The final item of business is a members’ business debate on motion S6M-09435, in the name of Alexander Burnett, on ensuring a just transition for rural communities. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament believes that what it sees as the Scottish Government’s failure to listen to local communities has resulted in an unjust transition to net zero taking place in rural communities across Scotland, including those in the Aberdeenshire West constituency; recognises what it sees as the vital importance of an energy strategy that uses a mix of energy sources to achieve a just transition and protect the livelihood and character of rural communities; acknowledges what it sees as the significant concerns of local communities and local authorities, which, it believes, have overwhelmingly opposed industrial sized onshore windfarm proposals, but have then been overruled by the Energy Consents Unit in Edinburgh; notes the view that the Scottish Government should ensure that local community objections to renewable energy developments are a key factor in considering when approval should be granted; further notes the calls for the Scottish Government to introduce legislation for a mandatory minimum megawatt-hour community benefit contribution rate from renewable energy developments, which would increase in line with inflation; recognises the role that it believes that community benefit should play in ensuring that communities receive fair compensation as part of a real just transition in areas where renewable energy developments are being considered, and notes the calls for the Scottish Government to implement the recommendations of the joint review by the UK and Scottish governments of ETSU-R-97 on all new onshore windfarm developments, in particular, the recommendation that controlling values for noise during the night should not be higher for night-time than during the day.
17:41
I thank members for their support in bringing my motion to the chamber.
All across Scotland, communities face being under siege from wind farm developments despite strong opposition to them. I have been in touch with groups such as the nae Fare group, Save Our Hills Moffat, and Save Straiton for Scotland, representatives of which I am delighted to welcome to the public gallery.
Chapter 7 of the Scottish Government’s onshore wind policy estimates
“that 3400 turbines will be installed in Scotland between now and 2030 ... the equivalent of a new turbine being installed every day between 2025-2030.”
However, true to form, the Scottish Government’s maths on that point does not add up, as almost 3,500 wind turbines going up in that time would equate to nearly two per day. The plans highlight the decimation that is faced by our countryside, which is already at saturation point.
It is therefore vital that the views of affected communities are heard and properly considered. At this point I ask members to note my entry in the register of members’ interests. I point out that, despite the minister’s spin on them, the two 12kW farm turbines built a decade ago are tiny in comparison with the industrial-scale developments in the Cabrach, which are some 45,000 times larger.
There are several wind farm projects in my own constituency, and I am not completely opposed to onshore wind power. For example, my constituents in the upper Deveron valley have accepted and benefited from some of those projects. We need energy diversification, and everyone will need to play their part in achieving a just transition.
However, there is nothing just about developments that are destroying our rural areas. I have met people from communities that are dominated by wind farms, which they have described as being surrounded by a ring of steel. At those meetings I was joined by the minister, Richard Lochhead, to whom I am sure the community was grateful. However, the extensions at Clashindarroch and Craig Watch developments will see the installation of an additional 54 turbines, making a total of 146 turbines within a 10km radius. Perhaps Gillian Martin could ask her colleague whether he listened to the community following those meetings or whether he will just ignore his constituents.
The Hill of Fare proposal is for 16 turbines, each some 200m tall, on a hill that is itself 300m above the landscape. If it receives approval it will be the first on royal Deeside and will set a precedent that will open the floodgates to more industrial-size turbines destroying the landscape, parts of which are protected and which our tourism sector relies on. Last month, the nae Fare group wrote to the First Minister following a survey by eight community councils that found that 71 per cent of residents opposed the development. It is still waiting for a reply, so perhaps the minister could chase a response.
A few weeks ago, the First Minister said that highly protected marine areas would not be imposed on communities that are opposed to them. Will the minister make the same commitment for wind farms exceeding 50MW? Enough is enough. Currently, no elected representative, at any level, gets a vote on wind farm proposals exceeding 50MW. Decisions are made by officials in the energy consents unit, who are far removed from those affected, and who can ignore any council or community objections.
The Meall Buidhe proposals in the Highlands will proceed despite more than 200 objections from residents and Highland Council. The consents unit reporter refused to engage with residents or meet local fisheries to discuss their environmental concerns. I therefore ask the minister today to require the energy consents unit to meet with local communities that are impacted by its decisions.
Furthermore, the current process does not give due consideration to sites of historical and natural importance. Developments can disrupt habitats, endanger birds and impact hydrology, with devastating consequences for our wild salmon.
Last week, I raised in the chamber the risks to Craig Dorney. It is potentially Scotland’s largest Pictish find and has partial designated status from Historic Environment Scotland, but it will be destroyed by the development in question. The Hill of Fare also has historical significance as the site of the battle of Corrichie, and the victory of Mary, Queen of Scots, in 1562.
