Agenda Document Pack - Planning and Regulatory Services Committee - 08/10/2025

Moray Council · 8 October 2025
Back to Planning and Regulatory Services Committee — 8 October 2025 and its agenda

Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.

Original council PDF · Download plain text

Page 1

Planning and Regulatory Services Committee 
Wednesday, 08 October 2025 
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the Planning and Regulatory
Services Committee is to be held at Council Chambers, Council Office, High Street,
Elgin, IV30 1BX on Wednesday, 08 October 2025 at 09:30. 
BUSINESS 
1. Sederunt 
2. Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests * 
3. Planning Application 25 00203 EIA_Redacted 5 - 104 
Summary of Planning and Regulatory Services Committee
functions:
Town and Country Planning; Building Standards; Environmental Health;
Trading Standards; Weights & Measures, Tree Preservation Orders, and
Contaminated Land issues.     
Watching the Meeting
You can watch the webcast live by going to: 
http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_43661.html    
Webcasts are available to view for 1 year following the meeting.  
You can also attend the meeting in person.  If you wish to attend
in person, please come to the High Street entrance door and a
member of staff will let you into the Chamber. 
Page 1

Page 2

Page 2

Page 3

GUIDANCE NOTES 
* Declaration of Group Decisions and Members Interests - The Chair of the
meeting shall seek declarations from any individual or political group at the
beginning of a meeting whether any prior decision has been reached on how the
individual or members of the group will vote on any item(s) of business on the
Agenda, and if so on which item(s).  A prior decision shall be one that the
individual or the group deems to be mandatory on the individual or the group
members such that the individual or the group members will be subject to
sanctions should they not vote in accordance with the prior decision.  Any such
prior decisions will be recorded in the Minute of the meeting. 
Page 3

Page 4

MORAY COUNCIL 
Planning and Regulatory Services Committee 
SEDERUNT 
Councillor David Gordon  (Chair)
Councillor Paul McBain  (Depute Chair)  
Councillor Peter Bloomfield  (Member)
Councillor Neil Cameron  (Member)
Councillor Tracy Colyer  (Member)
Councillor Theresa Coull  (Member)
Councillor John Cowe  (Member)
Councillor John Divers  (Member)
Councillor Amber Dunbar  (Member)
Councillor Jérémie Fernandes  (Member)
Councillor Sandy Keith  (Member)
Councillor Marc Macrae  (Member)
Councillor Draeyk van der Horn  (Member)
Councillor Sonya Warren  (Member)  
Clerk Name: Lissa Rowan
Clerk Telephone: 07765 741754
Clerk Email: committee.services@moray.gov.uk 
Page 4

Page 5

Report to: Special Meeting of the
Planning and Regulatory
Services Committee
Meeting
Date:
8 October 2025  
Report by: Chief Governance Officer
(Monitoring Officer)
Report No: CGO003/25  
Author: Lissa Rowan, Committee
Services Officer
Contact
Email:
lissa.rowan@moray.gov.uk 
Subject: Hearing: Planning Application 25/00203/EIA 
1.  PURPOSE 
☐ For Decision      ☒  For Information 
1.1  The purpose of the Hearing is to afford those submitting representations and the applicant
the opportunity to state and explain their cases before the Planning and Regulatory
Services Committee prior to the Committee determining the application.  
1.2  This report is submitted to Committee in terms of Section III (E) (1) of the Council's
Scheme of Administration relating to the functions of the Council as Planning Authority. 
3. SUMMARY  
3.1 The Committee is invited to hear the applicant and those submitting representations on
the application in regard to an application to 25/00203/EIA 
2.  BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT  
2.1  In terms of the Council’s Scheme of Delegation relating to Planning Applications, the
above noted application has been referred direct to a Hearing to which the applicant and
those submitting representations have been invited to attend and afforded the opportunity
of being heard.  
2.2  Members of the Committee visited the site of the application on 2 October 2025. 
3.  APPOINTED OFFICER’S REPORT  
3.1  A copy of the Appointed Officer’s report on the application is attached. 
Item 3.
Page 5

Page 6

4.  HEARING PROCEDURE  
4.1 The proposed procedure which the Committee will follow in respect of the Hearing is as
follows:- 
(i) 
(i) The Applicant will speak first (maximum of 15 minutes) outlining the
application and addressing the stated objections. 
(ii) Members of the Committee will then be given the opportunity to question the
Applicant in order to clarify points raised.
(iii) Interested Parties will then be given the opportunity to address the meeting
(maximum of 10* minutes) to speak to their stated
objections/representations.  It should be noted that the Committee will not be
prepared to consider any new ground(s) of objection/representation.
(iv) Members of the Committee will be given the opportunity to question each
Interested Party in turn in order to clarify points raised.
(v) The Clerk will read out the names of those who have submitted written
statements and advise that these have been circulated to the Committee and
uploaded on to the Councils Committee Website.
(vi) Both Applicant and Interested Parties will then be given the opportunity to
summarise their respective cases, in light of the submissions, to the
Committee (5 minutes each maximum for Interested Parties and equivalent
time for the Applicant).
(vii) The Appointed Officer, or their representative, will then be afforded the
opportunity to make any additional comments and/or points of clarification in
light of the submissions. 
(viii) The Committee will then determine the application. 
* This may be extended at the discretion of the Chair in cases where the
speaker is speaking on behalf of a number of representatives or is
representing other party/parties who are unable to attend a Hearing. 
Page 6

Page 7

WARD 01_17 
25/00203/EIA
3rd March 2025
Construction of a 70 MWe electrolytic hydrogen production
facility and associated ancillary infrastructure including
water supply and wastewater pipeline on Land South Of
Marypark Ballindalloch Moray 
for Storegga 
Comments: 
• A site visit has been undertaken.
• This application is a major application.  
• The proposal has been advertised for neighbour notification purposes, as a schedule
3 development. It has also been advertised under the EIA Regulations 2017.
• 391 representations received – 381 objections, 8 supporting the proposal and 2
neutral.
• Speyside Community Council have objected (local Community Council), as have
Innes and Lennox Community Councils.
• This application is subject to Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) under The
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Scotland)
Regulations 2017 and is accompanied by an EIA Report. 
Procedure: 
• In accordance with the Scheme of Delegation, following consideration by the
Appointed Officer it is considered that as the proposal raises matters of wider
community interest, it should be determined by way of a Hearing. 
Recommendation 
Grant planning permission - Subject to the following: 
1. Adoption of “appropriate assessment” (Section 8.2 of Observations section of
report); 
2. The following conditions: 
Conditions/Reasons 
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the
expiration of 5 years beginning with the date on which the permission is granted.
Page 7

Page 8

Reason: The time limit condition is imposed in order to comply with the
requirements of section 58 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 as
amended. 
2. No works in connection with the development hereby approved shall commence
unless an Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI) has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the planning authority and a programme of
archaeological works has been carried out in accordance with the approved WSI.
The WSI shall include details of how the recording and recovery of archaeological
resources found within the application site shall be undertaken, and how any
updates, if required, to the WSI will be provided throughout the implementation of
the programme of archaeological works. Should the archaeological works reveal the
need for post excavation analysis the development hereby approved shall not be
brought into use unless a Post-Excavation Research Design (PERD) for the analysis,
publication and dissemination of results and archive deposition has been submitted
to and approved in writing by the planning authority. The PERD shall be carried out in
complete accordance with the approved details. 
Reason: To safeguard and record the archaeological potential of the area. 
3. Prior to the commencement of the proposed development, the proposed access on
the A95 trunk road, as generally illustrated by Storegga Drawing Number 100112408-
MMD-00-XX-DRTP-1001 Rev C entitled “Speyside Hydrogen Transport Planning
Proposed Access (Priority Junction) General Arrangement & Visibility Splays”, shall
be constructed to a layout and type (and method) of construction to be approved by
the Planning Authority, after consultation with Transport Scotland. 
Reason: To ensure that the standard of access layout complies with the current
standards and that the safety of the traffic on the trunk road is not diminished, and
that drivers of vehicles leaving the site are enabled to see and be seen by vehicles on
the trunk road carriageway and join the traffic stream safely. 
4. There shall be no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. 
Reason: To ensure that the efficiency of the existing drainage network is not
affected. 
5. No development shall commence until a Construction Traffic Management Plan
(CTMP) has been submitted to an agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in
consultation with the Roads Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried
out in accordance with the agreed CTMP at all times.  For the avoidance of doubt the
CTMP shall include as a minimum the following information:
•  duration of works;
•   construction programme;
•   number of vehicle movements (i.e. materials, plant, staff, components);
•   schedule for delivery of materials and plant;
Page 8

Page 9

•   parking provision, loading and unloading areas for construction traffic;
•   full details of temporary arrangements to safeguard pedestrian movements
during the construction period;
•   a safety assessment to show how the safety of the residents along the B9138
will be secured during the construction period;
•   full details of any temporary access;
•   measures to be put in place to prevent material being deposited on the public
road;
•   traffic management measures to be put in place during works including any
specific instructions to drivers;
•   full details of construction traffic routes from/to the site, including any
proposals for temporary haul routes and routes to be used for the disposal of
any materials from the site; and
•   a programme of monitoring for all routes identified within the CTMP during
construction will be required. 
Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development in terms of the arrangements
to manage traffic during construction works at the site. 
6. If the CTMP as required under condition 5 confirms that construction traffic is
required to use the B9138, no development shall take place on the northern area of
the site until evidence of a satisfactory Wear and Tear Agreement has been
submitted to and agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in consultation with the
Roads Authority.  The scope of the Wear and Tear Agreement shall be agreed with the
Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority and shall include a
condition survey of the network undertaken jointly by the developer and a
representative from the Council. The survey shall include the full extent of the agreed
construction traffic route(s) (within Moray) between the site and the ‘A’ class road
network. In addition, the Wear and Tear Agreement shall also include condition
surveys of all roads identified as ‘unsuitable’ which must be agreed with the Planning
Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority as a part of condition 5. 
Reason: To mitigate the potential risks from damage to the public road occurring
during the construction phase of the development. 
7. If the CTMP as required under condition 5 confirms that construction traffic is
required to use the B9138, no development shall take place on the northern area of
the site until evidence of a financial guarantee or bond or suitable equivalent and a
Wear and Tear Agreement have been put in place to ensure the repair of the public
road serving the site in the event that the road is not maintained in a safe condition
during the construction phase of the development and to restore the road to its pre-
development condition within 1 year of the development becoming operational has
been submitted to and agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority.   For
the avoidance of doubt the agreement shall cover the section of the B9138 Marypark
- Blacksboat Road which runs eastwards to the A95 from a possible site access
location, as a minimum and all roads identified as ‘unsuitable’ as in condition 1
above.
Page 9

