All evidence suggests planning system gets it right on wind farm applications

I write in reference to your story “Two-thirds of wind farm rejections are overturned” (1 August). The growth of onshore wind over the past decade has been a fantastic success, with the sector now providing the bulk of Scotland’s renewable electricity, displacing millions of tonnes of carbon emissions each year and supporting thousands of jobs across the country.

Over that time, the planning system has quite rightly sought to ensure that development is balanced against the need to protect our most valued and iconic landscapes.

This has seen many schemes rejected by ministers in recent years, and the introduction of a complete ban on wind farms in areas designated as National Scenic Areas or National Parks, which rules out development in areas such as The Trossachs, Ben Nevis or Glencoe. There is also “significant protection” in planning policy for areas characterised as wild land by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Government’s advisor on wildlife and landscape.

All the evidence suggests that the planning system is getting the balance right, with record levels of renewable power output, extremely positive tourism numbers, and 73 per cent public support for onshore wind in the UK Government’s most recent poll.

NIALL STUART Chief Executive Scottish Renewables Bath Street, Glasgow

Your article on Holyrood overturning local decisions on wind-driven power stations amplifies the message that in a Central Belt Holyrood there is no place for the voice of rural Scotland. What is surprising, however, is that Central Belt MSPS have failed to cost the impact of granting planning permission to increase the installed capacity of the National Grid to 14,000 MW when the maximum demand is only 5,000 MW. In addition, note that Central Belt MSPS have never answered the questions of what is the mechanism whereby investors receive a return on the billions required to install the units (Neart na Gaoithe alone has a cost of £2bn) or who pays for this largesse. It certainly is not the well-off, the wealthy or rich making a fortune from the cheques issued by the Green Levy schemes. Does that leave only the 40 per cent of Scots living in fuel poverty?

IAN MOIR Queen Street, Castle Douglas

Your leader comment (1 August) suggests that councils do not always get planning decisions right. I couldn’t agree more!

Sometimes it’s wrong for developers, but often it’s wrong for communities. At a recent planning committee meeting, I witnessed the stifling of what remains of local democracy by the very threat of Developer Right of Appeal.

Committee members, freshly trained for their role, had been warned that if they were to vote contrary to a planning official’s recommendation to approve, they would risk the likelihood of an appeal by the developer. This, it was stressed, would be costly for the council.

Thus, despite the clearly held opinion of the members that what they were considering was a wrong development in the wrong place, they were effectively, denied the right to reject it.

There can, in my view, be no clearer argument for the curtailment of the Developer Right of Appeal and, I would suggest, the introduction of a limited Right of Appeal for communities.

SUE HAMILTON Charles Court Limekilns, Fife