The amended Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 directs that the National Planning Framework must contribute to a series of six outcomes: improving the health and wellbeing of our people; increasing the population of rural areas; meeting housing needs; improving equality and eliminating discrimination; meeting targets for emissions of greenhouse gases; and securing positive effects for biodiversity.

My focus and concern is:

(b) improving the health and wellbeing of people living in rural Scotland

I have direct experience that the health and wellbeing is NOT protected in planning when it comes to windfarm applications as currently ‘Net Zero’ is being allowed to usurp negative evidence demonstrated by councils, their experts and third party objectors and their experts against planning consent for wind turbines. This includes the current noise planning guidance ETSU -R-97 which allows councils, reporters and Scottish Ministers to grant consent to operate wind turbines far too close to homes.

Through working closely with experts on noise emissions from wind turbines and through participating in public inquiries into large scale planning applications into industrial wind turbines we have identified and demonstrated that ETSU -R- 97 does not protect the health and wellbeing of windfarm neighbours.

The process the government recommend is used to manage wind turbine noise is still ‘ETSU-R-97 The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms’ and its associated ‘Good Practice Guide’. The medical profession were not involved in the development of this process and ETSU-R-97 itself actually confides that its veracity and accuracy are questionable.

Regardless, since ETSU-R-97 was orchestrated 25 years ago, wind turbine size and generating capacity has exponentially increased from 60 metre high machines with a generating capacity of under 1MW, to the current turbines being consented in Scotland of up to 260m high with a generating capacity of up to 5.6MW.

The UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recently undertook a scoping review of current UK onshore wind turbine noise assessment guidance.

The FINAL–Scientific_Commentary_on_DBEIS_Scoping_Survey 08-02-2022 (002)(IARO)[i] illustrates the flaws and limitations of the DBEIS scoping review of current UK onshore wind turbine noise assessment guidance.

How can the UK Government and the Scottish NPF4 continue to permit the use of ETSU-R-97 to manage wind turbine noise when its ramifications for public health are unknown?

‘Scientific Commentary on the UK Government’s Department of Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (DBEIS)’ is a ‘Scoping review of current onshore wind turbine noise assessment guidance.’ (Document number IARO21-6 December). Critical issues, relevant for the well-being of the Scottish population are discussed in this report, which need to be addressed before NPF4 is fit for purpose.

The IARO21-3 White Paper on the Harmonic Prominence Measure v4  March 2021[ii] explains why dBAs are not a suitable means of measuring wind turbine noise.

The increasing negative health impacts on affected residents is already steadily developing into a Public Health crisis across Scotland and it is in this context that I submit the attached Report on Harmonic Prominence and Correlation Dochroyle Pharm Report v11[iii],  Ferter Pharm Report v6iv] and  Shalloch Well Pharm Report v5b[v] which were part of the noise evidence presented at the Clauchrie Public Inquiry in South Ayrshire. (WIN-370-3)

As demonstrated through the DETERMINATION – DECISION LETTER 16 November 2021 Redacted  Determination – PI Report – dated 3 August 2021[vi] to consent Arecleoch Extension (Case reference: WIN-370-2): The Reporters state:

The Scottish Government online policy advice 41 on onshore wind turbines says that ETSU-R-97: “should be followed by applicants and consultees, and used by planning authorities to assess and rate noise from wind energy developments, until such time as an update is available. This gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers, and suggests appropriate noise conditions.”

“5.91 The online advice also highlights the Good Practice Guide, which is accepted as current industry good practice. We note that the online advice dates from May 2014. Some of the evidence from Ms Crosthwaite predates this, but much of it is from after this date. Nonetheless, the advice remains extant, and Ministers have not, to date, elected to update or amend it. We note the concerns about the deficiency of an approach using ETSU-R-97, but that is the approach that the Scottish Government currently advises should be taken. It is therefore the approach we follow.”

