Offshore wind energy - draft updated sectoral marine plan 2025: consultation analysis report

5 Draft updated Plan consultation analysis results

5.1 Introduction

5.1.1 The consultation posed 10 questions on the draft updated Plan itself which are discussed below.

5.2 Question 1 - Do you agree that up to 1 Gigawatt (GW) of Test and Demonstration projects should be included within the scope of the updated Plan? Please provide any comments you have on their inclusion or proposed parameters.

5.2.1 The total number of responses in relation to the multiple choice component of the question regarding the inclusion of 1 GW of T&D projects in the updated Plan was 211. 93 respondents did not answer this question. The breakdown by respondent type was 167 individuals and 44 organisations. The breakdown of responses is provided in Figure 1.

5.2.2 52 respondents answered ‘Yes’, with 28 responses from individuals and 24 responses from organisations.

5.2.3 97 respondents answered ‘No’, with 85 responses from individuals and 12 responses from organisations.

5.2.4 62 respondents answered ‘Don’t Know’, with 54 responses from individuals and 8 responses from organisations.

5.2.5 A breakdown by organisation sub-type shows that public bodies, energy company / developer / association and NGOs generally supported the inclusion of 1 GW of T&D projects, while other commercial sectors and industry bodies / member organisations were equally split between ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and ‘Don’t Know’.

5.2.6 A breakdown by sector shows that fisheries responded either ‘No’ or ‘Don’t Know’, with no responses from fisheries indicating ‘Yes’. Local authorities were mostly supportive of the inclusion of 1 GW of T&D projects, with 6 answering ‘Yes’ and only 1 responding ‘No’. Nature conservation representatives were generally supportive, with 4 responding ‘Yes’ while 1 responded ‘No’, and 2 ‘Don’t Know’. For the offshore wind sector, the majority response was ‘Yes’ with 7 responses, while 4 responded ‘No’, 1 responded ‘Don’t Know’ and 3 did not answer. Most regulatory agencies did not respond to the Question, with 1 responding ‘Yes’ and 1 responding ‘Don’t Know’. The tourism and recreation sector had 1 ‘No’ response and 2 respondents did not answer the question.

5.2.7 For the free text component of Question 1, there were 124 responses. 180 respondents did not answer this question. The breakdown by respondent type was 81 individuals and 43 organisations.

5.2.8 Most organisational responses were from offshore wind, nature conservation and local authority sectors, with 13, 7 and 6 answers respectively. Several sectors had no responses.

5.2.9 Many responses, particularly from individuals did not directly address T&D projects but responded to express concerns relating to offshore wind development more generally, voicing concerns relating to the environment and impact on local communities.

5.2.10 Prominent topics that arose in the free text section of the question are described below.

5.2.11 Some responses addressed the role of T&D capacity in supporting the delivery of the draft updated Plan. These responses indicated that T&D was crucial for de-risking technologies and enabling further offshore wind deployment. They expressed agreement with the principle of including 1 GW of T&D capacity, which allowed for flexibility in deploying emerging technologies on future offshore wind projects.

5.2.12 A number of responses expressed concern regarding the impact of T&D projects on existing ScotWind projects. Specifically, there were concerns that new T&D projects could be prioritised over existing ScotWind projects. The offshore wind sector recognised the importance of T&D projects, but indicated the draft updated Plan should prioritise resources on delivering existing INTOG and Scotwind projects in the range of 400-600 MW to support more timely and efficient delivery of commercial floating offshore wind.

5.2.13 Some responses specifically addressed assessment of T&D projects and their integration within the overall updated Plan. This included concerns about the lack of locational specifics for T&D projects and therefore the ability to assess cumulative environmental impact. Although several responses welcomed the inclusion of T&D projects to ensure they are assessed within the scope of the updated Plan.

5.2.14 A couple of responses welcomed the regulatory certainty that inclusion of T&D projects in the draft updated Plan provides to enable deployment of T&D projects.

5.2.15 In relation to the proposed parameters for T&D projects several responses expressed broad support however responses also expressed concerns about overly onerous parameters, the split of T&D sites between regions and T&D sites not being contained within Option Areas therefore resulting in additional unplanned offshore wind deployment.

5.2.16 Additional concerns were raised that future T&D projects could introduce further pressure on already long queues for a grid connection as well as complicating future environmental compensation measures.

