Report on Consultation Fort Augustus Skye Project June 2017 · Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission...

Report on Consultation

Fort Augustus – Skye Project

June 2017

CONTENTS

GLOSSARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 1.1 Purpose of Document 3 1.2 Objectives 3 1.3 Document Structure 3 2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 4 2.1 Project Background 4 2.2 Project Description 4 2.3 Identification and Analysis of Route Options 4 3. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS 6 3.1 Overview 6 3.2 Methods for Consultation 6 3.3 Public Consultation Exhibitions 8 4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND KEY ISSUES 9 4.1 Summary of Comments 9 4.2 Comments and Issues Emerging from Consultation Feedback 11 5. PROJECT RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS 14 5.1 Overview 14 5.2 General Comments 14 5.3 Design Responses 14 5.4 Proposed Route 15 5.5 Responses Relevant to Subsequent EIA 15 6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS 16 6.1 Conclusions 16 6.2 Next Steps 16

Appendices

Appendix 1: Consultation Summary Table (Sections 1 to 6)

Appendix 2: Information Leaflet provided to members of the public

Appendix 3: Exhibition Boards displayed at public events

Figures

Figure 1: Route Options and Preferred Route presented in Consultation Document

1

GLOSSARY

Term Definition

Alignment A centre line of an overhead line, along with location of key angle structures.

Consultation The dynamic process of dialogue between individuals or groups, based on a

genuine exchange of views and, normally, with the objective of influencing

decisions, policies or programmes of action.

Corridor A linear area which allows a continuous connection between the defined

connection points. The corridor may vary in width along its length; in

unconstrained areas it may be many kilometres wide.

Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA)

A formal process set down in The Electricity Works (EIA) (Scotland)

Regulations 2000 (as amended in 2017) used to systematically identify, predict

and assess the likely significant environmental impacts of a proposed project or

development.

Habitat Term most accurately meaning the place in which a species lives, but also

used to describe plant communities or agglomerations of plant communities.

Kilovolt (kV) One thousand volts.

Micrositing The process of positioning individual structures to avoid localised

environmental or technical constraints.

Mitigation Term used to indicate avoidance, remediation or alleviation of adverse impacts.

National Scenic Area

(NSA)

A national level designation applied to those landscapes considered to be of

exceptional scenic value.

Overhead line (OHL) An electric line installed above ground, usually supported by lattice steel towers

or poles.

Route A linear area of approximately 1 km width (although this may be narrower/wider

in specific locations in response to identified pinch points / constraints), which

provides a continuous connection between defined connection points.

Routeing The work undertaken which leads to the selection of a proposed alignment,

capable of being taken forward into the consenting process under Section 37 of

the Electricity Act 1989.

Semi-natural Woodland Woodland that does not obviously originate from planting. The distribution of

species will generally reflect the variations in the site and the soil. Planted trees

must account for less than 30% of the canopy composition.

Sites of Special Scientific

Interest (SSSI)

Areas of national importance. The aim of the SSSI network is to maintain an

adequate representation of all natural and semi-natural habitats and native

species across Britain.

Special Area of

Conservation (SAC)

An area designated under the EC Habitats Directive to ensure that rare,

endangered or vulnerable habitats or species of community interest are either

maintained at or restored to a favourable conservation status.

Special Protection Area

(SPA)

An area designated under the Wild Birds Directive (Directive74/409/EEC) to

protect important bird habitats. Implemented under the Wildlife and Countryside

Act 1981.

Stakeholders Organisations and individuals who can affect or are affected by SHE

Transmission works.

Study Area The area within which the corridor, route and alignment study takes place.

The National Grid The electricity transmission network in the Great Britain.

Volts The international unit of electric potential and electromotive force.

Wild Land Area (WLA) Those areas comprising the greatest and most extensive areas of wild

characteristics within Scotland.

3

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Document

Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission plc (SHE Transmission plc) is proposing to construct a new 132 kV

overhead line (OHL) between Edinbane substation on Skye and Fort Augustus substation. This Report on

Consultation documents the consultation process for the project which was undertaken between September

2016 and December 2016. The programme of consultation was designed to engage with key stakeholders

including statutory and non-statutory consultees, local communities, landowners and individual residents in

order to invite feedback on the rationale for and approach to, the selection of the preferred route1.

