Perspective: Former Forest Manager for Glen Urquhart Woodlands

Local resident Malcolm Wield was formerly a Forest District Manager for the Forestry Commission (FC), responsible for the Glen Urquhart woodlands. Below he shares his thoughts on the Glen Earrach Energy (GEE) proposal:

I have lived near Balnain for over 30 years and was the FC Forest District Manager responsible for the Glen Urquhart woodlands between 1993-2006. Following that, I joined the Environmental and Social Forestry Policy Group in FC Scotland National Office, where part of my role was involved in delivering favourable environmental condition to statutorily designated woodland sites in Scotland between 2006 -2017. I retired in 2017.

Ironically, I do support the principle of renewable energy, but the scale of the Glen Earrach proposal strikes me as going far beyond what is reasonably acceptable.

I am certain that the absolute and permanent loss of the nature of the glen will be a consequence of this development. The proposal itself does not describe that to anything like an adequate degree. In fact, I question whether the proposer has any competent understanding of the effect of the proposal on nature, despite the rather superficial surveys that have already been carried out. For example: 

The proposal for 178 HGV trips per day, as quoted, will bring about a catastrophic change in our environment. When this average statistic is concentrated into the actual working period of vehicles moving over the roads and through the forest, i.e. daytime working hours, the disturbance of heavy moving vehicles travelling at road speed and the persistent background noise they will create will be incredible. This is proposed to endure for years will undoubtedly have a massive detrimental impact in comparison to what everyone currently experiences. The effect of the change proposed will be profound.

I am mindful that only the statistic for HGV vehicles is presented in the proposal, whereas of course disturbance will emanate from all vehicle journeys of any sort.

Not only will cycling, running, walking and horse riding be so difficult over every route that these vehicles use, it will actually become dangerous to contemplate. Taking the dog for a relaxing and therapeutic walk in the forest is something that many people will no longer be able to think about undertaking and certainly will not be able to enjoy as they do at the moment.

Without exaggeration this was brought home to me very recently in conversation with a former forestry colleague who indicated that forest operations and the employment associated with them (including timber haulage) may, for logistical reasons, be suspended once the Glen Earrach development begins.

I note the proposal also intends to remove a proportion of ancient woodland and a larger extent of long established semi-natural woodland. Although ‘compensatory planting’ is pledged, of course ancientness cannot be replaced and ancient woodland loss to any degree will further deplete this national relict, which is already at less than 1% of its former extent. To propose compensatory planting as mediation for ancient woodland loss is simply disingenuous.

I’m astonished that the proposal presumes to take unquestioned access for this degree of destruction over a forest road network currently held as part of the national forest estate. That is, a road network on public land paid for by the taxpayer and over which the community have a full statutory Right of access and the freedom to enjoy it. I see no reference that takes the established nature of this public land and it’s established social value to the community into account. I am virtually certain that the Glen Earrach proposal would not be financially viable without the existence of the forest road network that has been provided at public expense. I believe this should give the public and, in this instance, particularly the local community, a greater say over who uses the forest road network and in what manner that use is carried out. The national forest estate is subject to Certification from the international Forestry Stewardship Council reflected by fully consulted and officially approved Land Management Plans. I don’t recall any consultation in the existing Land Management Plan for Glen Urquhart that involved the proposal for a development involving 178 HGV trips per day for a period of several years.

I also refer to the arrest of nature in terms of future recovery of all species associated with a maturing forest environment. The Glen Urquhart publicly owned forest first began to be planted by the Forestry Commission over 100 years ago (1924) and already has many species of flora and fauna that have colonised it’s increasingly diverse and progressively maturing structure over the decades since.

Classic examples are an increasing population of red squirrel (Glen Urquhart is part of the Highland conservation stronghold for this animal as a European Protected Species), the apex predator pine marten, woodland bird species like the great spotted woodpecker, and conifer feeding species like crossbills and siskins. Crested tit have been recorded in stands of pine within the Glen Urquhart forest in recent years and black grouse continue to be present along the high woodland edge. It is unlikely that the now commonplace and resident siskin would have established itself as a breeding species at all without the forest environment and of course large birds of prey like the buzzard and the red kite need large trees to nest in and thrive in any number.

Deer of all species are thriving in healthy numbers with good body weight and are now increasingly in balance with the flourishing forest environment, unlike on open land where self-regenerating woodland has been lost. Badgers are now more plentiful that they were even two decades ago and new species like wild boar are currently establishing themselves.

Whereas the effect of disturbance on nature is well understood and verified by reference as a threat, nowhere in the proposal has the continued favourable prospects for all species affected by the proposed disturbance, together with the potential for future colonisation by more species over the increasing range of diverse habitat types, been evaluated. This is a profound omission that shows the proposal is environmentally illiterate and naïve in terms of its likely effect on the nature of this place.

“I do wonder about what proportion of the local community realise the existing status of nature and freedom to enjoy the enormous public asset that surrounds them will be destroyed for good by this proposal”.