Wind Farms (Public Inquiries)
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-4648, in the name of Roseanna Cunningham, on public inquiries into wind farm proposals in the Ochil hills. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the large number of planning applications to construct wind farms in the Ochil Hills, with six consecutive public inquiries scheduled between October 2006 and March 2007; considers that all appropriate expert evidence must be made available to such public inquiries; notes the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development's parliamentary answer on 8 June 2006 confirming that both Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) have adequate resources to make representations to public local inquiries, and considers that SNH, SEPA and Historic Scotland should provide witnesses to all pertinent public inquiries so that the burden of providing evidence to such inquiries does not fall disproportionately on communities.
I thank all those members who have chosen to attend this evening's debate and, in particular, those members from other parties who have given the motion the cross-party support that it requires to be debated in the chamber.
I could have contented myself with a motion that raised simply a constituency issue but, although its focus is on developments within or bordering on my constituency, the motion raises issues that are relevant in areas throughout Scotland that, like Perthshire, have proved to be particular favourites with prospective wind farm developers.
In the interests of precision and clarity, I should point out that, since the motion was drafted, two of the six inquiries that it mentions as being due to go ahead—for wind farms at Green Knowes and Knowehead—have been cancelled. The Knowehead wind farm will not go ahead because the initial application was rejected by the council and, when the developers appealed to the Scottish ministers, the appeal was rejected. In the case of Green Knowes, two applications were made. When the first application was refused, the developers appealed to ministers and the appeal was allowed by the reporter. Therefore, the second application for the same site was withdrawn.
Those of us who represent areas in which many wind farm applications have been made know well that strong views have been expressed within our communities in opposition to—and, perhaps less frequently, in support of—just about every proposed development. However, the motion is not about the pros and cons of wind power or wind farms or the whys and wherefores of any individual application, although I and others will no doubt refer to particular proposals by way of example.
The root of the problem lies in the Scottish Executive's failure at the outset to provide a coherent strategy and appropriate national guidelines for the development of wind farms. The need for such guidelines has been highlighted by me and others in this chamber and elsewhere. Strategic guidelines would have been of huge assistance to developers in selecting potential sites, to local authorities in assessing applications and to local communities. I know that the Executive has now accepted that, as it turns out, such a strategy would be useful.
In a previous members' business debate in November 2003, the then Deputy Minister for Enterprise and Lifelong Learning, Lewis Macdonald, stated:
"I want to answer the key point that the national planning policy framework is not adequate to its purpose."
He claimed that the framework allows the Executive to meet its aspirations and
"to maintain the high quality of the Scottish environment. NPPG 6 requires the planning system to make positive provision for energy policy
‘while at the same time: meeting the international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats ... from inappropriate forms of development; and minimising the effects on local communities.'
Cumulative impacts on developments must also be taken into account.
In our view, those guiding principles strike the right balance."—[Official Report, 6 November 2003; c 3123.]
The experience of communities within my constituency proves otherwise. The balance has been tipped far too far away from communities in favour of well-resourced developers.
Without coherent and cohesive national guidelines on the development of wind farms, developers seem to have been putting in applications for almost every hilltop in certain areas. That has left those communities with the sense that they are the Yukon of the wind-based gold rush. I have no doubt that such communities would have felt a lot less under siege if national guidelines had been in place and if the number of unacceptable applications had been weeded out at an earlier stage.
At a time when climate change urgently needs to be addressed, the Executive has succeeded in making wind power, which is a clean, green alternative to carbon-based generation, extremely unpopular in large swathes of Scotland. The motion for tonight's debate is about recognising the difficulties that local communities face when they suddenly find themselves immersed in technical detail and bureaucratic procedure. We need to ensure that there is fairness within the system and a full and considered appreciation of all the relevant issues.
Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency took the decision that, although they objected to each of the developments in the Ochils, they would make written submissions for each of the site-specific sessions and participate only in the final conjoined session. Frankly, that is unacceptable. The views of those bodies carry weight and authority. Each application needs to be considered on its individual merits as well as—indeed, more than—on its place within a slew of other applications. If SEPA and/or SNH have concerns about a particular application, they should be prepared—and even, I suggest, compelled—to turn up to make the case. The communities of the Ochils will do so; they will be financially and organisationally stretched, but they will do their best. You can bet your life that the developers will have expert witnesses present, with all the resources that they need. As one constituent put it to me:
"What price having publicly funded organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage and Scottish Environment Protection Agency when they cannot offer ordinary citizens appropriate assistance in objecting to the large business interests which wish to promote developments seen by many as not only being against national and local interests but of no real benefit to Scotland."
SNH and SEPA are the people's expert witnesses and we need them to be present and correct, not posted missing in action.
I refer the minister and the chamber to national planning policy guideline 6, on renewable energy developments. I have already referred to the document when citing Lewis Macdonald and will expand a little on that quotation. Under the heading "Guiding Principle", the document states:
"The Scottish Ministers wish to see the planning system play its full part by making positive provision for such developments"
by
"meeting the international and national statutory obligations to protect designated areas, species and habitats of natural heritage interest and the historic environment from inappropriate forms of development"
and
"minimising the effects on local communities."
NPPG 14, on natural heritage, states that SNH is obliged
"to seek to ensure that anything done in relation to the natural heritage, whether by SNH or anyone else, is undertaken in a sustainable manner."
The statements that I have quoted suggest to me that by not appearing at public inquiries, SEPA and SNH are not fulfilling the role that they are supposed to perform. It is up to the minister to sort that out.
In a parliamentary answer on 8 June, Rhona Brankin told us that in her view both organisations have adequate resources to make representations to public local inquiries. If that is true, she, the minister and the rest of the Executive must now insist and ensure that SNH, SEPA and Historic Scotland provide witnesses to all pertinent public inquiries.
In addition to the six applications referred to in the motion, there is a possible new application for Tillyrie, near Milnathort. [Interruption.] I have been told that it is pronounced "Till-rye". There is another for Burnfoot hill in the Clackmannanshire Council area, which is likely to go to an inquiry in the new year. The inquiry for the Beauly to Denny power line is also coming up. There is a feeling that the Ochils are under siege, and councils and objectors cannot keep up with the sustained pressure.
Does the member agree that it is a step forward that SNH has agreed to attend all public inquiry meetings relating to the Beauly to Denny power line? Perhaps it should extend that approach to other inquiries, especially those on wind farms.
That is a good sign. I hope that from now on SNH will extend the same approach to wind farm inquiries.
The situation with wind farm applications in the Ochils should act as a warning to those of us with constituency interests in the proposed upgrade of the Beauly to Denny power line. SNH, SEPA and Historic Scotland must attend each inquiry meeting. Relying on written submissions simply will not do. Local communities should not be left with the feeling that they are on their own, reliant on whatever expertise happens to be available within their own number and facing the corporate might that can be arrayed against them. There are no limits on the number of applications that can be submitted by different developers, but the same small band of planners and community organisations has to respond to them. That is a democratic deficit, and the imbalance is worsened when official bodies, which should lend their knowledge and expertise, choose to duck out.
Communities across Scotland deserve to know that the Executive will stand up for them. Tonight I want to hear from the minister exactly what the Executive intends to do to redress the democratic deficit and to ensure that there is a level playing field.
I commend Roseanna Cunningham for her motion and congratulate her on securing this evening's debate. As someone who has given evidence at four public inquiries in relation to four wind farm proposals in Perth and Kinross—at one of which, at least, I crossed swords with Mr Ruskell—I welcome Roseanna Cunningham's interest in the subject.
I agree with virtually everything that Roseanna Cunningham said in her speech. Her motion mentions an oral parliamentary answer that Rhona Brankin, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development, gave on 8 June in response to a question from me. I must say that I was subject to some criticism from Roseanna Cunningham's colleague Alasdair Morgan in a supplementary question that followed my question. If the Scottish National Party now supports my call, that is welcome, but perhaps Roseanna Cunningham needs to have a word with some of her colleagues.