Page 10

Reason: To mitigate the potential risks from damage to the public road occurring
during the construction phase of the development.
8. If the CTMP as required under condition 5 confirms that construction traffic is
required to use the B9138, prior to the commencement of any part of the
development, the following must be submitted for approval in writing of the Planning
Authority, in consultation with the Roads Authority:
a) Details of an Assessment of the adequacy of the existing passing places along
the B9138 Marypark - Blacksboat Road for the increased HGV construction
traffic, including the distances between the existing passing places. The
assessment should identify the improvements required for the existing passing
places to provide a passing width of 6m over a 20m length with 10 metre tapers
at each end. Third party land may be required to meet the required standard.
Adjacent Passing places should be intervisible and have a maximum spacing
not exceeding 150m.
b) Details of an assessment of the structural integrity of the road pavement to
demonstrate that the selected roads are capable of sustaining the level of
development traffic generated during construction. The assessment should
identify any strengthening and/or improvements where required for the existing
road pavement to accommodate the anticipated construction traffic.
Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
details.
Reason: To ensure an acceptable development in road safety terms through the
provision of details currently lacking from the submission.
9. If the CTMP as required under condition 5 confirms that construction traffic is
required to use the B9138, no development shall take place on the northern area of
the site until:
i. a detailed drawing (scale 1:500 or 1:1000 which shall also include details to
demonstrate control of the land through evidence of ownership or provision of
third party agreement) showing the visibility splay 2.4 metres by 120 metres in
both directions at the access onto the B9138, with all boundaries set back to a
position behind the required visibility splay, and a schedule of maintenance for
the splay area has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as
Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority;
ii. thereafter the visibility splay shall be provided in accordance with the approved
drawing prior to any works commencing (except for those works associated
with the provision of the visibility splay); and
iii. thereafter the visibility splay shall be maintained at all times free from any
obstruction exceeding 0.6 metres above the level of the carriageway in
accordance with the agreed schedule of maintenance.
Reason: To enable drivers of vehicles leaving/entering the site to have a clear view
over a length of road sufficient to allow safe exit/entry, in the interests of road safety
Page 10

Page 11

for the proposed development and other road users. 
10. If the CTMP as required under condition 5 confirms that construction traffic is
required to use the B9138, prior to the commencement of construction and
deliveries:
a)   The proposed new vehicular access on to the B9138 Marypark - Blacksboat
Road shall be developed to accommodate vehicle swept paths and have a
maximum gradient of 1:20 measured for the first 5.0m from the edge of the
public carriageway. The first 15m of the access track, measured from the edge
of the public road, shall be constructed to the Moray Council specification and
surfaced with bituminous macadam. 
b)   A 50m length of Hot Rolled Asphalt shall be provided on the full width of the
public carriageway of B9138 centred of the proposed development access. 
c)   All suspensive works required and approved by conditions 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 must
be completed in accordance with the approved plans. Any works undertaken
are to be permanent for the duration of the operation of the development
unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Roads Authority. 
Thereafter, the development shall be completed in accordance with the approved
details. 
Reason: The provision of details currently lacking and in order to ensure that
acceptable infrastructure is provided on the route to/from the development in the
interests of road safety. 
11. Prior to the first use of the development hereby approved, an Operational Traffic
Management Plan (OTMP) shall be submitted to, and approved by the Council as
Planning Authority, in consultation with Roads Authority. Thereafter, all operational
traffic associated with the development shall conform to the requirements of the
agreed Plan. For the avoidance of doubt the OTMP shall include as a minimum the
following information:
•   Exact details and locations of off-takers/distilleries that will receive the
hydrogen produced at the development hereby approved;
•   Full details of the traffic routes used by the vehicles to access the off-
takers/distilleries;
•   Number of vehicle movements by category per day for each of the identified
traffic routes;
•   Assessment of the suitability of the traffic routes in terms of existing
constraints (i.e.: narrow road widths, weight restrictions on bridges, limited
facilities for passing vehicles etc);
•   Identify and assess the impacts from the additional traffic on the identified
routes which would be used to access the off-takers or distilleries;
•   Proposals to mitigate the negative impacts from the additional traffic;
•   A programme to mitigate the identified/agreed negative impacts after
consultation with the relevant stakeholders, including local community
Page 11

Page 12

representatives; 
•   A programme of monitoring of vehicle movements for all routes identified
within the OTMP, details of which shall be made available to the Council, as
Planning Authority, where requested; 
•   Details on how the OTMP will be implemented to ensure drivers comply with its
requirements; and
•   Measures for regular review (including timescales) of the OTMP with the
Council, as Planning Authority and Roads Authority. 
Thereafter all measures identified in the agreed OTMP shall be provided prior to the
plant becoming operational and all operational traffic shall comply with the Plan. 
Reason: To ensure an acceptable form of development in terms of the arrangements
to mitigate adverse impacts of traffic during the operational phase of the
development 
12. No development shall commence until the following details for the provision of 2
Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations have been submitted for approval by the
Planning Authority in consultation with the Roads Authority:
•   A detailed drawing (scale 1:200) showing the type and specifications of the
proposed EV charging units to serve minimum of 4 spaces with a minimum
power output of 22Kw (Rapid Charger). EV charging unit is to be connected to
an appropriate electricity supply and should include details (written proposals
and plans) to confirm the provision of the necessary cabling, ducting, and
consumer units capable of supporting the future charging unit. 
Thereafter the EV charging facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
approved details prior to the development becoming operational and maintained for
use thereafter unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning Authority in
consultation with the Roads Authority. 
Reason: In the interests of an acceptable form of development and the provision of
infrastructure to support the use of low carbon transport, through the provision of
details currently lacking from the submission. 
13. No water shall be permitted to drain or loose material be carried onto the public
footway/carriageway. 
Reason: To ensure the safety and free flow of traffic on the public road and access to
the site by minimising the road safety impact from extraneous material and surface
water in the vicinity of the new access. 
14. Prior to the first use or completion of the Hydrogen Plant, whichever is the sooner,
Car and Disabled parking spaces as shown in Updated Site Layout Drawing No MM-
100112408-PL-DR-0001 (Rev C) shall be provided in accordance with the approved
details. Thereafter, the parking spaces shall be retained and available for use for the
lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Planning
Page 12

Page 13

Authority. 
Reason: To ensure the permanent availability of the level of parking necessary for
employees/visitors/others in the interests of an acceptable development and road
safety. 
15. Prior to development commencing, a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan shall
be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as Planning Authority. This
shall be prepared in accordance with section 5.4 of the approved “Nature Positive
Biodiversity Report” and document number SPHY-X-00-01-YY-RP-0066 dated 18
June 2025, and demonstrate how biodiversity enhancement measures will be
delivered and maintained as part of the development hereby approved. Thereafter
these measures shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the approved
details, unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority. 
Reason: To ensure the provision of biodiversity enhancement, in accordance with
National Planning Framework 4 Policy 3 – Biodiversity and Moray Local Development
Plan 2020 Policy EP2. 
16. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in full accordance with the
approved “Community Wealth Building Plan” (Document Number SPHY-S-00-02-HS-
PL-0011) dated 14 February 2025, including all recommended monitoring and
reporting to be agreed with the Council, as Planning Authority, as detailed in section
3.2.2. 
Reason: To ensure the Community Wealth Building Plan is implemented in
accordance with the approved detailed in line with the requirements of National
Planning Framework 4 Policy 25 – Community wealth building. 
17. No development shall commence unless a detailed Construction Environment
Management Plan (CEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the
Council, as Planning Authority in consultation with NatureScot and the
Environmental Health Manager. The CEMP shall be based on the approved Outline
Construction Environment Management Plan (document number SPHY-X-00-01-YY-
RP-0066) dated 18 February 2025 and incorporate all recommended mitigation
measures as outlined in the plan, as well as the construction phase mitigation
measures as detailed in the approved EIA Report Chapter 19 – Conclusion and
Schedule of Mitigation (document number: SPHY-S-00-02-HS-RP-0109). Thereafter
the development shall be constructed in accordance with the approved CEMP. 
Reason: In order to minimise the impacts of the development upon the environment
and amenity of the surrounding area. 
18. Notwithstanding the external finishes as detailed on the following approved plans:
•   Northern Electrolyser Building SW and NE Elevations (drawing no. MML-
100112408-DR-A-3200 Rev C);
•   Northern Electrolyser Building SE and NW Elevations (drawing no. MML-
Page 13

Page 14

100112408-DR-A-3201 Rev C);
•   Southern Electrolyser Building SE and NW Elevations (drawing no. MML-
100112408-DR-A-6200 Rev B);
•   Southern Electrolyser Building NE and SW Elevations (drawing no. MML-
100112408-DR-A-6201 Rev B); and
•   Compressor Building Elevations (drawing no. MML-100112408-S-DR-0002 Rev
B),
no development shall commence until a revised scheme of external material finishes
to the walls and roofs of these buildings has been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Council, as Planning Authority. These finishes shall be either dark
brown or black cladding. Thereafter the development shall be completed in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing. 
Reason: To reduce visual intrusion of the buildings hereby approved, in the interests
of the character and landscape of the surrounding area. 
19. No development shall commence until a scheme detailing the timing for the
provision and long term maintenance of the landscaping measures identified in the
Landscape Mitigation Plan (drawing number MML-100112408-L-DR-0001 Rev D
hereby approved) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as
Planning Authority. This shall include advance planting of landscaping on the
frontage of the site along the A95 road. For the avoidance of doubt, the dry stone
walls on site shall be maintained in perpetuity as part of this scheme. Thereafter all
measures shall be provided in full accordance with the approved details, unless
otherwise agreed. 
Reason: To ensure all landscape measures (incorporating biodiversity
enhancement) are provided timeously and maintained thereafter, in the interests of
the character of the surrounding area. 
20. Construction works (including vehicle movements) associated with the development
audible at any point on the boundary of any noise sensitive dwelling shall be
permitted between 0800 - 1900 hours, Monday to Friday and 0800 - 1300 hours on
Saturdays only, and at no other times out with these permitted hours (including
National Holidays). The above construction hours shall apply, unless otherwise
agreed in writing with the Planning Authority, and where so demonstrated
exceptional operational constraints require limited periods of construction works to
be undertaken out with the permitted construction hours. 
Reason: To protect local residents from noise nuisance in ensuring the construction
phase is restricted within permitted hours. 
21. All surface water drainage measures hereby approved shall be provided in
accordance with the approved details prior to first use or completion of the
development (whichever is the soonest). 
Reason: To ensure timeous provision of surface water drainage, in the interests of
Page 14