I would ascertain that the time for an update should be part of NPF4 as the only course of action in order to protect public health and wellbeing.  How can the planning process be fit for purpose if it allows its rural citizens to be subjected to noise pollution which leaves some families with no alternative but to seek refuge in a camper they drive to a location sufficiently far away from the WT’s so as to be able to have a peaceful night’s sleep. Others have opted to sleep away from their home one night per week (either at friends’ or relative’s homes, or at a local inn or hotel). This is particularly important for the people who already have some prior illness.

Sleep deprivation, headaches, tinnitus, nausea and other digestive ailments, nose bleeds, feelings of constant anxiety are all symptoms reported and recorded by those forced to live in the close proximity of industrial wind turbine developments.

An analogy used is the boxer in the boxing ring. Under infrasound contamination, it is as if you were continuously in a boxing ring. In order to provide some respite to the body, it is necessary that the boxer leave the boxing ring and recuperate. Then, he or she can go back into the ring, but not without some respite, some recovery or recuperation.

The World Health Organisation states in its 2018 Environmental Noise Guidelines:

“Further research into the health impacts from wind turbine noise is needed so that better-quality evidence can inform any future public health recommendations properly.”
“Wind turbines can generate infrasound or lower frequencies of sound than traffic sources. However, few studies relating exposure to such noise from wind turbines to health effects are available.”

“The noise emitted from wind turbines has other characteristics, including the repetitive nature of the sound of the rotating blades and atmospheric influence leading to a variability of amplitude modulation, which can be a source of above average annoyance (Schäffer et al., 2016). This differentiates it from noise from other sources and has not always been properly Characterized.”
“Assessment of population exposure to noise from a particular source is essential for setting of health based guideline values. Wind turbine noise is characterized by a variety of potential moderators, which can be challenging to assess and have not necessarily been addressed in detail in health studies. As a result, there are serious issues with noise exposure assessment related to wind turbines.”
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/noise/publications/2018/environmental-noise-guidelines-for-the-european-region-2018

The attached decision letter for Arecleoch Extension demonstrates just how the reporters and Scottish Ministers are able to minimise and dismiss real concerns by councillors, expert witnesses and third-party objectors:

“5.107 We keep in mind Ms Spence’s own experience of noise at her property from the existing wind farms, and the association she makes between that and her ill-health. We also acknowledge Dr Armstrong’s views on that subject. However, whether that association is correct (and, if so, whether or not it is a function of audible sound or infrasound, or both combined), we must return to an assessment based on ETSU-R-97. Noting what it says about offering “a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable burdens on wind farm developers”, and noting the Scottish Government’s endorsement of that approach, Ms Spence’s experiences do not lead us to recommend that the application be refused on the basis of the predicted noise emissions at Dochroyle Farm.

This approach leaves underfunded and inexperienced councils with ultimate responsibility for the health and wellbeing of people impacted by noise from wind turbines and therefore NPF4 does not perform its required outcome. The windfarms under current guidance can therefore appear to be compliant but there is still a case to answer when windfarm neighbours are suffering therefore ETSU -R-97 does not protect neighbours from noise nuisance.

The Scottish Government (Assembly) solely relies on the ETSU-R -97 wind turbine noise guidance The emails to the Scottish Government and the affected victim’s complaint statements, Wind Turbine Noise Complaints Affected receptors 25- 27 February 2022[vii] , form crucial evidence of the, often repeated outcomes when large scale Wind Power Stations are recommended for consent and subsequently consented, far too close to homes: The Email exchanges between  Wind turbine noise victim and Scottish Government. Jan – Feb 2022__[viii] clearly demonstrates how the victim’s impacts are effectively side-lined and it becomes increasingly difficult for windfarm neighbours to gain effective and timely resolution to their justified complaints. This ongoing unacceptable situation is being exacerbated by the ever- increasing size and power of the current turbines proposed and consented.

Justice Richards reaffirms within the Bald Hills judgement: 20220325 Uren v Bald Hills WF 2021 VSC 145[ix] , the significance of the planning balance between the protection of affected residents residential amenity and the deployment of wind turbines by commenting:

“(6) What is the social and public interest value in operating the turbines to generate renewable energy?

