Very Important Development
๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ก๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ข๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ซ๐ญ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ฏ๐๐ฅ๐จ๐ฉ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐ข๐ง๐ญ๐จ๐ซ๐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ ๐ค๐ ๐๐๐.
The Scottish Government Reporters have now issued a formal Procedure Notice requesting further information following the June Public Inquiry.
๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฌ โฆ ๐๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ญ ๐ฆ๐๐ญ๐ญ๐๐ซ๐ฌ ๐ ๐ ๐ซ๐๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐ฅ!
Why? Because the notice makes crystal clear that the Reporters have been listening carefully and reading closely. They expressly say that, following the hearing sessions in June and following their earlier request for more information on agricultural impacts, they now require further written submissions on a series of significant matters before they can prepare their report and recommendations to Scottish Ministers.
In other words the evidence and concerns put forward by us, NOTKUP, community objectors and by the Councils have not been brushed aside. They have been heard, considered and taken seriously enough to trigger further formal procedure.
And the subjects the Reporters have come back on are not minor housekeeping points.
They include:
โข agricultural operations;
โข conditions, including whether another conditions hearing may be needed;
โข major accident hazard gas pipelines, including whether the development could theoretically be consented but still not actually be capable of being built unless other safety regimes are satisfied;
โข whether the risk position has properly been assessed, including whether risks have been reduced โas low as reasonably practicableโ;
โข whether the design has actually responded to gas leak and ignition risk;
โข forestry impacts, including ancient woodland and native woodland;
โข and the production of SSENโs own routeing guidance documents.
๐๐ก๐ข๐ฌ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐จ๐ฎ๐ฌ ๐ฌ๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐.
For SSEN, this is troubling on two levels.
First, there is the substance. SSEN now has to respond to pointed and detailed requests from the Reporters on matters that go to safety, design, environmental impact, conditions and the robustness of its case. That is plainly uncomfortable.
Second, there are the optics. If SSEN now provides major clarification, further explanation or effectively has to patch important gaps, it raises the obvious question: why was this work not presented with sufficient clarity and completeness in the first place? But if it cannot answer convincingly, that creates a different problem altogether.
That is not a good position for any applicant to be in.
And then there is the timetable.
The notice itself says the Reporters may require:
โข a further hearing or inquiry session on agricultural operations; and
โข a second conditions hearing if there is still a lack of clarity.
That means potential further delay is already expressly on the table.
From SSENโs point of view, that is likely to be very unwelcome indeed.
This is not just a request for a missing appendix or a minor clarification. This opens the door to further rounds of submissions, further scrutiny and potentially further hearings. In timing terms, that could prove extremely damaging.
The overall picture is hard to ignore.
The Reporters have listened,
they have identified significant outstanding issues and they are not prepared to proceed to recommendations without further work being done.
That should concern SSEN very greatly.
For us, NOTKUP, communities and Councils who took the time to engage properly in this process, it is also an important sign that the arguments made at the Inquiry were not wasted. The concerns raised have had impact. Proper scrutiny is happening, and where major questions remain, the Reporters are insisting on answers.