Page 15

flood risk and the surrounding environment.
22. Prior to any development commencing, an operational lighting plan shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Council, as Planning Authority in
consultation with the Environmental Health Manager. This shall include measures to
minimise light pollution from the development hereby approved. Thereafter the
lighting shall be provided in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing with the Council, as Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure the lighting from the proposal does not adversely affect the
character of the surrounding area.
Reason(s) for Decision
The Council’s reason(s) for making this decision are:-
The proposed development is regarded as an acceptable departure from Policy EP3 –
Special Landscape Areas of the Moray Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP). This is
because the facility would produce hydrogen as a renewable energy source, intended to
support the decarbonisation of local industry, particularly the whisky distilling sector.
While the proposal is not directly linked to distilling operations, it would provide a
sustainable energy supply to the industry. Given the strong policy support for renewable
energy and climate action within National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and, as a material
consideration the Moray Hydrogen Strategy, the proposal can be considered a justified
exception to Policy EP3. Whilst the site boundary for this proposal is adjacent to the
settlement boundary of Marypark (as defined in the MLDP), it is also an acceptable
departure from MLDP Policy EP6 – Settlement Boundaries because of the separation of the
hydrogen production facility’s plant and buildings from the settlement boundary, ensuring
the proposal is visually separate and not viewed as an extension to the settlement of
Marypark. In all other respects, the development is consistent with the provisions of the
development plan - namely NPF4 and the MLDP - and there are no material considerations
that would suggest otherwise.
Moray Council's assessment of the information presented within the EIA Report and other
environmental information in relation to the development is contained within the
Committee Report It is considered that the development will not have any significant
impacts on the environment.
Moray Council is satisfied that other effects/issues can be addressed by way of mitigation.
A detailed description of the proposed mitigation is contained within the EIA Report and
the Committee Report.
All documents can be viewed online at https://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning and
searching using case reference number 25/00203/EIA.
Page 15

Page 16

List of Informatives: 
THE DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT & BUILDING STANDARDS MANAGER has commented
that:- 
Please contact the Building Standards Duty Officer in order to ascertain whether a
Building Warrant will be required for these proposals between 2pm and 4pm or
telephone on 0300 1234561. No appointment is necessary. Alternatively e-mail
buildingstandards@moray.gov.uk 
An application for Hazardous Substances Consent will be required for the storage of
hydrogen at the site in accordance with the Planning (Hazardous Substances)
(Scotland) Act 1997. Please contact development.control@moray.gov.uk for further
advice on this matter. 
THE SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY has commented that:- 
Comments from the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are attached for your
information. 
THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MANAGER has commented that:- 
The premises will require to comply with the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974
and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. 
ABERDEENSHIRE COUNCIL ARCHAEOLOGY SERVICE has commented that:- 
Human Remains (Right of Sepulchre) 
The Right of Sepulchre under Scots Law means it is a criminal offence to disturb
human remains, and that any uncovered during development works, archaeological
excavation etc must be reported to the police or Procurator Fiscal's office
immediately, as well as the Council’s Archaeology Service. The finding of human
remains would not prohibit any proposed development works continuing but would
cause minor delay while the remains were investigated. 
TRANSPORT SCOTLAND has commented that:- 
The applicant should be informed that the granting of planning consent does not
carry with it the right to carry out works within the trunk road boundary and that
permission must be granted by Transport Scotland Roads Directorate. To obtain
permission to work within the trunk road boundary, contact the Route Manager
through the general contact number below. The Operating Company has
responsibility for co-ordination and supervision of works and after permission has
been granted it is the developer's contractor's responsibility to liaise with the
Operating Company during the construction period to ensure all necessary
permissions are obtained.
Page 16

Page 17

•   Route Manager: Area Manager (A95), Transport Scotland, 5th Floor, 177
Bothwell Street, Glasgow G2 7ER (0141 272 7100) 
•   Operating Company (North East): Amey, Caledonian House, West Kinfauns,
Perth (occr-northeast@amey.co.uk) 
Trunk Road modification works shall, in all respects, comply with the Design Manual
for Roads and Bridges and the Specification for Highway Works published by HMSO.
The developer shall issue a certificate to that effect, signed by the design
organisation. 
Trunk Road modifications shall, in all respects, be designed and constructed to
arrangements that comply with the Disability Discrimination Act: Good Practice
Guide for Roads published by Transport Scotland. The developer shall provide
written confirmation of this, signed by the design organisation. 
The road works which are required due to the above Conditions will require a Road
Safety Audit as specified by the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. 
Any trunk road works will necessitate a Minute of Agreement with the Trunk Roads
Authority prior to commencement. 
THE TRANSPORTATION MANAGER has commented that:- 
The applicant is obliged to apply for a road opening permit in accordance with
Section 56 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984.  Advice on this matter can be obtained
by emailing roads.permits@moray.gov.uk and reference to the following page on the
Council web site
Road Opening: http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_79860.html 
Planning consent does not carry with it the right to construct a new road or any part
of a road. In accordance with Section 21 of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1984
Construction Consent for new roads (includes passing places), that will form part of
the public road will be required.  Advice on this matter can be obtained by emailing
Transport.Develop@moray.gov.uk and reference to the following pages on the
Council web site. 
Checklist:  http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68812.pdf
RCC:  http://www.moray.gov.uk/moray_standard/page_65638.html
Specification  http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file68813.pdf 
The provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers and/or associated infrastructure shall
be provided in accordance with Moray Council guidelines. Cabling between charging
units and parking spaces must not cross or obstruct the public road including
footways. Infrastructure provided to enable EV charging must be retained for this
purpose for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Page 17

Page 18

Planning Authority. Guidance on Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging requirements can be
found at: http://www.moray.gov.uk/downloads/file134860.pdf 
Public utility apparatus may be affected by this proposal.  Contact the appropriate
utility service in respect of any necessary utility service alterations which have to be
carried out at the expense of the developer. 
Any existing ditch, watercourse or drain under the site access shall be piped using a
suitable diameter of pipe. Advice on these matters can be obtained by emailing
road.maint@moray.gov.uk 
No building materials/scaffolding/builder’s skip shall obstruct the public road
(including footpaths) without permission from the Roads Authority. 
The applicant shall free and relieve the Roads Authority from any claims arising out of
their operations on the road or extension to the road. 
The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that surface/ground water does not
run from the public road into their property. 
The applicants shall be responsible for any necessary diversion of any utilities or
drainage present at the locations where works are to be undertaken. 
The applicants shall meet all costs of improvements to the road infrastructure,
which are required as a result of the development. 
No retaining structures or embankments shall be constructed along the edge of the
road, whether retaining the public road or ground adjoining the public road without
prior consultation and agreement of the Roads Authority. 
LIST OF PLANS AND DRAWINGS SHOWING THE DEVELOPMENT
Reference No. Version No. Title/Description
MML-100112408-A-DR-7100 B DNO building roof and floor plan and sections
MML-100112408-C-DR-3101 B Drainage details sheet 1
MML-100112408-C-DR-3102 B Drainage details sheet 2
MML-100112408-C-DR-3103 B Drainage details sheet 3
MML-100112408-C-DR-3104 B Drainage details sheet 4
MML-100112408-C-DR-3105 B Drainage details sheet 5
MML-100112408-C-DR-3106 B Drainage details sheet 6
MML-100112408-C-DR-3107 B Drainage details sheet 7
MML-100112408-C-DR-3108 B Drainage details sheet 8
MML-100112408-C-DR-1001 C Proposed ground levels
MML-100112408-C-DR-2001 D Hard landscaping plan
Page 18

Page 19

MML-100112408-L-DR-0001 D Landscape mitigation plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-4200 C MV substation elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-4100 C MV substation floor plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-4101 C MV substation roof plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-4300 C MV substation sections
MML-100112408-DR-A-3201 C Northern electrolyser building SE and NW elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-3100 C Northern electrolyser building floor plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-3101 C Northern electrolyser building roof plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-3300 C Northern electrolyser building sections
MML-100112408-DR-A-3200 C Northern electrolyser building SW and NE elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-0002 C Proposed location plan
MML-100112408-W-DR-0002 C Raw water and effluent discharge pipes longitudinal
sections
MML-100112408-W-DR-0001 C Raw water and effluent discharge pipes plan
MML-100112408-C-DR-4001 C External works - security fence general arrangement
MML-100112408-DR-A-0200 C Site elevation - sheet 1 of 2
MML-100112408-DR-A-0201 C Site elevation - sheet 2 of 2
MML-100112408-DR-A-0300 C Site sections - sheet 1 of 2
MML-100112408-DR-A-0301 C Site sections - sheet 2 of 2
MML-100112408-DR-A-6100 B Southern electrolyser building - floor plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-6201 B Southern electrolyser building - northeast and
southwest elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-6101 B Southern electrolyser building - roof plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-6200 B Southern electrolyser building - southeast and
northwest elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-6300 B Southern electrolyser building - sections
MML-100112408-C-DR-2011 C External works - swept path analysis - sheet 1
MML-100112408-C-DR-2102 B Civil engineering - typical construction details - sheet
2
MML-100112408-C-DR-2012 C External works - vehicle swept path - sheet 2
MML-100112408-C-DR-2013 B External works - vehicle swept path - sheet 3
MML-100112408-C-DR-2101 B Civil engineering - typical construction details - sheet
1
MML-100112408-C-DR-2103 D Civil engineering - typical fencing details - sheet 1
MML-100112408-C-DR-2104 D Civil engineering - typical fencing details - sheet 2
MML-100112408-C-DR-2105 B Civil engineering - typical fencing details - sheet 3
MML-100112408-DR-A-2200 C Warehouse/workshop building - elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-2100 C Warehouse/workshop building - floor and roof plans
MML-100112408-DR-A-2300 C Warehouse/workshop building - sections
MML-100112408-DR-A-5100  B Security cabin - plans, sections and elevations
Page 19

Page 20

MML-100112408-W-DR-0003 B Raw water booster station details
MML-100112408-W-DR-0004 A Raw water and effluent discharge pipes kiosk details 2
MML-100112408-DR-A-0002 C Location plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-1200 C Admin and control building elevations
MML-100112408-DR-A-1100 C Admin and control building floor plans
MML-100112408-DR-A-1101 C Admin and control building roof plan
MML-100112408-DR-A-1300 C Admin and control building sections
MML-100112408-S-DR-0002 B Compressor building elevations
MML-100112408-S-DR-0001 C Compressor building floor and roof plan
MML-100112408-A-DR-7200 B DNO building elevations
MML-100112408-C-DR-2001 D Hard landscaping layout 
MML-100112408-C-DR-3001 D Drainage general arrangement
MM-100112408-PL-DR-0001 C Site layout drawing 
Page 20