Policy 7 in national planning framework 4 sets out the importance of protecting such sites, yet no ministers have, in written responses to me, provided any reassurance on how or whether that will happen. I ask the minister again what protections the Government will give to our rural communities in order to ensure that those sites are not destroyed by onshore wind farm developments.
It is the case that if a development is approved, those who will be affected are compensated. The Scottish Government recommends a community benefit of £5,000 per MWh. When I was told that the Scottish Government had no plans to review the community benefit, which was introduced almost a decade ago in 2014, I asked it to reconsider uprating the benefit to ensure that it is at least in line with inflation. In England, a consultation is considering benefits such as communities getting a stake in the wind farms, funding for new facilities and a discount on energy bills. I urge the Scottish Government to follow in England’s footsteps.
Although the excuse has been that that is a reserved matter, nothing has stopped the Scottish Government pushing through its own strategies and guidance. I ask the minister, therefore, whether the Government will conduct a review of that clearly devolved matter.
Finally, although the issue is not simply about the principle of the ECU forcing through applications in denial of local voices, the fact is that the guidance that it uses is out of date. The ETSU-R-97 guidance on “The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms” regarding noise pollution has been reviewed, and we now have a situation in which new wind farms that are being approved today will not meet the recommendations once they are completed.
I received a response from the UK Government today, welcoming the research and recognising that short-term updates could be made to bring the guidance into line with the most up-to-date evidence, including in relation to daytime and night-time limits. I ask the minister whether she shares that view, and whether she agrees that there should be a moratorium on new applications until the recommendations have been implemented.
Renewable energy is important in order to meet net zero targets, but this is an unjust transition that is costing local communities, historical sites and the local environment. Wind farm applications are just the start—follow-on development will lead to giant pylons and substations wrecking our countryside, and rural communities are powerless to stop these modern-day Highland clearances.
I urge the Scottish Government to consider the issues that are raised today and take seriously the voices of rural communities that are fighting for local democracy and the protection of our beautiful countryside, before it is too late.
17:48
I congratulate Alexander Burnett on bringing to the chamber this important debate in order to give voice to the views of people in rural Scotland on the crucial role that they have to play, as we all do, in the transition to net zero.
All of us, having experienced what we have done in the past few weeks alone, are living through the visual manifestation of the climate crisis that we face and the significant changes in climate that are taking place. One of the questions at the heart of the debate was highlighted by a Conservative member, Liam Kerr, earlier today, when he raised the issue of water scarcity. I can hardly believe that we are having a discussion about water scarcity in June, when we normally confront such issues much later in the summer period. That is another illustration of the impact of the climate crisis.
It all raises the question of whether we are serious about tackling these issues. We have to be serious about tackling the climate crisis, and renewable energy, as Alexander Burnett acknowledged, has a role to play in that as part of a mix of energy sources.
A number of the calls that Mr Burnett makes in his motion are reasonable. The points about the need for an uplift in community benefit contribution rates, for example, are valid and should be advanced, and the Government should consider those issues. We must maintain an up-to-date analysis of any societal impacts of renewable energy, and it is important that we reflect on and consider the points about the noise from night-time activity in the decision-making process.
Those are all completely reasonable points. However, we also have to recognise the necessity of ensuring that enough steps are being taken to tackle the severity and gravity of the climate crisis that we face. Onshore wind, along with offshore wind and hydro schemes, and various other measures such as investment in solar energy, are all part of that mix in the transition that we have to make.
My last point relates to the point that Mr Burnett makes in his motion where he criticises the energy consents unit in Edinburgh. With the greatest of respect, I do not think that the wording of the motion in that regard is particularly generous or charitable. I do not think that it is right to criticise public officials who are simply interpreting the law as it is made by this institution. Decisions on energy consents are taken not through some random process by civil servants, but by reference to the legitimate points that Mr Burnett raised regarding the preservation of the natural environment. Historical sites of significance, and a variety of other considerations that Parliament lays down, have to be looked at in that process. In order to build public confidence, those decisions are taken by reference to statue and evidence, which is then published in marshalled information by the consents unit.
I hear what Mr Swinney says, and I would not like to criticise the officials in the energy consents unit, because the work that they do is set out by the politicians and by this place. Their remit to be able to do stuff actually stems from here.
Nevertheless, does Mr Swinney not agree that it is wrong that not a single elected representative has any say in such developments?
I do not recognise that characterisation of the process. Politicians are involved in setting the framework within which those decisions are taken. That is the proper role for politicians: to say what standards should be followed—
Will the member give way on that point?
