Glen Urquhart Community Council Objection (Part 3)
Following the previous two blogs, here is the latest instalment from the GUCC.
1.11 Ground conditions – Peat
Significant adverse impact on Peatland
• NPF4 Policy 5 (c-d) notes development on peatland and carbon-rich soils is only supported where essential, and must include a detailed site-specific assessment of peat depth, condition, and climate impact.
• NatureScot Guidance (2023): Developments must avoid priority peatland habitats and demonstrate that impacts are minimised, mitigated, and do not raise issues of national interest.
• Highland-wide Local Development Plan (Policy 55): Unacceptable disturbance of peat will not be permitted unless clearly outweighed by benefits, and a Peatland Management Plan is required.
The EIA acknowledges that the site contains extensive Class 1 and 2 peatland and the project will excavate approximately 405,000 m³ of peat – including areas of deep peat (>1m). NPF4 and NatureScot guidance state that priority peatland habitats should be avoided and development on deep peat is only acceptable in exceptional circumstances.
The EIA does not provide a quantified assessment of the net climate impact of peat disturbance, as required by Policy 5(d)(iii).
Lack of Peat Coring Data
The EIA confirms that no peat coring was undertaken, despite SEPA and NatureScot guidance recommending coring to assess peat condition and stability. Without coring:
• The classification of peat as “shallow” or “deep” is based solely on probe depth, not on peat quality or hydrological function.
• The Peat Landslide Hazard and Risk Assessment (PLHRA) lacks the data needed to appropriately assess slope stability and landslide risk with confidence. Given the steep terrain and deep peat pockets, this is premature and potentially unsafe.
Inadequate Peat Management Plan
The EIA relies heavily on future documents (e.g. final Peat Management Plan, final PLHRA, Construction Environmental Management Plan) to manage risks and impacts. However:
• These documents are not yet developed or secured by planning conditions.
• There is no commitment to independent monitoring or enforcement.
• The Outline Peat Management Plan does not include contingency measures if peat reuse proves unfeasible.
This approach is inconsistent with the requirements of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2016, which require clear plans for waste minimisation and reuse.
Cumulative Impacts Not Fully Assessed
The EIA dismisses cumulative impacts on peatland and soils as “Not Significant” without robust analysis. Given the scale of other proposed developments in the region (e.g. Loch Kemp, Loch na Cathrach), a more detailed cumulative assessment is required under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017.
Community Requests – Peat Assessment and Management
• Revised assessment will full peat coring and full ground investigation;
• A Final Peat Management Plan is submitted with enforceable commitments;
• A carbon balance assessment for the borrow pit and peat excavation in line with NPF4 Policy 5(d)(iii);
• No development on peat >1m unless explicitly justified and approved;
• Independent review of the final PLHRA and Peat Management plan;
• Monitoring and reporting of peat reuse and restoration outcomes.
1.12 Geology
• The EIA confirms that the site is intersected by multiple inferred fault lines, including one that passes northeast to southwest through Loch nam Breac Dearga and another through Meall Fuar-Mhonaidh. The development zone consists of the main fault (Great Glen Fault) along with numerous parallel minor faults on both sides of Loch Ness.
• Tremors are known to have occurred along the fault.
• A study of crustal movement across the Great Glen was conducted between 1972 and 1979. The Kessock Bridge, which spans the north end of the fault, was designed to cope with tremors.
• In such a faulted zone there will be engineering geology risks during the construction phase with associated high mitigation costs. The planning application does not provide an assessment of these risks.
• In addition, induced seismicity is possible as a result of tunnelling operations, the additional vertical stress caused by the top dam water load or major fluctuations in the volume of Loch Ness during the operational stage.
• These faults are inferred only, with no displacement data or structural modelling provided. The EIA does not include any quantitative geotechnical risk assessment of fault reactivation, slope instability, or implications for underground infrastructure.
• The EIA acknowledges the potential for “varying rock quality” and “unstable rock faces” during tunnelling but defers mitigation to future design stages, without presenting any site-specific structural geology analysis.
• This is a significant omission given the scale of underground works (e.g. tunnels, caverns, surge shafts) and the proximity to known seismic activity in the Loch Ness region, including historical earthquakes with EMS intensities up to 7.
• The reliance on the Reservoirs Act 1975 for embankment design does not address the geological risks to underground structures, nor does it substitute for a fault hazard model or rock mass classification.
Community Requests – Geology
• For the reasons outlined above, we recommend a more detailed assessment of the possible reactivation of fault structures before planning permission is granted
o A site specific structural geology and fault risk assessment, including o Mapping and modelling of fault zones using geophysical or borehole data
o Assessment of fault reactivation potential under excavation induced stress
o Rock mass classification for tunnel stability
o Risk to rock face on A82
o A geotechnical design report demonstrating that underground infrastructure can be safely constructed and operated in proximity to faulted and variable rock masses
o A commitment to public disclosure of the final ground investigation and fault risk assessments prior to construction
o A baseline radiological assessment
1.13 Socio economics
Key references
• NPF4 Policy 11(c): Renewable energy developments must demonstrate how they will maximise net economic impact, including local and community socio-economic benefits
• NPF4 Policy 20 & 25: Developments must safeguard access rights, enhance blue and green infrastructure, and support community wealth building
• HwLDP Policy 77 & 78: Developments must retain or enhance core paths and long-distance routes, including the Great Glen Way and Loch Ness 360.
• Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003: Public access rights must be respected and maintained.
Inadequate Protection of Core Paths and Long-Distance Routes
• The development intersects a number of Core Paths 02.02, 02.03, 13.01, 13.02, and the Affric Kintail Way. The EIA acknowledges Moderate Adverse impacts on these routes during construction, yet mitigation is limited to diversions and signage.
• This fails to meet the statutory duty under the Land Reform Act and HwLDP Policy 77, which requires no less attractive, safe and convenient alternatives.
Underestimation of Tourism Impacts
• The EIA downplays the impact on Loch Ness, a nationally significant tourism asset, despite construction works at the Lower Control Works being visible from Foyers and affecting cruise routes and scenic views.
• The EIA claims only “Minor Adverse” effects, but this contradicts NPF4 Policy 20, which requires safeguarding of visitor experience and landscape-based tourism.
Lack of Binding Commitments to Local Economic Benefit
• While the EIA outlines potential job creation and Gross Value Added, there are no enforceable guarantees of local hiring, training, or procurement.
• NPF4 Policy 11(c) and the Highland Council’s Social Values Charter require demonstrable and measurable local benefit, not aspirational statements.
Failure to Address Cumulative Access and Amenity Impacts
• The EIA acknowledges that the area is already in the 15% most access-deprived in Scotland.
• Construction traffic, noise, and visual disruption will further isolate communities like Foyers, Drumnadrochit, and Balnain, yet the mitigation relies heavily on a Community Liaison Group, which has no statutory authority.
Inadequate Assessment of Impacts on Visitor Accommodation
• The EIA admits that construction noise and views from Foyers will be affected but dismisses this as “not significant”. This contradicts NPF4 Policy 25, which requires developments to support a wellbeing economy and protect local business viability.
Community requests – socio-economic impact
• Quantified tourism impact study, including visitor perception surveys.
• Legally binding Community Benefit Agreement with measurable targets for local jobs, training, and procurement.
• A detailed and enforceable Access Management Plan to ensure no loss of recreational value or public rights.
• Investment in legacy housing and infrastructure in partnership with community liaison group
• Planning conditions requiring:
• Independent monitoring of tourism and community impacts during construction.
• A publicly accessible register of local economic contributions.
• Full restoration of all affected paths and recreational assets post-construction
1.14 Climate
Development fails to comply with
• The Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009, as amended by the 2024 Act
• The National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4)
• The Electricity Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2017
• The Highland Council Net Zero Strategy
Non-compliance with the 2045 Net Zero Trajectory
The project emits over 1 million tonnes of CO₂e during construction and enabling works. The EIA claims this is “minor adverse” and “not significant,” despite
the Climate Change (Emissions Reduction Targets) (Scotland) Act 2024 requiring all projects to align with multi-year carbon budgets.
The project’s emissions represent up to 0.77% of Scotland’s entire 2045 carbon budget, which is not negligible.
Peatland Carbon Loss Underestimated
The EIA assumes 100% carbon loss from peat excavation (128,499 tCO₂e) and degradation (174,040 tCO₂e), but fails to:
• Quantify the long-term emissions from disturbed peat.
• Provide a legally binding peatland restoration plan.
This contradicts NPF4 Policy 5(d), which requires a net climate benefit and full assessment of carbon loss from peatland development.
Overreliance on Grid Decarbonisation Assumptions
The EIA assumes that electricity used for pumping will be low-carbon due to grid decarbonisation. However, no guarantees are provided that the project will use renewable-only electricity, nor is there a grid connection agreement to that effect. This undermines the claim of a “beneficial” operational climate impact.
Inadequate Adaptation to Climate Risks
The Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) identifies high residual risks from flooding and storm events. These are deemed “unavoidable,” yet the EIA fails to:
• Provide site-specific flood modelling for 2070–2099.
• Commit to adaptive infrastructure design beyond current SEPA thresholds.
This is inconsistent with NPF4 Policy 2 and the Electricity Works EIA Regulations, which require developments to be climate-resilient.
Lack of Binding Mitigation or Monitoring
The EIA relies heavily on “embedded mitigation” and “outline” plans (e.g. oCEMP, oPMP), but:
• No enforceable conditions are proposed.
• No carbon monitoring framework is included.
This fails to meet the precautionary principle and just transition principles in NPF4.
Mitigation measures such as low-carbon materials, efficient transport logistics, and peatland restoration are not secured through planning conditions or legal agreements. This undermines the credibility of the claimed “significant beneficial” climate impact.
Underestimation of Climate Risks (Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009)
The Climate Change Risk Assessment (CCRA) identifies significant risks from flooding and storm events during operation, yet:
• These are deemed “unavoidable” and only partially mitigated through embedded design measures.
• The EIA fails to provide a robust adaptation strategy or contingency planning for extreme weather events, despite recent evidence of increasing climate volatility in the Highlands.
