In September 2024 Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, vowed to “take on the blockers, the delayers, the obstructionists” who have opposed the new government’s plans to speed up the UK’s progress towards a clean energy system by the end of the decade.” Those words were uttered at the Energy UK Annual Conference. The Guardian reported as follows:

Also speaking at the conference was Keith Anderson, chief executive of Scottish Power, one of UK’s largest grid operators alongside its business developing renewable energy. He said: “If we want more homes – they need electricity. If we want more low carbon heating and transport – it needs electricity. If we want more jobs, business and industry – they need electricity.”

“It’s not just renewables we need to build,” Anderson added. “We need to undertake the biggest rewiring this country has ever seen to facilitate the wider modernisation of our economy. Our grid needs a major overhaul to reconfigure the electricity motorways to better serve a modern, flexible, greener energy system.”

We can’t say that we weren’t warned. Nothing and nobody are to be allowed to get in the way. A few weeks later the next stage in the programme was revealed, at least so far as concerns renewables infrastructure in Scotland. The UK government has opened a consultation on “Electricity Infrastructure Consenting in Scotland”. But what’s this? Not only does it contain a foreword by Michael Shanks MP, Minister for Energy in the UK Labour Government, it also contains a foreword by Gillian Martin MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy in the SNP Scottish Government. Two parties that routinely slag each other off at Westminster and Holyrood, joined at the hip when it comes to accelerating the industrialisation of Scotland’s rural and wild locations. A truly co-operative effort to speed up the whole wretched and futile process.

Those forewords contain all the usual spin. This, apparently, is about reforming the planning system so that it can better “deliver the critical infrastructure that communities need” (per Mr Shanks). Also per Mr Shanks:

We have worked closely with the Scottish Government to develop these reform proposals, and this has been an exemplar of what can be achieved when two governments work together on an issue of shared interest.

According to Ms Martin: “We appreciate our counterparts in the UK Government for their engagement and collaborative approach throughout this process.” Lest there be any doubt as to what all this is about, she adds: “We are committed to partnering with those at the forefront of the net zero transition.”

As the Scotland Against Spin (SAS) website says:

It is claimed that “The reforms seek to consult communities at an early stage. This is not about making quick decisions, but instead making considered decisions as efficiently as possible. The energy transition is one that will be achieved by cooperation, not coercion, which is why I believe that local communities should be consulted on applications early, influencing them from the outset….These reforms are also not about pushing through inappropriate developments. Our goal is to process applications in a more efficient manner, ensuring they are accepted or declined based on a more streamlined and effective system. But it also says: “The current system is inefficient and unpredictable, providing no certainty on how long consent will take. For those desperate to bring new energy generating assets onto the grid, it presents a barrier to attracting investment and delivering yet more clean energy to homes and businesses.” Our suspicion is that this represents the real agenda underlying this important and potentially very worrying development.

It isn’t all bad, but mostly it is. The proposal that pre-application requirements should be introduced is to be welcomed, although in its current format, the proposal also generates concerns that it will be too much in the hands of developer applicants rather than controlled – as it should be – by the planning authority. As SAS point out:

…responses will be sent only to the applicant – in other words, responses/objections/concerns will not be published on any local authority/SG website and so may effectively be ignored or censured by the applicant. The applicant would be in complete control of the timing, content and administration of the pre application stage, like the fox in charge of the hen house.

Other concerns relate to the lack of a requirement that all such applications should be subject to the requirement to submit an Environmental Impact Assessment; the potential watering down of the process to reduce significantly the scope for public inquiries (currently they are automatically triggered by an objection from a local authority); and particularly a proposal to reduce the procedures (and associated timescales) for appeals. Inevitably, given the way the wind is blowing (no pun intended) under both the Westminster and Holyrood governments, appeals are most likely to be made by local objectors who have watched in dismay as yet another environmentally-damaging renewables project is rubber stamped. And so it is objectors who are most likely to be adversely affected by this proposal – they will have difficulty organising, raising funds, instructing lawyers etc within the proposed 6 weeks appeal period. Requests by campaign groups for a level playing field, with objectors being given assistance to argue their case, have also been ignored.

The final piece of evidence supporting the theory that this is all about steamrollering through the net zero project, making it easier for renewables companies to get what they want more quickly, and harder for objectors to succeed in their objections, is to be found in the absurdly short time period allowed for the consultation process. The UK Government Consultation Principles (which date back to 2013, replacing the Code of Practice on Consultation issued in July 2008) state that:

Timeframes for consultation should be proportionate and realistic to allow stakeholders sufficient time to provide a considered response and where the consultation spans all or part of a holiday period policy makers should consider what if any impact there may be and take appropriate mitigating action. The amount of time required will depend on the nature and impact of the proposal (for example, the diversity of interested parties or the complexity of the issue, or even external events), and might typically vary between two and 12 weeks. The timing and length of a consultation should be decided on a case-by-case basis; there is no set formula for establishing the right length. In some cases there will be no requirement for consultation, depending on the issue and whether interested groups have already been engaged in the policy making process. For a new and contentious policy, 12 weeks or more may still be appropriate. When deciding on the timescale for a given consultation the capacity of the groups being consulted to respond should be taken into consideration.

As SAS say: “This is arguably the most important planning consultation document for years”, certainly in Scotland. Its implications for residents in affected areas, and for UK energy policy generally, are profound. Those affected residents don’t have the resources of the multi-national energy companies, and may need assistance to offer a cogent response to a 37 page consultation document. And yet those in positions of authority have chosen to ignore the complex and contentious nature of the subject-matter – which would suggest a longer rather than a shorter consultation period is appropriate – and have insisted on receiving responses by 29^th November 2024, despite the fact that the consultation was issued only on 28^th October 2024. Not twelve weeks, not ten weeks, not eight weeks. Not even six weeks, but a little over five weeks has been allowed for responses.

We know that Mr Miliband is a man in a hurry, but just as his plans are not what energy security looks like, this consultation is not what democracy looks like. Mr Shanks, in his foreword, claims that “We look forward to hearing your views on these proposals and we hope that, with your input, we can deliver a reformed process that benefits everyone.” If that’s truly the case, then why the unseemly rush?

I urge anyone affected – or potentially affected – by these proposals to read the Consultation Document and to respond within the paltry time allowed. You can rest assured that the giant multi-national renewable companies will be doing so. Silence really isn’t an option.