The member really should begin to conclude.
Decisions are then to be taken in accordance with that framework.
I will make one last point, Presiding Officer, if you will allow me to do so.
If a local authority was dissatisfied with a decision that had been taken, it would be free to challenge that decision—as with any decision by the Scottish Government—in a process of law. That option is available if there has been an error in the application of the law, and that is the crucial point that we have to consider.
However, I do not want that issue to prevent me from recognising that there are important calls in the motion to which I hope that the Government will respond constructively. Communities that are making a sacrifice to be part of a just transition must be able to share in the benefits, as many communities in my constituency have shared in the benefits of wind farms that have been approved in their locality, which contribute to enhancing the health and wellbeing of the constituency that I have the privilege to represent.
17:54
I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice the frustrations of my constituents tonight, and I thank Alexander Burnett for bringing this much-needed debate to the chamber. The issue speaks to the wider contempt in which rural communities are held by this Government, and more specifically to the lack of voice that they have in the planning system—a system that often feels like a sham that is stacked in favour of the developers.
Too often, we see the views and decisions of local authorities discounted and overturned. Communities and local people say no, yet these projects are still imposed. Objectors are treated like second-class citizens whose views count for less than the views of the Government or of developers. That has certainly been my experience, with developers seeking to block my participation in inquiry sessions, asserting that because I am not a landscape expert, the views that I express on behalf of my constituents do not matter, and developers arguing that community concerns are better lumped together into less formal hearing sessions, if they are recognised at all.
It is a system in which slick out-of-town lawyers and consultants rock up in their top-of-the-range gas-guzzling sports cars and tell rural communities that they do not matter; who claim that, for the sake of progress and the planet, we must see our landscapes destroyed while the devastating impacts on wildlife, peat, watercourses and biodiversity are conveniently downplayed.
All the while, local people are told that they should be grateful for the pittance that they are offered by way of return—a so-called community benefit. It is nothing more than state-condoned bribery, which is used to divide communities and manipulate planning outcomes. It is all the more insulting when it is contrasted with the millions that are banked by the new renewables barons.
On top of that feeling of unfairness, we see a landscape impact methodology that focuses on what are often manipulated viewpoints that overlook what it is like to live and work in the vicinity of these developments, where people intricately know, love and are connected to their landscapes across generations. Linked to that, we also see a very narrow focus on residential amenity, which forgets that the environment around them is exactly why people choose to live in the countryside.
Under the current system, many pockets of outstanding natural beauty are sacrificed because they are too small to merit national protection. Tourism concerns are downplayed, despite developers’ own studies showing a loss of jobs in some areas post-build—and of course, the promised new green jobs just do not materialise.
It gets worse, however, because there is something truly sinister going on below the radar. In this life, it is always easier to turn a blind eye, but I tell the minister that our current planning system is being corrupted by cash payments. This is serious, and is turbo-charging rural depopulation. Some people call it the new clearances, but it can be more accurately described as the disappearances.
Secret deals take place, and non-disclosure agreements signing away people’s rights to object in the planning process in exchange for payment are now commonplace in Scotland. Others sell directly to the developer or those connected with the project in order to reduce the planning requirements. They literally vanish from their homes, and the only trace that they leave is a letter in the hands of the developer, with a vague statement confirming that the wind farm application had nothing to do with their move. Those murky practices are gutting our rural values and pitting neighbour against neighbour.
We cannot blame people for taking the golden ticket, but in this context, it makes those who choose to make a stand in the David-and-Goliath battle, to stand up for their homes and their communities against attempts to manipulate the planning system, all the more impressive. I pay tribute to those of them who have been in the Parliament today.
We need to act, as those practices are not right in Scotland in 2023. Climate concerns, our environment and our people, not who can pay the most, should be at the heart of our consents regime. I say to the minister: it is time to step in and stop the rot—our communities deserve a fair hearing.
17:58
I, too, congratulate Alexander Burnett on lodging the motion and managing to bring the debate to the chamber.
There are parts of the motion that I do not agree with, but I think that it is important that we have this debate, so that people can raise issues from their communities and test them in the Parliament, especially when our constituents are with us in the public gallery tonight.
However, I want to hold to account our colleague Mr Burnett, and indeed every Conservative MSP, because they stood on a manifesto which stated:
“We need to deliver a wholly renewable powered Scotland, and we have the wealth of natural resources to achieve this.”
The manifesto went on to say,
“We also support the expansion of onshore wind capacity in Scotland where it is agreed by and benefits local communities, as well as our country as a whole.”
