Seòmar agus comataidhean

Scotland Against Spin submission of 3 December 2021

PE1864/EEEEE - Increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore windfarms

SCOTLAND AGAINST SPIN (SAS) RESPONSE TO SCOTTISH RENEWABLES (SR) SUBMISSION OF 4 OCTOBER 2021

1. ADOPTING ENGLISH PLANNING LEGISLATION FOR THE DETERMINATION OF ONSHORE WIND FARM DEVELOPMENTS

SR Submission states:

Onshore wind is one of the cheapest forms of energy and the most cost-effective way to achieve our climate change ambitions at the lowest cost to consumers. The Climate Change Committee’s official advice to government shows that we will need to grow Scotland’s onshore wind fleet from its current 8.4GW to 20.4GW by 2030 if we are to achieve net-zero.

SAS Response

A doubling of the number of onshore turbines by 2030,from the current number, which already encroach on rural people adversely affecting their lives and livelihoods is precisely why this petition has been submitted with so much support from across Scotland.

There are plenty of alternatives to onshore wind energy, which can be developed without the adverse local environmental effects of wind turbines and without the risks associated with putting all our eggs in one basket.

SR Submission states:

Onshore wind already supports 8,800 jobs and contributes £2.2 billion to the economy each year in Scotland. The 12GW of onshore wind we need to build by 2030 is expected to raise this figure to over 25,000 jobs and around £30 billion.

SAS Response

This is irrelevant to the petition. However, in SAS opinion, SR appear to project overly optimistic potential employment figures in the renewable sector which we believe have been shown to be completely misleading. In SAS experience, most jobs go abroad. Most of the onshore wind companies are domiciled abroad or operate from tax havens excluding Scotland of the benefits taken from exploiting its resources.

The recent House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee Report on Renewable Energy in Scotland (17/9/21) highlighted the considerable shortcomings of the Scottish renewables industries claims on employment from renewables in Scotland.

SR Submission states:

Scottish Planning Policy is a devolved matter for which The Scottish Government is responsible. It is Scottish Renewables position that legislation and policy that shapes the planning system in Scotland, comparative to other devolved responsibilities, should be scrutinised and voted upon by the elected members of the Scottish Parliament.

SAS Response

This petition does not ask that English Planning Legislation is adopted verbatim. Elected Members in Scotland rightly debate and scrutinise proposed Scottish Legislation. Members are elected by their constituents and are answerable to them. They should be representing the views of their constituents, not just the views of industry and lobbying groups.

2. EMPOWERING LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ENSURE LOCAL COMMUNITIES ARE GIVEN SUFFICIENT PROFESSIONAL HELP TO ENGAGE IN THE PLANNING PROCESS

SR Submission states:

In November 2020, Scottish Renewables highlighted our concerns to The Scottish Government about the existing capacity constraints within Local Authority planning departments and the implications of this for the increased volume of renewables consents that net-zero will require. Research conducted by Scottish Renewables showed that the number of planners employed by councils in Scotland has fallen by 20% since 2011 - but the number of applications they will have to grant must increase if Scotland is to stay on track to net-zero emissions by 2045.

SAS Response

It appears that SR consider that additional LA resource should be spent granting windfarm applications to the detriment of their council tax payers and tax payers who fund the Council. The duty of a LA is first and foremost to its citizens.

Contrary to Aarhus convention, transposed into Scottish Planning Law, recent windfarm Decisions made on behalf of Scottish Ministers (eg WIN-370-2 - Arecleoch Wind Farm Extension decision) give the impression that unless third parties have professionally qualified experts to represent them , their evidence will be given less weight. There can be no clearer example of the need for professional help for third parties.

3. APPOINTING AN INDEPENDENT ADVOCATE TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL PARTICIPANTS ARE NOT BULLIED AND INTIMIDATED DURING PUBLIC INQUIRIES.

SR Submission states:

Scottish Renewables expects all participants in the planning process to carry out their duties with professionalism and to display respect to other participants in this process. Should any member of a planning team fall below the high standards of professional behaviour expected, this would be a matter for the reporter conducting the enquiry.

SAS Response

Unfortunately, SR do not recognise that many staff within the industry are not members of professional bodies and are therefore not bound by professional codes of conduct.

SR Submission states:

It is important to recognise that polling shows that 70% of the Scottish public support the building of onshore wind and welcome the benefits it will bring.

SAS Response

This is irrelevant to the issue of alleged intimidation and bullying by windfarm developers and their agents. In SAS opinion, this deeply flawed and frequently quoted poll, was commissioned by SR in 2021 and conducted by ‘You Gov’. Please refer to Petitioner’s submission of 3 August which provides an analysis of this poll.

Having conducted our own survey of SAS members, not one person responded to say they had ever been approached to take part in any wind farm poll.

SR Submission states:

With regards to the appointment of an independent advocate to represent local participants. There is often a spectrum of views within a community regarding renewable energy projects. We would wish to see more detailed proposals of how such a spectrum of views would be represented, the criteria for deciding which bodies are representative of the community as a whole and how opposing views within a community would be represented before being able to comment on this proposal.

SAS Response

The views of residents within 2 miles of a windfarm development site who are not financially involved, in receipt of benefit, non disclosure agreements and whose direct family are not employed by the developer should be given precedence in the planning process. Community Councils are supposed to represent their local community and there are rules governing a conflict of interest in voting on proposals which exclude voting by a councillor (or their immediate family) who are in receipt of financial or other benefit. Consideration of community benefit (which does not always follow the Scottish Government guidance) is not a planning matter. It is time constituted and elected Community Councils had a voice.