Chamber and committees

Fiona Ainslie submission of 12 June 2021

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

Please register my support for this petition. The current situation is unfair and discriminates against the local community. The changes this petition proposes would help redress the balance.

In our case, despite support from our Community Councils, over 2000 local objections and eventually an objection from the County Council, the community were forced to fight against a wind turbine proposal for four years, right through to the Public Inquiry (PI).

Wind turbine proposals are submitted by resourceful, commercial organisations whose submissions and methods are not always accurate or ethical. If a proposal is approved they receive great financial benefits. They employ specialists to support their proposals who then produce ‘independent’ reports, favouring the proposed development. If a proposal is refused by the Local Authority the applicant invariably appeals. Their application is then pursued by their specialists and in our case, a celebrated, aggressive QC, at the week long public inquiry.

In contrast the disparate, rural community have limited means and are usually ignorant of what can be done to protect their homes and environment.

The County Councillors responsible for our area were members of the planning committee and were thus prevented from advising their community, as any interaction would have barred them from having an input and voting on the application at the subsequent planning meeting.

In consequence, there was no help from those elected to protect the community. We were not even allowed to know whether our Councillor or our Council was in favour of or against the proposal.

Those most affected were on their own. We discovered omissions and inaccuracies in the applicant’s submissions so were left with no alternative but to seek independent professional advice and subsequently engage various expensive professionally qualified experts.

Our costs soared as we were advised to employ experts with industry standard certifications, otherwise their conclusions would be undermined by the applicant at any PI.

It was three years before we discovered the Council was on side, after they were forced to make a decision in response to the applicant’s appeal for non-determination. It would have been very heartening to have known earlier.

In our area there were two applications going at the same time, during which the applicants courted the media, community councils (CC) and some of the community’s primary school children (without parental consent).

One applicant, a well-known organisation in the industry, registered their dismay when they found a public presence at what they assumed would be a private meeting with a CC. When they sought reassurance from the next neighbouring CC that the meeting would be private they pulled out when they were advised that private meetings contravened the CC’s constitution. Given that the applicant was a seasoned developer, it is reasonable to assume it expected to be granted a private meeting. This was at best unethical and is evidence of the need for better public protection.

When the application went to the PI we were again compelled to instruct experts and employ our own eminent QC to represent us at the weeklong proceedings to refute many of the manifestly ridiculous claims made.

Some of the claims made by the applicant included:

Turbine noise would not be a problem - our noise consultant predicted otherwise.

The turbines were acceptable in the area proposed. They were not intrusive and few neighbouring properties would be affected - our planning and separate landscape professionals proved otherwise and also identified several badly affected neighbouring properties that had been omitted from the applicant’s submission.

The proposed site of the development was merely monoculture - The Woodland Trust disagreed, surveyed the site and actively fought the proposal right through to the public inquiry.

Our red squirrel stronghold did not exist – our wildlife expert and those who lived close or frequented the forest reported otherwise.

The forest was not home to endangered species - in addition to red squirrel our experts found capercailie, great crested newts and different species of protected bats and raptors.

We battled for four years, gathered over 2000 objections and held many regular group meetings. Our co-ordinator worked full time and a number of group members worked several days a week studying planning law, researching numerous other subjects, dealing with queries, communicating with the public, public bodies and the media, producing reports and our formal response to the applicant’s proposal.

The stress endured by those involved was unbearable and the Action Group’s expenses were enormous. Goodness knows what costs the County Council incurred.

Against the odds, we managed to scrape together the resources to save our environment. Not all communities have such resources.

The playing field needs levelling, hence my wholehearted support for this petition.