Spiorad na Mara “risks outweigh the benefits”​

​Furthermore, the summary report states: “A recurring theme in the feedback was the perception that the consultation was more of a PR exercise than a genuine attempt to engage with the community, and that local voices, especially those opposed to the project, were not being listened to”.

The seven consultation exhibitions held last September and October were attended by a total of 322 people while 1265 visits were recorded to the virtual exhibition platform.

Around 200 feedback forms were returned either in hard copy or online with the views of a further 67 noted at the events.

While a relatively small sample, it is evident from the summary report that the “antis” have been significantly more active in making their views known although the amount of interest reported in community benefits suggests that this will be an important factor in shaping acceptability of the project.

The report states: “Comments were made by numerous respondents about a perceived absence of meaningful consultation when the site location for the project was initially identified, leading to a sense of being unheard”.

As recently reported by the Gazette, the N4 site inside the international shipping lane west of the Hebrides was only added at a late stage in the process, after Comhairle nan Eilean Siar recommended that local opinion should be tested on whether a closer to shore project, on the landward side of the shipping route, would be acceptable.

The report states: “Many respondents felt that the visual aesthetic of the area, which plays a key role in tourism and community wellbeing, would be significantly impacted. Concerns extended to the lack of local potential for the manufacture of offshore components to construct the proposed project”.

It continued: “Feedback concerning the offshore elements of the project – including the array, cable corridor, and offshore substation – revealed a wide range of strong concerns, alongside constructive suggestions from local communities and stakeholders”.

Visual and noise pollution emerged as significant issues, with many respondents expressing dissatisfaction with the potential visual impact of the turbines and the offshore substation, particularly their proximity to shore and their scale. The lighting of turbines during operations was also flagged as potentially detrimental to the “dark skies” of the area.

Many respondents, says the report, “emphasised the importance of minimising the substation’s visual footprint through careful siting and sensitive design. Suggestions included blending the substation into the natural landscape using earth mounds, stone, or tree planting, while ensuring the design is aesthetically pleasing and in harmony with the surroundings”.

Specific mentions were made of the importance of protecting surf culture, access to beaches and minimising disruption to the coastal environment. “The project’s scale was deemed inappropriate for the area by some respondents, with the size and industrial nature of the substation seen as overwhelming”

Among the sub-station options presented, site 2B was preferred, “with appreciation noted for the project’s efforts to integrate visual and landscape considerations”. There was “a strong sentiment that the project needs clearer visual representations of the landfall proposals, and continued community engagement”.

The report continues: “Numerous community members supplied feedback about the onshore elements of the project, which include the grid substation, the landfall substation, the onshore cables, and the operations and maintenance facility. There were many suggestions around potential areas for improvement and mitigation if the project were to proceed, such as burying cables underground along existing infrastructure routes such as roads, or within developed areas to minimise visual impact and potential environmental damage”

Feedback regarding community benefits highlighted a range of perspectives on how the index-linked £4.5 million annual contribution (for the west coast of the island throughout the operational life of the project) could be more effectively allocated.

The report notes: “While some appreciated the intention behind the fund, many felt that it falls short of addressing the potential environmental, economic, and social impacts of the project. Requests were made for transparency on how the £4.5 million was determined, with some suggesting that a more detailed explanation would help build trust.

“There is strong support for exploring alternative funding models, such as community-owned turbines or a larger share of profits, to ensure that the financial benefits are more directly felt by the islanders.

“Suggestions were made by stakeholders for a fund allocation to include supporting local infrastructure improvements, including affordable housing, energy subsidies to combat fuel poverty, and biodiversity restoration initiatives to mitigate the impact on wildlife”

Feedback submissions were received by email, two handwritten notes were delivered and project team members captured 67 additional pieces of feedback during the in-person events. Lastly, meeting minutes were also recorded during the information clinics (5 in total) and the fisheries consultation sessions.

Northland Power, the Canadian company behind the project, aims to submit its planning applications – to the Scottish Government’s – in the second half of this year.