Seòmar agus comataidhean

Hugh Ligat submission of 10 August 2021

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

I believe that Scottish rural communities and residential windfarm neighbours need a veto on windfarm proposals to bring Scotland into line with England, where windfarm developers need support, or lack of objection from local communities to gain consent.

The veto of English communities encourages developers to engage constructively with that community rather than what I often see as a tick box consultation and notification exercise which occurs all too frequently in Scotland. In Scotland, developers are actively suppressing objections from local communities.

The situation is now becoming critical for many beleaguered Scottish communities with applications for some of the largest on shore turbines in the world, over 200m high, now routinely being proposed and built. Windfarms may cause serious adverse environmental effects with loss of amenity, noise, overwhelming visual impact, detriment to essential water supplies and property devaluation. The impacts will overwhelm nearer residents and adversely affect properties over a much greater distance.

The Scottish Government’s (SG) chief planners’ response to this petition indicates that the SG will support its net zero carbon emissions goal with deemed permission for repowering and expansion of existing windfarms, regardless of the impacts on rural communities; this is as much an emergency for Scotland’s rural residents as it is for the climate.

I live adjacent to Afton windfarm in East Ayrshire, where industrial sized turbines are sited on public water catchment area. Although Scottish Water have now changed their policy of industrialising public water catchments after adverse impacts and closure of two public reservoirs within Whitelee windfarm, following the siting of 66 turbines on public water catchment there.

Industrial turbines contain hundreds of litres of oil, requiring regular oil changes – an obvious hazard to the water environment, in addition to the recognised wear of turbine blades which shed tons of toxic microplastics and resins into the hydrological environment over the lifetime of the windfarm. These impacts, together with silt run off will affect the designated salmon spawning grounds in the Afton valley.

I believe that the Environmental Reports (ERs) submitted by developers in support of their applications consistently understate the risks to the environment and ecology. I have seen no retrospective audit of the accuracy of these ERs which underpin the award of consent.

An application for yet another adjacent windfarm, Sanquhar ll, is at the appeal stage, despite many adjacent operational and consented windfarms, including the operational Sanquhar, Whiteside Hill, Afton 5 and Hare Hill Extension windfarms. The Southern Upland Way, one of Scotland’s nationally promoted Great Trails will be transacted by the main windfarm access road, with long term impacts for tourism. Objections from four local community councils are ignored by the developer.

The developer, has bought out four severely affected properties, with owners having to sign non disclosure agreements which I believe to be an attempt to suppress public opposition. The properties will be left empty. This feels like a lowland clearances of people for turbines.

I and other local people have also been approached by a company with an offer of £3000 annually if we agree not to object to this windfarm, to ‘co operate’ with and provide assistance to the company or its successors, not to make any complaint whatsoever against the company for the lifetime of the consent, to notify the company of any intended property sale and that this agreement will be binding on any future purchaser of my property.

It is my view that this is essentially a violation of Human Rights to free speech and a suppression of democracy in 21st Century Scotland to facilitate the award of consent for commercial gain.

Developers and the Scottish Government (SG) point to the financial and other benefits for communities that host windfarms. The SG recommends that developers pay Community benefit (CB) of £5000 per MW installed, but there is no obligation and many developers pay only half this. CB is not a material planning consideration and can be withdrawn by the developer, especially if the windfarm is sold on. CB does not compensate those properties suffering the worst of the adverse effects; there is no compensation for loss of water or property devaluation.

Rural communities must not be sacrificed on the altar of net zero. We need to have our concerns addressed and to veto those developments predicted to affect our basic human rights.