What can we help you with today?
Raeshaw Farms Limited v The Scottish Ministers and Energiekontor UK Ltd (Interested party)
Raeshaw Farms Limited v The Scottish Ministers and Energiekontor UK Ltd (Interested party)
XA11/25
Wednesday 3 December 2025
10:30 to 13:00 then 14:00 until conclusion
First Division
[1] This statutory appeal under section 239 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 challenges a decision of the Scottish Ministers to grant planning permission in respect of a windfarm. The proposed windfarm is to comprise of 8 wind turbines with a
maximum tip height of 149.9 metres, formation of access tracks, borrow pit, temporary construction compound, the erection of a control building, onsite substation and associated infrastructure and energy storage compound.
[2] The proposed development was the subject of an application for planning made on 15 December 2022. The application was refused by the Scottish Borders Council by notice dated 8 July 2024. Energiekontor UK Ltd appealed the decision to the reporter of the Scottish Ministers. The reporter granted the planning permission, overturning the planning decision of the Scottish Border Council by a decision dated 14 January 2025.
[3] The appellant operates a farm and estate in the close vicinity of the proposed windfarm. They have made third party representations throughout the planning application process. They challenge the Reporter’s decision of 14 January 2025.
The Reporters’ Decision
[4] The main issues identified in respect of the proposal were the landscape and visual effects; the renewable energy and climate change benefit; and the socio-economic benefits.
[5] It was acknowledged that significant landscape character effects were an inevitable consequence of building a large-scale, man-made feature like a wind farm in a rural location. It was also acknowledged that there was a pre-existing wind energy development. However, the Reporter agreed with the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) that there would be a significant adverse effect to the landscape and visual effects.
[6] In response to Raeshaw’s objection that there was no detailed grid infrastructure, and as such the proposal could not be considered as a whole, the Reporter disagreed. He considered that whatever the grid connection solution is will be subject to its own evaluation. It did not form part of the current proposal. Overall, the Reporter considered that there were no additional significant effects. If the mitigation was controlled by means of the conditions that were imposed to the notice, there would be no unacceptable residual impacts on any other matter.
[7] The Reporter concluded that the introduction of the National Planning Framework 4 was highly supportive of onshore wind energy development, as was the Local Development Plan. It recognised the importance of the climate crisis adverse landscape and visual impacts that are localised or minimalised will generally be accepted. Substantial weight is now given to a proposal’s contribution to renewable energy generation targets and to greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets. The Reporter considered that the policy framework supported the proposal.
The Statutory Appeal
[8] Raeshaw Farm appeal on four grounds. First, that the Reporter acted irrationally in that the Reporter had regard to the benefits of the grid connection without giving due consideration to the disbenefits. Second, that there was no EIA carried out with regard to the grid connection and as such the totality of the development was not considered. Third, that the Reporter erred in his dismissal that the grid connection was not part of the overall scheme. Fourth, that the Reporter failed to provide a proper, adequate or intelligible explanation as to why the grid connection was not part of the project, and as such did not require its own EIA.
[9] The Scottish Ministers, who appear as the respondents, contend that all of the appellant’s grounds of appeal relate to grid connection, which was not sought in the application, nor was permission granted for a connection between the windfarm and the national electricity grid. Therefore, the Reporter was entitled to assess the proposed development on its own merits and the assumption that a grid connection would be provided at a later date. The respondent contends that no EIA was undertaken because no such assessment was required due to the grid connection not forming part of the application. In relation to the third ground, the respondent submits that the proposal and the grid connection were to be assessed on their own planning merits and as such the Reporter’s decision was rational in respect of the development proposal. Finally, the respondent contends that the appellant, as an informed reader, was not left in any real or substantial doubt as to the reasons for the Reporter’s decision or the matters which he did or did not take into account.
[10] Energiekontor is the interested party in these proceedings, and they contend that the Reporter was entitled to assess the proposed development on its own, on the assumption that a grid connection would be provided at a later date through a separate application process. . They also consider that the decision to grant planning permission without an EIA being carried out to the whole development was correct because no EIA was required as the grid connection did not form part of the proposed development for which planning permission was sought. They consider that the Reporter was correct in holding that the grid connection did not fall to be considered as part of the development proposal. Finally, they consider that the Reporter did provide proper, adequate and intelligible reasons for his decision.
The First Division will hear the appeal on 3 December 2025 at 10.30am.