𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗦𝗖𝗢𝗧𝗧𝗜𝗦𝗛 𝗣𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗡𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠: 𝗔 𝗣𝗥𝗢𝗖𝗘𝗦𝗦 𝗡𝗢 𝗟𝗢𝗡𝗚𝗘𝗥 𝗕𝗔𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗖𝗘𝗗?
For decades, the planning and energy consenting framework in Scotland has been presented as a transparent, rules-based system designed to balance national infrastructure needs with environmental protection and democratic participation.
Communities were told that although major energy projects might be approved, the system itself would remain fair. Local authorities would have a voice. Members of the public would have the ability to participate. Environmental information would be scrutinised. Decisions would be made through a process that respected both evidence and procedural safeguards.
That premise is now being seriously questioned.
Across Scotland, communities are witnessing the rapid expansion of large-scale energy infrastructure including wind farms, battery energy storage systems, substations and high voltage transmission corridors. These developments are increasingly concentrated in rural landscapes and areas that were historically protected through planning policy and environmental safeguards.
At the same time, a series of procedural changes have begun to reshape how these projects are examined and approved.
Individually, many of these changes have been presented as administrative improvements or efficiency measures. However, when viewed collectively, they reveal a pattern in which the mechanisms that once allowed communities and even elected local authorities to meaningfully challenge major developments are being weakened or removed.
Several developments illustrate this shift clearly.
The automatic Public Local Inquiry trigger associated with local authority objections to Section 36 electricity generating station applications has now been removed. Email has been eliminated as a method for submitting public representations to the Energy Consents Unit. Ministers responsible for determining applications have been documented meeting directly with developers during live application processes. Public rhetoric directed at objectors has increasingly framed community opposition in ideological terms rather than recognising legitimate planning concerns.
Taken together, these developments raise a serious question.
Is Scotland’s planning and energy consenting system still operating as a fair and impartial framework, or is it increasingly functioning as a mechanism designed to accelerate approvals for large-scale energy infrastructure regardless of community opposition?
This article examines several recent developments which collectively suggest that the balance within Scotland’s planning system may be shifting away from democratic participation and towards the interests of energy developers.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗔𝗟 𝗢𝗙 𝗔𝗨𝗧𝗢𝗠𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗖 𝗣𝗨𝗕𝗟𝗜𝗖 𝗜𝗡𝗤𝗨𝗜𝗥𝗜𝗘𝗦 𝗪𝗛𝗘𝗡 𝗖𝗢𝗨𝗡𝗖𝗜𝗟𝗦 𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧
Historically, the Electricity Act 1989 Section 36 consenting regime contained an important procedural safeguard.
Where a planning authority formally objected to a generating station proposal and that objection was not withdrawn, Scottish Ministers were required to hold a Public Local Inquiry before determining the application.
This requirement served several critical purposes.
First, it ensured that the concerns of democratically elected local authorities could not simply be set aside without scrutiny. Second, it created a formal evidential process where complex technical matters could be tested through written submissions, expert evidence and cross-examination.
Public Local Inquiries provided an environment in which competing claims made by developers, regulators and communities could be examined in detail before a recommendation was made to Scottish Ministers.
In practice, this meant that when a local authority objected to a major energy project, the application would normally proceed to a full inquiry process conducted by the Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA).
This safeguard has now been removed.
Recent legislative changes mean that a council objection no longer automatically triggers a Public Local Inquiry. Instead, a Reporter appointed through the DPEA now determines what procedure will be used to examine the application.
The Reporter may decide to proceed through written submissions alone, through limited hearings on specific issues, or through other procedural formats. A full inquiry is now only held if the Reporter considers it necessary.
This change fundamentally alters the role of local authorities in the process.
An objection from a democratically elected council, representing the communities most directly affected by a development, no longer guarantees that the evidence will be tested through a full inquiry process.
The practical consequence is that a significant procedural safeguard has been removed from the system. Local authority objections now carry far less procedural weight than they previously did.
For communities, the implications are clear. If even elected councils can no longer trigger a full inquiry into major infrastructure proposals, the ability of ordinary members of the public to ensure proper scrutiny becomes even more limited.
𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗥𝗘𝗠𝗢𝗩𝗔𝗟 𝗢𝗙 𝗘𝗠𝗔𝗜𝗟 𝗔𝗦 𝗔 𝗠𝗘𝗧𝗛𝗢𝗗 𝗙𝗢𝗥 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗠𝗜𝗧𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦
Public participation is one of the fundamental principles underpinning environmental decision making. The ability for individuals, community groups and organisations to submit representations in a planning process is not simply an administrative step. It is a legal component of environmental governance, embedded within both domestic legislation and international obligations.
For many years the Energy Consents Unit accepted representations through multiple channels, including the submission of written objections by email. This method was widely used by members of the public because it allowed documents to be submitted in full, with supporting evidence attached, and without the technical limitations often associated with web portals.
That route has now been removed.
The Scottish Government has eliminated email as a method for submitting representations on energy infrastructure applications handled by the Energy Consents Unit. Members of the public are now expected to submit representations through the Energy Consents online portal or alternatively by sending physical documents through the postal system.
At first glance this may appear to be a minor administrative change. In practice, the implications are far more significant.
The online portal imposes a number of practical constraints that do not exist when submitting documents by email. Representations are limited in format, length and structure. The ability to attach detailed supporting documents or evidence can be restricted. Formatting that would normally allow complex environmental or planning arguments to be presented clearly is often stripped away.
In effect, a previously flexible and accessible digital submission route has been replaced with a much more constrained system.
This has serious implications for accessibility.
Many members of the public rely on email because it allows them to prepare representations using familiar tools such as word processors and assistive technologies. For individuals with disabilities, those with limited digital literacy, or those relying on accessibility software, email can provide a far more inclusive means of participation.
Removing this option risks creating barriers that were not previously present.
From a procedural perspective, the change also raises questions regarding compliance with broader obligations surrounding public participation in environmental decision making. International frameworks such as the Aarhus Convention, along with domestic equality duties placed on public authorities, require governments to ensure that participation mechanisms remain accessible and effective.
Replacing a universally accessible digital submission method with a constrained portal system inevitably raises questions about whether those obligations are being fully respected.
It also introduces a striking contradiction.
While email has been removed as a digital route for submitting representations, the alternative that remains available is the postal system, which is slower, less efficient and far more resource intensive for both the public and the administrative bodies processing the submissions.
In practical terms this means that the only fully unrestricted way to submit detailed evidence may now be to print and physically post documents to the government.
For a system that claims to be modernising participation and improving efficiency, the removal of email has created a situation where the most flexible digital method has been eliminated, leaving behind either a constrained portal or traditional postal submissions.
For many communities engaging with the planning system, the message this sends is difficult to ignore.
Rather than expanding public participation, the system appears to be narrowing the routes through which meaningful representations can be made.
𝗣𝗢𝗟𝗜𝗧𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗟 𝗟𝗔𝗡𝗚𝗨𝗔𝗚𝗘 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗙𝗥𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗢𝗙 𝗢𝗕𝗝𝗘𝗖𝗧𝗢𝗥𝗦
In any planning system, the tone set by government ministers matters. Ministers ultimately hold the authority to determine major infrastructure applications, particularly those submitted under the Electricity Act 1989 Section 36 regime. Their role requires impartiality, careful consideration of evidence, and a willingness to hear concerns raised by affected communities.
Public rhetoric that dismisses or labels those concerns risks undermining confidence in the fairness of the entire decision making process.
In recent public commentary, Energy Minister Gillian Martin has described certain opposition to renewable energy developments as being associated with “far right” narratives. Regardless of the context in which these remarks were made, the effect of such language is deeply problematic when applied broadly to those who raise planning objections.
Across Scotland, thousands of individuals who submit representations on energy infrastructure proposals include:
– residents living near proposed developments
– local community groups
– environmental organisations
– landscape and heritage bodies
– democratically elected local councillors.
The overwhelming majority of these participants engage with the planning system through legitimate concerns about environmental impact, landscape change, biodiversity, aviation safety, grid infrastructure and cumulative effects.
