James Taylor submission of 13 June 2021

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

I write in support of this petition.

My support is based on my own experience when dealing with the proposed windfarm at Cloich, Tweeddale, developed by Partnerships for Renewables (PfR), and subsequently sold as part of a package of consents to EDF.

Much local opinion opposed the development, and it was subsequently rejected by Scottish Borders Council. The developer appealed, and it went to Public Inquiry (PI) in 2015. A Reporter was appointed by Scottish Ministers, who are also the landowners for the site.

To defend local interests, I and others raised and spent over £17,000 to engage legal and professional advice at the PI. The Reporter referred the decision to Scottish Ministers, and the consent was set about with over 2 dozen exacting conditions, and the timeline extended to 5 years (expiring July 2021) to allow investigation of those conditions.

The new owner of the consent has now applied to Scottish Ministers for a further extension to that extended consent. Neither local communities nor local government planners have been involved or consulted in that latter process, the decision under current legislation (drawn up by Scottish Ministers) being entirely in the gift of Scottish Ministers.

I believe that this patently fails any sensible test of good governance. It says clearly that on these decisions, neither local elected representatives nor local people are to be trusted with these decisions which impact upon them the most. Meanwhile, the energy company plans to submit a second, concurrent development plan for Cloich, which will be in excess of 50MW, in June 2021.

I believe that this fails any test of propriety or common sense or of community engagement.

And win or lose, there is no redress for any monies or effort or time expended in defending those local interests. I believe that this fails any test of democratic fairness, and local government must be empowered to allocate the resources required to assist communities in obtaining legal and professional advice to ensure meaningful engagement in the planning process for major projects.
Failure to do so means that communities and individuals will be unable to pursue a valid line of objection to a particular development, for fear of losing whatever monies they have been able to raise to make their case. I repeat, currently, win or lose, there is no redress.

A Public Inquiry is not a trial for an alleged offence; yet I have seen witnesses, public servants and individuals, at Cloich and other Inquiries, harangued by legal professionals for allegedly "not following the science" or "not understanding standard industry practice" or even for lacking a degree in the subject under debate. This is simply improper, and is designed, it seems to this observer, to denigrate local knowledge and to push through the plans of developers at almost any price. It is perhaps an inevitable result of our adversarial legal system, but a means of a more measured and open debate at Inquiry must be found.