Last week we mentioned that we had received an email from David Liddell, Assistant Chief Reporter at DPEA, asking us for comments on the draft guidance note for community hearings (attached below). This is our response.
Dear David,
SAS members (and other respondents) spent a great deal of time and effort in November 2024 responding to the very lengthy and detailed DESNZ consultation on ‘Electricity Infrastructure Consenting in Scotland – Proposals for reforming the consenting processes in Scotland under the Electricity Act 1989’ .
It has become very clear that the UK and Scottish Governments were in lockstep in regard to making these changes to the Electricity Act in order to speed up consent for s.36 and s.37 renewable projects and indeed, DPEA has been talking about making some of the proposed changes for a while.
Despite overwhelming rejection of some of the proposed changes in the DESNZ consultation (with those responses from the public and industry collated in the attachment below by DESNZ/UK Gov), many democratic, majority responses have simply been ignored, with most of the UK Gov proposed draft changes very promptly written into the draft amended bill- to be put before parliament for approval.
Frankly, this autocratic approach demeans any credibility that ‘consulting’ has for any draft documents now based on planning and the consenting of renewable projects in Scotland. It appears to SAS members that the UK and Scottish Governments conduct consultation excercises simply as a box ticking excercise to give credibility to unpopular legislation designed to facilitate commercial exploitation above environmental concerns of local communities in Scotland.
This behaviour is very similar to the ‘consultation’ excercises that developers are required to conduct with communities that will be impacted by their major renewable/grid development projects – simply a tick box excercise where local concerns are generally ignored but where public ‘consultation’ can be said to have occurred.
SAS has previously and repeatedly raised the issue of difficulties and intimidation re. public participation at Public Inquiries. A previous e mail to you in 2024 with SAS Members comments (as an additional attachment) is again provided which confirms public preference for public inquiries, but with appropriate support.
In essence, the overwhelming public opinion is that Public Inquiries are essential for members of the public in order to have the right to be heard and for concerns to be properly documented and considered in accordance with the Aarhus convention.
Although reporters are now more proactive in stopping bullying and intimidation of ordinary citizens who wish to participate, there remains a continuing need for professional help for third parties in order that they can participate on a more equal footing against very well resourced developer’s legal teams. That is the basis of the SAS Petition 1864 which has had 10 hearings and been with the Scottish Government, with no decision, for over four years.
In view of the above, before we ask our members to comment on these DPEA proposals which seek to enact the changes in the amended Electricity Act Bill, what is the purpose of this DPEA ‘consultation’ ?
Is this simply to add credibility to this document and the consequent changes or, like the proposed community hearings instead of public inquiries, as set out in the amendments to the Electricty Act, will our comments actually have any material impact or any influence on the outcome and proposed changes within the draft document?
If this draft document is simply ‘for information’ of the changes that will occur, then there is no benefit in providing public consultation responses and any pretence of democratic credibility is thereby removed.
We look forward to receiving your reply before the next stakeholder meeting.
Thank you,
0 Comments