This is inconsistent with the statutory duty under the Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 to ensure that developments are resilient to climate change.
Community Requests for Climate Management
Revised Climate Chapter in EIA that includes:
• A quantified carbon payback period using conservative grid assumptions.
• A legally binding peatland restoration and monitoring plan.
• A climate adaptation strategy aligned with UKCP18 2070–2099 projections.
• A Carbon Monitoring and Reporting Framework is established for the operational phase.
Planning conditions requiring:
• A revised Lifecycle (Greenhouse Gas) GHG Assessment is submitted with binding mitigation measures;
• Final Peat Management Plan;
• Independent climate risk audits every 5 years;
• A carbon offset strategy for all construction-phase emissions.
1.15 Forestry
References for assessment:
• Scottish Government’s Policy on Control of Woodland Removal (CoWRP)
• Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018
• UK Forestry Standard (5th Edition, 2023)
• National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4), particularly Policy 6
• Highland Forest and Woodland Strategy (2018)
Non-compliance with the Scottish Government’s Control of Woodland Removal Policy (CoWRP)
The CoWRP establishes a strong presumption against the removal of ancient and semi-natural woodland, stating that such losses should only be permitted where they are clearly outweighed by social, environmental, or economic benefits.
The EIA acknowledges the permanent loss of 0.78 ha of Ancient Woodland (Category 1a) and 1.78 ha of semi-natural woodland. The claim that the affected Ancient Woodland has been degraded by past commercial forestry does not negate its designation or ecological value. Ancient Woodland is irreplaceable and protected under NPF4 Policy 6 and the CoWRP.
The EIA admits this loss is “Major Adverse and Significant” yet proceeds without demonstrating that no alternative layout could avoid this impact.
Compensatory Planting Does Not Offset Ancient Woodland Loss
The proposal includes 674 ha of compensatory planting, but this:
• Cannot replace the biodiversity, soil structure, or cultural value of Ancient Woodland.
• Is not like-for-like in terms of habitat type, age, or ecological function.
This contradicts the CoWRP Implementation Guidance, which states that compensation is not appropriate for irreplaceable habitats.
Failure to Demonstrate “No Net Loss” in Practice
While the EIA claims “no net loss” of woodland, it:
• Does not provide mapped, legally secured planting sites.
• Lacks a detailed binding management plan for the 674 ha of new woodland.
• Offers no monitoring or enforcement mechanism to ensure long-term success.
• Does not address the irreplaceable nature of Ancient Woodland, which cannot be offset by new planting.
This fails to meet the policy requirement for protection and enhancement of irreplaceable woodland habitats.
This undermines the CoWRP’s core objective and NPF4’s climate and biodiversity goals.
Lack of Public Benefit Justification for Woodland Removal
The CoWRP requires that woodland removal must be clearly and significantly outweighed by public benefit.
NPF4 Policy 6 requires that:
• Woodland removal must be clearly justified;
• Compensatory planting must be delivered to achieve a net environmental benefit;
• Ancient and semi-natural woodlands must be protected and enhanced.
The EIA does not:
• Quantify the public benefit of the development in relation to woodland loss;
• Provide a public interest test or alternatives analysis as required by policy.
Conflict with the Highland Forest and Woodland Strategy (HFWS)
The HFWS (2018) explicitly states that:
• Ancient Woodland remnants are irreplaceable and should be protected;
• Woodland fragmentation and habitat loss should be avoided;
• Woodland removal should not compromise ecological connectivity.
The EIA:
• Admits to the fragmentation of woodland habitats;
• Provides no ecological connectivity analysis;
• Offers no binding mitigation to prevent long-term degradation of woodland networks.
This is inconsistent with the HFWS’s objectives for sustainable woodland management and biodiversity conservation.
Overreliance on Unsecured Mitigation and Landowner Cooperation
The EIA repeatedly states that mitigation (e.g. felling plans, long-term forest plans, compensatory planting) is contingent on future agreements with landowners. However:
• There is no guarantee that these agreements will be reached;
• The mitigation is not enforceable through planning conditions;
• The residual effects on Ancient Woodland remain “Significant” even with proposed mitigation.
This undermines the credibility of the mitigation strategy and fails to meet the requirements of the Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018, which mandates sustainable forest management.
Lack of Transparency and Public Accountability
The EIA does not:
• Provide a clear map of all woodland to be removed and replanted;
• Include a binding Compensatory Planting Management Plan;
• Offer a mechanism for public monitoring or enforcement of woodland restoration.
This fails to meet the expectations of the UK Forestry Standard (UKFS) and the principles of sustainable land use under Scotland’s Land Use Strategy.
Community requests –
• A revised forestry impact assessment is submitted with full justification for Ancient Woodland loss, that includes:
o A mapped and legally binding Compensatory Planting Plan
o Public interest test for Ancient Woodland Removal
o Connectivity and fragmentation analysis for native woodland
– A detailed ecological connectivity and habitat restoration strategy
Planning conditions requiring:
o A 20 year woodland management and monitoring plan
o Independent ecological audit every 5 years
o A no net loss guarantee backed by legal agreement
o All mitigation measures are made enforceable and subject to public oversight