I do not think that the motion matches up with that commitment exactly.
I agree with the motion’s emphasis on the involvement of communities, and I will reflect on that. We see that in our planning system—it is crucial that communities are involved and treated with respect and that local authorities consult them properly. We need to ensure that our planning system is not a top-down process in which controversial issues automatically go up to the Scottish Government and then get given the go-ahead.
There is a need for a more grounded, local approach. In Scottish Labour’s manifesto for the most recent Scottish Parliament elections, we suggested that there should be what we called the third-party right of appeal, so that local communities could appeal against a decision being taken. That would ensure that communities are given more priority, and it would encourage developers to talk to them more.
Will the member give way on that point?
I am not going to give way, as I will try to stick to the four minutes.
I welcome the point that Mr Burnett made in his opening remarks about community benefits. That is a huge, and much underexplored, opportunity. There is an issue with regard to communities that see huge developments taking place while they personally do not get any benefit from them. There is something that we need to change there, as it must be a frustration in terms of not only the view, but their energy bills.
We have designed a grid that incentivises the building of power closest to dense urban communities, and yet the renewables transition is all about ensuring that we have renewables across the country. That needs to be a fair process. There are other solutions whereby communities can work with developers. In Fintry, for example, we saw a fantastic development where people are, to this day, benefiting from the wind turbines in their area.
I recently went to visit Point and Sandwick Trust in the Western Isles and saw its community-owned wind farm. That trust receives an income of nearly £1 million a year, which has been used to support the community and support local people with their energy bills. There is an opportunity here.
The United Kingdom Climate Change Committee, in its “Delivering a Reliable Decarbonised Power System” report, projected that our UK electricity demand will double from about 300TWh to 600TWh by 2050. We need to work together, and we need to test the system, as colleagues are doing today.
We need political leadership so that we can increase our renewables supply, but we need to acknowledge that the just transition relates to members of the public and local communities. For example, why does our planning system not require developers to have a proportion of the development employing local members of the public or requiring developments that are made in Scotland so that we do not simply import all our wind turbines?
Solar is another big opportunity—we could be seeing much more in solar development. I was interested to see that Highland Council is looking at three solar projects. As I understand it, developments with technology mean that you can now have solar and farming at the same time. There are opportunities, and we need to be ahead of the game. That is why we in Scottish Labour are very keen to ensure that Scotland is a clean energy superpower. We need to create the jobs that I have talked about across the country, and we need to cut people’s bills, in particular in rural communities, because at 35 per cent, fuel poverty is much worse in our rural communities, many of which are off the gas grid and have expensive electricity bills.
We need to turn that around and boost energy security, and play our part in tackling the climate crisis, but we need to do so in such a way that we are working with local communities. I see that in the urban areas as well as the rural areas in my region. We need to boost the capacity of communities to work together and to negotiate with developers. For example, the work that is done by the co-operative movement is actually supporting local communities now.
I would like to hear from the minister about how the Scottish Government can do more to work with communities and fund our councils so that we see more local ownership and sensitivity to local developments. We need to think about how we can make the planning system better to ensure that local communities do not simply see a renewables project installed near them without any real consultation or engagement, but get an actual benefit from it—
Ms Boyack, I ask you to conclude.
If we do that, it will be a just transition.
18:04
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, and I congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett on bringing it to the chamber.
The route to an effective just transition is an issue that has rightly received much scrutiny in recent years. It is important to remember, however, that failing to achieve the transition in a way that is fair and proportionate will impact on some communities far more than it will impact on others. The motion speaks about the impact of an unjust transition on rural communities. It is important to highlight that, in the view of such communities, the transition that they are witnessing is truly unjust.
The motion also speaks about the way in which many rural communities have overwhelmingly opposed onshore wind farm proposals, only to have their objections overruled through central Government diktat. We have already heard a number of examples of that, and there are others across my region. The Rhodders wind farm development in Clackmannanshire was rejected by the council in 2013, having received objections from several community groups. However, that refusal was promptly overturned by the Scottish Government the following year.
A true just transition for rural communities would be one that works with them and talks about their concerns instead of riding roughshod over them and—as we have heard—imposing large wind farm developments on them. It would ensure that such developments give back to the surrounding communities, which has been touched on.
The motion is right to speak about the calls for a mandatory minimum contribution rate from renewable energy developments. The Burnfoot Hill wind farm community fund, which provides grants for communities across Clackmannanshire, is an example of how such developments can provide compensation for the communities that are most affected. If rural communities are to experience a just transition, we must ensure that all such community funds give back to their surrounding communities in a way that is truly fair.
