A virtual Meeting of the DECC over will take place on Monday 7th September using Google Meet.
Observers report on Red John Public Enquiry
The Hearing part of the Local Enquiry took place over Zoom as a virtual hearing, split into two parts over three days.
The Reporter started by saying that all submissions, including those not forming part of the hearing, would be taken into account before making her decision, and that Scottish Ministers would have the final say.
The hearing itself however, would only cover:
- Firstly the need for the proposal as questioned by the objection submitted by local resident and DECC constituent Fiona Henderson from Midtown.
- Secondly the landscape issues which formed the remaining objection by Highland Council.
This meant that the flood risk would not be part of the hearing itself, partly due to the DECC issuing a reply which stated that after our second written submission we no longer would wished to take part. This final reply was, I believe, never discussed by the DECC, and remains unexplained.
Part One: This took all of the first day and consisted of a series questions and replies by Fiona H regarding the following:
- The need for the proposals in the overall context of national energy requirement.
- The sustainable credentials of the proposals, particularly the claims by ILI about the proposal in itself being regarded as a Renewable Energy development.
- Questions about the size of the proposal given the market reasons given by the applicants, and whether or not a smaller or larger dam was more appropriate.
- The alleged environmental improvements resulting directly as a result of the proposal and whether or not these would happen anyway in the near future without the need for the proposal.
- The applicant’s statements and methodology in general particularly those involving the ecological losses versus gains .
In summary Fiona H implied, with some evidence, that many of the applicant’s claims were at times exaggerated, the economic case unconvincing, the environmental downsides underplayed, and in general scientific terms, many of their conclusions lacked sufficient rigour.
The applicants of course countered these claims with their own statements and evidence from their seven strong team including a QC.
The reporter’s job will be to decide what weight to give to each of the arguments and come to a conclusion.
Part Two.
This took up the remaining 2 days of the hearing and was for the most part a more balanced situation with each side having a team of experts and a QC apiece.
This time the arguments were entirely based around legal and technical points about the interpretation of Highland Council and Scottish government policies on the effect of cumulative developments in the proximity of the proposal and the Loch Ness area in general.
Basically these centred around whether or not the policies which were largely created to protect against over development and excessive visual intrusion in sensitive landscapes applied in this case and how relevant they were.
These arguments were too complex and nuanced for me to makeany meaningful attempt to comment on, but suffice to say, will be decided on strict legal interpretations of either sides case.
In other words the reporter will need to turn to governement lawyers to help her reach a conclusion on this part of the hearing.
John Martin
07/09/2020
Annexe:
The Flood Risk
Apart from the Bamforth report which highlighted concerns over the current regime of the Reservoirs Act and called for a review, ILI are also relying on SEPA’s representation to the enquiry which is, and I quote:
“the probability of failure of a reservoir structure managed under the 2011(Reservoirs) Act is considered to be so low that it is beyond the scope of likely probabilities considered within the Scottish Planning Flood Risk Framework. As a result we have not considered the reservoir breach analysis when providing you with advice on flood risk. “
So, for the avoidance of doubt, SEPA have not even considered the implications of a future seismic event or an inherent seismic weakness, despite that being responsible for the tunnel collapse at Glendoe.
Original resolution of the CC to the Red John planning application.
Dores and Essich Community Council
Resolution re Red John PSH Project
18th March, 2019
- Dores and Essich Community Council (DECC) believes that, in order to mitigate the
effects of climate change and global warming, increased reliance needs to be placed on
generating electricity from renewable sources, as is expressed in Scottish Government
policy.