I raised the matter in the chamber after meeting local action groups in Stirling, Perthshire and Clackmannanshire about the expense of providing representation and evidence at public inquiries. In her answer, the Deputy Minister for Environment and Rural Development admitted that the Scottish Executive was satisfied that SNH and SEPA had the resources to provide evidence. Therefore, it is simply the case that those agencies are choosing not to make representations.
The Minister for Communities needs to be aware that there is real frustration in the communities in the Ochils and Perthshire that are involved in public inquiries because they oppose planning applications for large onshore wind farms. They face a hugely unequal struggle. They have to find, sometimes, tens of thousands of pounds from their own pockets to employ legal representation and expert witnesses so that they have a level playing field with the wealthy developers.
Recently, I gave evidence at the inquiry into the proposed Drumderg wind farm. That scheme is promoted by Scottish and Southern Energy, which is a substantial multinational company—albeit one that is headquartered in Perth, I am pleased to say. The company has hugely deep pockets and it can afford to employ the top legal teams and top expert witnesses. Despite the fundraising that has been done by the community group that is fighting the proposal, it simply cannot match the developer's resources.
We can understand people's frustration. Such things are happening while statutory consultees such as SEPA, SNH and Historic Scotland, which object to the planning applications in writing, will not be represented. They are getting a free ride from the local communities in the Ochils and Perthshire. SNH has a budget of £64 million per year and SEPA has a budget of £36 million per year, so it is not as if the money is not there. They should be doing their jobs properly.
I hope that the Scottish Executive will agree that those public agencies have a duty to protect and preserve our environment and historic monuments. The Executive must understand that the issue of whether public agencies provide evidence at public inquiries is important to the communities that are affected by planning applications, including those in the Ochils, where, as Roseanna Cunningham said, four such planning inquiries will take place between now and March 2007.
It is unfair that the agencies, which are statutory consultees, are not playing a full role in the public inquiry process by backing up their written evidence. Instead, the burden of paying for representation at public inquiries is falling on the community groups that oppose the planning applications. That is unfair and undemocratic. The Scottish Executive should ensure that the statutory consultees are in a position to back up at the public inquiry the evidence that they give in writing. At present, it seems that no one is prepared to help the communities. Action is required to make the system fairer. We must lift the burden that is placed on the community groups.
I hope that the minister and the Executive will take seriously the concerns that are aired tonight and pass them on to the quangos that report to them.
I thank Roseanna Cunningham for bringing this debate to the Parliament tonight. She is correct to say that the issue stretches beyond her own constituency, although I point out that, even at the second attempt, she mispronounced Tillyrie—it should be "Tilla-rye"—which is my mother's native country.
Anyone who looks into the current proposals for a public inquiry into wind farm developments in Perthshire might charitably think that the inquiry will be thorough, with its estimated two weeks for each of the four sites that are under appeal, followed by up to five weeks for a conjoined inquiry. Others, particularly those in the communities that live with the threat of the developments, might think of the coming months of public inquiry as an extreme form of attrition, in which developers with considerable financial muscle and expertise will pit themselves against local residents whose main resource is passion and resistance to their locality being despoiled.
As a local authority councillor, I know how those neighbouring a major development can be sucked into situations that cost them time and money. Anyone affected by any of the four wind farm developments that are the subject of the inquiry will, after taking half a year to prepare material on the initial application for the local authority, have to spend at least a couple of months sitting through the proceedings.
That might be fine for those on the team working towards the construction of a wind turbine cluster that will make their employer many thousands of pounds. The situation is much more difficult for people with limited resources and experience of the convoluted planning system. The current planning system is loaded in favour of developers and the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill must redress the balance.
Mike Barnacle, a councillor for the area in which some of the developments are proposed, described the flood of wind farm applications for the Ochils as akin to the Klondike gold rush—however, this time, the target is not gold, but wind. In stating that it did not want wholesale wind farm developments in the Ochil hills, Perth and Kinross Council was taking a responsible view and reflecting local democracy.
Roseanna Cunningham was right to highlight the concentration of applications in the Ochil hills. After all, their central Scotland location means that the energy that is created can be moved easily to areas that have large populations or industrial complexes.
