Seòmar agus comataidhean

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?

Thank you, Mr Russell. That was a ringing endorsement of the petitioner’s ask.

PE2105, on safeguarding Scottish listed buildings that are at risk of unnecessary demolition, was lodged by Lydia Franklin on behalf of Save Britain’s Heritage and calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to set a minimum evidence requirement to prevent the unnecessary use of emergency public safety powers to demolish such buildings.

We last considered the petition on 18 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. In response to the petition, the building standards division carried out research to establish case studies to illustrate how local authorities resolve issues relating to listed buildings that become to defective or dangerous. That research project concluded in July 2025, and a full report has been shared with committee members for their information.

The cabinet secretary’s response to the committee notes that the case studies that are contained in the report underline the fact that no two scenarios are the same, and that difficult decisions are often required. She goes on to state that it is clear from the research that decisions are made in collaboration with the parties involved whenever possible; professional advice from experienced structural engineers is central to the outcome for each building; and the use of emergency powers is the last resort and happens only when all other related legislation has failed to protect the building.

Following the research, the building standards enforcement handbook and procedural handbook will be expanded to reflect recommended best practice as indicated by the project’s findings. The guidance will not recommend using only conservation-accredited engineers to support decision making, as there are insufficient numbers of those engineers to meet need across Scotland. The cabinet secretary’s response states that the lack of availability of that resource nationally would significantly hinder local authorities’ ability to meet their statutory duty to act immediately to remove the danger that is posed.

The Scottish Government considers that the current legislative framework under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Scotland) Act 1997 provides planning authorities with a range of provisions to intervene if a building is at risk. The cabinet secretary therefore does not consider that a legislative review is required at this time.

The petitioner’s submission to the committee states that they are pleased that guidance in the building standards enforcement handbook and the procedural handbook will be expanded. However, she urges that emphasis be explicitly placed on consulting conservation-accredited engineers to ensure that decision making is informed and robust. The submission highlights evidence to the committee stating that the number of conservation-accredited engineers would increase significantly if that work was incentivised through legislation.

The petitioner also states that consultation with national and local heritage groups and experts on the expanded guidance is essential to ensure that the process is fair and transparent. The submission therefore calls for a consultation to be carried out before the report’s recommendations are enshrined in guidance. The submission also reiterates the call for a legislative review and a requirement for consultation with a conservation-accredited engineer to ensure that decisions to demolish listed buildings under emergency powers are transparently and robustly justified.

Our former committee colleague Paul Sweeney has been very closely associated with the petition and had hoped to be with us this morning. That would have been his finale performance before us, as he has been a faithful re-attender at our meetings.

I do not know whether colleagues have any suggestions for action. I hear everything that we are being told. I remember that we took a considerable amount of evidence on the matter, and it struck me as impressive. From all that I have heard, I am not sure that we have identified a solution that will not lead to inappropriate decisions and demolitions taking place. Do colleagues have any suggestions as to how we might proceed?

The next petition is PE2095, lodged by Margaret Tracey Smith, which calls on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to review and seek to update section 3.2 of “Energy Consents Unit: Good Practice Guidance for Applications under Section 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989”—that was a mouthful—to address the concerns of communities about the lack of meaningful, responsible and robust voluntary and pre-application consultation by transmission operators on energy infrastructure projects. The petition also calls for all available levers to be explored to strengthen community liaison and public participation during the lifecycle of energy infrastructure projects.

We last considered the petition on 4 June 2025, when we agreed to write to the Scottish Government. As with PE1864, I reiterate what we heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Action and Energy on 14 January, which was that, in light of the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, the Scottish Government is working on a consultation with stakeholders, including communities, to discuss issues that relate to community engagement and community consultation so that the process can be improved.

We have also already heard about work that is in progress to update the Government’s good practice principles for community benefits from onshore renewable energy developments. As was suggested earlier, the Government also champions the reporter-led examination process that was introduced by the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 for when a planning authority objects to an application in a specified timeframe. Under that procedure, the reporter may decide that it is appropriate to hold a meeting to engage with interested parties regarding their views.

Do members have any comments or suggestions for action?

Are colleagues content to do that?

Members indicated agreement.