There are a number of ways in which the journey to net zero risks hitting rural communities the hardest of all. They include schemes such as the Scottish National Party’s workplace parking levy, which will hit people in rural communities who have no choice but to commute by car to the facilities and locations that they require to access.
Does Alexander Stewart recognise that the decisions about workplace parking levies are devolved to local government?
I thank the minister for her intervention, but I say to her that rural communities will pay the price of those levies because they have little choice in how they are managed. The slow roll-out of electric charging points in rural settings will also make life increasingly difficult for rural commuters over the next decade.
Our rural communities already face tough challenges in the transition to net zero. Despite that, the Government is still forcing them to accept proposals to which they have objected. Alongside my Conservative colleagues, I will continue to stand up for rural communities, whose voices are not being heard throughout the transition process. Only by working with such communities and ensuring that we compensate and understand them can a just transition be achieved for people in every area of Scotland.
18:08
It is a pleasure to contribute to this members’ business debate. I congratulate Alexander Burnett who, with my assistance, managed to achieve the requisite number of signatures. I support the motion not because I am in agreement with everything that is contained in it but because—as others have pointed out—there are really important elements in it that need to be debated but which we have not had the opportunity to debate. We need to reflect the experience of renewables that our constituents across Scotland have had and the community benefit that they have seen flowing from such projects.
There is something to be said about how, when such plans start, outreach to communities leaves a lot to be desired. There tends to be outreach to certain stakeholders in renewables projects. Sometimes, the individuals within our communities are the last to find out about the plans—frequently from Facebook groups for their villages and areas, which point out that something is happening.
However, we have the academic research and intellectual knowledge to understand that dialogical forms of engagement—when companies, local authorities and the Scottish Government reach out properly, have a two-way discussion with constituents and generate support—mean that people have confidence in what they are being told. They can see the results and the benefit that will coming to them.
I can speak of companies such as EDF, Tarmac and Viridor Credits that work closely with communities and share assets, money and experience, so that the communities feel that they are part of the industry. I have, in my experience of offshore wind companies coming onshore and of onshore wind farms, seen how that can be a struggle and challenge. Inch Cape Offshore Limited, which is coming to Prestonpans, has worked incredibly hard to reach out to its communities before the scheme is formally in place and has provided support for the children’s gala, holiday clubs and work, much of which needed support because of the cuts that the local authority has suffered, although I will not pursue that point. Berwick Bank wind farm also intends to come ashore close to Dunbar.
We see challenges when a community is expected to deal with infrastructure changes in a range of areas, and people have to take it upon themselves to struggle to identify what the impact of that will be on their community. We then have the challenge of compensation in the future—what it should look like, how much it should be and how much it should be divided.
Communities have the challenge that the shoreline is massive, so who is the community that is being talked about? The local community council was specific in saying to Berwick Bank what the effect of the development on its small community and it coming ashore over a battle site and close to an industrial area would be, when what it wanted could be achieved more easily.
We need to do better in the Scottish Parliament, and companies that hold contracts need to continue to do better and reach out. If we fail and do not take our communities with us—there is a real chance that that might happen—the challenge of reaching net zero will be that much harder. Why should our communities feel that they are being dumped on to help the central belt? Why should they feel that they are the last to know? Why should they sometimes be the last to see the benefit?
Before we move on to the next speaker, I advise that, because of the number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I am minded to accept a motion without notice under rule 8.14.3, to extend the debate by up to 30 minutes. I invite Alexander Burnett to move the motion.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by up to 30 minutes.—[Alexander Burnett]
Motion agreed to.
18:12
I congratulate my colleague Alexander Burnett on bringing the debate to the chamber, and I am grateful that I am allowed to speak in it.
I am a South Scotland member of the Scottish Parliament and, as such, I have consistently to deal with onshore wind issues coming into my mailbag. I was struck by Alexander Burnett’s saying that he has spoken to communities that are
“surrounded by a ring of steel.”
In the previous parliamentary term, I had a similar issue in East Ayrshire, where a town ended up being surrounded by wind turbines. In every direction, on every hill, the view was of huge wind turbines, despite consistent rejection from local communities.
There is not enough consultation with our communities and their voices are being ignored when they make their views known. Earlier today, I was in Abington, where a public consultation is being held about putting in an electricity transmission substation near Redshaw.
It strikes me that when we do consultations on wind turbines, local communities do not understand that it is not just the turbines that will be put in—there will also be things such as substations and overhead cabling.
Does Brian Whittle agree that those considerations should form part of the energy consents unit’s application process before giving consent, and should not be tagged on afterwards?
