Public Petitions Committee

Meeting date: Tuesday, May 26, 2015

Official Report 531KB pdf

---

New Petitions

---

Sewage Sludge (PE1563)

The next item is consideration of two new petitions. The committee will hear from the petitioners in each case. The first new petition is PE1563, by Doreen Goldie on behalf of Avonbridge and Standburn community council, on sewage sludge spreading. Members have a note by the clerk and a briefing from the Scottish Parliament information centre. I am aware that, since the committee papers were issued, a motion in the name of Margaret Mitchell and an amendment in the name of Angus MacDonald have been lodged.

I welcome the petitioner, Doreen Goldie, to the meeting. She is accompanied by her colleague from the community council, Jo Hirst. I invite Ms Goldie to speak to her petition for no more than five minutes and to explain what her petition seeks, after which we will move to questions.

Thank you for allowing us to discuss our petition. We are seeking a great improvement in the overall management and effective treatment, storage and, ultimately, safe disposal of sewage sludge. We are suggesting that the process be entirely contained and controlled by a responsible and accountable body. At present, we feel that the system is failing.

Our reason for making this request has come about because of our first-hand experience over the past six years of continually raising the issue through our involvement with the community councils and of receiving feedback from local residents raising their concerns and making complaints that, in our opinion, are justifiable.

We find that the existing practices have particular failings. There are noxious odours that last for days, and longer in some instances, from the spreading or stockpiling of sewage sludge, and there are risks to human and animal health as a result of spreading that material. There is an environmental and biological impact from long-term use, where it is not adequately monitored, and contamination of watercourses and soils. Traffic movements are uncontrolled and there is spillage of the material on public carriageways. There is improper storage, and there are flaws in mobile licences and a lack of planning.

We look to the Scottish Government to adopt a comprehensive approach across Scotland to the treatment of sewage sludge, to end the current inconsistencies and to ensure that a controlled and uniform protection is in place for all inhabitants of Scotland. We appreciate that the issue of sewage sludge is an ever-increasing problem, due to the continuing population growth, but we believe that there is currently better practice elsewhere in the United Kingdom and in Europe that should be adopted so that wet spreading is avoided.

If the practice continues as it is, in a short space of time we could render some of our agricultural land chemically contaminated and, in turn, destroy some of our ecosystems. We are of the opinion that the Scottish Government should adopt best practice as it is used satisfactorily elsewhere, and should invest in achieving a suitable and useful end product that, when properly treated and managed, has recognised beneficial uses.

11:15  

I understand that, since submitting your petition, community representatives have met Scottish Government representatives. Is that correct and, if so, how confident are you that your concerns are being taken forward?

We have attended a number of meetings with SEPA, Scottish Water and Margaret Mitchell. We are fairly confident that our concerns are now being recognised, although it has taken a considerable amount of time to get to the stage that we are now at.

We met Scottish Water and SEPA on 17 March and they accepted that there are inconsistencies in current legislation and gaps between the organisations. The problems that we have highlighted are a result of those inconsistencies and the gaps between those who have the authority to deal with problems, who may not have the necessary powers in legislation. We have been suffering because of the lack of powers to manage the problem.

After we gave information to Scottish Water, it stopped supplying the main contractor with the wet material immediately. We understand that it is now supplying the material in dry pellet form, but the contractor is still obtaining the wet material from other unrecognised sources that are not monitored.

I certainly appreciate having the opportunity to contribute as the local member for the Upper Braes area. As members have heard from Doreen Goldie and Jo Hirst, the issue has been on-going for six years, and it has caused significant inconvenience to many of my constituents in the Upper Braes area, which has been frustrating for everyone involved.

It is worth noting that we are in this position thanks to an EU directive from a few years ago that banned the dumping of sewage sludge at sea. Whether or not you agree with that directive, it has left us in the position that we are now in.

As Ms Goldie and Jo Hirst are aware, my constituency office staff and I have been working on the issue for some time. As recently as a week ago yesterday, I met senior officials from Scottish Water to discuss the situation. I am pleased to say that Scottish Water, SEPA and the Scottish Government have taken note of the inconvenience and the impact that the spreading of sludge has had on the local community. For example, as we have just heard, Scottish Water confirmed to me that sewage sludge has been directed away from the Falkirk district and no sludge has gone to Jawcraig, for example, for three to four months. Scottish Water has stopped tankers delivering there.

