Meeting of the Parliament 18 February 2026 [Draft]
I am grateful to Douglas Ross for managing to get the debate into the Business Bulletin. As he mentioned, a few of us tried previously, so fair play to him for meeting the requirement for cross-party support.
Having sat on a planning committee, I am always extremely careful not to cross the line into prejudicing a quasi-judicial process, which is why I worded my original motion in the way that I did. However, members are still required to take responsibility for their contributions in today’s debate. Nevertheless, being careful not to prejudice the process does not mean that I cannot demand that the developers meet their obligations; that communities’ voices are heard; and that the legitimate, evidence-based and very detailed concerns are acted on, especially when they have been brought forward by volunteers in communities, whether those are individuals, community councils or businesses, who are putting the effort into crafting and sharing them with those who are responsible for making the decision. That has not happened in this case, which deeply concerns me.
I am extremely disappointed to have had such strong and varied representation from people in the Highlands and Moray stating that they are not being listened to. If the people who have to live with the reality of a development—whether that is visual interference, an impact on livelihoods, or knock-on traffic, waste or employment impacts—feel that their voices are just being treated like background noise that can be tuned out, the process is broken. OSG’s refusal to attend a public meeting illustrated that point for me.
The Highlands is used to promises of gold rushes but, even when short-term jobs or community benefits are offered, we often feel that we are left worse off afterwards. I have seen developers work with communities to identify what their priorities are and how they can mitigate any unwanted impacts. That will never please everyone, but it can be done. Infrastructure must serve the community, not the other way round, and vague gestures relating to green energy do not cut it. Mentioning net zero on your planning application certainly does not excuse you from undertaking impact assessments, consultation and partnership working.
The people whom I met in committee room 5 ahead of the debate—thanks to another colleague, Tim Eagle, who arranged a drop-in event—are not opposed to the future; they just want the local community to shape the future. That is what the Scottish Government’s guidance says should happen and that is the point of having local development plans, and I think that it is an entirely reasonable expectation for my constituents to have.
I note that the constituency MSP for Moray, Richard Lochhead, has also asked pertinent questions about which areas are under consideration. There is a lack of information here. People can understand things better with more information but, of course, when they have more information, they can also form arguments that are more relevant and effective. That is why it cannot simply be left to developers to decide whether they want to share the information that local people deserve to have. When we discussed the issue earlier in the committee room, there was an awful lot of speculation. Much of that might turn out to be unfair, but it might be bang on the money. The point is that nobody, from the campaigners to the MSPs in the room, knows the answer to that.
In my view, planning and consenting should never be decided on a political basis. Fundamentally, I do not believe that politicians who are acting outwith the planning process should decide who gets to build and who does not. We all have interests and biases, and the planning process is designed to focus only on what is relevant to the application. My personal objection to or support for any application should never be worth more than the views of my constituents down the road.
The people in Nairn, Findhorn, Burghead, Buckie, Forres and Elgin who have all reached out to share their material planning concerns are the ones who must have a voice and a say in the process. I will continue to do what I can to draw attention to those objections and call out any failures to engage, lack of transparency or poor communication. All that needs to be done is to listen to the local experts.