The Scottish Executive's approach might have triggered this rash of proposals, but I do not blame it for setting an ambitious renewable energy target. Indeed, the target is laudable, now that newspapers and politicians are waking up to the need for more renewable energy. Instead, I blame the situation on the fact that wind turbine applicants are not required to discuss their proposals with the local community. By that, I do not mean that they should simply put up a one-day display in a village hall. I believe that we need to formulate what might be described as a partnership application in which not all the benefits fall to the developer. In such a partnership, if a community does not want a development under any circumstances, that is that.
One example of how things should be can be found on the island of Gigha. Following the erection of three wind turbines, the islanders will receive considerable amounts of cash for the next 20-odd years from the power company involved. As proof that such deals work, I believe that more turbines are under negotiation, which will bring more cash into the community.
There is no such deal in the proposed developments in the Ochils, all of which provide only desecration of neighbourhoods and no trade-off benefits. The experience is a lesson to us all that local communities can be swamped with major developments. It is up to elected representatives not only to reflect their communities' views but to ensure that those communities are not disadvantaged by any new developments. That can happen if they ensure that legislation—both in how it is written and in how it is enacted—is fair to all.
I thank Roseanna Cunningham for securing a debate on a topic that has filled not only my mailbag but—I am sure—the mailbags of all Mid Scotland and Fife MSPs.
This morning, I looked out of my kitchen window at the construction of the Braes of Doune wind farm—which is progressing well—and saw for the first time the turbines turning together in the autumn sun. Call me a sentimental Green, but I thought that that was a great sign not just of hope but of progress. It shows that we are beginning to take some steps to tackle climate change. Of course, I am not going to suggest that wind farms will help us to tackle the whole problem of climate change or that they can produce most of our electricity supplies but, in a grim week in which Sir Nicholas Stern published his report on the economic impact of climate change and reports emerged about what is happening in the third world, it is important that we make such progress in Scotland.
That said, we must bring some wisdom to the question of where and how wind farms are sited. Of course, there will always be good and bad applications, and we should not be afraid to back good applications—even if, like the Griffin wind farm development that I spoke in favour of at the public inquiry, they are controversial—or to speak against wind farm developments such as the one at Abercairney at the entrance to the Sma' glen.
The issue is ultimately about the landscape capacity of Scotland and about how many wind farms the country can take. Different areas will have different types of landscape. That is why we need national guidance, but we cannot rely on national guidance alone and we need local strategies to be put into place. Local strategies are as crucial as, if not more crucial than, the national guidance. In my view, that is where the problems in the Ochils stem from.
There are two problems. First, Perth and Kinross Council came up with a strategy for where local wind farms should go. The strategy was democratically debated in local communities and local councillors had input into it. The problem was that the strategy came too late, as it came after the majority of the applications for the Ochils were submitted speculatively by developers. Secondly, having established a local strategy, most of the councillors decided that they were no longer interested in it and that they would just say no to every wind farm that came up for discussion. Councillor Barnacle was one of those who were keen simply to say no to everything.
Will Mr Ruskell give way?
I am afraid that I do not have time to allow an intervention.
Some of those councillors then turned round and condemned the Executive for making a decision about the Greenknowes project, when they themselves had not given the Executive any guidance or steer from their own local strategy about which wind farms in the Ochils were acceptable. They simply said no to every single one.
We are where we are. It might have been better for the Executive to put the Greenknowes application to a public inquiry, to allow it to compete with the other applications, but Greenknowes is being built and the key question that the public inquiry now has to focus on is about the remaining landscape capacity in the Ochils for wind power and whether there is room for another wind farm in the Ochils if it is sited sensitively and away from Greenknowes. In answering that difficult question, the public inquiry must take evidence from landscape experts. SNH's role will be crucial in that, because it wrote the original national guidance. In many ways, as Roseanna Cunningham has pointed out, the Ochils are a special case. There is a quite unprecedented number of applications for wind farms in the Ochils, so it is an absolute priority for SNH to engage with that new ground and with the competition between wind farm proposals, to help to answer the question about the landscape capacity in the area and whether there is room for another wind farm in addition to Greenknowes.
Girning at wind farms does not get us anywhere. It does not help objectors, developers or the local or global environment. We need a balanced approach that is based on the capacity of landscapes. The real lesson of the Ochils that the public inquiry will have to deal with is that we need to get effective local strategies working to guide development.
Mindful of the remit, I will make brief reference at some point to the Scottish Borders. I emphasise, lest I find myself being rebuked, that I will do so to illustrate the principle of the argument.
It is important to stress that this is not an anti-wind farm issue. For many people, it is an issue of location within a landscape and of the capacity of that landscape to take the developments, which often, as has happened in Perth and elsewhere, end up being ribbon developments, with one small set of turbines leading to another set and then another, all joined up until the project turns out to be a major development. As other members have said, there is undoubtedly an imbalance of power between the communities and the developers.
The imbalance is not only to do with funding; it is to do with expertise and time. I said that I would make a brief reference to the Scottish Borders, where there have been 22 applications for wind farms since 1996. Of those, three have been refused, four have been approved and three are live, but some of them started off a long time ago. One application that is not yet determined was submitted in December 2004. What is the capacity for communities to keep themselves going—in energy, manpower and resources—to follow through the progress of an application for such a development?
On the question of the conflict between developers and local communities, does Christine Grahame not think it rather bizarre that the so-called Green party is lining up with the multinational developers against the interests of local communities and their democratically elected representatives?
The member should ask the Green party to comment on that point; he was rather unfair not to put it to the party's representative here.
Sometimes communities have a kind of victory, as they did in the Borders at Fallago rig, where there were to be 62 turbines. However, the developers there have come back with a revised application. Communities can be worn down by developers.
I want to link this debate to the new legislation on planning. The usual suspects have been here before, arguing for national guidelines and a much-needed strategy. However, in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill and the national planning framework—which will cover major developments such as nuclear power stations, nuclear waste installations and major roads—where do wind farms fit? Will they be treated as part of a local development plan, as they are just now, or will they be treated as national developments—because they link to one another across the network—and so become part of the national planning framework? We need an answer.
As the minister and I know, not everyone is following the progress of the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill blow by blow, as some us are made to, confined as we are in committee rooms with it. The processes of examining national developments in the national planning framework are completely different from the processes in local development plans. Many people in Perthshire and the Borders do not just see one wind farm; they see lots of them all strung together like a string of beads. Developments end up being substantial. I would be happy if the minister would clarify those issues when he sums up.
I thank you for your forbearance, Presiding Officer.
Valiantly done. I now call Stewart Stevenson, who will no doubt orient the Ochils to the north-east of Scotland.
I start by drawing members' attention to my voluntary entry in the register of members' interests declaring shares in a wind farm co-operative in my constituency. I am the only member who has made such a declaration—others may hold shares, but they do not require to make a declaration.
My remarks will focus on the part of the motion that refers to ensuring that
"the burden of providing evidence to such inquiries does not fall disproportionately on communities."
That issue extends beyond the Ochils. The best public inquiry is, of course, the one that does not take place at all because the proposal has been developed so as to bring the community along with it each step of the way.
Andrew Arbuckle mentioned the wind farm in Gigha. That example is a little bit special in that the community owns the site as well as being the instigator of the wind farm. It will be an excellent model for what can happen in many areas, but I am not sure that it can apply in the Ochils.
In my constituency, the proposal was for the development on a brownfield site—a derelict airfield quite closely adjacent to a community—of a seven-turbine, 14MW wind farm. The whole approach of the developer seems to have been quite different from that adopted in Perthshire and the Ochils in particular. Perthshire might learn something from the approach.
Before any public declaration of interest in the development was made, engagement took place with all the elected representatives of the area at all levels—councillors, MSPs and the MP. That engagement enabled the developer to lay out its stall as to how it might work with the community, and it allowed the developer to receive some advice as to how it might proceed—although it was its responsibility to work out the details. That approach led to there being not a single adverse letter in the local press and not a single objection from the local community.
