How to Object?

SSEN is proposing two substations as part of their Kintore to Tealing line. They have submitted planning applicatinos to the relevant local autorities:

  • “Hurlie” (located in Fetteresso Forest) – Aberdeenshire Council
  • “Emmock” (located in Tealing) – Angus Council

The deadline for Hurlie is 18th January 2025 and the deadline for Emmock is 31st January 2025.

Please consider submitting objections to both substations. You do not have to live in the area and each member of your household may send in an objection.


We have prepared templates for you to simply copy and paste. Try to put into your own words if possible. The number of objections will count, but template letters are less valuable the ones worded independently.


“Hurlie” Fetteresso objection (deadline 18 January)

Send an email to planningonline@aberdeenshire.gov.uk


Email subject:   Planning ref: APP/2024/195. Objection to Hurlie substation

To Whom It May Concern,


I am writing to object to planning application APP/2024/1951 on the grounds that it will:

Set a precedent for further industrialisation of our rural Aberdeenshire landscape which will exacerbate all material concerns raised in this letter. This site will continue to be developed as further offshore and onshore renewables projects are connected. The size of the proposed site demonstrates the intention to connect a multitude of projects not yet at the planning application stage.

Have an unacceptable adverse cumulative impact on a rural area – the size of the site is evidence of future intention for further development.

Cause irreparable harm to our environment and ecology – impacting on vital habitats. SSENs environmental assessments to date have been rushed and are inadequate as they have not been conducted over a 12 month period.

Cause serious harm to the physical and mental health and well-being of people living and working near the substation site.

Destroy the beauty of our Aberdeenshire landscape resulting in a loss of visual amenity

Cause loss of amenity and reduced access to the countryside in a location well used by the local population for walking, running, riding and cycling.

Damage tourism and local businesses – ongoing works will have a negative effect in terms of reducing productivity due to increased traffic and causing damage to road surfaces. It will also make Aberdeenshire a less attractive place to visit.

Damage our local economy by impacting our property market as the visual impact will reduce the desirability of nearby residential and commercial properties.


Result in significant levels of noise pollution for local residents.

Result in air pollution from excess emissions from thousands of journeys during construction.

Result in soil/land and water pollution during and post construction.

Increased risk of flooding to local homes and businesses.

Destroy people’s enjoyment of their homes and our countryside thus breaching their human rights.

Further concerns include the fact that there has been no analysis of the financial cost of SSENs proposals to our local and national economy in terms of impacts on our NHS, agricultural, property and tourism industries and myriad local businesses. There has been no analysis of the environmental and community impacts


The project does not conform to our Local Development Plan.

SSENs public consultations have been wholly inadequate, mis-representing the project as necessary for the ‘UK to reach Net Zero’ and failing to take into account local concerns.


Yours Sincerely,

[Full Name]

[Postal Address]


“Emmock” Tealing objection (deadline 31 January)

Send an email to planning@angus.gov.uk

Email subject:   Planning ref: 24/00699/FULN. Objection to Tealing substation

To Whom It May Concern

I am writing to object to the substation at Balkemback Farm, Tealing Ref: 24/00699/FULN on the following grounds:

Location and size

  • At a size in excess of 79 hectares for the site, this is equivalent to more than 120 football pitches and is completely out of keeping with a rural setting.
  • Tealing has 350 households and a population of 700 residents, a small community which will be completely overshadowed by what is essentially an industrial development.
  • I believe that the development will deter people from living in this area.
  • I believe that this development is contrary to NPF4 planning policy regarding the choice of a correct site.
  • I believe that this development is contrary to national policy regarding safeguarding and protecting the character of a rural area.
  • I believe that the proposals will have a negative impact on rural living.
  • I understand that this proposal is in contrast to the LDP’s aim to conserve the area for present and future generations.

Cumulative effect

  • Should the substation be built, a plethora of other new electrical infrastructure will seek connection to the substation further industrialising the area. There are already a number of new projects seeking connection to the substation.
  • The effect of these developments contravenes local development policy regarding cumulative effect.
  • In addition to the original substation (21 acres), its extension (15 acres), this new substation with a development platform of 50 acres will sit in an area of approx 195 acres. The proposed substation will enable an ever-increasing amount of electrical infrastructure to the area, bringing noise, eliminating wildlife, irreversibly changing the landscape and amenity of the area.

Landscape and visual impact

  • The mitigation to screen the substation and help it blend in with the landscape, is totally inadequate and is akin to the present screening of Seagreen which has in the main part failed to conceal the substation.
  • The mitigation regarding screening shows visualisations in summer and at maturity. It has failed to include how deer will not nibble the top of the trees stopping them growing to maturity.
  • The visual impact on the landscape would be irreversible.
  • Screening and photographic representations within the plans show the visualisation in summer when leaves are present and mature trees have been established
  • Guidelines for siting substations suggest that the substation should fit in with the landscape character of the area which is not the case with these proposals.
  • No reference has been made to the view from Craigowl Hill, a view enjoyed by walkers which will be marred by the view of the substation.

Wildlife

  • The area has a large amount of wildlife living in the area and using it as a wildlife corridor who will be impacted by the construction work alone.
  • The area is used as a flight path for numerous birds who will be impacted by the construction work.

Socio- economic impact

  • The development would have detrimental effects on businesses in the area, people’s health and wellbeing regarding anxiety caused by noise in construction, impact on daily living, and consequently house prices
  • National planning policy indicates that renewable energy proposals should maximise benefits to locals, however the community do not see any benefit from this substation.

Agriculture

  • The detrimental effect on agriculture is potentially considerable, as not only will agricultural land be taken for the development, but land will also be impacted by road widening and access to the works.
  • I am concerned that drainage will be affected by changes to the road usage.
  • I consider the biosecurity measures are inadequate to prevent the spread of disease which if spread would render arable fields unusable for many years. Recent ground investigation works have not shown adequate biosecurity protocols.
  • I have concerns about the soil reinstatement protocols being of sufficient quality.

Noise and pollution

  • I am concerned about the impact of noise, vibration and pollution during construction with an estimated 20,000 HGVs estimated to be used in one year alone. I consider this totally inappropriate for a rural area.

Flawed consultation

  • The information given by SSEN has been inadequate and not clear. Proposals referred initially to Tealing substation, so I was unaware of the advent of an additional and considerably bigger substation being proposed. I am confused by the reference to the substation as the Emmock substation, as Emmock is in Dundee. The Emmock Road is not adjacent to the proposed site.
  • Information at the consultation events was inadequate and I found it misleading.
  • The proposals for the substation were not presented to the public at the earliest stage as advocated in consultation guidelines.
  • Inaccurate information was included in the literature produced by SSEN.
  • Information received at such consultations was limited and on occasions misleading.

Community benefit

  • Suggested benefits to the local community are misleading as I understand they may not go directly to those hosting the infrastructure.

Please accept this as an OBJECTION to plans for the substation.

[Full name]

[Postal address]