Seòmar agus comataidhean

Rachel Connor submission of 11 June 2021

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

I support this petition submitted by Scotland Against Spin (SAS).

Renewable UK conducted a much-publicised poll of only 1700 people, on 21st May 2021. The poll revealed that—

• “support for prioritising renewable energy is even greater among people who live within five miles of a windfarm (49%) than those who do not (46%)”; and

• “support for building onshore wind farms remains overwhelming high at 70%”.

The poll’s weighted selection of respondents in terms of location, numbers of adjacent turbines or the turbine heights is unknown, as is actual residential proximity to turbine(s) within the 5 miles. The Scottish Government (SG) recommends a minimum separation distance from communities of 2km, although this is not enforced, does not apply to individual properties, does not consider turbine heights and is often ignored.

But on the basis that interpretation of polls show overwhelming support for onshore wind from host communities, neither the SG nor the renewables industry should be frightened by a petition to allow more democratic influence by local communities on windfarm planning decisions.

Whilst renewable energy is consumed largely in Scotland’s urban areas, the burden of adverse effects from on-shore wind falls almost entirely on rural residents.

Recent statistics show that, on appeal, Scottish Ministers overturned 58% of Local Planning Authority (LPA) windfarm refusal decisions. This is high compared to overturning appeals for all categories of refused planning applications (DPEA statistics April 2021). I believe that this could be regarded as discriminatory by the SG against Decision making by rural populations.

I live next to the largest UK windfarm, Whitelee - 215 turbines. During Whitelee windfarm construction, our community suffered the complete loss of four private water supplies (PWS) as well as documented contamination of many other PWS, with associated ill health. Planning conditions were ignored by the developer. We continue to suffer visual impact, noise and documented property devaluation, yet more windfarms are consented predicting significant visual impact and excessive cumulative noise.

The SG’s trumpeted statutory core paths and public land access rights are overturned for windfarm developers, such that for Sneddon Law, consented (2012) which is adjacent to Whitelee. Developers have obtained ‘express consent’ to alter and use the public road, bridge and core path for construction purposes, without required public notification or consultation. Objections to the LPA from the public, Community Council and Access and Roads Legislation, apparently counts for nothing.

The adverse impacts of onshore windfarms are only too apparent to rural residents, yet valid concerns and objections to yet more developments are largely ignored by both planning authorities and the SG.

Contrary to SG planning policy, windfarms cause rural depopulation.

In our small area alone, five rural homes and steadings have been bought by developers and allowed to become derelict. Other home owners have difficulty selling. This does not produce a ‘resilient community’, it is community destruction.

Bought out home owners may be required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDA) with developers. One householder, whose PWS was at risk from Whitelee Extension 3, was offered a replacement PWS borehole - conditional on signing a NDA and being silent at the 2015 public inquiry; he was not.

Third party objections are thus stifled, by fair means or foul.

If the public are resilient enough to negotiate the complex and opaque planning process to participate in a public inquiry, they will need their brave pants on.

A Public Inquiry is supposed to examine and test the evidence of all parties, but in Scotland, a windfarm Inquiry is often an adversarial arena where the hapless public witness is faced with an aggressive, demeaning onslaught from the appellant’s legal team.

Unlike a criminal court where a judge will ensure questioning is pertinent and where a witness has an advocate, there is no such protection in such a ‘No holds barred’ Planning Inquiry and Reporters rarely intervene.

I was chair of Moscow and Waterside Community Council 2015-2018.

Before the Sneddon Law Enforcement Appeal public inquiry in 2018, the developer submitted allegations of gross misconduct against me, resulting in a 3-month investigation. I was exonerated and cleared on all counts. Nevertheless, as an individual member of the public, at the end of a four-hour cross examination by their QC, those unfounded allegations against me were raised in an attempt to impugn my reputation and discredit my evidence.

I have experienced and witnessed similar tactics at other public inquiries intended to upset public witnesses and render them and their evidence incoherent.

There needs to be more, not less, meaningful public participation in the planning process so that Reporters can consider not just the ‘selected’ evidence presented by developers in required Environmental Reports, but the actual evidence from recipient communities/residents. The lay public need to be mentored through the planning system and protected from bullying behaviour at inquiries.