SSEN Scarring Scotland’s Environment Now

22/06/2026

Personal Statement, Michael Wright – Failure to reduce Major Accident Risk to ALARP in the vicinity of the hamlet of Monboddo. (𝐴𝑠 𝐿𝑜𝑤 𝐴𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑦 𝑃𝑟𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒)

I am a 25 year+ HSE professional, responsible for managing Major Accident Hazards (MAH) and in reviewing Environmental Impact Assessments.

During my career I previously have been involved with the construction of several 48” HP MAH Gas transmission pipelines, on behalf of National Grid namely:
• Aberdeen to Lochside
• Bathgate to Newarthill
• Felindre to Tirley

During those projects I attended numerous public consultation events on behalf of National Grid; one of the concerns of the public that came up often was the risk of explosion. It was explained to them that due to the high-pressure nature of the pipeline, there was little risk of explosion due to the gas/air mix unlikely to reach an ignitable ratio until approximately 50m in the air, and with no source of ignition there was no means to cause ignition of the gas.

The proposed TKUP OHL must cross several MAH pipelines along its route and with proposed pylon heights of 50m to 70m, this introduces a source of ignition for the operational lifetime of the OHL, at the height where in the event of a breach the gas/air mix would have reached an ignitable ratio, representing a new Major Accident Hazard introduced.

In additional to the more general legislative safety requirements, under the Pipeline Safety Regs and COMAH Regs there is a legal duty to reduce the risk of major accident to ALARP.

With regards OHL crossing the MAH pipelines, several risk factors increase the likelihood of a major accident during the operational life of the OHL, increasing exposure to the Major Accident Risk and/or increasing the likelihood of AC corrosion:

• Proximity for extended distances
• Parallel course between the OHL and MAH pipeline
• Oblique crossings of the MAH pipeline, increasing exposure to the risk and increased potential for AC corrosion.
• Sudden changes in pipeline direction

The main risk factors that increase the consequences of a major accident are:
• Proximity of residential properties to the MAH pipeline and OHL interaction
• Concentration of residential properties in proximity of the MAH pipeline and OHL
interaction

Other factors may also increase the risk of a major accident:
• Damage to the pipeline coating during construction or farming excavations,
increasing the risk of AC corrosion.
• A direct breach of the pipeline because of working the farmland.

Where the current proposed route passes by the settlement of Monboddo, the route selection has failed to minimise the above risk factors increasing the potential for a major accident.

In the routing of the OHL in close proximity to Monboddo, it does not appear that SSEN have considered the Major Accident Risk of the OHL interacting with the MAH pipelines during their operational life and met their regulatory requirement to reduce risk of Major Accident to ALARP.

The failure to reduce Major Accident Risk for the operational OHL on the D4 route section is clear as the route not only fails to minimise exposure to the MAH pipeline near, but it also fails to minimise consequence by crossing the MAH pipeline at the greatest concentration of properties outside of the villages of Auchenblae and Fordoun, the residential community of Monboddo.

SSEN know the risks associated with MAH pipeline crossings and are quick to direct concerned community members to their guidance document for pipeline crossings (Pathway to 2030 – Tower Crossing Considerations, May 2024).

However, the planned crossing at Monboddo fails to comply with SSEN’s own guidance for pipeline crossings (Pathway to 2030 – Tower Crossing
Considerations, May 2024), crossing at an extremely shallow angle rather than at 90-degrees as per guidance and near a high concentration of residential properties.

There is no doubt that this crossing represents a Major Accident Risk for the operational life of the OHL, with the introduction of the OHL as an ignition source for an accidental release from the High-Pressure MAH Pipeline. Due to the positioning of the pylons, there is potential to damage the pipeline coating during construction and due to the nature of the land use as sublet farmland there is the potential for farming activities to also cause accidental damage to the coating. A
damaged coating combined with the potential for AC corrosion increases the likelihood of a corrosion related breach. Additionally, again due to the nature of the land use, the potential for an accidental breach due to farming excavations though the operational life of the OHL cannot be discounted.

