LWP application
The revised application was supported unanimously by the Environmental Services Committee this morning, and will now go forward to the full Council meeting next Thursday at 7pm.
A couple of Councillors indicated their intention to move a motion against at full Council, and were unable to do so as they were not members of the Committee. However, I allowed a very free and open debate today so that all the objections could be raised.
The DTZ report commissioned by the RSPB was stated to be based on a desktop study and conversations with officials in both CnES and WIE. Unfortunately, DTZ cannot remember who they spoke to in both CnES and WIE, but are now claiming that they sent the list of officers to the Comhairle earlier this week. Our officers would have spoken openly and freely with DTZ, but they are clear that they never had any conversation prior to this week.
This raises huge questions about the accuracy of the information that they have produced, and may go some way to explaining the ridiculousness of some of the figures. We are going to have to bring these misleading statements to the attention of the Scottish Executive, as our officers are being abused to cover for the RSPB's desperate tactics.
6 comments:
Bit of a quiet week at the council, then? :-)
Having read the DTZ report, and knowing a little bit about economics (but I am not an economist), it would seem that they have exposed the crazy figures produced by Regeneris for Amec. The Fraser of Allander Institute also agrees. I'm going to assume that these consultants and academics know much more about economics than anybody in the Comhairle or WIE, and possibly more than staff at Regeneris. Obviously, you are never going to accept counter claims to the economic impact assessment produced for Amec because you want to believe the scheme will be a success.
Having read much of the ES, it is hugely biased. For example, their (very opaque) economic assessment assumes that increased house prices are a solely positive impact when the flip-side is of course the erosion of affordability - but that is ignored. In addition, Amec did not undertake a robust tourism impact study i.e. they assume that any impact is negligible without any project-specific evidence. That shows a complete disregard for the precautionary principle which is regarded as best practice in EIA. There are indeed studies which suggest that wind farms do not have much impact on tourism but this is not your average wind farm. Results from surveys published in these studies also suggest that a fairly substantial minority of visitors would not return to areas with wind farms. Impacts are contingent on the context of the development but Amec have chosen to ignore this and not undertake an appropriate impact assessment using a bespoke visitor survey. Was this a deliberate evasion because they were worried of the findings or poor advice? Possibly both. To describe the ES economic impact as 'rose-tinted' would be an understatement to say the least! That is because there is no such thing as an independent report. Findings and conclusions are bent towards what the developer wants to hear i.e. jobs a good'un, everyone's a winner. If I had to bet on which economic assessment reflected 'real' life outcomes then I'd put my money on DTZ's.
It is understandable that you want to believe the figures but I think you, and many others in the council who support the proposal, should keep an open mind. It is clutching at straws, in my opinion, to rubbish DTZ's report on the basis of whether they did, or did not, have discussions with Comhairle or WIE staff. This does not undermine the general vailidity and accuracy of their findings. As for misleading statements, as I say, Amec's ES is riddled with them. As someone who works on wind farm projects, the Lewis scheme has provided plenty of fuel for conversation in the office. We would not have done what Amec has chosen to do by not undertaking a thorough tourism impact assessment. Their weak and biased assessment will almost certainly go against them during the planning inquiry - they obviously weren't thinking ahead. We undertake such studies for vastly smaller projects for that very reason, to show as far as possible that tourism would not be affected. Many of my colleagues (who are specialists in particular aspects of EIA) think that the scheme is hugely inappropriate for the area because of its size and resultant impact on an internationally designated site....it’s the kind of scheme that we wouldn't touch for all the tea in China! I'm all for renewables on the island, which is also my homeland, but not at any price.
machaseo: I post to provoke comment and to challenge assumptions. I don't claim to be infallible, but as I am prepared to put my head above the parapet, I think I have earned the right to provoke.
1. Councillors are forbidden from expressing an opinion on a particular application not on a generality. I am on record supporting more social housing. That doesn't stop me sitting on planning applications for housing developments.
2. I wanted an animated picture. Find me another, and I'll happily use it.
3. Because it is inaccurate and built on falsehoods. I am appalled that the Committee has received such a document. False statements submitted to such an important decision making process is a serious matter. I trust you agree?
4. If the Comhairle's name is being improperly used (by any party) should we accept that?
I've been reading Anon's posting, and very thought provoking it is too. Whilst respecting his anonymity, I would like to understand his knowledge base as this would help me understand and better weigh up his arguments.
Looking at the DTZ report, is suggests that a 10% loss of tourism will cost £4m and 140 jobs. That gives each job a GDRP ("Gross Domestic Regional Product") of about £28,500. Crudely, this is a measure of the total income they generate directly and indirectly from their employment. By comparison, I estimate each fisherman generates £40-£45k directly from landings, or at least £50-£55k including indirects.
Assuming tourism generates the average GRDP for the Western Isles (and I would argue that it is lower than average) then applying the £28,500 average to all 9,908 people in (self-)employment gives a GRDP of £283m. As the best estimate for the Western Isles is a total of £263m, the remaining 16,00 pensioners, unemployed and children must have a negative average net income!
More realistically, assume tourism earns 50% above the island GRDP per capita and represents the mean GRDP per person in employment (assume an average of £15k generated between each full time job in hotels, B&B's etc.) and the average for the pensioners, unemployed and children is a bit under £7k, which seems about right.