5.3 Question 2 - Do you have any comments on how the benefits of offshore wind development could be maximised? If referring to development within a certain region, please specify.

5.3.1 The total number of responses in relation to maximising the benefits of offshore wind development was 194. 110 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 146 individuals and 48 organisations.

5.3.2 The breakdown of responses by organisation sub-type was split across public bodies, energy company / developer / association and industry bodies / member organisations, with 13, 16 and 11 responses respectively. Remaining responses came from other commercial sectors and NGOs.

5.3.3 The breakdown of responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 14 responses. Fisheries, local authorities and nature conservation each had 7 responses, and several sectors had a single response.

5.3.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.3.5 A portion of responses indicated that offshore wind projects across Scotland are seen as a catalyst for creating high-value jobs and strengthening local supply chains. These responses predominantly came from the offshore wind and local authorities sectors. Respondents also stressed that close collaborative partnership between governments, the industry, and the supply chain is essential to overcome regulatory and logistical barriers, and to reach the Scottish Government’s proposed 40 GW offshore wind deployment by 2040 ambition^[21].

5.3.6 Community benefit, ownership, and local empowerment were also emphasised in a number of individual responses, highlighting that offshore wind development should empower communities through direct ownership, shared profits and decision-making responsibility. These responses referenced the desire for delivery models where profits are reinvested in local infrastructure, services, energy affordability, and to support community-led or co-owned projects. Several responses expressed views that industry and government are not properly accounting for the negative impacts of development on tourism, culture, local fishing industries and the cost of living.

5.3.7 Responses from both individuals and organisations highlighted that maximising the benefits of offshore wind relies heavily on investment in supporting infrastructure such as ports, roads, housing, and skills development. There is an emphasis on coordinated action from both government and non-governmental organisations to ensure regional infrastructure is upgraded in tandem with project development, minimising community disruption. Responses note that unlocking economic benefits requires prioritising local supply chains, manufacturing, and workforce development, and the need for coordination to achieve a Just Transition. Respondents highlight the need for investment in port and grid infrastructure, fair grid charging, and targeted training to ensure local people and businesses capture value from offshore wind. There is concern that without such measures, most economic gains will flow to multinational corporations and external contractors, leaving host communities with few lasting opportunities.

5.3.8 Respondents, particularly from the offshore wind sector, highlighted the necessity of a predictable consenting framework, clear policy direction, and stable market conditions. These elements are seen as vital to attract long-term investment and unlock the full value of offshore wind for Scotland.

5.3.9 Some individual responses indicated support for nationalisation or public ownership of key infrastructure, improved data sharing, and integrating offshore wind into broader energy, climate, and community wealth-building strategies. Responses also highlight the need for better integration with other marine users and for policies that prioritise local needs over speculative or export-driven development.

5.3.10 Several responses mention the benefits of offshore wind in fighting climate change but also state that this should not be at the expense of biodiversity recovery targets or other nature-based metrics.

5.3.11 Many respondents stress that environmental impacts, on marine life, biodiversity, fisheries, and landscapes, must be central to planning. There is widespread concern about siting projects too close to sensitive or populated areas (e.g., N4 Option Area near the Isle of Lewis), with calls for developments to be located further offshore, away from fragile ecosystems and communities. Proposals include embedding nature-positive design, robust environmental assessments, strategic compensation for ecological harm, and prioritising projects that enhance, rather than degrade, marine and coastal environments.

5.3.12 In relation to responses that mentioned specific regions, 64 responses focused on the North region, with 63 responses from individuals, with the majority expressing concerns in relation to the N4 Option Area and citing a lack of benefits for local communities. 14 responses mention other regions, several of these are from local authorities describing the need to realise the opportunities presented by offshore wind within their local area. Other responses mention the need to ensure local communities benefit from offshore wind but raise issues for the local fishing industry (in East and North East regions).

5.4 Question 3 - Do you have any comments on how social impacts could be mitigated?

5.4.1 The total number of responses in relation social impacts was 194. 110 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 144 individuals and 50 organisations.

5.4.2 Responses by organisational sub-type primarily came from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 16, 14 and 12 responses respectively. There were also a few responses from other commercial sector and NGOs.

5.4.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 14 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities with 7 responses each respectively.