Page 21

Plans, drawings and other material submitted to the local authority
are protected by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
(section 47). You may only use material which is downloaded and/
or printed for consultation purposes, to compare current
applications with previous schemes and to check whether
developments have been completed in accordance with approved
plans.
Further copies must not be made without the prior permission of
the copyright owner.
Maps shown in the Planning Committee Report can only be used
for the purposes of the Planning Committee. Any other use risks
infringing Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil
proceedings. Maps produced within this Planning Committee
Report can only be reproduced with the express permission of the
Moray Council and other Copyright holders. This permission must
be granted in advance. PLANNING APPLICATION
COMMITTEE SITE PLAN
Site Address:
Land South Of Marypark 
Ballindalloch 
Planning Application Ref Number: 
25/00203/EIA 
Location Plan
Applicant Name:
Storegga
Page 21

Page 22

Location
plan
Page 22

Page 23

Site
plan
16/01664/APP
Page 23

Page 24

Site
elevations
1
16/
Page 24

Page 25

Site
elevations
2
16/
Page 25

Page 26

Site
sections
1
16/
Page 26

Page 27

Site
sections
2
16/
Page 27

Page 28

W
ater Abstraction
and
Discharge
Pipes
16/
Page 28

Page 29

Landscape
plan
16/
Page 29

Page 30

Visual—
Daytim
e
16/
Page 30

Page 31

Visual—
night
16/
Page 31

Page 32

16/
Page 32

Page 33

Photo
1
16/
Page 33

Page 34

Photo
2
16/
Page 34

Page 35

Photo
3
16/
Page 35

Page 36

Photo
4
16/
Page 36

Page 37

Photo
5
16/
Page 37

Page 38

Photo
6
16/
Page 38

Page 39

PLANNING APPLICATION: 25/00203/EIA 
In the event that a recommendation on this planning application is overturned the
Committee is reminded of the advice contained on the front page of the agenda for Reports
on Applications 
1.   THE PROPOSAL 
•   Planning permission is sought for the construction of a 70 MWe electrolytic
hydrogen production facility with associated infrastructure.
•   The facility would produce hydrogen via a process called electrolysis, which
uses electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. 
•   The proposed site can be split into two sections, the main hydrogen
production facility area would lie to the south east of the A95 trunk road,
whilst water abstraction and discharge infrastructure would lie to the north
west of the A95 trunk road and extend to the River Spey.
•   The south eastern section where the hydrogen production facility is
proposed would contain:
•   The main platform for the electrolyser and plant including a 20 m high
stack for flaring hydrogen (clear burn).
•   A smaller occupied buildings platform housing a control building and
workshop/warehouse, and two tanks.
•   Accesses from the A95 and car parking.
•   Bunds containing cellular attention units with 10,000 m3 of water
storage, and tanks containing 2,500 m3 of water storage.
•   Two SuDS/water detention ponds to the northern corner of this section
of the site with capacity of 5,000 m3.
•   Landscaping and security and deer fencing.
•   The north western portion of the site would contain two pipelines running
from the River Spey to the hydrogen plant. Within this area boreholes would
abstract ground water. Treated waste water would also be discharged to the
River Spey. Two small kiosks housing pumps would be sited within this area,
whilst an outfall would be sited at the River Spey, but other than this all
infrastructure would be contained underground. 
•   The proposed facility would operate 24 hours a day / 7 days a week and is
expected to produce up to 1.2 tonnes of hydrogen per hour. This would
equate to filling 30 to 35 tube trailers daily to supply hydrogen to customers.
•   500 m3 of water per day is required to supply the facility to produce hydrogen
(maximum extraction), with 370 m3 of water per day required for
manufacturing hydrogen (maximum throughput). Any additional abstraction
not used would be stored on site during periods of high flow in the River
Spey.
•   67 m3 of treated waste water per day would be discharged to the River Spey. 
Page 39

Page 40

•   This proposal is a development that requires Environmental Impact
Assessment and is accordingly accompanied by an EIA Report. 
2.   THE SITE 
•   The site covers an area of 41.12 ha, and is split in two sections by the A95
Granish to Keith trunk road.
•   The north western portion of the site is bounded by the A95 to the south east
and forms a corridor running from the A95 to the River Spey to the south of
Blacksboat Bridge. This part of the site also takes in an area of agricultural
land adjacent to the River Spey. 
•   The area to the south of the A95 is more rectilinear and incorporates
agricultural land that is bounded by woodland to the east and south, with
further agricultural land to the west. This area has been used as pasture and
contains a number of stone dykes.
•   The River Spey which lies adjacent to the northern boundary of the site is
designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Area of
Conservation (SAC).
•   The site is within an area designated as the Spey Valley Special Landscape
Area in the Moray Local Development Plan 2020. 
3.   HISTORY 
24/00457/PAN – Proposal of Application Notice for this proposal. Moray Council
responded on 5 April 2025 advising that no further consultation was necessary
over and above that specified by the applicant. 
24/00458/SCN – EIA Screening Opinion sought for this proposal. Moray Council
adopted a screening opinion on 25 June 2024 requiring the proposed development
to be subject to Environmental Impact Assessment. 
24/00997/SCO – EIA Scoping Opinion sought for this proposal. Moray Council
responded agreeing the scope of the EIA proposed and provided input on this on
19 July 2024. 
4.   POLICIES 
National Planning Framework 4 
Policy 1 - Tackling the climate and nature crises
Policy 2 - Climate mitigation and adaptation
Policy 3 - Biodiversity
Policy 4 - Natural places
Policy 5 - Soils
Policy 6 - Forestry, woodland and trees
Policy 7 - Historic assets and places
Page 40

Page 41

Policy 11 - Energy
Policy 12 - Zero waste
Policy 13 - Sustainable transport
Policy 14 - Design, quality and place
Policy 18 - Infrastructure first
Policy 19 - Heating and cooling
Policy 20 - Blue and green infrastructure
Policy 22 - Flood risk
Policy 23 - Health and safety
Policy 24 - Digital Infrastructure
Policy 25 - Community wealth building
Policy 29 - Rural development 
Moray Local Development Plan 2020 
PP2 Sustainable Economic Growth
PP3 Infrastructure and Services
DP1 Development Principles
DP9 Renewable Energy
EP1 Natural Heritage Designation
EP2 Biodiversity
EP3 Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character
EP6 Settlement Boundaries
EP7 Forestry Woodland and Trees
EP8 Historic Environment
EP10 Listed Buildings
EP12 Management and Enhancement of the Water Environment
EP13 Foul Drainage
EP14 Pollution, Contamination & Hazards 
Other Material Considerations 
Moray Hydrogen Strategy – approved May 2022. 
5.   ADVERTISEMENTS 
•   Advertised for neighbour notification purposes, as a schedule 3
development and under the EIA regulations as an EIA development. 
6.   CONSULTATIONS 
SEPA – No objections. The area to the north of site is at risk of flooding and the
siting of underground plant will not raise ground levels. As this is essential
infrastructure, it is acceptable under NPF Policy 22 with regard to flood risk.
Hazardous Substances Consent will be required for storage of hydrogen on site in
excess of 2 tonnes. 
Page 41

Page 42

SEPA emphasise that the lack of objection to the planning application does not
represent final approval of the proposed groundwater abstractions, the discharge
of treated sewage or elements of the development crossing a watercourse (above
or below ground) needed as part of the proposed development. These activities
fall under the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations
2011 and will need to go through the relevant CAR process. 
SEPA note that based on the assessment carried out by the applicant it appears
that the in-river Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) would be unlikely to be
compromised. This is critical in determining whether an activity can be authorised
or not. 
NatureScot – Following clarification provided by the applicant NatureScot
withdrew their holding objection to the above application. However, because the
proposal could affect internationally important natural heritage interests,
NatureScot object to this proposal unless it is made subject to a condition so that
the development is constructed in accordance with a Construction Environment
Management Plan to be agreed in advance with NatureScot. 
Scottish Water – No objections. There are no Scottish Water drinking water
catchments or water abstraction sources, which are designated as Drinking Water
Protected Areas under the Water Framework Directive, in the area that may be
affected by the proposed activity. 
Historic Environment Scotland – No objections, the proposal does not raise
historic environment issues of national significance. 
Transport Scotland – No objections subject to conditions requiring the proposed
access to the trunk road to be provided in full prior to any works commencing, and
no drainage connections to the trunk road drainage system. 
Spey Fisheries Board – Object. Concerns raised about the proposed hydrogen
facility’s impact on the River Spey. As a statutory body responsible for protecting
and improving fisheries, particularly Atlantic salmon and sea trout, the Board note
the river is already heavily abstracted and suffering from low flows and rising
temperatures—conditions that are detrimental to these endangered species. 
While the Board acknowledges the importance of transitioning to net zero and
supports efforts to combat climate change, it questions the viability and necessity
of the proposed hydrogen plant. It notes that the River Spey already contributes to
zero-emission energy through existing water diversions and that there is no clear
evidence of local demand for hydrogen, particularly from distilleries. 
Key concerns include the daily abstraction of 500m³ of water from boreholes, the
potential impact on river flow and temperature during low water conditions, and
the effects of discharging minerals from the purification process on aquatic life
and weed growth. The Board also highlights the lack of clarity around water usage
prioritisation during droughts and the infrastructure demands for hydrogen
distribution.
Page 42

Page 43

Although the developer has proposed mitigation measures such as on-site water
storage and compliance with SEPA regulations, the Board believes these are
insufficient. It calls for the precautionary principle to be applied and insists that
more detailed environmental assessments are needed before the application can
be considered. 
Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology – No objections subject to condition
requiring archaeological mitigation that should take the form of archaeological
monitoring of any required ground investigation / Geotech trial/test pits and
archaeological trial trenching evaluation. All works must be undertaken by a
suitably qualified, CIfA-compliant, archaeological contractor. The trial trenching
evaluation can be undertaken pre or post-determination. Informative note
provided on human remains. 
Strategic Planning and Development - The development would help reduce
dependency on fossil fuels, lower greenhouse gas emissions, and support a just
transition in rural areas and is considered to comply with Policy 1. A carbon
assessment has demonstrated that the proposal minimises life cycle greenhouse
gas emissions as far as possible and the proposal is sited to adapt to current and
future climate risks in compliance with Policy 2. Policy 11 and DP9 provide
support in principle for low carbon-energy developments including hydrogen
production. Subject to conditions the proposal is considered to meet the
requirements of Policy 3 and EP2 to conserve, restore and enhance biodiversity.
Subject to conditions proposed by NatureScot in relation to protecting natural
assets and in respect of additional landscape mitigation proposed by the
Council’s Landscape Adviser the proposal is considered to comply with Policy 4.
A Community Wealth Building Plan (CWBP) has been submitted in support of the
application setting out how the proposal maximises local employment and skills
opportunities and stimulates local supply chain opportunities through
construction and operational stages of the development meeting the
requirements of Policy 11 and 25. However, the proposal is considered to be a
departure for policy EP3 as it is not a supported use within the Special Landscape
Area. The proposal is a departure from policy EP6 as the development boundary
lies immediately adjacent to the Marypark settlement boundary. 
Developer Obligations – No obligations sought. 
Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions in respect of limiting
construction hours to Mon-Fri 0800 – 1900 and Sat 0800 – 1300 (excluding public
holidays) and provision of a Construction Environment Management Plan. 
Contaminated Land – No objections. 
Private Water Supplies – Refer to consultees with necessary geological,
hydrological and hydro-morphology expertise for input on the workings,
assumptions and modelling provided with application.  (NOTE – SEPA have
considered impacts of proposal on hydrology). 
Page 43