The report describes the key responses received and details the actions taken in response to the issues raised.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this report are:

To document the consultation process between September 2016 and December 2016;

To record feedback received from stakeholders including objections, concerns, questions and

statements of support;

To document actions undertaken in response to feedback where relevant; and

To clearly set out how the preferred route has been informed by the consultation process.

1.3 Document Structure

This report is comprised of six parts as follows:

1: Introduction – sets out the purpose of the Report on Consultation;

2: Proposed Development – outlines the background to the project and provides a description of the key

elements;

3: The Consultation Process – describes the framework for consultation and methods which have been

employed;

4: Consultation Responses and Key Issues – summarises the range of responses and key comments and

issues arising through the consultation process;

5: Project Responses to Consultations – describes how the comments and issues raised during

consultation will be addressed; and

6: Conclusions and Next Steps – provides a summary of the conclusions reached and actions going

forward.

The main body of this report is supported by a series of appendices and figures.

1

Identified within the Fort Augustus to Skye Project: Consultation Document, September 2016, produced by SHE Transmission plc

4

2. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

2.1 Project Background

SHE Transmission plc is a wholly owned subsidiary of the SSE plc group of companies. SHE Transmission plc

owns and maintains the electricity transmission network across the north of Scotland, and holds a license under

the Electricity Act 1989 to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity

transmission.

The existing 132 kV overhead line from Fort Augustus substation to Dunvegan substation on the Isle of Skye is

the sole connection from the mainland electricity grid to Skye and the Western Isles. The existing transmission

infrastructure is made up of three distinct sections, which were constructed at different times over the last 65

years in response to changing needs. This comprises the following:

1. Fort Augustus Tee to Quoich – a single 132 kV circuit of steel lattice towers, strung with a single

circuit and constructed in the mid 1950’s to connect the Quoich hydroelectric power station to the grid;

2. Quoich to Broadford – a double 132 kV circuit of steel lattice towers, strung with a single circuit only

and constructed between 1979 and 1980; and

3. Broadford to Dunvegan – a single 132 kV circuit of trident wood pole, strung with a single circuit and

constructed in 1989.

This network is currently at capacity and, as a result of an increase in renewable energy projects requesting

access to the electricity network, there is a requirement to increase the capacity to Skye. This project is driven

specifically by the request for connection of the contracted new Glen Ullinish (42 MW) and Glean Eoghainn

(25 MW) wind farms. This will also improve the resilience of the transmission network between Fort Augustus

and Skye.

2.2 Project Description

To facilitate this connection requirement, the main elements of the project are as follows:

Construction of a new single circuit 132 kV transmission connection using a double trident H wood

pole (H pole) OHL solution from the existing Fort Augustus substation to the existing Broadford

substation. The final few hundred metres (approximately) of the OHL into Fort Augustus is likely to be

an underground cable;

Construction of a replacement, higher capacity single circuit 132 kV OHL using a H pole from the

existing Broadford substation to the existing Edinbane substation;

Installation of additional equipment and minor works on the 33 kV network at the existing Broadford

substation; and

Installation of additional equipment and minor works at the existing Edinbane substation.

No expansion to the existing Broadford and Edinbane substations is expected as the additional equipment

would be installed within existing site boundaries. This project would also connect into existing equipment at the

Fort Augustus substation. The existing double circuit steel lattice towers at the Kyle Rhea crossing would be

utilised for the new circuit.

The existing 132 kV trident wood pole OHL between Broadford substation and Edinbane substation would be

removed after completion of the works. The existing single circuit 132kV steel lattice overhead line between

Broadford substation and Fort Augustus substation would remain.

2.3 Identification and Analysis of Route Options

The approach to route selection was informed by the principles set down in SHE Transmission plc’s existing

guidance ‘The SHE Transmission Approach to Routeing of Overhead Lines’ but takes account of a forthcoming

update to that guidance which is intended to broaden the basis for routeing decisions to reflect contemporary

practice, and ensures environmental, technical and economic considerations are identified and appraised at

each stage of the routeing process.

5

The guidance sets out the process which aims to balance environmental considerations with technical and

economic considerations throughout the route options process.

