As promised, here are the notes from Thursday’s DPEA Stakeholders’ Meeting. SAS was represented by Rachel and Aileen. The Statistical data provided by DPEA is attached.
SAS Summary of DPEA stakeholder’s meeting 9th November 2023
Statistics
– The number of s36 wind farm applications substantially reduced in the first half of this year down to two from 9 last year. This is probably due to short staffing at the ECU, with a back log of cases building up which is likely to cause a rebound increase next year.
Enforcement appeals have substantially increased .
The biggest increase in appeals is related to short term lets due to change in SG policy and this is expected to significantly increase by spring next year. DPEA are trying to work out how to deal with the expected tsunami without impacting other areas of work.
Enforcement appeals have substantially increased .
The biggest increase in appeals is related to short term lets due to change in SG policy and this is expected to significantly increase by spring next year. DPEA are trying to work out how to deal with the expected tsunami without impacting other areas of work.
– There has been a significant increase in s. 37 appeals for wayleaves related to installation of transmission lines. ( Recent objection by Highland Council to the SSEN new transmission line on Skye which will allow for export of electricity from the multiple new windfarm applications is an example of likely appeals coming down the line)
– Section 36 wind farm appeals have a target determination period of 50 weeks from the time that the application is acknowledged to determination. DPEA has almost reached this target with an average time for a Decision now 52.5 weeks, down from 74.5 weeks last year.
– DPEA will have to change its case management system to align with the SG in moving its data to a cloud based system. This is likely to happen early next year, but along with a change in the CMS in 2-3 years time is not expected to affect users accessing the DPEA website and database.
– DPEA confirmed that NPF4 is very much embedded in approved Local Development Plans and Decision making for windfarms not yet consented – even if planning applications and EIAs were submitted prior to NPF4 (February 2023). There is ongoing work to ensure Reporters apply consistency in interpreting new/unfamiliar areas in NPF4, such as the need for planning applicants to demonstrate increased biodiversity in habitat management plans.
(This has implications for SAS members in ensuring NPF4 policies are used as a template for any windfarm application objections)
(This has implications for SAS members in ensuring NPF4 policies are used as a template for any windfarm application objections)
– DPEA is going to arrange on line and in person training seminars for stakeholders and other related groups which, subject to data protection etc, will hopefully be made available on line to the wider public. Topics will include how the appeals system works, oral proceedings for appeals etc . It’s hoped sessions will start later this year.
– Rachel Connor (SAS) tabled an Agenda item in relation to Planning Conditions.
Use of Planning conditions is set out in the SG Model Planning Conditions- Planning Circular 4/1998: Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning permissions – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Model Planning Conditions for s.36 windfarm applications are set out in an ECU document: S36+cases+-+List+of+specimen+Conditions+-+prepared+by+ECDU (2).pdf
Use of Planning conditions is set out in the SG Model Planning Conditions- Planning Circular 4/1998: Planning Circular 4/1998: the use of conditions in planning permissions – gov.scot (www.gov.scot)
Model Planning Conditions for s.36 windfarm applications are set out in an ECU document: S36+cases+-+List+of+specimen+Conditions+-+prepared+by+ECDU (2).pdf
Both documents are worth reading to ensure that the wording of conditions attached to a consent – either by a local authority or Scottish Ministers are appropriate and precise.
If conditions are attached or written by a Reporter, they will still need to be interpreted and enforced by a Local Authority.
Rachel has given examples to DPEA where planning conditions were changed (by a Local Authority) without any public input or notification because of the way conditions were written. This resulted in actual failure of intended mitigation measures designed to protect private water supply users.
Planning conditions are often written by the developer/appellant, with modification by the Local Authority submitted at an appeal before an appeal Decision is issued. Third parties are allowed to request input into the section on planning conditions at appeals and whilst public concerns may not be incorporated into those conditions, it is still important to raise concerns if monitoring and mitigation measures proposed are considered to be unsuitable or inadequate.
If conditions are attached or written by a Reporter, they will still need to be interpreted and enforced by a Local Authority.
Rachel has given examples to DPEA where planning conditions were changed (by a Local Authority) without any public input or notification because of the way conditions were written. This resulted in actual failure of intended mitigation measures designed to protect private water supply users.
Planning conditions are often written by the developer/appellant, with modification by the Local Authority submitted at an appeal before an appeal Decision is issued. Third parties are allowed to request input into the section on planning conditions at appeals and whilst public concerns may not be incorporated into those conditions, it is still important to raise concerns if monitoring and mitigation measures proposed are considered to be unsuitable or inadequate.
– Aileen Jackson (SAS) again raised the issue of inappropriate behaviour by appellants and their legal teams at Inquiries by bullying, intimidating and demeaning members of the public and their experts.
This had even recently resulted in a closing statement by an appellant being removed from the DPEA website because of offensive remarks about third party participants to an Inquiry.
SAS had previously raised the issue of such behaviour four years ago, requesting that the SG circular 6/1990 on awards and expenses: https://www.gov.scot/…/planning-circular-6-1990-awards…/needed to be updated to include expenses to be awarded for frankly unacceptable behaviour.
Because the issue of unacceptable behaviour (which increasingly would not be accepted in other walks of life) had still not been addressed, this issue is now included in the SAS Petition to the Scottish Government (Public Petition PE1864 Increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore windfarms | Scottish Parliament Website). This Petition, submitted nearly three years ago with a final decision expected in the New Year, also requests that third parties to Inquiries are provided with advocates to ensure fair representation and behaviour for all parties.
Aileen and DPEA agreed that Reporters now often begin Inquiry proceedings with requests for parties to ‘be kind’ to each other! DPEA has issued guidance to Reporters to intervene when cross examination is considered to be irrelevant. (More work obviously needs done on that!).
This had even recently resulted in a closing statement by an appellant being removed from the DPEA website because of offensive remarks about third party participants to an Inquiry.
SAS had previously raised the issue of such behaviour four years ago, requesting that the SG circular 6/1990 on awards and expenses: https://www.gov.scot/…/planning-circular-6-1990-awards…/needed to be updated to include expenses to be awarded for frankly unacceptable behaviour.
Because the issue of unacceptable behaviour (which increasingly would not be accepted in other walks of life) had still not been addressed, this issue is now included in the SAS Petition to the Scottish Government (Public Petition PE1864 Increase the ability of communities to influence planning decisions for onshore windfarms | Scottish Parliament Website). This Petition, submitted nearly three years ago with a final decision expected in the New Year, also requests that third parties to Inquiries are provided with advocates to ensure fair representation and behaviour for all parties.
Aileen and DPEA agreed that Reporters now often begin Inquiry proceedings with requests for parties to ‘be kind’ to each other! DPEA has issued guidance to Reporters to intervene when cross examination is considered to be irrelevant. (More work obviously needs done on that!).
0 Comments