The generation of renewable energy by the wind farm is a socially valuable activity, and it is in the public interest for it to continue. However, there is not a binary choice to be made between the generation of clean energy by the wind farm, and a good night’s sleep for its neighbours. It should be possible to achieve both.”

The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) compliance committee is the overarching body made up of lawyers of outstanding ability ensuring that governments obey their own laws. It provides the checks and balance, and every single finding of non-compliance, since the establishment of the compliance mechanism in 2002, has been endorsed by the Meeting of Parties (MoPs) – representatives from all 46 countries who signed the convention-  with the full support of the European Union.

Therefore the European Union’s refusal to accept a ruling made against it, at the latest meeting in September in Montenegro, set a precedent demonstrating that the EU thinks that it is above the law. It verifies a lack of respect for EU law and democracy as we know it.

Pat Swords BE CEng FIChemE CEnv MIEMA attended the Meeting of Parties and this is my brief summary from his  Thoughts on Aarhus MoP 6, the Rule of Law and the EU Comission

A functional democracy has a ‘separation of powers’, the typical division being three branches: a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary. This division of responsibilities is to limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.

“How the EU used its position to bully and block a legal ruling in International Law against it and prevent its citizens accessing their rights to challenge it” makes depressing reading about a fundamental breach of public trust, of corruption which does not bode well for our democracy and BREXIT negotiations.

As Pat says, “we have slow moving train wrecks, which keep repeating themselves, as citizens cannot intervene or more to the point, they are ruthlessly prevented from intervening.” Pat is talking about Ireland, but his comments certainly pertain to Scotland and other areas of the UK: “….peer into the upper strata of a country, whose ‘division of powers’ systematically concentrates decision making into the hands of the few in Central Government, then is it no surprise that the obvious happens. If you are in a position to make decisions over others, then you will most likely do so in a manner which favours yourself and those who support you – and that is the starting point.”

Pat explains the unique workings of the compliance committee, his involvement, and the lack of “fair, equitable, timely and not prohibitively expensive” treatment by the Irish courts.  This same abuse of our public democratic rights is reflected in ‘communications’ from Scotland and other parts of the UK. It serves the vested interests of the few. Pat describes the details of just how the EU Commission tried influence the rulings and the fiasco that followed. He then summed it up:

“What was witnessed at and in the build-up to the 6th Meeting of the Parties was an

unaccountable, unelected bureaucracy abusing the rule of law, both at EU and

International level, to ensure it could not be called to account, by an adequate

‘separation of powers’, in which EU citizens had effective rights to justice. Neither is it acceptable as an EU citizen, to sit powerless in an international forum, and have to

listen to the representatives of other States, namely Norway and Switzerland, stand

up for your rights and prevent abuses of International Law occurring by what is supposed to be the administration, which represents you and your interests.”

This debacle has put the spotlight on the EU’s internal decision-making processes.

It is also worth reading the EEB’s comment on the subject and Jeremy Waite’s whole summary :

As European citizens who care deeply about the democratic values of the EU, we can only feel a sense of shame that the EU has gone into an international forum with a position that threatened to undermine democracy and accountability in a range of countries extending throughout the wider Europe and Central Asia. And the primary reason for this is the European Commission’s stubborn resistance to having its decisions on environmental matters challengeable before the EU courts in the way that the decisions of national authorities may be challenged at national level [Jeremy Wates, EEB Secretary General].

Like Pat, many of us had faith in the ‘system’ and believed that the rule of law would prevail. The disappointment and frustration is palpable.

This does not bode well for the Brexit ‘divorce’ proceedings.

It is time for people to watch and observe, see the dynamics and make their own minds up!

Pat Swords says the issues are not new, they have been happening for centuries; “I would point out the following to people who take the time to watch, downloadable  here. (By the EU clock start at 16:12:30 and run until 16:30:30. You can request the file and it is automatically e-mailed to you.)