The guidance splits a project into six stages, as follows:

Pre-Routeing Activities: Selection of proposed connection option;

Stage 0: Routeing strategy development;

Stage 1: Corridor Selection;

Stage 2: Route Selection;

Stage 3: Alignment Selection; and

Stage 4: EIA and consenting.

The Fort Augustus to Skye project is currently at the route selection stage. Route options (approximately 1km in

width) are shown on Figure 1. The preferred route option presented in the Consultation Document2 is also

shown on Figure 1.

Due to the length of the proposed overhead line, it has been necessary to break it down into six sections to

more easily describe, identify and assess route options. The following ‘sections’ have been identified:

Section 1 – Edinbane to Sligachan;

Section 2 – Sligachan to Broadford;

Section 3 – Broadford to Kyle Rhea;

Section 4 – Kyle Rhea to Loch Quoich / Loch Cluanie;

Section 5 – Loch Quoich / Loch Cluanie to Invergarry / Glen Moriston; and

Section 6 – Invergarry / Glen Moriston to Fort Augustus.

All responses received from stakeholders and members of the public have been documented in this report on a

section by section basis to enable a clearer understanding of where key issues have been raised (see Appendix

1).

2

Fort Augustus to Skye Project: Consultation Document, September 2016, SHE Transmission plc

6

3. THE CONSULTATION PROCESS

3.1 Overview

In accordance with SHE Transmission plc’s guidance ‘The SHE Transmission Approach to Routeing of

Overhead Lines’, a process of consultation on the preferred route option has been undertaken.

3.2 Methods for Consultation

A variety of methods were used to consult on the preferred route option.

3.2.1 Meetings with Statutory Consultees

During the strategic options and corridor selection stages, consultation with statutory consultees was

undertaken at key points from March 2014. Subsequent to this, representatives of statutory consultees namely

The Highland Council (THC), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), Scottish Environment Protection Agency

(SEPA), Historic Environment Scotland (HES) and Forestry Commission Scotland (FCS) were invited to attend

a meeting hosted by the Energy Consents Unit (ECU) of the Scottish Government on 9th

August 2016. At this

meeting, attendees were given an update on the project, potential environmental effects were outlined and the

route options under consideration were discussed. Comments were sought from statutory consultees at the

meeting ahead of identifying a preferred route option.

At the meeting in August 2016, a part of the route through the Kinloch and Kyleakin Hills Special Area of

Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) (Route Options 3A and 3B) generated

particular debate due to the potential effects of a new OHL through this designated site. To explore the route

options in this area in more detail, it was agreed that a site visit should be arranged with SNH to discuss

potential effects and mitigation opportunities through the designated site. This site visit was arranged for the

24th

and 25th

August 2016 and this provided useful information to assist the route options appraisal process.

3.2.2 Consultation Document

The Fort Augustus to Skye Project: Consultation Document (September 2016) was produced detailing the

selection process for the preferred route, taking account of environmental, economic and technical factors. This

was distributed to stakeholders for comment in September 2016. The Consultation Document was deposited at

Post Offices in Glenelg and Dunvegan, Broadford Library and Highland Council Service Points at Fort Augustus

and Portree to allow members of the public to view it. The Consultation Document was also made available for

download from http://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/fort-augustus-skye/ along with a function to allow

submission of feedback. Table 3-1 details the stakeholders in receipt of the Consultation Document or

otherwise informed of the website details:

Table 3-1: List of Stakeholders

Stakeholders Method of Information

Statutory Consultees

The Highland Council Letter and Compact Disc (CD)