However, a further problem came to light during my meeting with Scottish Water, which the petition does not cover. It seems that food waste is being transported to a lagoon at the Jawcraig site and 60 lorries a day are passing through. It is not sewage that is arriving daily; it is food waste. I have asked SEPA to investigate that further and I will pick up on the point that further investigation is required.

Coming back to the issue at hand, I agree with the petitioners that we must look for alternative methods of disposal, such as those that are adopted in other northern European countries. For example, I believe that in Sweden, only 14 per cent of sewage is spread on land, and the Netherlands incinerates the majority of its sewage. The percentage escapes me, but it is pretty high and significantly higher than in other countries in northern Europe—I think that it is about 80 percent.

I have been lobbying behind the scenes for an increase in capacity for sewage incineration. I raised the issue in the chamber as recently as 22 April, and I hope that it will be covered in the sewage sludge review, which I am told is due to be released in mid to late summer.

The petitioners have had a number of meetings with the Scottish Government. Have you made a formal submission to the sewage sludge review, or has the Government just taken notes from those meetings?

We have had only one meeting, with two representatives of the Scottish Government. One was employed directly by the Scottish Government and the other was employed by SEPA but was on secondment with the Government for a year. We went up to the SEPA offices in Stirling on 17 March.

We have indicated that we would like a public meeting with the Government, as well as further meetings, and that we would like to be involved in the review. As yet, we have heard nothing else from the Government.

There is still an opportunity for you to feed into the review, which opened on 6 March.

We would like the opportunity to do that.

I recall emailing Angus MacDonald’s office to ask for an invitation to take part in the review process. We would obviously be interested in taking part. The process seems to have been quite slow in getting to the review stage. I hope that you will take into account the fact that we are new to the process; we have learned on the hop how to respond over the past few years.

I have found that, unfortunately, everything is a slow process when it comes to making changes to procedures or legislation. You have done some research yourselves on alternatives—for example, large-scale anaerobic digestion or incineration. Would that be part of your submission?

We could certainly supply that information. There are a number of easily available sources of background information on alternative methods of disposal.

We recognise that there are beneficial uses for the material. Our problem is that the contractor who is carrying out the work is not being monitored adequately, although it would not matter if there was a different contractor—what is in place at the moment is not working. Scottish Water, SEPA and the planning department are all involved, and there is a breakdown in communication where each area picks up the thread from the next. There is no consistency with regard to the end product. Because of those failings and because the process is not being adequately monitored, the system is being exploited to the detriment of the soil, given the contamination that we believe is going on. We keep on coming back to the point about the lack of monitoring, and that is what needs to be tackled.

When we spoke to SEPA, it highlighted that it has only four offices dealing with the whole of Scotland and that it does not have the resources to sample or monitor. SEPA therefore relies on its three main contractors throughout Scotland to do their own self-monitoring. The contractors do their own sampling, submit the samples for chemical analysis and then send the results to SEPA. That system is open to abuse. There are no records of where the samples are taken from or when they are taken, and there is no management of the process. The contractors’ monitoring therefore cannot be relied on because the samples are not independently tested.

We would like all sewage to be treated at source to the same level throughout Scotland. Whatever product is decided on should be distributed directly by the one body that treats the sewage. It may be most sensible for that body to be Scottish Water, but that is not for us to dictate.

From our research, we can see that the transportation of the material across vast tracts of land by various different contractors and subcontractors is having a huge detrimental impact. It impacts on our transport system, and in various other ways.

That is all fair comment. I know that I am localising the issue, convener—

The problem is not just local to Falkirk.

No—absolutely not.

We have now combined with nine different community councils in our area, including Torwood and Larbert, and areas of Stirling and Lanarkshire. Those are the areas that we are aware also have a problem.

We are volunteers and we do the work in our own time. We do not have a vast array of resources. We know from our discussions with SEPA to date that it is experiencing issues nationwide—for example, in the Highlands and Islands, the north-east and Dumfries.

