal as did Ceres and District Community Council. The application came before the planning committee on 8th April 2015 with a recommendation for approval. A motion for refusal by Councillor Kennedy was supported by a majority of the committee and it was refused by notice dated the 14th May 2015.
The Applicant may appeal the decision.

Watch this space.

Carskerdo – Screening Application

Another screening application has been lodged for a single turbine at Carskerdo Farm.

Not RDS Element Power this time who have a proposal for three 100 metre turbines at Carskerdo but Temporis Wind Limited. This developer is bringing forward small developments all over Scotland in an attempt to cash in on the Feed-in Tariff before it disappears. This development would be in “partnership” with the farmer who is no doubt desperate to make progress and boost his income.

CADEAP flagged this up to Douglas Henry a director of RDS Element Power who may or may not have known about it. He was his usual cagy self and if he knows anything he is not about to tell any of us who would be affected by his three 100 metre turbines. He didn’t say they were not going to lodge an application . That does not mean that they will. Our advice would be to lift the cloud that has settled above Carskedo, tell us they are no longer interested in the site and walk away. That would be the decent thing to do.and in trut, since it has a much chance of getting planning consent as Graham Lang winning the under 50’s three legged race, the wise thing to do.

We have never seen two developers scrapping over a bit of the Fife countryside before. There is usually honour among you know what and once one has tied up a deal with a farmer others would steer clear.

14/01029/SCR | Screening opinion for erection of 1 (500kW) wind turbine (77m to blade tip) | Land North Of Carskerdo Farm Montrave Kennoway Fife

RDS Element Power at Ceres and District Community Council

The one thing that was abundantly clear from the visit of RDS Element Power director Douglas Henry to the Ceres and District Community Council meeting in Craigrothie on 9th September was that absolutely nothing was clear and Philip Mould from Struthers had this letter published in the Courier and the Fife Herald on the Friday following the meeting.

A further letter was submitted to the Courier on the 17th September 2013;

 

Baldinnie Rubble Re-cycling

Planning Application Reference: 09/01665/EFULL
Applicant: Kevin Buttercase
Site address: Whinstone Quarry, Baldinnie

We objected to the above application as the proposed development would have had an adverse effect on the environment and residential amenity of the area. The application was for permission to extract whinstone to a depth of six metres over an area of approximately 900 M2 and to use the pit formed to house crushing plant to process broken bricks, concrete, old dykes and rubble into saleable material.

The application was in essence in two parts. One for a quarrying operation in a green field location and the other for change of use of agricultural land to site and operate a minerals re-cycling centre.

The application was recommended for conditional approval. It came to the North East Fife Area Committee where it was unanimously refused planning permission.

The applicant appealed this decision to Scottish Ministers and a reporter was appointed to determine the appeal.

The reporter dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.

Gathercauld Wind Farm

CADEAP was formed by a group of concerned residents in March 2006 in response to a notice of intention sent to neighbours and leaflets distributed by EnergieKontor (UK) Limited that they proposed to develop a wind farm of up to 13 turbines up to 85 metres to blade tip on land over which they had an agreement to develop.

The land was in the ownership of three farmers and comprised parts of Newbigging of Craighall Farm, South Callange Farm and Gathercauld Farm. The proposal was known as Gathercauld Wind Farm but was generally known as Ceres Wind Farm because of its proximity to the village.

CADEAP concerns centred on landscape and visual impact and impact on residential amenity. There were other issues. For instance it seemed obvious to us that turbines of the height proposed on the site proposed would have an impact on the Air Traffic Control at Leuchars and so it tuned out and the design of the wind farm was scaled back to try and address that.

A year later when the developer held their public exhibition the plan they proposed was for 5 turbines 80 metres to blade tip with one on South Callange and 4 on Newbigging of Craighall. This was part of their public consultation process which led to no changes in the proposal and could scarcely be considered consultation.

The application was lodged in May 2007. Radar was still an issue and Defence Estates objected and this resulted in turbine heights being altered again and the military withdrew their objection.

The application finally came to the North East Fife Area Planning Committee on 17th June 2009 two years after submission and we were disappointed that is was recommended for approval. The procedure in this situation is that one of the councillors has to propose a motion for refusal otherwise the officer’s recommendation would be accepted without a vote.

Local Ceres ward councillor Margaret Kennedy moved a motion for refusal and in her argued convincingly that the application was contrary to Development Plan policy and that it should be refused. Her motion moving refusal was seconded by Councillor Roger Guy. One councillor voted for the motion to approve but could not find a seconder so the application was refused.

CADEAP were prepared psychologically and financially for an appeal by EnergieKontor against refusal but in the event the statutory time (3 months) passed in which one could have been lodged and there was no appeal.

CADEAP Objection

In preparing the group objection we relied on;

  • James Lochhead MRTPI.
  • National Planning Policy and the Fife Development Plan

The planning based objection was supported by the following work;

  • Nigel Buchan MLI MLA BA. A critique of the Landscape and Visual Impact section of the Environmental Statement (ES)
  • Dick Bowdler. Undertook a review and assessment of the Noise chapter in the ES
  • Professor John McManus PhD DSc FRSE C.Geol prepared a review of the site geological conditions.
  • John Campbell QC gave us advice as required
  • members of CADEAP reviewed other matters in the ES.

The application was recommended for approval by the Planning Service. The application was unanimously refused by the North East Fife Area Committee.