The potential for a release, could have severe consequences due to the number of residential properties in the vicinity (closest properties lie approximately 150m from the crossing). Based on the UKOPA Good Practice Guide – Pipeline Hazard Distances (UKOPA/GP/016 Edition 1, April 2018) the initial hazard distance, due to a release igniting, would impact between 14 and 17 residential properties, potentially resulting in multiple fatalities. My own house is one of the
closest and I fear in the event of a release home and my family would likely be within the more severe blast areas.

Aside from route options not disclosed to the public (including their original route, prior to the moving of the proposed substation from Fiddes to Fetteresso) bySSEN the alternative D5, route corridor has been stated by SSEN as being economically similar in cost to the D4 route corridor and technically feasible.

The D5 route would potentially involve crossing a second pipeline, however, following the hierarchy of control, the alignment of the OHL could be engineered to cross the pipelines at 90 degrees or as close to as possible, (as per SSEN’s own guidance), reducing the potential for AC induced corrosion, reducing the risk exposure and therefore, the probability of a major accident and by locating the crossings as far from as many residential properties possible, reducing the
potential consequence.

This reduction in the likelihood and in potential consequences, presented by the D5 Route corridor, represents reducing the Major Accident Risk to ALARP.

With the alternative D5 route corridor (not including any other route options not taken forward by SSEN, likely due to fears of greater public objection from the village of Auchenblae) lowering the risk of the Section D pipeline crossings to ALARP, SSEN have failed to comply with their legislative requirements to reduce Major Accident Risk to ALARP when selecting the D4 option and the HP
MAH Pipeline crossing at Monboddo.

The minimum I would expect to see in relation to this specific crossing is:

• A Management of Change process undertaken with regards the introduction of
TKUP OHL as a Major Accident Hazard.
• A MAH Risk Assessment that has been carried out with the introduction of the TKUP OHL, demonstrating the achievement of ALARP.
• Emergency modelling associated with the ignition of a breach at the crossing.
• Demonstration of ALARP, compared to other options.
This issue is clear and apparent, as demonstrated by National Gas’s initial objection to the associated Fetteresso (Hurlie) Substation, which has only been removed on condition that any OHL must only cross the existing MAH pipelines at a 90-degree angle.

In the past in Scotland, we moved a music festival due to the perceived risk of an oil pipeline below the site and SSENs original OHL and Fiddes substation has been moved due to the presence of a run-down house of a long dead author. Yet where there is a Major Accident Risk associated with the operational OHL, a route has been selected that fails to meet the legal obligations to manage that risk to ALARP.

I ask the reporters to seriously consider the safety of the residents of Monboddo, and request SSEN reconsider this routing to ensure that any MAH pipeline crossings are in accordance with their own guidelines and meet their legal responsibility to reduce the risk to ALARP.

22/06/2026

John Campbell, for NOTKUP:

𝐎𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥.

𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐢𝐥𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐲 𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐀𝐜𝐭, 𝐒𝐜𝐡 𝟗; 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐍𝐏𝐅𝟒; 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐬; 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞, 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞, 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 — 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐚𝐫 𝐭𝐨𝐨 𝐨𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐧 𝐢𝐭 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐀 𝐪𝐮𝐨𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐥𝐲, 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡.

𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐫𝐢𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐭𝐰𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥-𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝟗 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲. 𝐈𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐲, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐎𝐇𝐋?

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐬, 𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬?

𝐖𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐞:
• 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐝,
• 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐝,
• 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝,
• 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐧 𝐨𝐩𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧?

𝐖𝐞 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐭’𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞. 𝐈𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝, 𝐰𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬.

𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 “𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝” 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 “𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞”.

𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐠𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐚 𝐥𝐚𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐛𝐯𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐝𝐝𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐨𝐫 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐩𝐡𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬.

