Strath Oykel Wind Farm
Guidance notes for objections based on the developer’s August 2026 Additional Information. Please Object by 26th October 2026.
NORoS - No Ring of Steel Kyle of Sutherland
Background – From June 2022 to July 2025: In June 2022 the developer EnergieKontor Ltd submitted a planning application to the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, to build the Strath Oykel wind farm on a site approximately 1.5km east of Doune, within the Strath Oykel forest. It would comprise 11 turbines, each 200 metres high to the blade tip and a BESS. Following several hundred individual objections Highland Council’s Northern Planning Applications Committee objected on 25 Jan 2023. This led to a Public Inquiry held 24-26 Oct 2023, resulting in the Scottish Govt appointed reporter recommending refusal.
On 8 Jan 2025 the Govt minister went against his reporter and recommended the development. A Judicial Review was consequently sought by Highland Council. On 25 Jul 25 it was reported that the Scottish Govt and the developer had conceded the case “without prejudice to their future positions”.
Developments since July 2025: In Sep 2025, the Scottish Government issued a further procedure notice seeking the views of all interested parties to be taken into account in the Minister’s reconsideration of the project. Further written submission was provided to the Minister by the applicant on 31 Oct 2025. As a result of this process, the Minister, in reconsideration of the application, confirmed in Mar 2026 that further Additional Information from the applicant providing an update to the Landscape & Visual Impact (LVIA), and Traffic and Transport Assessments regarding the original application, should be sought.
The developer has therefore provided an updated LVIA Assessment and update to Traffic and Transport, along with suitable alternative routes to the site for the purposes of the delivery of abnormal loads. Furthermore, following the Raeshaw Farms decision in Feb 2026 they also provide an assessment of the likely significant effects of a potential grid connection route, should the decision maker consider the windfarm and the grid connection to comprise “one” project. The planning application boundary associated with this additional information remains the same as that submitted by the original application.
You can read full details on these aspects by Googling ECU 00003246 Additional Information Strath Oykel windfarm, then click on “documents”.
WHAT NOW? Due to the number of already operational windfarms in the Kyle of Sutherland plus those approved, and with more in the various planning/scoping stages, the Kyle of Sutherland area faces being encircled by a ring of steel of 230 turbines. NORoS is most concerned that Strath Oykel and other future developments will cause significant damaging impacts on the area, our rivers and glens and the local economy and that our once rural landscape will be be trashed. Moreover, because many you objected to the original Strath Oykel application back in June 2022 and both NPAC and the government reporter for the Oct 2023 Public Inquiry both recommended refusal, it is essential that we continue to maintain our strong opposition to this development. So, we ask you to please object again, this time to the Additional Information. It is essential that as many people as possible object, so that the strength of local feeling against this development is maintained.
HOW YOU CAN HELP
If you objected to the original proposal for Strath Oykel, that objection remains valid, but you can and should also object to the Additional Information. If you DID NOT object earlier, then you can still object to this Additional Information.
Please note that the deadline for receipt of your objection is 26th October 2026.
The essential headings for a letter of objection by either email or post are shown below. Note that e-mail objections are no longer accepted, and all objections must be submitted through the Scottish Government’s Energy Consents Unit (ECU) online portal or by post.
Submitting an objection via the ECU’s on-line portal
1. Type into Google - “ECU 00003246 representations”. The website will appear. Then click on “Representations”. Then, click on “Add Representation”. The form will then come up for you to proceed.
2. You will see the information you must provide: name, address, email address etc. The information is required for your representation to be accepted, but you may mark some or all of these as private.
3. There is a time-out limit on your input, so it is recommended that you prepare the text of your representation in advance, so that you can type or paste it in before time expires.