Framing those concerns within ideological labels risks dismissing legitimate participation as something politically suspect or motivated by extremism. It introduces a narrative that opposition to certain forms of development is not a matter of planning judgement, but instead a reflection of political identity.
Such framing is incompatible with the principles that underpin a fair planning system.
The purpose of public consultation and representation is to allow evidence, local knowledge and legitimate concerns to be presented and assessed. It is not intended to function as a mechanism where participation is implicitly delegitimised through political rhetoric.
When ministers responsible for determining applications publicly characterise opposition in this way, it raises serious questions about perceived impartiality.
Communities are entitled to ask whether their concerns will receive objective consideration if those concerns have already been framed in the public sphere as part of a broader ideological narrative.
Confidence in a planning system depends not only on the formal procedures that exist, but also on the trust that decision makers approach those procedures with neutrality.
Language that appears to undermine that neutrality risks eroding public confidence in the system itself.
𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗜𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗘𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗚𝗦 𝗪𝗜𝗧𝗛 𝗗𝗘𝗩𝗘𝗟𝗢𝗣𝗘𝗥𝗦 𝗗𝗨𝗥𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗟𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗔𝗣𝗣𝗟𝗜𝗖𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡𝗦
Another issue which has increasingly drawn concern from communities is the practice of Scottish Government ministers meeting directly with energy developers while applications remain live within the planning or energy consenting system.
Within most planning frameworks, strict care is taken to avoid any perception that one party may have privileged access to decision makers during an active application. This principle exists to ensure that decisions are based solely on the evidence submitted through the formal process.
Under the Section 36 consenting regime, Scottish Ministers act as the final decision makers for major electricity generating developments. This places them in a position broadly comparable to that of a quasi-judicial authority. Their role is not simply political. It requires them to consider environmental information, consultation responses and examination findings before issuing a determination.
In such circumstances, maintaining clear separation between decision makers and applicants is essential.
However, records released through transparency registers and public disclosures have shown that ministers responsible for energy policy have held meetings with developers and energy companies while applications connected to those same sectors were progressing through the consenting system.
While such meetings may be described as general policy discussions, the timing of these engagements inevitably raises questions. Communities observing these interactions are entitled to ask whether developers enjoy a level of access to ministers that is not available to those living within the areas directly affected by the proposed developments.
The imbalance is particularly striking when viewed alongside other changes affecting public participation.
On one hand, the procedural tools available to communities to challenge developments are being narrowed. On the other, developers continue to engage directly with ministers and government officials as part of industry discussions and investment dialogues.
Even where no improper influence occurs, the appearance of unequal access can damage public confidence in the integrity of the decision making process.
Planning systems rely heavily on trust. Communities must believe that when they submit evidence, objections or technical concerns, those matters will be assessed objectively and independently.
When ministers responsible for determining applications meet with industry representatives during active consenting processes, it creates a perception that the system may not operate with the level of procedural distance expected of a fair and impartial decision making framework.
For communities already questioning the direction of Scotland’s energy planning policy, this perception reinforces the belief that the balance within the system may be shifting away from democratic scrutiny and towards the interests of the development industry.
𝗔 𝗖𝗨𝗠𝗨𝗟𝗔𝗧𝗜𝗩𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗥𝗡: 𝗧𝗛𝗘 𝗚𝗥𝗔𝗗𝗨𝗔𝗟 𝗘𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗢𝗙 𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗨𝗧𝗜𝗡𝗬
Each of the developments described above may be presented individually as an administrative reform, a procedural adjustment or a change intended to streamline decision making.
However, when viewed collectively, a clear pattern begins to emerge.
The mechanisms that once allowed communities and local authorities to apply meaningful scrutiny to large scale energy infrastructure proposals are being progressively weakened. At the same time, the pace and scale of development being promoted across Scotland is increasing significantly.
The removal of the automatic Public Local Inquiry trigger when councils object reduces the procedural weight of democratically elected planning authorities. A local authority can now formally object to a major energy project without triggering the full evidential examination that previously followed.
