Penmanshiel Wind Farm Community Liaison Group (CLG)

Tuesday 23rd October 2012

MINUTES (UNCONFIRMED)

Attendees: David Morrison ( CC) Trevor Kerr (Abbey St Bathans CC) Kim Bannerman ( CC) Pauline Hood ( and Cove CC) Kate Tulloch (Cockburnspath and Cove CC) Rhona Goldie ( CC) Barrie Forrest (Reston and Auchencrow CC) Logan Inglis (Reston and Auchencrow CC) Ruth Elder (RES) Rhona Macalister (RES) - Minutes

1. Apologies for absence

Councillor Michael Cook Tom Dean (Cockburnspath and Cove CC) Rachel Anderson (RES)

2. Welcome and introduction

RE welcomed everyone to the CLG for the proposed Penmanshiel Wind Farm.

3. Approval of minutes from the last meeting

The minutes from the previous meeting were approved as a true and accurate record.

4. Penmanshiel application update

Planning Application Appeal RE explained that RES had submitted an appeal to the DPEA on the grounds of non-determination.

RE explained that under this process Council will still have the opportunity to put forward their recommendations, in a statement much the same way as is normally written for a planning committee.

RE noted that although RES did not formally respond to the June letter from SBC regarding the recommendation to reduce the turbine size to 80m, RES have been in regular contact with the planning officer to let them know of our intentions.

RE talked the group through the timeline for the process noting that on October 3 the DPEA had written to the council to formally inform them that RES had submitted an appeal. From this date the Council has 21 days to formally respond although an additional 7 days would be allowed if needed.

1 01711-002863

[POST MEETING NOTE – SBC submitted their response to the appeal 2 days after the CLG meeting, 25 October]

RE said RES had also submitted Further Environmental Information (FEI) with the appeal. It has been advertised in the News and Edinburgh Gazette that this information is available to the public to view at Duns Contact Centre, Eye mouth Library and SBC Headquarters at Newton St Boswells. It is also available on RES’ Penmanshiel website. http://www.penmanshiel-windfarm.com/the-project/planning-statement-of-appeal.aspx

RE showed the group a copy of the FEI and explained the different sections on landscape, noise and further correspondence with key consultees.

RE said that there is a 28 day consultation period for the FEI which will end on 13 November.

RE told the group that on October 11 a reporter had been appointed for the appeal – Mr Scott Ferrie.

RE explained that a neighbouring wind farm proposal, Blackburn, had submitted their appeal on 10 October and their appeal has also been allocated to Mr Ferrie. RES has proposed a joined public inquiry particularly to deal with issues relating to cumulative effects.

RE explained that the appeal process will include a site visit but the reporter is yet to decide if the appeal is to be decided by written submissions, hearing session or public inquiry.

BF asked if this appeal process has put RES’ plans back.

RE explained that it had actually moved plans forward as if RES had waited for a refusal at committee then it would have been several months later before the appeal would have been made. It is expected that the DPEA could make a decision by May 2013 but it could be earlier.

RE asked the group what they thought about the decision made by RES to appeal on non-determination.

RG said that people on her community council were annoyed because RES had decided to go straight to appeal before the council could make a decision and this therefore acknowledges that RES knew they would be refused by the council.

RE explained that RES wouldn’t have been able to drop the tip height as had been suggested by the planning department and did not agree with the arguments used to justify this suggestion. To do so would have involved having to completely redesign the wind farm layout most likely including more turbines, which many would consider to have a greater visual effect than fewer large turbines. It is also worth noting that even if RES did do this there is no guarantee that the planning committee would have consented the project. Reducing turbine height was suggested to address the Councils landscape concerns but this would not have addressed the cultural heritage objections from Historic and the council archaeologist.

KT asked if this was just Scottish Borders Council’s way of saying they have had enough wind farms in the area.

RE explained that the council’s voice would still be heard during the appeal.

2 01711-002863

BF stated that it is not a certainty that the DPEA will grant the wind farm.

RE agreed that it is not.

DM noted that Blackburn Wind Farm might get a decision at the end of the year and asked RE what she thought they might say to a joined enquiry.