A WARNING ABOUT THE FINAL SUBMISSION PROCESS
a) Once you have pressed the “submit” button on the portal you should be taken to a page which says that your submission has been successful, it advises that an email has been sent to the address you have given in your representation and asks you to click the verification link in that email. This should activate a second email to your inbox which confirms submission of your Public Representation. Done!
b) BUT, if, having pressed “submit”, you are taken to a page which says, “This representation has already been submitted”, it means that your objection has not gone through! This could be for a number of reasons, the most likely one being that the website timed out as you were working your way through the pages of the portal or inserting your objection. Unfortunately, if this does happen you will need to repeat the whole process. Once you receive the message mentioned in (a) above you will know that you have been successful and simply need to follow the verification process which will end with a separate email from the ECU confirming successful submission.
Submitting an objection by post.
1. Provide your name (block capitals), and full postal address. If you own a house locally use that address. More than one person can object from the same address, though individual letters re required.
2. You should head-up your representation as follows: Letter of Objection to the proposed Strath Oykel Additional Information. Ref: ECU00003246. Then add your representation and sign.
4. Send it to: Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, 4th Floor, 5 Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw, Glasgow G2 8LU.
KEY FACTORS ON WHICH YOU MAY CHOOSE TO OBJECT to the Strath Oykel AI submission are: (1) Cumulative Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; (2) Habitats Regulations Appraisal; (3) Grid Connection; (4) Access Routes and Traffic
(1) CUMULATIVE LANDSCAPE AND VISUAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT: EXISTING AND CONSENTED WINDFARMS AND THOSE WITH PLANNING APPLICATIONS.
Since the original Strath Oykel EIA was issued in 2022, the Landscape and Visual impact assessment (LVIA) has changed considerably due to the additional close proximity developments of Meall Buidhe (8 turbines approved), Coille Beith (11 turbines), Inveroykel (20 turbines), Allt an Tuir (8 turbines), Invercassley (18 turbines), Achany extension (18 turbines).
The combined effect on the whole local area would be Substantial and Significant with the proposed Strath Oykel development appearing between the Collie Beith application to the west, and Inveroykel to the east, thus introducing one almost continuous windfarm in this rural setting.
The Additional information on the LVIA for Strath Oykel clearly states that ‘this assessment agrees with the LVIA reported for the Collie Beith application, reporting significant cumulative effect and also the Inveroykel application, reporting significant cumulative effects within 5-10km’.
The AI also admits that the additional and combined cumulative effect of adding the proposed development (Strath Oykel) to the existing and consented wind farm baseline would partly overlap with the effects of Meall Buidhe (termed High magnitude), significantly affecting the landscape within approximately 3km of the proposed development.
When adding in the substantial impact of Coille Beith, Inveroykel, Allt an Tuir, Invercassley and the Achany extension, both the local and wider area of this rural highland landscape would become a congested with landscape views dominated by wind farms.
Comment or objection: You can use any of this information in your objection to drive home the point of the substantial landscape and visual impact of Strath Oykel and that it has been made much worse by the additional proposed developments.
(2) THE HABITATS REGULATIONS APPRAISAL
The River Oykel Special Area of Conservation (SAC) is a designated European Site for species including Atlantic salmon and freshwater pearl mussel, a species that has suffered severe declines and is now among Europe’s most endangered. Where a proposed development such as the Strath Oykel Wind Farm may have a likely significant effect on the SAC, a Habitats Regulations Appraisal is required before consent can be granted.
The developer of the Strath Oykel Wind Farm previously acknowledged that the proposed development could impact the populations of freshwater pearl mussels within the SAC and was therefore required to produce a Habitats Regulations Appraisal, which it did in 2023. The appraisal is an attempt to show that, following measures (for example mitigation measures) taken by the developer, the mussels and other aquatic life would not be impacted by the proposed development.
The requirements of a Habitats Regulations Appraisal are very robust. It must show every aspect of the development that could impact the freshwater pearl mussels and Atlantic salmon. It must contain complete, precise and definitive findings and conclusions to show, beyond reasonable scientific doubt, that endangered species such as freshwater pearl mussels and Atlantic salmon would not be harmed by the proposed development. If it fails to do this the proposed development must be refused.
