Guidance notes for objecting to INVERCASSLEY WIND FARM, comprising 18 wind turbines (with blade tip heights of up to 230m) and 2 wind turbines (with blade tip heights of up to 200m), 22.38km of new access track along with  5.1km of track shared with adjacent Allt an Tuir windfarm, new and upgraded watercourse crossings, a substation and borrow pits – all constructed on Class 1 Priority and Class 2 Peatland.

OBJECTION DEADLINE: 14th September 2026

 SITE SELECTION AND OVERVIEW

  • Site and Size. This is the second very recent windfarm proposal in the Rosehall area aiming to build turbines of 230 meters, which would be among the tallest in the UK and erected on an elevated site.  It would pose a profound threat to both the rivers Cassley and Oykel and thus to the Kyle of Sutherland, as well as undermining a vast quantity of high-grade peat which is vital for carbon capture. The Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill includes a statutory duty for Scottish Ministers to protect ecological health by setting legally binding targets to protect river basins, wetlands, and aquatic habitats, to improve the ecological status of rivers and support species. Please act to save these precious resources by objecting and encouraging others to do so!

LANDSCAPE AND CUMULATIVE IMPACT

  • Wild Land. The proposed Invercassley Wind Farm would be sited entirely on Wild Land, namely the Reay-Cassley Land Area (WLA 34). The EIA is misleading when it states ‘there would be no potential for significant effects upon physical wild land qualities as a result of the Proposed Development.’ The erection of twenty turbines and creation of 22km of newtrack (minimum 5m in width) contradicts their own statement, as does their claim that the perception of wild land quality will not be affected.

Wild Land is defined by NatureScot as nationally important areas of high wildness. These are spaces which allow the natural landscape to flourish, away from public roads, buildings, and modern structures. Such areas sustain a wide range of wildlife (often specialised to the area), and carbon-sequestering peat and bogs are often present.

The Government’s planning guidance in National Planning Framework (NPF4) says it must ‘protect, restore and enhance natural assets’ and manage them ‘in a sustainable way that maintains and grows their essential benefits and services’. There is no avoiding the fact that development of this sort on the proposed site would lead to the industrialization of designated Wild Land and run counter to the principles outlined in NPF4.

  • Elevation. Set on an elevated site adjacent to the proposed Allt an Tuir development these massive turbines would be situated at a base height of between approx. 300-400m, with the two tallest and highest turbines standing at 640m – taller than Stac Pollaidh at 613m.  They would be highly visible at long distances as well as closer by and would dominate the entire landscape of Strath Oykel, Glen Cassley and the Kyle of Sutherland.

  • Local Impact. This extraordinarily invasive project would add significantly to an already highly complex cumulative situation in regard to existing and planned wind farms in the Kyle of Sutherland and Rosehall area. The current cumulative figure for existing and planned turbines in the Kyle/ Strath Oykel/ Glen Cassley is 232 across 13 developments. It is not too much to claim that, wedged between the following 7 developments - Allt an Tuir, Invercassely, Inveroykel, Strath Oykel, Coille Beith and Fionn wind farms -  Strath Oykel itself would become unliveable for residents; trapped in the river valley in between hillsides set with banks of roaring turbines on either side.

Object to this injustice for your neighbours!

Some of the local viewpoints used in the EIA are unrepresentative of the true impact of the windfarm, as they rely on intervening vegetation, which overstate screening by trees which are felled and restocked on commercial cycles.

  • Wider Impact. As the Viewpoint Figures in the EIA demonstrate the height and prominence of these turbines would dominate the Kyle and its settlements and be seen from far afield. Given the peace and current tranquillity of Rosehall, with its riverine link to the far west, and the wild quality of Glen Cassley leading the eye to Ben More Assynt, this development and its partner in Allt an Tuir, would bring a dramatic visual transformation to one of Sutherland’s special places. The Highlands do not need any more turbines, but we do need our wild places and must fight for them.

PEAT

  • Peatland captures carbon and other greenhouse gases by holding decomposing plants in a waterlogged, oxygen-free environment that slows down decomposition almost to a stop. The proposed Invercassley site is made up entirely of Class 1 Priority Peatland and Class 2 Peatland Ecosystems, making the site a globally important carbon sink. The developer proposes to excavate peat and remove 7.8 hectares (11 football pitches) of irreplaceable blanket bog. In their application they make several misleading and inaccurate statements.