5.4.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.4.5 A significant number of responses emphasised the necessity for early, transparent, and meaningful engagement with local communities, especially those directly affected by offshore wind projects. This was consistent across both individuals and organisations.

5.4.6 However, there was a divergence in views relating to the acceptability of current engagement techniques and proposed mitigation measures, with the offshore wind sector saying that current assessment methodologies and mitigation measures were appropriate and that the inclusion of further requirements could introduce inconsistency.

5.4.7 Alternatively, a number of responses called for more robust consultation, including statutory representation for communities and input into decision-making processes, highlighting that mitigation is only possible if communities are empowered to shape outcomes. There was widespread criticism of current consultation processes, with calls for accessible information, independent advisory support, and ongoing dialogue to build trust and ensure local priorities are reflected in project planning and benefit schemes.

5.4.8 Many respondents strongly opposed the siting of large-scale offshore wind developments near shorelines and residential areas, arguing that their scale and proximity make social impacts difficult or impossible to mitigate, this was particularly in reference to the N4 Option Area. Calls were made for developments to be located further offshore or in less sensitive zones, with suggestions for minimum distances from communities, reduced turbine sizes, and a greater focus on smaller, community-led projects.

5.4.9 Concerns, in relation to island and coastal communities and particularly in relation to the N4 Option Area extended to the potential erosion of cultural identity, loss of Gaelic language and traditions, and negative effects on mental and physical health, highlighting that financial compensation cannot make up for the loss of cultural heritage or environmental quality. Emphasising the need to protect scenic views, local wildlife, and the wellbeing of island and coastal communities, respondents argued that developments should respect the unique character and needs of these areas, ensuring that both environmental and social considerations remain central to planning and decision-making.

5.4.10 The offshore wind sector expressed concerns about ambiguous wording in the draft updated Plan and its associated assessments regarding mitigation delivery expectations. The sector recommended clearer mitigation expectations informed by further stakeholder engagement and evidence. This was further supported by a recommendation for a SEA Post-Adoption Statement to address outstanding issues and clarify mitigation measures.

5.4.11 Concerns about the negative effects on the fishing industry, local businesses, and employment opportunities were regularly mentioned by respondents, who highlighted the social impacts of loss of fishing grounds, job displacement, and economic decline in traditional sectors. Mitigation suggestions include integrating fisheries into marine planning, providing compensation for affected industries, supporting retraining and skills development, and ensuring that local workers and supply chains benefit from new projects. There is also a call for fair distribution of economic benefits and robust frameworks for local ownership and profit-sharing.

5.4.12 Many responses pointed to the strain that large-scale offshore wind developments could place on local housing, transport, and public services, especially in island and rural communities. Issues raised include housing shortages, increased demand on ferries and roads, and pressure on healthcare and education. Mitigation measures proposed involve investing in affordable housing, improving transport infrastructure, planning for worker accommodation, and ensuring that community benefit funds address these local needs, with some respondents arguing that without such investments, negative social impacts will be unavoidable.

5.5 Question 4 - Do you have any comments on how economic impacts could be mitigated?

5.5.1 The total number of responses in relation economic impacts was 181. 123 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 131 individuals and 50 organisations.

5.5.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 16, 12 and 14 responses, respectively. There were a further 5 responses from NGOs and 3 responses from other commercial sectors.

5.5.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 14 responses. The fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities sectors were the next most represented sectors with 8, 7 and 7 responses respectively.

5.5.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.5.5 A prominent issue raised is the concern that large-scale offshore wind developments will irreversibly damage the tourism sector, which respondents highlighted was the economic backbone of the Western Isles and similar regions. These responses predominately raised concerns about the N4 Option Area. Respondents highlight the loss of unspoilt landscapes, heritage, and the unique character that attracts visitors. Many believe that visual, noise, and construction impacts cannot be mitigated, and that the resulting decline in tourism will trigger depopulation, loss of local businesses, and general economic decline.

5.5.6 In contrast, respondents from the offshore wind sector indicated that there was no robust evidence to support claims of adverse impacts from offshore wind on tourism due to landscape, seascape or visual effects.

5.5.7 There was strong consensus among the fishing sector and some individuals that offshore wind projects threaten the viability of commercial fishing, due to exclusion from traditional grounds, increased costs as a result of displacement, and ecological disruption. Many respondents argued that fisheries and offshore wind coexistence is often not feasible, and that mitigation measures such as compensation, technical adaptations, or strategic funds are either insufficient or poorly implemented. Calls for robust, long-term compensation frameworks and the avoidance of key fishing areas were frequent.

5.5.8 Some respondents proposed targeted mitigation strategies, such as excluding offshore wind development from high-value fishing areas, technical solutions for coexistence (e.g., cable routing, turbine design), direct compensation to affected households, and investment in local infrastructure. Others suggested focusing on smaller-scale, community-led renewables, or ensuring that local communities receive tangible benefits like free or cheaper electricity.

5.5.9 However, other respondents highlighted that coexistence between offshore wind and other marine sectors such as fisheries and tourism is possible. Respondents from the offshore wind sector noted offshore wind is not the primary driver of adverse impacts on fisheries and mentioned climate change, infrastructure decline and historic overfishing as having greater impacts than offshore wind.

5.5.10 They also highlighted that any consideration of residual impacts on other sectors should be fair and proportionate, indicating it should be clear in the updated Plan that impact assessment assumptions for fisheries (e.g., reduced activity due to health, safety, and insurance concerns) are not actual policy positions that mandate fishing exclusion from Option Areas or mandate compensation for fishery disruption and relocation. They noted that the updated Plan should focus on facilitating coexistence.

5.5.11 A high number of responses advocated for a shift from externally-driven, profit-exporting models to approaches that embed economic benefits locally and drew on ideas of community ownership and broader policy frameworks related to the Just Transition. Suggestions from individuals and the climate action sector included mandatory shared ownership, binding local content requirements, prioritisation of local supply chains, and substantial, transparent community benefit funds. Many stressed that mitigation must be community-led, with local decision-making, training, and long-term investment in infrastructure and skills to ensure a fair and Just Transition.

5.5.12 Some respondents remained deeply sceptical that economic harms can be mitigated, arguing that only halting or relocating developments would be effective, and expressed distrust toward developers and government promises or mitigation measures.

5.5.13 However, this view was contrasted by the offshore wind sector, which highlighted that offshore wind has overwhelmingly beneficial economic effects alongside meeting climate change goals.

5.6 Question 5 - Do you have any comments on how environmental impacts could be mitigated?

5.6.1 The total number of responses in relation to environmental impacts was 240. 64 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 190 individuals and 50 organisations.

5.6.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 15, 14 and 13 responses, respectively. There were 3 responses from other commercial sector and 5 responses from NGOs.

5.6.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities with 7 responses per sector.

5.6.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.6.5 Several responses expressed support for the Scottish Government's urgency to finalise the draft updated Plan. Respondents from the offshore wind sector also highlighted the necessity of publishing the plan quickly and that any technical updates should be addressed in the SEA Post Adoption Statement. The draft updated Plan is also criticised for lacking clear conclusions on the level and acceptability of impacts for each Plan Option at both regional and national levels, with calls for the updated Plan to provide more definitive conclusions and guidance for consenting individual offshore wind projects.

5.6.6 Several responses called for strict adherence to the mitigation hierarchies. A number of individuals and the nature conservation sector emphasised that avoidance of ecologically sensitive areas should be prioritised, with mitigation and compensation as last resorts. Many stressed that mitigation measures must be legally binding, independently monitored, and enforceable, with clear penalties for breaches. Some respondents expressed scepticism toward vague principles such as 'nature-positive development' unless they are written into licences and backed by robust enforcement.

5.6.7 The offshore wind sector advocated for the development of clearer plan-level guidance, informed by robust evidence and stakeholder input, to ensure that mitigation efforts are proportionate and do not rely on excessively precautionary assumptions. They emphasised the importance of strategic compensation measures that would support both ecological outcomes and the successful implementation of higher-capacity projects. There were concerns about the lack of clarity on issues such as potential impacts to Nathusius’ bat and the need for specific mitigation measures.

5.6.8 Many responses highlighted the critical importance of careful site selection, advocating for the exclusion of offshore wind developments from internationally significant habitats, migration corridors, and areas with high biodiversity, particularly at in-shore areas. There was also opposition to siting wind farms nearshore or in productive fishing grounds, with calls to move developments further offshore, avoid fragile seabed habitats, and to protect marine ecosystems. Concerns were also raised regarding the impact of transmission infrastructure on terrestrial ecosystems including peatlands and machair, which falls outwith the scope of the draft updated Plan.