𝐈𝐟 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐲 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬. 𝐋𝐢𝐳 𝐁𝐨𝐰𝐦𝐚𝐧’𝐬 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬:

• 𝐚𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐲,
• 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬,
• 𝐧𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬,
• 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐯𝐢𝐬𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐬 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐮𝐩𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐞𝐧𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐞, 𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐯𝐞𝐝, 𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐞 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫.

𝐀 “𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞” 𝐨𝐟 𝐟𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐭𝐲. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐚 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟:

• 𝐞𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬,
• 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬,
• 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞,
• 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬,
• 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐞.

𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞.

𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐚 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐋𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐃𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭, 𝐲𝐞𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨 𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐥𝐲 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬𝐜𝐚𝐩𝐞𝐬, 𝐰𝐨𝐨𝐝𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐝, 𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬.

𝐈𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐤𝐬 𝐛𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐝 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐧𝐨𝐰, 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐧𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞.

𝐔𝐥𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐠𝐲 𝐢𝐧𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐢𝐬. 𝐍𝐨𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐚𝐥 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲, 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐮𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐦 𝐢𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐬𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐠-𝐥𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐢𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐫𝐨𝐮𝐠𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐌𝐫 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐥’𝐬 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐫𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜 𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐬 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐜𝐢𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐥𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐝𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐲 𝐨𝐧 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐡𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠.

𝐒𝐜𝐨𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐌𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐬𝐤𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐝𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐒𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐥𝐞 𝟗 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐍𝐏𝐅𝟒 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐮𝐧𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞.

𝐀𝐜𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐥𝐲, 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐊𝐔𝐏 𝐬𝐮𝐛𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐩𝐩𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐬:

• 𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐩𝐭𝐨𝐫-𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐜 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐱𝐞𝐫𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐬,
• 𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐲𝐬𝐢𝐬,
• 𝐞𝐧𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐛𝐢𝐨𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬,
• 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐢𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐬 𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐝.

𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐟𝐞𝐠𝐮𝐚𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐫𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐭.

22/06/2026

The first speaker at the Kintore community session was 𝐅𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚 𝐁𝐢𝐜𝐤, 𝐂𝐡𝐚𝐢𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐄𝐜𝐡𝐭 & 𝐒𝐤𝐞𝐧𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥,speaking on behalf circa 1500 residents, a large number of whom are impacted by towers 8 - 42.

She said that in her 13 years with the CC, she has never seen such a level of anger and opposition. She gave some background - meetings attended from 2023 - a house sale which fell through 10 days before the scheduled move; another loss of 18% of the value of the property - £125k.

She highlighted farmers unable to work their land safely or efficiently, due to sag.

She said that residents are paying through high bills for wholly unnecessary industrialisation.

Moving on to the geese question, she said that they overwinter at Loch of Skene and forage on farmland every morning in winter on the farmland. Hundreds of geese, and then later that day there is a mass take-off. The collision risk is high. Casualties are scavenged. She has found carcases beneath the existing 275v line. Every one of the 34 towers in the Echt and Skene area will be within 5 km of the Loch of Skene.

The only mitigation proposed is the use of bird flight diverter markers on the line, but none of the research papers cited by SSEN looked specifically at their efficacy on foraging geese, and there is no evidence to support the claimed collision reduction of 50 to 94%.

If the diverters are successful, the geese will be denied access to hundreds of acres of their foraging ground. If they are not successful, many more will be killed through collision. Either way, goose numbers will be compromised.

She said that the benefits are realised by foreign owned companies and the application should be refused.

Next was the 𝐌𝐒𝐏 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐀𝐛𝐞𝐫𝐝𝐞𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐖𝐞𝐬𝐭, 𝐀𝐥𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐭𝐭.

He supports renewables and the upgrading of the line, but he said that the transition must be proportionate to protect rural communities from unnecessary destruction. He said he firmly believes that the proposals fail that test, and he wanted to focus on the democratic deficit which had characterised the process from the beginning.

