Opponents claim Mey battery storage site is being ‘railroaded through’ – as developer says dialogue ‘must be grounded in fact’
Opponents of a proposed battery energy storage scheme near the Castle of Mey have claimed the plan is being “railroaded through” with “minimal oversight”.
They allege community consultation carried out by Simec Atlantis Energy (SAE) has been “limited”, “selective” and “lacking transparency” and fear the visual impact will be “far greater” than suggested by the company.
SAE, which operates the nearby MeyGen tidal energy project, is seeking permission for the Mey Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) on 17 football pitches’ worth of agricultural land.
There would be approximately 352 containerised battery units with a total export storage capacity of up to 300MW.
Responding to recent criticism, SAE insisted last week that all its projects are “subject to the full planning and regulatory process” and are “assessed on their individual merits”.
Local resident Andy Hayton, one of the founders of Mey BESS Action Group, dismissed the SAE comments as “polished, corporate, and misleading by omission”.
He pointed out that the scheme had attracted a formal objection from Highland Council.
“SAE boasts that MeyGen is entirely beneath the sea surface and therefore invisible,” Mr Hayton said. “While the turbines are submerged, the onshore switching infrastructure – including the recently approved Gills Bay switching station – is not. These visible components are part of a connected industrial corridor forming between Gills Bay, Mey and Barrock.
“The tidal project’s substation infrastructure onshore is visible and now forms part of the cumulative landscape and visual burden in the area. It cannot be decoupled from the broader industrialisation that includes Mey BESS, Rigifa BESS and Charleston Energy Park.”
Rigifa BESS is being planned by Field Rigifa Ltd, while Koehler Renewable Energy UK is the company behind Charleston Energy Park – comprising six wind turbines and a battery energy storage system.
On the consultation for the Mey scheme, Mr Hayton said: “SAE claims to have undertaken proportionate pre-application engagement and met with Dunnet and Canisbay Community Council in September 2023.
“However, this one meeting, involving minimal publicity and with no meaningful follow-up or public exhibition, falls far short of genuine community consultation – especially for a nationally significant site so close to the Castle of Mey.
“SAE’s consultation consisted of limited, selective engagement lacking transparency or community empowerment.
“Their visualisations minimise the visual impact by using low angles, soft lighting and future growth assumptions for screening vegetation that does not yet exist.”
He maintained that independent analysis and community-sourced imagery showed that “the visual impact will be far greater – especially before proposed vegetation matures, if it grows at all in exposed coastal conditions”.
Mr Hayton went on: “SAE claims each project is judged on its individual merits. This siloed approach is precisely the problem.
“Highland Council specifically objected on the grounds of cumulative impact, including the proximity to the Castle of Mey and the growing cluster of industrial energy infrastructure.
“SAE’s insistence on treating projects in isolation ignores planning guidance, policy and basic common sense. Landscape, heritage and visual impact do not occur in isolation – they accumulate.
“SAE attempts to allay fire safety concerns by pointing to future planning conditions, including a battery safety management plan to be agreed with the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service. But this plan does not yet exist, and there are no guarantees of its sufficiency – especially given the emerging global fire risks associated with lithium-ion BESS sites.
“They frame their project as a contribution to Scotland’s clean energy future and invoke national interest, yet they dismiss the legitimate local impact on landscape, community, heritage and tourism. The Castle of Mey, a symbol of Scottish heritage and royal legacy, is under direct threat from cumulative encroachment.
“SAE’s statement, though carefully worded, ultimately reinforces the central issue: this development is being railroaded through under a veil of strategic PR and minimal oversight. The public, local government and national heritage are treated as afterthoughts.”
A spokesman for SAE said: “MeyGen is a world-first project, designed, built and operated in the north of Scotland. Mey BESS builds on that legacy by adding resilience, flexibility and storage.
“These are not threats to the landscape. They are part of the landscape of the future.
“We remain open to dialogue. But that dialogue must be grounded in fact, in shared responsibility, and in a willingness to find solutions.”
Full response from Simec Atlantis Energy:
“We welcome scrutiny of our proposals and support public engagement with the planning process. But public discussion must be grounded in fact. Several of the claims about the Mey BESS project are misleading or incorrect, and we want to set the record straight.
“Mey BESS and MeyGen are distinct proposals, assessed under different regulations and brought forward independently. However, they are also highly complementary in function. MeyGen generates predictable tidal energy; Mey BESS provides storage that helps smooth variability across the grid. Together, they strengthen energy resilience and support net-zero.
“Yes, the MeyGen substation is visible. It was consented and constructed years ago and now forms a modest part of the local landscape. But that is not evidence of creeping industrialisation. We have no connection to the Rigifa or Charleston proposals.
