Seòmar agus comataidhean

Thank you, Mr Golden. I thought that you were about to put on a face mask and snorkel.

Although the petition deals with issues of substance for those who are affected by RAAC, unfortunately, for the reasons that Mr Torrance has set out, we are not able to take it any further. It will be interesting to see what progress is made and, in the light of that, whether there are fresh issues that could be pursued in the next session of Parliament.

Thank you for raising my constituency, Mr Russell, because my domestic property borders the River Cart. Although I was not a resident at the time, the river used to regularly flood 50 per cent of the garden, until the Eastwood local authority—it was at that time magnificently led by the Conservatives—introduced flood mitigations, which mean that it has never flooded since then, regardless of the weather.

Are colleagues content to close the petition on that basis?

Members indicated agreement.

The next petition is PE2109, lodged by Brian Shaw—I think that Mr Shaw is in the public gallery this morning—on behalf of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to create a moratorium on any further development of pump storage hydro operations on Scottish lochs that hold wild Atlantic salmon until the impact of such developments on wild Atlantic salmon migrations is understood. We last considered the petition on 10 September 2025, at which point we agreed to write to the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, NatureScot and the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy.

From the written submissions that we received, we found out that, under current regulations, SEPA has a duty to assess the risk to the water environment when assessing a proposed development, including any effects that are cumulative with other activities. Should it consider that a proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the water environment, SEPA may not grant authorisation unless certain conditions are met. Those conditions include requiring that the benefits to sustainable development outweigh the benefits of protecting the status of the water environment; that all practicable steps are taken to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proposed activities; and that the benefits that are expected to be gained from the regulated activities are not achievable by significantly better means.

During the evidence session on 14 January, to which I have already regularly referred, we also heard that SEPA is currently doing some exploration work on the interaction of pump hydro storage with watercourses. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy’s belief was that SEPA would consult on developing guidance for considering the cumulative impact of pump storage hydro on fish.

The Parliament recently considered several relevant stage 3 amendments to the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill. One such amendment called for the introduction of energy planning impact assessments to assess the cumulative impact of energy infrastructure developments on the environment and biodiversity. Another amendment called for a moratorium on major energy infrastructure applications until the Scottish Government publishes a national energy strategy—which Mr Ewing referred to a moment ago—that considers the impact of energy infrastructure on the natural environment.

The Government’s view was that frameworks for assessing the impacts of energy infrastructure proposals on the environment are already in place, and that statutory consultees such as NatureScot and SEPA will provide advice on potential impacts of developments on the natural environment. The Parliament voted against the relevant amendments before passing the bill.

Some of the issues reached the chamber for debate. Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we might proceed?

We certainly could do that in closing the petition. I am not reassured by what has been offered to me as a reassurance, which is that there are far more applications than are needed and that a lot of the proposals will not proceed, despite having been given planning consent. That seems to me to be the wrong way round; instead, we should be establishing what the need is in the first instance and having a planning process that authorises that need instead of having some speculative approach.

I met a constituent who was quite evangelical in their support of battery energy storage systems that are in the correct place and are deployed in the correct way. For me, though, it remains a technology that I would like to know a little bit more about. In the hope that the petition will come back to us in the next parliamentary session—[Interruption.] Did you want to come in, Mr Golden?

It is an important issue that has been discussed and raised with the cabinet secretary and that ended up being discussed in the chamber.

Do colleagues have any comments?

Mr Golden, are you going to supply any?

PE1885, which was lodged by Karen Murphy, calls on the Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to make community shared ownership a mandatory requirement to be offered as part of all planning proposals for wind farm development. The petition was last considered on 2 April 2025, when we agreed to write to the Acting Minister for Climate Action and Scottish and Southern Energy Networks.

As the committee has discussed previously, the power to mandate shared ownership lies with the UK Government under reserved powers, although in an additional submission the petitioner rejects that position and argues that the Scottish Government could, in practice, make shared ownership mandatory.

In May 2025, the committee received a written response from the Acting Minister for Climate Action that stated that the Scottish Government was encouraging developers to offer shared ownership opportunities as standard on all new onshore renewable energy projects, including repowering and extensions of existing projects. More recently, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy that there is high demand for grants and assistance under the community and renewable energy schemes. She also pointed to a number of projects to do with shared ownership, including energy repowering opportunities for Forestry and Land Scotland.

We also heard from the cabinet secretary that she engages regularly with the UK energy minister on the issue and that, as a result, the Scottish Government secured funding to augment the capacity of Community Energy Scotland through GB Energy.

Do colleagues have any suggestions on how we proceed on the petition?