RE said as both wind farms had the same Reporter it was expected that the decision process would be conjoined. At the moment the Blackburn decision date prediction is based on decision by written submissions and the Penmanshiel decision date is based on a public inquiry which would take longer. Once we know what decision method the Reporter will use it is likely that both projects will be decided at the same time.

RE confirmed that everyone who submitted an objection will be written to by the DPEA to ask if they still object to the wind farm.

Met Mast Planning application RE told the group that RES has applied for a two year extension to the Penmanshiel met mast so further wind data can be obtained.

KB asked why more data is needed.

RE explained that it is better to have several years worth of data because there can be quite a variation in wind patterns from one year to the next.

Community Benefit & Local Electricity Discount Scheme

RE moved on to speak about community benefit.

RE explained that previously RES had mentioned to the group that they were exploring the idea of a discounted electricity scheme for communities that are close to the wind farm.

RE explained that RES had carried out research in to this as feedback from communities and individuals had previously shown that a discount on electricity would be desirable.

RE said that the scheme was currently being trialled in Wales by RES and there had been a very positive response. Following the trial RES is hoping to roll the scheme out across all of its proposed wind farm sites in the UK.

PH asked if individuals who are involved in managing community benefit funds had been involved in the research.

RM said she thought it was a cross section of people that she would look in to this and come back to the group.

RE explained that people with the benefit area are asked to register for the scheme but they can also choose not to. It is simple to sign up to the scheme and the money is paid directly to the electricity supplier. It should be noted that registering with the scheme will not be interpreted as support for the wind farm.

3 01711-002863

LI asked if the discount would be based on the output of the wind farm.

RE said the fund is based on a £/MW payment. RES has committed to paying a minimum discount per property of £100 a year but at the Welsh location where it is being trialled RES has been able to offer £225. The minimum discount is based on the average electricity bill in the UK. It will vary from site to site as it takes in to account the number of turbines and geography of houses. RE said that the benefit area covers only those closest to the wind farm.

BF asked how many houses would benefit.

RE said that specific information would not be available until the scheme was rolled out that this will need to be looked at for Penmanshiel but it will be a tight area around the wind farm.

RE explained that the discount electricity scheme as well as the community fund will mean that RES is offering a total of £5,000 per MW. £3,000/MW will be allocated for the discount electricity scheme and £2,000/MW for the standard community fund.

DM stated that it could turn in to a postcode lottery with some people in the area benefiting and others not – including his community council area and other communities that are represented on the CLG.

RE explained that the idea is to benefit those communities that are closest to the wind farm development. The methodology used to calculate the benefit area took measures to minimise a postcode lottery community split and of all the methods considered for determining the area of benefit, this was chosen as the most objective.

KB stated that in rural areas a community can stretch for miles and wouldn’t it be best to give all communities represented by the CLG a discount.

RE explained that the scheme will follow the same process across all RES sites and they cannot be seen as manipulating the areas that will receive the discount. Some sites have many community councils involved and some have a very small number so the scheme had to be based on distance from the site not the number of groups involved in the CLG.

KM said that scheme wouldn’t work the same everywhere as every area is different.

RE explained that RES was working to get the best scheme possible and she will be able to give the group more information once the areas have been worked out for Penmanshiel.

KM asked if the community benefit fund could be split between all the community council areas that sit on the CLG.

RE said that it is up to the CLG how the fund is managed e.g. through the community councils or through a charity or other organisation.

BF asked if there was any more money in the budget for other projects such as the Rail Action Group of Scotland (RAGES).

4 01711-002863

RE said that, as mentioned at the last meeting, she does have money in her budget to support small projects and would be happy to receive requests to support specific schemes.

RM said that she had looked on the RAGES website and if BF can give her further information then RES will look in to it.

BF asked if RES as a company would write to support the reinstatement of Reston Train Station.

RE was not sure if that was something RES would be able to do but would check with her management.

5. Questions on planning application

There were no further questions from the group.

6. Future meeting dates

The group agreed that it would best to wait until a decision is made by the reporter as to what route he chooses to go down in terms of determining the application.

It was decided that the group will reconvene once this is known.

7. Any other business

There was no AOB.

5 01711-002863