05/02/2026
Great news! Fanellan substation refused by Highland Council.
It was a most interesting S**C meeting today.
First, in the Major Developments section, David Fraser referred to the ECU now refusing to accept e mail submissions. He asked for comment that The Highland Council had no plans to follow suit.
The planner Peter Wheelan said that it was important that public representations are taken into consideration and they would get an answer and come back on the issue.
In the Pre-Application section, it was noted that there were two - the proposed replacement of the Black Bridge, and another not connected with renewables.
On to Fanellan.
The planner presented, with a run down of the site visit route, and that the recommendation was to grant.
Councillor David Fraser was first to speak with a list of six questions:
1. Would construction traffic be allowed over the Black Bridge?
2. Had an impact assessment been done of potential noise through a gap in the bund?
3. Re NPF4 - what is a significant local impact?
4. If it were a wind farm application, a bond would be required for decommissioning. Shouldn't it be the same?
5. When were SSEN told that there would be no traffic through Kiltarlity?
6. There are potentially viewpoints where the site would be visible, including from the A9.
The planner said that there had been an update from Ecology, removing the objection on Biodiversity Net Gain after discussion with SSEN.
Regarding the Black Bridge, there is a reference in the report.
He referred to the objections already in at the ECU with regard to the OHLs.
He said that there is NO clear definition of what local significance would be.
SSEN had stated that the limit of visibility is 2 km; the planner said that was understated and it was near to 3 km.
It is not general practice to have a bond for substations
Regarding when SSEN were aware that to go through Kiltarlity wasn't a feasible option, he referred to the pre-application response in November 2023.
What he had said was then confirmed. That the bridge was assessed in 2023 - it was capable of taking up to 18 tons except for one beam, which needed repair. It had been stated that the bridge should not be used for construction traffic. There is no outcome yet of whether SSEN have determined that the beam can be brought up to spec to take up to 18 tons.
In 2023 SSEN saId that they were proposing to go over Black Bridge; at that time there was no reference to going through Kiltarlity.
In 2024, at scoping they were told that going through Kiltarlity was not acceptable and that THC would oppose that.
The Environmental Health Officer came in on noise and said that there had been a noise impact assessment, but that noise funnelling through the bund gap had not been included
Councillor Fraser said that the Black Bridge is of the greatest concern.
The planner spoke about the OHLs and clearly expects that the THC objection would result in a mandatory Public Local Inquiry.
Councillor Duncan MacPherson spoke about the size and scale of the project being one and a half times the size of Inverness Airport, the same size as Prestwick Airport; each pylon being 57m in height and, as he said last year, like miniature versions of the Eiffel Tower.
He also spoke about the volume of traffic and, for example, the Belladrum event and asked if consideration had been given to that.
He said he had never seen a cherry-picker as high as when they went on their site visit.
He also said that basically they were being asked to approve a quarry with its attendant noise for up to four years.
The meeting was told that there are conditions regarding work hours and noise; that regarding for example Belladrum, construction activities would need to recognise this and may have to suspend some activities.
They are no clearer mow about traffic impacts - this was frustrating - there is conflicting information from SSEN; there is no competent cumulative assessment which, it was stated, is ironic as SSEN are responsible for most of them.
At the pre-determination hearing the statement from SSEN regarding local concerns about transport said 'What is set out in the EIA represents the worst case scenario'. It was stated that this was factually incorrect.
The Environmental Health officer said that there is a need to restrict working hours to a degree - 8-7 Monday to Friday; 8-1 Saturday and no Sunday working.
Councillor MacPherson asked if they would insist on gas insulated switchgear, to which the response from the clerk was 'no'.
Peter Wheelan said that this is a substantial development and there will be traffic impacts; that THC had to manage road networks and that an appeal process would produce better information.
Councillor Andrew Mackintosh asked why the red line is so much bigger than the actual substation site, to which the planner replied that the red line encompassed 223 hectares and the substation took 24.7 hectares of this total.
Councillor Isabelle MacKenzie said that the site visit had opened her eyes. She asked how they could make a competent decision when there were so many unanswered questions.
The answer was that SSEN weren't going to do a detailed traffic plan; that the feedback from Structures this week is that the Black Bridge should not be used in its current form but that it could be improved or replaced.
Councillor Michael Gregson asked if it were the case that NPF4 gave carte blanche.
The answe4r was no; that it required professional judgment, but again mention was made of the information lacking from SSEN, primarily on traffic and forestry.
Peter Wheelan piped up that this is the most important application for SSEN.
Councillor Morven Reid referred to Peter Wheelan having said earlier that if the application were rejected then it it would be likely that SSEN would submit a competent Traffic Management Plan.