5.6.9 Respondents repeatedly called for holistic, cumulative impact assessments that consider not only ecological effects but also impacts on fisheries, tourism, local communities, and cultural heritage. The fisheries sector indicated concern that current Plan-level assessments are too narrow, and that deferring detailed consideration of negative impacts to project-level studies reduced the value of the SEA in informing decision-making related to the draft updated Plan. Many urged that all aspects of the project, including onshore infrastructure, vessel traffic, and decommissioning, be included in environmental evaluations, and that cross-boundary and long-term effects be fully addressed.

5.6.10 A number of responses detailed suggestions for specific mitigation measures including banning high-noise construction during sensitive periods, requiring quieter construction methods (e.g., vibro-piling, bubble curtains), real-time marine mammal detection with shutdown triggers, vessel speed limits, routing and shielding cables to reduce electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure, and minimising physical footprint on the seabed. Many stressed the need for full decommissioning and removal of infrastructure at end-of-life, and for all mitigation to be independently monitored and transparently reported.

5.6.11 Some responses called for more meaningful community involvement in decision-making, monitoring, and benefit-sharing. Respondents advocated for transparent consultation processes, integration of local and traditional knowledge, and compensation for affected fisheries and communities. Some suggested alternative renewable technologies (e.g., geothermal, wave power) and smaller-scale, community-led projects as preferable to large-scale offshore wind developments. Some responses indicated that for some sites, the only appropriate mitigation is a halt on development.

5.7 Question 6 - Do you think the monitoring of environmental impacts of the draft Plan should be overseen by existing expert groups, or should a new expert advisory group be established for this purpose?

5.7.1 The total number of responses in relation to the multiple choice component of the question regarding responsibility for monitoring environmental impacts of the draft updated Plan was 184. 120 of respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown of responses is provided in Figure 2.

5.7.2 33 respondents answered ‘Existing Group(s)’ with 16 responses from individuals and 17 responses from organisations.

5.7.3 94 respondents answered ‘New Group(s)’ with 83 responses from individuals and 11 responses from organisations.

5.7.4 57 respondents answered ‘Don’t Know’ with 45 responses from individuals and 12 responses from organisations.

5.7.5 A breakdown by organisation sub-type shows that energy company / developer /association supported Existing Group(s), while public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations were more split between ‘Existing Group(s)’, ‘New Group(s)’ and ‘Don’t Know’.

5.7.6 A breakdown by sector shows that the offshore wind and local authorities sectors were primarily in favour of ‘Existing Group(s)’, with 8 and 4 responses respectively, while historic environment / cultural heritage sectors were in favour of ‘New Group(s)’ with 2 responses. The fisheries sector had 1 respondent supporting ‘Existing Group(s)’, 3 for New Group(s) and 3 for Don’t know while nature conservation had 1 for New Group(s) and 3 for Don’t Know.

5.7.7 For the free text component of Question 6, there were 155 responses. 149 respondents did not answer this question. The breakdown by respondent type was 110 individuals and 45 organisations.

5.7.8 Most organisational responses were from offshore wind, nature conservation, fisheries and local authority sectors, with 12, 7, 6 and 6 answers respectively.

5.7.9 Prominent topics that arose in the free text section of the question are described below.

5.7.10 Respondents emphasised the need for adequate resourcing and comprehensive monitoring frameworks to ensure effective oversight of environmental impacts from offshore wind developments. There was support for maintaining existing expert groups such as the SMP-OWE Steering Group and the ScotMER programme by the offshore wind sector, primarily to avoid duplication of effort and to leverage their institutional knowledge. Respondents also called for improved transparency, communication, and coordination between these groups, proposing the establishment of a centralised or dedicated planning advisory function to strengthen governance and oversight. Suggestions included aligning monitoring activities with strategic mechanisms, such as the Marine Recovery Fund, and ensuring they are in step with the rollout of ScotWind.

5.7.11 There were differences in the responses in relation to whether environmental monitoring should be overseen by existing expert groups or by the creation of new bodies. While some respondents argued that the experience and expertise of existing groups is valuable, others expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest and perceived bias, particularly when oversight is linked to government or developer interests. As a result, many advocated for the establishment of a new, fully independent group in order to restore public trust and credibility. Some responses suggested a hybrid approach that would blend existing expertise with independent perspectives.

