9th November 2026
The growing number of wind farm developments across the Highlands has created an increasingly difficult question for local democracy. How far can elected councillors go in expressing concerns about renewable energy developments before they risk being accused of bias and excluded from decisions affecting their own communities?
That question has now been brought into sharper focus by Highland councillor Matthew Reiss, who has approached the Ethical Standards Commissioner seeking clear guidance on councillors' conduct when publicly expressing views about renewable energy.
His intervention deserves attention well beyond Highland Council. It touches on the relationship between freedom of political expression, impartial planning decisions and the right of local communities to have their elected representatives speak openly on issues affecting their future.
A councillor's right to question the energy strategy
Matthew Reiss, an independent councillor representing Thurso and Northwest Caithness, previously resigned from Highland Council's North Planning Applications Committee following controversy over comments he made about renewable energy developments.
He had suggested that there should be a pause in approving further major renewable energy projects until the electricity grid was better equipped to transport the power being generated.
His argument was not simply about whether wind turbines should be built. It concerned the wider consequences of Scotland's energy strategy, including grid capacity, the cumulative impact of developments, the landscape and the economic benefits reaching local communities.
In comments reported by The Herald on 8 November 2026, Reiss described the atmosphere within the North Planning Applications Committee as having virtually zero tolerance for voices expressing doubt, caution or dissent.
He has now sought guidance from the Ethical Standards Commissioner about where the boundaries lie.
This raises a legitimate question. If councillors cannot openly discuss the consequences of renewable energy policy, how can they properly represent communities that are experiencing a substantial expansion of energy infrastructure?
The difference between policy debate and planning decisions
There is an important distinction in the rules governing councillors.
The Scottish Councillors' Code of Conduct requires members to act fairly and impartially when determining individual planning applications. They must not prejudge an application, demonstrate bias or create the impression that they have already decided how they will vote.
That is understandable. Developers, objectors and local residents are entitled to a fair hearing. A planning decision must be based on the evidence, planning policies and relevant considerations, rather than a councillor's predetermined position.
However, the rules also recognise that councillors have an important role in discussing wider planning policy and strategy.
Section 7.7 of the Scottish Government's Code of Conduct makes clear that the restrictions applying to individual planning decisions should not prevent councillors from discussing or debating policy and strategic issues.
That distinction is crucial.
A councillor should be able to argue that Highland is taking too much of the burden of renewable energy development, that grid investment is lagging behind generation, or that communities are not receiving sufficient economic benefits.
Those are questions of public policy. They are not necessarily objections to any particular planning application.
The challenge is ensuring that general political views do not become a declaration of opposition to every future proposal.
Two incidents raise wider questions
The issue is not confined to Matthew Reiss.
In March 2026, Councillor Drew Millar resigned as chairman of Highland Council's North Planning Applications Committee after legal advice concerning comments he had made about the need for more wind farms on Skye.
He had said there was no need for any more wind farms on the island. He subsequently accepted that his wording could have been interpreted as opposition to all renewable developments.
He remained a committee member but withdrew from renewable energy discussions.
This followed the earlier departure of Reiss from the committee.
During the March meeting, Councillor Richard Gale questioned whether elected representatives were still allowed to have opinions.
That question goes to the heart of the matter.
It is perfectly reasonable to expect councillors to approach individual planning decisions with an open mind. But if expressing a general concern about the volume of development can prevent a councillor from participating in subsequent decisions, the consequences for local representation could be considerable.
The public needs to understand exactly where the line is drawn.
What does the law actually say?
The Standards Commission for Scotland has published guidance explaining the responsibilities of councillors when making planning and licensing decisions.
Its March 2025 guidance stresses that councillors must consider individual applications objectively, take account of relevant evidence and avoid indicating support or opposition before the appropriate decision-making meeting.
But there is another important dimension: freedom of expression.
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to freedom of expression. Political debate, including robust criticism of public policy, receives particular protection.
That protection is not unlimited. Restrictions can be justified where necessary to protect fair decision-making and public confidence in the planning system.
A previous Standards Commission case involving Angus councillor Bill Duff illustrates the tension. The Commission considered both the importance of political expression and the need to protect impartiality in quasi-judicial planning decisions.
The question is therefore not whether councillors should be free to say anything they like. It is whether restrictions are being applied proportionately and consistently.
Why this matters particularly in Caithness and Sutherland
Few parts of Scotland have a greater interest in this debate than Caithness and Sutherland.
The area has experienced decades of energy development, from Dounreay's nuclear legacy to the expansion of onshore wind, offshore wind proposals, transmission infrastructure and pumped storage schemes.
Renewable energy brings opportunities. Construction contracts, maintenance work, community benefit payments and investment can all contribute to the local economy.
But there are also legitimate questions about the number of developments, the pressure on infrastructure, the effect on landscapes and how many permanent jobs remain once construction is completed.
Communities can understandably become frustrated when decisions appear to be driven by national targets while local concerns receive less attention.
The electricity grid is another important issue. Scotland can generate substantial quantities of renewable electricity, but getting that electricity to where it is needed requires major investment in transmission infrastructure.
It is reasonable for councillors to question whether generation, transmission and local economic development are being planned together.
None of this means that every wind farm should be rejected. Equally, supporting renewable energy targets does not mean every individual development should automatically be welcomed.
A functioning planning system must be capable of considering both arguments.
Is there a danger of creating a democratic imbalance?
There is a difference between a councillor expressing a general view about renewable energy and a councillor prejudging an application.
The distinction should be clear enough for elected representatives to understand and for the public to scrutinise.
If a councillor who supports renewable energy can discuss the economic opportunities without being regarded as automatically biased, a councillor who questions the cumulative impact should be able to discuss those concerns too.
Neither position should determine the outcome of an individual application before the evidence has been considered.
The danger is that uncertainty over the rules could discourage councillors from speaking openly about controversial developments. They may become reluctant to raise legitimate concerns for fear of losing their place on a planning committee.
That would not serve local democracy.
There is also a practical consequence. If elected representatives withdraw from planning committees whenever renewable energy is discussed, the remaining members may have less direct knowledge of the communities most affected by development.
That is not necessarily an argument for relaxing impartiality rules. It is an argument for making those rules clear and workable.
What should happen next?
The Ethical Standards Commissioner's response to Reiss's request will be important, although it should not be assumed that seeking guidance amounts to a formal finding against Highland Council or any individual councillor.
There is an opportunity to clarify how councillors can discuss national energy policy, cumulative development and the interests of their constituents without prejudicing their ability to consider individual applications fairly.
Highland Council should also want clarity. Planning officers, legal advisers, committee members and local communities all benefit from consistent and understandable rules.
Scotland needs renewable energy investment, but it also needs public confidence in the decisions that determine where that investment takes place.
The planning system must protect applicants from unfair treatment. It must also protect the democratic right of elected representatives to question government policy and speak for their communities.
The central question is not whether councillors should be allowed to oppose or support wind farms. It is whether they can still speak freely about the energy future of their communities while remaining impartial when individual planning decisions come before them.
That is a question Scotland should be able to answer clearly.
Standards Commission For Scotland