RSPB Objection
APPLICATION FOR CONSENT UNDER SECTION 36 OF THE ELECTRICITY ACT 1989 FOR THE PROPOSED GLEN EARRACH PUMPED STORAGE HYDRO PROJECT IN THE PLANNING AUTHORITY AREA OF HIGHLAND COUNCIL (ECU REFERENCE: ECU00005121)
Thank you for consulting RSPB Scotland on the above application. We understand the benefits the proposed development could bring in terms of the national transition to renewable energy. However, renewable energy development must be carefully sited and designed to avoid detrimental impacts on nature, especially species and habitats of the highest conservation importance. NPF4 is a material consideration in the determination of all energy consents applications and recognised the twin crisis of nature and climate. RSPB Scotland believes that developments should leave nature in a better state than before and is supportive of NPF4 Policy 3 which states that national, major and EIA development will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that the proposal will conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity significant biodiversity enhancement.
The proposal is for a large-scale Pumped Storage Hydro (PSH) development which would operate by transferring large volumes of water to and from the lower-level Loch Ness and a proposed upper reservoir. This upper reservoir would be created by damming the existing Loch nam Breac Dearga, creating an expanded loch.
Due to the location and nature of the proposed development, it would have likely significant effects on a number of European Sites, including a number of Special Protection Areas (SPA’s) designated for breeding Slavonian Grebe. Therefore, the competent authority must carry out Appropriate Assessments under the 2017 Habitat Regulations1 of the effects of the proposal on the SPAs, and their species in light of the site’s conservation objectives, before determining the application. The Applicant must provide sufficient information to inform the Appropriate Assessments. If the potential impacts of the proposal cannot be sufficiently mitigated and there could be adverse impacts on the integrity of these sites, then it is unlikely that the determining authority would be able to grant consent in accordance with the Habitat Regulations requirements.
Slavonian Grebes are under threat of extinction as a breeding bird in the UK, with significant declines recorded in recent years with only 23 breeding pairs recorded in 2024. It is a red-listed Bird of Conservation Concern and listed by the IUCN as ‘Near Threatened’ in Europe and ‘Vulnerable’ globally.
Whilst we welcome the attempts of the Applicant to design the scheme to avoid construction close to breeding grebe lochs, we continue to have significant concerns regarding the impacts on Slavonian Grebe due to the vulnerable status of this breeding bird in the UK, the scale of the proposed development, length of time of construction operations and potential for ongoing operational impacts. Whilst the Applicant proposes the implementation of work exclusion zones of 350m, in this instance given the scale of the development and construction and the currently largely undisturbed nature of the area it is our opinion that this would not be adequate to ensure adverse impacts are avoided on this species.
We object to the application due to potential impacts on the nationally important Slavonian Grebe population and as we do not agree that it can be concluded with reasonable certainty, taking into account proposed mitigation, that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity on the suite of Slavonian Grebe SPA’s.
We will consider our position in light of any additional information that is submitted.
Further information is provided in Confidential Annex 1, with additional comments in Annex 2.
Yours sincerely
Alison Phillip
Conservation Officer – South Highland
Annex 1. Confidential
Annex 2. Additional Comments
Unfortunately, we have not had the resources to consider the full EIA in detail and have concentrated our response on Slavonian Grebes in Confidential Annex 1, given their extremely vulnerable conservation status. However, we have the following comments.
Survey Work
Our scoping response strongly recommended the inclusion of 2 years of breeding waterfowl surveys were undertaken to inform the assessment. This would have given more confidence that results were representative of species presence across the development area particularly for species such as Red-Throated Diver. Only 1 year of breeding surveys has been undertaken, although we are aware the applicant is conducting ongoing monitoring. We recommend that the results of the monitoring from this breeding season are presented as Additional Information so that a fuller picture of breeding across the development site is understood prior to a planning decision.
The EIA contradicts itself in places – Section 2.16, 2.21, 2.25 of Appendix 8.1 state that surveys for breeding raptors, divers and grebes and black grouse were carried out in all areas of suitable habitat within 6km, 2km and 1.5km of the proposed above ground infrastructure as per standard guidance. Figure 8.2 also shows field survey areas indicating the appropriate buffers were surveyed. However, the limitations section (Appendix 8.1, 2.32) says that surveys undertaken for black grouse, divers/grebes and eagles did not extend to the full survey extent from the proposed above ground infrastructure. A map should be provided showing which areas were actually surveyed to clarify.