Offshore wind consenting: the case for certainty on timescales

This article was first published in The Herald.

In a world of increasing uncertainty, both economically and geopolitically, it is more important than ever to maximise predictability wherever possible.

With the war in Iran leading to the second fossil fuel shock in five years, the need for energy security has never been clearer. That means decreasing our reliance on fossil fuels and increasing our deployment of clean energy. Whilst influencing the outcome of major economic and geopolitical events is extremely challenging, this is all the more reason to focus on the aspects that we can control.

Whilst a small piece of the jigsaw, greater certainty on timescales for consents for renewable energy projects is one such aspect.

In Scotland, the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 gives the Scottish Government the power to make regulations which set out clear timescales for the determination of applications for consent for the country’s largest renewable energy projects. Work on those regulations is underway and, depending on the outcome of the recent Holyrood elections, the proposed timescales are expected to be published for consultation shortly after the election.

It would be open to the Scottish Government to set strict timescales for applicants and all other stakeholders in the process, other than the decision made by the Ministers themselves.

Not doing so would be a missed opportunity.

The real value in setting timescales for determination of consent application comes from having clarity over the process from beginning to end. At a recent conference, civil servants responsible for implementing the changes acknowledged that the system can feel like a “black box” – an application goes in and is determined at some point in the future.

It is clearly insufficient to have targets set out only in guidance and not in legislation. Guidance suggests that consents for Scottish offshore wind farm projects should be granted within 12 months, but in practice no consent for any commercial scale offshore wind project has been granted within those timeframes. Developers know that, when programming their projects, they cannot rely on guidance alone.

Comparing the Scottish and English consenting regimes for offshore wind projects provides a useful illustration of the potential benefits of fixed timescales. The average time between application and determination for commercial scale projects does not differ markedly between the two. However, in England, because developers submitting applications for Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects apply the timescales set out in legislation, they can programme a specific date by which they will know the outcome. If the decision is going to be delayed (which is not uncommon), a statement must be made to Parliament giving both an updated deadline and a reason for the delay, which in turn helps to ensure that delays only occur for legitimate reasons.

Developers in England are therefore able to programme on a clearer basis; and if delays happen, they can re-baseline their programmes based on reliable assumptions. By contrast, developers in Scotland face greater uncertainty – and that must be priced in somewhere, making it harder for Scottish projects to compete with their English counterparts.

The conclusion is clear: when decision-makers stick to binding targets, this helps to boost investor confidence.

The offshore wind sector in the UK has faced a few challenges, but it is generally seen as a success story. As countries across Europe accelerate their energy security and climate change ambitions, in the UK we need to keep making marginal gains to ensure that the country continues to attract investment.

Contributors: