Update Western Isle HVDC Link Questions Asked

Garve and District Community Council

Added at 13:17 on 27 December 2025

Following on from our partial response from SSE in respect of the Western Isle HVDC Link 
We stil have outstanding questions which are centric to the project's operations through the GDCC area;  
along the A835 From Aultguish to Silver Bridge through Strathgarve woods and grazing land.

In keeping our community updated, we are sharing the questions asked by our neighbours; thanks to Ian Searle, 
along with the somewhat evasive responses recieved from Kevin Morrison SSE Community Liaison Manager. 

Q1. Will you provide such option screening and selection reports?

This process is not applicable to temporary construction compounds for an underground cable route.
(Following questions Re: North side of Loch Garve Routing)

Q2.  You confirmed your change to this option was based on the significant traffic disruption that would be caused by your original plan to trench along the A835.  Technically, you could have trenched in stages along this section within the existing roadway corridor - your concern was traffic disruption. Why then is it not the same technical plan for the forest road section between Garve and Contin?

The route alignment was a wholesale change based on feedback from statutory operators due to multiple reasons. Traffic disruption was only one element, buildability, program, and safety were major considerations. Multiple traffic management sections would have caused significant total delays. We will be trenching in stages in the forest road section between Contin and Garve.

Q3. Why do you now require to widen this forest road with an up to 40m clearance corridor?  

The indicative working corridor is around 40 metres to allow safe construction and plant access. However, the upgrade works to existing roads access is only 12M. The areas inclusive of the 40 m corridor covers drainage, subsoil and topsoil storage, temporary access and the cable trench.  We have kept this the minimum required – however in areas where it is possible we have reduced the corridor to 25M.

Q4. Why can you not seek to minimise impact by routing the cable trench within the existing road corridor (A835, along Loch Garve)? 

Routing in the A835 road corridor would have had a major impact on traffic with significant delays predicted. Our Contract Partner also highlighted significant buildability and safety issues due to the challenging topography (rock faces) and proximity to the railway line. 

(Kinellan Compound Justification)

Q5. Why is the Kinellan compound even required? 

We need temporary construction compounds at key strategic locations on the cable route as a working base for the construction teams and storage of materials. If the temporary storage compounds were not utilised then the corridor would be significantly wider to accommodate packs of ducts storage of backfill materials, pre cast units and ultimately cable drums.

Q6. Why do the 52 large cable drums need to be stored there?  Q7. Why can they not be held in existing industrial areas at, say, Port of Inverness or Cromarty Port and then delivered direct to site when required? 

There is insufficient storage and security facilities at the port for long-term holding of the volume of cable drums. This was considered by the project team.

Q8. Why can Project offices not be located at existing (empty/vacant) buildings at Dingwall Business Park?

There will be an office in Dingwall as well as locations alongside the cable route to allow a working base for the team that will be carrying out the construction works.

(Kinellan Compound Location)

Q9. How and why was this location chosen?

The location was chosen for strategic purposes as a staging point. This was to cut down on significant double handling of materials along the route location for the eastern portion of the project as it is adjoined to our cable route and it is well screened from the major population settlements in Contin, Jamestown & Strathpeffer.

Q10. What other locations were evaluated?  Q11. What efforts were made to minimise 'industrial' impacts by reusing existing facilities?

A number of considerations were taken into account, including proximity to homes, flooding risk, environmental impact, trunk road access, and landowner permissions. We were seeking to minimise local impacts as much as possible. Several existing facilities were considered but not deemed acceptable.

Q12. Will you confirm in writing that SSEN guarantee to fully reinstate the compound to agricultural land at the end of the project - including removal of all foundation material? Q13. Within your lease agreement for the compound, will you confirm whether there is any clause giving the landowner the option to require SSEN not to reinstate the compound area? (or any other such mechanism)

In terms of reinstatement, it is within our contracted land-lease scope to fully reinstate the compound area to its original state at the end of works.

Q14. Does reinstatement include removal of the sealed surfacing of the access road and reverting this to a gravel surface?

This is to be agreed in consultation with the landowner.

Q15. Have you completed a Traffic Impact Assessment and Traffic Management Plan covering Strathpeffer and Contin? Q16. If so, will you share?  If not, how do you satisfy the local community that you are manging this critical aspect of community impact?

We have completed a Transport Assessment and Traffic Management Plan for the project that includes Strathpeffer and Contin.  The Traffic management plan is part of our overall statutory obligations and has been fully considered and endorsed by Statutory bodies.

If you have any further questions, please contact LT14mainlandcable@sse.com

Noting the public were given direct email contacts for questiions arising from;  kevin.morrison@sse.com Calum.Murray@sse.com Ryan.Stewart@sse.com, yet now being directed to email a generic project box ... 

We will continue to keep the community updated when news is recieved.