  • The developer describes all the Class 1 and 2 peatland at Invercassley as ‘actively degrading and actively eroding’ and therefore of low importance. But what the EIA fails to recognize is that erosion is part of a natural peatland process, and blanket peat can go through periods of no growth in which erosion is the dominant process. Any peat will contain periods of rapid Sphagnum growth, then slow growth, or even net loss. The difference is that, in contrast to the Invercassley site, a truly degraded peat system has no peat accumulation at all (Hulme and Blythe, 1985)

  • Peatland Classification at Chapter 9 Figure 9.4 in the EIA shows 15 turbines, hard standings, crane pads, access tracks and 1 borrow pit on Class 1 Priority Peatland. The remaining 5 turbines, infrastructure as above, 2 borrow pits, a temporary compound area, and a permanent substation will be on Class 2 Peatland. Yet in their Peatland Condition Assessment (p 12) the applicants state that only T4 is on deep peat, and 13 turbines avoid peat completely. This statement is not supported by Figure 9.4 or by the Scottish Government's Soil Maps.

  • Heavy traffic driving over peat damages its complex internal structures. The so-called 'floating' roads proposed by the developer do not float above peat; they lie on its surface and crush it. Moreover excavating peat kills it, destroying its complex internal systems, yet the developer believes they can stockpile, then re-use the peat elsewhere on site and it will still somehow capture carbon as before. On the contrary, excavating peat exposes it to oxygen in the air, drying it out and thereby releasing millions of tonnes of previously captured carbon and other greenhouse gases from the decomposing plant material back into the air again! An associated and very significant risk is that in drying out the peat, excavation will destabilize the site, leading to landslides which could prove fatal for marine life in the rivers.

TRANSPORT

  • The EIA’s plans for transport and site access for Invercassley take account of two possibilities: sharing tracks and access through the Allt an Tuir [AaT] site, if approved and built; and independent access and track construction if not. Either way the intervention and damage to Wild Land will be massive.

  • Details: They propose 27.59km of WF track with a minimum 5m running width, wider on bends and at junctions, made up of 22.38km of new track, of which 5.2km will be floated over peat. If AaT is not consented, a further 5.1km of new track will be needed, 415m of which will be floated. Two new watercourse crossings and four existing watercourse crossings which may be upgraded [Click here for more detail]

  • Construction: Work would commence in 2030 and would last up to 18 months, or 34 months if the access track is not constructed by the AaT applicant.

  • Vehicle movements: It is anticipated that large quantities of aggregates will be transported to the site and the EIA predicts seventeen months of over 182 HGV movements per day and over 64 LGV & car movements per day. This, we calculate, equates to approximately one vehicle every 3 minutes, for 12 hours, in addition to the vehicles which normally use these roads and without considering the addition of 186 Abnormal Indivisible Load Vehicle (AILV) movements over ten months.

  • Route: Turbine parts will travel from Port of Cromarty Firth at Invergordon, to the A9, head northward to The Mound,  then turn towards Lairg. From Lairg, the route goes directly to Rosehall, turning in at the entrance to Invercassley  Farm.  

  • Magnitude of Impact: Pedestrians are particularly vulnerablein Rosehall village and the approaches to it due to the increase in traffic on both the A837 and 839 where, without footpaths, children, the elderly, dog walkers, cyclists and horse riders, are forced to use the road as a means of moving about the locality. The core path Sika Trail section of the Rosehall Trails directs users along the A839 for some miles. Due to the nature of the verges, it is sometimes impossible to get completely off both the A837 and the A839 when vehicles are passing. For the developers to say the risk to pedestrians and others is low, merely because no accident has occurred so far is completely unacceptable. For the many homes along these routes the increase in traffic and associated noise and fumes would be a threat to health and wellbeing, particularly in association with the other SEVEN wind farm developments which could potentially use the same route.

TOURISM AND THE LOCAL ECONOMY

  • While the EIA argues that effects on tourism, recreation and the local economy of the Kyle of Sutherland are not significant, this conclusion underestimates the potential cumulative and localised impacts of the proposed wind farm. The applicant relies on often outdated, national studies and provides limited site-specific evidence that tourism businesses and visitor numbers in this area will not be harmed.

  • The area’s economy, wellbeing, and identity depend on its natural landscapes, tourism, fishing (especially salmon), and outdoor recreation, all of which will be degraded by the cumulative impact of this and other multiple wind farms and the significant disruption to narrow rural roads.

  • Developers overstate the economic benefits of renewable energy projects through claims about jobs, revenue, and community payments. There is little evidence that substantial long-term employment or economic benefits will remain within local communities, while most financial gains will likely accrue elsewhere.

