Item7Appendix1ElectricityInfraConsentingProposedResponse

CAIRNGORMS NATION­AL PARK AUTHOR­ITY Plan­ning Com­mit­tee Agenda Item 7 Appendix 1 13/12/2024

Agenda Item 7

Appendix 1

Elec­tri­city infra­struc­ture con­sent­ing in Scot­land – pro­pos­als for reform­ing the con­sent­ing pro­cess in Scot­land under the Elec­tri­city Act 1989

Park Author­ity pro­posed response to consultation

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024

Appendix 1 — Nation­al Park Authority’s pro­posed response to con­sulta­tion questions

Pre-applic­a­tion require­ments Page 1 of 7

Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree with the pro­pos­al for pre-applic­a­tion require­ments for onshore applic­a­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Agree. The pro­posed changes are broadly wel­come, ensur­ing a more trans­par­ent and simple set of pre-applic­a­tion con­sulta­tion and engage­ment require­ments, for both applic­ants and stake­hold­ers. Bring­ing the pre-applic­a­tion require­ments more in line with those in the Plan­ning Act 2008 and the Town and Coun­try Plan­ning (Scot­land) Act 1997 (as amended) will cre­ate an industry stand­ard which is sim­pler for developers, stake­hold­ers and the pub­lic alike. The pro­posed changes are expec­ted to allow rel­ev­ant author­it­ies such as the Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) to provide mean­ing­ful com­ment at an early stage on the likely effect of pro­pos­als, offer­ing valu­able early advice to applic­ants. It may also allow plan­ning author­it­ies to more effect­ively resource plan, with assured early sight of energy infra­struc­ture projects.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree with the pro­pos­al for pre-applic­a­tion require­ments for off­shore gen­er­at­ing sta­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Neut­ral. Although we are broadly sup­port­ive, this is not likely to impact CNPA dir­ectly as a land­locked authority.

Ques­tion 3 – Do you agree that pre-applic­a­tion require­ments should apply to all onshore applic­a­tions for elec­tri­city gen­er­at­ing sta­tions, and for net­work pro­jects that require an EIA? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Qual­i­fied agree­ment. Although it is accep­ted that the major­ity of major net­work pro­jects are likely to require an EIA, CNPA ques­tions the mer­it of exclud­ing those pro­jects that fall below the EIA threshold from the pre-applic­a­tion require­ments. It may be worth con­sid­er­ing a single approach for all pro­jects that meet the S36 or S37 thresholds. This would bene­fit such pro­pos­als in the same way as it would bene­fit ElA devel­op­ments, but with the added bene­fit of sim­pli­city and clar­ity for all stake­hold­ers, the pub­lic and applicants.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 2 of 7

Ques­tion 4 – Do you agree that a multistage con­sulta­tion pro­cess may be appro­pri­ate for some net­work pro­jects? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Agree. By nature, lin­ear infra­struc­ture pro­jects such as over­head lines often have the poten­tial to impact stake­hold­ers and com­munit­ies across a very wide area. These pro­jects often include mul­tiple route selec­tion stages includ­ing high level corridor(s) ana­lys­is, route option­eer­ing, route sift­ings, route refine­ments and detailed route ana­lys­is. Ulti­mately, mul­tiple rounds of pre-applic­a­tion con­sulta­tion are likely to be of bene­fit to both the applic­ant and stake­hold­ers on pro­jects such as these.

Ques­tion 5 — Do you agree with the pro­pos­al for an ​‘Accept­ance Stage’ for applic­a­tions? How long do you think an accept­ance stage should be (in weeks)? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. CNPA does not have a spe­cif­ic view on how long the accept­ance stage should be in weeks, but if loc­al author­it­ies are to have an abil­ity to raise an objec­tion to the Scot­tish Min­is­ters if there are con­cerns around the extent of pre- applic­a­tion con­sulta­tion, then an appro­pri­ate and reas­on­able peri­od must be allowed for this.

Ques­tion 6 – Do you agree that the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment should be able to charge fees for pre-applic­a­tion func­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Whilst this is not a mat­ter for CNPA dir­ectly, we note that the pro­posed fees would be based on the prin­ciple of full cost recov­ery. It should be acknow­ledged that there is also a cost to plan­ning author­it­ies and stat­utory con­sul­tees in par­ti­cip­at­ing in pre-applic­a­tion engagement.

