Fears proposed energy park could hurt Galloway’s dark sky status

Campaigners are concerned that the UK’s first Dark Sky Park could see its status at risk if a proposed energy development is approved.

The Galloway site was first recognised in 2009 as one of the best places to view the night sky with the naked eye.

The proposed Lairdmannoch Energy Park sits outside the park’s boundary and buffer zone but planning documents show wind turbines and safety aviation lights would be visible from the area.

The new site’s developer – Wind2 – says the company is “very aware” of the dark sky status and the value of “preserving the area’s natural light skies.”

Aviation lights are an essential safety measure in tall developments to mitigate the risk of collision.

The proposed development includes both red “medium-intensity” lights and infrared lights invisible to the eye.

Developers say only four of the proposed nine 180m (590ft) wind turbines would include red aviation lights, after consultation with the Civil Aviation Authority.

They also stress the energy park was not within the Dark Sky Park or its designated buffer zone.

Matthew McFadzean is one of two dark sky rangers at the Galloway Forest Park.

He said the project created a “detrimental” threat to night time visibility.

“You can come to Dumfries and Galloway and experience a really good level of light quality at night and night vision across the region,” he said.

“But if you go into the Dark Sky Park, that’s where you get the absolute best.”

Mr McFadzean believes visibility of the night sky has improved thanks to the lighting policies of the local authority over the two decades since the area secured its dark sky status.

However, he said he concerned there had been an increasing encroachment of renewable energy developments on the park’s boundaries.

He said he understood the need to support the transition to renewable energy but added that red light – although it has a smaller impact than white light – could still harm night time visibility.

“It will really impact things,” he said.

“In the Dark Sky Park, you can look up and see with the naked eye, thousands and thousands of stars on a clear night – more than people from the cities who come to visit can ever imagine.

“The one word which people say the most when they actually experience looking up at a dark sky for the first time is wow and if we put red lights up there I think that can only be detrimental to that experience.”

His concerns are shared by by Fi McClelland of The Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, which has plans to build a new facility in the park to replace the previous one, which was destroyed by fire.

She said the red light effect could be scattered through the sky by clouds or cause a disruptive “sky glow” across the wider region.

Campaigners say the elevated position of the turbines will see them dominate the landscape.

“The combination of them both is over 1,300ft from sea level to the tip of the turbine – that’s bigger than the Empire State Building without its antenna,” resident Matthew James said.

As well as the impact on the dark sky park, locals have raised concerns about the effect of the wind turbines on wildlife and the local water system.

But developer Wind2 said it had been working with the community for two years and had taken steps to mitigate risks including potential threat to night time visibility and wildlife.

It added it believed the area should see “tangible benefits from local renewable energy projects”.

It has estimated community benefit funding of £310,000 per year would add up to £12.4m over its operational life.

It said the scheme – which also includes solar panels and battery storage – matched Scottish government’s best practice guidance and could meet the energy needs of up to 67,000 homes.

The company stressed it had taken every effort to make the turbines “as inconspicuous as possible from sensitive areas”.

The window for the public to comment on the proposals is about to close.

The Scottish government – which will decide the fate of the scheme – said it would not be appropriate to comment on a live planning application.