Chamber and committees

Geraldine Hamilton submission of 16 June 2021

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

I support the aims expressed in the petition.

This ‘open door’ policy in Scotland was commented on by a Director of Vattenfall in the Herald Newspaper 29 January 2021. He claims the Scottish Government has an "open door policy", whereas he said of England: “It has introduced policy which is quite a barrier to development: The requirement for demonstrable local support of over fifty per cent and demonstrating that your windfarms are captured in local development plans, they’re quite significant hurdles”.

All British citizens expect equality of treatment under UK law and parity among neighbours wherever they reside within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Such an imbalance in democratic rights between adjoining neighbours has resulted in a recent massive increase in applications and proposals for developments in Scotland. Numerous press reports in the last few months highlight “the Highlands in a dire situation” and the Southern Highlands “at saturation point” with reference to the adverse impact of wind farm construction and operation all over Scotland on people, wildlife and the national and local economy.

A few years ago, I personally became passionately involved in protecting the northern flank of the Pentland Hills from wind farm development, contesting the Fauch Hill windfarm application on two different occasions. Fauch Hill was a completely unsuitable site within a protected area. For it to go to Public Inquiry was a complete waste of Council and taxpayers’ money. With the help of local groups and UK wide objections West Lothian Council fought to keep this special area turbine free. Thankfully, twice the Scottish Government Reporter rejected the Developer’s appeal and the slopes of the Pentlands remain unscathed. However, the Harburnhead windfarm application on the opposite side of the A70 went ahead and we are currently facing a new application for 6 towering turbines at Camilty, immediately adjacent to Harburnhead. The developers have lacked the courtesy to contact / alert us as very close neighbours. Disgraceful.

It does seem that on far too many occasions the Reporters appointed by the Scottish Government not only contradict their fully qualified fellow planners in Council Offices but also contradict one another. The Reporters are the people who decide at Local Plan Inquiries where wind farm development should be built, Developers ignore these plans and after the Local Council Planners advise the Councillors to reject the application, the developer goes to appeal and another Reporter overrides the decision from the Local Plan Reporter.

Back in 2010 about one in three decisions were overturned. Not so in recent years. A group, Save Our Hills, found in the last five years a very worrying 19 out of 24 controversial developments were overturned on appeal.

Here’s just one example of many bizarre decisions by a Scottish Government Reporter. A wind farm proposal close to the Southern Uplands Way was refused by the Government on appeal in 2019, mentioning "enjoyment of cultural heritage".. A new application for eight turbines was submitted and passed on appeal. Second time round a Reporter concluded that walkers would have an "intermittent view" of the wind farm. However, he expressed "some doubts" about how well used the stretch of the walking route was. "I encountered no other walkers between………. in the course of my site inspection (though admittedly this took place 'off-season' in November)."

After months and sometimes years of deliberations how can this be the right process?

An even bigger flaw seems to be the lack of an overall plan as to where wind farms should go. Much seems to depend on finding landowners willing, for monetary gain, to inflict damage on the well-being of their neighbours and wider general public. Those who suffer the brunt of turbines located close to their homes or businesses are rarely offered compensation by the windfarm developers. Instead local communities often quite distant (Kirknewton as was our experience with Fauch Hill), are wooed with “community benefit” to support the windfarm application, often causing rifts between previous harmonious communities.

And here’s a Machiavellian twist. On the north side of the Pentland Hills, as mentioned earlier, we had a situation where we had two applications close by, Fauch Hill and Harburnhead. After a joint Public Enquiry Harburnhead was allowed to go ahead but Fauch Hill in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) was not. On the southern side of the Pentland Hills, after the defeat of three wind farms close to the Pentlands, there were two applications a little further away: Cloich Forest and Hag Law. In both cases the applications were decided with a new practice of holding Joint Public Inquiries. The implication being, that one or other had to be passed. All four wind farms were so close to the Pentland Hills it was a disgrace that any were passed. But two were.

Please save Scotland’s scenery.