Historic Environment Scotland Letter and CD

Scottish Environment Protection Agency Letter and CD

Scottish Government Letter, hard copy and CD

Scottish Natural Heritage Letter, hard copy and CD

Non-Statutory Consultees

Association of Salmon Fishery Boards Letter and CD

British Telecom Letter

Civil Aviation Authority Letter

The Crown Estates Letter

http://www.ssen-transmission.co.uk/projects/fort-augustus-skye/

7

Stakeholders Method of Information

Defence Estates Letter

Defence Infrastructure Letter

Forestry Commission Scotland Letter and CD

Highlands and Islands Conservancy Letter and CD

Highlands and Islands Airports Ltd Letter

John Muir Trust Letter and CD

Joint Radio Company Letter

Marine Scotland Letter

Mountaineering Scotland Letter and CD

National Air Traffic Services Letter

National Grid Letter

National Trust for Scotland Letter

Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust Letter and CD

RAF Letter

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Letter and CD

Scottish Renewables Letter

Scottish Rights of Way and Access Society Letter

Scottish Water Letter

Scottish Wildlife Trust Letter

SEERAD Letter

Skye Fisheries Trust Letter and CD

Transport Scotland Letter

Visit Scotland Letter and CD

Wester Ross Fisheries Trust Letter and CD

The Woodland Trust Scotland Letter

Councillors and Politicians

Various Letter

Landowners

Various along the corridor. Letter

Stakeholders were invited to provide feedback through the following methods:

A series of questions were asked within the Consultation Document requesting comments on specific

aspects of the project as follows:

Have we explained the need for this Project adequately?

Have we explained the approach taken to select the preferred route adequately?

Are there any factors, or environmental features, that you consider may have been overlooked

during the preferred route selection process?

Do you have any other comments about the preferred route?

A feedback form was provided on the project webpage asking a series of questions and allowing users

to submit comments.

8

3.3 Public Consultation Exhibitions

Five public consultation events were held as follows:

Fort Augustus Village Hall – 20th

September 2016;

Glenelg Community Hall – 21st September 2016;

Broadford Village Hall – 22nd

September 2016;

Portree Community Centre – 27th

September 2016; and

Dunvegan Community Hall – 28th

September 2016.

The exhibitions were advertised in the West Highland Free Press on 8th

and 15th

September and the Press and

Journal on 15th

September. Leaflets were also sent out to residents within the corridor identified in Figure 1.

The exhibitions provided an opportunity for members of the public to view information about the project, ask

questions and provide feedback. Attendees were provided with an information leaflet (Appendix 2) and invited

to consider a series of exhibition boards (Appendix 3). The exhibition boards provided information on:

An overview of the project;

Project timeline;

The technical options assessed;

The routeing process and main considerations;

Environmental designations; and

Feedback options.

A feedback form was provided within the information booklet and all visitors were invited to complete this.

Attendance numbers at the public exhibitions were as follows:

Fort Augustus – 44;

Glenelg – 19;

Broadford – 46;

Portree – 16; and

Dunvegan – 18.

A total of 55 feedback forms or internet forms were completed and returned following the exhibitions.

The consultation period ended on 11th

November 2016, but comments received from stakeholders until the end

of December 2016 have been recorded and considered in this report.

9

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES AND KEY ISSUES

4.1 Summary of Comments

Within the period September 2016 to December 2016, a total of 69 responses were received from stakeholders

during the consultation period. These comprised 11 responses from statutory and non-statutory consultees, 55

from members of the public, and 3 from landowners. No responses were received from political representatives.

A full list of feedback received from stakeholders is included within a consultation register (Appendix 1). The

following statutory and non-statutory consultees provided feedback:

Scottish Natural Heritage;

Historic Environment Scotland;

Forestry Commission Scotland;

The Highland Council;

John Muir Trust;

Marine Scotland;

Mountaineering Scotland;

Ness and Beauly Fisheries Trust;

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

Scottish Water: and

SEPA.

All responses received have been recorded, and key issues summarised, within a consultation register

(Appendix 1). The consultation register remains a live document to be updated as further consultation

responses are received.

Consultation responses have been graded in terms of whether they are broadly supportive of the preferred

route (Supportive), express a particular concern (Concerned) or show no obvious preference (Neutral). Where

no response has been received from a stakeholder, this is classified under ‘No Response’ in Appendix 1.

Table 4-1 summarises the range of responses received within the period September 2016 to December 2016 of

relevance to each of the six defined sections of the preferred route from Edinbane to Fort Augustus (see

paragraph 2.3).

Table 4-1: Number and Nature of Consultation Reponses

Stakeholder

Nature of Responses

Supportive Neutral Concerned

Section 1: Edinbane to Sligachan

Statutory Consultees 2 2 0

Non-Statutory Consultees 0 5 1

Political Representatives 0 0 0

Landowners 0 0 0

Other3 2 0 7

Total responses of relevance

to Section 1

4 7 8

Section 2: Sligachan to Broadford


3

Comprising members of the public or other organisations who have provided responses but were not specifically consulted.

