NESS DISTRICT SALMON FISHERY BOARD (NDSFB) – Holding Objection (Part 1)
The NDSFB have made multiple representations to the Energy Consents Unit, but here is the opening salvo from their initial ‘holding objection, issued last year.
Background and Introduction
1. This Holding Objection has been prepared in respect of the proposed Glen Earrach Pumped Storage Hydro Scheme (the project), ECU ref: 00005121, THC ref: 25/01599/S36. It is submitted to the ECU as the main recipient but copied to the Council via the ePlanning portal.
2. The holding objection has been prepared on behalf of the Ness District Salmon Fishery Board (the objectors or the NDSFB).
3. The holding objection is accompanied by a draft technical assessment prepared by the Board staff, and that technical assessment should be regarded as being an integral part of the submitted objection. Although the summary from the technical assessment follows on from this introductory section it is essential that the full content of the technical assessment is read prior to reading this policy-based objection as the policy assessment is predicated on the detail of the technical assessment which is not repeated here. The draft technical assessment will be updated if additional information is submitted.
4. This proposed renewable energy development is only one of many forms of development pressures leading to landscape and environmental change in the wider area around Loch Ness. In particular, adding this project to the wide range of large-scale renewable energy developments being progressed (as detailed later), the likely wide range and nature of cumulative effects is of particular concern to the NDSFB (as well as the scheme specific effects) in the circumstances of there being no single forum that assesses, considers and determines what is happening to this locality as a whole. Instead, there is only uncoordinated multiple single project decisions, by multiple agencies often acting in an uncoordinated way.
5. The instructions in this case have been issued by Mr Brian Shaw a Director of the NDSFB.
6. The purpose of the holding objection is to place the technical assessment into the policy context which forms the basis for the determination of Electricity Act S36 applications.
Technical Assessment Summary
7. The NDSFB object to the Glen Earrach Pumped Storage Hydro scheme on the following grounds:
a. Identification of multiple pathways by which wild Atlantic salmon migrating through Loch Ness would be adversely impacted, including, but not limited to those emanating from the River Moriston SAC. The pathways identified included, attraction towards intakes during pumping, disruption of the natural hydrology of Loch Ness, depletion of the invertebrate ecology of Loch Ness, and proposed changes to water management in Loch Ness and River Ness.
b. Harmful changes in water management in Loch Ness, and the River Ness, arising from the proposed modifications to Dochfour Weir.
c. The impoverishment of the shoreline invertebrate ecology of Loch Ness due to the rapid and frequent drawdown of water levels in Loch Ness. This impact is considered to be adverse, significant, and unmitigable.
d. Wider ecological impacts consequential to a reduction in the Ness salmon population, including impacts of the presence of Bottlenose dolphins predating on returning wild Atlantic salmon at Chanonry Point, Moray Firth.
e. Construction impacts, including noise from blasting.
f. Limitations of the 2025 Loch Ness smolt tracking study.
g. Concerns over the regulation of multiple PSH and the impact of frequent Loch Ness water level drawdowns.
h. The visual impact of the industrialisation of the west shores of Loch Ness and its proximity to the A82.
i. The presence of alternative locations and technologies to provide the storage required.
Important Initial Issues
8. The project is totally reliant on modifications to the weir on the River Ness at Dochfour to enable the project to operate without resulting in unacceptable flood risk further downstream. However, although the proposed works to the weir are described in Appendix 2.1 of the EIA-R, that critical aspect is not part of the current application.
Furthermore, it is also entirely unclear if the applicants would have any lawful rights to modify the weir and then to maintain and operate it. The Council’s Access Officer (see later) has also listed a number of requirements that might well not be deliverable in a way that is within the control of the applicants.
9. Returning to the Dochfour weir issue, the ECU (and the Council when reporting to the SPAC) should seriously consider whether it is lawful to process the scheme application when the specific and cumulative Environmental Information about such an essential element is absent. In the circumstances it might well be safer to simply refuse consent and deemed planning permission.
10. In addition, the proposed grid connection (expected to be to the proposed Bingally substation) is not part of the current proposal even although it is clearly and intrinsically part of the overall scheme. The failure to assess its impact as part of the Environmental Information Assessment means that the whole project has not been assessed in accordance with the requirements of the 2017 Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations. The relevant tests are quite clear, and the key question is would either of the two elements be implemented without the other, and the obvious answer is that they would not. For this reason alone, the application should be refused.
