The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Public Attitudes to Windfarms: A Survey of Local Residents in Scotland

Chapter EIGHT information and consultation

8.1 The overwhelming majority of local residents lived in their current homes at the time of the construction of their local windfarm (86%).

8.2 The survey findings regarding recollection of information provision and consultation need to be viewed in the light of the fact that some of the windfarms were constructed several years ago, so that people responding to this survey were being asked to reflect back over a long period of time. The planning process for Hagshaw Hill, for example, commenced in the Spring of 1994, with consent granted in January 1995.

8.3 That said, around one in three (37%) say they do not think they received any information about the development prior to its construction, and a further one in seven (14%) cannot remember. The most common single source of information, as is often the case, was the local newspaper, from which 40% say they got information about the proposed development. Very few say that they got information from the local authority (4%), from a public meeting (2%) or from the developer (1%).

8.4 It appears that those living closest to the developments were more likely to have received (or are more likely to recall having received) information. Just one in seven (13%) of those living in both the 0-5 km and the 5-10 km zones say that they didn't receive any information. They would appear to have been more likely to receive information through the local authority, and public meetings, in particular (see table 12).

Table 12: Sources of information and distance from the windfarm

8.5 Not only do many people feel that there was little or no information directly forthcoming from the planning authority or the developers (from what they can remember), they either do not remember, or do not believe that there was, any consultation.

8.6 Two thirds are not aware of any consultation by the developer prior to the construction (64%), and a further quarter (23%) cannot remember. Just one in eight (13%) of all respondents can recall any consultation from the developer, and just three percent say that they responded to the consultation.

8.7 Once again, there are signs that those living closest to the proposed windfarms are more likely to say they were consulted, and to have responded to the consultation (see table 13).

Table 13: Recall of consultation by developer and distance from windfarm

8.8 Around one in three (34%) of those living within the 5 km zone recall some consultation by the developer, including around one in eight (13%) who say they responded, although more (21%) say they did not. The pattern is broadly similar in the 5-10 km zone, while it is in the outer, 10-20 km zone where few (9%) recall any consultation.

8.9 In spite of this rather low recall of consultation across the 20 km zone as a whole, there is little dissatisfaction with the level of consultation by the developer. While around one in ten (11%) is dissatisfied, one in four (24%) is satisfied. The majority express no view either way. In the inner zone, within 5 km of the windfarm sites, the reaction is more favourable. Four in ten (41%) say they are satisfied with the level of consultation, and just seven per cent say they are dissatisfied. Views in the 5-10 km zones are similar (40% satisfied and 11% dissatisfied).

8.10 Even among those that feel that the local windfarm has had a generally negative impact on the area, just one in six (18%) is dissatisfied with the consultation by the developer prior to construction.

8.11 Recollection regarding consultation by the local authority is poorer. Once again, very small minorities remember having been consulted (9%), and just 1% say that they responded to the planning department.

8.12 Although fewer people recall any consultation by the local authority, or say that they participated in it, the pattern of greater activity in the zones closest to the proposed windfarms is repeated in respect of consultation by the local authority (see table 14).

Table 14: Recall of consultation by the local authority and distance from the windfarm

8.13 One might expect that the very low level recall of any consultation by either the developer or the local authority might lead to substantial dissatisfaction with the amount of consultation prior to the sites being constructed. This does not seem to be the case (see table 15). People are as likely to say that they are satisfied as dissatisfied, and most express no opinion either way.

Table 15: Satisfaction with level of consultation by the developer and the local authority

8.14 Respondents were asked to say how they feel that information provision, and consultation, could be undertaken for any future windfarm proposal.

8.15 People are most likely to say that they got information about the proposals to develop their local windfarm site from their local newspaper (see para 8.3), and this is also the mechanism that people are most likely to say should be used in future (43% suggest this). Around three in ten suggest leaflets through the door (33%) or public meetings (29%), (see table 16).

Table 16: Sources of information to be used in future by attitude to past consultation

8.16 The use of directly delivered leaflets may be more powerful than these figures suggest. Although in most respects the views of those satisfied with the developer's consultation are similar to those dissatisfied, they differ markedly when it comes to the use of leaflets through the door. Those unhappy with the consultation are much more likely to select this as a preferred mechanism (44%) than are those who are satisfied with the consultation that they had prior to the development of their local site (18%).

« Previous | Contents | Next »