I accept Mr Stevenson's point that it is better to do front-end development work and not to go instantly to a public inquiry. However, does he agree that it is inappropriate for MSPs such as Murdo Fraser to try to drive every single wind farm application, good or bad, to a public inquiry? Such an approach burns out local communities, wastes taxpayers' money and stifles economic development.
I am sure that Mr Fraser takes the member's point.
I will point to some of the attributes of a successful development, which could apply to the proposed developments in the Ochils in Perthshire. The local community can benefit substantially financially, even though it does not own the site. For example, a site in Ayrshire delivers £45,000 per annum to its owner. A similar amount goes to the community in my constituency, to whose members shares were made available. Preference was given to local people. Of the 5 per cent of the capital investment that was made available as shares, 95 per cent of the take-up was by people such as me, who can see the turbines. There are some people who do not like the development post hoc, but they are few in number.
I will close by giving an example of a good practical idea that helped to defuse some early comments about the proposal in my constituency. Six months before it submitted a planning application, the developer put up on the site a pole that was the same height as the proposed turbines. That meant that people from miles around could get an idea of where the development could be seen from. It was an excellent idea.
I close by repeating my opening remark: the best public inquiry is the one that disnae happen. I suspect that SNH and SEPA might just agree, but does the minister?
I congratulate Roseanna Cunningham on securing the debate.
The Executive places great importance on empowering communities to take part in the consideration of important proposals, whether they relate to wind farms or to other developments that would have an effect on communities. That is why our planning modernisation proposals include a number of measures to that effect, to which I will refer later. I will also refer to Scottish planning policy 6, which I believe addresses Roseanna Cunningham's concerns about guidelines.
Between October 2006 and March 2007, reporters from the inquiry reporters unit have been and will be engaged in public local inquiries on a number of wind farm proposals throughout Scotland. Some of those are planning appeals, which follow a refusal of planning permission by the relevant planning authority. Others relate to applications made under the Electricity Act 1989 for developments that would involve more than 50MW of generating capacity and to which the planning authority has objected. It is not always understood that decisions about such applications are made by enterprise ministers.
What I will say applies to all significant public local inquiries, not just those that relate to wind farms. That said, I acknowledge that wind farm proposals are occupying a great deal of some communities' time.
Under the current system, public local inquiries are conducted under the inquiry procedure rules that were laid down in 1997. As a general rule, it is the responsibility of the people who appear at public inquiries to provide, in advance, evidence to support their point of view and about which they may be questioned. That said, it is obvious that some communities and members of the public cannot be expected to bring to bear in a public inquiry the same level of technical expertise as certain statutory bodies can. However, the weight that reporters give to evidence relates to the quality of the arguments rather than to how they are presented or who makes them.
When planning authorities and ministers consider planning or other applications, SEPA, SNH and Historic Scotland have specific roles to play in providing them with expert advice. The fact that those bodies are consulted on an application whenever relevant means that it is likely that when an inquiry is called they have already expressed views for or against the proposal. Alternatively, they may have indicated that their concerns would be resolved, provided that certain conditions were attached to any permission. Their reasons for reaching a particular view are set out in their reply to consultation on the application, which is available to interested persons and the community when they prepare their case for the inquiry.
A community body or a local person who is looking for information to help them to decide whether to appear at an inquiry, or to support the views that they wish to express, can read the consultation replies that those bodies have already made. If necessary, they can rely on those views, which are contained in documents that form part of the inquiry. In some cases, SEPA, SNH or Historic Scotland will decide to provide written evidence to a public local inquiry but not to appear in person. That decision will be taken on the basis of whether they consider it necessary to make oral submissions to the inquiry to explain their stance in a particular case.
When a public local inquiry into a major proposal is being set up, the reporter usually holds a pre-inquiry meeting to discuss the procedural arrangements. That is the stage at which decisions are best made about what evidence should be given, by whom and in what form.