“Each application stands on its own planning merits and is subject to its own public process. Suggesting that these separate proposals form a single industrial ‘corridor’ misrepresents both their scale and governance.
“Scotland’s energy transition is a national priority. Expecting visual and economic conditions to remain frozen in time is not a sustainable position. Mey BESS consists of low-profile infrastructure, with a maximum height of three metres. It was laid out to support landscape integration. A full visual appraisal was carried out by independent consultants.
“The planning officer concluded: ‘The visual impacts of the proposed development are limited and with the proposed landscaping measures in place the development is considered to be appropriate for its setting.’
“The proposal was recommended for approval. Highland Council chose to object, but did so contrary to its own professional planning advice.
“There is no statutory requirement for public consultation under Section 36 [of the Electricity Act 1989]. Even so, we met with the local community council and, as per statutory requirements, shared project details through local and national media, published all documentation online, and provided materials in the local library.
“The project layout was revised following feedback from statutory consultees and others to reduce environmental impact. That’s engagement in action. We’re still open to further discussion, but genuine dialogue means coming to the table with a willingness to work together. Blanket rejection helps no-one.
“All visualisations were prepared by experienced professionals in line with national guidance and best practice. If community-generated imagery exists, we have not seen it submitted through any formal channel. We would be happy to review it if shared.
“Some concern has also been raised about the time required for vegetation to establish. That’s a reasonable point, and a reflection of the fact that this is a 30-plus-year infrastructure project. Both energy systems and landscapes evolve over time. If planning is done only for immediate comfort, we risk compromising long-term resilience.
“We submitted an outline landscaping strategy specifically to enable proper assessment at the application stage. In parallel, we invited a planning condition to formalise and secure long-term delivery.
“The planning officer concluded that visual effects would not be significant and that the proposal could be integrated appropriately over time. Nonetheless, we remain open to exploring short-term measures if there is genuine interest in finding solutions.
“The project was screened under the environmental impact assessment regulations and deemed not to require a full EIA. As such, a formal cumulative impact assessment was not required under law. That is not a loophole, it is standard planning procedure.
“Even so, the surrounding context, including the proximity of the Castle of Mey and other infrastructure, was explicitly considered. The planning officer’s report reflects this and found no significant visual or landscape harm. The application was reviewed in full by statutory consultees, including Historic Environment Scotland and NatureScot. Neither objected.
“If there is disagreement with the regulatory approach to cumulative impact, that is a matter for government and parliament, not individual applicants. We have followed the process set out in national policy.
“We submitted an outline battery safety management plan as part of the application. This provides a clear outline of our safety commitments, risk controls and operational practices. The inclusion of a planning condition is standard procedure, not a delay tactic, and allows us to incorporate the most current guidance and technical standards at the time of construction.
“The Scottish Fire and Rescue Service is not a statutory consultee in this process. However, we remain open to working with them directly, as well as the local community, and will follow any formal guidance they issue. Risk is not being pushed into the future, it’s being managed now, through a responsible and adaptive approach.
“Mey BESS is exactly the kind of project supported by Scotland’s National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4). The proposal is consistent with multiple policy goals, including:
“Policy 1: Tackling the climate and nature crises – the project enables greater renewable integration and supports emissions reduction.
“Policy 2: Climate mitigation and adaptation – provides resilience and flexibility as part of a decarbonised grid.
“Policy 3: Biodiversity – the site avoids high-sensitivity areas and offers potential for enhancement through landscaping and habitat planning.
“Policy 5: Soils – revised layout and peat assessment minimise impact on carbon-rich soils, in line with the mitigation hierarchy.
“Policy 7: Historic assets and places – setting of the Castle of Mey was assessed; Historic Environment Scotland did not object.
“Policy 11: Energy – directly supports national energy security and net-zero.
“Policies 25 and 29: Rural places and rural development – delivers essential infrastructure that strengthens resilience in a remote community.
“Independent assessment found no unacceptable harm to the Castle of Mey, and mitigation has been offered voluntarily. The planning officer confirmed that the proposal aligns with the principles of NPF4 and recommended approval.
“We understand that not everyone welcomes change. But rural Scotland has a key role to play in the transition to a net=zero future. It is neither viable nor just to expect the benefits of clean energy, energy security and climate leadership while opposing the infrastructure that makes them possible.
“MeyGen is a world-first project, designed, built and operated in the north of Scotland. Mey BESS builds on that legacy by adding resilience, flexibility and storage. These are not threats to the landscape. They are part of the landscape of the future.
“We remain open to dialogue. But that dialogue must be grounded in fact, in shared responsibility, and in a willingness to find solutions. We all need, use and depend on energy, and the energy transition is not someone else’s problem. It is ours, and it is already under way.”