10

Stakeholder Nature of Responses



Landowners 0 0 0

Other 2 0 7


to Section 2

2 8 9

Section 3: Broadford to Kyle Rhea




Landowners 0 0 0

Other 2 0 41


to Section 3

2 6 46

Section 4: Kyle Rhea to Loch Quoich / Loch Cluanie




Landowners 0 1 0

Other 1 1 7


to Section 4

1 7 12

Section 5: Loch Quoich / Loch Cluanie to Invergarry / Glen Moriston




Landowners 0 1 1

Other 1 1 14


to Section 5

1 9 18

Section 6: Invergarry / Glen Moriston to Fort Augustus




Landowners 0 0 0

Other 2 1 7


to Section 6

2 8 8

11

4.2 Comments and Issues Emerging from Consultation Feedback

The following provides a summary of general and section specific comments raised by stakeholders within the

period September 2016 to December 2016 (see Appendix 1 for more detailed comments).

4.2.1 General Comments

Acknowledgement that early consultation on the project is important and the work undertaken by SHE

Transmission plc to date is welcomed by stakeholders;

Recognition that the project passes through land which carries significant environmental designations

and planning policy provisions. Accordingly, the design of the line and its final alignment will have to be

carefully considered and managed;

Further demonstration of the needs case for the project should be provided;

Further consideration of technological options available is required, particularly on land above 400

metres where concerns have been raised by some stakeholders with regard to the potential use of a

steel lattice tower at such altitudes;

Alternative methods including subsea cable and underground cable options should be explored to

ensure a fuller consideration of environmental, economic and technical factors;

Noted that it is often supporting infrastructure (i.e. tracks) which have the greatest environmental

impacts in proposals such as this;

Generally, avoidance of woodland along the route where possible is preferred, particularly ancient and

semi-natural woodland sites;

Cumulative landscape and visual effects with other infrastructure should be taken in to account;

Drinking water protection areas should be taken into account;

General concerns from members of the public relating to landscape and visual effects and effects on

wildlife; and

Concerns from some members of the public relating to a lack of communication or consultation on the

project, notably those in Kylerhea and Glen Garry.

4.2.2 Section Specific Comments

Section 1

No notable section-specific comments. General support for preferred route put forward.

Section 2

Concerns have been raised specifically by SNH about the potential alignment of Route Option 2A

around the base of the Cuillins. SNH consider that the project should aim to improve on the current

level of impact of the existing line on the Cuillins NSA and would like to see further investigation of

Route Option 2B;

JMT were reassured by the proposed use of wood poles and the removal of the existing line through

Section 2 once the new line is energised (subject to further consultation with JMT), whilst

Mountaineering Scotland state no strong preference for Section 2 providing use of temporary tracks;

and

FCS note that Route Option 2B would need to cross two areas of woodland where terrain looks quite

challenging.

Section 3

Concerns raised by SNH and FCS in relation to the potential impacts of Route Option 3A on the

primary qualifying feature of the Kinloch and Kyleakin Hills SAC / SSSI (i.e. Western acidic oak

woodland);

Concerns raised by Mountaineering Scotland in relation to the long term visual effects of Route Option

3A and its permanent access track;

12

Concerns raised by SNH, Mountaineering Scotland and members of the public regarding the potential

landscape and visual effects of Route Option 3B on Glen Arroch and Kylerhea Glen including views

from the Bealach Udal and Glenelg;

SNH welcome proposals for further detailed study in this section (the Kinloch and Kyleakin Hills SAC /

SSSI in particular) and would be happy to contribute. Despite Route Option 3B being preferable to

Route Option 3A, SNH highlight the importance of using appropriate construction methods to allow

habitat recovery in areas of sensitive habitats;

Concerns raised by RSPB and members of the public in relation to potential collision risk to golden

and white-tailed eagle, tawny, barn and long-eared owl resulting from Route Option 3B. Route Option

3A is seen as a preference as birds have already habituated to it;

Issues raised by members of the public in relation to disruption to use of the Kylerhea common

grazings including grazing and woodland planting;

Concerns raised by members of the public that construction works and the new overhead line will pose

a threat to tourism (secondary to the effects on wildlife) and the viability of the Glenelg Ferry

connection. General preference from members of the public for Route Option 3A; and

Requests from SNH, FCS and RSPB to be involved in further discussions for this section.

