19th August 2018
Established 1872. Online since 1996.

Councillors defy legal advice and agree to press on with windfarm vote

Councillor Rick Nickerson argued strongly in favour of taking a vote. Click on image to enlarge.

Councillor Rick Nickerson argued strongly in favour of taking a vote. Click on image to enlarge.

Councillors have defied legal advice that they face an “irreconcilable” conflict of interest and will proceed with a vote on the proposed Viking Energy windfarm.

At a special meeting of the Full Council on Wednesday they voted 15-2 merely to note a report from head of legal services Jan Riise advising them that because of their dual role as trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust, which owns 45 per cent of the windfarm, they could not objectively debate and decide on the issue as a planning authority.

Instead, they have decided to hold a series of meetings with members of the public before convening to take a vote on the windfarm. The councillors will also apply for an extension of the deadline by which they must, as a statutory consultee, give their view to the Scottish government’s energy consents unit.

Mr Riise had warned them that they may be in breach of section 7 of the councillors’ Code of Conduct meaning that, should a complaint be submitted to the Standards Commission, they could face a maximum possible sanction of a five year disqualification. Other sanctions available to the commission include a verbal warning or a period of suspension from office.

The report to councillors this week noted that two formal letters of complaints had already been submitted to the public services ombudsman.

Mr Riise had suggested that the planning service should submit a recommendation on the 150-turbine windfarm project directly to ministers, bypassing a democratic council decision. He had suggested staging four public hearings in Aith, Brae, Dunrossness and Lerwick at which councillors would have been entitled to represent the views of their constituents from the floor along with the rest of the public.

But councillor Rick Nickerson spoke strongly against the notion that elected members could not take a decision on a matter of such huge importance, stating that an acceptance of Mr Riise’s recommendation would be tantamount to an abdication of their right to represent their constituencies to unelected officials.

He said: “I resent the implication and suggestion that I do not have the integrity, intelligence, judgement and ability to make decisions in the best interest of my community. I will fight rigorously any allegations that I have not acted in the fullest of my ability.

“I congratulate the opponents of this project in almost bringing democracy in these islands to its knees. However I am not prepared to be cleverly outmanoeuvred by people who have no mandate, hold no elected office and can only claim to represent a small minority of the Shetland community.”

Sustainable Shetland’s Kevin Learmonth took particular umbrage with the latter statement, telling Mr Nickerson outside the council chamber afterwards that his remarks had been “scandalous”.

Chairman of Sustainable Shetland Billy Fox said after the meeting that what was really bringing democracy to its knees was the councillors’ continued refusal to accept the need to address conflicts of interest and he reasserted his belief that the only solution was for a majority of non-councillor trustees to be appointed or elected to Shetland Charitable Trust.

Mr Fox said: “We’re not going to move forward from this until they actually recognise that fact and address the problems they do have sitting as trustees. They have commissioned a couple of legal consultants’ views on that, which have come back and said they must change their ways, but they’re still not doing that.”

Mr Nickerson said that while the council’s recommendation could come out for or against the Viking Energy project, it had to be arrived at by a “political consensus” as part of the democratic process, not by “weak governance”.

“Should we take our officials’ advice today we will be setting a dangerous precedent. Will we be abdicating all our major and controversial decisions to unelected officials in the future? We are skating on thin ice here. We are precariously close to looking like paralysed rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming car, and there is plenty of evidence of what happens to rabbits on our roads.”

Lerwick North councillor Caroline Miller said she wished to represent the views of both those who are for and against the project and moved an acceptance of Mr Riise’s proposals because she felt it was the best way to allow her to do so, but she was supported by a solitary councillor, Iris Hawkins.

North Isles councillor Josie Simpson was clear that he had been voted in to do a job and was determined to carry it out, adding that he was dead against the growing tendency to “hide behind” perceived conflicts of interest when it came to making tough decisions.

Viking Energy chairman Bill Manson and directors Allan Wishart and Alistair Cooper all declared an interest and left the chamber prior to the discussion taking place, though Mr Wishart first stated his view that local hearings should still be part of the process.

About Neil Riddell

View other stories by »

3 comments

  1. Christine Laurenson

    I would like to know exactly how much money the Trust has already pumped in to this farcical enterprise (without public consultation) and who stands to gain directly (e.g. from the sale/lease of land etc.) if this goes ahead.
    I am astonished that money is being poured into a scheme which appears to offer little to Shetland, apart from destruction of delicate and important ecological sites, horrific loss of visual amenity and a carbon footprint which will take 50 years to repay…

    Reply
  2. G. Williamson

    3 million in investigation. Not a lot for a return of £37 million a year into the Shetland economy and £23 million of that direct into the Charitable Trust as benefits.

    Who stands to benefit? Well, all of us. Care homes, leisure centres, groups etc. in Shetland are funded by the Trust and the Trust is doesn’t have enough income to support the current level of services – let alone the extra care beds that are going to be needed down the line.

    Carbon footprint isn’t 50 years. Worst case, it’s 15 years. And the worst case isn’t very likely.

    Best you start reading about the project for yourself instead of taking everything Sustainable Shetland spew out as gospel.

    Reply
  3. Linda Tait

    “precariously close to looking like paralysed rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming car” – what an apt description, and what a mess. It’s a perfect example of why segregation of duties is so important in order to avoid getting precariously close to looking like a corrupt third world regime.

    This is a huge challenge. Although councillors may think they are acting honourably, that might not be how others see it, and it is very hard to prove that they are not being swayed by their other interests & responsibilities. Anything they do must be capable of standing up to scrutiny, because sure as hell it will be scrutinised.

    Reply

Your Comment

Please note, it is the policy of The Shetland Times to publish comments and letters from named individuals only. Both forename and surname are required.

Comments are moderated. Contributors must observe normal standards of decency and tolerance for the opinions of others.

The views expressed are those of contributors and not of The Shetland Times.

The Shetland Times reserves the right to decline or remove any contribution without notice or stating reason.

Comments are limited to 200 words but please email longer articles or letters to editorial@shetlandtimes.co.uk for consideration and include a daytime telephone number and your address. If emailing information in confidence please put "Not for publication" in both the subject line and at the top of the main message.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.