ABSENCE OF A GRID CONNECTION

  • Since the decision on the Wull Muir wind farm in the Court of Session on Feb 25, that the EIA for that windfarm did not consider the environmental effects of the grid connection, the proposed grid connection should now be included within the planning application and assessed as part of the environmental impact process.

  • Invercassley has yet to obtain a grid connection, therefore cannot provide details and impact locally of the route for cabling from the onsite substation to a connection point such as Invershin.

  • Overeager to move the application through the planning process, the developer is trying to work a way around their lack of a grid connection and the prospect of none for many months to come. So, two full EIA pages, including some spurious reasons, are devoted as to why the grid connection need not be included as spart of the environmental impact.

  • Grid connections from a site to the likes of Invershin are now all above ground due to cost. Above ground, a grid connection of several kilometres with its large unsightly H frame poles at frequent intervals, will make a considerable additional significant impact on the local environment and so it is essential that it is considered as part of the whole project.

  • In your objection, make this important point and that it is unacceptable for the developer to determine that Invercassley wind farm and its grid connection do not need be treated as a single project for EIA purposes.

HYDROLOGY

  • The River Oykel SAC was created to protect Freshwater Pearl Mussels, which have a special symbiotic relationship with the Atlantic salmon and the river habitat. As filter feeders they are extremely vulnerable to water pollution.

  • Salmon spawning occurs in the lower stretch of the Tutim burn on the Oykel and in the Alt na Faic burn on the Cassley.

  • 53% of the windfarm site is located within the Tutim burn catchment area, which with its tributaries rises within the site and discharges into the Oykel. 8 turbines, plus borrow pit, substation and compound are located within the catchment area.

  • 23% of the site is located within the catchment of two main burns which discharge into the River Cassely.  Also 4 turbines, a proposed borrow pit and the main access track into the site.

  • 22.38 kilometres of new roads will be created on site with water crossings required.

  • All these factors demonstrate that there will be a massive amount of ground disturbance during construction, which will pose a significant risk to the rivers.

  • Historically, all these burns overflow in very heavy rain, especially during a flash flood (last one 2022). However good the mitigation measures during construction, nature cannot be controlled and it will prove impossible to prevent quantities of sediment, siltation and pollution being washed into the rivers in heavy rain, thus affecting the spawning grounds and freshwater pearl mussels.

  • River fishing, the principal income earner for the area, will be at risk. 

FRESHWATER PEARL MUSSELS

  • Critically endangered worldwide and close to extinction in Scotland the mussels are struggling to survive as they fail to repopulate.  Importantly the River Oykel Special Area of Conservation which includes the River Cassley is home to repopulating pearl mussels and is one of the last places in Scotland to support growing populations.

  • The mussels must be protected to ensure their survival, but this is threatened by the proposed construction of the Invercassley wind farm within the catchment of the rivers.  The mussels are one of the most sensitive animals in the world; they cannot tolerate minerals or heavy metals and are suffocated by silt or sediment entering the water. Minerals have been found close to the proposed development at Rosehall, Invershin and Glen Calvie and are likely to be present on the construction site.  They are toxic to the mussels.  They will be released when 293,000 cubic metres of rock are excavated on site for the infrastructure of the development.

  • There will also be 197,000 cubic metres of peat and carbon rich soils excavated and reused on site leading to silt and sediment being released into the watercourses during flooding and heavy rainfall.  The displacement of the peat and soil will also lead to erosion during the life of the development and silt and sediment will continue to enter the watercourses.

  • Mitigation measures are proposed to be put in place to prevent this happening, but this has proved ineffective at other sites killing and poisoning fish and destroying the aquatic ecosystem.  This cannot be allowed to happen!

SALMON

  • The River Oykel is one of only five rivers in the north Highlands designated as a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) for Atlantic salmon. The Invercassley windfarm developers admit, in their Environmental Impact Assessment, that “there is potential for a likely significant effect on the features of the SAC through the loss, disturbance and degradation of the surrounding aquatic habitats which are hydrologically linked to the SAC.”

  • Most of the windfarm site lies within the catchment of Tutim Burn (a major tributary of the Oykel). During infrastructure and access road construction vast quantities of undisturbed/virgin peat will be excavated and disturbed, causing massive sediment and pollution run-off into watercourses. Silt traps, aimed at preventing this, are essentially useless during heavy rainfall events and, no matter what mitigation measures are taken, regular ingress of sediment into the Tutim Burn is inevitable. This will inevitably pose a considerable threat to the integrity of the spawning gravels of the lower Tutim Burn and two miles of the lower Oykel. There would also be potential run-off via two other burns into the lower five miles of the River Cassley, which is also part of the Oykel SAC.

