Hurlie substation resubmission objection-Save Our Mearns

Not fully risk assessed and insufficient consultation showing the true scale of impact on the local community. Travel and tourism will be massively impacted. I will not be visiting a scarred landscape. I will go elsewhere

As someone with experience in working in offshore oil platforms where we generated and distribute our own electricity and we built things vertically as we knew the price of increasing the platforms length and width was astronomical. So why is there no considerations and options to reduce the substation footprint by building vertically. In your designs and pylon proposals you are thinking and wanting to implement 1950's technology.

We face the same industrialisation in the Borders

I support this petirion

Not needed or wanted

I am concerned about the inconsistencies & misleading information presented by SSEN in connection to this application. Compensatory planting must take place in the immediate area that has been disturbed, not a considerable number of miles away from the site.

I oppose this development

Not enough info on its presentation, sound levels or impact on the environment.

This is a desiccation of our countryside and far too close to the community of Stonehaven. Industrial site among trees.

Please reject this application. The cumulative impact would be felt the length of Scotland.

No!!!

Objection. Absolutely do not support.

Thoroughly object to this development. This is not the answer.

I wish to register my agreement with this objection

No to pylons. Stop the Net Zero nonsense.

Absolute disgrace. Howe of the Mearns and the Strathmore Valley have the richest soil in Scotland. They should be left unsullied by monster pylons. Surely it is much more economical to wind farms off the coast of England close to the customers. Wind farms are not green. They have a life of 25 Years and what happpens after that?

I do not believe all avenues to look into sea or underground cables. These pylons will have a detrimental effect on people, wildlife and tourism.

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

No to pylons!

No to pylons