5.7.12 Additionally, a high number of individual responses advocated involving local communities, arguing for participatory governance and the need to include representatives from local communities, fisheries, cultural heritage groups, and NGOs in monitoring processes and decision-making. Transparent consultation and accessible reporting were seen as crucial, with several responses calling for clear mechanisms to integrate local and traditional knowledge and to compensate affected groups appropriately.

5.7.13 There was general consensus on the need for accountability, adequate funding, and strong enforcement powers for whichever group is tasked with environmental monitoring. Many respondents stressed that effective oversight requires not only independent evaluation but also public reporting and adaptive management processes.

5.8 Question 7 - Do you have any comments on the proposed changes to the SMP-OWE governance structure?

5.8.1 The total number of responses in relation to proposed changes to the SMP-OWE governance structure was 137. 167 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 93 individuals and 44 organisations.

5.8.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 14, 14 and 9 responses, respectively. There were 2 responses from other commercial sector and 5 responses from NGOs.

5.8.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The next most represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities with 5, 7 and 7 responses per sector respectively.

5.8.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.8.5 Proposed changes to the SMP-OWE governance structure drew a mix of support and recommendations for strengthening accountability, leadership, and timely delivery. There was backing for the continued operation of the SMP-OWE Steering Group, emphasising its critical role in coordination and engagement across marine sectors even after the final updated Plan is adopted, but some responses noted a lack of clarity over the membership of the Steering Group and lack of representation from local communities.

5.8.6 A recurring theme was the call for broad, balanced, and transparent stakeholder engagement within governance structures. Respondents in the offshore wind sector as well as individuals highlighted the importance of including industry bodies alongside environmental groups, fisheries, recreational users, and local authorities, with clear mechanisms to ensure all voices are heard. Many respondents advocated for multi-level or regionally tailored governance to avoid a ‘one size fits all’ model, and some suggested embedding advisory panels or community groups in governance frameworks to guarantee meaningful, statutory involvement for the local and island communities most affected by offshore wind projects.

5.8.7 Concerns about centralisation and ministerial control were prevalent among individual respondents, with many fearing that a top-down structure, where final decision-making power rests with Scottish Ministers, could undermine public trust and limit independent scrutiny. Calls for devolved authority, independent oversight, and robust checks on ministerial powers were common, as were suggestions for impartial and transparent governance processes. Suggestions included independent chairing, impartial decision-making, publishing meeting minutes and decision rationales, and declarations of conflicts of interest to foster greater transparency and accountability.

5.8.8 Environmental monitoring and the inclusion of independent expertise were also frequently cited as essential by respondents. Responses mentioned oversight of monitoring should be empirical and peer-reviewed, with strong enforcement powers and adequate resources to ensure compliance with environmental law and ecological integrity. Respondents advocated for retaining specialist groups and including independent experts such as ornithologists, marine ecologists, fisheries representatives, and NGOs to ensure environmental concerns are rigorously addressed, and that public reporting and adaptive management processes are systematically incorporated into governance.

5.9 Question 8 - Do you have any suggestions for how evidence should be shared and/or fed into strategic research programmes?

5.9.1 The total number of responses in relation to evidence sharing for strategic research programmes was 146. 158 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 99 individuals and 47 organisations.

5.9.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 14, 15 and 11 responses, respectively. There were 2 responses from other commercial sector and 5 responses from NGOs.

5.9.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 12 responses. The next represented sectors were fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities with 6, 7 and 7 responses per sector respectively.

5.9.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.9.5 Individual respondents strongly emphasised the need for all evidence, data, and research findings to be made openly and transparently available to the public. There were repeated calls for centralised, publicly accessible data portals, real-time sharing of raw data, and clear, standardised protocols to ensure that evidence is not selectively used. There were suggestions that strategic and project-specific monitoring data should be shared efficiently using platforms such as the Marine Data Exchange, as delays in data sharing hinder evidence-informed action and flexible policy responses. The offshore wind sector also advocated for transparency in precautionary approaches, with suggestions to clarify how such assumptions are applied and openly challenged.