Following my meeting with Scottish Water a week ago yesterday, I note that it is seriously considering taking the management of sewage in-house, which is certainly good news. With regard to enforcement action, we will shortly be seeing the benefits of the Regulatory Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 that was recently passed by Parliament. For instance, SEPA will have greater enforcement powers, including fines, that it has never had before. That will help to concentrate the minds of some of the operators whose practices deserve further scrutiny, if that is the best way to put it.

The petitioners mentioned dry pellet use earlier. As someone who comes from a place that is surrounded by farms where sludge is used, I appreciate where you are coming from. The smell can be horrendous at times. Has dry pellet use made a huge difference?

At present the benefit is not so apparent, because there have still been stockpiles of wet sewage sludge that have had to be removed quickly. The problem is that the sludge is, in some instances, not immediately dug in as it should be under the regulations. The contractors and the farmers have been allowed to stockpile the waste, so it is sitting on the surface open to the elements for weeks or months on end.

Coming back to the point about dry pellets, I cannot say that there has been any noticeable difference in some of the areas, because material is still coming in from sources other than Scottish Water. It is hard to tell.

We are not aware that any dry pellets have been spread in the area to date. We are aware of wet stockpiles and the wet slurry that is still being spread.

You mentioned that you had been in touch with a number of community councils. I live in the central belt, and there is dumping of human waste in one particular area near where I live. An internationally known business is frightened to report one of the landowners next door because of the impact that it might have on business if people realised what was being dumped next door. There is clearly an issue with the way in which the waste is being disposed of.

At your meeting with the Scottish Government official and the SEPA representative, was there any mention of consulting community councils throughout Scotland as part of the review? I am a bit concerned that the review sounds as if it is an internal review rather than a public consultation. A review should, in my view, include asking community councils throughout Scotland, and other bodies, to submit any concerns or issues that they face almost daily as a result of the dumping of sewage sludge.

11:30  

That has been a concern of ours. We have asked on more than one occasion for community councils and members of the public, who have shown great interest and who have had to endure this for a number of years, to be included in the review process. It is through them that we have been given all this information and can now present this petition to those who can make the changes. If this odour had been emanating from the centre of Edinburgh, I guarantee that it would not have been going on for six years.

Our understanding is that it is currently a closed review and not open to consultation with community councils throughout Scotland. We raised that point in our meeting on 17 March, and it is something that we have requested. We persisted with the issue with Margaret Mitchell, and asked her to raise it on our behalf. It was also raised in a meeting that was held in Slamannan last August with Angus MacDonald. We requested that we be allowed to make representation, and that other community councils be invited to do the same.

Thank you.

As there are no further questions, I ask the committee what it wishes to do with the petition. What action would we like to take?

Could we invite Scottish Water and SEPA to give evidence?

I think that that would be helpful. I do not know whether it can be done before the summer recess, but it would be helpful if it could be done before the review is completed.

May I suggest that we write to the Scottish Government? Although it is useful to write to SEPA and Scottish Water, they are acting under instruction from the Scottish Government. I would like to ask the Government why the decision was taken to have this as a closed review that is not open for public consultation. Any review of this nature must take on board the concerns of communities throughout Scotland. If this is a closed review, its findings will not truly reflect the experiences of communities, particularly in central Scotland but also much more widely, given the impact of the disposal of this material. Consider the guidance on how we can dispose of this material. There is hardly an area in Scotland that has not been affected by heavy rainfall, yet one condition is that we are not supposed to put this material on saturated ground. Clearly that is happening.

I request that we write to the Scottish Government to ask why a decision was taken to hold this as a closed review. Any review should include a full public consultation, and time should be taken to consider the responses from the public on this issue, particularly community councils.

A couple of action points were raised there. We will see whether a meeting with Scottish Water and SEPA is possible before the summer recess. John Wilson suggested that we write to the Scottish Government to ask that a public consultation be part of this review, and we could also ask it to consider the issues that have been raised by the petitioner today. Do colleagues agree with that?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Ms Hirst and Ms Goldie for their attendance today.

11:33  

Meeting suspended.

