Anti-windfarm group Sustainable Shetland demands local public inquiry

The anti-windfarm pressure group Sustainable Shetland is demanding that the Scottish government order a public inquiry at very least into the Viking Energy proposals.

In its submission to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU), which is handling the application to build a 150-turbine windfarm in north central Shetland, the 624-member voluntary organisation makes a series of detailed arguments, from the detrimental visual impact to a lack of evidence that it will help ameliorate climate change, against the plans.

But it is the conflict of interest councillors face in their dual role as trustees of Shetland Charitable Trust that is the principal basis of the group’s objection.

The submission states: “To carry out and properly discharge their responsibilities as councillors and trustees whilst SIC acts as a statutory consultee in the consent and planning process has two principal consequences.

“The first is that SIC cannot be an effective consultee, since it is the collective view of members of the council which must be conveyed to Scottish ministers by the terms of the [Electricity Act 1989].

“Secondly, the effect of councillors being trustees of a part owner of the project is to create an almost complete void in local democracy, and to deny the population of Shetland the right of effective representation which is the duty of every elected councillor.”

Not only that, but three councillor-trustees are directors of Viking Energy, with one of them, Bill Manson, chairman of both the trust and Viking Energy Ltd. Mr Manson also sits on the planning board.

The Sustainable Shetland statement goes on: “[In] view of the councillors’ and trustees’ apparent, direct and irreconcilable conflict of interest, the members of the council should recommend that ministers direct that a public inquiry should be held into the application.”

Chairman of Sustainble Shetland Billy Fox said: “Sustainable Shetland is a Shetland-wide organisation, with a very large membership; we are highlighting areas of additional local concern, especially the fundamental conflict of interest between councillors acting as trustees and developers, provoking a fundamental democratic shortfall.”

With the assitance of Ian Kelly of Perth-based planning specialists Graham and Sibbald and Mark Steele consultants, Sustainable Shetland has produced two reports, both submitted to SIC head of planning Iain McDiarmid as well as the ECU.

The first, addressing the planning concerns, runs to 15 pages; the second, a review of the landscape and visual impact methodology, is 29 pages long.

On the planning front, the group contends that the application is premature because contravenes the Shetland Structure Plan of 2001-2016, the Shetland Local Plan and therefore the Development Plan, none of which make provision for a project of the windfarm’s magnitude.

“This is a massive project by any normal standards. Having regard to the scale of the project in relation to the land mass of Shetland, and considering that it is designed as a purely export driven project rather than as one designed to serve Shetland’s needs, one might consider it to be premature in the absence of any supportive policy, plan or project for a development on this scale.

“Given that there are no details of the necessary interconnector cables, there is a strong argument that the proposal is premature pending a proper updating of the Development Plan … To proceed to any positive consideration [of] the project in the short term would involve making one of the most significant planning decisions ever in Shetland in a complete planning policy vacuum.”

The submission also argues that the windfarm “would not make any measurable impact of any scale on the future climate indicators” and would not have “any verifiable and attributable effect on the emission levels of greenhouse gasses”.

The group believes that the number of turbines proposed has been dictated by the minimum required for the windfarm to be economically viable rather than to fit the landscape. The images produced by Viking understate the visual impact of the windfarm.

Mr Fox added: “The flaws, defects and errors in the Viking Energy planning application have been clearly highlighted by highly respected bodies such as John Muir Trust and Shetland Amenity Trust. These are fully supported, endorsed and incorporated by Sustainable Shetland.” He added that Sustainable Shetland also “warmly welcomed” the RSPB objection to the proposed windfarm.

Sustainable Shetland, which earlier this month presented a petition with almost 3,500 signatures opposing the windfarm to SIC convener Sandy Cluness, said it understood that the trust, with total assets of around £180m, would be required to commit £72m immediately to the project and fund the remaining £288m commitment through debt and other funding mechanisms.

Sustainable Shetland’s full submission can be viewed at the following links:


Add Your Comment
  • James Stewart

    • July 27th, 2009 16:16

    The petition only had 20 per cent of the VOTING AGE population of Shetland (17,391 is roughly the electorate of Shetland). So I don’t think that 20 per cent of the population should have a majority say on an issue that will affect everyone.

    Why doesn’t Viking Energy simply say “Ok anyone living in Shetland currently will get reduced energy bills/free energy”. Therefore if someone moves to Shetland after this, they will know that they are going to be living with a windfarm.

    Work with us VE, and we’ll work with you.

  • Linda Tait

    • July 28th, 2009 10:28

    Free energy from what is a profit-seeking organisation? Don’t be naive. Even if they did, it’s a sad day when Shetland is so easily seduced by £££s. There really is no such thing as a free lunch – the price will be paid in the loss of Shetland’s heartland, and quite possibly the loss of its heart as well.

  • G. Williamson

    • July 28th, 2009 11:24

    Electricity is regulated in the UK. Our electricity here in Shetland is subsidised so that we pay the same as everyone else. It is against UK regulation for one area to pay less than another.

    Also, reduced electricity bills do not offer any rewards for being green. This is a green project. Folk with free/reduced electricity bills are not folk that are careful about the amount of energy they use.

    Viking Energy are going to pay out £1.6 million in localised community benefits. These benefits can be used by the communities however they want. If they all just want a cheque, that is their choice. However, things such as insulation for all houses etc. could be implemented. And this would reduce fuel bills.

    Viking are trying to work with the public it seems, but for some reason Joe public has ignored these messages.


Add 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 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.

200 words left

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


Get Latest News in Your Inbox

Join the The Shetland Times mailing list to get one daily email update at midday on what's happening in Shetland.