Mr Mundell has picked up the very next point that I was going to make; it is absolutely true that it should not just be about the wind turbines. The community should know exactly what it is being asked to put up with, and that should take into account things such as substations and cabling. The whole process of dealing with applications for wind turbines must include that.
I have, for the past five years, been dealing with a case in which a wind farm was erected despite concerns about the effects that it would have on local water supplies. The rural houses’ private water supplies were, indeed, polluted. New boreholes were established by the contractor, but the water quality was very poor. Those households cannot get water-quality tests done regularly, as is supposed to happen, which is part of the problem. It is all very well saying that we will deal with such issues after building the wind farm, but we have to make sure that companies and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are well-enough resourced to ensure that regulations are met.
Does Brian Whittle recognise that often when applications are referred to the Scottish Government for approval, those approvals come with conditions, but local authorities have no capacity or resources to police those conditions? That is a fundamental flaw in the Scottish Government approving such applications.
Finlay Carson is, of course, absolutely correct, and that is exactly the issue that I want to raise. It is all very well having conditions during the application, but authorities have to be able to enforce those conditions. Our local authorities are not currently resourced to do that.
I am not against onshore wind—in fact, I see it as part of a potential solution in which wind power could power hydrogen generation, which in turn could create local energy supplies off the grid. However, communities feel that they are being used and are being sacrificed to power the central belt. If we continue to develop onshore wind, honesty is required—not just in respect of erecting wind farms, but in respect of development of substations and overhead cables, which we have talked about.
We need to work on our planning issues, which have been discussed at length by just about every member in the debate. Taking 13 years from application to build is not conducive to our reaching net zero. Perhaps we need to look at how we can set areas aside where there might be agreement about specific presumption of planning. Communities with onshore wind farms on their doorsteps should, at the very least, have lower energy bills, and community voices must not only be heard, but listened to. I will end my contribution there.
18:18
I thank Alexander Burnett for securing the debate and for arranging the round-table discussion on the issue earlier today. Many important points have been made in the debate, and I particularly associate myself with Sarah Boyack’s contribution on third-party rights of appeal.
I fully support the need for a rapid expansion of the renewables sector but, as has been said, that needs to be done with the support of local communities and clear benefits to local people. That does not mean that every proposal from every developer should be granted, because there are significant problems, for example, with the ownership of much of the sector and some of the people who are behind proposals.
In North Ayrshire recently, there have been big community campaigns against the Rigghill wind farm and Cumbrae solar farm proposals. We need to make sure that planning law and indeed the national planning framework 6 ensure that local communities’ voices are listened to.
I am particularly interested in the motion’s reference to the joint review by the UK and Scottish Governments of the ETSU-R-97 regulations on all new onshore wind farm developments because of issues that constituents have raised with me over an extended period about low-frequency noise and vibration not just from wind turbines but from wind turbine testing, drillships and a range of other industrial developments.
I note that the Scottish Government intends to implement the recommendations of the joint review by the UK and Scottish Governments, which I support. However, we need to go further, in particular in relation to measuring the noise effects of wind turbines. The research on that has moved on and the regulations are now out of date. I am disappointed that the review does not seem to recognise the specific concerns about low-frequency noise. Despite the fact that constituents have repeatedly raised that issue with me and other elected representatives for many years, no new guidance has been issued for local authorities. We are still relying on regulations from 2005.
Although local authorities have a duty to investigate complaints relating to noise pollution under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, they are not supplied with updated guidance from either the Scottish or the UK Government. In 2011, the report by the University of Salford for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in relation to the proposed criteria for the assessment of low-frequency noise disturbance highlighted that the individuals surveyed attributed sleep disturbance, stress, headaches, migraines and severe mental health issues to low-frequency noise. Despite the findings of that report, we have not seen action to update guidance.
We need to recognise that this sector is rapidly expanding. We need to ensure that the regulations keep up with that expansion, given the rapid changes that we are seeing. I fully support the Scottish Government in its attempts to see the rapid expansion of this sector. However, this cannot be the wild west. We need to ensure that the views and concerns of local people are taken into account and that, where developments proceed, the local community sees advantages to them in what happens.
18:22
I congratulate my friend Alexander Burnett on securing this important debate. I welcome the people in the public gallery who have come to their Parliament from across Scotland to hear this crucial topic discussed. I note for the record that I assume that they will share my disappointment that, in a debate about the environment, renewable energy and a just transition, little over half an hour from being at full strength to support their Green minister holding on to her job, not a single Green MSP could be present in the Parliament to listen to or contribute to this debate. There are two Green ministers and five Green back benchers, and not a single one is in the chamber. I think that that is very telling for a party that claims to put the environment above all else. It is really important that MSPs from across the political spectrum are here to listen to this debate and to the concerns of the communities that they represent.
