Chamber and committees

Tim Harrison submission of 23 June 2021

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

I live to the west of Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) and the Scottish Government’s (SG) showcase largest onshore wind farm, Whitelee with its 215 turbines, some of which are closer than the 2km recommended by SG.

Personal experience of wind farm applications

During the construction of the original wind farm in 2006, I suffered a complete loss of my private water supply (PWS) because there had been no notification of mitigation processes, for such a situation, to myself as a local affected resident, I had to resolve the situation myself.

This meant I was without a supply of water to my property for a period of 3 months, while a bore hole was drilled, the water tested, the necessary filtration installed and commissioned. This work was undertaken completely at my own expense, as no grants were available, not even to improve quality of PWS.

During the Whitelee 3 Extension (WL3) enquiries in 2015, I discovered I was not the only property owner to suffer this situation, apart from the 2 additional properties, which shared my PWS.

The actual refusal, in this instance, of the WL3 extension was predominantly because my property was considered by the Reporter to be “too blighted”, with the obvious devaluation of the property. This was combined with the continued destruction of my chosen retirement lifestyle.

The personal opinions and interests of community members, more often than not, are simply ignored by SG, their appointed Reporters and Developers because “it’s Government policy” to reach desired green targets. Rural communities who have SG’s green projects sited next door to them are considered collateral damage with no consideration whatsoever, let alone offered any form of compensation. Access to “community benefit funds” is simply not allowed but suffering the destruction of lifestyle forced upon us, is.

Currently, though not a wind farm, the latest SG push for green energy and climate change, the same location is now subject to an application to site the experimental Hydrogen facility and Solarfarm. The process starts all over again.

The official environmental documentation for this project states that my property is already adversely affected but the application is going ahead anyway. It seems, with reduced need toengage communities, due to the COVID restrictions.

What chance do we, as rural residents, have when continually subjected to the non-stop barrage of stress and applications submitted by the developers and SG’s green policy.

Personal Experience of Enquiries

Having been involved in the public enquiry for WL3 and attending various enquiries for Sneddon Lan and BlackLaw, it is apparent to me that public participants are interrogated by the developer’s legal representatives as though they were criminals. It seems that Reporter’s are unable to stop this kind of abuse. Why do we not have a zero-tolerance approach as in many other walks of life?

The only way to stand a chance in such a hostile environment, is to engage the costly services of an Advocate, which is neither practical or possible given the lengthy legal planning process, never mind the numerous applications.

Members of the rural community do not have the financial resource to continually fight the legal process. Assistance, both legal advice and guidance, is needed by such communities in a way that makes it possible for their views to be heard and considered on the same level as the developers and SG.

I support the Petition

I fully support the petition submitted by Scotland Against Spin (SAS) from a position of personal experience. I am not a legal person; I do not have unlimited funds to deal with a continual barrage of applications. To know that help could be available to improve the chances of our views being acknowledged and given equal consideration, would begin to offer a little reassurance. The knowledge that we would not be treated as “the accused” in any participation of the planning enquiry process.

If we had the same planning legislation as exists in England then at last we would have the comfort of knowing that if a development was consented it would at least comply with the development plan and have the backing of the community.

However, I was disappointed to read the Chief Planner’s response to the petition. It appears to do nothing to suggest any help being offered to beleaguered communities. Other than re-iterate SG policy, it is less than helpful or encouraging, ultimately pointless.