Pat Sword’s presentation can be viewed here

Epaw-follow-up-information-on-petition-1338-2012-of-july-2016

• Who does the EU Commission represent, the renewable sector it campaigns for or the rights and welfare of European citizens? Is it of importance that what it presents to a Parliamentary Committee is accurate and not false? After all you can check for yourself. The Commission’s statements in relation to compliance measures it was taking with UNECE had already been rejected as completely inadequate by UNECE to fulfill the EU’s obligations under International Law (link here to UNECE  file). International Law is about diplomacy and consent based governance. There is no enforcement arm of the UN, just a compliance mechanism. As UNECE has warned the EU in their compliance report, failure to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance can lead to the sanction of suspension from the Aarhus Convention on environmental and human rights. As a citizen of a Member State your passport carries both the designation of the EU and your Member State. Do you want your citizenship to be in the premier league or in the league of the laggard States? The latter where your rights are ignored and the ‘fair and transparent framework’ of the Aarhus Convention do not apply, instead decision-making is by the populist consensus, based o  whatever happens to be the current flavour.
• So what are the relevance of the EU Commission’s claimed for benefits, i.e. the carbon dioxide savings? After all in Ireland it has been pointed out by campaigners, see for example link  here, that the official figures for carbon savings are false, as they ignore all the considerable inefficiencies induced on the grid by these highly intermittent renewables. The actual savings are far less, of the order 50% of what is claimed. Embarrassed by this the Irish authorities actually have to admit in their EU renewables progress reports, in relation to claimed for carbon savings, the ‘limitations and caveats’ associated with their methodology and that it only provides a simplified analysis with “initial insights”. So what the EU Commission stated to the EU Parliament, is what everybody with a reasonable technical grasp realises to be grossly inflated numbers. Even worse, even if these grossly inflated numbers were to be true, they are still only 1% of the global annual carbon emissions of circa 35 billion tonnes, while temperatures have essentially been static over the last 18 years. So where are we actually going with this wonderful unilateral action, as other countries are not going to rush headlong down this route? Is it not of concern that such belief systems, grounded in the assumption that these renewables could actually influence the weather, are quickly shown by simple analysis to be disillusional? Also see co2-emissions-resulting-from-wind-farm-construction by Paul Miskelly
• Mark Twain was so accurate when he stated: “In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.” Sometimes also religion and politics intermingle, particularly when the apparatus of the State is used to impose a set of beliefs on others. Is this a conclusion now applicable to the EU?
• H.L. Mencken was another American journalist, satirist and cultural critic of the early 20th Century. As he so rightly pointed out: “(1) For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. (2) The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. (3) The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule”. So what have we learnt since then, what systems of ‘checks and balances’ have been put in place and implemented?
• Has the EU moved forward or backwards? Is it dominated by the anointed elite?: As Thomas Sowell, an American economist and philosopher of the later 20th Century put it so aptly:“Systemic processes tend to reward people for making decisions that turn out to be right—creating great resentment among the anointed, who feel themselves entitled to rewards for being articulate, politically active, and morally fervent. 
• The ‘press’ is meant to be the fourth estate in our Democracy, but there is really no evidence of this at all, no investigative work, no holding to account. So if people want to spend time reading, listening and watching their output, then so be it. You’ll find out about about the sporting events, you’ll find out about the personal lives of  celebrities and politicians but if you believe that you are going to be informed about what is going on in the World around you, you are delusional. After all as Mark Twain put it, ‘if you don’t read newspapers, you are uninformed, if you do read newspapers, you are misinformed’. So now in the 21st Century where are we going? We do have websites and other social media tools, personal contacts, etc. which can be used to draw attention to them. The first part of Mark Twain’s quotation may no longer hold true, as alternatives are available, not least an actual video recording of what happened for download (16:12:30 to 16:31:00), which can then put on a website for access. We also have the documents which were presented there and used to support the presentation. The second part of the Mark Twain quote is really down to the wider public, if they don’t take personal responsibility to inform themselves of what is actually going on, they will remain grossly uniformed and as a result others will take the opportunity to make decisions over them. Is this right and proper? 
• Here is a clear indication as to why so many in the UK voted Brexit: because of unaccountable arrogance  in those entrusted to administer and govern equitably in the EU.