The developer has failed to satisfy the Appraisal requirements in numerous ways. Grounds for objection therefore include:
The developer has not demonstrated that the proposal would avoid adverse effects on the integrity of the SAC, as required under Scottish and European nature-conservation law protecting species such as freshwater pearl mussel and Atlantic salmon.
The application has omissions and missing data which results in a lack of adequate, precise detail.
The proposed mitigation measures, together with reliance on future mitigation of unproven effectiveness, are insufficient to remove the risks to freshwater pearl mussels and Atlantic salmon. Monitoring is not mitigation, and unresolved protection issues cannot lawfully be deferred until after consent.
The tidal flow of the Kyle of Sutherland has not been taken into account.
The application does not consider the hydrologically connected Dornoch Firth and Morrich More SAC.
The cumulative impact of all the existing and proposed development activity within the hydrologically connected catchments draining to the River Oykel SAC and the Dornoch Firth and Morrich More SAC has not been adequately assessed. This activity currently includes all the currently projected turbines, 5 BESS installations, the creation of over 30 borrow pits, the creation of dozens of kilometres of new track and numerous new water crossings, the felling of over 600 hectares of forested land, and the destruction of over 1.5 million cubic metres of peat. There is no assessment of how much soluble reactive phosphorus or other relevant substances resulting from the works would remain dissolved in aquatic systems.
The proposal has not demonstrated that the integrity of the River Oykel SAC and the Dornoch Firth and Morrich More SAC would be protected, as no quantitative assessment has been provided of how forestry felling, peat and soil disturbance, nutrients, or dissolved organic carbon (DOC) could affect downstream water quality.
Objection: On the evidence so far presented by the applicant and given the deficiencies identified above, it cannot be concluded beyond reasonable scientific doubt that the development, alone or in combination with other developments, will not adversely affect the integrity of the River Oykel SAC and the Dornoch Firth and Morrich More SAC.
(3) GRID CONNECTION
Despite providing very little detail in the Additional Information documents, the developer has taken the opportunity to indicate a ‘Grid Connection Corridor’ in an apparent attempt to meet the criteria created by the Raeshaw legal decision of February 2026, in which it was judged that a windfarm and its connection should comprise a single project. This broad ‘Grid Connection Corridor’ [see Fig 5.1 of the AI application], encompassing 13kms of the Kyle from the Strath Oykel site to the Invershin Sub-Station, includes the shores and all the significant settlements on either side of the river. This should be a matter of concern for all living in the area and has significant implications for the Kyle itself.
Planning Context [The Holford Rules and NPF4]
The proposed development does not have what is termed a Gate 2 grid connection at Invershin substation. A Gate 2 offer is a formal grid connection contract that gives a renewable energy or infrastructure project a confirmed connection point, a fixed energisation date, and a secure place in the transmission or distribution queue. The developer cites The Holford Rules (a set of seven guidelines established in 1959 by Lord Holford) which serve as the industry standard for routing high-voltage overhead electricity lines and pylons to minimize visual and environmental impacts on the landscape. They have been specifically reviewed and adapted by Scottish electricity network operators such as SSEN and are used in Scotland alongside National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4).
Grounds for Objection
The Developer has selected a Grid Corridor down the Kyle of Sutherland covering the the River Oykel Special Area of Conservation, the Kyle of Sutherland Marshes SSSI and Ancient Woodland, areas of highest amenity value as the EIA itself clearly states. This is despite Holford Rule 1 which clearly instructs “Avoid altogether, if possible, the major areas of highest amenity value, by so planning the general route of the line in the first place, even if the total mileage is somewhat increased in consequence”. Rule 1 note “a” requires the possibility of alternative routes and Rule 1 note “b” requires that the areas of highest amenity value should be established on a project-by-project basis having regard to international and national designations.
Though stating this and acknowledging that with the Strath Oykel SAC and Kyle of Sutherland Marshes SSSI are located within their grid route corridor, the developer nonetheless has identified a Grid Connection Corridor that passes through the Achnahannet-Brae-Inveroykel area, within the River Oykel SAC and Kyle of Sutherland Marshes SSSI. The documents and figures do not identify the precise alignment or crossing point, making it impossible to assess properly the environmental effects of any crossing. In short, despite acknowledging Holford Rule1, the developer has failed to follow it.
Objection: In identifying a grid connection corridor that passes through the Achnahannet-Brae-Inveroykel area, within the River Oykel SAC and Kyle of Sutherland Marshes SSSI the developer has failed to obey Holford Rule 1, and so threatens this area of high amenity value.
Once across the Kyle the line will still have 5 Kms to go before it reaches Invershin.
Objection: the Kyle remains an SSSI and SAC along this route and so the developer has continued to ignore Holford Rule.
Any disturbance of the SAC due to creating a grid crossing would risk causing sediment and pollution in the river and ignores the fact that the Kyle is tidal and floods frequently. Thus, any sediment created may be carried, not only downstream, but also upstream as far as the Bailey Bridge on the River Oykel thus. There are endangered and protected fresh-water pearl mussels in the Kyle and Oykel and these will be put at significant risk as they depend on pristine clean water.
Please raise these matters in your objection!
Ice flows: Any crossing of the Kyle using an overhead line on poles is at significant risk from ice flows being carried down the Kyle. During the very cold winter of 2010 and 2011, the wooden poles carrying electricity across the Kyke were snapped due to ice packs flowing down the river during the thaw.
Comment: It would be most unwise to site the crossing where ice flows could put the grid line at risk.
(4) ACCESS ROUTES AND TRAFFIC IMPACT
Four alternative access routes have been selected, none of which have been proven as guaranteed with certainty as being suitable for both the vast numbers of journeys during construction or for Abnormal Indivisible Loads (AIL) (delivery turbine blades and towers). The four Options are
Option A - Existing route via Lairg, Rosehall and across the River Oykel as set out within the April 2022 EIA – (Northern Route).
Option B - New route via Lairg, Rosehall and Oykel Bridge - (Western Route).
Option C - New route via Ardgay village, past Gledfield School and through Forestry Land Scotland to site - (Southern Route).
Option D - New route via Ardgay and the Croick Estate - (Route - Croick).
The developer claims to have shown and proved deliverability of all loads including AIL, yet this claim cannot go unchallenged, as we argue below. Our analysis of all the proposed routes demonstrates that, when a wind farm is sited in a remote location, as is the case with this Strath Oykel proposal, with only narrow single-track roads as inappropriate access, then that location for the windfarm should not have been selected in the first place.
Option A. Route via Lairg, Rosehall and across the River Oykel on new bridge near the Bailey Bridge
This route is not proven.
To enable over sail of both vehicle chassis and turbine blades the developer proposes modifications to two vulnerable and important stone bridges; namely the removal of the stone parapet of the Ministers Bridge on the A839 and the lowering of the parapet of the historic and listed River Cassley bridge lowered on the A837 at Rosehall. They note that the vertical profile of Cassley Bridge is pronounced and should be reviewed during the test run stage or on a topographical survey base to ascertain if tar wedges are required to prevent grounding.
Objection: Any dismantling of the parapets should not be allowed, especially the Cassley Listed bridge. In removing or reducing the height of the parapet there is a risk it will render the bridge unsafe for other road users. Moreover, there is no hard evidence that Abnormal Indivisible Loads can get over the Cassley bridge.
There would be a considerable amount of work to prepare the route from Lairg to Rosehall prior to construction and AIL delivery. This would include the removal of the safety barrier and parapet railing over the bridge between the two lower Shin lochs, removal of the majority of the road furniture, including traffic signs, along the whole route, fencing taken down, plus trees pruned or felled. The parapet of the bridge 200 metres from the war memorial will have to be removed. Some private land will be required.
Objection: this work would cause major inconvenience to all road users, especially being a single track. The removal of safety barriers on the Shin bridge and parapets on bridges should not be authorised. It renders the bridges unsafe for other road users.
The developer intends to build a new bridge 50 metres downstream from the existing Bailey Bridge. This will require new access tracks and a raised bank either side. When the Bailey Bridge was built in 1975, its location was carefully chosen as the only suitable crossing point. Being in a tidal flood plain where floods are unpredictable and occur throughout the year, a second bridge with its raised approach road just downstream will result in serious backup during flooding. It will constrict flood flows, thus causing bank and bed erosion, damaging river habitats and undermining the crossing structure. To have a major pollution event would be a disaster for the environment, the SAC, the protected freshwater pearl mussels, the local economy and the local community.
Objection to this route: This crossing should be ruled out as unacceptable because construction of the proposed access route poses unacceptably high risks to the river and the integrity of the SAC.
The developer has no agreement for the construction of a new crossing at this site or elsewhere on the river. The developer is inaccurate in stating that this will be an option for access, when there is no agreement in place.
Objection: This route cannot be used if it has no third party agreement and must be ruled out.
Option B - New route via Lairg, Rosehall and Oykel Bridge (Western Route)
This route is not proven.
Because the same route will be used as for Option A as far as 1km west of Rosehall village, the same objections apply as for Option A regarding the parapets of all the bridges including the A839 Minister’s bridge and the A837 River Cassley Bridge. The same is true of all the disruption on the route from Lairg to Rosehall, as noted above.
The developer’s assessment states that from 1km west of Rosehall all the way along the A837 to Oykel bridge and the site entrance over the Einig the road needs to be widened over several stretches of the route to provide a minimum of 4.5m running width and 5.5m clearance width.
Objection: This is a busy single-track road and such work will cause major inconvenience to everyday traffic and is unacceptable.
The developer’s assessment states that clearance of the bridge parapets by AILs at both the natural stone bridge at Tuitim and the one north of Loch Thurnaig is unconfirmed. The additional information also states that a detailed assessment of the bridge crossing the River Einig is required to establish the extent of works needed to bring it up to the appropriate standards for AIL delivery.
Objection: It is no use assuming such an important matter. Any dismantling of the parapets should not be authorised. The Einig Bridge has not been properly assessed so cannot be guaranteed as usable.
The developer’s road assessment states that to allow the loads to cross the A837 bridge over the river Oykel prior to the left turn down to Oykel cottages, a large overrun and over sail area into third party land will be required. Full detailed design on a topographical survey base will be required, and the land will need to be reprofiled. Also, the road from Oykel Bridge hotel to the Einig Bridge will need to be fully widened and upgraded.
Objection: There is no legal agreement in place to cross over the Oykel at the existing River Einig Bridge accessed via the Oykel Bridge Road. The developer is inaccurate in stating that this will be an option for access, when there is no evidence of third-party approval forthcoming.
Option C - Southern route via Ardgay village, past Gledfield School, cross River Carron and through Forestry Land to site.
This route is not proven.
Grounds for objection should be based on the impact on local road users and pedestrians especially in Ardgay and Lower Gledfield.
During its 18 months of construction, this access route would be used for ALL windfarm traffic, including abnormal indivisible loads (AIL) of turbines and blades. The route will pass through Ardgay, turning to Lower Gledfield, past Gledfield school, proceeding to the existing bridge over the River Carron, then through forestry land to the site. Construction would be preceded by a few months of work preparing the route for large loads, resulting in significant inconvenience to locals with road widening, the lopping and felling of trees (some protected) along the route and removal of almost all street signage.
Objection: Point out these are very significant factors and that it is unacceptable for local people to put up with such inconvenience over a two year period. Local amenity will be significantly impacted.
Using this route to access the development will have a significant impact, under-acknowledged in the EIAR, on the village of Ardgay and Lower Gledfield. Existing traffic conditions, safety, environmental quality, community well-being and key local assets will all be significantly affected.
Objection: Point out these factors and that the impact on them over two years is inadequately addressed in the Additional Information (AI). Despite assurances, numerous passages of the AI minimise these significant issues.
The additional 90 HGV plus 40 light vehicle trips per day over several months will overwhelm rural roads, disrupt daily life, and severely affect access for residents, school children, cyclists and emergency services. The developer's claim that these impacts are not highly significant is disingenuous and simply not credible. Over the peak construction period of several months, there will be extremely high construction traffic volumes, totalling thousands of HGV and other vehicle journeys. During the several months of turbine construction many Abnormal Loads (turbine towers and blades) vehicle journeys are planned which will cause additional local disruption.
Objection: Point out these significant factors and that it is not acceptable for local people to put up with such inconvenience during two years.
Safety Risks to Community and Schools: The proposed route passes directly through Ardgay village and right past Gledfield Primary School, where pedestrian facilities and the drop off and pick-up of children are limited, being right on the public road. The developer makes no mention of the high risks to children.
Objection: The safety of children will be put at risk. The developer has not even acknowledged risks to the school, even though the route passes so close to the school. As we pointed out in relation to the Inveroykel windfarm proposal, children at Gledfield School would be separated from their playing fields across the road by a river of construction traffic, not to speak of the traffic pollution.
Emergency Access: The single-track route access to the site from Ardgay onwards poses serious challenges for an emergency response to the point of callout, for example in Culrain.
Objection: Fire and other emergency vehicles and crews could be delayed for crucial periods en route to, or from, the likes of Culrain or Carbisdale.
In order for the proposed bypass track, which ties into the Carron Bridge, to be constructed, mature trees located to the south of the bridge would need to be cleared. However, the removal of these mature trees presents a significant constraint, as the trees are potentially protected under local preservation policies.
Objection: Trees under preservation orders cannot and should not be felled.
The developer’s traffic and road assessment states that the vertical profile of the River Carron bridge is noted to be pronounced, so tower loads will require to be raised on suspension settings to allow passage. Also, a wall and safety barrier must be removed, and they recommend that a detailed design required. They further state that client-provided topographical survey data does not extend to required assessment area and further surveys are required.
Objection: There is no evidence that AIL loads will definitely be able to cross the bridge, as the quoted findings are merely the result of a desk assessment, not a physical trial run of a tower or blade load.
Option D - Southern route via Ardgay and the Croick Estate (Route - Croick).
This route is not proven.
Because this route takes the same as Option C between Ardgay and the River Carron bridge, the same objections apply as for Option C along this route. Object as appropriate.
Once across the Carron, the route follows the road on its north side which runs parallel to the river. It is obvious from the lack of detail given by the developer for this option, that it has not been assessed as thoroughly as the other options and lacks detail as if there is no serious intention to use it.
Objection: Option D route is lacking in detail in the AI as if it has been ruled out by the developer.
The AI states that there are some bridges along the route where, to enable though passage by AILs, significant work will be required. It states that there is one bridge not wide enough to accommodate rear steering and another where further assessment is required to confirm the bridge has sufficient carriageway width.
Objection: This route cannot be considered if a bridge has not been adequately assessed and may even be unusable by AILs.
Summary of Access and Impacts
The developer states in the AI that the construction period is transitory in nature and all impacts would be short lived and temporary and that NO significant residual effects are predicted during construction.
Objection: This is clearly nonsense!
They also state that the assessment confirms that any effects would be minor in nature and categorise them as “Not Significant”. In this regard they suggest that the traffic effects would be transitory in nature and that no long-lasting detrimental transport or access issues are associated with the construction phase of the proposed development.
Objection: The developer is attempting to minimise the very significant impact of the development for locals, which would cause misery on the roads for at least two years.
***
NORoS funding – please help
To counter each wind farm development costs NORoS a considerable amount. The NORoS committee are most grateful to all those who contribute to the fund, as without you we would be unable to run a campaign. We are currently dealing with an unprecedented number of applications, and we do need additional funds. If you would like to contribute to our campaign funds, you can do so either by a one-off donation, or a standing order arrangement. The account is NOROS; Sort Code 80-22-60; account No: 17619760.
Thank you for your support!