Page 44

Transportation Manager – No objections subject to conditions. Noted that the
proposal would be served by the A95 therefore Transport Scotland are the Trunk
Road Authority for that section of road. In respect of construction traffic, it is
noted that construction traffic may utilise the B9138 (Marypark to Blacksboat
Road). This is a narrow single-track road with passing places and in its current
condition is not suitable to accommodate the construction traffic associated with
the proposed development. Several passing places on B9138 are already in poor
condition due to extensive usage and would be further exacerbated if additional
HGVs are introduced on this section of road. Housing at Marypark has parking at
both sides of the road. This is a sensitive area in terms of introducing HGV traffic
and should be avoided to ensure the safety of the residents and to prevent
potential conflicts with parked vehicles.
Transportation does not recommend using this section of road for the
construction traffic associated with the proposed development. The details
regarding the finalised construction access routes and associated construction
vehicle numbers are not available at this stage. Therefore, a S96 Wear and Tear
agreement, along with sufficient road improvements such as passing place
provision and road strengthening, will be sought as planning conditions attached
to this response. Additionally, a safety assessment would also be required to
show how the safety of the residents along the B9138 will be ensured during the
construction period. This assessment will need to be submitted as part of a
Construction Traffic Management Plan.
With regard to operation of the facility, the Transport Statement (TS) provided with
the application notes that the hydrogen will be transported to nearby off-takers in
the distillery sector by existing road network. A maximum of 70 operational HGV
movements are anticipated daily. According to section 5.3.2 of the TS, the
locations of potential off-takers within the distillery sector are still to be
confirmed. Additionally, Table 5.7 (operational traffic distribution) of the TS
indicates that operational HGV traffic is not anticipated on the B9138. However,
there is a possibility for the operational traffic generated from the proposed
facility may use the B9138 and B9102 and other local roads in the area to access
distilleries such as Tamdhu, Cardhu, Knockando along with those in the Forres
area. The use of local B and C class roads in the area is the shortest way to access
these distilleries rather than using the A95 and A941. In the absence of exact
details of potential ‘off-takers’ within the distillery sector, it would be difficult to
predict the impact on minor local road network and identify any measures to
mitigate the negative impacts at this stage. It is therefore recommended that a
planning condition for an Operational Traffic Management Plan (OTMP) to address
and mitigate the negative impacts during any operational period of this proposed
development is sought to address this current lack of information.
Conditions recommended in respect of the above matters, as well as provision of
parking including EV charging.
Moray Flood Risk Management – No objections subject to condition ensuring
surface water drainage is in place prior to first use/completion.
Page 44

Page 45

Speyside Community Council – Object. The site lies within a highly sensitive
environmental area, designated as a Special Landscape Area, SSSI, and SAC. The
development would irreversibly alter the rural character of the land, which is
currently used for productive agriculture, and would pose a threat to protected
species and habitats. The environmental assessments rely heavily on desktop
studies rather than fieldwork. 
Concerns raised at the economic justification for the project. The claimed job
creation figures are inconsistent and lack of clarity about local employment
benefits. The site is not designated for industrial use in the Moray Local
Development Plan 2020 or the Moray Hydrogen Strategy 2022. Furthermore, the
facility would be powered by grid electricity rather than renewable sources,
undermining its classification as a ‘green’ hydrogen project. 
The objection also highlights the potential impact of this proposal on air quality,
noise levels, and traffic. The construction and operational phases are expected to
generate significant vehicle movements, contributing to pollution and safety
concerns on the A95. The Community Council is particularly concerned by the
proposed abstraction of 500,000 litres of water per day from the River Spey, with
an adverse impact on aquatic species and the broader ecosystem. The proposal
lacks climate resilience and fails to consider cumulative impacts on water
resources. 
Additional concerns raised include the absence of suitable public transport for
employees, the risk of accidents due to the site's proximity to a distillery, and
inadequate security measures. The objection concludes that the proposal would
harm the environment, tourism, and local communities without delivering clear
benefits, and the site is unsuitable for a hydrogen plant. As such the application
should be refused. 
Lennox Community Council – Concerns raised of the impact of this proposal on
the River Spey. Recent increases in flooding and sedimentation of the River Spey
in their area coincides with increased water abstraction upstream. Further
abstraction will worsen these issues by reducing river flow and its ability to flush
sediment out to sea. 
Sediment build-up will have environmental consequences, including riverbank
erosion, loss of native vegetation, and changes to the water table on adjacent
farmland. These changes have already led to higher flood risks and altered river
dynamics. 
The environmental assessment lacks local insight and relies too heavily on
desktop studies. Concerns raised for protected species such as freshwater pearl
mussels and salmon, both of which are vulnerable to changes in water levels and
quality. 
Innes Community Council – Observations provided covering environmental,
hydrological, and safety concerns. The abstraction of large volumes of water from
the River Spey catchment via boreholes will have serious and potentially
Page 45

Page 46

irreversible impacts on the river’s ecology, water table, and its environmental
designations. The River Spey is designated an SAC, SSSI, and part of a Ramsar
site, supporting species such as Atlantic salmon and freshwater pearl mussels.
The proposed abstraction will exacerbate flooding due to sediment build-up,
reduce water quality, and harm these protected species and habitats. 
Concerns raised regarding the methodology used in the environmental
assessments, noting that borehole trials were conducted during a wet period
(November), which does not reflect the drier months when water scarcity is more
likely. The long-term and cumulative impacts of water abstraction have not been
adequately studied or disclosed, especially in relation to existing extractions
within the catchment. There is a risk from discharging “foreign” water—drawn
from boreholes and returned to the river—at potentially harmful temperatures and
with altered chemical properties, which could further endanger aquatic life. 
Further concerns are raised about sedimentation and riverbed changes caused by
reduced water flow, which have already led to increased flooding and erosion in
areas such as Garmouth. The response provides detailed observations on how
sediment build-up has altered river dynamics, reduced agricultural productivity,
and increased the risk of flooding to homes and infrastructure. It is argued that
these changes are already visible and will be worsened by the proposed
development. 
There would be a potential adverse impact on freshwater pearl mussels, a highly
protected species that relies on clean, fast-flowing, well-oxygenated water and a
symbiotic relationship with salmonid fish. There are declining fish populations.
Rising water temperatures and increased sedimentation are already threatening
the mussels’ survival, and the proposed development could accelerate decline of
these species. 
Concerns raised regarding the increased traffic on the A95. They highlight the
dangers posed by heavy goods vehicles (HGVs) entering and exiting the site at a
high-speed stretch of road, particularly given the proximity of a bend and limited
visibility. A deceleration lane should be constructed to mitigate some of these
risks. 
This application fails to provide sufficient scientific evidence or long-term
environmental safeguards. Innes Community Council believe the proposal poses
a significant threat to the River Spey’s ecology, local communities, and traditional
industries such as agriculture and tourism. While not opposed to hydrogen
production in principle, coastal locations - as identified in Moray Council’s
Hydrogen Strategy - are more appropriate sites for such developments. The
response notes Innes Community Council has submitted a petition to the Scottish
Parliament calling for a moratorium on freshwater-based hydrogen production
until further scientific studies are completed. 
Page 46

Page 47

7.   OBJECTIONS-REPRESENTATIONS 
NOTE: Following the determination of this application, name and address details
will be/have been removed (i.e. redacted) in accordance with the General Data
Protection Regulations (paragraph 3 of Minute, Planning & Regulatory Services
Committee 16 September 2014). 
This application has attracted representations from 391 individuals, 381 of which
are objections, 2 neutral and 8 in support. A list of names and addresses of
persons/parties that submitted representations is in Appendix 1. 
All representations have been read and where material, given appropriate
consideration prior to the recommendation being finalised. Given the number of
representations, the material grounds for objection/representation are
summarised below. Comments that are not material considerations have also
been summarised. The grounds for objection/representations have been generally
grouped into the topic heading below to aid reference. The main issues raised in
the representations can be summarised as follows: 
OBJECTION COMMENTS 
Location of Proposal
•   This proposal is in the wrong location and there are better sites.
•   There are alternative sites near to the River Spey in built up areas or adjacent
to industrial areas, these should be developed in lieu of this site.
•   The proposal should be located in coastal locations for hydrogen
production, as identified in Moray Council’s Hydrogen Strategy report, where
seawater could be used.
•   This proposal should be located in or near Elgin, as it is where most
distilleries are located, along with distillery head offices and the bulk of
employees live there too, and would minimise travel. 
•   This proposal should not be built on green land in our region. 
•   There are plenty of brownfield sites in areas such as Fraserburgh or
Peterhead that are more suitable for a project such as this, located away
from rivers and could use desalination for seawater. 
•   Hydrogen is more suited to heavy industry such as steel, fertilizer production
etc. and should be located close to their intended markets.
•   It is acknowledged that the development proposal might contribute to
helping Scotland achieve net-zero. This would be a material consideration in
the determination of the application. This benefit could be secured from
development of the proposal on another site including that at Rothes-
Drumbain. Development at that site would potentially cause far less damage
than development at Ballindalloch-Marypark.
•   The proposal would be better sited adjacent to an existing distillery to avoid
need for transportation of hydrogen.
•   It should be built on outskirts of city, near motorways rather than the rural
countryside. 
Page 47

