SNP Councillor Donald Manford has written to the Scottish Government for local government and planning to voice and record his most serious concerns about the interaction currently between the Scottish Planning System and the Ministry of Defence.
Wind turbines in the Uists has been a challenging issue for the Comhairle. More and more communities in the Hebrides are seeking and gaining planning permission for community wind turbines and thus positioning themselves in a very beneficial position in terms of community benefits from renewable energy income. However, in the Southern Isles, time and time again. Planning permission has been refused on the objections of the MOD citing interference by the proposed turbines on the radar surveillance.
Councillor Manford refers to a specific example concerning the North Uist Community Turbine's project to erect 2 turbines that wee to be placed 7 km outside the boundary of the safeguarded zone around the Cletreval Air Defence radar facility - thus, thee would be no constraints to Ny development according to the guidance available at the time. But, the MOD objected.
The full letter is below......
Derek MacKay MSP
Minister for Local Government and Planning
Victoria Quay
Edinburgh
EH6 6QQ
DONALD MANFORD (SNP)
Councillor, Barraigh, Bhatersaigh, Eirisgeigh agus Uibhist a Deas
29 Eoligarry
ISLE OF BARRA HS9 5YD
Telephone: 01871 890288
29th December 2013.
Dear Minister,
SCOTTISH PLANNING SYSTEM AND ITS INTERACTION WITH MoD.
I am writing formally and publicly to voice and record my most serious concern that the current interaction between the Scottish Planning System and the Ministry of Defence has both serious and widespread failings.
For people who have been emboldened by our commitment to renewable energy generation. These failings have caused significant financial losses for many members of our Nation throughout Scotland. Having sometimes expended many tens of thousands of pounds, only to learn that the MoD has an almost unassailable ability to intervene in the process and cause applications to be refused because of unproven alleged impacts on radar installations is surely unacceptable.
On one hand we have statutory legislation and the defined procedure that the legislation supports. On the other hand we are now facing anarchy in our day to day consideration of planning applications, for the simple reason that the MoD seems to be acting outside these defined procedures.
The North Uist Company Community Turbine application is an excellent example of this problem. When the planning application was lodged the 2 proposed turbines were some 7 kilometres outside the boundary of the statutorily safeguarded zone around the Cletreval Air Defence radar facility. The adopted Local Development Plan and the associated Supplementary Guidance on Wind Energy Developments identifies the proposed location of the turbines as being in an area where no constraint to turbine development including any constraint relating to MoD technical sites exists. On this basis, why should the Planning Service require to consult with the MoD on the NUDC application?
Only following the MoD being needlessly consulted, did the MoD hurriedly introduce a new safeguarding map which extended the safeguarding area around the radar site from approximately a 2km radius to a 10nm radius. This extension was just sufficient to “catch” the location of the North Uist Community Turbine project. What evidence is provided that the extension to the statutory safeguarded area was needed for operational defence or security reasons? An identical radar facility at RAF Buchan still retains a safeguarded area approximately 4km in diameter despite considerably greater turbine application activity in the vicinity of the technical site. Recalling that the North Uist Air Defence radar and that at RAF Buchan were considered of insufficient importance to the defence of the Nation to be threatened quite recently with closure; What evidence or operational defence or security reasons have been presented for the hurried extensions? Had the stations been closed would they have needed to be reopened? Do the other similar Air Defence radar facilities which have been closed as a consequence of the MoD spending review require to be reopened?
It does appear that the MoD, despite having signed a memorandum of understanding accepting that it is for the Scottish Government alone to amend legislation, has actively required Planning Authorities to disregard their own statutory development plans and assosciated statutory supplementary guidance. Does this not circumvent the legislative primacy of the Development Plan in the determination of applications? Are the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Safeguarded Aerodromes, Technical Sites and Military Explosives Storage Areas) (Scotland) Direction 2003 which underpin and define the circumstances when the MoD is required to be consulted, effectively disregarded? Have Planning Authorities now acceded to the MoD being consulted on all turbine applications where the turbine height to tip of blade exceeds 11metres or the rotor diameter exceeds 2 metres?
At the sharp end of the planning system we are receiving reports from development control officers recommending refusal of quite small turbines on the basis that an objection from the MoD renders the proposal contrary to the development plan despite the fact that the proposed turbine location is well beyond the outer limit of a safeguarded area within which the MoD has an interest. More crucially, we, as decision makers are not even advised that we are legally entitled to approve such applications without prior notification to Scottish Ministers.
I strongly suggest that there is a very urgent need for a rigorous inquiry into this matter with a view to introducing consistency and clarity in government guidance to planning authorities. The potential loss to North Uist Community will be in excess of £6.4m. As the operation of planning in Scotland is a fully devolved function, is it appropriate for an external agency to intervene as and when it deems appropriate to thwart development proposals that are otherwise fully compliant with the adopted local plan which it has fully accepted? Should it not be a requirement that there is reliance on the current legislative system whereby the MoD will be consulted by the planning authorities only in circumstances where a proposal falls within a statutory safeguarded area as defined in the 2003 direction?
I ask that you give serious consideration to my request.
Yours faithfully
Donald Manford.
