Onshore electricity generation - Electricity Act threshold: summary consultation responses

Summary of Responses

Question 1: Should there be a single threshold applicable to all technologies?

7. Responses to Question 1 by respondent category are set out in Table1 .

8. This question had a very high response rate with 209 respondents selecting an option and 210 respondents providing comments.

9. Many (148 out of 209) respondents supported a single threshold applicable to all technologies and provided reasons including consistency across technologies, clarity for applicants and members of the public, and avoiding unnecessary complexity particularly for multi-technology applications.

10. This opinion was not shared evenly across all respondent categories. Most Key Agency and Other Public Sector respondents and approximately half of Planning Authority respondents did not support a single threshold. These respondents highlighted that different technologies can vary significantly in scale, physical footprint, local impacts, and consenting complexity.

11. Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) were frequently cited as a technology that should be exclusively considered at a local level. Some respondents commented that wind projects should remain at 50MW while other technologies should have higher thresholds and further discussion was suggested.

12. Some respondents who supported a single threshold stated also within their comments that applications for BESS projects should be excluded from this single threshold.

Question 2: What threshold should apply for applications for electricity generation to be determined by a planning authority?

a) 50MW

b) 100MW

c) 150MW

13. An overview of responses to Question 2 by respondent category are set out in Table 2.

14. This question had a high response rate with 187 respondents selecting an option and 210 respondents providing comments.

50MW

15. Approximately 22% of respondents (42 of 187) selected the 50MW threshold option. This is the existing threshold which determines whether applications for onshore electricity generating stations are made to Scottish Ministers or the relevant planning authority.

16. Almost half (20) of these respondents were from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category, and this was the most popular view within this category of respondents. Their reasons focused on local authority capacity constraints and the complexity of larger projects. Many also gave the view that because National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) classes energy generation and storage exceeding 50MW as significant developments of national importance, then the consenting processes should also reflect this.

17. One Professional Representative Body supported the 50MW threshold option and stressed the importance of maintaining a clear and effective planning framework for renewable energy developments.

18. One Third Sector respondent who selected the 50MW threshold option gave their view that the energy transition has stalled and increasing this threshold risks increasing time, cost and uncertainty to developers of larger projects, further hindering the consenting process, increasing costs consumers and losing wider economic opportunities. The respondent further suggests that objector views, rather than strategic policy imperatives, are amplified in the decision-making process at local level.

19. A small number (2 of 19) of Planning Authorities selected the 50MW threshold option, commenting that they do not have sufficient resources to determine an increased volume of applications.

20. Several (17 of 127) responses from the Communities and Individuals category selected the 50MW threshold option. Respondents cited a lack of local authority resource to cope with additional workload, and concern that elected members could be subject to local lobbying. One community group was of the view that centralised decision-making enables big picture oversight of landscape and environmental impacts across local authority boundaries, as well as awareness of grid capacity.

100MW

21. Approximately 13% of respondents (25 of 187) selected the 100MW threshold option.

22. Many (8 of 19) Planning Authorities respondents supported the 100MW threshold option. Respondents set out that this option balances the concerns of all parties by bringing a greater number of applications to local authorities for determination while enabling nationally significant projects to be decided by Scottish Ministers. Several also outlined that this would bring Scotland into alignment with the threshold for wind and solar in England.

23. Similarly, the two Public Sector Bodies and one Professional Representative Body respondents who supported the 100MW threshold option also commented that this would bring Scotland into line with the adopted threshold for wind and solar in England. They commented that projects of greater scale and national significance should continue to be determined at the national level, given their complexity and potential for heightened public interest and environmental impact.

24. The four Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents respondents who supported the 100MW threshold similarly felt it to be a balance between national oversight and increased local decision-making.

25. A small number (10 out of 127) of Individuals and Communities respondents supported the 100MW threshold option with one arguing that this would strengthen local democratic accountability and place-based decision-making without overwhelming local authority teams with complex projects.

26. No support for the 100MW option was received by Third Sector respondents.

150MW

27. Approximately 64% of respondents (120 of 187) selected the 150MW threshold option. Analysis of the comments however indicate this option was selected by those in favour of a 150MW threshold, those in favour of a threshold in excess of 150MW, and those who called for no threshold and/or all applications to be determined at a local level.