Climate Change and Renewable Energy in Scotland
11. For both the Earba and Loch Kemp pumped storage hydro schemes (see later for detailed comments) the Council Planning Officers concluded that a very considerable number of very serious adverse landscape, visual and ecological adverse effects (and long term construction effects) should be overcome or set aside on account of the contribution of the schemes to tackling climate change. No comparative methodology for this assessment by the Officers was set out, nor was it clear if they were referring to mitigation or adaptation or what. Rather, it was just a bland assertion, as if merely saying it made it true.
12. To reach such an unspecified and unjustified conclusion can only be considered as nonsense, said in ignorance of climate change science and the associated response strategies, and therefore, it is an aspect that needs to be firmly addressed and debunked at the start of this objection.
13. Given the scale of Scotland’s contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, around 0.08%, nothing that is done by way of renewable energy development in Scotland will have any effect whatsoever on current or future global climate patterns. Furthermore, the construction and operation of pumped storage schemes will do nothing to address the actual effects of climate change on Scotland which effects require mitigation, adaptation, and resilience strategies as recognised in the very recent NPF4 Guidance from the Scottish Government.
14. Put simply, there is absolutely no climate change impacts justification whatsoever for accepting the severe harms that arise from these types of proposals. Strategic Spatial Plan for Energy Infrastructure and Regional Spatial Plans
15. As set out in the accompanying technical assessment, the NDSFB is not a body that is opposed in principle to renewable energy developments or in principle to PSH schemes. However, clear and logical planning is needed.
16. In that respect the process for considering this application should also be influenced by the decision of the UK Government (alongside the Scottish Government) to produce a Strategic Spatial Plan for energy infrastructure. This will look at demand and supply and at both offshore and onshore aspects. The first iteration of the plan is due be published in 2026 (although there is always the possibility of delay). The Plan will also take into account the very clear current signals from the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) and the National Energy System Operator (NESO) that they want, via price signals, to encourage new electricity generation to be located much closer to where the demand is to be found (i.e. not in the far north of Scotland). With the background assessment for this strategic plan probably already underway, and with the DESNZ and NESO position being quite clear, it would seem sensible not to consent major proposals that would effectively straitjacket the plan.
17. Furthermore, NESO and OFGEM are now encouraging the production of Regional Spatial Plans for energy with frameworks already having been published. This all adds to the case that the current position on need and supply is such that the north of Scotland can safely await the publication of these plans and then consider what their implications are (alongside market reform decisions) for the scale of further renewable energy that is justified in the north of Scotland.
18. It might also be that the combination of considering the geography of both demand and supply in these plans might address the excessive generation capacity that is being consented when compared with demand. These are issues that are beginning to be well understood especially by NESO’s April 2025 “caps” being set out in order to minimise the misallocation of resources.
19. Having regard to this Strategic Spatial Plan and the Regional Spatial Plan, should Ministers consider that they would not look to refuse consent and deemed planning permission for what is in front of them then, as a fall back, Ministers could decide that they will not determine the application until after the first iterations of the two Spatial Plans has been published (and possibly followed by a comprehensive assessment of what these Spatial Plans mean for consenting of proposals within Scotland).
The Application Proposals
20. The application proposals are as described in Chapter 2 of Volume 2 in the EIA-R and that detail is not repeated here.
21. The main comment to be made at this stage is that it is very difficult to clearly understand the sheer scale of what would be involved including the temporary works and the permanent works. That scale of construction works, at the lower level and at the upper level (where a temporary new settlement would effectively be required), has the potential to cause enormous environmental damage. The potential scale of that damage and of the environmental effects at the construction stage has been underassessed, including for the loch side works. These concerns are fully detailed in the submitted technical assessment. In addition, as also addressed in the technical assessment, the NDSFB has little trust or confidence in the ability of the regulatory authorities to properly supervise, monitor and enforce construction activities so as to ensure environmental protection for the ecology of Loch Ness.
Approach to the Holding Objection
22. Some of the key consultee responses are not yet available and, despite the design work undertaken to date, the application proposals must be considered as a preliminary design that would change if consent was granted and site investigations undertaken (as the applicants have themselves confirmed). The SEPA consultation response (see later) will require considerable additional information from the applicants and the SEPA concerns mirror what is included in parts of the NDSFB technical assessment.
23. Therefore, following the consideration of the need case as set out below, the approach in this Holding Objection is to consider a number of concerns, including landscape and visual concerns, and then place the key outcomes from the technical assessment within the context of a policy assessment on behalf of the NDSFB.
The Real Need Case – No Need
24. This proposed development is predicated on two aspects:
a. That Scotland will continue to produce a very significant surplus of electricity, and
b. The capacity to transmit that surplus electricity to England will remain constrained
25. At the moment looking at the interaction between the transmission boundary restrictions set out in the NESO 10 Year Electricity Statement and the geographic and technology caps in the NESO Clean Power 2030 Plan April 2025 Update it is difficult to see that there is a need case especially given the extent of consented and built pumped storage schemes.
26. This aspect is considered again later when key consultee responses are assessed and the response from the Highland Council Development Plans Team (see later) also touches on this aspect.
27. In addition, it is understood that OFGEM and DENZ have finalised the initial review of electricity markets to include variable transmission charges with a view to giving a market signal that electricity should be generated closer to demand. This aspect is considered further within the policy section of the objection.
The Application Documents – LVIA
28. Landscape and Visual effects are addressed in Chapter 6 in Volume 2 of the EIA-R. The summary of effects at different stages of the project is set out at the end of the chapter. It is considered that the level of significance is often underplayed given the sensitivity of receptors combined with the very high magnitude of change.
29. The following comments are set out for selected viewpoints having regard to both the Highland Council and the NatureScot standards visualisations, but mainly the latter:
a. Viewpoint 1 Meall fuar Mhonaidh Summit – this is a VP that has been used for many wind farm cases in this locality. The use of coloured rendering in the wirelines along with a very dark water colour totally underplays the level of effect. Also, there is no attempt to show the extent of wind farm activity (built, consented and proposed) that would also be seen from this summit.
b. Viewpoint 2 Foyers – this is a very badly chosen VP with a clutter of tree branches in the foreground of the baseline photograph and a band of cloud across the face of the opposite hills. The Community Council has suggested a better location whilst the text of Chapter 6 accepts that there would be significant effects on many residential properties here during the construction stages. It is impossible to provide any meaningful comment based on what is lodged for this viewpoint.
c. Viewpoint 3 Foyers Campsite – of particular importance here are the lower level works and the use of the rendering makes it difficult to assess effects although the year 1 and year 15 visualisations in the Highland Council bundle do begin to give an indication of just how visible the infrastructure and the access road will be.
d. Viewpoint 4 Great Glen Way, Bunloit – again perhaps more care could have been taken to try to find a location here that would illustrate significant effects without the foreground clutter of two caravans and a hut/shed (many such alternative viewpoints exist). Looking at the Highland Council standard visualisations leads to the conclusion that there is little point to this VP location.
e. Viewpoint 5 Beach near to Loch Ness – the baseline photograph is far too dark meaning that the NatureScot standard visualisations are really of very little use in assessing effects. A similar conclusion can be reached in respect of the Highland Council standards visualisations.
f. Viewpoint 6 Great Glen Way Glen Urquhart Castle – again, irrespective of which set of visualisations are used it is almost impossible to assess effects.
g. Viewpoint 12 – Glen Coiltie Walking Loop – again there is a very dark baseline photograph. The extent of works that will be visible from this VP will be extensive. However, the photomontages show next to nothing.
30. Two overall conclusions can be reached on the visualisations. Firstly, the use of panoramic baseline photography that compresses the vertical scale and that is often far too dark, combined with rendering, makes it almost impossible to fully understand what the real life landscape and visual effects would be. Secondly, consideration should have been given as to whether it was possible to have separate visualisations illustrating the construction stage effects.
31. The consequence of the above two conclusions leads to the final LVIA conclusion that the effects have been materially underassessed.
32. At this stage the LVIA comments in the holding objection have been prepared as a desk based exercise using the electronic versions of the visualisations and taking account of comments in the NDSFB technical assessment. Should the case proceed to a PLI then fieldwork will be carried out and a full comparative assessment would be provided for each of these viewpoints to address the EIA-R findings, the Council findings, and the findings on behalf of the NDSFB.
