Save Straiton for Scotland are calling for people across the local and wider area to object to the proposed Back Fell Wind Farm. The development would be located just over a mile southwest of Straiton and 2 miles southeast of Crosshill in an outstandingly beautiful area of South Ayrshire. It proposes up to 10 wind turbines with a tip height of approximately 200m and a total potential generating capacity of 62MW. The scheme also proposes approximately 30MW of battery energy storage. Taken with other local proposed and existing wind power schemes, there could be 91 turbines up to 200m tall surrounding Straiton as shown in the map below. Enough is enough!

The developer’s own Environmental Impact Assessment highlights a range of risks to our landscape, wildlife, water, and residential amenity, including impacts on numerous properties, viewpoints, and local landmarks and Local Landscape Areas (such as the Water of Girvan). Full application documents can be found at;

https://www.energyconsents.scot/ApplicationDetails.aspx?cr=ECU00004830

We believe this development is in the wrong location. It raises too many unanswered questions and threatens to cause lasting harm to our shared landscape, fragile ecosystems, local economy, and overall quality of life. The visual and environmental impacts not only would seriously impact on local residents, but could also deter visitors, damage the area’s reputation as a peaceful rural destination, and create real financial consequences for local businesses that rely on tourism, hospitality, and outdoor recreation.

Serious concerns relate to:

• 200m turbines on high ground will have a significant impact on the landscape. The South Ayrshire Wind Capacity Study in 2018 recommended that turbines over 130m could not be accommodated in this landscape. Some homes would have 7–10 additional turbines in direct view up to 200m tall from this scheme alone, let alone other proposed and existing schemes.
• Noise, shadow flicker, and lighting impacts have not been fully explored or mitigated.
• No human health or wellbeing impact assessments have been done.
• Carbon-rich peatland will be disturbed, without proper pre-consent testing.
• Protected species and habitats could be destroyed – yet some surveys (e.g. for amphibians like newts) have not been conducted.
• Much of the risk analysis is deferred until “after consent” – meaning no guarantees for residents before it’s too late.
• Private water supply impact – further information is required to ensure we have assurances that there will be zero risk to private water supply both during construction and beyond.
• The scheme contravenes and / or is inconsistent with many of the policies of National Planning Framework 4.

We’re asking for everyone to submit an objection by 28th June 2025.

There is evidence that windfarm developments, such as the nearby Clauchrie scheme, can, and have been refused planning consent but to do so, we need local objections to be heard. Whether you feel directly affected or simply want to support your community and help preserve the character and biodiversity of our shared environment, your voice matters.

We have provided an objection template below which you are welcome to use / edit, sign and submit. There is also a list of email addresses to send the objection to. At a minimum,the objection should be emailed to representations@gov.scot  with a copy (cc) to planning.development@south-ayrshire.gov.uk Please could you also copy (cc) to savestraiton@gmail.com so that we can keep an eye on the ECU website for publication. You can also post a hard copy of your objection to Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, 4th Floor, 5 Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw, Glasgow, G2 8LU.

June 2025

To Whom It May Concern,

OBJECTION TO BACK FELL WIND FARM PROPOSAL (ECU00004830)

I am writing to formally object to the proposed Back Fell Wind Farm (ECU00004830) on the following grounds:

Visual Impact

The development would result in significant and irreversible visual harm, including the visibility of up to 10 turbines from multiple residential properties. Some homes will have as many as 7–10 turbines in direct view, with structures up to 200m tall. The Residential Visual Amenity Assessment fails to offer site-specific reassessments or mitigation.

Private Water Supply

Under the Water Framework Directive, the Precautionary Principle is a fundamental requirement for groundwater protection which requires zero deterioration of designated groundwater status. The development area is located within a statutory designated groundwater protection area with “Good” status under SEPA’s classification. The Water Framework Directive explicitly prohibits even temporary deterioration of this designated status, yet the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment provides no guarantee that construction activities will not cause such deterioration. We need to seek for the developer to assure that there will be zero deterioration both during construction and for the duration after. 