This implies that tourism is worth about £20m to our local economy, which I *feel* is nearer the correct figure.
This has implications for the assessment of the LWP application ... (I'm in purdah until Thursday).
Finally, I hope the SE will come to a decision quickly so we can get on with our lives, whatever the outcome. The worst outcome will be a Public Inquiry which will drag on forever, and not satisfy anyone. With the Beauly-Denny pylons estimated to take three years to complete, how clould there be any decsiion on LWP until you know where the cables are going?!?
My gut feeling is that it will be a decision later this year, and the last thing I want is to be Convener after the next elections and facing having to go through this all again. (this may be a joke!)
Angus,
I am glad that my comments were of use. I work for a planning and environmental consultancy and, although I recently started in my career, I would like to think that I have a reasonably balanced view and knowledge base regarding renewables. I don't see development in a black or white case but in this instance I do believe that the scale of development is inappropriate for its location.
There is one major problem with Amec's application - the development is on an a site protected by the European Habitats Directive. This has enormous implications for the Amec's proposal, as you probably already know. Over-riding public interest is the only basis on which this application will be consented. Amec's argument on this basis appears very flawed and weak to say the least. They must prove without any doubt that the development would not lead to a detrimental impact on the Lewis Peatlands SAC/RAMSAR/SPA,etc and protected species. I think they are unlikely to prove this. SNH, if they are doing their statutory duty will object. Even, if this objection is overridden by the Executive, approval does not guarantee that the proposal will go ahead. A protracted inquiry could happen or the RSPB will mount a legal challenge and drag the application through the European courts. I think Amec are very unlikely to win their case. In short, I wish Amec would save everybody a lot of time and stop wasting tax-payers money by withdrawing their proposal. My boss, who is a planner with 12-years experience, believes they don’t have a snowball’s hope in hell, so why bother. Discretely located renewables projects would be much more appropriate for Lewis.
Amec need to prove there are no alternatives to this project. The regulations for testing for alternatives states that the competent authority (the Scottish Executive in this instance, as the wind farm is over 50MW) must first satisfy itself that there are not, or are not likely to be:
• Suitable and available sites which are reasonable alternative; or
• Different practicable approaches to the completion of the proposal which would have a lesser impact on the European Site.
I would argue that there are “different practicable approaches to the completion of the proposal” if considered in a national context. The overriding public interest in this development (and the only argument for granting permission) should be considered in a national context. Indeed, on one hand Amec repeatedly refers to the national interest in terms of the potential contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy targets. However, on the other, socio–economic benefits when considered in a national context, especially in terms of net employment generation, are marginal at a local level (if DTZ’s assessment is considered reasonable) and negligible at a national level. Local (Western Isles) socio-economic impacts should not be given equivalent weighting in this case. I believe that if the application goes to Europe, the alleged employment benefits would not be given the same weighting as the alleged contribution to Scotland’s renewable energy base.
Amec have chosen to consider alternatives in the context of the Western Isles only. Why? In theory, therefore, any development using arbitrary and constricting geographical boundaries, and fixed objectives (e.g. economic regeneration in the Western Isles), could be justified on this basis. For example, applying the test employed by Amec to a proposal for a new nuclear power station would suggest that firstly a local authority would be chosen for the development e.g. Clackmannanshire (regardless of whether this location was entirely suitable and despite alternatives). Then the developer would argue that no alternative site, other than the one they initially chose, can be found within the local authority area that can meet the project’s objectives. This does not appear to be a sound, or justifiable, rationale and I believe this does not comply with EU regulations. A genuine assessment of alternatives for a proposal of national significance, which it is, would incorporate a search of sites across the country and would not be restricted to the Western Isles. Furthermore, a genuine assessment may conclude that several sites across Scotland could potentially accommodate the equivalent output of the Lewis wind farm proposal (and vastly more efficiently if built close to large centres of population). The latter point is important. It may be concluded that expanding existing wind farm sites could accommodate the equivalent output of the Lewis scheme without the negative impact on the Lewis Peatlands. Furthermore, jobs would be created across Scotland and even the defunct Arnish may still benefit. Amec, like any developer, do not have a right to develop. I just wish they would see that.
They did not choose Lewis for altruistic reasons alongside the fight against climate change. They chose Lewis (an inefficient location) because they could make a vast profit (wind farms do indeed make a lot of money for developers) and they knew they would get an easy ride from the council, which would go in their favour with the Executive. I can assure you, an equivalent proposal would not even get past the scoping stage anywhere else in Scotland. Indeed, I know of a number of smaller proposals (not even located on internationally designated sites) which did not make it past this stage for a variety of reasons.
Angus, I do hope you make the right decision but please do not be short-sighted in your belief that, despite the negatives, Amec’s proposal will overwhelmingly benefit Lewis. There are more appropriate alternatives, which can still be considered, that can deliver better outcomes for the Western Isles.
i reckon that since like most things forced on us by 'on-high' (ie the -currently- labour gov.) it is going to come anyway and since the planet is in dire straights and the government will want green sources of power quickly that windmills are better any day than nuclear power stations. You are not going to win this one machaseo - and not just because of Angus!
Post a Comment