By Gordon Berry

A FIFE councillor has taken the radical step of breaching a recently introduced Scottish Parliament code of conduct by speaking out against plans for the region’s first windfarm.

The decision by East Neuk Tory councillor Mike Scott-Hayward has been made as the pace quickens in the planning process relating to Scottish Power’s proposals for Clatto Hill in the North East Fife countryside.

The move, which directly contradicts guidance that states that councillors should not make advance development comments, is sure to lead to debate and controversy within the local authority.

Mr Scott-Hayward, however, was yesterday unrepentant and stated publicly that he fully supports objections submitted over proposals for seventeen 300 ft wind turbines at the site.

He said there would be an unacceptable departure from policy and creation of a precedent which would put close-knit, relatively well-developed rural communities right across Scotland at risk from the same sort of massive venture.

The councillor said that as a former chairman of his party’s environment committee, he supports and advocates alternative and environmentally-friendly energy sources.

“Support of the use of wind energy, however, does not mean any and every scheme is acceptable. On balance, the adverse impact of this dominant development in a developed rural area, overshadowing a large number of small villages, hamlets and communities, (outweighs its) justification.

“My criticism is of both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament for not having a more coherent philosophy already in place. I have long believed that developments of a strategic nature, such as this and super-quarries and the like, should only be proceeded with when there is a recognised national need.

“They should only be at sites acceptable, and possibly pre- selected, at the highest planning level—government level. A coherent policy would not have pre- selected Clatto Hill, that’s for sure.”

Mr Scott-Hayward acknowledged he is “stepping out of line” and could lose his opportunity to speak and vote on the issue at the east area development committee.

He made his decision following a meeting with the Clatto Landscape Protection Group, CLPG, who are lobbying against the proposals.

“I am not a part of their group, and will not join them, but I do believe they are hitting most of the important nails on the head. Elected councillors should be doing that as well—we were elected to represent our electorates as well as to sit on planning committees.

“The new gagging rules make sense where individual, non-strategic, minor developments are concerned. A councillor should not seek to influence an outcome when a local resident is seeking permission to build a house or extend a conservatory.

“But a major wind farm, not to mention a complex of radio masts that cannot conclusively be said to be safe, is a different matter.

“The electorate and the applicants have a right, in my view, to know what councillors think and what concerns councillors about these major items.

“Now, with the gag in place, there is a very limited opportunity for councillors to discuss the matter, seek answers, hear counter-views and to openly influence or be influenced on all aspects. We are limited to what can be done in a committee meeting which has a deadline and is time-limited.”

The councillor said the Clatto Hill application, like other major matters, deserved better attention from elected members.

While he might now lose his vote, he said, the decision-making process had already been snatched away from the area committee.

It had not gone, he said, to the Scottish Parliament, who should determine the strategic need and siting of nationally important issues, but to Fife’s “feartie” central economic and development committee.