The removal of email as a method of submitting representations restricts the accessibility and flexibility of public participation, forcing individuals and community groups into a constrained digital portal or a slower postal alternative.
Public rhetoric directed at those raising concerns risks framing legitimate planning objections as ideological opposition rather than recognising them as part of a lawful and essential planning process.
Meanwhile, ministers responsible for determining applications continue to engage with developers and industry representatives through meetings and policy discussions during periods when major infrastructure proposals remain under active consideration.
None of these developments exist in isolation.
Taken together they reshape the balance within Scotland’s planning and energy consenting framework. The combined effect is a system in which the procedural safeguards available to communities appear to be shrinking at precisely the moment when the scale of infrastructure development is expanding.
For many rural communities this is not an abstract policy debate. It is a lived reality.
Across large areas of Scotland, proposals for wind farms, grid infrastructure, substations and battery energy storage facilities are transforming landscapes that have historically been valued for their environmental, cultural and natural heritage.
The communities living within these areas are not simply observers. They are the people who experience the visual, environmental and social impacts of these developments on a daily basis.
Yet the tools available to those communities to ensure that proposals are fully scrutinised appear to be diminishing.
At the same time, national energy policy increasingly frames rapid infrastructure expansion as both urgent and unavoidable. The political narrative surrounding the energy transition often suggests that opposition to such developments represents a barrier to progress rather than a legitimate part of democratic planning.
This shift in narrative carries significant consequences.
Planning systems exist precisely because development decisions involve competing interests. Infrastructure needs must be balanced against environmental protection, landscape preservation, community wellbeing and long term sustainability.
When the mechanisms that allow those competing interests to be properly examined are weakened, the planning system itself risks losing credibility.
Communities begin to ask whether the process remains genuinely open to scrutiny, or whether the outcome is increasingly predetermined by national policy objectives.
𝗔 𝗙𝗨𝗡𝗗𝗔𝗠𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗔𝗟 𝗤𝗨𝗘𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡: 𝗜𝗦 𝗧𝗛𝗜𝗦 𝗦𝗧𝗜𝗟𝗟 𝗔 𝗙𝗔𝗜𝗥 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗧𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗦𝗣𝗔𝗥𝗘𝗡𝗧 𝗦𝗬𝗦𝗧𝗘𝗠?
Planning systems exist to balance competing interests. Governments have a legitimate role in delivering national infrastructure and shaping energy policy. Equally, communities have a legal and democratic right to participate in decisions that will fundamentally alter the landscapes and environments in which they live.
A functioning planning framework depends on maintaining that balance.
It requires open participation, transparent procedures and decision making processes that command public confidence. Communities must believe that when they submit objections, evidence and local knowledge, those contributions will be examined impartially and given proper weight.
Recent developments within Scotland’s energy consenting system raise serious questions about whether that balance is being maintained.
Local authorities can now object to major electricity generating projects without triggering the Public Local Inquiry process that once ensured full evidential scrutiny.
Email, one of the most widely used and accessible methods for submitting representations, has been removed as a valid route for engaging with the Energy Consents Unit.
Political rhetoric has emerged that frames opposition to energy developments through ideological language rather than recognising it as a legitimate component of the planning process.
At the same time, ministers responsible for determining applications continue to meet with developers and industry representatives while major projects remain under active consideration.
Taken together, these developments create the appearance of a system in which the procedural safeguards available to communities are being narrowed, while the strategic direction of government policy continues to accelerate the expansion of large scale energy infrastructure across Scotland.
This raises an unavoidable question.
Is the Scottish planning system still operating as a fair and transparent framework designed to balance national policy with community interests?
Or is it increasingly becoming a process shaped primarily around the needs of developers and energy companies, with limited regard for the people and landscapes that will bear the long term impacts of these decisions?
Communities across Scotland are now asking whether the structures that were meant to ensure fairness, scrutiny and accountability are being quietly dismantled.
If confidence in the planning system is to be maintained, these questions cannot simply be dismissed. They require clear answers, transparent procedures and a renewed commitment to ensuring that public participation in environmental decision making remains meaningful, accessible and respected.
Leave A Comment