Chamber and committees

Jim Pratt submission of 14 June 2021

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

I write to support this petition.

I have experience of two wind-farm developments in Tweedale, at Hag Law and Cloich and neither encouraged participation by third parties.

The adversarial system of pubic inquiries in which trained lawyers seek to denigrate unqualified objectors does not result in the purpose of an inquiry, which is to establish facts and be inquisitive. It is not what it has become, namely a civil court action in which the appellant seeks to demonstrate incompetence among those with contrary views. In addition, the lack of representation for those who dispute the proposed development results in poorer decisions being reached on windfarm developments which are supposed to be built for the public good.

An example will suffice. Cloich Windfarm is to be constructed within an established Forestry Commission forest. Its proponents ignore the disrupting effect that tree canopies have on the free flow of air over turbines, shown by Australian researchers to result in lower electricity output and greater wear on turbine gearboxes. As a team-member for 20 years of the Forestry Commission (FC) Research Station (located a mere 15 miles distant) I was fully aware of the availability of years of collected wind data at Cloich, since premature windblow was (and remains) a major threat to British upland forests. Cloich was chosen for much of this work because of its proximity to the research station. Yet, throughout the application process and the appeal, data from the FC was not requested which would have informed the Reporter of this significant lacuna. In my own sphere of research into a wind-borne forest disease (on which I have published extensively and was considered a world expert) the possible effect of the turbines on the displacement of spores of Heterobasidion annosum was given short-shrift by the developer’s lawyers, quoting official Forestry Commission documents that were factually incorrect. Such was the accusatorial demeanour of the Public Inquiry that I found myself unable to refute the developer’s assertions.