John Thurso MP

"Draft Strategy a welcome start but more work needed"

Local MP John Thurso, commenting on his submission to the Highland Council in response to the Highland Renewable Energy Draft Strategy, said:

"Since 2002 I have been pressing the need for a strategic approach to renewable energy development in the North Highlands and I therefore commend the Highland Council on having produced this document. Most importantly, it will allow public debate on many of the difficult issues and that is welcome.

"The vision statement is one which I support but I do have concerns, which I have expressed, on the detail and in particular with mass development of large-scale on-shore wind farms.

"The North is now a net exporter of renewable energy. All new developments are for export. The important point is therefore to ensure that future developments bring quality jobs and provide lasting economic benefit. In this regard, I want to see more work done to measure the impact on existing business of these developments and to give real benefit to locals".

The submissions is summed up by its conclusion:

"I welcome this Draft Strategy and the opportunity it has given for measured public debate. I urge the Strategy to give weight to wet renewables, to local and community schemes and to supporting alternative energy research at Dounreay. I urge caution with regard to large-scale on-shore wind development and further assessment of the economic benefits measured against the social and environmental liabilities. In particular, I urge that local and direct economic benefit be the principal criterion for assessing new development."

John Thurso added:

"This is a welcome start to a sound strategy but more work needs to be done, and local people must be fully involved in the debate."

John Thurso's full submission is below:

John Thurso, MP

13th January, 2006

Mr. John Rennilson,

Director of Planning and Development,

Highland Council,

Glenurquhart Road,

INVERNESS,

IV3 5NX

Further to publication of the Draft "Highland Renewable Energy Strategy", I have pleasure in submitting my response.

1. Overall

1.1 You will no doubt be aware of the correspondence which I have had with the current and previous Convener of the Highland Council in which I urged that renewable energy be developed within a clear strategic framework. I would therefore like to congratulate THC on producing this draft which has, and which I hope will continue, to stimulate sensible public debate.

1.2 I believe that climate change - and CO2 emissions in particular - represent the greatest threat to man's future. At a national level, it is therefore imperative that we have an energy policy which favours the most carbon efficient energy production, coupled with proactive measures for energy conservation. THC's strategy, rightly, identifies that the Highlands can contribute in both areas, particularly in the generation of renewable energy, which I welcome.

1.3 The strategy sets out in Chapter 3 a vision for renewable energy exploitation which is captured in the vision statement on page 9. This statement recognises that all developments bring both advantages and liabilities (or disbenefits) and seeks to set out a balance. Whilst I concur with the vision as set out, for which I believe there will be widespread support, I am concerned in respect of how it will be interpreted, and with some of the detail which I set out below.

1.4 The key factor in all development must be that the economic benefits outweigh by a sufficient margin the social and environmental liabilities thus creating a lasting positive impact. With regard to renewable development, therefore, the key test must be that it provides lasting and quantifiable economic benefit in the area in which it is sited, with an emphasis on local employment.

1.5 Local and community ownership fulfils this criterion as is recognised in section 8.1.2 of the Draft. Local ownership schemes such as that proposed by the Melness Crofters Trust offer real economic local benefit. However, they will only ever be brought to fruition with active assistance. This, in my view, should be a priority.

2. Wet Renewables

2.1 The potential for wet renewables, especially the tidal flow in the Pentland Firth, is set out in the report produced by the Environmental Research Institute in Thurso "A Review of Potential Tidal Stream Energy Development in the Pentland Firth" .

2.2 The Draft Strategy appears to be uninformed in respect of this data and of the advanced state of work to bring a project to the area which would deliver manufacturing and engineering jobs, provide production facility employment and which could be in operation within 2 years. In my view, the Draft should be reviewed to take account of these developments and accord them high priority.

3. Local and Community Based Schemes

3.1 In relation to community projects I have received a copy of the submission made to you by Mrs Elizabeth Marshall commenting in particular on community projects underway in Wick. I will not rehearse again her points but would record my support for them.

3.2 At 1.5 above I cited the Melness Crofters Trust scheme. The economic advantages of such a scheme would permit an income flow for investment in other much needed community infrastructure, such as the harbour, which would otherwise have to come from state aid (both difficult to secure and a burden on the taxpayer). However, assistance is needed in securing a 3-Phase connection to the Grid to make this happen. Such assistance would create value and local employment and should in my view be a priority. There is otherwise a danger that those communities who most want and who would most benefit from community ownership schemes will be denied them.

