Call for a permanent monthly ‘Residents’ Impact Forum’
Maggie Sandison’s recent defence of the Shetland Development Charter makes a number of important legal points. She is quite right to explain that Shetland Islands Council cannot simply override Scottish Ministers on major energy infrastructure requiring consent under the Electricity Act 1989. That was never in dispute, and it was certainly not what my original article argued.
‘We know the limits of our powers’ – council chief clarifies the purpose of development charter
The problem is that nobody was arguing about the law in the first place.
The Charter’s opening footnote tells us that every commitment it contains is “purely aspirational”, creates no binding obligation and leaves the Council’s statutory powers entirely unchanged.
So, the question remains exactly as it was before.
If the Charter creates no new powers, no new duties and no new obligations, what is the point of it?
That question has still not been answered.
Instead, we have been given a lengthy explanation of statutory constraints that nobody was disputing. For the chief executive of Shetland Islands Council, one might reasonably have expected something more than an explanation of why the council cannot do things that nobody had suggested it should do in the first place.
The Charter promises leadership, partnership, engagement and transparency. If those words are to mean anything, they should be visible in the council’s actions.
So where are they?
We are told the council is lobbying Scottish Ministers and others. Excellent. What is it asking for? What evidence is it presenting? What has it achieved? Where can residents see any of this? If the Charter is to mean anything at all, this should not be difficult to demonstrate.
We are told the council recognises residents’ frustration. That is encouraging. Then why is there still no permanent Residents’ Impact Forum?
Industrialisation has continued for years. Democratic engagement should too. A single event offering three-minute speaking slots, with community councils in attendance, is not a substitute and does not show residents the respect they deserve.
The Development Charter should be judged not by what it aspires to, but by what it delivers. If it is intended to promote leadership, engagement and transparency, those qualities ought to be visible in the council’s handling of major developments. Two recent examples illustrate why many residents remain unconvinced.
Beaw Field. In 2024 the council exercised its own planning powers through a Section 42 application extending the implementation period to 2026. The later (and recently granted) extension to 2031 followed a different statutory route. It is perfectly reasonable to ask why the process changed, what role the council played and what opportunity there was for local scrutiny. Those are straightforward questions. They remain unanswered.
Mossy Hill. Both the wind farm and the later substation were determined by Shetland Islands Council. During the substation application, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion referred to in the planning documents was unavailable while consultation remained open. It appeared only after I raised the matter and the council acknowledged an administrative error. Whatever the explanation, documents relied upon in reaching planning decisions should be available while the public can still comment on them.
These are not questions about powers. They are questions about how those powers have been exercised.
The chief executive also argues that the Charter allows the council to use influence without compromising its role as the planning authority. Nobody has suggested otherwise.
There is a world of difference between prejudging a planning application and providing political leadership. Lobbying government, commissioning independent evidence, highlighting cumulative impacts and creating meaningful opportunities for public engagement are entirely compatible with the council’s legal responsibilities.
If the Charter simply repeats powers the council already possessed and aspirations it already held, then what, exactly, has changed?
At present, the answer appears to be: remarkably little.
No one expects Shetland Islands Council to exercise powers it does not possess. It is, however, condescending for Maggie Sandison to dismiss residents’ concerns with a lengthy explanation of statutory constraints that nobody was disputing in the first place.
Residents are entitled to expect Shetland Islands Council to exercise fully the influence, leadership and representative role it unquestionably does possess.
Finally, I would like to invite Maggie Sandison to meet and discuss these issues directly. Planning law and governance do not always make for riveting reading, and many of the more technical issues might be better explored in conversation than in newspaper columns.
Shetland Islands Council should establish a permanent monthly Residents’ Impact Forum. If the Development Charter is genuinely intended to deliver the partnership, engagement and transparency it promises, establishing such a forum is the obvious place to begin.
Adrian Brockless
Yell