The following is a response to the editor awaiting possible publication:

Dear Sir,

Re. Iain Ramage’s excellent article ‘Health campaigners take windfarm battle global.’  As one of those quoted, I can testify that campaigners are very used to seeing written and hearing the kind of rhetoric spoken by Ms. Clark of Scottish Renewables from all industry trade bodies, both here and around the world.  Once the public are finally permitted to see the truth, it will be interesting to see just how long the wilful blindness exhibited by such comments can be either defended or justified. Thankfully a direct link to the two letters sent to the World Health Organisation is now available, so that people can decide exactly what is missing and what is needed for their protection:

Together with the letter providing links to many respected and peer reviewed reports, is the Open Letter to the members of the panel developing the WHO Environmental Noise Guidelines for the European  Region with signatures such as Colin Hanson and many other top flight medical, acoustic and engineering experts from around the world. Not so easily dismissed Stephanie…..

Yours sincerely,

Christine Metcalfe.

WHO Press Release

Comments are the result of research and dialogues, not only with professionals, but many at the grass roots of society both here and abroad who are now experiencing what it is like to live with the results of imposed energy policies. Having experienced the professionalism and humanity shown by the Committee during their handling of my complaint ACCC/C/2012/68  and subsequent ratification of their decision, I should like to join others in voicing appreciation of the work undertaken in all aspects of the subjects in hand by Committee members. 

My comments on the second progress report from the UK on Decision V/9n and the position of the UK on matters of energy policy involving articles of the Aarhus Convention and wind power can be downloaded here: Comment on the 2nd. progress report from the UK on Decision V.9n. Final (1)

Mrs. V (Christine) K. Metcalfe.

The main points include

1. On Access to Justice and the important issue of judicial reviews I comment as follows:

a.    I will not be alone in finding grounds for grave concerns over plans to curtail judicial reviews as outlined……….

b. If implemented the UK would be inviting further and justified complaints to the ACCC from UK citizens adversely affected by such curtailments.

c. As the UK (and Ireland’s) common law system has been allowed to develop into a bad and challengeable cost basis, it should perhaps be remembered that the Compliance Committee can tire of non-compliance or delaying tactics as they have with those of the EU………

d. Judicial reviews are ‘part and parcel’ of the public participation process so it follows that having being found non-compliant with Article 7 before (as in ACCC/C/2012/68) it makes little sense to risk a repeat ruling………….

e. The Judiciary have an obligation to be efficient and productive, just like everybody else in society…….. See

f. The destruction of Scottish Power by Euan Mearns . is a guide to the current situation being faced in the UK (and Ireland as another member State).  It reinforces the widely held view that many planning deals have been agreed long before they go to planning, which reduces the likelihood of any being ultimately refused.   That this is ‘par for the course’ can be shown by examining page 17 of : http://westcorkwind.com/images/Adobe/EPAW_N-S.pdf  of interest to the Committee will also be p.74  8.2  covering ‘How the EU’s Renewable Targets won’t be met, particularly by the UK.’

2. .The problems being faced by UK citizens, and especially those residing in Scotland when looking at the overall picture of Aarhus Compliance, is that whilst public participation takes place to a degree via consultations and Freedom of Information requests, the results and suggestions made are rarely taken up. Essentially public participation exercises become a ‘box ticking’ method of compliance and little if anything, improves. FoI requests can be lengthy and time consuming with Government agencies and departments often taking way beyond the time allocated for replies. A prime example of this has been the dialogue held with the CAA over Air traffic Safety involving wind turbines radar and turbulence issues. The questions related to the FoI are yet to be answered despite numerous assurances since October 2015 that a reply will be sent. That response is here  Freedom of Information Act request F0002371.with questions demonstrating the seriousness of this little appreciated aspect.

