Highland Council convenor hits back after claims of “democratic outrage” over denied debate on helping communities better understand big energy infrastructure proposals

Highland Council’s convenor has hit back in the row over the blocking of debate on a plan to give the public more clarity on major energy infrastructure proposals.

Councillor Bill Lobban’s rejection of a motion by Cllr Helen Crawford sparked anger yesterday and was described as a “democratic outrage” by protestors.

Nine Highland community councils and the Communities B4 Power Companies pressure group united to condemn the local authority’s refusal.

If passed, the Aird and Loch Ness member’s motion - which attracted cross-party support - would have investigated ways of giving local people greater clarity and transparency in considering complex issues surrounding a flurry of electricity schemes, wind turbines and super-pylon line proposals.

RELATED STORY: Highland Council blocks bid to give public more say amid surge in major electricity infrastructure applications amid controversy over planning stampede

There has been an outpouring of concern over the potentially destructive nature of these developments in obliterating scenery, natural habitats and residents’ quality of life.

SSEN is investing over £20 billion to upgrade network infrastructure with giant new substations and overhead lines across northern Scotland as part of the UK Government’s Pathway to 2030 clean energy transition.

However, Cllr Lobban made it clear he believed Cllr Crawford had been given ample opportunity and advice on how to make her motion competent.

He said: “Cllr Crawford was initially advised by me, nearly a month ago, and subsequently by the council’s head of corporate governance, that her motion was unlikely to be deemed competent.

“Unusually a number of alternative versions were also touted amongst Members and communities.

EXPLAINED: Why are Highland communities protesting about super-pylons?

“The final version presented was little different to the initial version and was therefore deemed not to be competent.

“It is entirely the responsibility of Members to make an effort to ensure that any motion they present will be acceptable.

“Quite why Cllr Crawford chose to ignore the advice she was given, by me and others, is a matter for her to explain.”

If approved, the motion would have been debated at the full council on June 27.

Cllr Crawford, as well as another signatory to the motion, asked the Convenor in writing on Monday morning to confirm why he deemed the motion incompetent. Both still await a reply.

Do you want to respond to this article? If so, click here to submit your thoughts and they may be published in print.