The massive electricity substation being planned for a site as big as Halkirk is “completely unacceptable in a rural location” and “should be rejected out of hand”, according to objectors.
They argue that the proposed Banniskirk Hub will cause “irreparable damage” to the local environment and archaeology as well as undermining the livelihoods and mental wellbeing of nearby residents.
One response to the planning application from SSEN Transmission suggests that an Environmental Impact Assessment report associated with it is “unlawful”.
Other concerns include that the site will be “lit up like Las Vegas” during construction and that in the longer term it will accelerate depopulation.
There is even a worry, expressed by a householder living close to the site, that a hostile power targeting energy infrastructure could “cause major disruption” through a drone attack.
SSEN Transmission submitted a planning application to Highland Council in November for a 400kV substation and high-voltage direct current (HVDC) converter station.
If it goes ahead, Banniskirk Hub will connect to the controversial proposed 400kV overhead line between Spittal and Beauly and to the existing Spittal 275kV substation. It will include a new outdoor 400kV air insulated switchgear (AIS) substation and an HVDC converter station that will help transport offshore renewable energy to “demand centres” throughout the UK.
The site is defined as 360m north-east of Achalone Cottage, near Halkirk.
Related stories:
Caithness substation will bring ‘unprecedented degree of industrialisation’
‘Why here?’ Caithness riding school family warn Banniskirk Hub will have ‘enormous’ impact
Go-ahead for two new Caithness turbines will show ‘rural residents count for nothing’
The Banniskirk Hub site boundary, marked in red, in documents submitted to Highland Council as part of the SSEN Transmission planning application.
Among the many objections, Susan Steven claims that the area around Banniskirk and Spittal will become a “dead zone” if the substation, or “superhub”, is built.
Warning of “the hidden cumulative effects of yet another massive, unwanted and unnecessary infrastructure project”, she wrote: “SSEN states that this substation is only for future on and offshore developments to the grid. These are all merely speculative projects, do not have planning permission and are only a part of the future plans by SSEN.
“All this industrial infrastructure that is planned would be encouragement for any future developments, as often seems to be the case. In addition to their superhub any and all other future developments will require further substations, linked to this Banniskirk Hub by pylons or underground cables.
“The sheer size of this development is such that it should be rejected out of hand. Industrialisation is a word that has been mentioned frequently in relation to these developments in Caithness and Sutherland and this is just what it is – completely unacceptable in a rural location.
“The visualisations provided do not accurately convey the true scale of this dreadful proposal and the maps provided do not show anything as a frame of reference.
“The development is even larger than Halkirk, and Spittal – which would be closest – is minute in comparison. I believe if this were approved, the area of Banniskirk/Spittal would be a dead zone for people, the environment, wildlife, etc.
“There are irreplaceable archaeological sites, including a Neolithic cairn, which would be completely destroyed since it is planned to blast the bedrock for foundations and platforms. Also an area of trees would be felled.
“Approximately half the site is listed as class three peat, which would either be dug up or severely compacted. In other areas, peat is being restored yet this would do the opposite.
“There will inevitably be massive environmental damage to this whole area, the resident and visiting wildlife, particularly birds.
“For local residents any construction phase would be horrendous with noise, huge amounts of heavy machinery, light pollution, vibrations, dust and dirt. Normal daily life would be disrupted in this sort of environment. Property values will decrease and local businesses will suffer greatly.
“Who would wish to visit or live near to an industrial wasteland? There is no place in Caithness or Sutherland for this industrial development.”
Dr Keith Whittles insisted the Highlands “should not be destroyed simply to supply the south” with power, and claimed the development would amount to vandalism.
He wrote: “The Highlands should not be degraded further by rampant industrialisation. This is the process that can be called ‘the great Highland ruination’ and all for speculative and not tangible or proven reasons.
“Scotland and especially the Highlands does not need more energy generation or transmission infrastructure; England cannot accept it and yet the companies and government and other bodies, hand in glove, are willing to destroy habitats, landscapes, wildlife and lives through this monstrous rush to an industrial wasteland.