Replies received are often seriously redacted using ‘business confidentiality’ or ‘intellectual property rights’ to avoid giving the information required. Examples rendering the information provided almost useless are attached as ‘Screggagh_Report_Redacted – ’ (a turbine collapse incident for which more information and reports are available upon request) and ‘Sneddon Law windfarm, Annex A– FOI2015 2654pdf.

Other examples relevant to public participation difficulties occur. One such being the refusal of Scottish Water to provide a report requested under FoI regulations by the Non Government Organisation the John Muir Trust (JMT) relating to a water pollution incident in North Lanarkshire. It is not unreasonable that the JMT feel that 7 months is long enough to wait for an outcome of this request. These environmental problems are occurring and the public are essentially powerless, despite apparently having protective legislation in place.
As in the SW refusal: ”In this case the public interest in making the information available is outweighed by that in maintaining the exception.”
It is abundantly clear however, that there can be no better example of where the public interest is better served than publishing information on a pollution incident that affected many people’s drinking water.

In respect of water contamination and wind power developments, the experience at the Whitelee wind farm development outside Glasgow airport in Argyll Scotland should be outlined due once again, to its importance and relevance not only to articles of the Convention but breaches of EU water Directives.

Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) monitored private water supplies for 7 years and were fully aware of contamination and yet did not comply with planning conditions (for the Whitelee Extension) to notify the local authority, or local residents at any time. ……………………………………………..

During the height of Whitelee windfarm construction in 2008, the degree of bacterial contamination in untreated drinking water reliant on the Whitelee windfarm water catchment area was recorded up to 730,000 coliforms/100ml in 2008 (UK and WHO standard = 0) This was considerably worse than drinking untreated drinking water from the Limpopo river in Mozambique in 2004, which at its worst was 870/100ml. (Challenges Facing Drinking Water Production In Mozambique- A Review Of Critical Factors Affecting Treatment Possibilities Matsinhe N. P et al Submitted for publication in the Journal Water Science and Technology). (WHO recognise Mozambique as a third world country with very limited availability of treated public water)In 2015, untreated private water supplies were supplying over 3% of Scotland’s population with an estimated 150,000 PWS, mostly in rural Scotland (Scottish Government Figures 2015) In contrast to the untreated water in Mozambique, over the course of windfarm construction at Whitelee, 2006 to 2013, monitored PWS regularly had bacterial contamination running into the thousands. These PWS, like most PWS in Scotland, had previously shown only intermittent low level contamination………………..

Scottish water (SW) was contracted by SPR to monitor the PWS and provide accredited results. SW was therefore fully aware of the dangerous, contamination levels found in these test results. When contacted, SW’s response about the failure to disclose this public health information, (Prof. Simon Parsons, Customer liaison and services development manager) was that their duty was to protect commercial client confidentiality. This was surely a conflict of interest with the prospect of profit out weighing public health concerns. SW did not/would not, even notify in confidence, the local Consultant in Public Health (CPHM) so that the Local Authority could independently confirm results and allow private consumers to take simple measures like boiling water or drinking bottled water.

To compound this, Scottish Water regularly failed to meet standards for public potable water from the Amlaird water treatment works, because of the deteriorating quality of raw water from the two public reservoirs on the Whitelee Windfarm site. (Monitoring data over this period has been obtained from SW and SPR from relating to surface, groundwater and public reservoir raw water and potable water monitoring data.) DIRECTIVE 2004/35/CE ‘Request for Action’ submitted to the Scottish Government and being ‘reviewed by SEPA shows water test results from other water treatment works, demonstrating that this is a growing problem recurring at other reservoirs on SW land associated with windfarm development. Groundwater monitoring at Whitelee windfarm also demonstrated EU list 1 pollutants appearing in groundwater over 400 times the allowable drinking water levels, as well as increase in minerals (iron, manganese and aluminium) more than 20 times over baseline and well above allowable statutory levels in drinking water.

