John Scott submission of 14 June 2021

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

I wish to support the objectives of the above petition.

Having decided not to put myself forward for re-election as a community councillor for Neilston and District CC (East Renfrewshire) last year, considering I had been a member of the CC for over 20 years and Chair for the most recent fifteen, I found that the stresses and time devoted to the scrutiny of numerous windfarm applications, in addition to single large turbines, were affecting my wellbeing and giving rise to great frustration at the system of “consultation” which consistently ignored genuine public concerns. Due to the many years I have represented the wishes of the local community I believe I am in a position to point out, from experience, the many areas in which the consultative process (and Local Authority Planning Depts) consistently fail their residents.

I am not deliberately criticising East Renfrewshire Council, or any of its officers, which may well be handling these applications in a manner as efficiently and impartially as any other Scottish Council. I simply do not have experience of any others to draw a comparison.

Typical scenario.

Developer submits plans for a windfarm. This is frequently accompanied with elaborate descriptions as to how it will help make Scotland “Carbon Neutral”, help towards meeting Scottish Government targets for renewable energy, ensure sufficient energy production for future needs etc. and often includes photomontages illustrating how the proposals will have minimal visual impact on the surroundings. Frequently there will be pages of figures and tables purporting to show that there is little acoustic impact on any properties in the vicinity.

Hoops for communities to jump through.

The acoustic data submitted by developers has frequently been shown to be totally misleading, e.g. sensitive locations simply missed off the supplied maps, no consideration given to cumulative noise due to the presence of existing turbines, no study of amplitude modulation, incorrect figures for background noise and numerous other errors and omissions. This is a highly specialised area and communities must have support to engage genuine acoustic experts to scrutinise such submissions. Regrettably, our local authority lacked anyone with the skills or knowledge to challenge such submissions.

Requirement for Environmental Impact (EIA) Assessments

During my years as chair the requirement for an EIA by the developer was effectively dropped. The implication that there is no environmental impact is simply absurd. Being frustrated at a particularly contentious four turbine proposal being deemed by our planners to be exempt from an EIA I wrote to the then Scottish Minister for the Environment asking him to scrutinise this decision. The reply was that these decisions are left to local authorities (in other words “not interested”).

Cumulative visual impacts

A recent tendency is for a small group of turbines to have one or two added a couple of years later thus evading the scrutiny which a larger development would invite. This is simply expansion of windfarms by stealth with little or no consideration given to the visual or environmental impact, or effect on homesteads in the vicinity. A notable case involved a proposal for a single turbine which due to its location and size would overwhelm a local beauty spot. There were dozens of objections. The application was rejected by the local authority, went to appeal, and the Reporter wrote that although the proposed turbine was indeed large, people would eventually get used to it and start to appreciate its beauty! Words fail me!

The pockets of developers are very deep, the financial gains of a successful application enormous. In contrast, local authorities are constantly short of money and county councils survive on a couple of hundred pounds a year. It is thus impossible for county councils, with a lack of proper technical or financial support to scrutinise windfarm / turbine applications to the degree they deserve. The expertise to do so by local authorities is also sadly lacking and restricted funding leads to a genuine reluctance to turn down applications since, as I was told, the applicant “......will just appeal the decision and the Reporter will probably find in their favour....”

I trust the foregoing may give an overview of the gross inadequacies of the current planning system in protecting communities and the environment from the encroachment of yet more, and bigger onshore turbines. The present system simply does not work, is skewed in favour of those with the greatest financial resources and unfortunately also appears to be subservient to the achieving of rather spurious politically driven “environmental goals”.

Petition PE1864 would go a long way to redressing this balance and returning some degree of democratic control to local communities.