Seòmar agus comataidhean

Trevor Procter submission of 9 June 2021

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

I write in support of the above petition:

It is vital that local communities are allowed a proper contribution to the planning process for wind farms which, I believe, have the potential to destroy public amenity, residential amenity and private water supplies.

1. It is our experience that in spite of the Government proclaiming the aims of local democracy, when it comes to planning, this is completely ignored. The Mochrum Fell windfarm application in 2013 received 600 objections, strong objections from 5 local Community Councils and was refused unanimously by the democratically appointed Dumfries & Galloway Planning Committee. Our 2 local MSPs and MP were against the application. On the Appeal, a further 200 objections were received yet the Reporter approved the application, completely over-ruling all local democracy.

2. In England, the support for a major development must be greater than the objections for the development to be approved. This is local democracy working in practice. In Scotland, the final decision is made by one person (the Reporter) who is from outwith the area and does not have to live with the consequences of their decision. Their decision can only be queried by a judicial review which no-one can afford individually and even then, only leads to another Reporter starting the process over again.

3. The developers of windfarms know that success provides them with millions of pounds profit, so they are prepared to spend enormous amounts employing specialised consultants to support their application. These consultants are paid and, in my opinion, provide the evidence the developers want, so seem to me in no way independent.

They present their case in such a way that they expect no-one to question their findings and conclusions. When someone does, as happened with a local application when the sound calculations were shown as being wrong, the developers' consultants vehemently denied anything that contradicted their biased claims. They state that they are the professionals and any lay person is wrong, however experienced, educated or professional they may be.

4. In a recent online Public Inquiry, a specialist expert in Water Supplies opposing the application and who is used to public speaking was at home with a slow broadband connection but was highly intimidated by a barrister for the applicants who was in an office with a panel of researchers and experts working for the applicants. The Reporter did nothing to prevent the bullying and humiliation caused. This is such an unfair situation.

I urge a favourable consideration of the petition by the Scottish Parliament.