Chamber and committees

June and Ed Hall submission of 9 June 2021

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

We are strongly in favour of rural Scottish communities being given the same democratic platform as our neighbours in England. When it comes to the installation of yet more on-shore wind farms, I believe that the views of local communities and their democratically elected representatives are repeatedly ignored and overturned at central governmental level.

We would have thought the Scottish government would understand the issue of local decisions being overturned by a more powerful government hundreds of miles to the South, with little understanding of the issues.

The turbines themselves are only part of the problem. Once they are given permission then communities and landscapes many miles away, who had no knowledge of the issues, are then blighted by the miles of pylons and cables, substations, etc which never formed part of the original application, and yet are deemed necessary to allow them to operate.

Another issue which causes concern is the so called "community benefit" money which is promised. It should be pointed out that this cash is raised from consumers, regardless of their ability to pay, fuel poverty or not. This money may bring some benefits, however, some members of a community will unquestionably be disproportionately affected in relation to others, as regards noise, visual impact etc, and so may cause conflict within these areas whilst those least affected may deem the development worth the money, others may not. Surely offering cash as a reward to host an otherwise unpalatable development is unethical and would not be tolerated if the application was for any other type of development.

We have ourselves had the misfortune to experience the noise, stress, and misery of having a turbine near our house, finally removed after being deemed a statutory nuisance, and pity those still suffering. The visual blight on some of Scotland's most iconic landscapes has surely well exceeded acceptable levels, and damage to tourism, which provides an income to many rural residents, must surely also be a consideration.

Please allow local residents to decide what is best for their communities.