In some cases, reporters have requested that SNH, SEPA or Historic Scotland should make an appearance at the inquiry. Reporters make those requests in the light of the circumstances and the representations that have been made to them. Those requests are not, however, made lightly. First, reporters consider whether the contribution will genuinely be needed to assist in the proceedings, since the purpose of an inquiry is, in all cases, to enable the reporter to have all the information that he or she needs to make a decision or recommendation. Whenever a reporter has requested their appearance, SNH, SEPA or Historic Scotland has complied with that request. I remind members that Scottish Natural Heritage will appear at the conjoined inquiry in the Ochils.
In making such decisions, reporters act independently. It would not, therefore, be appropriate for ministers to interfere with their judgment. When necessary, the inquiry reporters unit will engage with the parties to an inquiry with a view to ensuring that their evidence is presented most effectively and in the most appropriate manner.
Of course, as I said at the outset, we place great importance on empowering communities and ensuring that their views are fully taken into account in the consideration of proposals that affect them. Our proposals for modernisation, which are contained in the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill, will place the community at the heart of the planning system. They will ensure that, in the case of major applications such as those relating to wind farms, meaningful pre-application consultation will take place with the community.
I am listening to what the minister says. Will he consider expanding his comments to indicate what resources will be made available to communities to support them in all this?
We have a whole programme around planning involvement, part of which is the way to support communities to be meaningfully involved in planning. Obviously, there is Planning Aid for Scotland. We are looking to develop the arrangements that we have at present for the new planning world in which we expect communities to be far more involved than they were in the past.
I referred to applications for wind farms being considered as major applications and, as such, why they will attract pre-application consultation. That answers Christine Grahame's point. As major applications, they will not be dealt with under the procedures that pertain to the national planning framework. Pre-application consultation will encourage the careful consideration of proposals and the reflection of local views as much as that is possible at the start of the process. Greater scrutiny of such applications will also be required before applications are determined.
We aim to ensure that, for major proposals such as the wind farms that we are debating, all the necessary information, including the type of environmental information that is referred to in the motion, is submitted by the developer at the outset and made available to the community. In addition, appeals will become a review of the planning authority's decision. It will no longer be necessary for the community to go searching for the kind of support on environmental matters that the motion implies is the case at present.
Moreover, the nature of the process for each appeal will be determined by Scottish ministers so that more informal processes such as hearings, or even a reliance on written submissions, can be used whenever the subject matter warrants it. That will make the process not only more efficient, but less intimidating for those who wish to have their views taken into account.
We are in the process of reviewing our national planning policy guidance on renewable energy. We have had a healthy response to the consultation on draft Scottish planning policy 6. The proposal is for the development of areas of search for large-scale wind farms. That should be incorporated into an up-to-date development plan framework that will provide communities and developers alike with greater certainty around where major proposals are likely to be considered acceptable. The key to SPP6 is the plan-led system, which is intended to address the issue of landscape capacity.
On the issue of cumulative impact and landscape capacity, does the minister see the need, as I do, where multiple applications are being brought forward for wind farm developments, for those applications to be allowed to compete with each other directly within the planning system rather than all of them going to public inquiry?
I am not sure that I understood the question. May I give way again, to allow the member to clarify his point?
Yes.
Thank you for giving me that opportunity. I was talking about situations in which multiple applications are made. In the current planning system, applications are considered one after the other and cannot be considered against each other. If such competition was allowed at an early stage in the system, weaker applications would be weeded out and stronger applications would be approved.
That is an interesting suggestion, which I will consider. If the matter does not come up in the debate on the Planning etc (Scotland) Bill in two weeks' time, I will write to the member to set out my view on his suggestion.
We share the concerns that are at the heart of the debate. Although we will not interfere in the conduct of particular public local inquiries, it is important that communities that participate in inquiries can properly support their arguments and know where they should turn to for the information that they need. If that information is held by SEPA, SNH or Historic Scotland, existing processes should ensure that it is made available to the community. Our aim is to ensure that in future the flow of information improves further and that communities and individuals can participate fully and comfortably, not just in the appeal process but in a more inclusive and efficient planning system.
Meeting closed at 17:46.