“The actual footprint of this development would be massive – and will totally ruin the landscape and environment of Halkirk. It will be detrimental to the lives of those living in the vicinity.
“There are several archaeological sites that should be preserved, not ground into dust. This is the mentality of the vandal.
“Peat is a carbon sink and, like all turbine foundations in peatlands, constructing this station will actually contribute to climate change. Releasing the carbon while disturbing the peat creates carbon dioxide and also washes sediment into watercourses. It can take 1000 years to create one metre of peat and this application will destroy that natural process in the blink of an eye.
“We are told tourism is important to the county. Creating eyesores is not the way to encourage visitors.
“There will be unacceptable disruption to local traffic and traffic on the A9, creating hazards. In addition there will be the pollution of all types created by heavy machinery and traffic. We are already not allowed to use the Achavanich road, which is an outrage; how many endless traffic-light waits will there be for this?
“The Flow Country was recently inscribed as a World Heritage Site. It is criminally ironic to undertake any infrastructure development for ‘renewables’ on the fringe of this wonderful region, now rightly recognised alongside other wonders of the world.”
Daniel Burnand set out his concerns over the mental and physical effects of the project on his family and others in the immediate area.
He stated: “We are just the collateral damage of large-scale industrial infrastructure projects, with minimal regard for people and property. This application is not in keeping with the Action Plan to Address Depopulation, issued by the Scottish Government February 2024.
A comment lodged on behalf of Kathrin Haltiner stated: “The submission is to the effect that the EIA-R [Environmental Impact Assessment report] lodged with the application is currently unlawful in that it does not describe the environmental effects of the whole project having regard to Regulation 32 of the 2017 EIA (Scotland) Regulations.
“Instead it takes what has come to be known as a salami-slicing approach. In that respect the application should not have been registered in the first place.”
Melanie Auchterlonie argued that there is no need for the additional capacity proposed for the substation. “Caithness and Sutherland are already net exporters of electricity generated from wind turbines and hydro,” she wrote.
“The amount of electricity generated in Caithness and Sutherland already exceeds the amount of electricity used by the residents and businesses in the two counties by about 80 per cent. We have already been advised that the extra capacity is to allow for additional wind farms and solar arrays, so that the electricity can be exported to the south of Scotland [and] England and reduce the amount of electricity currently imported from Europe.
“It is recognised that renewable energy is inefficient even if utilised as it is generated, let alone transmitting it hundreds of miles down resistant power lines to central belt substations that do not have the capacity to distribute the energy. The new infrastructure solution, very large substations, battery storage, enormous pylons and miles of overhead cables, is not appropriate for transmitting electricity from renewable energy sources.
“The new infrastructure is apparently to export renewable energy from future wind farms, which haven’t even been thought up. New wind turbine applications are currently being rejected. Caithness and Sutherland have enough wind farms.
“The planning process to create a new Spittal-Loch Buidhe-Beauly 400kV pylon line should not be split into standalone planning applications for each substation, each pylon, each pylon wire installation, each concrete plinth, each access road or track, each compound for storing said items, each residential complex to house temporary workers. Changing the names to mask the context and purpose of the standalone planning application also seems somewhat underhand.
“The negative impact and irreparable damage that all of these items have on the habitat, ecology, geology, water resources, archaeology, health and safety, livelihoods, business, residential and general mental wellbeing far outweighs the need for global investors to capitalise on the current obsession with ‘net-zero’.
“This development is not appropriate to the area and will have an impact on everything that it currently supports.”
L Parker wrote: “The necessity for this substation is highly questionable.
“The existing overhead lines in the region are not utilised to their full capacity due to the lack of a viable market for electricity generated. Instead of expanding infrastructure in the far north, resources should focus on improving grid connections further south.
Current inefficiencies, such as the excessive constraint payments, highlight systemic issues that should be addressed before new infrastructure is developed. This project, rather than addressing the core issues, appears speculative and premature.
“The sheer size of the proposed development is alarming. Covering an area of 0.89 km², with 0.25 km² fenced off, the project dwarfs nearby settlements such as Halkirk (0.59 km²) and Spittal (0.06 km²). The visualisations fail to provide an accurate frame of reference, and selected viewpoints obscure the true impact of the site’s size.
“Residential properties bordering the site will suffer from significant visual intrusion, noise and other disturbances. The disproportionate scale of this project relative to the local area will irrevocably alter its character and degrade the surrounding landscape.
“This application poses an unacceptable threat to the environment, local communities and the character of the Highlands. It fails to justify its necessity, inadequately addresses cumulative impacts, and prioritises speculative future developments over the wellbeing of current residents and the preservation of the region’s heritage and natural resources.”
Another objector, Sally Thomson, calculated that the substation site would be the size of “about 140 football pitches”.
She wrote: “An ever-increasing number of visiting tourists, from both the UK and Europe, travel on the A9 to Thurso from the south or vice versa. They will be treated to this industrial eyesore. It will detract from the local area and the wider area of the new Unesco World Heritage Site [the Flow Country].
“I feel this substation application will put a huge strain on the local community during the construction phase, it will be very unsightly for the area while it is being built and for years after. I also feel it will not be in keeping with the current remote natural landscape and I also believe that visitors/tourists to the area may be very disappointed with these unsightly battery units as they get to the far north of Scotland, a view far from that of a great unspoilt wilderness.”
Describing the site as totally unsuitable, Malcolm Thomson wrote: “Trees are going to be cut down, large amounts of class three peat dug away and bedrock blasted to enable the foundations to be laid down. I also understand that a Neolithic cairn is going to be destroyed.
“Is this an acceptable loss to support this infrastructure? I do not think so and I hope planning feels the same.
“I doubt you could get planning for a house of this scale on this site, so I feel a substation should not either.
“The noise, dust and light pollution during the construction phase is going to be felt for some period of time. We have very dark nights, great views of the stars and northern light, but this construction site lit up like Las Vegas through the winter will be seen for miles, and remove those atmospheric evenings for some time to come.
“Please do not consider this application in isolation to all the rest. In the very near vicinity to this site there are more substations, new overhead power lines, underground cables and a wind farm in various stages of planning. If all these get the go ahead all of the above will be multiplied a large number of times.
“The whole area will be a building site for years and then a complete change from a gently rolling landscape with a view of the mountains to one massive industrial installation.
“It seems wherever you go in Caithness you can see two or three wind farms and a substation. This will only add to that. I feel enough is enough.”
Mrs N Munro noted: “It appears that small hamlets and areas are targeted by those large profit-making organisations, as they are small communities with little power to be heard.”
Jean Clasper claimed that the size of the facility “will overwhelm the area”, adding: “The disturbance during construction and after will be detrimental to neighbouring farms, riding school and houses. There will be unavoidable levels of noise, dust and vibration.
Edith Budge lives at Achalone, close to the substation site. She is adamant that the environmental damage will outweigh any net-zero ambitions.
“This application should not be looked at as a single project as this is just the beginning of something much bigger,” she warned. “It should also take into account the cumulative effect for this area.
“This application and all that are connecting into it are bound to have a massive impact on local wildlife, birds and nature… Many of the reports also refer to desk-based studies which make me cautious of their findings.
“The depreciation in value that this is going to cause to local residents’ homes and businesses has caused major unrest and anxiety. These are not just houses, these are our homes, which we have worked hard for, to have their value impacted through no fault of our own.
“We chose this location to live to enjoy a rural lifestyle, not the industrial environment which is being forced upon us by this project and others.
“We will also be subjected to the noise, not only during the years of construction and all which it brings, including blasting and use of breakers, but also the noise once operational. I am fully aware of the noise/buzz that comes from a 275kV substation and its connecting pylons, which can vary in different weather conditions, so I dread to think of the noise that will be created from this proposed 400kV infrastructure.
“These projects state that they are creating employment in the community. They may employ some locals, but the majority of the contractors are from areas other than Caithness, as we have witnessed with previous projects of smaller sizes in the county.
