Council / Councillors send back energy strategy again after more concerns raised
‘Nothing we can do to stop’ major developments, Ian Scott says
COUNCILLORS have stopped short of approving a draft energy strategy for Shetland, ordering officials back to the drawing board again instead.
Concerns were raised about the strategy’s emphasis on hydrogen fuels, and what some felt was a lack of strength on new renewable energy developments.
Elected members had been asked to note and approve the initial draft strategy at Wednesday’s full council meeting, before a final version was presented to them in December.
But instead they chose to simply note the report, with depute leader Gary Robinson saying he wanted to see it brought back later this year with councillors’ concerns addressed.
The council also decided to delay the publication of Shetland’s first energy strategy back in March 2024 – meaning it has been sent back for a second time.
Robinson raised doubts about the prospect of both hydrogen as a fuel source, and of the potential results from carbon capture and storage.
And he said he did not think that the council “can support this [energy strategy] at the moment when so much of the content has changed”.
Councillors were told at the meeting that the purpose of the strategy was to explain to the Shetland public why the energy transition was happening, and to set out what a whole energy system would mean for the isles.
Shetland Central member Moraig Lyall, and Robinson, were the two who put the strategy under the most scrutiny, for differing reasons.
Robinson said he was concerned that hydrogen was mentioned 37 times in the strategy, saying that hydrogen fuel had been “tried elsewhere and failed”.
He pointed to a hydrogen ferry project in Orkney, which he said had been wound up.
Carbon capture and storage was another emerging energy that he raised doubts about, saying a recent report had found it was only “one-tenth as effective as previously believed”.
He questioned whether, if that was the case, it would result in the large levels of UK Government funding previously mentioned.
The depute leader said he had “considerable sympathy” for the SIC’s officers, adding it “must be like trying to nail custard to a wall” in writing an energy strategy during an ever-changing environment for new energies.
Lyall was heavily critical of the omission of a paragraph she had fought to be included, which called for consideration to be given to limiting future onshore developments – except for “small local projects”.
She said this was removed when the document “got into the hands of the legal department”, adding they had said that the paragraph “does not align with national planning policy”.
It was “replaced with a fudged paragraph”, Lyall added.
“To be blunt, I’m not all that bothered if we put a statement in here that doesn’t align with national planning policy,” she said.
“We’re not writing a national strategy, we’re writing a Shetland strategy.
“Most Shetlanders don’t want to see turbines on every hill between Sumburgh and Unst.”
Lyall said that while the SIC may not be able to stop large renewable developments, if they included a statement that they want a limit on what is approved then the Scottish Government would be “giving approval in defiance of the will of Shetland”.
She called for an amendment to the strategy, but could not find a seconder.
Robinson said he did not think the council could, as a planning authority, include a line like that.
“We would actually have less control of the very thing we wanted to control,” he said.
“It would be seen in law as a pre-determination. Be careful what you wish for, would be view on that.”
But Lyall railed back against the depute leader’s comments.
“We’re constantly told that we don’t have any say in these big developments, and now we’re worrying that we’ll be seen to have pre-judged them,” she said.
“That can’t both be true. We either do have a say or we don’t have a say.”
A key theme of the debate was how powerless some councillors said they felt against the might of large developers seeking to build in Shetland.
Stephen Leask said they were left sitting around table feeling “quite emasculated”, while Ian Scott said the council was “absolutely and utterly impotent”.
“There is absolutely nothing we can do to stop it,” he added.
One stated aim of the strategy was to “influence governments and government agencies to promote island-proofing solutions”.
But that raised questions for North Mainland member Andrew Hall, who asked: “How can we influence them?”
Hall said he was “constantly” told by people that they did not want certain energy developments to happen, but that they were told at council level that they were “not able” to stop them.
He called on the SIC to be “more ambitious with our aims”, and said they should explain to people exactly why they cannot refuse these planning applications.
Council chief executive Maggie Sandison said it would be near impossible for the SIC to take over from Scottish ministers to make decisions on large-scale energy developments.
To do so, she told the meeting, they would need to set out clearly why they were better placed than the Scottish Government to make such decisions.
“You need to be able to demonstrate that you would do things better than the current person that has the powers,” she said.
Sandison added that the Scottish Government’s position was to expand the green transition, so if it was councillors’ intention to use the powers to stop renewable developments it “would be difficult to see how that would be granted”.
Councillor Dennis Leask said he was “concerned” and “very confused” by Sandison’s comments.
“Half the purpose of this document was about influencing future regulation by getting in front of government,” he said.
“If that’s not the case there’s not a lot of point in creating this document.”
Members heard that the SIC’s ambition was for a whole energy system by 2045, “meaning an efficient, integrated energy system, where impacts on the environment are minimised”.
Green councillor Alex Armitage said he was “not against” more onshore wind developments, but the key issue was who would own them.
“Is it going to be corporations who extract the value of our resources for private profit, or is it going to be communities who build wealth into our local economy,” he said.
He urged the SIC to “be positive” and to create a “really strong strategy” that allowed any turbines built in Shetland to be at least part-owned by the community.
The draft strategy is set to return for consideration in December.
Become a member of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its readers to consider paying for membership to get additional perks:
- Removal of third-party ads;
- Bookmark posts to read later;
- Exclusive curated weekly newsletter;
- Hide membership messages;
- Comments open for discussion.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a member of Shetland News by either making a single payment, or setting up a monthly, quarterly or yearly subscription.
Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.