11:34 On resuming—  

---

Loch Ness and the Great Glen (PE1564)

The second new petition is PE1564 by James Treasurer, on behalf of friends of the Great Glen, on saving Loch Ness and the Great Glen. Members have a note by the clerk and a SPICe briefing. I welcome the petitioner, James Treasurer, and invite him to explain what his petition seeks in no more than five minutes, after which we will move to questions.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to the committee. I give everyone greetings from the Great Glen, which I left this morning and which, obviously, is a stunning scenic area of international importance.

I represent a conservation and heritage group called the friends of the Great Glen, which is concerned with the protection of what are amazingly beautiful landscapes. We recognise that the Great Glen and Loch Ness are part of the world’s most beautiful and scenic landscape. I do not think that members need any introduction to Loch Ness, which is probably the most famous loch in the world. I should say that, in limnological terms, it is a lake, which makes it—arguably—the most famous lake in the world. It is part of the Great Glen, which extends for 60 miles; the glen itself is known in Gaelic as Gleann Albainn or “glen of Scotland”, so it has always had a special significance for the Scottish nation. It is also of great international significance; with more than 1 million visitors per annum, 200,000 of whom come from overseas, it is the premier tourist destination in the Highlands and extremely important to the local economy.

We are concerned about the multitude of wind farm developments that have been planned or are in the pipeline for the Great Glen and Loch Ness areas. There are more than 500 turbines in the planning process for these areas—and those are not our figures; they come from the Scottish Natural Heritage website and from Highland Council. There should therefore be no dispute over the actual number of turbines that are planned.

The distressing thing is not the wind turbines themselves, but the fact that, because they will be in remote locations, hundreds of miles of pylons will be required to connect them to the national grid, and hundreds of miles of access roads and the substations will need to be built. In fact, there will be a big industrial complex for about 30 miles on each side of the Great Glen. We are extremely concerned about the issue. We are also extremely concerned about whether the protection in the planning system is adequate to protect the area. Our evidence is that, given the scale of development, it is not; indeed, we think that the scale of development is disproportionate to the size of the area.

What are we asking for? We are looking for some form of protection, given our view that the current planning system, in local government and national terms, does not protect areas that are indisputably of international scenic importance. We are talking about the second largest tourist destination in Scotland.

We have suggested two forms of protection that could be put in place. The first is for Scottish Natural Heritage to designate the area as a national scenic area, of which there are 40 in Scotland at the moment. The second is for the area to be classified as a world heritage site, a suitable case for which would obviously have to be taken to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization with support from the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. The second route would be for discussion and would probably be a longer-term objective, but we would nevertheless contend that this is an incredibly beautiful area. In geological terms, the Great Glen fault could qualify as a world heritage site; in cultural terms, the Caledonian canal, which is an engineering masterpiece, could qualify as such, too.

As I have said, our concern is with the level of development. If the Scottish Government, together with the Highland Council, does not act in the next year or two, it will be too late to save the Great Glen as we know it. I do not know whether members can recall seeing it, but four weeks ago, a television programme called “Secret Britain”—I know that there is nothing much that is secret about Loch Ness—contained a fantastic aerial shot down the Great Glen, showing Loch Lochy and Loch Oich right up to Loch Ness. The landscape, which is absolutely outstanding, speaks for itself, and that is what we what to conserve and preserve for the Scottish nation.

Thank you, Mr Treasurer.

You are calling for the area to be designated as a national scenic area. Have you approached the Scottish Government with that request? If so, what response did you get?

I approached Scottish Natural Heritage about the conservation of the area and the planning applications, and it said that it had a statutory role to play, but I have not approached the Scottish Government directly on the matter.

I have suggested the national scenic area approach as one of two possible routes; there could be more. Maybe members feel that there are other routes and ways to tackle the issue, but the suggestion is that the area could become a national scenic area. Our contention is that national scenic areas get national protection. However, this is an international scenic area that is known globally. Like the Forth bridge and Edinburgh castle, it is part of brand Scotland. It really sells Scotland internationally.

I note that the comments on your petition were almost exclusively about wind farms rather than the designation of a national scenic area and an application for world heritage status. Does that reflect people’s motivation for supporting your petition?

The petition has received quite a lot of comments—there have been more than 500. I admit that two or three of those are quite colourful; I like to be more objective about these things. However, a lot of people were obviously very passionate in their comments.

I realise that some people made political statements in their comments, but we are not making a political statement. We are saying that it is not just an emotional matter; the area is part of Scotland’s economy and its image. We have to preserve the Great Glen and Loch Ness as they are.

I understand about the wind turbine developments, but will you expand on what you mean by the reference in the petition to supporting

“the restoration of sites damaged by wind turbines”?

If the national scenic area designation or world heritage status that you seek was obtained, would you wish those turbines to be removed?

I realise that some of the applications are in process, and obviously developments have been built. As a country, we should perhaps look at things differently. We look at landscapes for which planning permission for specific developments has been given, but perhaps those developments have not been put in their correct location—I would hate to use the term “mutilated the Scottish landscape”. I would very much put the emphasis on an ethical point of view and ask the developer whether they would be willing initially to remove turbines in particularly dominant landscapes. For example, some turbines can be seen for 28 miles. That is a large radius. Basically, we should ask the developers whether we can remove particular turbines.

That is why I gave the committee the photograph from the A82 in the second part of my written evidence. That particular development, which is 4 miles south of Fort Augustus, can be seen from the A82. That is a main tourist route, and every single tourist who goes up it can see that development. Perhaps the turbines in such developments should be removed; perhaps as a country we should be thinking of removing some developments.

I thank Mr Treasurer for that response.

Do you believe that turbine developments harm tourism in the area? If so, what evidence do you have to support that?

I make it clear that, as I said, it is not just about turbines, because there will be hundreds of miles of pylons. Members probably saw the article in The Sunday Times 10 days ago, which said that energy structures can now been seen from 46 per cent of Scotland.

Obviously, the tourism economy is the major part of the economy of the Highlands. A recent survey that the Scottish Government sponsored indicated that 20 per cent of tourists would be adversely impacted by the issue, and would not visit the area. That includes those from countries such as Canada, the United States, Belgium and France, which are averse to wind farms. Therefore, a certain sector of the tourism economy would be damaged, and there would be very large impacts on the tourism industry. Obviously, we are quite concerned about that.

It is difficult to gauge the impact on the Great Glen and Loch Ness, because not all the developments have been built yet. Only two wind farms have been built, but once 500 turbines have been built in the area, the tourists who are passing through will be able to see them from every hill point. Undoubtedly, there will be an impact on tourism. Is it common sense to put such developments in the number 1 tourist destination in the Highlands? It is totally inappropriate.

11:45  

I concur fully that it is a bonny area and that we must cherish it. My limited understanding is that Gleann Albainn is where the Scots tribes went when they came across from Ireland—they landed in Argyll and walked through the Great Glen.

Do you accept that that topography has probably changed greatly since then, given the removal of the Caledonian forest? Things do not always remain static, even though the vista can be beautiful.

I agree that the landscape can change, but people come to Scotland to see a natural landscape—a wild landscape. Our interpretation of what a landscape is can vary and our understanding of beauty is qualitative. However, everyone here understands what beauty is. If you were to ask 100 people what natural beauty is, 99 of them would say—and you would possibly agree—that the landscape in the area is of outstanding natural beauty. People do not want to see an area that is industrial or artificial; they are looking for a wild, natural landscape.

Did you say that the Scottish Government had produced a report with evidence saying that turbines were a distraction for tourists?

No, I did not say that; it was a questionnaire from some years ago, but I do not think that it asked the right question. You would have to ask tourists visiting the area, once the 500 turbines were there, what they thought about it.

The questionnaire looked at the impact of wind farms on tourism. It encapsulated the view of 20 per cent of respondents that they would not come to the area, because of the disadvantage of seeing wind turbines. Many people go there to walk the Great Glen way, to kayak up Loch Ness and to see the hills and the landscape from Loch Ness. As I say, they are looking for a natural landscape.

As there are no further questions, I suggest that the committee seeks written views from, for example, Highland Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Renewables, the John Muir Trust and the Scottish Government. Do members agree to do that?

Members indicated agreement.

When we write to Highland Council, can we ask whether its planning policy takes into account the cumulative effect of the number of wind turbines in the area? When I was a councillor in Fife, the council refused planning applications for wind turbines on that basis.

Do members agree to ask that question?

Members indicated agreement.

I thank Mr Treasurer for his presentation.

11:48 Meeting suspended.  

11:50 On resuming—