Chamber and committees

Petitioner submission of 11 June 2021

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

The Chief Planner’s response unfortunately does not address public concerns. Scotland Against Spin agrees that everyone should reap the benefits of renewable energy but the burden of the adverse effects from producing that energy is borne by Scotland’s rural communities.

Legislative Framework

The Petition refers to appeal decisions for all wind turbine/farm applications and the rate at which the Scottish Government (SG) and Reporters overrule local decision making.

This is confirmed in a SG FOI response from 28 October 2020, ref. 202000095942, which shows that between 2015 and 2020, of all 61 section 36 applications, that is for windfarms with more than 50MW capacity—

• 42 were approved (69%)

• 32 had been referred to a Public Inquiry (PLI); 16 of those were approved (50%)

SG statistics also show that, for the same period (2015-2020), 132 appeals were made, in relation to wind farms of 50MW or less. Of these, 76 were approved on appeal (58%).

Brodies LLP analysed information, obtained from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit website, on section 36 applications decided between 2012 and 2016.

It shows that for those years the key findings were:

• 64% success rate for Section 36 applications over five years;

• 88% of applications succeeded where no PLI was held.

This shows a success rate of 64% which halves if there is an Inquiry. A PLI is automatic if there is objection from a Local Planning Authority (LPA.)

Developers benefit from consultation with the planning authority, but there is no requirement to consult with the community.

Communities in England are reassured that a proposed development will only succeed if it is in an area identified as suitable in a local plan and the planning impacts identified by the local community have been addressed, with majority community support.

Scottish communities have no such comfort.

Community engagement with the planning system

SAS believes that aggressive questioning of community representatives, courtroom style cross examination, and the subordination of community interests is accepted practice. Whilst harsh questioning of public witnesses is not universal, such bullying is a deterrent to others taking part in the inquiry process.

As internet streaming has only occurred since 2017, it is unlikely the Chief Planner would be aware of prior unacceptable behaviour. Conversely, SAS members have experience spanning a decade.

Applicants’ closing submissions frequently belittle valid local concerns, ignoring that these are the communities hosting the development.

Communities understand the SG’s agenda.

This Petition is about how the receiving public is being treated on the road to net zero; that the rural public are generally unhappy exemplified by perfunctory consultation, being side lined in the planning process and being subject to hostility from developers and at public examinations. They are expected to provide the resource to allow net zero to be met but are the collateral damage, bearing the adverse impacts of the windfarm consent.

Consultation

In 2015, SAS successfully petitioned the SG to increase neighbour notification distance for wind turbine applications. That Petition resulted in the issue of Good Practice Guidance on Public Engagement for sub 20MW turbine proposals. We believe that the spirit of this Guidance is largely ignored by developers, who continue to take a dismissive approach to public consultation.

We also believe that “Public Consultation Reports” are frequently so inadequate as to be beyond constructive criticism. Statutory windfarm pre-application public consultation is still a tick box exercise Local Authorities have no power to enforce developers to engage lawfully and effectively with the public.

Covid-19 constraints have facilitated this tick box consultation practice in rural areas with inadequate broadband/internet. The resulting failure of public engagement ridicules the exercise, allowing developers to claim a lack of interest.

The charity Planning Aid Scotland (PAS) is very helpful, but being staffed by volunteers, does not have the resources to help scrutinise the vast number and thousands of pages of complex documents within a wind farm application. It does not have an advocacy role.

Many communities are so overwhelmed with applications that there is no time for effective scrutiny. The reality is that communities require expert help to enable them to participate in the planning process. This help must be accessible pro bono.

Unfortunately, there is a significant “reality gap” between the Chief Planner’s comments of the state of affairs he describes and the reality of engaging with windfarm consultations and in managing and effectively opposing such applications.

Four cost effective solutions are proposed.

Advertise for, and constitute a Panel of contributory lawyers. Appointments would be for a maximum of two years.

Make required public consultation meaningful, with accurate and detailed information, with required/recorded public comment.

Impose Independent scrutiny by a legally qualified person of the content and manner of the public consultation exercise in each case, producing an independent report as part of the Environmental Report.

Where requested, provide informed advocacy/legal assistance to community groups to help prepare for and participate in public inquiries or hearings.

We believe that this Petition is simple and fair and could be financed through an increase of planning application fees which are still cheaper in Scotland than those in England.