Ques­tion 7 – Do you agree that our pro­pos­als for pre-applic­a­tion require­ments will increase the speed of the end-to-end pro­ject plan­ning pro­cess over­all? Why do you agree/​not agree? Qual­i­fied agree­ment. The pro­posed changes to pre-applic­a­tion con­sulta­tion require­ments will likely res­ult in more mean­ing­ful com­munity engage­ment and this should trans­late into bet­ter-qual­ity applic­a­tions at the point of sub­mis­sion. The pro­pos­als could there­fore con­trib­ute to an increased speed of the end-to-end plan­ning process.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 3 of 7

Applic­a­tion pro­ced­ures Applic­a­tion inform­a­tion requirements

Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree with the pro­pos­al for increased inform­a­tion require­ments in applic­a­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Agree. It appears reas­on­able that exist­ing guid­ance on fur­ther inform­a­tion require­ments could be made man­dat­ory through inclu­sion in future regulations.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree with the pro­pos­al to set out detailed inform­a­tion require­ments in reg­u­la­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you and/​or your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple, provid­ing that there would be an oppor­tun­ity for fur­ther engage­ment on the detailed require­ments as and when draft reg­u­la­tions are prepared.

Applic­a­tion input from stat­utory con­sul­tees Ques­tion 1 – What are the reforms that would be most impact­ful in enabling your organ­isa­tion to provide timely input on sec­tion 36 and sec­tion 37 applic­a­tions? If time lim­its are to be con­sidered for dif­fer­ent stages of the applic­a­tion pro­cess, includ­ing con­tri­bu­tions from plan­ning author­it­ies and oth­er stat­utory con­sul­tees, these lim­its will need to take account of factors such as plan­ning author­ity require­ments for report­ing to com­mit­tees. Any time lim­its must allow suf­fi­cient time to accom­mod­ate these requirements.

Ques­tion 2 – What are the advant­ages and draw­backs of the options set out under Pro­posed Changes? How might your organ­isa­tion bene­fit from the pro­posed for­um and frame­work? A for­um includ­ing the Energy Con­sents Unit and stat­utory con­sul­tees may be help­ful for look­ing at com­mon issues, reas­ons for applic­a­tion delays, and help­ing to identi­fy solu­tions. How­ever, the resource implic­a­tions of this for plan­ning author­it­ies and con­sul­tees should also be borne in mind, as for­um par­ti­cip­a­tion may divert staff and resources from oth­er work areas.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 4 of 7

Ques­tion 3 – What spe­cial­ist or addi­tion­al sup­port could the Scot­tish Government’s Energy Con­sents Unit provide to facil­it­ate the stat­utory con­sul­tees’ abil­ity to respond? As above, a for­um includ­ing the Energy Con­sents Unit and stat­utory con­sul­tees may be help­ful for look­ing at com­mon issues, reas­ons for applic­a­tion delays, and help­ing to identi­fy solutions.

Ques­tion 4 – Would new time lim­its help your organ­isa­tion to pri­or­it­ise its resources to provide the neces­sary input to the applic­a­tion pro­cess? This is uncer­tain giv­en the sig­ni­fic­ant exist­ing resource con­straints which we, in com­mon with oth­er plan­ning author­it­ies and pub­lic bod­ies, are cur­rently work­ing with­in. The abil­ity to meet any time lim­its would also depend on the extent to which oth­er pro­posed reforms are suc­cess­ful in deliv­er­ing high qual­ity applic­a­tions with all rel­ev­ant inform­a­tion avail­able from the outset.

Amend­ments to applic­a­tions Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree with imple­ment­ing a lim­it for amend­ments to applic­a­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you/​your organ­isa­tion? Qual­i­fied agree­ment. Amend­ments may be required for a vari­ety of reas­ons, includ­ing to address con­cerns raised by stat­utory con­sul­tees, com­munity groups and / or oth­er stake­hold­ers. It is accep­ted that oth­er pro­pos­als – par­tic­u­larly those with respect to pre- applic­a­tion con­sulta­tion are designed to ensure that such con­cerns are raised and addressed at an early stage. How­ever, there may still be instances where it is reas­on­able to make minor amend­ments to applic­a­tions dur­ing the determ­in­a­tion pro­cess, and it is import­ant that any time lim­it does not arbit­rar­ily pre­clude this.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree the lim­it should be determ­ined by Scot­tish Min­is­ters on a case-by-case basis? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you/​your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. For the reas­ons out­lined above, the Park Author­ity con­siders that any time lim­it should not arbit­rar­ily pre­clude oth­er­wise pos­it­ive amend­ments to applic­a­tions. If there is to be a time lim­it, it there­fore appears reas­on­able for it to be agreed on a case-by-case basis, hav­ing regard to the indi­vidu­al cir­cum­stances of each case.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 5 of 7

