Hans J Marter
Residents in the Newing area of South Nesting say they feel wind farm
developer SSE Renewables might try to “fob us off” after receiving “no real
answers to our queries, concerns and fears”.
The group of residents approached the owners of the Viking Energy wind farm
earlier this summer after it emerged the developer was planning to create a
large ‘borrow pit’ to extract stone for tracks and turbine bases less than
500 metres from their homes.
The homeowners have now received a written response from Viking Energy Wind
Farm (VEWF) stakeholder manager Aaron Priest, but say they are less than
reassured by the content of his letter.
Last months the residents went public with their concerns, saying they
should have been directly consulted during the planning process.
In his letter Priest said the existence of a borrow pit near Skellister
Loch had been part of the Viking Energy project since first consented by
Scottish Ministers in 2012, as well as during a subsequent application
seeking variations to the existing planning permission.
Priest went on saying that Nesting and Lunnasting Community Council had
been “specifically consulted by Scottish Ministers for its opinion on the
application to vary the consent (which included the borrow pit search area
near Skellister Loch) and no representation was made”.
He said the presence of a borrow pit “has been consistent throughout and I
am not aware of a commitment being made, at any point, to remove it.”
The resident group, however, claims the developer is at fault and in breach
of its own code of practise for noise and vibration consultation, known
within the industry as BS5228.
Resident group spokeswoman Suzanne Malcolmson said the “community
relations” section of BS5228 emphasises that “good relations with people
living and working in the vicinity of site operations are of paramount
importance”.
“It is suggested that good relations can be developed by keeping people
informed of progress and by treating complaints fairly and expeditiously,”
the code of practice states.
Malcolmson said that rather than through the community council,
householders affected by the five-acre quarry should have been consulted
directly with.
She asked: “Is it appropriate for VEWF to pass the responsibility of
community relations and the dissemination of information to the local
community to a third party?
“And if that was their intention, have they provided sufficient guidance to
community councils on how this should be done. It seems like they are
‘passing the buck’ and this is most definitely not in the spirit of
community relation as outlined in BS5228.”
Priest said that the company and its main contractor RJ McLeod were
currently undertaking an analysis to determine “whether or not there
remains a need to access and utilise [borrow pit] NBP06″, adding there
remained a strong possibility that the consented borrow pit would be developed.
He also confirmed that the company was willing to carry out and pay for
“industry standard” dilapidation surveys of the houses in the vicinity of
the borrow pit.
“The project would welcome the opportunity to meet the request for
condition surveys, in advance of any requirement to develop NBP06, if the
residents would wish this to go ahead,” he said.
Malcolmson said the group welcomed this concession but no details have been
given as to “how and when” these surveys would be carried out and whether
“they will be rectifying any damage”.
Priest added that the liaison process with the affected householders would
now be formalised in that they will be kept updated and informed on a
regular basis.
Malcolmson responded: “We welcome this but Aaron Priest does not say how
they will do this, and we have had no proposals or suggestion to try and
arrange a meeting with VE.
“We essentially think they are trying to fob us off, with no real answers
to our queries concerns and fears.”
0 Comments