He said that in his decade as a MSP, he had never received more correspondence on a single issue than he has with this one. More than 10,000 objections, making it one of the most objected to OHLs in the UK. He had been contacted by more than 3000 constituents concerned about the sections affecting Aberdeenshire West - by families who fear for the future of their communities; by constituents unable to sell their homes and people facing negative equity.

Farmland would be lost, and tourism would suffer.

Decisions would be taken by the Scottish Government - people who will never have to live with the consequences of those decisions.

Mr Burnett said that it is the personal stories which truly underline the seriousness of the issue - the constituent who stands to lose £125k; another trapped in an unsellable house. He said that none of those concerns have been addressed by SSEN. He repeated what others have said about consultation exercises held by SSEN, and made the point that residents have had to fight these proposals against an avalanche of publicity from SSEN, accompanied by what many see, he said, as tokenistic community benefit offers.

He then said: 'So if opposition on this scale carries little or no weight in the final decision-making process, then we must seriously question the purpose of public consultation and inquiries at all. This is not an isolated proposal. Because Beyond 2030 outlines plans for nine more additional OHLs across rural Scotland on top of the projects communities are fighting today.'

He went on to say that is why alternative options must be given to serious consideration to undergrounding and subsea cabling and to a total rethink of energy strategy, electricity being produced at the wrong end of the country to where it is needed. Decisions of this magnitude must take full account not only of environmental impact, but also on the people who live in these communities and whose lives will be permanently affected.

He urged the inquiry to listen carefully to the passionate submissions from local residents fighting not only to protect their homes, livelihoods and landscapes from this proposal, but also to prevent the damaging precedent that approval would set for rural communities across Scotland.

Then 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐂𝐚𝐦𝐩𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐥, 𝐊𝐂 𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐤𝐞, 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐟 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐎𝐓𝐊𝐔𝐏 on planning matters. Mr Campbell's submission is of such pertinence that, as we did yesterday, we will put the whole of the statement in a standalone post.

He also read the submission from 𝐉𝐨𝐡𝐧 𝐇𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐧, who was indisposed.

Mr Houston worked for 30 years in oil and gas, and for the final 5 years he was Finance & Commercial Director of a company that constructed and ran onshore wind farms, before moving to the offshore sector.

He was part of a commercial bid team of a joint venture awarded a lease option in the round announced in January 2022. Expectation in the industry was that ScotWind round 2 would announce projects with a total capacity of 14 or 15GW. The grid solution for that expected capacity was being developed prior to the announcement.

However, the projects announced in the round gave a capacity of 31.4GW and the subsequent INTOG award added a further 4.4GW, so 35.8GW in total.

He said that the grid manager he worked with described the reaction as being somewhere between shock and panic. It was completely unexpected and rendered much of the grid planning, to that point, either obsolete, irrelevant, or inadequate.

He said from the perspective of someone new to the sector, it was bewildering to watch such an important project be managed so haphazardly. The disjointed and uncoordinated approach exhibited, at that early, stage, continued and has led to a rushed, poorly managed planning process.

Turning to this OHL proposal, he said that there should be a 2km community separation distance in Scotland as stated in 2014 guidelines. The proposal also appears to ignore the Holford Rules where pylon lines are intended to avoid altogether if possible major areas of highest amenity value; choose inconspicuous locations for angle towers, terminal towers and sealing end compounds; utilise background and foreground features to reduce the apparent height and domination of towers from main viewpoints; when a line needs to pass through a development area, route it to minimise as far as possible the effect on development, and avoid routing close to residential areas as far as possible on the grounds of general amenity.

He said he appreciates that the Holford Rules were devised to apply to hydroelectric transmission, but the fact that the power is being generated from a different source does not impact the principles of where pylon lines and towers should be sited.

The village of Echt would be partially encircled by the pylon route to the North, East and South-East. The current estimate is that 12 towers would be visible, particularly from the higher land to the north of the village, close to the area of land currently set aside for housing development and subject to planning consent.

He asked SSEN about another viable route but did not receive a convincing reply.

He also mentioned soft ground, migrating geese, proximity to gas and oil pipelines, but the responses were not comprehensive or convincing.

He said that as all of the issues could be resolved, he was forced to the conclusion that a path of least resistance had been chosen that was most acceptable to the landowner but which ignored the rights of residents.

He remains unconvinced that the planning process has been carried out effectively, since it was obvious to him from his time in the industry that planning was rushed and disjointed.

He said: 'I constantly heard the phrase "Nothing else matters. It has to be done because we're in a climate emergency."

'That simply reinforces the view that plans have been created to meet broad ambitions of political zealots, rather than to create a comprehensive plan that minimises visual impacts and maximises value for money from the investment.'

He ended by saying that it was obvious, when he talked to the project team at the various meetings that none were familiar with the area or had walked the route.

(𝑊𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠 𝑝𝑜𝑖𝑛𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑠𝑜 𝑚𝑎𝑛𝑦 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑒 𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑚𝑢𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑑𝑠 𝑤ℎ𝑖𝑐ℎ 𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑌𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑔 𝑜𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑛 𝑞𝑢𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑐𝑎𝑚𝑒 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑜 𝑒𝑣𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 - '𝑌𝑜𝑢 𝑘𝑛𝑜𝑤 𝑦𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 - 𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑦 𝑑𝑜𝑛'𝑡'.)

Next to speak was 𝐉𝐮𝐧𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐨𝐧, 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐊𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐞 & 𝐃𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐂𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐥; 𝐬𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫 𝐦𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐋𝐞𝐲𝐥𝐨𝐝𝐠𝐞 𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐮𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

Both the CC and LAI were heavily involved with SSEN and the TKUP process. She has been part of the community liaison group for some years. She said: 'You would think this would make life easier for the community, but it hasn't.' And:

'We have already had many issues in Leylodge as many will be aware and as a community, we are dreading this project getting the go ahead. Things residents are already having to deal with is the sheer noise, mess, lighting, and ongoing traffic issues and issues with private water supplies being disrupted. You get told one thing and then something else happens .How can communities have any faith in SSEN .

'Having had pylon work being undertaken by SSEN already we have seen a few new pylons going up. The noise building them is loud. The sheer amount proposed going up and the amount coming down is going to destroy a very tranquil little hamlet. The number of pylons already have made the view more industrial looking site and not what it has been for years a beautiful quiet country hamlet.'

Lots of things have not been addressed by SSEN - health; landscape; water; conservation; farming issues. EMF concerns.

She said substations are a big part of this and should be looked at as well.

She said that some residents have notified the CC, Councillors, MSPs and MPs of the issues of water. SSEN had asked residents to inform them where their PWS were located. In one particular instance, the PWS layout was submitted to SSEN who failed to inform the contractor, resulting in PWS disruption for months due to the contractor conducting ground studies. On the same route, a pylon will be sitting right on top. SSEN say they will sample before construction and at monthly intervals. At the last liaison group meeting, the CC and LIA were promised by SSEN that letters about sampling would be sent out, but some residents are still waiting for them.

There are bats all around Leylodge, but the report shows no bats near the area. Pylons are not on the edges of fields but put in places which make farmers' lives hard.

As far as the consultation process is concerned, she said 'The consultation process was an absolute waste of time'. That they were told different things at every meeting and that meetings were a tick box exercise. They never came back with answers to questions they had posed.

She said that they were also having to contend with the Peterhead to Kintore OHL which is out to consultation and she made the point that there are 9 projects in less than one mile.

The final speaker was 𝐖𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐦 𝐌𝐮𝐧𝐫𝐨 who is a retired LA Chief Officer. He was formerly a chartered member of the Institution of Civil Engineers and the Royal Town Planning Institute.

He said Scotland has world-leading landscapes. Scotland aims to be a world-leader in renewable energy. In his own village there is a global centre of expertise in subsea engineering. He said that the three world-leading claims through the project are unnecessarily in conflict with each other, but they could work in harmony.