Section 4

Elected Members of The Highland Council were supportive of the general preference for routes

consistent with existing infrastructure. One key response from Elected Members in their initial view

being the need to avoid the Glen More – Glen Shiel – Loch Clunie Route Option (Route Option 4B /

5C);

HES stated a preference for the preferred route (Route Option 4A) and expressed concerns in relation

to the potential effects of Route Option 4B on the Glen Shiel Battlefield;

Concerns raised by SNH, JMT and Mountaineering Scotland and members of the public in relation to

potential effects of Route Option 4A on landscape and wildness and in particular the Kinlochourn –

Knoydart – Morar Wild Land Area and Knoydart National Scenic Area. This issue is raised in particular

in relation to the potential use of steel lattice towers along this route;

Concerns also raised by SNH in relation to potential landscape and visual effects of Route Option 4B

on the A87 and Kintail NSA;

FCS requested to be involved in further discussions for this section due to significant woodland issues

for Route Option 4B, and the preference to avoid woodland sites along Route Option 4A; and

Request from Mountaineering Scotland to include a route along the north coast of Loch Alsh within the

Route options appraisal process.

Section 5

SNH suggest there are no major landscape sensitivities with route options through this section, but do

indicate that all options could result in potential effects to qualifying bird interests of the West

Inverness-shire Lochs SPA. Further data would be required to inform this;

Mountaineering Scotland state no preference between Route Options 5A and 5B if Route Option 4A is

progressed, preferring instead Route Options 4B, 5C and 6B or consideration of undergrounding.

Concerns from Mountaineering Scotland in relation to Route Options 5D and 5E which would introduce

transmission infrastructure to new areas around Loch Loyne;

FCS requested to be involved in further discussions for this section due to significant woodland issues

for Route Options 5A, 5B and 5C;

Request from FCS to include a route north of Route Option 5A from East Glen Quoich through Cnocan

Dubh and heading east above the woodland on the north shore of Loch Garry to the south west corner

of Inchnacardoch Forest within the Route options appraisal process; and

Concerns from members of the public relating to potential landscape and visual impacts in Glen Garry,

effects on wildlife and lack of consultation in this area.

13

Section 6

HES stated a preference for the preferred route (Route Option 6A / 6B) and expressed concerns if

Route Option 6D were progressed with regards to effects on the Caledonian Canal; and

Residents at Auchterawe expressed preference for the preferred route through this section.

14

5. PROJECT RESPONSES TO CONSULTATIONS

5.1 Overview

This part of the report documents how the project has responded to the consultation responses arising from the

preferred route set out within the Fort Augustus to Skye Project: Consultation Document, September 2016 (see

Figure 1). Responses to each of the points raised by stakeholders through the consultation process is included

in Appendix 1.

5.2 General Comments

The consultation process for the project thus far has raised a number of general comments requiring

clarification or further assessment. These points are noted within paragraph 4.2.1 of this report and include

further consideration and clarification on matters such as the needs case, alternative solutions (e.g.

undergrounding and subsea cable) and technological options available on land over 400 metres above sea

level.

To address these points, the following actions are being undertaken:

An overhead line engineering consultancy have been engaged by SHE Transmission plc. In addition to

advising on route and alignment options, part of their brief will be to consider alternative solutions

where practicable, and appropriate technological options along the route. The results of these studies

will be reported at Alignment Selection (Stage 3);

SHE Transmission have been working in collaboration with engineering and environmental consultants

to explore alternate solutions and alignment options. The results of these studies will be reported at

Alignment Selection (Stage 3); and

A cost benefit analysis is being undertaken of the different technology options considered. The results

of these studies will be reported at Alignment Selection (Stage 3).

The needs case for the project is stated within the Consultation Document. The need for the project is driven

specifically by the request for connection of the contracted new Glen Ullinish (42MW) and Glean Eoghainn

(25MW) wind farms. As the transmission license holder in the north of Scotland, SHE Transmission plc has a

duty under Section 9 of the Electricity Act 1989 to provide a connection that is efficient and economic, whilst

having the least possible impact on the environment. The project will also improve the resilience of the

transmission network between Fort Augustus and Skye.