Alexander Burnett and I met residents from Moray and Aberdeenshire who were worried, and continue to be concerned, about the cumulative impact of wind farm developments in their areas. The Cabrach Trust brought us together because it wanted its politicians to hear the concerns of local people. Like them, I want to state on record my support for a just transition but, for that to happen, we must take people, individuals and communities with us.
Sadly, in many parts of Scotland—including, I think, in my area of Moray and much of the Highlands and Islands—we have already reached saturation point for wind farms and massive wind turbines. As Alex Burnett pointed out, the Scottish Government’s policy could demand the installation of another 3,400 new onshore wind turbines in just the next seven years. By 2030, that many more turbines could be approved and placed in Scotland. Where are they going to go? That will have a devastating impact on our landscapes, which are often protected and which bring tourists and money into areas that people want to enjoy.
When I mention tourism, I am reminded that, when I chaired the Moray Council planning committee, an SNP councillor once claimed that tourists would come to the area to view the wind turbines, which is why he supported them in his Speyside Glenlivet ward. I was appalled and amazed by the comment then, and I am appalled that that type of thinking could still persist. Wind turbines put people off coming to our area.
The 22 turbines that are proposed for the Clashindarroch wind farm extension will be up to 200m tall, which will be an industrial size in a rural landscape of exceptional beauty that is largely undisturbed and particularly attractive to the thousands of tourists who come to the Cabrach every year. The Cabrach Trust is doing more to encourage more people to come to the area, but the attraction of the landscape is at stake if we continue to bulldoze our rural areas to make way for turbines that leave a scar on them for ever.
In some places, onshore wind might be desirable, workable and even agreeable, but that is the point. We are talking about some areas that have local consent and buy-in. Local people must be taken with the applications. They do not deserve to have enormous developments imposed on them, but that is how they feel. They feel ignored, let down and angry about the destruction of their local communities.
As Alexander Burnett highlighted, decisions about turbines are ultimately placed with the energy consents unit. I have seen decisions that I took with my planning committee overturned by the energy consents unit here in Edinburgh. I take John Swinney’s point that councils can appeal such decisions, but in fairness and honesty and realistically speaking, they could not because they could not afford a judicial review.
Will the member give way?
I will give way if the Presiding Officer will give the time.
I am grateful to Douglas Ross for giving way, and I acknowledge the points that he is making about this particular challenge. I had a case in my constituency where the local authority, which was run by Mr Ross’s party at the time, took the Government to judicial review—it was not on an energy consent matter—and failed comprehensively. The court ruled that there was no legal foundation for it. My point is that the decisions that are properly taken by Government have stood up to legal scrutiny and, in the energy consent process, there is an obligation to follow the statutory process to make sure that lawful decisions are taken. I understand that local authorities might not like those decisions, but they are taken in accordance with the statutory framework that we in Parliament have put in place.
That is the problem. The policy that the current Government has put in place is to see more onshore renewable energy when councils that are made up of locally elected members who are democratically sent to council chambers to represent their constituents take a counter view and say that it is not appropriate for their area, and they are slapped down by the energy consents unit here in Edinburgh. That is not a positive way to make decisions.
We can secure a truly just transition to net zero only if local people benefit and feel that they are involved. I therefore implore the minister to look up at the galleries behind us and look at the people who have travelled from across Scotland because this matters to them and to their communities. She should listen to their concerns and objections and take their views seriously. They are not here just to fight for their landscapes in our beautiful countryside; they are here to uphold local democracy, and that is surely important to all of us.
18:28
I thank Alexander Burnett for bringing the debate to the chamber. It has been a comprehensive debate and I have agreed with an awful lot of what has been said, although I have disagreed with some of it.
I will first point to a couple of things that I particularly agree with. What Martin Whitfield said about the importance of public engagement being done early, even before development begins, is so important. The right thing to do first is to get that buy-in from communities, because it makes good business sense. If wind farm developers have communities behind them and ensure that they can see the benefits of what is being built and feel that they are listened to before decisions are made and the planning process is gone through, that will result in benefits for everyone. Like other speakers, I have seen examples of that happening, with subsequent community buy-in.
I am a rural MSP, so it is not as if I am sat in the ivory towers of Edinburgh and this is all news to me; I know these issues. In my area, we have the Aberdeen offshore wind farm, which is visible to the community of Balmedie and Belhelvie. That community was engaged with early and it is justifiably proud of the wind farm. It was very involved in how the community benefit should be spent. From the get-go, there was engagement by the developer, Vattenfall. Martin Whitfield’s point is well made.