Peter Wheelan said that at the 11th hour, SSEN have agreed to the routing.
Those were the questions and the meeting then moved to debate, opening with Councillor David Fraser who said that he would be moving to refuse the application, on several counts. He said that it is the wrong site selection; that houses were clearly visible to them on the site visit and were much more than 3km away; that other villages had to be considered - for example, Beauly as far as vibration damage is concerned; they did not know if the roads have the capacity because there is no competent Traffic Management Plan; that SSEN are not accurate in the EIA; that the same effort needs to go into looking after people as it does to wildlife.
He said that human impacts should not have been scoped out of the EIA; that Black Bridge has not been assessed; that it's a greenfield site which NPF4 does not allow.
Councillor Chris Ballance said that this is the biggest application to come before the committee; that officers have found it frustrating; that it's the wrong design, in the wrong place and that he would be seconding Councillor Fraser's motion to refuse.
He has that peace and tranquillity of the area would be destroyed in perpetuity and gave the example of a nearby croft which faces three years at least of disruption; has an unsaleable property, devalued by at least £40k - he said 'this is not justice'.
He said that SSEN had rejected other sites, including using Balblair quarry and asked how is it better where it's proposed, rather than a quarry being, as it would be, on top of a ridge, maximising visual effect. He said that using GIS would have decreased the space need by a third, but that SSEN had chosen the cheapest option. He recognised that they were answerable to Ofgem and said that to Ofgem, Highland scenery is expendable. He referred Oscar Wilde's quote to Ofgem 'The cost of everything and the value of nothing'.
He also said that if all of SSEN's applications were put together, how much land would remain for Biodiversity Net Gain?
He, too, spoke about Beauly and said that instead of it being a 'vibrant centre', it would be a 'vibrating centre'.
He also referred to the very small amount, comparatively of GVA and the tiny percentage of jobs going to the Highlands.
He referred to there being no competent traffic assessment and that the statements made by SSEN to S**C which were factually incorrect may be grounds for a Public Local Inquiry.
He appealed to the Reporter, if they took the video of proceedings into account, to set the conditions that the committee wanted and appealed to the Reporter to 'send them back to think again.'
Councillor Emma Knox was the next to speak, agreeing with Councillors Fraser and Ballance. Referring to the previous meeting, on 18 December, she said how many times SSEN had said that they didn't know something or didn't have answers; that they had been asked repeatedly for a Transport Management Plan; that they had said on 18th December that they would use the Black Bridge. She referred to David Garvie having said in his address at that meeting that GIS would be more compacted, and she referred to the fact that at that meeting they had stated that they used GIS in coastal areas - for example Kintore, without seeming to be aware that Kintore is 20km from the coast, and Fanellan is less than 3 km from the coast.
She said that these were all choices by SSEN - for example to use AIS over GIS. She said that the site visit had demonstrated the height of the building, and that this was not local communities' preferred location, and that she would agree with refusal.
Councillor Andrew Mackintosh said that they were told that this is of national important but they had to look at things locally and at quality of life. He referred to the lack of a Transport Management Plan and the frustration to planers; to the visual impact to disparate houses and crofts. He said that the landscape would be restructured; that it is not acceptable; the wrong site; the wrong place and that SSEN should go away and look for somewhere else.
Councillor Isabelle MacKenzie should that the application should be refused as it is fundamentally flawed. There is unresolved road safety and cumulative traffic impact; that SSEN have failed and are preventing the Council from coming to any other decision and that there would be a high risk of legal challenge as the development is contrary to NPF4 and HWLDP; that it's 100% unreasonable, and that residents should not be walked over.
Councillor Duncan Macpherson said that they had seen a goldrush to the Highlands. 'Why?' he asked. 'Let's follow the money'. He then gave some history of the electricity board in the North of Scotland and asked who owns SSEN? Answer, SSE.
And who owns SSE, he asked. Answer Blackrock and JP Morgan Chase.
He referred to NPF4 and the words 'we' and 'our' and ended by saying 'I put it we are between a Blackrock and a hard place'.
(At this point we have to commend Lyndsey Ward, sitting behind Councillor Macpherson, for just about managing to keep a straight face!!)
Councillor Michael Gregson said that they were all excellent words by his colleagues. He said that he looked forward to NESO's Strategic Plans coming out so that they would not be subject to the whims of international significance.
He said that they are doing their duty in refusing.
Councillor Paul Oldham, in the Chair, said that it was hard to see where benefit comes locally.
They broke to word the motion to refuse. There were no amendments to accept, therefore the motion to refuse was carried unanimously.
So, for all SSEN and firms associated with them attempting to influence Councillors today they failed - miserably.
