Deadline Fri 18th July.

Please note any 'request for donation' popups are the petition hosting company, nothing to do with Save Our Mearns. It is a free site and they make revenue through advertising and looking for donations. There is no obligation to donate when signing the petition.

Introduction

This objection assesses new information submitted by the developer for the proposed Hurlie Substation. Due to a high volume of objections, Aberdeenshire Council has accepted this objection as a petition, recognising the number of objectors in the Report of Handling.

I wish to register my agreement with this objection

General Concerns

The developer's updated submission fails to address significant issues raised previously. Central to the objection is that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) used an incorrect project description, affecting the accuracy and validity of the entire impact assessment. Numerous errors across the EIA raise serious concerns about the quality assurance processes used.

Although the project description was revised, only landscape and visual aspects were reassessed, leaving other critical areas such as noise, ecology, and other environmental impacts unexplored. For example, removing enclosures may affect noise levels, but no re-evaluation of this has been presented. This neglect violates standard environmental management practices and wastes public resources.

Public Consultation Issues

The public was never presented with an accurate visual representation of the project due to errors in the initial submission. SSEN’s own consultation reports reveal a consistent decline in public trust. Moreover, notices about reopened consultations were only published in obscure outlets like the *Mearns Leader* and *The Edinburgh Gazette*, limiting public awareness.

Planning Statement Update

The revised planning statement includes minor updates about site equipment and building enclosures but fails to correct major errors from the original document, such as repeated references to the wrong local authority (Angus Council). It also reflects a potential for unregulated expansion, aligning with concerns about a “salami slicing” approach, where larger developments are broken into smaller parts to avoid scrutiny.

Noise Impact and Technical Flaws

The developer submitted a technical note in response to noise objections, but it fails to resolve key issues:

* **Unauthorized Monitoring**: Noise monitoring was claimed at two specific properties, yet owners deny any such activity. One location, Smiddy Cottage, had equipment installed without consent.

* **False Assumptions**: The EIA wrongly assumed monitoring at the nearest receptor; data was actually taken from a more distant and acoustically different site, skewing results.

* **Incorrect Location References**: Locations are misidentified or mislabeled (e.g., Little Mergie vs. Mergie House).

* **Outdated Standards**: Noise calculations used a 1996 ISO standard, now superseded by a 2024 update, further undermining reliability.

* **Ground Assumptions**: Instead of real ground condition data, a 50/50 split between hard and soft ground was assumed, violating the precautionary principle and weakening worst-case scenario planning.

These issues suggest a flawed and unreliable noise impact assessment that does not reflect potential risks to the closest residents.

Compensatory Planting

The proposed sites for compensatory tree planting are over 50 miles away from the site of deforestation. This fails to replace the lost biodiversity and natural amenities of the local area. Objectors insist any compensatory measures must occur within the Mearns and Stonehaven area to maintain ecological and community value.

Conclusion

The additional information submitted by the developer fails to correct previous errors or address valid objections. Serious quality assurance failures, misleading or incomplete environmental assessments, poor public consultation practices, and unsuitable compensatory measures all contribute to continued and valid opposition to the proposed development.