I also want to address the point that John Swinney made at the beginning of his speech. I guess that he was alluding to the wild fires that we have seen in the past few days, and he went on to raise the issue of water scarcity. That point puts into sharp focus what we are trying to do in relation to renewable energy and reducing our need to burn hydrocarbons, which is what is causing climate change.
Just a few months ago, the Government had to put in place streams of funding to help families to pay their fuel bills. That shows that our approach to renewable energy is an energy security issue, too, which is particularly important with regard to the geopolitical situation. Energy affordability is an important issue and, as Sarah Boyack rightly said, communities need to see tangible household benefits.
I have been in my job for only about 12 weeks, but I have been repeating this phrase to every developer that I have met: there are only so many times that you can paint a scout hut. Sometimes, community benefits can look a little bit like window dressing. Often, there is not a suite of options available—communities might be involved, but there is no inventiveness about what community benefits can look like.
Again, that speaks to the issue of consultation. If there is narrowed consultation with the community, we might hear people say—rightly—“Let’s repaint the scout hut.” However, through genuine consultation, we can find out what communities need in terms of not only physical assets but on-going support for things such as community kitchens. That goes back to the important point that consultation has to be genuine, honest and two way.
I agree. It cannot be tokenistic or led by what the developers—or even the local authority—believe that the community wants; it must be based on what the community that is impacted wants. In my constituency, there is a need for a ventilation system in a school’s technical department. That is an expensive thing to install, but it is important to have it because the department is producing the people who, in future, will be able to weld and build things. Perhaps that is the sort of thing that developers can get involved in if they ask what communities actually need.
Despite the success of community benefits with the generation of £194 million over the past 20 years or so—and a record £25 million last year—I point out that the community benefits system is not a compulsory one for developers. The Scottish Government has called for community benefits to be compulsory for developments, and I have got the sense from members today that that view is shared across the chamber. As energy generation is reserved to the UK Government, I would like to think that, after today, we Scottish parliamentarians could join together to make that request.
I think that we are focusing too much on the issue of community benefits. I have never heard of a wind farm company refusing to make the voluntary payment, so I think that that is a bit of a red herring.
Dumfries and Galloway is one of the areas that are saturated with wind farms, and the local authority and communities are waving a white flag when it comes to applications because they do not have the capacity even to meet the legal deadlines. Fifty applications have gone to the Scottish Government, with 11 of them being from Dumfries and Galloway. How will the minister ensure that councils have the capacity and resources to ensure that local voices are heard, whatever the community benefit is?
Finlay Carson, as usual, was eloquent, if a little verbose, in his intervention. I was going to move on to talk about some of the contributions from his colleagues in particular. I was concerned to hear some of the criticisms that Oliver Mundell made about the way that he felt pushed out of a consultation when he was trying to make some points to developers on behalf of his constituents. Communities need to be engaged more fully and to be more able to determine not only what they will get, but what will happen in the development.
I will try to be briefer than Finlay Carson. Does the minister think that it is fair that communities have to fundraise in order to get professional support to oppose applications and take part in the planning appeals process?
I do not have a view on that. It is something that I will think about.
I suggest that Oliver Mundell writes to me about the specific concerns that he raised in his speech. He might not want to broadcast in the chamber who we are talking about, but I am happy to have that conversation with him.
There is an awful lot more that I want to mention, but time is running out. Katy Clark mentioned the ETSU-R-97 guidance. The Scottish Government provided some money for the short-term review project in collaboration with the Welsh Government and the UK Government. My understanding is that good practice on noise from wind farms is being reviewed because it was set about 25 years ago so it is probably not fit for purpose. The UK Government is going to review the guidance based on its collaboration with the devolved Governments, and we are still to hear back on that. Katy Clark also pointed out some of the mental health issues that are involved in that. That is a serious point that needs to be made.
We have just closed the consultation on our energy strategy and just transition plan. There are many issues with what the impact could be of achieving the goals that we set ourselves for the energy transition. That transition has to happen and it must be meaningful for people.
I have listened to the concerns that have been raised. I will note them and speak to my officials about them, particularly as regards what engagement with communities happens, where it happens and what locus the community has.
I extend an offer to members who have raised particular issues. They will understand that I cannot talk about live planning applications for projects of more than 50MW, which come to me for the final decision. Beyond that, however, if members have concerns about the practices of companies that could help their communities, they know where I am.
That concludes the debate.
Meeting closed at 18:38.Previous
Decision Time