Page 48

•   The proposal would be better suited to another area of the country with
better infrastructure and less wildlife.
•   This should be built in the central belt (e.g. Grangemouth) to be close to
industry that would benefit from the hydrogen. 
•   This proposal should be offshore and co-located with wind turbines. 
•   This proposal is more suited to a brownfield site.
•   In respect of policies 1 and 2 of the National Planning Framework 4, it is
imperative that an updated ‘Carbon Balance Report’, be submitted which
considers a whole life carbon assessment of the project versus a direct
electrical connection for distilleries as a potential alternative to the
proposals. In the absence of this information, the need for this project is not
justified and so, the project clearly fails the ‘locational need’ test prescribed
within policy DP5 of the Moray Local Development Plan.
•   The applicant previously advised the development's location was initially
selected for its proximity to a gas line and the Glenfarclas electricity sub-
station. However, the gas line is unsuitable for hydrogen use, necessitating
road transportation. The applicant proposes direct power as a more efficient
alternative to fossil fuels for the distilleries. Consequently, these locational
requirements are now obsolete. 
Comments (PO): The application is accompanied by a locational justification. The
Environmental Impact Assessment Report outlines the site selection process
undertaken by the applicant. 25 potential locations were identified and narrowed
down to 12, and then to 4 shortlisted sites: Craigellachie, Rothes, Glenfarclas to
Glenlivet Pipeline Area (including Marypark), and Tamdhu to Dailuaine Pipeline
Area. 
Each site was assessed using a scoring matrix based on criteria including land
availability, access to power and water, wastewater discharge options, and
proximity to hydrogen offtakers. Environmental and planning considerations were
also factored in, including air quality, biodiversity, landscape impact, and flood
risk. 
Further detailed assessments led to the elimination of several sites due to
practical constraints including access, landowner issues, and infrastructure
challenges. The applicant concludes this site offers favourable topography,
proximity to existing infrastructure, and fewer environmental constraints, making
it the most viable option for the hydrogen production facility. 
The applicant also considered designated industrial land in the MLDP, however no
land was considered suitable for the needs of this proposal particularly in terms of
land required, proximity to water supply and discharge, and close proximity of
housing. 
The justification given by the applicant is considered acceptable, as per the
evaluation in the observations section below. 
Several representations have indicated that the hydrogen production facility could
potentially be located at various sites within the UK. However, locations outside
Page 48

Page 49

Moray are not being considered in this process, as evaluating alternative sites
across the entire country would be impractical within the scope of this site
selection exercise. Additionally, given that this proposal aims to supply hydrogen
to distilleries in Speyside, a location within Moray in proximity to distilleries is
deemed appropriate and feasible. 
Use of salt water in the production of hydrogen would require additional treatment
however it is an option. Nonetheless, the application as applied for must be
determined rather than considering alternative, non-existent proposals. 
Impact on Amenity (Noise, Lighting, Odour, Privacy)
•   Adverse impact of noise from proposal on amenity of nearby houses.
•   Plant and equipment at proposed plant will result in unacceptable noise
levels that will impact on nearby residents.
•   The proposed pumping station will run 24 hours a day and impact residential
amenity in terms of noise and lighting. 
•   The NIA considers predicted noise levels as a moderate adverse when
considered against WHO levels of impact however this pays no regard to the
rural location of this site.  
•   Adverse impact of artificial lighting on nearby residents and wildlife.
•   Lack of detail of pumping station at halfway point of pipeline suggests it will
result in visual and audible intrusion.
•   Impact of proposal on privacy of adjacent neighbouring residents. 
•   Adverse impact of construction on local road network and amenity of wider
area.
•   Will impact on Speyside Way and its users in terms of noise.
•   Smell and odour.
•   Loss of privacy from increased HGV movements looking into windows. 
Comments (PO): Impacts on amenity have been considered as part of the
determination of this application: 
Lighting – lighting has been designed to minimise glare from the site during dark
hours. The Environmental Health section has reviewed the proposal and raised no
concerns from a lighting perspective. A condition is recommended  requiring a
lighting scheme to be agreed with the Council to ensure lighting levels are at an
appropriate level. 
Noise – an assessment of Noise and Vibration has been undertaken as part of the
EIA Report (Vol 2 Chapter 12). It evaluates potential impacts during both
construction and operational phases, focusing on nearby sensitive receptors such
as residential properties, places of worship, and local businesses. 
During construction, noise levels were predicted using standard methods and
typical plant data. Although some nearby receptors may notice increased noise,
levels remain below 65 dB LAeq and are not considered significant. Vibration from
activities like piling was assessed and found negligible, with no sensitive
receptors within 100 meters. Construction traffic noise increases by less than 1
Page 49

Page 50

dB, indicating negligible impact. 
For operational noise, worst-case assumptions were modelled. Most receptors,
including properties at Marypark and Belleheiglash, will experience noise levels
below background or WHO guidelines, considered not significant. The nearest
residential property may face moderate impacts due to low background levels but
still falls below WHO thresholds. Short-term high noise from emergency flaring is
rare and brief, thus also not significant. 
The Environmental Health service reviewed the proposal and have agreed with the
Noise and Vibration assessment findings. Stricter noise level requirements than
the WHO standards have been applied considering the site's rural context. The
proposal's noise emissions are deemed appropriate within this context.
Operational noise will be a matter for SEPA to control as they will permit the
operation of the facility as part of Pollution Prevention Control
regulations/legislation rather than the planning authority. 
Odour – odour from the proposal is not considered to be an issue, with consultees
not highlighting any concerns in this regard. 
Privacy – The proposed hydrogen facility and its operation, including vehicle
movements, are not considered to result in an adverse impact on the privacy of
nearby residential properties that would warrant refusal of this application. 
Impacts on Human Health
•   Impact of proposal on human health in terms of pollution and emissions.
•   Potential incompatibility of proposal on Glenfarclas Distillery COMAH site.
The proposal has the potential to impact on this and spread to distillery – are
HSE aware?
•   What type of gas will come from flare and will it be harmful to ozone layer?
•   24/7 flaring will be required.
•   Proposed 20 metre flare will be very visible in an area of low light pollution. 
•   Adverse impact on health of nearby residents. 
•   More consideration should be given to the effects on health both in the short
and long term. 
•   Flaring of hydrogen will result in acid rain. 
•   A byproduct of hydrogen production is Nitrogen Dioxide which is toxic, this
could be released into the environment. 
•   Any individual making a decision about this project should think hard about
quality of life for all in Speyside. 
Comments (PO): 
The EIA Report concludes that the proposed development will not significantly
harm air quality or human health. Construction emissions, including dust and
vehicle pollution, are considered negligible with mitigation measures in place.
Operational emissions, primarily from hydrogen flaring and road traffic, are within
acceptable limits, posing no significant risks to human health or ecological
receptors. While minor increases in ammonia levels near sensitive sites were
Page 50

Page 51

noted, the overall impact is deemed insignificant. Temporary construction
disruptions, such as traffic delays, will be managed through a traffic plan, and
long-term impacts on local health and wellbeing are expected to be minimal. The
project complies with relevant policies and regulations, ensuring no justification
for refusal. 
SEPA have raised no objections, and note the supporting information provided
indicates the proposal is not likely to exceed environmental quality standards.
Pollution control measures would ultimately be licenced and controlled by SEPA
through legislation separate to the planning process. 
Benefits of Proposal
•   Producing hydrogen is not an efficient system for producing energy.
•   Carbon cost of development vs carbon savings of this development do not
add up – it will take generations to realise the benefit in this respect.
•   There are other ways to decarbonise the whisky industry without a significant
landscape impact such as this proposal will result in.
•   It is an expensive and inefficient way of creating green energy.
•   Hydrogen currently costs £12/kg in Aberdeen—about 2.5 times more than
natural gas. One kilogram powers an 8-wheel truck for 6 miles or a bus for 10
miles. While hydrogen is proposed as a fuel for distilleries and transport,
transitioning from fossil fuels will be costly and slow. A hydrogen fuel cell
truck costs £290,000, more than double the £130,000 price of a diesel
equivalent, with no pricing yet for pure or dual-fuel hydrogen engines.
•   Demand for hydrogen is unproven and the price of hydrogen is unknown – it
currently costs 2.5 times more than natural gas.
•   It is understood that local distilleries are moving to electric heating so why is
hydrogen necessary to serve them?
•   Hydrogen should only be produced when there is excess power in the grid as
a form of storage.
•   This proposal relies on the use of the H2 produced at local distilleries
however this is not as likely to be used as originally proposed due to the
increased use of electricity as fuel source using MVR technology which
solely uses electrical power. The MVR use does not rely on transportation of
compressed H2 gas in vehicles nor does it need sites to introduce
Hazardous substances to their inventory and possibly increase the number
of sites requiring regulation under the CoMAH regs 2015 which are then
closer to public areas in towns and villages nearby.
•   Question efficiency of proposal – only 65% of product will result from the
100% of electricity required to produce hydrogen. 
•   Citing of various articles to demonstrate that hydrogen is not a viable or
practical means of producing energy. 
•   The Council should prioritise supporting clean, renewable energy projects
that emphasise environmental stewardship, community benefits, and
sustainability. Speyside offers a unique opportunity for such initiatives and
nature regeneration projects that can enhance its natural assets. Progress in
Speyside (and Moray) should align with its natural strengths, preserving its
landscape and biodiversity for future generations.
Page 51

Page 52

•   Electrification of distilleries is cheaper and more efficient.
•   We should be looking at alternative energy sources like water, wind and
solar not industrialism.
•   Macallan Distillery have demonstrated biomass solar and the largest green
roof are suitable alternatives to hydrogen. 
•   Distilleries have been operating for over 100 years and do not need this
technology.
•   There is no single best solution for distilleries to decarbonise and it is
simplistic to think switching to hydrogen will meet renewable energy goals.
•    Proposed production of hydrogen could result in pollution if it relies on non-
renewable electricity to supply it or result in polluting practices, and
therefore questionable whether it will result in a cleaner, healthier
environment. 
Comments (PO): As required by Schedule 4(2) of the EIA Regulations, reasonable
alternatives to a proposed development have to be considered to reduce potential
impacts, by avoiding them in the first instance, followed by reduction then
compensation. The EIA Report outlines alternative decarbonisation solutions for
distilleries and other industrial operations in Moray. It emphasises that energy
efficiency should be the first step towards net zero, with many distilleries already
adopting technologies like thermal and mechanical vapour recompression (heat
recovery). Electrification is considered highly efficient but faces challenges due to
high power demands, costly infrastructure upgrades, and long grid connection
times. Bioenergy options such as anaerobic digestion and biomass are limited by
feedstock availability and operational constraints. Hydrogen is presented as a
flexible and practical alternative, requiring minimal site modifications and offering
benefits including energy storage, reduced grid pressure, and better utilisation of
Scotland’s abundant wind energy. The information provided demonstrates that
green hydrogen production in Speyside is a favourable solution within a wide
range of renewable energy sources to decarbonise the region’s hard-to-abate
industries. 
To comply with the UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Strategy limits, electricity used must
include both grid electricity and a significant share - estimated at a minimum of
85% - from renewable sources via Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs), which are
assumed to be zero-emission. A valid PPA is required to confirm the renewable
origin of this electricity. The emissions calculation does not factor in the expected
decarbonisation of the grid, instead using a conservative approach based solely
on the current maximum emissions threshold for hydrogen production. 
With regards to the carbon benefits of the proposal, the applicant has undertaken
a carbon balance assessment evaluating greenhouse gas emissions over the
facility’s lifecycle. It covers the construction and operation stages, while
excluding end-of-life stages due to uncertainty. Emissions were calculated using
activity data and emissions factors, with a 26% uplift applied to account for early-
stage design uncertainties. The assessment found that by replacing fossil fuels in
local distilleries, the hydrogen facility could avoid up to 84,343 tCO₂e annually (if
replacing fuel oil) or 59,921 tCO₂e (if replacing natural gas). 
Page 52

