A special meeting of Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee was held on Tuesday 13th January at Viewmount. The agenda and supporting reports are available here, along with the recordings of the meeting.
This meeting was called to consider the application by SSEN, through Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc, for the construction and operation of a 400 kV air insulated substation at Hurlie along with associated works. The 292ha site sits 4.9km west of Stonehaven in an ‘accessible rural area’. A range of buildings would be constructed on a 685m by 300m substation platform excavated into the slope.
Planning Presentation
The meeting started with a presentation from the planning department, using a mixture of diagrams, photos, and drone footage, to demonstrate the location and impact of the site. The officer’s recommendation to the Kincardine and Mearns Area Committee was that they agree the application should be referred to the Infrastructure Services Committee (ISC) for determination and confirm their support for the application subject to a series of conditions.
Councillors then had the opportunity to ask questions, and their concerns included why limited weight was given by planners to the socio economic impact of the development, impact on private water supplies, mental health impact, road damage and reinstatement. Planners explained that there was a country wide lack of clarity on precisely what local authorities could expect in terms of positive socio economic impact, and any positive gain gives weight to the application. The impact on private water supplies was assessed as minor and monitoring would be in place. There would be a baseline survey of roads taken and reinstatement would be required following the end of construction.
Speakers in Support
This was followed by Chris Gardner and Calum Grant on behalf of Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Plc. They explained that Hurlie was critical for future energy security, as part of essential infrastructure. They had reviewed all the valid objections received and stated that they had all been addressed or mitigated. Councillors’ questions covered the areas of
· Socio economic impact – all figures supplied relate to Aberdeenshire, and not just the local area.
· The size of the site – 292 hectares, with the platform being 22 hectares. Councillors were assured that this was to allow for flexibility in construction on a sloping site, and there were no plans for further development.
· Why an air insulated system, rather than gas insulated – no significant reduction in size for gas, but less reliable and more complex maintenance requirements.
· Around half of the conditions attached to approval of the application relate to management plans which have not yet been provided. The applicants, supported by the planning department, explained that this is normal practice for this type of development, as contractors, once appointed, would feed into these plans.
· Electro magnetic fields are reported as low – this was confirmed and further explained that the focus would be the centre of the site, and by the edge of the platform would be negligible.
Objecting Speakers
The second speaker was Mark Ansell, representing Crathes, Drumoak and Durris Community Council (CDDCC), who were objecting to the application. He explained that CDDCC felt this should not be a stand along development, that there had been inadequate public consultation and that mental health locally was impacted by the threat of development among other concerns.
The third speaker was Rachel Frame, chair of Stonehaven and District Community Council (SDCC). She explained that SDCC also felt this should not be a stand along development, but only one part of a jigsaw. SDCC held a public meeting in January 2025 to discuss the development, but SSEN did not attend. In an online survey, with 300 responses, SDCC identified that 77% of those with local postcodes who responded were concerned about large scale industrialisation. Questions from councillors covered concerns of local residents, potential flood risk and the impact of cumulative developments.
The final speaker was Anne Shearer, a Drumoak resident, who was also objecting to the application. A keen birdwatcher since childhood, she was concerned about the impact the development would have on the habitat of nightjars and the Scottish crossbill, both found within Fetteresso Forest. She felt that the Environmental Impact Assessment was not comprehensive enough and any imposed protective conditions would not be enforced robustly. Councillors asked why this concern was not already flagged and also discussed the fact that in commercial forestry felling and replanting happened regularly.
Discussion and Debate
Following the submissions from speakers, councillors had the opportunity to ask follow-up questions to the planning officers. Key points queried were:-
· Quality of environmental survey work – planners explained that all consultees, including RSPB and Nature Scot were satisfied.
· The volume of management plans yet to be completed – planners explained that this is orthodox practice, and if any plans are not being met, work will be stalled. However, planners believe there are no “show stopping” conditions, and all are likely to be met.
· Decommissioning plan – planners explained that, unlike turbines for example, this is a permanent, fixed development, with no finite lifespan, therefore no decommissioning plan is required.
· Cumulative impacts – planners explained that they give most weight to completed projects, moderate weight to current applications and negligible weight to those pre application. They further elaborated that, although the Hurlie substation does relate to the Kintore – Tealing Overhead Line, they are being dealt with separately as the overhead line requires consent under the Electricity Act, whereas this application requires Aberdeenshire Council planning consent.
Summing up and Decision
Councillor Dickinson, chair of K&M Area Committee then summed up, asking if councillors agreed that the decision should be referred to the Infrastructure Services Committee (ISC) for determination. This was agreed unanimously. Councillors were then asked for comments and whether they supported the recommendation that the application be approved.
Councillors Turner, Agnew, Black, Carr, Carnie and Sullivan all sit on the ISC, and chose not to give an opinion before the determination meeting. Councillors Dickinson, Evison and Victor stated they would recommend the application was refused. (Councillors Burnett and Smith had submitted apologies, and Councillor Aitchison made no comment)
The final decision of the committee was to refer the application to the Infrastructure Services Committee meeting on 30th January for determination, with no settled view on whether or not it should be approved.