4. On Shore Wind

4.1 In figure 6.2.4 the Draft Stratgy identifies substantial areas of the North as "prospective development zones for major and national on-shore wind farms". Should such developments occur on the scale currently suggested this would have a lasting and major impact on the designated areas. I believe further careful thought and public discussion is essential before embarking on any zoning of these areas.

4.2 I feel strongly that the strategy should address in more detail the question of proximity between developments and the total quantity to be permitted. There is, for example, an argument in saying that as the Causewaymire wind farm already exists a doubling or tripling in size at that point would have little further negative impact, and, as the infrastructure already exists, it would produce the maximum benefit. Alternatively there is an argument for restricting the size of each development to, say, a maximum of 6 turbines with a minimum distance between developments of, say, 15 kilometres. Both concepts have advantages and disadvantages which I believe should be discussed publicly before a final strategy is adopted. What is unacceptable is a proliferation of large wind farms in close proximity.

4.3 In my view, a full assessment of economic impact must be undertaken, preferably by external economic consultants, in order fully to quantify with hard data the benefits and impacts for the local economy. The existing installed capacity of on-shore wind is such that, in the right conditions, the North is more than self sufficient in energy and no further development is required on local CO2 emission grounds. Future large scale developments will create further energy for export only and must therefore be measured on grounds of economic benefit and agreed only where there is a clear and lasting local economic legacy.

4.4 Data in the Draft Strategy does not demonstrate sufficient economic benefit from large-scale wind developments into the local economy to merit further such developments. The Causewaymire development, for example, had a short- term local benefit from construction but in operation offers no full time employment in the area. Whilst the community fund is welcome it will contribute little to jobs or to the economy locally. The two main beneficiaries are the land owner and the generating company, both of whom export the revenues outwith the area. Local people therefore receive little benefit and all the liabilities from such developments. If further developments are to be undertaken better ways of creating local benefit must be found. (For example, all addresses within a 10km radius of the development could receive a 50% discount on electricity consumed.)

4.5 Data is often cited from surveys which indicate that once developments are in operation residents come to accept and support them. However, from a tourism perspective, data also exists which suggests that that one-off visitors (tourists) do not fall into this category and are either put off from visiting, or from returning. The Draft Strategy does not examine this data but should in my view do so. The North has a high dependence on tourism and is now developing its offering with new attractions and through archaeology. Further (and independent) assessment is required to understand the potential impact of multi large-scale developments in the area on the tourist market.

4.6 Little scientific research has been undertaken into the effects of construction on peatland and the consequences of both CO2 release and damage to CO2 capture (bearing in mind the peatland is Europe's largest carbon sink). Although various estimates have been made in this regard I am unaware of any reliable hard data. However, if the likely impact is added to the carbon lifecycle figures the benefit ratio alters substantially. It seems to me that there is a strong case for commissioning scientific research as a matter of urgency.

4.7 Whilst on-shore wind is a relatively mature technology it is likely to be overtaken by more efficient technologies in the medium future. Some scenarios suggest an economic lifespan of 15 years. This gives rise to two questions which should be addressed in the Strategy: first, what guarantees have been imposed in the planning process to ensure proper end-of-life decommissioning and who bears this responsibility - landowner or operator - and, second, whether mass development should be favoured at all when other technologies offer better economic and environmental outcomes for the area.

4.8 There is a clear case for suitable on-shore wind developments. The strategy must however address the issues raised above and engage with local residents in order to produce a more detailed strategic approach.

5. Dounreay

5.1 The Draft, rightly, does not comment on technology other than renewables. However there is a renewable potential at Dounreay which should be supported in the Strategy.

5.2 Decommissioning at Dounreay presents an opportunity to create a UK centre of alternative energy research covering all technologies. The twin assets of a skilled engineering and science based workforce and a site infrastructure including plant and workshops offer a unique and cost effective opportunity for the Government to invest in research into alternative energy technologies such as hydrogen or even fusion. I have made this suggestion to government and would welcome support for the concept through the strategy.

6. Conclusion.

I welcome this Draft Strategy and the opportunity it has given for measured public debate. I urge the Strategy to give weight to wet renewables, to local and community schemes and to supporting alternative energy research at Dounreay. I urge caution with regard to large-scale on-shore wind development and further assessment of the economic benefits measured against the social and environmental liabilities. In particular I urge that local and direct economic benefit be the principal criterion for assessing new development