28. Most (100 of 127) of these respondents came from the Communities and Individuals category. Respondents gave the view that local authorities are better positioned to make informed decisions because they better represent local interests and are more knowledgeable about the area. A significant number of respondents from this category indicated their preference for a higher threshold of 350MW or 500MW or called for there to be no threshold and for all applications to be determined at a local level.

29. Many (9 of 19) Planning Authorities who responded supported the 150MW threshold option. They indicated that this would bring them a greater number of planning applications to determine and additional planning fees. Their reasons also included the increasing efficiency of technologies and the view that this change would ensure an appropriate level of local decision-making.

30. One Professional Representative Body supported the 150MW threshold option with the reason that many, but not all, planning authorities are supportive of a substantial uplift in the threshold.

31. Five Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents respondents supported the 150MW threshold option. They indicated that local authorities should maintain the majority of decision-making power, with one stating decisions would be made quicker this way.

32. One Public Sector Body respondent supported the 150MW threshold option, commenting that it would be suitable for Battery Energy Storage Systems (BESS) in particular.

33. Four Third Sector respondents were in favour of increasing the threshold to 150MW or above. They noted the increase in energy projection capacities of renewable development projects and were of the view that the higher threshold would allow for a more democratic and transparent decision-making process closer to the communities affected and with primacy of the development plan in decisions. Their other comments related to the resourcing of local authorities and need for a spatial/strategic approach.

No response

34. A few respondents did not specify a particular threshold level. Reasons for this varied with some Planning Authorities, a Public Sector Body and a Professional Representative Body suggesting that different thresholds should be applied to different technologies and three Third Sector respondents indicated they would prefer all applications to be determined by local authorities.

35. One Professional Representative Body indicated that the threshold should be reviewed as part of any package of reforms to the Electricity Act 1989.

Question 3: Any change to the threshold would apply only to new applications. Do you have any comments on transitional arrangements?

36. An overview of responses to Question 3 by respondent category is set out in Table 3.

37. This question had a slightly lower response rate with 169 responses.

38. Most Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents respondents and Planning Authority respondents agreed that any change to the threshold should not apply to projects for which an application has already been submitted, or for those in the advanced pre-application stages.

39. Conversely, Community and Individual respondents overwhelmingly commented that if a decision is made to change the threshold, this should apply to all applications which have not yet been determined, regardless of their status in the system.

40. Professional Representative Bodies and Third Sector respondents were more mixed in their comments with one and four respondents respectively agreeing that any new threshold arrangements should apply only to new applications.

Cle4ar Transitional Arrangements

41. Several respondents gave their view that clear transitional arrangements would be needed. These included respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents, Public Sector and Professional Representative Bodies, Communities and Individuals categories. Many respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category stressed the requirement for protections for in-progress projects and a clearly communicated start date. One Professional Representative body noted that well drafted transitional provisions will reduce legal risk and support investor confidence during the implementation period.

Suggestions for Transitional Arrangements

42. One Professional Representative Body suggested that any transitional arrangements put in place could be similar to those in England which, if adopted in Scotland, would allow developers of electricity generating stations to choose whether their applications are assessed under the Electricity Act 1989, or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997.

43. One Public Body recommended a three-month transitional period, which would give developers sufficient time to amend documentation, adjust project capacities, or revise submission strategies. It was highlighted that this approach would avoid penalising projects close to submission while allowing the benefits of the new threshold to be realised promptly.

44. Some respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category suggested that specific grace periods should be introduced such as 12 months before any changes come into effect. One respondent from this category suggested that further consultation would be welcomed for transitional agreements should the threshold be changed.

45. Many respondents from the Community and Individuals category called for an immediate halt to energy development applications over 50MW until the development of a strategic plan for energy, and until the grid has additional capacity for existing development to be able to run at full capacity. Some respondents from this group cited the upcoming ‘Strategic Spatial Energy Plan’, while others called for a Scotland-focussed assessment of energy need and delivery options.

Planning Authority Resourcing and Support

46. Public Bodies, Professional Representative Bodies, Planning Authorities and Third Sector organisations all commented that any transitional arrangements should include targeted capacity-building, support and guidance for planning authorities.

47. One Public Body and a Professional Representative Body highlighted that any transitional arrangements will have the biggest impact on planning authorities experiencing the greatest volume of section 36 applications, and those with the most limited resource capacity. It was recommended that the Scottish Government should identify and work closely with those authorities to minimise any disruption and explore how resources such as the National Planning Hub could be utilised to support planning authorities.

