Agenda item
Open Question from Member of the Public
Consider question to the Executive Member for Estate Management and Planning from Mr Bell, Tweeddale East Ward:-
“Notwithstanding an overwhelming workload on our planning staff:-
Whilst wind-farm applications decided under the Electricity Act S36 are administered by the Energy Consents Unit [ECU], the relevant Planning Authority is a significant consultee.
As normal practice, other Planning Authorities report on all known external consultee responses, including from members of the public; helping Councillors decide based on best evidence.
SBC don't put public representations to such applications on the SBC website — indeed officers on occasion asserted that ".. third party representations are submitted direct to the ECU and it is for them to account for these matters. You will be aware that we have received a number of representations in relation to this application and I would remind members not to allow these representations to influence your decision making today."
By not taking into account important external consultee responses, our Councillors are potentially not appraised of the full picture of the representations; an approach that is certainly not "best practice" compared with other Planning Authorities.
When will Scottish Borders Council adopt best practice in respect of S36 applications?”
Minutes:
The following question was submitted by Mr Bell from the Tweeddale East Ward:-
“Notwithstanding an overwhelming workload on our planning staff:-
Whilst wind-farm applications decided under the Electricity Act S36 are administered by the Energy Consents Unit [ECU], the relevant Planning Authority is a significant consultee.
As normal practice, other Planning Authorities report on all known external consultee responses, including from members of the public; helping Councillors decide based on best evidence.
SBC don't put public representations to such applications on the SBC website — indeed officers on occasion asserted that ".. third party representations are submitted direct to the ECU and it is for them to account for these matters. You will be aware that we have received a number of representations in relation to this application and I would remind members not to allow these representations to influence your decision making today."
By not taking into account important external consultee responses, our Councillors are potentially not appraised of the full picture of the representations; an approach that is certainly not "best practice" compared with other Planning Authorities.
When will Scottish Borders Council adopt best practice in respect of S36 applications?”
Councillor Mountford, Executive Member for Estate Management and Planning gave the following reply:-
“This is an issue that is raised from time to time as there is considerable misunderstanding of the Council’s roles in the determination of major wind farm proposals.
The first thing to emphasise is the Council is not the decision maker in these cases, nor are these proposals planning decisions in the sense that they are planning applications determined through the statutory process.
Applications are made under Section 36 of the Electricity Act which covers any proposal with an electricity generating capacity of 15megawatts or more are made to the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit for determination. As a result and as part of the application process Scottish Borders Council is only a consultee. The ECU consults the Council in its capacity as planning authority. Our remit is to assess the proposal against development plan policies and make any technical assessments that it has responsibility for, such as landscape and visual impact, access, noise and the affect of these on residential amenity. Our officers are well placed to advise on these matters and the Planning and Building Standards Committee has the final say. Along with Community Councils and other interested third parties we then submit our view to the ECU, we are not, I emphasise, making a decision on the proposal. The view being sought is that of the Council, not of anyone communicating with the Council, as these people and organisations have their own direct line of communication with the ECU. It is not for the Council to duplicate that effort or responsibility. Precisely because the ECU will address any representations directly in its capacity as decision maker. We do, however, report where Community Councils have made comments and if Councillors wish to view these or any other comments they are able to do so by checking the ECU website.
The law does not require us to seek the views of third parties because if we did what Mr Bell is requesting there is a risk that we would find ourselves reflecting the views of only a proportion of those with an interest because they happen to have copied us in. To avoid any confusion, its important that people making comments do so to the decision making body, not to another consultee.
I accept the determination of the proposals under the terms of the Electricity Act is not perfect and the respective roles of the Council and ECU can seem confusing as a result.
But we simply cannot extend the role of the Council within this legislative framework, however desirable that might be.
Mr Bell refers to other local authorities that reports all known external consultee responses, but I don’t know which local authorities he is referring too. Earlier this week I attended a meeting of Scottish Planning Convenors in Edinburgh and none of those that I spoke to was giving as Mr Bell suggests. Mr Bell also requests that SBC adopts what he describes as best practice and again I spoke with the new independent Scottish Planning Champion, it’s a new role and he confirmed that there is no universal standard of best practice because he described that as being a purely subjective notion. Having said that I am confident that SBC’s procedures are good practice. Thank you.”
DECISION
NOTED the reply.