It also believes that pumped storage hydro schemes potentially have an important role
to play in supporting such a policy as, in effect, they can be used to store the excess
electricity generated by renewables when demand is low. - With regard to the Red John scheme DECC considers it regrettable that scheme Option
A was rejected in favour of scheme Option B without sufficient consultation with the
community as to the inherent risks which have since become apparent. - If scheme Option A were to have been promoted DECC would be minded to support
this proposal, subject to satisfactory scrutiny of the detailed plans. - Since scheme Option B remains the chosen option, DECC has serious concerns about
the headpond being located directly above the village of Dores and over a known
geological fault. After careful consideration, DECC has resolved to object to this
proposal due to the lack of compelling evidence as to how these concerns can be
mitigated and due to the lack of a satisfactory insurance-backed indemnity to
compensate any local residents in the event of them being affected by a breach in the
headpond. - Irrespective of which option is finally chosen, DECC would object to the proposals
unless the following conditions were placed on the developer:
i) The setting up of a satisfactory and enforceable traffic management scheme during
the construction phase;
ii) The setting up of a satisfactory and enforceable noise, dust and vibration mitigation
scheme during the construction phase;
iii) Satisfactory architectural treatment (which may include screening) of any prominent
structures at the headpond and the waterside site.
iv) The signing of a satisfactory legally binding agreement with the developer
regarding community benefit and community investment in the project
The Community Council’s final representation to the Red John Public Enquiry
Dear Ms Manson
PS-270-1: Red John Pumped Storage Hydro
Thank you for your email of 29th June 2020 requesting further comments from the Community Council in relation to Flood Risk and Seismic Activity and Traffic and Transport. After consideration of the developer’s further responses, we wish to reiterate our original submission of 27th February 2019 along with the following comments.
Flood Risk and Seismic Activity:
We remain concerned at the reliance on the provisions on the Reservoirs Act and the confidentiality surrounding that. We would wish to draw the Reporter’s attention to the recent publication of an independent review report in February 2020 by Professor David Balmforth following the partial failure of the Toddbrook Reservoir in August 2019 (copy attached). It is stated there that it is possible for ‘the reservoir and its owner to be compliant with the legislation without the reservoir necessarily being safe’ and, among the recommendations, that ‘there is a systematic review of how the current Reservoirs Act and the associated Regulations and Guidance are implemented.’ We would request that the Inquiry has regard to the Balmforth Report and its recommendations in the context of this project.
Traffic and Transport:
Whilst we are pleased with the progress that has been made between the Applicant and the Highland Council in agreeing planning conditions and other legal agreements to regulate these matters, success will depend on collaboration and agreement among the parties during the project implementation stage. It is welcome that the Applicant has committed to the establishment of the Community Liaison Group but this will come with considerable demands on time and resources of the Community Councils involved, which we would request that the Applicant acknowledges through grants or other subsidy being made available.
We would also wish to point out that Scottish Water are in the process of finalising a planning application for water extraction from Loch Ness. If consented, this could result in both developments overlapping, with potentially serious impacts on the road network and, in particular, on traffic on the B862.
Planning involvement by the community
Any member of the public is entitled to comment on any planning application, whether to support, object or make neutral comments. Whilst normally it might be expected that you would have some sort of interest in the application (perhaps because it is near your home or may affect premises or facilities you use) this is not a prerequisite (though there are rules as to the nature of comments that can be made).
The Community Council, whilst being happy to consider representations from members of the community on any planning matters, would also encourage people to consider submitting comments in their own right via the Highland Council website. The link for this (and for advice and guidance on the process) is:
https://www.highland.gov.uk/info/180/planning_-_applications_warrants_and_certificates/143/planning_permission/4
Red John Public Local Enquiry to commence.
From [email protected]
In this case, a virtual hearing is to take place. The sessions will begin at 10 am on Monday 24 August 2020. The public inquiry is estimated to run for 3 days, with hearing sessions 1 (i and ii) taking place on Monday 24 August 2020 and hearing session 2 taking place from Thursday 27 August to Friday 28 August 2020.
Any person wishing to observe the live proceedings should contact the case officer at the e-mail address above to discuss arrangements. Alternatively, a recording of proceedings will be available to view via the following link: https://dpea.public-i.tv/core/portal/home.