Scottish & Southern Renewables, UK

The Complaint: That the project is in contravention of the EU Birds and Habitat Directives, that there is considerable controversy surrounding the project at the Gordonbush site as the area immediately adjacent to the site is the home of rare and valuable Annex I bird species e.g. Golden Eagle, Hen-Harrier and Golden Plover). Much of the controversy would result from the fact that since the assessment of the potential impact of the Gordonbush windmills was submitted to the government, new information has came to light and that that information may not have been known to the authorities; such information would certainly have resulted in a different outcome. There also remain concerns that the assessment was incomplete and failed to represent all European ornithological interests.

The complainant is asks whether the EIB is aware of the controversy and if any steps have been taken to incorporate the up-to-date information into the application. It is vital that the EIB as well as the government are aware of all valuable species resident at the Gordonbush site and the potential impact of the project, before making any decision to proceed with its development.

The EIB-CM assessment & investigation

The EIB-CM assessment & investigation consisted of i.a. one meeting with the complainant in Brussels during which further literature and documentation was provided on the bird’s habitat and its need for conservatory measures. During this meeting the complainant brought one further argument to the fore which was that too high expectations of output from the wind farm could result in a too high capacity rating of the wind turbines by the project promoter, which in turn could result in higher energy prices.

The EIB-CM did not find indications that the services of the EIB 1) had not been informed about the risks for the environment and or that the wind farms would be located near the Natura 2000 site; 2) was not aware of the existing regulation applicable to the project; and 3) did not effectively monitor the Project Promoter for the construction and implementation phase of the project. Before the project was financed and implemented EIB services were acutely aware of, and involved in, measures, such as the Habitat Management Plan, and other agreed measures for mitigation of possible impacts.

The EIB-CM cannot confirm the allegation that the assessment of the potential impact of the development of Gordonbush had been submitted before new information regarding Annex 1 species had become available. In fact, the appraisal of the Gordonbush wind farm development does not date from before 2007, but from April 2008; the first draft Habitat Management Plan dates from June 2008 and the final Habitat Management Plan is from May 2009. In all those later reports there is extensive information on the impacts on the Golden Plover, Merlin and peat lands.

On the assessment of on-site wind figures, the EIB has been aware of a possible overstatement by the Project Promoter, but has based its decision on its own conservative assumptions, as is common in similar projects.

The EIB-CM notes that in this Project EIB is in full compliance with EU priority objectives (Pillar 1) and national targets for renewable energy in this particular project.

Relating to the various political issues raised by the complainant, the EIB-CM reiterates, as it had already verbally informed the complainant, that, based on the Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure (EIB CMPTR) of the EIB CM, it is not competent to deal with.

Conclusion

In the light of the above the EIB-CM proceeds to close the complaint with no recommendation