Selkirk Regeneration Group

F

SELKIRK REGENERATION GROUP

PROPOSED WINDFARM

PUBLIC MEETING, held in

Victoria Halls, Selkirk

at 7pm, on Thursday 23 April 2009

Purpose of Meeting:

To inform the Selkirk Community of the results from the feasibility study by Faber Maunsell on a 6 turbine wind farm to be potentially located on Selkirk Common Good land at Linglie Hill.

To invite questions and seek to clarify issues of concern for the public in order that a ballot may be held of all those on the voters roll and living within the Royal Burgh, with a view to empowering the SRG to proceed to the next technical evaluation stage of the project.

Present:

Jeremy Purvis MSP – Chair (neutral)

Dr Lindsay Neil, Convener of Selkirk Regeneration Group (SRG)

Sam McKilligin and Jim Hart from Faber Maunsell Consultants (FM) – appointed by SRG to undertake a feasibility study

Tom Young, from the Energy Savings Trust who administer SCHRI and provided funds so far.

1. JP opened the Meeting at 7.10pm and welcomed all those present (c. 125+)

2. Dr Lindsay Neil, Convener of the Selkirk Regeneration Group, explained the background and purpose of the SRG and its commitment towards improving Selkirk. He outlined the current project to investigate the potential for a wind farm, to be developed on Common Good Lands for the direct benefit of Selkirk. He confirmed that the evening’s meeting would not be conclusive. This was a follow up to previous discussions and the SRG was seeking the community’s endorsement to progress to the next stage only. There was still much work to be carried out and, as yet, there was no guarantee that the project would prove viable and proceed.

3. The representatives from Faber Maunsell gave a brief explanation of their involvement and methodology of their reports.

They reiterated that “nothing is yet fixed” and described the Feasibility study for the North Common site, plus a brief scoping study of the South Common. With regard to the North Common, it was concluded that perhaps 6 turbines (each of 2.5 megawatts/ 125m high) would be feasible. There appears to be an adequate wind resource – but with onsite monitoring still required. The desk study to calculate energy output using a particular turbine model - and then estimating potential revenue - was also explained.

(At this point Cllr K Gunn interrupted the meeting and sought clarification as to the exact location of the South Common proposal. -It was duly clarified to him.)

The Consultants continued to explain the range of potential constraints to which the 2 sites were subject.

An estimated 45 gigawatt hours (GWh) output p.year might be expected from the N Common

Development costs were somewhat uncertain due to the purchase price of the turbines, possible grid access costs and also the uncertainties attached to the access routes.

It was noted that further work was required to clarify site constraints including:

–the uncertainties relating to grid access

–the existing microwave link which may discount 1 or 2 turbines

–air traffic issues

–access (getting the turbines to Selkirk and up to the site)

–ecological issues

The options regarding a connection to the national grid (outwith the scope of the FM study) must be considered first. This might be done with the involvement of another developer - who may have a local interest

Overall, there are 3 options for the community (via SRG):

–proceed on own - carries greatest risk but also has the max potential benefit to the community

–approach a Windfarm developer – as a partnership project

–lease land to a Windfarm developer (who carries all risks) and receive an annual sum to the community. The income would be very much smaller with this option

At this stage the Chair invited questions from the audience:

