9th September 2026
Anyone who has dealt with a major planning application will probably recognise the experience.
A project is proposed then the developer spends months, sometimes years, preparing an application. Consultants are employed, surveys are carried out and plans are produced.
Then the questions begin.
Another assessment is required. Another issue needs clarification. Another consultation takes place. More information is requested.
Individually, each requirement may appear perfectly reasonable.
But put them all together and the process can become extremely expensive and, perhaps more importantly, extremely slow.
This is particularly relevant in Caithness and across the Highlands, where major energy developments have become an increasingly familiar part of life.
Wind farms, electricity transmission infrastructure, battery storage, substations and other energy projects are being proposed across the region.
Highland Council itself now maintains an energy projects map covering major generation, transmission and storage proposals — an indication of just how much energy infrastructure is moving through the planning and consenting system.
And this raises a question that deserves much more attention:
Are we asking our planning system to do too much?
It is important to be clear about something.
This is not necessarily a criticism of planning officers.
Planning officers have a difficult job. They have to apply legislation, national planning policy and local planning policies. They have to take account of environmental impacts, landscape, wildlife, transport, infrastructure, heritage and many other considerations.
If the rules require an issue to be examined, it is hardly fair to blame the officer for asking for that examination.
The real question is whether politicians have created a system that is now too complicated and too slow for the infrastructure challenge facing the country.
Every requirement has a cost
This is the part of the planning debate that can sometimes get lost.
A planning requirement isn't necessarily free.
A developer may have to employ specialist consultants, carry out additional surveys, commission reports and revise designs.
While that is happening, money is tied up.
Financing costs continue. Inflation can increase the cost of construction. Equipment prices can change. Contractors may become more expensive.
And the longer a project takes, the greater the uncertainty.
Eventually, some projects may no longer make financial sense.
That matters because the consequences aren't limited to the developer.
A project that doesn't proceed may mean jobs that aren't created, investment that doesn't arrive and infrastructure that isn't built.
A delayed electricity connection can prevent a renewable energy project from generating power.
A delayed housing development means homes that aren't available.
A delayed industrial development can mean businesses deciding to invest somewhere else.
In other words, there is an economic cost to saying "not yet".
What about the environment and local communities?
This doesn't mean those concerns should be ignored.
Far from it.
A major wind farm, powerline, road or industrial development can have a permanent impact on a landscape.
People who live beside a proposed development have every right to ask questions about noise, traffic, visual impact, wildlife and the effect on their community.
Environmental organisations also perform an important role in identifying problems that might otherwise be overlooked.
The question is one of balance.
We are very good at asking:
"What will happen if we approve this project?"
Perhaps we should also become much better at asking:
"What happens if we don't approve it — or if we take another five years to decide?"
That second question has economic consequences.
Should economic impact have greater weight?
At present, the planning system already considers economic benefits as part of the decision-making process.
But there is an argument for making the cost of delay and non-delivery much more explicit.
If a proposed development would create hundreds of jobs, attract tens or hundreds of millions of pounds of investment or provide infrastructure that an entire region needs, those benefits should be clearly assessed.
And so should the consequences if that investment disappears.
This doesn't mean that economic benefit should automatically override environmental objections.
Sometimes the environmental damage really is too great.
But the opposite should also be true.
A relatively minor issue should not necessarily be allowed to hold up a nationally or regionally important project indefinitely if the economic and social benefits are substantial.
Could planning officers have a different remit?
Possibly — but this is where the politics becomes important.
It would be unfair simply to tell planning officers to "use common sense" or "stop asking so many questions".
They are working within a framework established by politicians.
If Parliament and the Scottish Parliament establish regulations requiring particular assessments, planning officers are expected to follow them.
So if the system is too slow, the answer may have to come from political reform rather than from the planning department.
Politicians could consider a much stronger principle of proportionality.
Not every issue needs the same level of investigation.
A relatively minor matter associated with a huge infrastructure project should not necessarily generate the same amount of paperwork as an issue capable of fundamentally changing the environmental or planning case.
There could also be much tighter deadlines.
Once the necessary information has been provided, there should be a clear expectation that the process moves forward rather than allowing an application to remain trapped in an endless cycle of requests for further information.
And for nationally important infrastructure, perhaps the biggest questions should be settled first.
If the Government has already decided that Britain needs substantially more electricity transmission capacity, then the planning process should concentrate on where and how that infrastructure can be delivered with the least damage, rather than repeatedly reopening the fundamental question of whether the country needs it.
Caithness is an interesting case study
Caithness has found itself at the centre of Britain's energy transition.
The area has already seen major renewable energy development and is now part of plans for further transmission infrastructure needed to move electricity south.
The proposed Spittal–Loch Buidhe–Beauly 400kV connection is perhaps the clearest example of the scale of what is coming.
Highland Council has raised objections, while recognising the wider need for electricity infrastructure.
That is precisely where the debate becomes difficult.
The Highlands are being asked to accommodate infrastructure that has national importance.
Local communities quite reasonably want the environmental and landscape consequences properly considered.
But the country also needs investment, jobs and a functioning electricity network.
There has to be a way of bringing those interests together without allowing the process to become so complicated that investment is discouraged.
We need to stop blaming the people operating the system
There is a tendency whenever planning becomes frustrating to blame planning officers.
That may be understandable for someone who has spent years trying to get a project approved.
But the planning officer didn't write the legislation.
They didn't create the environmental regulations.
They didn't establish the national planning framework.
They are applying the system they have been instructed to apply.
If politicians believe that the system has become too slow, too expensive or too complicated, they need to change the rules.
That means politicians also have to take responsibility for the consequences of those changes.
Faster planning will inevitably mean accepting that some assessments will be simplified, some deadlines shortened and some opportunities for further objections limited.
That is a political decision.
It is also a democratic decision.
The question Britain now needs to answer
The real challenge isn't choosing between the environment and the economy.
Most people want both.
They want clean energy, protected landscapes, successful businesses, well-paid jobs and prosperous communities.
The question is whether our planning system can deliver all of those things at the same time.
Britain needs to recognise that delay is not neutral.
Every year spent waiting can add to the cost of a project. It can tie up investment, discourage developers and postpone jobs and economic activity.
Sometimes delay is necessary.
Sometimes a project should be changed.
Sometimes it should be rejected.
But sometimes the answer should simply be yes.
And when the answer is yes, perhaps we should be much better at getting on with it.
Planning officers are not necessarily the problem.
Perhaps the real problem is a system that asks them to examine almost everything before anyone is allowed to say yes.