Call for challenge to Gwynt-y-Môr windfarm

Jan 8 2009 by Judith Phillips, North Wales Weekly News

COUNCILLORS were urged yesterday to employ a top London barrister to look at the possibility of challenging the Government’s decision to allow a 250-turbine windfarm off the Conwy coast.

At a special council meeting yesterday (Wednesday) it was argued that the Gwynt-y-Môr scheme was approved in the face of massive public opposition, and a request for a public inquiry had been ignored.

“When the council was first consulted about Gwynt-y-Môr the scheme was resoundingly rejected and we specifically asked for a public inquiry, but representations, together with those of the 3,000 people who wrote letters of objection and 5,000 who signed a petition, have been totally ignored by the Government,” said Craig-y-Don councillor Janet Finch-Saunders.

“We feel the minister responsible hasn’t considered the weight of objections and that the public, who will be most affected by the scheme, have been totally ignored.”

She proposed at yesterday’s meeting that the council seek legal advice as to whether or not it has a case to seek a judicial review of the Government’s decision in the High Court in London.

“I think we owe it to the people who elected us to at least employ a Queen’s Counsel to see whether or not we have got a case for a review. I believe we should fight this to the end because of the vigorous objections from many people who feel the Government wants to blight our beautiful heritage coast for something which isn’t even a proven method of efficient energy production,” she added.

Her call for legal advice was backed by Llandrillo-yn-Rhos councillor Phil Edwards who said he was worried the windfarm had been given permission without sufficient research.

“This will be the second largest windfarm in the world. On this point alone, we need to be satisfied the process which led to the decision was robust, challenging, open and transparent.

“Had there been a public inquiry, all the claims and counter-claims could have been examined, all the evidence could have been tested and challenged and the process would have been open to scrutiny.”