33. It is noted that revised visualisations have been submitted. These are available on the ECU web page but not on the ePlanning web page. It is unclear if these have been advertised for formal consultation purposes.
The Application Documents – Additional Concerns
34. Various aspects of the EIA-R have been assessed by the author of the objection and draw on the NDSFB technical assessment as well as published comments by the Save Loch Ness Group with whom the NDSFB are in contact. The concerns are summarised below.
35. In relation to geology the concerns are:
a. An assessment by what appear to be unqualified authors (not professional geologists).
b. The development is proposed on a significant amount of peatland (24% of the site), this is not “unavoidable” and SEPA guidelines have not been followed.
c. The seismic risk has been identified as low. However, there has been insufficient detail on the bedrock and insufficient testing has been conducted to be able to make this assessment (as is shown in the subsequent Prior Notification to the Council in respect of investigative works). The advice from external experts is that reporting on this issue is negligent. Rock types are unstable and secondary faulting occurs across the site. Loading of the water in the new head pond, significant changes in the level of Loch Ness and extensive tunnelling and explosions are significant risks for triggering seismic activity. The litigation around the serious tunnel collapse, asserted to arise from unidentified faulting, continues for the Glendoe hydro scheme.
36. In relation to groundwater there are two sets of concerns:
a. Significant modifications will be made to the Old Red sandstone aquifer during the construction phase of the development. Activities will substantially disrupt and modify Locah nam Breac Dearga and its ability to supply the aquifer.
b. There will be a high risk of contaminants and pollutants seeping into the groundwater and gradually flowing down-dip to reach the PWS water wells and bores at the settlements of Grotaig, Balbeg, Ancarraig, Bunloit, Divach, and Clunemore.
37. In relation to transportation there are scheme specific and cumulative concerns:
a. The impact of the increased traffic from the project is assessed by the applicants as having either a negligible or minor effect at most. That is not credible. The traffic increases will give rise to serious congestion, safety, and wear and tear issues. There will be large increases in HGV traffic on key roads during the construction phase which will last around 5 years, however estimates vary across the application documentation. The heaviest traffic impacts are forecast to be on the following roads:
i. A831 Milton: 152% increase from 53 to 133 HGVs per day
ii. A831 Strathnacro: 670% increase from 27 to 205 HGVs per day
iii. A833 Culnakirk: 393% increase from 25 to 124 HGVs per day
iv. A82 from Inverness: 46% increase from 25 to 241 HGVs per day
b. In addition to the scheme specific traffic there will be potential cumulative traffic impacts from works on Chrathaich and Cnoc Farasd wind farms, the Bingally SSEN substation, the grid connection link from the proposal to Bingally, Kerrow Farm BESS, Fasnakyle BESS, Bingally to Fasnakyle Ohl (and underground) link, Tomchrasky wind farm OHL connection and the grid connection for this proposal.
c. The key cumulative transportation issue is not the assessment itself as set out in the application documentation. The key issue is the practical effects of the potential for overlapping construction periods causing congestion and risk on the key routes. In the past (various Caithness cases) the Council Transportation Team has adopted a “wait and see what happens” approach to addressing cumulative construction stage impacts when post consent CTMPs are submitted by various applicants. That approach would not be acceptable to the NDSFB. By way of contrast, the Reporter for the Ben Aketil S36 wind farm PLI (WIN-270-22) undertook, via a Hearing Session, a very detailed assessment of the exactly how cumulative transportation impacts would be managed, what engineering works would be required, what would be the landscape, visual and ecological impacts of those works (including considering whether those impacts should be assessed now prior to determination), and asking exactly who would approve those works and via what process. The NDSFB considers that this latter approach is the correct one and that it should be carried out in that level of detail prior to determination.
38. With respect to hydrology the assessed position is that there is not enough water in Loch Ness to support the existing, consented, and proposed pumped storage hydro schemes. The total drawdown could be as high as 1.25m, making Loch Ness tidal. There would still be tidal effects stressing the shoreline and littoral habitats at Dochfour even if the weir could be modified. There will be an increased flood risk in Inverness from what is proposed, and this has not been assessed. As set out in the NDSFB technical assessment, overall the proposal is being driven forward without a clear understanding of the impacts and risks downstream and, thus, adequate mitigation cannot be developed.
39. On ecology there are a number of serious concerns that are summarised here:
a. Appropriate bat surveys have not been completed.
b. No reptile studies have been undertaken.
c. No red squirrel surveys in the woods have been completed.
d. The prevalence of water vole has not been properly investigated.
e. The errors/omissions in the survey methods used for target species mean that the assessments cannot be relied upon.
f. No dedicated peat study with respect to health effects has been carried out.
g. The effects of the proposed weir modification on the Urquhart Bay SAC have not been adequately assessed.
h. The effects of the loss of ancient woodland have not been assessed.
i. The effects on salmon are the subject of an ongoing survey (as referenced in the NDSFB technical assessment) which means that these effects are unknown although it is known that water level fluctuations are a significant stressor in the littoral zone, thus impacting key species such as salmon.
40. It is submitted that Scottish Ministers should not seek to rely on post consent deemed planning permission conditions to address these concerns and inadequacies. Generally speaking, such conditions are largely ineffective given the limited monitoring and enforcement staff resources available to the Council whilst it is extremely difficult for interested third parties to be able to follow what is happening at the post consent stage. Furthermore, issues affecting protected species are a material consideration and it is submitted that these must be addressed prior to determination.
41. These comments have all been taken into account in the later policy assessment.
Key Consultee Responses
42. Only a limited number of key consultee responses are currently available and, where material, these are commented on below.
43. The Highland Council Development Plans Team response raises two interesting aspects.
a. Firstly, it concludes that the proposal will be in overall conformity with the approved development plan (the NDSFB does not agree with this) if suitable and sufficient mitigation can be secured (meaning that the current proposed mitigation is inadequate). In the main text of the response, it is noted that much of the mitigation listed is what could be done but without any firm quantitative, dated commitment to it. The suggested mitigation at the A82 roadside lower control works is described as inadequate.
b. Secondly, it asks that an independent, quantitative confirmation is provided of the additional need for pumped storage hydro capacity within Highland. It suggests that this could be secured from NESO or OFGEM in the context of the assertion that by 2031 grid improvements should enable the export of surplus electricity from the Highlands to areas of higher demand. This aspect has not currently been resolved.
44. The Highland Council Flood Risk Management Team, whilst not objecting, do set out a number of concerns and requirements. They are seeking a planning condition that will, effectively, inform them of the operation of the SEPA CAR controls on the operation of the scheme. They raise the Dochfour Weir issue and advise that, at the moment, they do not accept these proposals. The details that they would need to see are set out and include details of who would operate and maintain any modified structure. Some concerns about watercourse crossings are set out, some of which might need a more detailed specific flood risk assessment. The NDSFB is of the view that these aspects should have been the subject of detailed assessment with the outcomes incorporated in the application, whereas what is currently in place is only a partial application accompanied by a partial and inadequate assessment.
45. The Highland Council Access Officer has submitted a welcome and highly detailed response. For the purposes of this objection, it is sufficient to note that many aspects remain to be addressed, some access aspects might not be deliverable, and the cumulative effects on access have not been assessed. Given the very extensive nature of the concerns and the need for further information, including impacts on water based recreational navigation rights, the NDSFB does not agree that these important aspects can be pushed down the line to a post consent deemed planning permission condition for an Access Plan. The correct approach should be to have all of these aspects addressed just now, prior to determination, since it is possible that some requirements will not be capable of being met by the applicants.
46. The response from SEPA, in the form of a holding objection, requests the submission of significant amounts of additional information whilst setting out serious concerns in relation to flood risk, peat and peatlands, impacts on the water environment, earthworks management, and pollution prevention whilst also highlighting that there will be further serious issues to be considered at the CAR stage. Responding to the SEPA position could require significant design changes for the proposal.
47. It is noted that the Jacobite Loch Ness Cruses Company has submitted a detailed objection setting out the operational and safety risks that could arise.
48. The Stratherrick and Foyers Community Council has submitted a detailed objection on environmental impact and policy grounds.
49. The full suite of key consultee responses has still to be published. Should anything significant arise in consultations published after this objection is submitted then they will be addressed in a later submission.