5.9.6 Both the offshore wind sector and public bodies expressed support for greater evidence-sharing and enhanced strategic research collaboration. Industry representatives and relevant agencies welcomed the use and further development of platforms like the Scottish Offshore Wind Energy Council Barriers to Deployment Group and OWIC Pathways to Growth, underscoring the importance of timely data sharing to inform research and improve assessment methodologies. There was also support for the ongoing role of ScotMER, with contributors from both groups highlighting the value of regular review and refinement to ensure that ScotMER continues to address critical evidence gaps and effectively supports licensing, consenting, and planning processes. However, one fisheries sector respondent commented that ScotMER is inadequate.

5.9.7 Responses also noted that strategic research and assessments should feed into policy development. The offshore wind sector commented on how this approach should be used to address over-precautionary assumptions and welcomed the draft updated Plan’s recognition of the need for a more proportionate, evidence-based approach.

5.9.8 A number of individual responses called for independent oversight and verification of evidence. Concerns were expressed about potential bias in evidence collection and interpretation, especially when led by developers or government bodies. Respondents called for independent oversight by academic institutions, NGOs, or impartial research organisations, with peer-reviewed standards and due diligence to ensure objectivity and reliability. Independent chairing and oversight, as well as the publication of meeting minutes, decision rationales, and declarations of conflicts of interest, were suggested as mechanisms to foster accountability and build public trust.

5.9.9 In addition, respondents highlighted the necessity of broadening the scope of evidence considered in strategic research programmes: environmental monitoring and the inclusion of independent expertise (such as ornithologists, marine ecologists, fisheries representatives, and NGOs) were mentioned. Several responses called for evidence to encompass not only environmental and technical data but also socio-economic, cultural, and cumulative impacts, including effects on jobs, housing, tourism, and overall community well-being.

5.9.10 Similarly, a number of individual responses called for the integration of community and local knowledge into strategic research programmes, stressing the importance of incorporating input from fishers, crofters, community groups, and those living in affected areas. There was a strong sentiment that local voices and lived experiences should be given equal or greater weight than technical or developer-led studies, with individual respondents advocating for community councils to be involved in the strategic research programme. Effective communication, including better advertising of meetings and the use of multiple, accessible channels, was seen as essential to enable genuine participation and to respect community feedback.

5.10 Question 9 - Do you agree with the approach proposed to remove the iterative plan review process and replace it with the stated evidence and future planning proposals?

5.10.1 The total number of responses to the multiple choice component of the question in relation to the proposal to replace the iterative plan review process was 165. 139 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown of responses is provided in Figure 3.

5.10.2 34 respondents answered ‘Yes’, with 17 responses from individuals and 17 responses from organisations.

5.10.3 51 respondents answered ‘No’, with 41 responses from individuals and 10 responses from organisations.

5.10.4 80 respondents answered ‘Don’t Know’, with 69 responses from individuals and 11 responses from organisations.

5.10.5 A breakdown by sector shows that the majority of the ‘Yes’ responses were from the offshore wind and local authority sectors with 7 and 3 ‘Yes’ responses respectively. There were 3 ‘No’ responses from the offshore wind sector and 2 from nature conservation. All other sectors had only 1 ‘Yes’ and / or 1 ‘No’ response.

5.10.6 For the free text component of Question 9, there were 111 responses. 193 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 70 individuals and 41 organisations.

5.10.7 The breakdown of responses by organisation sub-type was split across public bodies, energy company / developer / association and industry bodies / member organisations, with 12, 12 and 10 responses respectively. Remaining responses came from other commercial sectors and NGOs.

5.10.8 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 11 responses. The nature conservation, fisheries, and local authorities sectors were the next most represented sectors with 7, 6 and 6 responses respectively.

5.10.9 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.10.10 There were varied responses to the proposal to remove the Iterative Plan Review (IPR) process and replace it with a new evidence-based plan update process. Many respondents expressed concern or opposition to the removal of the IPR, highlighting its importance for accountability, and ensuring that strategic plans remain responsive to new evidence, technological advances, and environmental impacts over time. Suggestions were made to establish periodic reviews, such as every five years, to align with industry milestones and provide the flexibility needed for evolving sectoral needs.

5.10.11 In contrast, some respondents supported a shift towards an evidence-based, future-focused planning approach, provided that transparent mechanisms, clear criteria, and review triggers are established. They argued that this method could reduce delays, offer certainty for developers, and better align with the rapidly evolving needs of the industry. However, they stressed the necessity for the process to remain responsive to new data and stakeholder input, ensuring that it does not become rigid or unresponsive to emerging issues. They also noted the risk of regulatory uncertainty and diminished investor confidence if clear criteria and triggers for future reviews are not defined.

