“From the outset, it became clear that the ecological challenges of the chosen site were major”: LPO victory over a wind farm

"From the outset, it became clear that the ecological challenges of the chosen site were major": LPO victory over a wind farm

The Arnac-sur-Dourdou park was authorized by an order of April 30, 2020 from the prefect of Aveyron. ML Archives

The Council of State has just ruled in favor of the League for the Protection of Birds (LPO), opposed to the project to build wind turbines in the town of Arnac-sur-Dourdou. The case is being referred to the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal.

“One all, the ball in the center!” In its decision of September 9, 2024, the Council of State ruled in favor of the League for the Protection of Birds (LPO), which opposed the project to build wind turbines in the town of Arnac-sur-Dourdou in the south of the Aveyron department. A decision eagerly awaited by opponents of the project who believe that it seriously harms biodiversity.

Back

The installation of the 6 wind turbines – wind generators – by the Arnac-sur-Dourdou Wind Farm Company within the Grands Causses Regional Natural Park, was authorized by an order of April 30, 2020 from the Aveyron Prefect. “From the outset, it was clear that the ecological challenges of the chosen site were major, particularly due to the presence of numerous protected areas (Natura 2000 zones) and species such as the Short-toed Eagle, the Kestrel, the Bearded Vulture, the Bonelli's Eagle, the Eurasian Eagle-Owl, and the and many others, recalls the LPO.

In collaboration with several other associations (FNE Midi-Pyrénées, APET Pays Belmontais, the Association for the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Identity of the Lacaune Mountains, the Fédération des Grands Causses, the Rural University of South Aveyron, the Association “Let's Protect Our Spaces”) the LPO had therefore decided to file a joint legal appeal on 16 November 2020.

The aim was to challenge the legality of the order authorizing the wind project and to request its cancellation by raising the impact linked to the installation of these 6 wind turbines on emblematic sites and local heritage species.

The LPO is not against wind power but remains unfavorable to renewable energy projects envisaged in areas with high biodiversity issues.

By a decision of April 20, 2023, the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal had finally rejected the collective's request, considering for its part “that the damage to biodiversity was not sufficiently characterised and that the measures to avoid and reduce the risks of impact of birds and bats with wind turbines were sufficient.”

A ruling brought before the Council of State, which in its decision of September 9, 2024 ultimately ruled in favor of the LPO. “A compelling reason of major public interest” not being of a nature here to justify the infringement of protected species.

Referral to the Administrative Court of Appeal

“One of the main arguments of the prefecture and the project leader was the participation of the wind farm in the State's objectives of developing renewable energies, recalls the LPO.However, the Council of State considered that this project would only make a modest contribution to the national energy transition policy, emphasizing that the Aveyron department was largely supplied with electricity and already had a large number of wind farms."

It is now up to the Toulouse Administrative Court of Appeal to decide by ruling again on the legality of the prefectural decree. “We are therefore rather satisfied with the decision of the Council of Statet, confirms the co-secretary of TNE Occitanie Environnement and secretary of the Co-27-XII collective, Bruno Ladsous, but everything now depends on the decision of the Toulouse Court of Appeal. We therefore hope that it will deduce from all this that there is reason to annul the prefectural decision. But unfortunately we have no certainty."

This decision comes two months after that of July 8 for the La Baume wind farm, also located in Aveyron, in which the Council of State had already followed the reasoning of the LPO which contested the absence of a protected species exemption.

I subscribe to read the rest

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

(function(d,s){d.getElementById("licnt2061").src= "https://counter.yadro.ru/hit?t44.6;r"+escape(d.referrer)+ ((typeof(s)=="undefined")?"":";s"+s.width+"*"+s.height+"*"+ (s.colorDepth?s.colorDepth:s.pixelDepth))+";u"+escape(d.URL)+ ";h"+escape(d.title.substring(0,150))+";"+Math.random()}) (document,screen)