Surface water monitoring at Whitelee also demonstrated a documented deterioration from monitoring conducted both by Glasgow and Edinburgh Universities and by SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency)over seven years , such that contrary to requirements of the Water Framework Directive(WFD),( EU Water Framework Directive(2000/60/EC, Article 7 (7)) there was a deterioration of the overall status of water bodies arising from the Whitelee windfarm site persisting until at least 2013.

Failures to comply with the WFD, transposed into Scottish Law, have clearly been breached with documented evidence in relation to the public water supply from Whitelee windfarm site:
Drinking Water Protected Areas have to be protected with the aim of avoiding any deterioration in their quality that would compromise a relevant abstraction of water intended for human consumption. A supply intended for human consumption would be compromised if as a result of deterioration in the quality of the water body:

an abstraction (or planned abstraction) of water intended for human consumption
– has to be abandoned and an alternative used to provide the supply;
– water abstracted (or planned to be abstracted) has to be blended with water
– abstracted from another source
– additional purification treatment has to be applied; or
– the operating demand on the existing purification treatment system has to be
– increased significantly.
N.B. All of the above are documented in response to FoI requests to have occurred in relation to the Public water supply from the Whitelee windfarm site.

At Whitelee SW ‘host’ 60 of SPR’s turbines on a public water catchment area, which is supposedly protected under statute under the terms of the Water Framework Directive (The Water Environment (Drinking Water Protected Areas)(Scotland) Order 2013, amended from 2007.)
First Minister Alex Salmond pushed through a bill requiring SW to ‘develop’ its resources for renewable energy purposes in 2012. This involved an important amendment to the Water Industry (Scotland) Act 2002. Section 25 of the Water Resources (Scotland) Act 2013 In Support of Renewable Energy

…………………………………………………………………….

Despite investigation and remedial upgrades to the Amlaird WTW, SW has still been unable to consistently produce potable water to statutory standards. Following enforcement action from the Drinking Water Quality Regulator (DWQR), SW’s solution is to abandon the two Whitelee reservoirs and build a new, approximately 30 km, 1m wide pipeline to supply water from north of Glasgow (Loch Katrine) to over 50,000 consumers in Kilmarnock, surrounding towns and the Irvine valley – all paid for by the public purse at a cost of many millions of pounds, whilst the profits from hosting these 60 turbines are fed into Scottish water Horizons Ltd.
The DQWR’s role in all of this (in unison with SW) is to publicly deny that there is, or has been a problem for public water which has resulted from windfarm construction.

…………………………………………………………..

It is perhaps relevant that water pollution is no different to the smells, noise and polluting fumes as regards page 60 …………………………………………………………………..

3. Of particular relevance to issues of public participation is the fact, as noted by various UK groups and individuals, is that we are now all at risk of being unable to follow through with complaints in the UK Courts.
Mr. Paul Mobbs for example, notes his concerns which serve to highlight Aarhus Convention problems arising in his warnings found at : http://www.theecologist.org/essays/2986484/uk_government_attacks_public_right_to_environmental_justice.html ………………………………………………………………………………………

4. Current unprecedented flooding events in the UK can be associated with areas where the developments of wind farms have aided the potential for increased water run-off in the upper reaches of river catchments. Indeed the Environmental Statement for Whitelee wind farm predicted a 10% increased flood risk for the River Irvine lasting for 10 years. This river flooded in Kilmarnock last year trapping shoppers who were rescued by boat. Evidence of other towns being similarly affected is compounded by a study from Aberdeen University which can be viewed at http://bankssolutions.co.uk/powys/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/7-Smith-et-al-Windfarms-on-undegraded-peatland.pdf

Conclusion. The UK would appear to be no further forward in fulfilling full compliance with the Articles of the Aarhus Convention as cited in Decision V9n concerning United Kingdom. It is hoped that the Committee will feel able to ask for more information should any of the issues raised need further clarification or more supporting documents.