The second return of Stroupster Windfarm

[ywindythesecond]

Stroupster Windfarm Public Local Inquiry

Caithness Councillors turned down Stroupster Windfarm around April or May 2006. The developer was expected to appeal but didn’t. After some time he reapplied for exactly the same scheme in June 2007. Highland Council advertised it and sought representations.
On 7th May 2009 the Scottish Government announced that there would be a public inquiry because of an appeal from the original application. Just what is going on?
My understanding is that there is a time limit in which to appeal after a planning application is refused and I thought it was six months. In a recent conversation with a Planning Officer, he explained that the application had been “cisted”. Any lawyers out there with an explanation please?
ywy2

[Sapphire2803]

It just means that it was suspended. So the time limits would not apply.

[Rheghead]

It just means that it was suspended. So the time limits would not apply.

But how come that this is an appeal from the original application (taking ywindy on face value, dangerous I know) which was decided in 2006? The 2007 application is cysted and hasn't been before planning yet.

I can see why there is an appeal if the nearest occupied dwelling is ~2km away.

[Sapphire2803]

Haven't the foggiest m'dear. I just explained what cisted means :)

I assume that they cisted the original application, not the latter one. So they would still be able to appeal that one.
Maybe the second application was a tester? Gawd knows!

Sounds like they have some excellent legal representation. People who know exactly how to play the system to their advantage.

[ywindythesecond]

Haven't the foggiest m'dear. I just explained what cisted means :)

I assume that they cisted the original application, not the latter one. So they would still be able to appeal that one.
Maybe the second application was a tester? Gawd knows!

Sounds like they have some excellent legal representation. People who know exactly how to play the system to their advantage.

Dead right Sapphire. I spoke to the Highland Council solicitor who deals with such things and asked how a planning decision three years old (2006) could be brought to Appeal, and when I said I had been told it had been “cisted”, she explained that it must have been appealed on time but “put to one side meantime”.
In the meantime, the developers submitted a fresh duplicate planning application (2007) which will come due to be heard by Highland Council sometime fairly soon.
So at present, Stroupster WF is subject of a public inquiry around September/October, AND a Highland Council Hearing any time from now, perhaps even before the Inquiry. She called it “twin-tracking”. It means that the developer has three bites left.

Win the Inquiry.
Lose the Inquiry and win the Hearing.
Lose the Inquiry and the Hearing and win at the Inquiry into the second hearing.
And he can submit another Planning Application and keep the process going ad infinitum.
That’s a lot of dead trees and hot air in the race to save the planet ( or more correctly, to salvage a stranded investment)
Ywy2

[Rheghead]

In the meantime, the developers submitted a fresh duplicate planning application (2007) which will come due to be heard by Highland Council sometime fairly soon.
So at present, Stroupster WF is subject of a public inquiry around September/October, AND a Highland Council Hearing any time from now, perhaps even before the Inquiry. She called it “twin-tracking”. It means that the developer has three bites left.

Win the Inquiry.
Lose the Inquiry and win the Hearing.
Lose the Inquiry and the Hearing and win at the Inquiry into the second hearing.
And he can submit another Planning Application and keep the process going ad infinitum.
That’s a lot of dead trees and hot air in the race to save the planet ( or more correctly, to salvage a stranded investment)
Ywy2

I must find myself in agreeance with you that one application should be dealt with on its merits to its finality before another is submitted.