24th August 2026
Caithness is seeing the rundown of Dounreay so can the area say no to new big developemens thatmight help creae new jobs.
There is a growing resistance to large data centres and other major developments across Scotland.
That resistance should not simply be dismissed as NIMBYism. Communities have every right to ask what a development will mean for the place where they live.
But there is another question which deserves to be asked.
Are we in danger of allowing political campaigns to turn opposition to major developments into a simple "yes or no" argument when the real issue is whether a development can be made to work for the community?
That is a much more difficult question.
It is also one which has become increasingly relevant in Caithness and across the Highlands as we consider the potential for major energy, infrastructure and technology projects.
Recent comments by Highland Councillor Matthew Reiss about large developments and the planning system have added to that debate. His concerns reflect a wider argument that planning rules can sometimes leave communities feeling that they are being asked to accommodate development rather than genuinely shape it.
That feeling should not be ignored.
But neither should we assume that every large development is automatically bad for the community.
The politics of saying no
There is an obvious political attraction in opposing a major development. But everyne needs to think are we being manipulated one way or another.
It is easy to explain.
A large company arrives with plans for a huge industrial or technology project and the community is told that it will bring investment, jobs and economic growth.
Opponents can point to the land that will be occupied, the electricity that will be consumed, the traffic that could be generated and the effect on the local environment.
Both sides can produce powerful headlines.
And that is where caution is needed.
A politician can gain support by saying "we will stop this development".
Another politician can gain support by saying "we will bring investment and jobs".
Neither statement tells residents whether the particular development sitting in front of them is actually good or bad.
The only way to find that out is to examine the detail.
Data centres are a particularly good example
Scotland is attracting considerable interest from data-centre developers because of its renewable electricity resources, climate and availability of land.
The Scottish Government clearly sees opportunities in the sector, but it has also recognised that large data centres can have significant consequences for electricity demand, water use, infrastructure and communities.
The Government recently introduced additional scrutiny for large data-centre proposals, requiring planning authorities to notify Scottish Ministers of new applications and bringing greater central oversight to the sector.
That is an acknowledgement that these developments are not ordinary planning applications.
But the argument should not stop there.
A data centre might employ relatively few people once it is operational but involve a very large construction programme.
It could consume substantial quantities of electricity but also provide a long-term customer for renewable generation.
It might require significant infrastructure but contribute millions of pounds to the local economy during construction.
It might occupy land which some people believe should be used for something else, while others see that same land as an opportunity for investment.
There is no simple answer.
What does the community actually get?
Perhaps this is where the planning debate needs to change.
Instead of asking only:
"Do we want this development?"
communities should perhaps be asking:
"What would make this development worthwhile for us?"
That is a much stronger question.
If a company wants to build a major facility, the community should want clear answers.
How many permanent jobs will there be?
How many will be local?
What apprenticeships and training will be provided?
How much will local businesses benefit?
What infrastructure will the developer contribute towards?
What will happen to electricity demand?
Who pays for any necessary grid improvements?
How much water will be used?
Can waste heat be put to productive use?
What happens if the project changes substantially after planning permission is granted?
And perhaps the biggest question of all:
What happens to the community if the promised economic benefits fail to materialise?
Those are much more useful questions than simply being for or against development.
The planning system matters
This is where Councillor Reiss's criticism deserves consideration.
If communities believe that the planning system is weighted towards getting developments approved rather than ensuring that developments work for the people who live alongside them, confidence in the system will decline.
That is dangerous.
Planning depends upon public confidence.
People have to believe that when they submit an objection it will actually be considered.
They need to understand why a decision has been reached.
And they need to know that the planning system is capable of saying no when a proposal genuinely fails to meet the necessary tests.
At the same time, planning cannot become a mechanism through which every new development is blocked simply because some people do not like change.
That would have consequences too.
Scotland needs houses.
It needs infrastructure.
It needs energy generation.
It needs businesses to invest.
It needs modern communications infrastructure.
It needs jobs.
Those things require development.
The challenge is therefore not to stop development.
It is to make development better.
Saying no also has consequences
This is an uncomfortable point for campaigners, but it needs to be part of the conversation.
If a community rejects a £500 million or £1 billion project, the investment does not necessarily disappear.
The developer may simply go somewhere else.
Another Scottish community might accept it.
Another part of Britain might accept it.
Or the investment could go to another country altogether.
The jobs associated with construction would then be created elsewhere.
Local suppliers would lose the work.
Potential business rates and other economic activity would disappear.
That does not mean that a community should accept an unsuitable development simply because it is expensive.
It means that the economic cost of rejection should also be considered alongside the environmental and social cost of acceptance.
Don't let politics make the decision for you
This may be the most important point.
Communities should be suspicious of anyone who offers an easy answer to a complicated planning question.
If someone says:
"We will stop all these huge developments."
Ask what happens to the investment.
If someone says:
"This development will transform the local economy."
Ask for the evidence.
If someone says:
"The planning system always favours developers."
Ask for examples and ask what specific change they would make.
If someone says:
"We have to accept it because it will create jobs."
Ask how many jobs, for how long and for whom.
That is not being difficult.
It is exactly what democracy should involve.
Caithness should take note
This matters particularly in areas such as Caithness because we have spent decades discussing how to attract investment without losing the qualities which make the area attractive in the first place.
We have enormous energy resources.
We have land.
We have the nuclear decommissioning programme at Dounreay.
We have offshore wind potential.
We have tourism.
We have a growing interest in digital infrastructure.
We need economic development.
But we also need development which leaves something behind.
That might mean skilled jobs.
It might mean apprenticeships.
It might mean improved infrastructure.
It might mean new businesses.
It might mean community investment.
Or it might mean something which has not yet been considered.
The important thing is that the community should be asking the questions before it decides whether the answer is yes or no.
Perhaps the answer is neither yes nor no
The debate over data centres offers Scotland an opportunity to rethink the way we approach major developments.
Instead of a developer arriving with a proposal, a community objecting, politicians taking positions and the planning system eventually making a decision, perhaps we should be looking for something more constructive.
A developer should have to demonstrate the benefits.
A community should clearly identify its concerns.
The planning authority should examine the evidence independently.
Politicians should explain their position rather than simply campaigning on it.
And the final decision should be based on whether the development represents a reasonable balance between economic benefit, environmental impact and community interest.
That may sound less exciting than a campaign slogan.
But it is much more likely to produce good decisions.
There is nothing wrong with opposing a development.
There is nothing wrong with supporting one either.
What we should avoid is deciding before we have seen the evidence.
Because once a community says "no", it may have lost an opportunity.
And once it says "yes", it may have to live with the consequences for decades.
The better question is therefore not:
"Are you for or against big developments?"
It is: "What would you need to see to convince you that this particular development is genuinely in the community's interest?"
That is the question politicians, developers, planners and communities should all be answering.