08/12/2025
*** Further Update on Aberdeenshire Council’s “No Objection” Response to the Kintore to Tealing OHL ***
Following the concerns raised by many residents, we want to share an update on the conversations we have now had with Aberdeenshire Council officials regarding the process that led to the Council’s recent “No Objection” submission to the Energy Consents Unit (ECU).
Over the past two weeks, Crathes, Drumoak & Durris Community Council has written to senior officers, including the Head of Planning & Economy and the Chief Executive, seeking clarity on:
how this position was reached, why the matter was not taken to elected members for public scrutiny and why significant gaps and unresolved issues within the application did not trigger an objection.
We have now received detailed responses, and we want to summarise the key points below, along with our continuing concerns.
🏛️ What the Council has said:
🔹 The Council emphasises that it is not the determining authority for Section 36/37 applications; it is a consultee only.
🔹 Under the Council’s Scheme of Governance, responses to Scottish Government consultations are delegated to senior officers.
🔹 The Head of Planning & Economy has confirmed that Ward 12, 13, 18 and 19 councillors, as well as relevant Committee Chairs, were consulted on the draft response.
🔹 Some councillors reportedly recommended an objection or raised significant concerns, but the final judgement of the Head of Service was that the “threshold for objection was not met.”
🔹 The Council cites the application’s status as a “priority energy infrastructure” case, meaning an 8-week statutory deadline applied. Officers state this did not allow time to report the matter to Area Committees, ISC, or Full Council.
Despite the explanations provided, we have made clear to the Council that significant issues remain unresolved:
🔹 Democratic oversight:
Elected members held differing views, and some recommended objection. Given this, we do not believe delegation was the appropriate route for such a large-scale, sensitive, and controversial proposal.
🔹 Missing and incomplete information:
Key assessments, hydrology, private water supplies, woodland impacts, SEPA-required data, landscape analysis, and mitigation, were incomplete or absent. Under NPF4 and environmental law, the precautionary principle should apply in such circumstances.
🔹 Over-reliance on conditions:
The Council’s response repeatedly states that issues can be “captured in conditions”, despite longstanding concerns about monitoring and enforcement. Communities are all too familiar with conditions that later become diluted or unenforced.
🔹 Need for an updated position:
We have asked the Council to consider submitting an addendum to the ECU, something that is possible and could support calls for a Public Inquiry whilst demonstrating the council hears the feedback from the community.
Our next steps - CDDCC has requested:
1️⃣ A meeting with senior officers to discuss how confidence can be rebuilt.
2️⃣ A fuller explanation of the criteria used to decide that an objection “threshold” was not met.
3️⃣ Consideration of an updated or supplementary submission to the ECU.
4️⃣ A commitment that elected members will still have the opportunity to scrutinise the application and represent community views.
At this point in time, to support us, please take any opportunity to let your ward councillors know how you feel and what action you'd like them to take, they have a vital part to play in supporting us.
We know how strongly affected communities feel about this proposal and want to reassure you that we remain committed to representing the interests of Crathes, Drumoak & Durris throughout the process.