He said that the proposal will irrevocably damage special landscapes such as the Royal Deeside Valley, the Mearns with its backdrop of the Grampian Mountains, to mention just two, and he said that they had inherited these landscapes and have a duty t look after them for future generations. If Scotland wants to be a world leader in renewable energy, then this must be in quality and not just quantity. 1000 jobs per month are being lost in the oil and gas industry; expertise could be used.

NPF4 is predicated on a just transition, but there is absolutely nothing just about watching jobs, skills and experience go; landscapes, habitat, communities, homes and livelihoods being irrevocably damaged unnecessarily, probably in perpetuity. NPF4 states development is only acceptable if localised or mitigated.

The landscape assessment states 'The determination is based on professional judgement considering both the sensitivity of the receptor and the magnitude of change. So it's subjective. There are 10,000 objectors, the objections mostly based on landscape and visual - those objectors have carried out their own subjective assessments, he said.

The landscape assessment reveals 'high' or 'significant' around 130 times. After mitigation, these assessments don't change. The negative effects cannot be mitigated. Therefore there is failure to comply with NPF4 because significant impacts are not localised - they run the entire length, and effective mitigation is impossible. There is also failure to comply with the Aberdeenshire and the Angus LDPs for the same reasons.

Mr Munro also said:

'For decades, dirty oil and gas have travelled across the same landscapes, the only visible signs being the occasional 2m high marker poles. Now, as part of the so-called just transition, this proposal is to transmit clean, green energy across the same landscapes, but with devastating consequences to that landscape.

We need to get this right and get it right right from the start, and either put it underground or offshore. To do anything otherwise would be to fail to comply with planning policy and completely fail residents, tourists, the country and our future generations. This should not be approved when it doesn't meet policies, when there are alternatives. It's not difficult to put this offshore or underground. It can be done. And I've heard no convincing argument as to why it shouldn't be done, or couldn't be done. The same outcomes can be achieved and it would overcome most of the concerns that you have been sitting listening to very patiently all week.

Future visitors to Scotland - tourists; politicians; industry experts - coming to see what it takes to be a global leader in renewable energy, need to see something that they can applaud, not something that they find appalling.

Finally, a quote from the Ministerial Foreword to NPF4:

"𝑷𝒍𝒂𝒏𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈 𝒄𝒂𝒓𝒓𝒊𝒆𝒔 𝒈𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒑𝒐𝒏𝒔𝒊𝒃𝒊𝒍𝒊𝒕𝒚, 𝑫𝒆𝒄𝒊𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒂𝒃𝒐𝒖𝒕 𝒅𝒆𝒗𝒆𝒍𝒐𝒑𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝒘𝒊𝒍𝒍 𝒊𝒎𝒑𝒂𝒄𝒕 𝒐𝒏 𝒈𝒆𝒏𝒆𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔 𝒕𝒐 𝒄𝒐𝒎𝒆."

Mr Munro finished by saying: 'Please, please, don't let this decision be one that impacts in a devastating manner on generations to come'.

20/06/2026

Parker added: "It is important to recognize, with so many renewable energy projects that people are concerned about, that if the government does not follow due process the council will stand up for the community's concerns and take action."

Council lawyers mounted a legal challenge after their objection was not considered by the Scottish government.

Read more: https://bbc.in/4w4lX3A

18/06/2026

Just back from the Public Inquiry in Brechin this evening. Fantastic testimony from the speakers covering multiple different subjects.

Needless to say SSEN were hung up to dry on some very serious omissions including process and arrogance during the “consultations”, ability to plan and communicate anything, risk assessment of major accident hazards, lying about the processes, and their general “we can do what we want” arrogance.

There was an excellent cross section of public experience of the TKUP, all of it appalling.

👊

16/06/2026

Undergrounding a possibility on Shetland …

SSEN Transmission is to share updated plans for a number of developments at an upcoming round of consultation events