Wind turbine opponents win appeal

 In News

A tribunal has found wind turbines to be located near two aerodromes threaten the health and safety of pilots and bats.

In February, wpd Fairview Wind received approval from the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) to erect eight 500-foot wind turbines in Clearview Township. An appeal filed by John Wiggins, Gail and Kevin Elwood, Preserve Clearview, Clearview Township, the Town of Collingwood and the County of Simcoe triggering a tribunal which was held in Collingwood, beginning in May. Appeals were allowed on the grounds that the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to plant life, animal life and the natural environment.

In an order delivered Oct. 7 by Dirk Vanderbent and Hugh Wilkins, the tribunal found that appellants and their expert witnesses were able to show that based on flight patterns for take-offs and landings, the wind turbines pose a threat to the safety of aircraft operators.

“The safety concern expressed by Mr. Elwood, and the other appellants, relates to the proximity of all eight wind turbines to the take-off, transition and approach surfaces for the Clearview runway,” states the order.

Wind turbines 1 and 3 through 8 are all in close proximity to the centre of the Clearview runway, all within 15 seconds of flight time to the centre line of the flight path.

Given evidence presented at the hearing, that there is an unacceptable safety risk with respect to wind turbines 3 and 7, as planes taking off or landing at the Clearview runway would be flying in the turbulence zone at a distance of just three rotor diameters of one or the other of these wind turbines, the director of the MOECC withdrew support for turbines 3 and 7.

“The Health Test has been met in respect of the current operations at Collingwood Regional Airport and Clearview [aerodrome], and that the Approval Holder’s proposed mitigation measures in respect of both aerodromes will not significantly reduce the likelihood that such harm will occur, or, if there is some reduction in the likelihood of harm, the reduction is not to a degree that would result in the Health Test not being met, the Tribunal finds that the appellants have met their onus to establish that the Health Test has been met in respect of the project’s effects on persons using both aerodromes.”

The first 65 pages of the 85-page order are dedicated to the technicalities of flight.

With respect to the bats, the tribunal found “over the lifespan the project, it is more likely than not that the project will cause serious harm to the local population of little brown myotis from which it will not recover and cannot be reversed.  Therefore, without additional mitigation measures in place, the Tribunal finds that engaging in the Project in accordance with the REA will cause irreversible harm to little brown myotis.”

The tribunal has allowed for a further hearing to consider remedial options.

The order states, “Given the volume of evidence adduced, and the fact that many of the issues in this proceeding have not been addressed in detail in previous renewable energy appeal proceedings, the Tribunal is prepared to provide an opportunity for the parties to make further submissions on appropriate remedies, should the Approval Holder or the Director request such an opportunity.” 

Next steps in the appeal have yet to be determined.

“The ERT has some concerns with aspects of the REA application as presented, and is giving wpd an opportunity to provide remedy to alleviate those concerns. We’ve only received the decision [Friday], so we’ll take some time to review the decision and consult with our legal team on what our next steps will be,” said wpd spokesperson Kevin Surette.

Recent Posts

Leave a Comment

0