Ecological Risk

The proposal lacks adequate ecological safeguarding. Key species such as bats, pine martens, otters and amphibians, including great crested newts (which are known to be present locally), are either under-assessed or not assessed at all. Habitat destruction and biodiversity loss are real risks.

Peatland Disturbance

The proposed site includes carbon-rich peatland. No intrusive core peat surveys or landslip risk modelling have been submitted pre-consent. Much of the peat risk management is deferred to post-consent, which is unacceptable for such a sensitive environment.

Human Health and Wellbeing

There is no health or wellbeing assessment included in the application. Given the scale of the development and its proximity to homes, the absence of such an assessment is a serious omission. Noise, flicker, lighting and stress-related impacts require proper consideration.

Lack of Net Biodiversity Gain

The proposal fails to demonstrate a meaningful net gain in biodiversity. Instead, mitigation and further assessments are frequently delayed until after consent, which offers no guarantees for environmental protection.

Incompatibility with Local and National Environmental Objectives

The site is within the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere and adjacent to a Site of Special Scientific Interest. The development is at odds with the ethos of protection, restoration and enhancement expected within these designations and runs counter to the principles of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).

Potential Impact on Ailsa Craig SPA and Migratory Birds

The ornithology report acknowledges the existence of the Ailsa Craig Special Protection Area (SPA), designated for its internationally significant seabird populations. However, the report fails to provide site-specific data on migratory or foraging movements that may intersect with the development zone. No vantage point surveys or radar tracking were undertaken to determine whether SPA species use this corridor during migration or post-breeding dispersal. These gaps could lead to underestimation of collision risks and breach the precautionary principle under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

Landscape Capacity and Wind Energy Suitability

According to the South Ayrshire Landscape Wind Capacity Study (2018), the site falls within a landscape character type deemed to have low to moderate capacity for large turbines. The study warns that cumulative development in these upland fringe areas could exceed landscape thresholds and cause unacceptable visual intrusion, particularly affecting small communities like Straiton and isolated dwellings.

Overreliance on Post-Consent Safeguards

Across multiple technical reports, including peatland management, ecological mitigation, and hydrological risk, the developer relies heavily on safeguards and mitigation plans that are only promised after planning consent is granted. This means that many serious risks are left unresolved at the time of decision-making, which is contrary to best practice and inconsistent with the principles of environmental protection.

Significant adverse effects on Water of Girvan Local Landscape Area (LLA)

By the Developers own admission, “this proposal would be partly located in the Water of Girvan Valley LLA and we consider that it is likely that significant adverse effects will occur on the character and qualities of this designated landscape” and “views from the valley containing the Water of Girvan which is recognised as an LLA and is important for tourism. Furthermore, they also go on to say that a key concern “…is [the] cumulative effects with the proposed Sclenteuch wind farm which we consider are likely to be significant, principally affecting landscape character and views in the upper Girvan valley and around Straiton”

We understand that other applications on this site, involving smaller and fewer turbines have previously been rejected, and for all the reasons stated above, I urge you to reject this application also.

Sincerely,

[Full Name]

[Postal Address or Postcode]

List of email addresses:

representations@gov.scot quoting Ref: ECU00004830 – Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit 

planning.development@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council’s Planning Department

iain.campbell@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton Councillor

william.grant@south-ayrshire.gov.uk– Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton Councillor 

brian.connolly@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton Councillor 

Elena.Whitham.msp@parliament.scot  Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley MSP 

elaine.stewart.mp@parliament.uk  Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock MP

john_haston@hotmail.com  Crosshill, Straiton and Kirkmichael Community Council

daillycc@outlook.com  Dailly Community Council

alec.clark@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

alan.lamont@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

ian.cavana@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

Mark.Dixon@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

Martin.Kilbride@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

mary.kilpatrick@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

lee.lyons@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

craig.mackay@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel

Duncan.Townson@south-ayrshire.gov.uk  South Ayrshire Council Planning Review Panel