  • Successful salmon spawning is wholly dependent on clean and unclogged gravels. Windfarms should not be sited where they are likely to exacerbate the numerous threats to an SAC population of a keystone species, that is already classified as “endangered” in the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List.

ORNITHOLOGY

  • Glen Cassley has resident breeding pairs of Golden eagle, White Tailed eagle, Osprey and Merlins whose home territories and hunting grounds surround the proposed site. Unfortunately, the data contained in the EIA does not adequately reflect the significance of these populations.

  • The EIA contains observations made on the site throughout breeding and non-breeding seasons during 2022, 2023 and 2024, recording significantly high numbers of flights paths from Golden Eagles, Pink Foot Goose and Black Throated Diver, problems with the surveys undermine their usefulness however. Due to bad weather in autumn/winter months, the required minimum hours of surveys were not carried out at the very time they should have been. Surveys conducted in the following month do not reflect the frequent activities of birds in periods of bad weather and strong wind. Surveys of low-level areas are more important in bad weather, the very time when surveys were not carried out in this case.

  • Additionally, significant areas were not able to be accessed, and surveys were undertaken only at distance with optics. The resulting data is also inconsistent due to changes in turbine numbers, survey methodology and viewpoints. It should be noted that the final location of turbines is not known, so the applicant's collision modelling is flawed. The RSPB disagree with the approach taken in the EIA to assessing likely collision and no mitigation measures are suggested to avoid collision.

  • As a result of these survey shortcomings there is no information provided on winter roost sites for Hen Harrier, Red Kite or the nationally significant White-Tailed eagle roost. In addition, surveys for other wind farms developments were carried out at same time, which could cause disturbance and may have affected survey results.

  • The cumulative effects of other wind farms on ridge soaring opportunities, hunting areas, and displacement flights for young/immature birds are not taken into account in the EIA. In sum if all the proposed wind turbines were to go ahead birds would run out of places to go!

TURBINE NOISE

  • EIA states that it is anticipated that operational wind turbine noise levels will meet the day and night noise limits at chosen locations across the full range of wind speeds, both during the daytime and the night-time periods.

  • Note that “anticipated” only means expected, with NO degree of certainly.

  • Houses in the Doune area, which are just 4.5kms away from turbines, are likely to experience aggravating turbine noise particularly in wind directions from NW to NE. This would be a similar experience suffered over the years by those in houses a similar distance from Rosehall and Achany windfarms. Individuals local amenity is significantly affected.  

  • Construction Traffic noise. The developer underplays the noise generated from the large number of extra daily vehicle journeys through Rosehall village during months of construction. The residential properties along the main road will suffer significantly from 7am to 7pm weekdays + 7am to 1pm Sat and so it is absurd to say and quote: “BS 52284 - Local residents might be willing to accept higher levels of noise if they know that such levels will only last for a short time”.   Yet the construction will last many months – please emphasize this in your objection.

TURBINE AVIATION LIGHTING

  • 7 turbines will be fitted with red visible aviation lights.  This is an area of dark sky with nil light pollution and starlit sky. These turbines would ruin the effect, creating unwelcome light pollution.  They will also have a moderate significant effect on the Reay -Cassley Wild Land Area 34.

  • The Highland Council is investigating dark sky status for some parts of the Highlands. The entire Kyle of Sutherland is currently a natural dark sky area and being designated as such would do much for tourism. Just one wind farm of 200m high turbines requiring aviation lighting would wreck this opportunity to boost the local economy.

CONCLUSION

In 2023, following the Strath Oykel Wind Farm Public Inquiry, a Sutherland resident wrote a moving Tribute to the People of Strath Oykel – ‘You are not Alone’, which you can find on our website, here. Please support the people of Strath Oykel, and all that we hold dear in landscape, environment, liveability, justice and tradition, NOW by objecting to this outrageous proposal and DO PLEASE encourage others to do so.  Thank you from the NORoS Committee!

…………………………………………………

HOW TO SUBMIT AN OBJECTION BY DEADLINE: 14th September 2026

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 - “Invercassley windfarm ECU 00006064 ”. 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 (you may mark it as private) This information is required for your representation / objection to be accepted.

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 it in before time expires.

Submitting an objection by post.

1. Provide your name (block capitals), and full postal address. If you own a house locally use that address.

2. You should head-up your representation as follows: Letter of Objection to the proposed Invercassley wind farm . Ref: ECU00006064. Then add your objections / representations.

3. Send it to: Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit, 4th Floor, 5 Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw, Glasgow G2 8LU.v