Opt-In / Opt-Out Approaches

48. One Professional Representative Body suggested that allowing developers to decide whether their application should be assessed under the terms of the Electricity Act 1989 or the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 would build enhanced flexibility into the system and would align with similar measures introduced in England with the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025. It was set out that this approach would enhance consistency across the nations, and would help absorb any unintended shocks that may arise because of the threshold change.

No View

49. Some Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents respondents commented that they disagreed with changing the threshold and therefore did not consider that any transitional arrangements would be necessary.

Question 4: Do you have any other comments to add?

50. An overview of responses to Question 4 by respondent category is set out in Table 4.

51. There were 159 responses to this question. Some respondents took this opportunity to provide further detail on their responses offered to other questions included within the consultation paper. Other views offered in response to this question focused on the themes set out below.

Reviewing and amending any set threshold

52. One Public Sector Body, one Planning Authority and one Professional Representative Body and some Communities and Individual respondents called for a mechanism to review and potentially amend any set threshold. It was set out that such an approach would ensure that any legislation is fit for purpose and futureproofed.

53. This view was reflected by respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category who highlighted that technologies and project scales are continuing to evolve and that any thresholds set now may become outdated. Respondents from this category proposed that thresholds should be capable of adjustment in response to evidence on workload distribution or system performance.

Resourcing and Supporting Planning Authorities and Communities

54. Respondents across all categories set out their view that planning authorities should have sufficient planning fees, resources and specialist/technical support to be able to process and determine larger and potentially more complex applications.

55. Many respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category highlighted existing pressures on planning authorities, including staff shortages, skills gaps and increasing application volumes (especially in areas hosting high levels of renewable development). Respondents noted that without additional staffing and specialist expertise, changes to thresholds could lead to longer determination times, increased appeals and inconsistent decisions.

56. Respondents from across the Community and Individuals category set out their view that communities need resources to be able to effectively engage with the planning process. This could include funding to recruit planning consultants and to enable Community Councils to hold events which gather local opinion. Some Community and Individual respondents commented that, without funding, they feel outmatched against developers.

Fee structures for applications

57. One Professional Representative Body, several planning authorities and respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category indicated that any increase to the threshold will need to be coupled with a review of the fees applied to applications submitted under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 and the Electricity Act 1989. Respondents gave their view that any fees charged should be proportionate for both developers and local planning authorities having regard to the scale and significance of the project, as well as the resources required to assess such applications. Some respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category identified uncertainties around the operation of fees where applications cover more than one planning authority.

58. Several Third Sector Organisations commented that planning authorities should receive the level of fee currently paid to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU).

Guidance

59. Some respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category gave their view that there should be clear national guidance on topics such as overplanting, export capacity, the assessment of cumulative impacts and the consistent application of National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) across Scotland.

60. There were similar calls from respondents in the Community and Individual category.

Strategic Approaches Towards Onshore Energy Delivery

61. Respondents from the Third Sector and Community and Individuals category commented on the requirement for a more strategic approach toward the delivery of onshore energy in Scotland. Many respondents from the Community and Individuals category called for an immediate moratorium on energy applications to allow time for a more planned approach to the delivery of energy to be developed.

Application Processes

62. Respondents across all categories made comment on the performance and openness of existing application processes under both the Electricity Act 1989 and the Town and Country (Planning) Scotland Act 1997. The importance of open and predictable decision-making for developers, communities and decision-makers was stressed throughout.

63. Respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category emphasised that the application process under the Electricity Act 1989 provides consistency and predictable decision-making for nationally significant infrastructure. Other respondents from this category noted that processes under the Town and Country (Planning) Scotland Act 1997 can be more variable in timescales and outcomes due to local capacity and political factors. Respondents from this category also commented that the effect of recent reforms to the Electricity Act 1989 under the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and investment in the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) should be given time to embed before further changes are made.

64. Respondents from the Communities and Individuals, Public Sector Bodies and Third Sector Organisations categories set out their view that local communities should be empowered to engage in planning and consenting processes. Respondents commented that planning processes should be made clearer and that communities should be offered professional help. Some respondents from the Communities and Individuals category raised concerns about the transparency of the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) and commented that opportunities for community engagement had been limited by the ECU’s decision not to accept representations by email.

65. Respondents in this category also used this question to emphasise that all BESS development should be consented by local authorities, regardless of capacity. A number of responses called for Scottish Fire and Rescue Service to be made a statutory consultee on BESS applications.