Pub­lic Inquir­ies Ques­tion 1 – What is you or your organisation’s exper­i­ence of pub­lic inquir­ies? What are the advant­ages? What are the dis­ad­vant­ages? Form­al pub­lic inquir­ies can serve a pur­pose, and they can be use­ful in some cases for example where tech­nic­al and / or com­plex evid­ence needs to be explored under cross exam­in­a­tion. How­ever, they are inher­ently adversari­al in nature and can be intim­id­at­ing for many parties. They also often lead to the parties involved incur­ring sig­ni­fic­ant costs because of the need for leg­al representation.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree with the pro­posed ​‘exam­in­a­tion’ pro­cess sug­ges­ted? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you/​your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. The Nation­al Park Author­ity con­siders it reas­on­able that the exam­in­a­tion Report­er should have flex­ib­il­ity to determ­ine the most appro­pri­ate pro­ced­ure for under­tak­ing their exam­in­a­tion, based on the cir­cum­stances of the case and hav­ing regard to the views expressed by inter­ested parties.

Vari­ations Vari­ations of net­work pro­jects Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree with the pro­pos­al to pre­scribe a clear stat­utory pro­cess under which vari­ations to net­work pro­jects may be gran­ted? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you/​your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. An approach which mir­rors that set out in Sec­tion 36C of the Elec­tri­city Act 1989 for gen­er­a­tion pro­jects would appear sens­ible in principle.

Vari­ation of con­sents without an applic­a­tion Ques­tion 1 — Do you agree with the pro­pos­al to give the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment the abil­ity to vary, sus­pend or revoke con­sents, without an applic­a­tion hav­ing been made in the cir­cum­stances set out above? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you or your organ­isa­tion? CNPA con­siders that any such abil­ity must be sub­ject to well-defined cri­ter­ia and lim­it­a­tions in order that there is a clear dis­tinc­tion between vari­ations of con­sent that can be dealt with under this power and oth­er cases where a form­al applic­a­tion would be required.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 6 of 7

Ques­tion 2 – Do you believe there should be any oth­er reas­ons the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment should be able to vary, sus­pend or revoke con­sents? What reas­ons are these? No.

Fees for neces­sary wayleaves Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree with the prin­ciple of intro­du­cing a fee for the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment to pro­cess neces­sary wayleaves applic­a­tions? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you or your organ­isa­tion? CNPA has no spe­cif­ic com­ment on this.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree that the fee amount should be based on the prin­ciple of full cost recov­ery, in accord­ance with Man­aging Pub­lic Money and the Scot­tish Pub­lic Fin­ance Manu­al? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you or your organ­isa­tion? CNPA has no spe­cif­ic com­ment on this.

Stat­utory appeals and judi­cial pro­ceed­ings Ques­tion 1 – Do you agree that a stat­utory appeal rather than a judi­cial review pro­cess should be used for chal­len­ging the onshore elec­tri­city con­sent­ing decisions of Scot­tish Min­is­ters? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you or your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. It is noted that this would ensure con­sist­ency with the appeal pro­cess for off­shore elec­tri­city infra­struc­ture under the Elec­tri­city Act 1989.

Ques­tion 2 – Do you agree there should be a time lim­it of 6 weeks for ini­ti­at­ing a chal­lenge to a con­sent­ing decision of Scot­tish Min­is­ters for onshore elec­tri­city infra­struc­ture? Why do you agree/​not agree? How might it impact you or your organ­isa­tion? Agree in prin­ciple. It is noted that this would ensure con­sist­ency with the time lim­it for appeals relat­ing to off­shore elec­tri­city infra­struc­ture under the Elec­tri­city Act 1989.

---

Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Item 7 Plan­ning Com­mit­tee 13 Decem­ber 2024 Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh Page 7 of 7

Trans­ition­al arrange­ments Ques­tion 1 — Do you agree with the above pro­pos­al for trans­ition­al arrange­ments? Why do you agree/​not agree? What impact would this have on you/​your organ­isa­tion? CNPA has no spe­cif­ic com­ment on this.