Speaker / Question / comment / Reply by / Response
1 / Rob Beaton / Criticism of role of SRG and query why water power (Ettrick) not preferred? / LN / Referred to ongoing Heriot Watt post graduate student study of potential water resources in the Borders and the Ettrick in particular. Commented on possible difficulties e.g. fishing
Can only deal with one project at this time – initially the site could ‘take’ 11 turbines but now reduced to 6 as SRG’s preferred acceptable option
2 / Jim Gibson (CC) / Clearly lots of work still to be done - why not hold voting in abeyance pending more information? / LN / Referred to previous meeting and undertaking and explained SRG was now merely seeking community permission to proceed to a further stage of the project – therefore voting ‘yes’ is not final
3 / Cllr Riddell-Carre - not expressing an opinion, as she is a member of SBC Planning Committee / Asks
why SRG has not discussed use of Common Good land with CGFWG?
Income from Windfarm is dependent upon energy subsidies – how confident is SRG re income? / LN
FM / Consultation re the Common Good is absolutely essential but would only take place if the vote were given to go ahead
There is a guaranteed income (fully expected) until the end of the lifespan of the project. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) have now been guaranteed until 2024 by Govt. (nb Faber Maunsell currently asked to confirm details– 21/04/09))
4 / Jim Hume? / £10k spent on study is money wasted – how much more will the project cost? / LN / £50k - £100k estimated.
Points out that other developments in the area are aiming to proceed and be within visual sight of/from Selkirk
5 / Cllr K Gunn / Ref mtg. of 2007
Very critical of proposals – “aesthetically awful/ disgusting”
Mentions Sir M Strang-Steele and his potential opposition to anything visible from his patch / FM / Consultation is part of the process
6 / Member of audience / Sources of future funding? / LN / All surveys dependent upon grant funding! SRG are getting advice from Govt who are espousing wind energy through the Energy Savings Trust (EST) - but grants will depend on public support for taking the project forward
At this point, Tom Young (Energy Saving Trust) confirmed that the Faber Maunsell study was based on a competitive quote and is completely independent
7 / Bill Miller / Comments regarding wider issues of global warming/ renewables/ plight of underdeveloped countries – and a warning against NIMBYism! / Muted agreement
8 / John Howie (CC) / queries whether the local wind resource is adequate / FM/ LN / Confirmed desk top research only at present but data promising – wind resource adjudged ‘very good’.
On-site evaluation required as part of next stages
9 / Member of audience / Question as to how Selkirk community can move forward and still retain ownership of common lands / FM
LN / Described ‘next step’ options as before (their presentation)
Objective of SRG initiative is to wholly benefit Selkirk.
All energy goes into national grid but can negotiate with a separate electricity provider to accrue local electricity price benefit
10 / Member of audience / Will Report be made publically available? / LN / In principle ‘yes’ happy to be upfront and share – but remember this information would benefit other (competing) interests.
11 / Peter Field;
Selkirk Windfarm Action Group (SELWAG) / FM figures are queried –quoted capacity figure of 35% / FM / Took figures from UK wide information sources –
SM of FM had until recently worked for turbine manufacturing Company which has made 200 turbines - none of which operate below 35% and as much as 44%
Figures in Report are not unrealistic and are an “annual capacity factor based on the size of the turbines indicated in the report”
12 / Cllr V Davidson / Understands from the project description that it represents the max size of development. What would results be for a reduced (min) number and size of turbines? / FM / If the project was smaller it might not be viable – better then to go to the South Common where there is more convenient (cheaper) access
13 / Member of audience / If project proceeds but funds dry up – what happens then? / LN / There is no risk to the community – a Trust would be formed.
If there is a ‘NO’ vote then there would be no project and it is Selkirk’s loss
14 / Member of audience / How will income be used to benefit Selkirk?
Will there be a further (future) voting option? / LN / Scenario being considered for use of income includes provision for:
Restoration of landscape
Loan charges and operating expenses
A local group would be formed (legally) to consider and agree project suggestions and use of revenue. A large proportion would go to the CGF.
Basis of voting explained
15 / Member of audience / Comment expressing concerns re visual impact – South Common would be better! / Applause…
16 / Member of audience / Who are the members of the SRG? / LN / SRG holds public meetings to which the public are welcome. Selkirk Regeneration Group is open to all voluntary Selkirk bodies to join and contribute.
18 / Member of audience / Concern re voting papers – no sealed box (confidentiality) or security / LN / Agrees to ensure security as far as it is possible
Ballot papers secure until now.
19 / Member of audience / Query re level of costs to take project forward – and how to secure them? / LN
FM / Repeated that all figures and estimates are ‘from the industry’ but if the community does not want the benefits ‘then stop now!’
An estimate of £300k is generally typical of the sum required to advance the project to implementation
At this point, Tom Young (Energy Saving Trust) confirmed that the ‘Climate Challenge Fund’ is a typical source of funding - and this project has so far been funded through Government sources
20 / Member of audience / Why not explore further - in depth - to answer some of the questions posed this evening? / LN / Community vote is to seek approval to do that; no point in holding discussions in advance of approval to do so.
21 / Jim Henderson, Provost- Common Riding Trust / Expressed concern on the major, negative impact the development would have upon the Common Riding route. Notes that the meeting has highlighted all the prevailing uncertainties – so why not proceed further to clarify? This is the CRTrust view - who are not necessarily in favour of the project.
Also concerned about the suggested ‘name’ ascribed to the project! / LN / SRG is happy to working partnership with the CRTrust and to endeavour to minimise the impact upon the route.
Happy to leave the choice of name to some future time
22 / Member of audience / How is power transferred from the turbines to the grid? / FM / Generally via buried cable
23 / Norman Roxburgh (CC) / A general point – recalls 12 months ago when energy sources were endangered (Russia) and is aware of the sensitivities and concerns - but if funds are available, then we should proceed with a Selkirk Windfarm as an example to the rest of the country. / APPLAUSE
24 / Cllr Gunn / In favour of South Common.
Queries security of ballot papers – “worse than Boy Scouts!” / LN / Will ensure all papers are secured but have been until now
25 / Member of audience / Endorsement of Norman Roxburgh view – can we get feedback from another community? / LN / Island of Gigha – good example
Fintry – community own a single turbine
Swindon – very popular project
26 / Member of audience / Any negative outcomes from these examples? / LN / Yes, some early developments in areas where wind speed was marginal generate little energy – hence need for further research for Selkirk
27 / Member of audience / Could other developers take advantage of ‘our’ site? / LN / Explains the ‘cumulative impact’ which will be considered by SBC Planners – this could inhibit adjoining development or ours
28 / Johnnie Thomson / Request for a show of hands to determine mood of meeting / Chair / Deems this outwith his remit
Audience signified disapproval
29 / Member of audience / Call for vote of no confidence in organisation of the ballot / Chair / Deems this outwith remit
30 / Cllr Davidson / Offers use of SBC ballot boxes to ensure confidentiality/ security / LN / Welcomes this offer
[ Subsequent note: this has been arranged, and ballot boxes are in place 24/4/09; independent assessor also arranged.]
At this point, Cllr Gunn calls for a new ballot – this is ignored
31 / Jim Gibson CC / Asks for evidence of benefits experienced by other communities / LN
Tom Young / At Gigha, the development helped the community secure their independence.
refers to ‘Fintry’ website for further information
Jim Henderson, Provost- Common Riding Trust / Comments that 2 sites have been considered but ballot only refers to North Common – therefore project may be jeopardised by those in favour of S Common but against the North / LN
FM / The prefeasibility study highlights the demerits of the South Common
The North Common study is further advanced
Another volunteer is welcome to take up a project for the South Common
Next steps will be a grid access study which will reference both sites

Next Steps:

LN thanks the Chair and Faber Maunsell experts

Reminds meeting that project seeks to benefit Selkirk and its community

Will pursue

• Grid access
• Will discuss with Common Good Fund
• Will continue discussion with Common Riding Trust
• Need to clarify and confirm final detail of number, size, location of any turbines

Nb. The SRG belongs to Selkirk – check the Community Council website for information.

LN is willing to proceed – but if the vote is negative then an excellent opportunity for Selkirk will be lost.

Meeting closed.

IK (Sec.): 24/april/2009

1