Chamber and committees

Peter A Kew submission of 28 July 2021

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

I write to comment on the above petition.

I group my comments into two sections, firstly the lack of consideration given to the effects on and views of those who live in the immediate vicinity (say within 2km) of proposed wind farms and secondly the difficulties encountered by individuals or small groups in mounting effective opposition to developments.

Currently, the planning system at local and governmental level offers no protection for local residents who would be adversely affected by a proposed windfarm. I believe that the current system favours the developers while giving no support to those who are truly “local” to the development, residents who may be part of small, loosely constituted communities bound only by their proximity to the development have very limited avenue for representation.

The selective use of surveys and local opinion in applications and enquiries does not necessarily reflect the views or the harm done to those living in the immediate vicinity. This is particularly obvious with my own Community Council and Community Development Trust; it comprises the “village” population 2200, a relatively narrow corridor of some 6 miles and then a large area with some 20 residences and a lot of wind. Not surprisingly surveys conducted the area which include the promise of money for the Community Development Trust if a wind farm 9km away and out of sight is constructed produces a response from the majority in favour of getting the money.

In the wider context evidence of the public perception of windfarms presented and accepted to support planning applications is generally based on the opinions of those living in bands of several kilometre diameter. Apart from the decreasing impact of a windfarm with distance, even a random spatial distribution of properties would give 24 times as many dwellings between 1 and 5 km as within a 1km circle. In practice, any settlements are likely to be at the outer reaches of the survey area so the bias towards distant dwellings is exacerbated. The opinions of those living very close to windfarms tends to be drowned out by the views of those at some distance from the developments. This contributes to the apparent freedom for developers to simply say that an aspect of the development will not be significant even for those in the shadow of the development.

I submit that all those living in close proximity to a proposed windfarm should be contacted by developers and their comments included in the EIA. Planners should give appropriate weighting to these comments, and any subsequent inputs to the planning process.Most individuals are not experts in planning law and procedure, nor do they wish to be. The onus is on individuals who really want nothing to do with the project to read reams of documents in order to challenge a development which will have no benefit but significant impact on them.

The bureaucracy involved in participating in a public enquiry is daunting for the layperson. The current structure favours professionals in the field, and few QCs or planning experts live in the shadow of the proposed turbines. Having participated in and learnt from one public enquiry, I could do a lot better in a second, but we should not be compelled to become experts in order to have our views heard. It is fundamentally unfair that the more a participant spends on their legal team the more rights they have in terms of input to an enquiry. An example being that the written closing statements of parties employing a QC are submitted after they have had sight of the closing statements of other participants, thus giving them a right of reply not granted to lay participants.

Clearly such enquiries cannot be free-for-alls, but equally they should not be so restrictive that those who will suffer from a development are unreasonably constrained in their questioning and comment. Developers have and invest considerable resources in the knowledge that granting of planning permission will repay this investment and yield significant profits. Objectors, whether community groups or individual local residents do not have these resources and stand to be adversely impacted if the application is granted, but gain nothing if the application is refused.

I do not pretend to be able to provide a solution which will always ensure a fair resolution, but suggest that: If an application for an onshore windfarm is to be considered by a Reporter, either under Section 36 of the Electricity Act or as result of appeal against a local planning authority decision, an advocate with expertise in the relevant area will be appointed to advise local residents and community groups. In the event of a public enquiry this advocate will attend the enquiry to assist lay participants and be given similar standing as a QC in terms of participation.