5.10.12 Across both views, there was support for ongoing and transparent engagement with communities and stakeholders. Individual respondents emphasised the need for accessible information and meaningful opportunities for involvement, particularly for local voices most affected by offshore development.

5.10.13 Environmental considerations and cumulative impacts were major concerns throughout the feedback. Respondents called for robust, ongoing monitoring and integration of the latest scientific evidence to inform both plan-level and project-level decisions. There was particular concern that, without regular reviews, cumulative and unforeseen impacts, such as those on marine life, fisheries, and local communities, might go unaddressed.

5.11 Question 10 - If you have any further comments or points that you think should be taken into account in the plan, please provide those below.

5.11.1 The total number of responses in relation further points and comments was 141. 163 respondents did not answer the question. The breakdown by respondent type was 90 individuals and 51 organisations.

5.11.2 Responses by organisational sub-type came primarily from energy company / developer / association, public bodies and industry bodies / member organisations, with 17, 13 and 14 responses, respectively. There were 2 responses from other commercial sector and 5 responses from NGOs.

5.11.3 The breakdown of the responses by sector shows that the offshore wind sector is the most represented with 13 responses. The fisheries, nature conservation and local authorities sectors were the next most represented sectors with 9, 7 and 5 responses respectively.

5.11.4 Prominent topics that arose in free text responses are described below.

5.11.5 Community engagement and consultation emerged as key themes, with many individual respondents voicing dissatisfaction over consultation processes and a perceived lack of meaningful involvement for local, island, and coastal communities. Concerns ranged from poor advertising and inaccessible materials to the feeling that consultation was a mere formality rather than a genuine opportunity for influence. There were strong calls for transparent and ongoing engagement, accessible information, and binding commitments to ensure local communities benefit from offshore wind development, particularly in areas like housing, infrastructure, and economic opportunities. Mechanisms such as community councils and community development officers were mentioned as options for effective local consultation.

5.11.6 Environmental protection and the assessment of cumulative impacts were also prominent concerns. Respondents stressed the need for robust, continuous monitoring and integration of up-to-date scientific evidence to inform every stage of planning and implementation. Responses called for strengthened safeguards for marine life and habitats, including blue carbon stores and Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), and broader ecosystem health. Several respondents felt that current plans and assessments do not sufficiently account for net-positive environmental outcomes, climate change adaptation, or the cumulative effects of multiple developments, voicing concerns about impacts on fisheries, biodiversity, and local communities.

5.11.7 Socio-economic impacts, particularly on traditional industries and community wellbeing, were discussed. The future of commercial fisheries, both Scottish and international, was a significant point, with respondents advocating for coexistence, fair compensation, and avoidance of development in key fishing grounds. Socio-economic consequences extended to concerns about community cohesion, continuity of local traditions, and the wellbeing of future generations. Some respondents viewed offshore wind as a threat to jobs and cultural continuity, while others acknowledged the potential for positive outcomes, such as cleaner environments and new opportunities through renewable energy.

5.11.8 Site-specific and strategic planning issues were also raised, with opposition to the N4 Option Area from Isle of Lewis and Western Isles residents, who cited visual, environmental, and cultural impacts, and questioned the integrity of the previous site selection process.

5.11.9 The offshore wind sector and industry bodies addressed policy alignment and governance challenges including calls for clearer frameworks, transparent dispute resolution, and alignment with other marine and energy strategies. Respondents recommended the development of a single spatial and infrastructure strategy, integration of smart digital tools, and the creation of mechanisms for balancing multiple sectoral needs and resolving conflicts.

5.11.10 Innovation and collaboration were identified as important drivers for success. Suggestions included regulatory sandboxes for testing new technologies, clear guidance for cross-sector collaboration, and the avoidance of conflicts with strategic initiatives like the Acorn CO₂ storage network.

5.11.11 The importance of periodic reviews, evidence-based planning, and transparent stakeholder engagement was repeatedly emphasised, as was the alignment of the updated Plan with Scotland’s long-term renewable energy ambitions, including a post-2030 target of 40 GW deployment and continued assessment of environmental and socio-economic outcomes.