Hurlie substation resubmission objection-Save Our Mearns

Totally against this expensive and environmentally damage form of so called renewable energy !

Don't want them, don't need them, don't want our countryside ruined

I wholeheartedly disagree with the way SSEN are planning to desecrate our countryside in the name of profit. These systems are neither green or renewable but cash cows for multinational businesses and the planning authorities should deal with them as such. It is a disgrace!

Destroying greenfield sites, removing carbon catching trees, makes absolutely no sense for trying to reduce our carbon emissions. Brownfield sites should be used where minimal there would be minimal impact to flora and fauna. Undergrounding the cables would have a smaller carbon footprint and in the long run be cheaper to maintain

I object to this development as I believe the environmental impact far exceeds any benefit

Not needed. For profit shame on SSEN and SNP

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

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

I fully object to this substation and the incomplete assessment of the impact to the environment and ecology of the area. SSE have shown on a number of occasions, lack of attention to detail and substandard practices

Stop the industrialisation of our countryside!

The application is misleading. The consultation process didn’t take into account the objections that local communities had an I felt it was just a tick box exercise. As a result this application hasn’t taken into account the concerns and objections raised in its consultation.

It is absolutely disgusting that they think building these huge substations is acceptable. They clearly pose a big health risk and scar the spectacular landscape we have. This should not go ahead!

This is an appalling development, please do not allow our beautiful landscape to be desecrated in this way.

.

Improve existing structure, do not destroy our farmland and forests

Why would you put a battery station in fetteresso Forrest I thought this was about going green not destroying the landscape and the one at kintore is great big blot on the land scape and all the talk about carbon capture you can’t capture carbon with steel battery packs

Objection

I object

Stop wrecking our countryside, with its diversity, migratory birds, beauty and importance to the environment. Wrecking countryside for so called ‘green’ energy makes no sense. We live here, we will have to put up with the eyesore, danger of fire, damage to our environment. Go underground with the cables, do not put the substation here, and save our Mearns. I do not believe wind energy is the way forward, it’s not sustainable as billed, its wind turbines are not recyclable and do not last long, and once this damage is done, it cannot be undone. Please don’t do this to us. We are an important rural and farming area, we have dark skies and abundant wildlife. An ugly countryside-wrecking substation which will be undoubtably lit up at night - nobody wants this. Please stop.

Objection