Page 53

The Carbon Balance Assessment has concluded that up to 98% of lifetime
emissions are operational, primarily due to electricity usage. Operational
emissions are projected at 21,300 tCO2e per annum. The development will
provide hydrogen to local distilleries, potentially reducing emissions by up to
84,343 tCO2e annually as they switch from fossil fuels. 
The Council’s Climate Strategy Officer has reviewed the proposal and has raised
no issues with the methodology used. 
Although generating green hydrogen is less efficient than the initial power input, it
remains a sustainable energy source. Hydrogen as a fuel can be used to produce
high-temperatures in industrial processes such as distilling that electricity alone
cannot achieve. Therefore, green hydrogen is considered valuable in the mix of
sustainable energy sources for industrial decarbonisation. 
Ultimately, the funding considerations of the proposal (i.e. funding of the project
with subsidies) and the cost of hydrogen compared to natural gas/oil are not
material planning considerations. 
Economic Considerations
•   Weak economic argument for proposal.
•   Proposal will create few jobs, as indicated by the parking layout shown on
plans.
•   No benefits for local residents from proposal.
•   Proposal is speculative with no confirmed customers or written support
from distilleries.
•   Economic benefits and job creation have to be balanced with environmental
and social costs of proposal. 
•   We already paying for wind turbines to be switched off as the energy cannot
be stored.
•   This proposal has tenuously green aspirations masking heinous efforts of a
private business to cash in on antiquated feudal Scottish land laws which
grant private landowners power to exploit their land assets for venal ends.  
Comments (PO): The economics of this proposal are commercial decisions for
the applicant to consider. The primary planning policy consideration for this
proposal lies with renewable energy policies outlined at a national level by the
Scottish Government (National Planning Framework 4 Policy 11). This policy
supports renewable energy developments, acknowledging that significant
landscape and visual impacts are expected for some forms of renewable energy.
Where these impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has been
applied, they are generally deemed acceptable. The environmental impacts have
been evaluated against this assessment, and the proposed mitigation measures
by the applicant are considered acceptable, with no objections raised by
consultees on various matters. 
Impact on River Spey and Aquatic Ecology
•   Impact of water abstraction on water flow in the River Spey. 
•   Decreased water in the River Spey will increase water temperatures.
Page 53

Page 54

•   Discrepancy in water abstraction figures – figure of 500 tonnes of water per
day stated but Water Quality Impact Assessment uses a figure of 339 cubic
metres per day. 
•   Discharge of water to River Spey will result in pollution.
•   Impact of proposal on SAC/SSSI, including water abstraction on wildlife
including protected species.
•   Noise of water abstraction and impact on River Spey and habitats.
•   Adverse impact on salmon numbers and fisheries on Spey, with salmon
numbers already low.
•   Water levels in the Spey are already low in summer and will be insufficient to
serve this proposal. 
•   No analysis has been undertaken on extent of ground water abstraction
impacts.
•   Groundwater abstraction trials were undertaken in November when water
levels were higher than average. 
•   Water abstraction could adversely impact private water supplies to nearby
residential properties. 
•   Further abstraction from Spey will impact on recreational users such as
paddlers
•   Impact of water abstraction on farmers, fishing and wildlife.
•   This proposal will adversely impact on water supplies for drinking water
abstraction as well as on distilleries, and a subsequent adverse impact on
the local economy as a result. 
•   The River Spey is understood to have 52 abstraction licences which
apparently reduce the overall flow rate of the river by 50%. This will
exacerbate this with a subsequent adverse impact on species of interest in
River.
•   Abstraction impacts on the River Spey further downstream, in terms of
changes to flows with a subsequent impact on increased erosion and
deposition of gravel which can result in an increased risk of flooding
elsewhere. There should be further studies undertaken to consider the
impact of water abstraction on the River Spey.
•   At a time when SEPA are threatening local distilleries with action to reduce
abstraction, why should further abstraction be permitted for any  business?
•   Water abstraction will result in loss of nitrogen in River Spey and subsequent
impacts on water drinking quality and wildlife (nitrogen carries oxygen). 
•   The River Spey is one of the most heavily-abstracted rivers in Scotland,
providing water for hydro-electricity generation, the production of half of
Scotland's malt whisky, as well as agricultural and public drinking water
supplies. Of all the water taken from the Spey, 91% of it is diverted away
from the top 13% of the catchment, never to be returned, to generate hydro-
electricity for the production of aluminium in Fort William, and as part of the
Tummel Scheme on Tayside. This has had a devastating impact on the
remainder of the river over the 80 years that these hydro-electric schemes
have been in place.
•   The supporting information from the applicant does not allay any concerns
that the 500,000 litres to be extracted per day will not adversely affect the
Page 54

Page 55

River Spey’s ground water. The Precautionary Principle should be applied on
this basis. 
•   The return of processed water to the River Spey could contain high levels of
magnesium, which will adversely impact Freshwater Pearl  mussels.
•   Moray Council should seek a thorough assessment of the cumulative impact
of all of the water abstractions throughout the Spey. All 51 of these
abstractions need to be carefully considered before allowing any further
significant water abstractions from the River Spey catchment. I firmly believe
that we have already reached the point where we have to say, "Enough is
Enough"!
•   Much of the environmental information given by the applicant has been
obtained by desktop studies and thus will be out of date and irrelevant. The
studies are also focused on a small area rather than the wider impacts of the
proposal. 
•   Abstraction of 339,000 to 500,000 litres of water daily from boreholes at the
River Spey will impact the water table and river levels, particularly
downstream, exacerbating existing flooding issues in the Lower Spey Valley.
•   Abstraction is seen as part of a cumulative problem, with existing
extractions already reducing river flow to less than 50% of the catchment’s
original volume by the time it reaches Fochabers. Lower water levels and
increased sedimentation are altering river dynamics, harming habitats, and
reducing biodiversity. This presents a risk to salmon spawning grounds,
juvenile fish survival, and the life cycle of freshwater pearl mussels, which
depend on salmonids.
•   The application lacks detail on borehole depth, the area of influence, and
the volume and quality of wastewater discharge.
•   The applicant should install monitoring equipment for water quality and flow
in the River Spey which should be available to the public.
•   Water levels in the Spey are wholly dependent on weather conditions.
Rainfall is variable, snow fall is less than previous years (historically snow
melt would provide a steady release of water in Spring). Ground conditions
also have an impact on whether rainfall is absorbed into the ground, and
during dry conditions heavy rainfall can cause flooding in the River. These
factors have not been referenced in the application. 
•   Reduced water abstraction has weakened the River Spey’s flow, limiting its
ability to carry gravel and sediment downstream. This leads to sediment
build-up, raised riverbeds, and more frequent flooding. Erosion of banks and
loss of native vegetation - especially downstream of Fochabers - are
worsening, while invasive species like Giant Hogweed and Japanese
Knotweed are spreading on exposed gravel beds.
•   The EIA Report notes that further testing and monitoring is required to assess
impacts on the River Spey and its qualifying interests, and given SEPAs
position that there is no guarantee a licence will be granted, this proposal
should be refused as it fails to meet the precautionary principle required to
assess the impact of a proposal.
•   Lack of clarity on calculations for water abstraction necessary to produce
hydrogen. 
•   How will surface water drainage be contained, collected and disposed of,
Page 55

Page 56

particularly in winter time when salt will be used for de-icing. 
•   No assessment of impacts on private water supplies that depend on
groundwater in area. 
•   There are private water supplies outwith the 1km buffer that could be
impacted on but have not been considered as part of the EIA Report, and
there is no option for these properties to connect to the Scottish Water
network. 
•   There has been a fundamental shift from a deep borehole as stated at
consultation stage to abstraction from the River Spey, changing the potential
environmental impact profile without adequate prior consultation or
justification for the initial misleading information.
•   Adverse impact on the water supply of Elgin and Buckie given water
abstraction from aquifers at Dipple. 
•   Moray Council has no independent study undertaken to verify the impact of
increased water extraction from the Spey and surrounding areas (or any of
its rivers). It appears that without such independent study there will be a
heightened risk of unsustainable development proposed by speculative
development, contrary to NPPF. (NOTE – NPPF is English planning policy not
relevant in Scotland) and the potential subsequent legal risks. At present
there appear to be many unknowns in terms of the testing data put forward
by the Applicant on the impact of the proposed abstraction from the River
Spey. 
Comments (PO): Consideration is given to the impacts of this proposal on
hydrology in the observations section below. Groundwater abstraction is
predicted to be 500 cubic metres per day and is stated as the maximum extraction
figure, but the operational requirement of the plant is 370 cubic metres per day
approx., with the difference factoring in additional abstraction for storage on site
during high flows in the River Spey. Extraction at 500 m3 would be from
groundwater rather than from the flow of the River Spey. However, it is
appreciated that groundwater levels impact on river flow rates. In this case, the
predicted extraction at 500 m3 would lower the flow of the River Spey by 0.04%,
which is considered to be a negligible figure per the conclusions of the EIA Report.
SEPA have not objected to this application, and have indicated that a review of the
supporting information shows the proposal is unlikely to represent a breach of
environmental standards, whilst noting that the regulatory matters for water
abstraction and discharge fall under legislation separate to the planning process
(CAR and PPC). 
Similarly water discharge rates to the Spey and treatment levels proposed are not
considered to have an adverse impact on the River Spey and its qualifying
interests. 
The negligible difference in water levels is not considered to result in adverse
impacts on public and private water supplies, ecology, fisheries and recreational
uses in the River Spey. It is noted NatureScot and Scottish Water have raised no
objections to this application either. 
Page 56

