MONITORING MASTS, TRACKS AND MORE

Ken Thomson and George Allan

Assiduous readers of Mountain Views will have noticed regular articles by George Allan and others about "developments" proposed in the uplands of the North East and elsewhere in Scotland. These include vehicle tracks, masts, hydro and other energy schemes, all of which should nowadays pass through official planning systems before construction. This article seeks to describe the work of George and his colleagues (see Editorial in this MV issue) over the years, in alerting NEMT members and others to proposals to which objections - or even sometimes support - may be raised.

Most new "building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, including changes in use", requires full planning permission (PP). Some developments (e.g. fencing no higher than 2m) enjoy `permitted´ development rights (PDRs) which allow work to take place without the planning authority being notified. However, some PDR developments (e.g. hilltracks and peatland restoration) require `prior notification/approval´ (PN/A) to the planning authority. For larger energy projects, there is a preapplication "scoping" stage, when it is decided what full - and especially environmental - information will be required.

According to one website (localplanningapps.co.uk):

The process to monitor planning applications is complicated, time-consuming, and prone to many human mistakes. The various planning authorities do publish the status of all their planning applications, but none of them make it easy to understand the data.

- and few of those involved would disagree!

The "complications" include:

• different legal powers and procedures (e.g. timescales, websites) between levels of government (UK, Scotland, and local authorities, i.e. Councils, and National Parks), along with their policies and appeal processes
• differences between planning for "normal" developments, which go through local authorities and/or National Park Authorities, with appeals or "call-ins" to Scottish Ministers, and for energy infrastructure, such as hydropower, windfarms, storage facilities and overhead power lines, which above a certain size go to Ministers through the Energy Consent Unit (ECU).
• special rules for "designated areas" such as National Parks, Wild Land Areas (WLAs), Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), and National Scenic Areas (NSA).

Each local authority, and ECU, has its own planning website or "portal". Most are fairly easy to use, with an efficient Search function, and weekly/monthly lists of recent applications. Monitoring involves checking these lists each week, for applications of NEMT interest (if not previously picked up via informal public consultations or hearsay), and then deciding which require further investigation or action, e.g. submission of a comment or objection (sometimes requiring personal registration). Time limits for the public are short (usually 21 days) but some authorities do appear to exercise discretion. The posting and terminology of the information on these websites (and often its partial removal after deadlines have passed) are variable.

Each application carries a reference number, and a list of "Documents", e.g. the application form, maps or plans, a "Design and Access Statement" and "Supporting Information", often up to 30 files in number. There may also be "Constraints" such as relevant designated areas, "Comments", both from statutory consultees such as NatureScot and utility companies, and from private individuals or groups, and "Important Dates".

Granny Pine, Ballochbuie, August 2025. © Ken Thomson

Developers and planners present information in various ways, but important points include:

• access to the site, e.g. by new tracks, during construction and for maintenance
• visibility, via "wirework" diagrams, or a "Zone of Theoretical Visibility" (ZTV) map
• environmental impacts, often but not always presented as a formal Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).

Some remarks about the different kinds of development proposals follow:

Hilltracks

Since 2014, new vehicular tracks, even those "for agricultural or forestry purposes" have required PP, or at least PN/A. Planners can thus check on credentials (Is the new track needed for farming? Is its design appropriate?) and can impose "conditions" such as use of suitable materials, and good design, e.g. central grass strips. The picture has been complicated by all-terrain vehicles (ATVs), which do not need built tracks, and which can be used by estates without restriction, but can nevertheless create visible features over grassland or through peat, especially with repeated use. Scottish Environment LINK has long led a campaign to get the Scottish Government to tighten up on the granting of PP for hilltracks, but there have been several delays, and a promised Scottish Government review has not taken place. For the position in summer 2025, see a "Snippet" elsewhere in this issue of Mountain Views.

Masts

The rolling-out of the Shared Rural Network (SRN) scheme for mobile-serving masts across the country has led to many applications - mostly for full PP but some for PN/A - sited in remote and unpopulated areas - many in WLAs - to minimise "Total Not-Spots". As well as the masts themselves (height, siting, etc.), attention must be paid to access tracks, and to accompanying infrastructure such as generators, solar panels, etc. The scheme´s hurried timetable has led to several withdrawals of applications, sometimes "permanently" but sometimes for reconsideration and later re-application. As with hilltracks (and windfarms), the cumulative effect of successive developments needs assessment. For a review of the SRN programme in summer 2025, see the article by George Allan elsewhere in this issue of Mountain Views.

Energy

Smaller proposals for hydropower, windfarms (or single turbines), storage facilities, and overhead power lines go to local authorities, and larger ones to ECU. Each usually involves track construction, while hydro schemes also involve dams of greater or lesser size and visibility. Assessing these proposals from an NEMT point of view differs somewhat from that for hilltracks or masts, in being of fairly obvious climate-change gain, and less obvious private benefit.

Anyone can comment on a planning proposal, but comments must be "material": financial gains and losses, personal views about the applicant, and loss of private view, are not regarded as relevant, and will be ignored by the planners. On the other hand, a Local Development Plan, or a national policy, carries weight in supporting, objecting to, or modifying a proposal.

Monitoring and commenting on upland development proposals are essential to fulfil NEMT´s remit to "enhance, the upland, coastal and rural environments of Scotland". In doing so, George and his colleagues inside and outside the Trust are playing a vital part in trying to prevent or modify harmful schemes, both for individual proposals and within the wider scope of modifying policies and practices.

Please let the webmaster know if there are problems with viewing these pages or with the links they contain.