Current Petitions

The next petition is PE493 from Ms Marilyn Henderson on behalf of Avich and Kilchrenan community council, which calls for an end to the installation of wind farms in north Argyll. We agreed to seek the views of the Scottish Executive, VisitScotland and Argyll and Bute Council on the issues raised in the petition. We have received responses from all those organisations and we have also received comments from Scottish Power and from Mr Adrian Shaw, who is a resident of Dalavich in north Argyll. All the responses are set out in the papers.It seems evident that the Executive is committed to its renewable energy policy, including the installation of wind farms. From the responses that we have received, the clear view appears to be that the established planning process is the most equitable way of dealing with applications for renewable developments. The responses make it clear that dialogue and consultation with local people is important to and influential on that process. Scottish Power highlighted that point by indicating that it had reduced turbine numbers from 38 to 22 as a result of such consultation.VisitScotland indicated that it intends to undertake research into the impact of such developments on tourism. In due course, the research will further inform the development control process. It is not appropriate for the Parliament to interfere or seek to intervene in any proposed planning application for a wind farm in north Argyll or anywhere else in Scotland. The petitioner has asked us to do that, but we cannot take any action unless the case is made for a more general investigation of wind farm development in Scotland. The recommended action is that we agree to take no further action in relation to PE493.

I suggest that we await the outcome of the VisitScotland research. I am concerned about the situation, especially since reading the letters from Adrian Shaw and Avich and Kilchrenan community council. Although it seems that the Avich and Kilchrenan community council responded to the structure plan consultation, it did not receive a response other than an acknowledgement that its comments had been noted. The convener rightly said that the Public Petitions Committee should not intervene in a local planning application. However, we have to be concerned about situations in which a local authority puts its structure plan out for consultation and does nothing other than note the views of the local community council. The convener rightly pointed out that the committee cannot suck up that power. We may not be able to do anything other than note our concern, but I repeat that I am concerned about the community council's comments. The community council might be small, but the local authority should do more than simply note its views. As I said, I hope that we can defer our consideration of PE493 until we have heard the outcome of the VisitScotland research.

Do we know when the research is to be published? The question of time scales arises.

No, the paper states that the research is to be completed by mid-September.

I suggest that we defer our consideration of PE493 until the VisitScotland research is published. Is that acceptable?Members indicated agreement.