“Also once constructed this is an unmanned substation, so perhaps not the creator of long-term employment after all.
“They talk about meeting net-zero, but how much environmental damage is being caused in the process of putting this in place between digging up peat (which is hugely important to the environment, acting as a carbon store, wildlife habitat and flood controller), filling natural ground with concrete and steel, along with the pollution created by all of the plant, HGVs and construction vehicles for the prolonged construction periods from this and other associated projects?
“The vehicles used during construction of this project and others will burn through hundreds of thousands of litres of fuel, yet nobody is considering this. How many years will it take to negate all of this damage?
“In the current state of unrest we now live in, if someone chose to take down our energy infrastructure to cause major disruption with little effort all they would need is a few drones, and we would be living in the middle of a possible easy target – nothing their security cameras and fences can do against that.
“Also can it officially be proven that these structures do not have a detrimental impact to health of those living in close proximity?”
William Stewart called the scheme “just another ‘nail in the coffin’ for Caithness in a long-drawn-out death orchestrated by SSEN on behalf of the UK and Scottish governments in the name of net-zero”.
He went on: “Our landscapes and environment here are being destroyed to allow people further south to claim that they are ‘doing their bit’ for their own environment.
“This development is not required in Caithness and Sutherland as there is already a surplus of renewable energy being produced here and the real answer is to build all new generation capacity near to where the demand is.
“The development will generate little real local benefit in terms of well-paid jobs during construction and operation as SSEN already have their main contractors preparing for this work.”
Shondie Maclean described the substation as “a huge eyesore” that will “ruin a beautiful part of the Caithness countryside”.
“I am not opposed to renewable energy,” she wrote, “but Caithness is being littered with turbines and substations and we see no benefit to our energy prices. This substation proposed is in a well-populated and busy area of the county (directly beside the A9).
“I’m aware of other smaller substations nearby which are fairly well hidden from the road – the new proposed substation at Banniskirk is so close to the road, and so huge, it will be impossible to hide. It will have a negative effect on local wildlife and farmland in the area.
“This substation is proposed for a well populated area of Caithness, and will be very close to private houses – what about the long-term effects on the health of these residents living in such close proximity to the substation?”
A substation near Beauly, constructed as part of the Beauly to Denny power line upgrade.
It is understood the deadline for comments has been extended to January 26, although as of the end of last week this information did not appear among the relevant “Important Dates” on the Highland Council planning portal.
A council spokesperson said: “The Neighbour Consultation Expiry Date of January 2 presented on the portal has been automatically generated based on an initial public advert having been issued.
“Owing to the application being an EIA development, a further updated public advert is due to be published, which, once issued, will specify a further 30-day period for public representations to be made.
“Please also note that it is Highland Council policy to consider all representations received up to the point of the application’s determination, with this item expected to be presented to the North Planning Applications Committee later this year.”
In a project overview, SSEN Transmission stated that most of the site comprises rough grassland used for cattle or sheep grazing, with a small area of coniferous woodland along the western edge, bordering the A9.
SSEN Transmission said that throughout the consultation process it had been “clear on the scale of development, with 3D visualisation models, detailed drawings and dimensions included as part of our consultation materials”.
Senior development project manager Rebecca Gay said in December: “The Banniskirk Hub is a key component of our proposals for a new 400kV overhead line between Spittal and Beauly, supporting the delivery of high-voltage, clean renewable power and helping meet Scotland and the UK’s energy security and clean power ambitions.
“In developing our proposals, we have sought to achieve the best balance from an environmental and technical perspective while taking account of the views of the local community, with whom we have consulted throughout the development of the project proposal.
“We would like to thank all those who provided feedback as part of our pre-application consultation events which have been key in helping shape our proposals. We now look forward to working with Highland Council and stakeholders as part of the planning submission process.”
Two statutory pre-application events for the Banniskirk Hub were held last year, in March and June. SSEN Transmission says there are no further consultation events planned.
Prior to the pre-application events a site selection consultation took place in February 2023, with a follow-up report in December that year.