Judicial review of Ministers’ decision to grant consent for Stronelairg wind farm
This is an Inner House case in which the John Muir Trust sought reduction of the Scottish Ministers’ decision to grant consent for the construction of 67 wind turbines at Stronelairg near Fort Augustus.
In their decision letter the Ministers intimated that they had decided not to hold a public local inquiry stating that they had taken into account 96 objections “and all material considerations”. They expressed the view that there were no significant issues which had not been adequately considered “in the application, Environmental Statement and Supplementary Environmental Information, consultation responses and third-party representations” and that they had had sufficient information to be able to make an informed decision on the application without the need for a public local inquiry.
The trust argued and challenged the consent on the basis that the Ministers acted unlawfully and/or unreasonably in granting the consent:
- without the advertising of, and/or consulting on, the supplementary environmental information; and
- without giving adequate reasons for not following Scottish Natural Heritage advice (SNH having objected in principle to the wind farm on the ground of its impact on wild land).
The trust also argued that the reasons given in the decision letter for granting the consent were inadequate.
In the Outer House, Lord Jones found that the trust’s challenge to the Ministers’ decision should succeed for the following reasons.
- A report recommending that Highland Council did not object to the wind farm on condition that the developer make changes to the layout of the proposed wind farm was additional information which had required notification by way of advertisement and/or consultation (in terms of The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2000 and Environmental Impact Assessment Directive 2011/92/EU).
- The Ministers decision letter did not take into account SNH’s objection in principle to the wind farm (on the basis that it would have significant adverse impacts resulting in a loss of wild land and that it was not possible to mitigate those impacts).
- With regard to SNH’s objection in principle to the wind farm, the Ministers had failed to give adequate reasons for their decision in the decision letter.
The Scottish Ministers appealed the decision of Lord Jones. After Lord Jones’ decision was issued, the Scottish Ministers amended their pleadings to state that notices advertising the fact that additional information had been received by the Scottish Ministers (and that it would be placed on the Council’s planning register and made available for public inspection) had been published in September 2012. That notice indicated that any further additional information would also be placed on the planning register and made available for inspection but stated that no further public notices would be issued.
The 2012 notice was published advertising the receipt of additional information after the Scottish Ministers had received a response from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency to the effect that SEPA were not objecting to the wind farm. The trust argued that the regulations should be interpreted so as to require the publication of a notice each time additional information was received and, in particular, that a further notice should have been published on the receipt of the Council’s decision letter.
The Inner House allowed the appeal.
- The Regulations and Directive require notification of receipt of additional information (including notification of where it can be found although the notice does not require to include the content itself) by the Scottish Ministers. However, they do not require that there is more than one notice. (Indeed the Regulations are clear that only one notification of additional information is required.) The court noted that the notice puts interested members of the public on guard that additional information will appear on the Council’s website and the public can then check the website from time to see the information. The court also noted that, if the trust’s arguments were correct, multiple notices would be required where the public was already aware of the potential for additional information and the fact that they could find it on the Council’s website.
- As regards the Ministers’ decision letter, the court found that Lord Jones’ erred by focussing on the absence of the words “in principle” from the letter. Despite the absence of those words, the court held that the letter had clearly addressed the substance of the SNH objection. It was apparent that careful consideration had been given to the visual impact of the development and its effect on wild land.
- The Ministers had concluded that the energy benefits and the contribution the development would make to sustainable economic growth outweighed the environmental aspects. That was a planning judgement which they were entitled to make and the terms of the decision letter left no real doubt as to what the reasons for the decision had been.
The full judgement is available from Scottish Courts here: