Chamber and committees

Brian Wade submission of 26 July 2021

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

I would like to include my support of this petition.

In my opinion, the current system is totally undemocratic and biased in favour of developers We constantly hear from the Scottish Government that windfarms are only built in suitable locations but the evidence that this is not the case is visible all over Scotland where landscapes and wildlife have been destroyed by inappropriate windfarm development driven forward by the Scottish Government and their reporters, over-riding local authority planning refusals and objections.

I believe that currently the system is highly biased in favour of the windfarm developers, with their massive financial resources, and against local residents and property owners. The wind farm developers are allowed to submit highly questionable environmental statements and reports produced by their own staff and consultants. I have personal experience where one of these reports was shown to be based on the misrepresentation of data. (Aberdeenshire Council APP/2013/2208)

The current planning system relies on the highly flawed noise emission standard ETSU-R-97 , a standard written by the wind turbine industry themselves. It is a standard that, unbelievably, allows even higher noise levels at night when residents are trying to sleep than in the daytime. Any other industrial development would have to comply with a totally different noise impact assessment method, that is the Planning Advice Note 1/2011: planning and noise. Why are wind turbines a special case?

Windfarm developers currently rely on the fact that the Scottish Government Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) reporters are, in my experience, more than likely to over-ride local authority refusals. Freedom of information data released to the public clearly demonstrates the high number of cases where windfarms are consented either by DPEA / Energy Consent Unit (ECU) over-ruling local authority refusals or, in the case of Section 36 applications, against local authority objections.

Scottish Government figures show that since 1-Jan-2015, 45 out of 86 DPEA appeals where local authority refused consent were consented by the reporter and in the same period 20 out of 37 Section 36 applications were consented against local authority objection.

It is also very significant that there is no equality in the appeal system. Developers can object to local authority refusals and appeal to the DPEA knowing that there is a good chance that their appeal will be successful. Objectors on the other hand have no equivalent rights of appeal. Once a development is consented, the only avenue of opportunity to get the consent overturned is by the very expensive use of the legal system and appeal to the courts. Very few people have the financial resources required to take a case through the courts at the risk of failing and being responsible for the legal costs of both sides.

In my personal opinion, if the Scottish system was in place anywhere else in the world, it would be held up as an example of unsound, primitive & undemocratic government. DPEA and ESU reporters are appointed by the Scottish Ministers and are paid by the Scottish Government. I feel that they are therefore bound to be inclined towards following Scottish Ministers opinions and demands and cannot be truly impartial. Why would they bite the hand that feeds them? I believe that the statistics confirm this. I also believe that the over-ruling of even a single local authority decision should be the focus of concern.

Local authority planning systems rely on the consent of elected Councillors who are accountable to their voters and the local people who are affected by their decisions. The DPEA and ECU staff are accountable to nobody but the Scottish Government Ministers who appointed them. They are based in the Forth Valley, away from the areas which are affected worse by their decisions.

A typical example of this situation is an application in Aberdeenshire (APP/2014/1338) where a developer submitted an application to build turbines in a sensitive area which was subject to massive public objection. Several statutory consultees, including the MOD also objected and the application was rightly refused by Aberdeenshire Council but subsequently over-ruled by a DPEA reporter. In this case the project was stopped by the MOD who have the required financial resources taking the Scottish Government to the Court of Session. The general public do not have such deep pockets.

Even in the last week a DPEA reporter over-ruled a planning refusal against the wishes of Aberdeenshire Council and 485 objectors (only 25 letters of support) (PPA-110-2407)

In England, large scale developments are subject to the consent of local residents who are affected. Why do we not have a similar system in Scotland? We need to be protecting and extending democracy not defending a system where large, rich, often foreign owned, corporations and speculators decide what happens to the Scottish landscape and countryside.