Information update meetings were held in Kyleakin Community Hall on 27th

March 2017 and Invergarry

Community Hall on 28th March 2017 to provide details on the development of the project and answer questions

put forward by the community ahead of further formal consultation intended to be held in summer 2017.

5.3 Design Responses

In response to section specific queries and feedback from stakeholders relating to the preferred route, or

potential alignment options therein, further work has been undertaken to inform the selection of the preferred

route and identify an acceptable alignment.

The results of these studies will be reported at Alignment Selection (Stage 3). The following provides a

summary of the key tasks that are being undertaken to address some of the points raised.

Environmental

A comparative landscape and visual impact assessment of Routes within Sections 2 and 3 will be undertaken to

assist with the decision making process through these sections. This more detailed study will also assist in

gathering more detailed baseline information which will assist in identifying a preferred alignment which

minimises potential effects on landscape designations, landscape character and visual receptors through these

sections where possible.

Moreover, further input by the project landscape architect will be carried out along all sections of the preferred

route to inform the alignment.

15

A review of existing habitat survey data will be undertaken where available, and further targeted habitat and

protected species surveys will be undertaken throughout the route. This information will also be used to inform

an alignment which seeks to minimise potential effects on habitats and protected species where possible.

Targeted bird surveys have been commissioned within Kylerhea to gain an understanding of the usage of the

Kylerhea ‘narrows’ by golden and sea eagle, as per the preferred route identified within the Fort Augustus to

Skye Project: Consultation Document, September 2016 (see Figure 1). The results of these surveys will be

used to inform the alignment.

Drinking water protection areas are being reviewed to ensure impacts on these areas are minimised.

Additional route option studies in line with the Route options assessment methodology are being carried out to

appraise the two additional route options suggested by consultees in response to the Fort Augustus to Skye

Project: Consultation Document, September 2016, including a new route along the north coast of Loch Alsh, as

suggested by Mountaineering Scotland, and from East Glen Quoich through Cnocan Dubh to the southwest

corner of Inchnacardoch Forest, as suggested by FCS. The results of these studies will be reported at

Alignment Selection (Stage 3).

Engineering

Detailed engineering input will be provided along the preferred route to identify, in combination with the

environmental input, a preferred alignment therein. One aspect of the engineering team’s work will be the

identification of a technical solution at land over 400 m above sea level.

5.4 Proposed Route

The preferred route identified within the Fort Augustus to Skye Project: Consultation Document, September

2016 is shown on Figure 1. As referred to in paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of this report, further work is being

undertaken to evaluate route and alignment options in order to conclude route option studies, particularly in

Sections 2, 3 and 4, to find an acceptable alignment and technological solution which minimises potential

environmental effects where possible.

5.5 Responses Relevant to Subsequent EIA

Responses received which are, or could be, relevant to the EIA Stage of the project, will be considered when

developing and defining the scope of the EIA.

16

6. CONCLUSIONS AND NEXT STEPS

6.1 Conclusions

This Report on Consultation documents the consultation process which has been undertaken for the project

between September 2016 and December 2016. The programme of consultation was designed to engage with

stakeholders including statutory and non-statutory consultees, local communities, landowners and individual

residents in order to invite feedback on the rationale for and approach to, the selection of the preferred route.

This report has described the key responses received and provides detail on the actions taken in response to

the issues raised. This has included a requirement for further environmental and engineering survey,

particularly in Sections 2, 3 and 4, to find an acceptable alignment and technological solution (e.g. on land over

400 m above sea level) which minimises potential environmental effects where possible.

6.2 Next Steps

The further work referred to in paragraph 5.2 and 5.3 is currently being finalised. It is envisaged that this work,

together with detailed alignment studies, will be completed by July 2017. At this point, a preferred alignment will

be presented to stakeholders for consultation, in a similar manner to the identification of a preferred route, prior

to progressing to the EIA stage.

Report on Consultation Fort Augustus Skye Project June 2017 · Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission...

Documents

Transcript of Report on Consultation Fort Augustus Skye Project June 2017 · Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission...