Wind farms in Faray: EIR release

Information requested

1. If workers accommodation similar to that at Stymilders were to be replicated on the small uninhabited island of Faray, which is a reasonable assumption to make given the additional travel time if workers were located elsewhere off the island, would this also be considered “permitted development” under the conditions of consent? If workers accommodation were to be located in another place would the negative welfare and health and safety impacts on the workforce be subject to impact assessment prior to work commencing? If workers accommodation was located on the island how many workers would be accommodated there; how would it be powered; would diesel storage and a vehicle  compound be required for construction vehicles; would the required site toilet facilities be subject to a full EIA before they are constructed?

2. Due to the remoteness of Faray will those facilities be required to be left there for visiting repair workers? How will the wildlife be affected by such an inhabited camp and compound? Has NatureScot taken this into account?

3. I also note that there is no mention of any subsea cable required to take the power from the island. In the unlikely event that any significant amount of energy is ever produced from wind turbines on Faray, how will it be exported without a subsea cable?

4. I also note that a distance of 50 metres has been given between man and seals yet current advice is 100 metres (see attached advice)

5. In your response to me you mention two borrow pits being approved by the minister, these pits will have to be of a considerable size and likely change the islands landscape for ever as the council’s contractors will have to make roads, hard standing, a slip way and pier let alone if they are used for the turbine bases. Has this all been taken into consideration?

6. We note that NatureScot has looked at habitat loss. Have they taken into consideration the area required for construction roads, borrow pits, vehicle compounds and welfare facilities for the construction years and how that will affect the seal’s access to their normal breeding areas?

Although the minister has approved all three OIC turbine clusters, has their significant cumulative and combined negative impact been assessed alongside the turbine clusters already approved, and in relation to the significant cumulative and combined negative effect of the required infrastructure, including subsea cabling, will undoubtedly have on Orkney’s main economic sectors, agriculture and inshore fishing, and on Orkney’s ancillary visitor sector?

7. What qualifications or training in planning does or did the Minister who took these decisions have to overrule nearly all advice given by the minister’s own experts?

Do all ministers read all the required information on the applications or just the information and request to approve note sent out by the minister?

Response

As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations. We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes. This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

1. If workers accommodation similar to that at Stymilders were to be replicated on the small uninhabited island of Faray, which is a reasonable assumption to make given the additional travel time if workers were located elsewhere off the island, would this also be considered “permitted development” under the conditions of consent? If workers accommodation were to be located in another place would the negative welfare and health and safety impacts on the workforce be subject to impact assessment prior to work commencing? If workers accommodation was located on the island how many workers would be accommodated there; how would it be powered; would diesel storage and a vehicle  compound be required for construction vehicles; would the required site toilet facilities be subject to a full EIA before they are constructed?

Answer: Permitted development rights (PDR) apply to certain developments where these developments meet all the requirements of the particular class applicable. While it is for the relevant planning authority to consider whether or not any particular development benefits from PDR, if the authority is satisfied that it meets the appropriate criteria then it is deemed to have planning permission by virtue of that permitted development right and the planning authority cannot require a planning application or prevent the development.

With a few exceptions, such permitted development rights do not apply if the development requires an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). They also do not apply if the development is likely to have a significant effect on a Special Area of Conservation or Special Protection Area, unless the developer receives written approval from the local planning authority. The planning authority could give such approval if it ascertains (taking account of any advice received from NatureScot) that the development would not adversely affect the integrity of the site. This again would be a matter for Orkney Islands Council.

In regard to the hypothetical question of workers’ accommodation on Faray, it would be for the planning authority to consider as an individual and separate case from the accommodation at Stylmilders. The fact that one workers’ accommodation site benefits from PDR does not automatically mean that another one in a different location would benefit from PDR. The comments above regarding situations where PDR do not apply would be relevant to any consideration of such a facility on Faray.

Your queries regarding the arrangements and servicing of any such accommodation should be directed to the developer.

2. Due to the remoteness of Faray will those facilities be required to be left there for visiting repair workers? How will the wildlife be affected by such an inhabited camp and compound? Has NatureScot taken this into account?

Answer: The PDR for temporary accommodation type development have a condition that the accommodation be removed and the land restored to its original state pre-development once the development which it is associated with has been completed, but that would be a matter for the relevant planning authority to consider – as would any enforcement action to require removal if that became necessary. It would be possible for the developer to submit a planning application to retain some or all of the development beyond any term allowed by the PDR but again that would be a separate matter. 

3. I also note that there is no mention of any subsea cable required to take the power from the island. In the unlikely event that any significant amount of energy is ever produced from wind turbines on Faray, how will it be exported without a subsea cable?

Answer: The Scottish terrestrial planning system only extends to Mean Low Water Springs (except in the case of fish farms). The EIA report / supporting information indicated that connection of the proposed development to the grid will be subject to a separate consenting process.

4. I also note that a distance of 50 metres has been given between man and seals yet current advice is 100 metres (see attached advice)

Answer: The decision letter on the planning application sets out in full the grounds for the decision. We cannot comment beyond what is set out in the decision letter, but can confirm that the Scottish Ministers’ conclusions took account of the evidence presented by the applicant and other parties including NatureScot and objectors. The conditions of the planning permission include requirements for method statements detailing how to reduce/avoid environmental impacts including to minimise disturbance from construction activity, of grey seals out with their breeding season and harbour seals. A condition prohibits site works during the grey seal breeding and pup moult period.

5. In your response to me you mention two borrow pits being approved by the minister, these pits will have to be of a considerable size and likely change the islands landscape for ever as the council’s contractors will have to make roads, hard standing, a slip way and pier let alone if they are used for the turbine bases. Has this all been taken into consideration?

Answer: Any development that is not part of a consent may require planning permission. It would be for the planning authority to consider any matters relating to potential future development.

6. We note that NatureScot has looked at habitat loss. Have they taken into consideration the area required for construction roads, borrow pits, vehicle compounds and welfare facilities for the construction years and how that will affect the seal’s access to their normal breeding areas?

Although the minister has approved all three OIC turbine clusters, has their significant cumulative and combined negative impact been assessed alongside the turbine clusters already approved, and in relation to the significant cumulative and combined negative effect of the required infrastructure, including subsea cabling, will undoubtedly have on Orkney’s main economic sectors, agriculture and inshore fishing, and on Orkney’s ancillary visitor sector?

Answer: In relation to your queries about what impacts and issues were considered – these are detailed in the decision letter, the reporter’s report and the environmental impact assessment report. A borrow pit method statement must be submitted as part of the construction and operational management plan required by a condition of the planning permission.

7. What qualifications or training in planning does or did the Minister who took these decisions have to overrule nearly all advice given by the minister’s own experts?

Do all ministers read all the required information on the applications or just the information and request to approve note sent out by the minister?

Answer: On appointment, the Planning Minister receives training on the role from planning officials, including the Chief Planner, and also receives ongoing advice and learning opportunities to support performance of those ministerial duties. Where a case is called in and referred to DPEA, the appointed reporter examines the proposals in detail and prepares a report and recommendation for Scottish Ministers. The planning minister must make the final decision, on behalf of Scottish Ministers, and in so doing, it is for him or her to consider the appropriate weight to attach to each of the determining issues. It is the role of Planning, Architecture and Regeneration Division officials, as specialist civil servants, including RTPI chartered planners, to consider the reporter’s report and case in detail and provide impartial advice on the merits of an individual case to allow the planning minister to make an informed decision.

Where an application raises interests for another Minister’s portfolio, the advice to the Planning Minister is copied to such other Minister(s), for information/awareness only.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at http://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.