Decision-Making Timescales

66. One Public Body commented that current decision-making timescales remain incompatible with Scotland’s net‑zero commitments and the rapidly growing volume of renewable applications. It was suggested that statutory time limits for decisions should be introduced and that this would enhance accountability, provide greater certainty for developers, and ensure that planning authorities prioritise renewable applications effectively.

67. Individuals and Community Groups meanwhile expressed concerns around the fast pace of consents and development. Respondents in this category emphasised their support for net zero goals but gave their view that the current consenting system was unable to control the scale and pace of development proposed.

Effects on the Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA)

68. One Professional Representative Body noted that that there would be a likelihood that increase in the number of applications assessed under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 will be coupled with an increase in the number of planning appeals lodged with the DPEA. It was noted that this would have further resource implications on the DPEA, local planning authorities, as well as on communities who are interested parties to an application.

Question 5: Do you have any comments on the partial and draft impact assessments undertaken?

69. An overview of responses to Question 5 by respondent category is set out in Table 5.

70. There were 128 responses to this question.

71. Differing levels of detail were provided in response to this question, with some respondents suggesting that a range of impact assessments would need to be undertaken if the thresholds were changed.

Partial Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment (PBRIA)

72. A Key Agency, a Planning Authority, a Public Body and a Professional Representative Body commented that the PBRIA should consider the distribution of resourcing across the piece, with more explicit reference made to resourcing implications for statutory consultees, planning authorities, and communities. Respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category raised concerns that the PBRIA does not fully consider whether planning authorities are sufficiently resourced and the possible effect of delays and appeals on project viability and the confidence of investors.

73. One Professional Representative Body suggested that the comparative timeline analysis of Electricity Act vs. Planning Act pathways should be strengthened to evidence efficiency gains.

74. Respondents from the Third Sector, Public Bodies and the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents, and Communities and Individuals categories drew attention to the requirement to consider the cumulative environmental and social impacts of our planning and consenting processes, noting the need to examine how opportunities for community engagement would be affected by any threshold change.

75. Third Sector, Community and Individual respondents set out that the PBRIA does not show how a change to local authority decision making might affect landscape quality, biodiversity outcomes or community ownership/shared benefits models.

Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)

76. One Public Body suggested that clarification should be required on the decision not to undertake an SEA for the proposal. It was noted that variations in how environmental considerations are scoped, coordinated, and addressed across planning authorities could, over time, give rise to indirect and cumulative environmental effects at a strategic scale.

77. Third Sector respondents indicated that the impact assessments should give greater consideration to landscape and cumulative effects, particularly in relation to areas of high sensitivity such as Wild Land Areas and peatland.

Fairer Scotland Duty Assessment (FDSA)

78. One Public Body sought clarification on the decision not to undertake an FDSA for the proposal, particularly on the need to consider interactions between procedural reform and inequalities of outcome. The requirement for a FDSA was also highlighted by Third Sector Organisations.

Island Communities Impact Assessment (ICIA)

79. Third Sector Organisations, a Public Sector Body and respondents from the Development, Property and Land Management Sector and Agents category highlighted that procedural changes may affect island communities differently from mainland areas, and that an ICIA may be required.

Question 6: Do you have any suggestions for additional sources of information on the potential impacts of the proposals that could help inform our final assessments?

80. An overview of responses to Question 6 by respondent category is set out in Table 6.

81. There were 130 responses to this question.

82. Respondents from all categories drew attention to a broad range of evidence on Scottish experiences in the delivery of renewable energy, as well as comparative insights from other jurisdictions, and published research.

83. Existing sources of data were highlighted such as operational statistics from the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) and Department for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA), reports on how the sector deal is working, and industry research on decision times, delays and investment impacts, as well as lessons from changes made in England, Wales and other countries.

84. A Professional Representative Body and two Planning Authorities recommended the use of local authority data on monitoring and long-term environmental management costs (e.g., habitat plans, compensatory planting, biodiversity net gain) to inform fee and resourcing assumptions.

85. Many respondents, including those from the Third Sector and Communities and Individuals category, indicated that further evidence could be drawn on the place-based impacts of energy developments. These included through a review of Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs), studies on the impacts of onshore wind development on Wild Land Areas and Peatland, and an analysis of decision-making outcomes. It was also suggested that research on the role of spatial planning in delivering renewable energy while protecting sensitive landscapes in other jurisdictions should be reviewed.