Page 57

Terrestrial Ecology Impacts
•   Concerns regarding impacts on wildlife and habitats.
•   Weakness in ecological surveys – there are barn owls close to this site.
•   The proposal needs to be subject to a more thorough and transparent
evaluation to consider its impact on local wildlife, vegetation and water
resources.
•   Ecological surveys were desktop surveys and some of these are very  dated.
•   If the proposal does not adversely impact the environment then there are no
issue with it. But if it does then it should be refused.
•   It is questionable whether the proposal can demonstrate the required
Biodiversity Net Gain given the site's existing value and potential impacts.
•   Many protected species such as pine marten, red squirrel and wild cats have
been seen in the area.
•   Damage to more untouched woodland as a result of this proposal. 
Comments (PO): In support of this proposal, ecological surveys have been
undertaken by the applicant and contained in the EIA Report. The report assesses
the potential ecological impacts of the Speyside Hydrogen Project, focusing on
terrestrial biodiversity within the development’s Zone of Influence (ZoI). It
considers designated conservation sites, habitats, and species, using both desk-
based research and extensive field surveys. 
Baseline surveys identified several ecological features of interest. These include
the River Spey SAC and SSSI, which are of international and national importance
respectively, and a range of habitats such as modified grassland, wet woodland,
and ancient woodland. Protected species recorded include otters, bats
(especially common pipistrelle), and a diverse assemblage of breeding birds.
Invasive non-native species (INNS) including monkey flower and skunk cabbage
were also found. 
Potential impacts from construction include habitat loss, degradation,
disturbance from noise and lighting, and risk of injury to wildlife. Operational
impacts may involve air quality changes, particularly ammonia and nitrogen
deposition, which could affect sensitive woodland ecosystems. However, these
impacts are expected to be minor and reversible. 
Mitigation measures are embedded in the project design. These include avoiding
high-value habitats, using existing infrastructure to minimise disturbance,
implementing pollution controls, and adhering to ecological best practices. A
Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) and ecological monitoring
will be required by condition, supported by an Ecological Clerk of Works as
proposed by the applicant. 
No significant residual effects are anticipated following mitigation. Minor adverse
effects may occur, such as temporary disturbance to otters and bats, and slight
changes in woodland composition due to air emissions. These are not considered
significant under EIA criteria. 
Page 57

Page 58

This proposal includes biodiversity enhancement measures which propose
creating over 5 hectares of woodland, 1.4 kilometres of hedgerow, and 13
hectares of grassland and scrub. Additional features including bat boxes, bird
boxes, and habitat piles will support local wildlife. These enhancements are
expected to deliver a suitable level of biodiversity enhancement in line with NPF4
Policy 3. 
NatureScot have not objected to this proposal, subject to conditions ensuring
appropriate mitigation is in place. Biodiversity enhancement, as required under
national planning policy, is also proposed. 
In light of this position it is not considered the proposal will result in significant
adverse effects on terrestrial ecology. 
Landscape and Visual Impact
•   Impact on Ben Rinnes.
•   Marypark is a beautiful hamlet and this proposal will adversely impact on it.
•   Impact on landscape, going from open countryside to industrial
development on elevated area of ground. 
•   Impact of proposal on the Spey Valley Special Landscape Area designation
of the MLDP.
•   The site is an area of outstanding natural beauty.
•   Proposal is too close to the Cairngorms National Park.
•   Continued industrialisation of the landscape, including cumulative impacts
with wind turbines. 
•   This proposal will impact the view of Ben Rinnes from my property.
•   Proposal will likely require power lines which will have further landscape
impacts.
•   If Macallan can win awards for their distillery’s landscaping surely similar
measures can be considered by this applicant?
•   Proposal will have a 3 metre high security fence and lighting which will be
intrusive.
•   Illogical to compare this proposal to the neighbouring A&F Grant yard as it
was granted in 1970s under previous planning policies.
•   A&F Grant and co-located Ballindalloch Haulage are rural in scale and
function and cannot be used to characterise the area as suitable for
development of an industrial facility. 
•   Speyside is flooded with landscape changing green energy experiments, this
is one too many. We are losing farmland to planting of trees to offset carbon
emissions of huge multinational companies and our hills are being given
over to wind turbines. These have an impact on the natural beauty of the
area and are equivalent to modern day highland clearances to benefit
multimillionaires. 
•   Moray has experienced extensive green energy development, particularly in
terms of wind farms. The proposal will set a precedent for further expansion
of industrial infrastructure in inappropriate locations. 
•   A number of houses in Marypark will have the plant as a view when trees are
not in leaf.
Page 58

Page 59

•   Proposal is incompatible with Dark Skies aspirations of area.
•   Adverse impact on tourism and subsequent impact on local hospitality and
retail. 
•   A95 is an important entry point to Moray for tourists.
•   The proposed landscaping is inadequate, as it will only give significant
screening in year 15. 
Comments (PO): This proposal has been subject to evaluation by the Council’s
appointed landscape adviser, who has reviewed and considered the submitted
Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment that accompanied the application. 
They have advised the proposed development will have limited visibility due to the
wooded landscape surrounding the site. While earth mounding and woodland
planting will not screen all buildings and infrastructure, they will reduce visual
effects. The industrial-scale development in the Spey valley, characterised by
woodlands and open pastures, will be more intrusive than nearby A and F Grant
haulage yard due to the site's openness and elevation. Significant adverse effects
on views from the A95 will persist throughout the project's operation, affecting
approximately 1km of this route into Moray. Short-term adverse effects will impact
views from a section of the Speyside Way due to pipeline construction. Limited
visibility from the B9102 exists because of woodland cover, but adverse effects
will occur from sections of this route and some residential properties. Woodland
planting is expected to provide screening after about 15 years, with existing
structures in the A and F Haulage yard reducing the overall visual impact. 
The proposed development site lies in the Spey Valley SLA. While there would be
an adverse effect on some of the special qualities identified for this SLA, it is not
considered that the integrity of the designated area would be significantly affected
given the scale of the development and the mitigation measures proposed. The
Ben Rinnes SLA lies within 2.5km of the proposed development site and it is not
considered that there would be potential for significant adverse effects to arise on
this designated landscape due to the scale and distance of the development. 
When considered against NPF4 Policy 11’s requirements, whereby significant
localised landscape and visual impacts are considered acceptable, the proposal
is not considered to be at odds with this policy requirement. This is considered
below under Observations. 
Previously Refused Wind Turbines at Marypark
•   Application 10/01907/APP to north of Marypark refused wind turbines due to
landscape and visual impact, as well as impact on Barn Owls. This is a valid
precedent. 
Comments (PO): This application was for three 18 metre high wind turbines which
were refused due to the landscape and visual impact of the turbines. Concerns
were raised about the lack of information on wildlife in general, including bats and
barn owls, due to collision risk and lack of supporting ecological information to
assess that proposal. This previous decision is not considered to have any bearing
on this application, noting planning policy is substantially different now compared
Page 59

Page 60

to 2010 when considering renewable energy developments (in particular NPF4
Policy 11). This application is accompanied by a suite of supporting information
including consideration of impacts on ecology which are considered to be
acceptable subject to implementation of mitigation measures. 
Historic Environment
•   The proposal will have a significant detrimental impact on the Pitchroy Stone
Circle and the setting of the A listed Ballindalloch Castle, contrary to NPF4
Policy 7 and MLDP Policy EP7.
•   The proposed water intake and discharge route crosses a pre-turnpike road
and as there have been many medieval artefacts discovered nearby, the site
is not of low archaeological value and should be thoroughly investigated
before development commences. 
Comments (PO): This application has been subject to consultation with Historic
Environment Scotland, who have ascertained the proposal does not result in an
adverse impact on the setting of Pitchroy Stone Circle or Ballindalloch Castle,
both of which are matters for HES to provide input on. Accordingly, it is not
considered the proposal adversely impacts on the settings of these historic
assets. 
The regional archaeologist (Aberdeenshire Council on behalf of Moray) has
recommended a condition requiring archaeological mitigation via a condition
requiring a Written Scheme of Investigation be undertaken. 
Impact on Road Network
•   Impact of proposal on road safety, including children and pedestrians
nearby.
•   HGVs break up road surface which can cause flooding and impact on
pedestrians at side of the road.
•   Roads are already in poor condition, traffic generated by this development
will exacerbate this.
•   The Transport Assessment is limited to the A95 and should have been
broader covering minor roads and their junctions.
•   It was not long ago that HGVs delivering fuel to distilleries were removed
from the road network following installation of gas pipelines to distilleries,
with a subsequent benefit of lower roads maintenance for the Council. This
proposal would result in similar levels of vehicle movements, a pipeline
should be installed to ensure this proposal is of benefit to the area. 
•   There is a need to reduce the speed limit and prevent overtaking in the area,
residents in Marypark are subject to near-misses too frequently.
•   Adding more HGV traffic to one of the few short sections for overtaking on
the A95 will result in frustration to drivers and more accidents. 
•   Impact of additional traffic on A95 and B9102 and within Archiestown.
•   Proposal will add traffic to Moray’s already inadequate road infrastructure.
•   No assessment of impact on additional diesel HGVs to transport  hydrogen. 
•   Increased LGV traffic.
•   The total traffic flow on the A95 is not considered to be excessively high;
Page 60

Page 61

however, the percentage of HGV traffic is significantly higher than average.
This, combined with the narrow carriageway widths and the suboptimal
horizontal and vertical alignment of certain sections of the route, particularly
to the south of the site, has caused difficulties for all traffic for many years.
Transport Scotland has not fully addressed the significance of the A95 to the
economic vitality of the northeast of Scotland, resulting in only minor or
cosmetic improvements over an extended period. 
•   It’s surprising the layout does not include a right turn lane for slow moving
HGVs manoeuvring on and off what is effectively a high speed road. 
•   Query accuracy of calculations for transporting hydrogen (0085) and
resultant vehicle movements.
•   HGV movements at all hours will impact on residents adjacent to A95. 
•   Construction of this proposal will result in dust, noise, vibration and air
pollution from construction activity and HGV movements. 
•   There are no viable diversions for HGVs should the A95 be blocked by an
accident, snow etc. 
•   Impact of the proposal on traffic, in particular through the villages of
Aberlour and Rothes. 
Comments (PO): Construction is expected to generate around 150 daily vehicle
movements, including HGVs and workforce transport. An Outline Construction
Traffic Management Plan is included with the Transport Statement to mitigate
disruption and maintain road safety. The assessment concluded that even at peak
construction, traffic increases would remain below the thresholds for significant
environmental effects. Community impacts such as severance, pedestrian delay,
and fear and intimidation were all evaluated as negligible or minor. 
During construction of the water abstraction and discharge infrastructure in the
northern part of the site, temporary access may be needed either from the A95 or
via the B9138. However, the B9138 is a narrow single-track road with deteriorating
passing places and roadside parking in Marypark, making it unsuitable for heavy
construction traffic. The Council’s Transportation Manager has advised against
using this route to protect resident safety and avoid traffic conflicts. Final access
routes and vehicle numbers are yet to be confirmed. 
To manage construction impacts, recommended planning conditions will include
a Construction Traffic Management Plan. Once operational, the facility will
generate up to 130 vehicle movements daily, including 70 HGVs, with a new
junction on the A95 providing site access. Parking and EV charging will be
provided. 
Operationally, hydrogen deliveries to local distilleries may use minor roads
including the B9138 or B9102, depending on final off-taker locations. As these are
currently unknown, a planning condition requiring an OTMP is recommended to
manage potential impacts on local roads. 
There is no reason to doubt the figures provided in the Transport Statement,
particularly in respect of the chemistry behind the transportation of the hydrogen
produced by this proposal. 
Page 61

Page 62

Both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Transportation Manager raised no
objections to this application but have recommended conditions to ensure
suitable mitigation is undertaken. 
Loss of Farmland and Biodiversity
•   Loss of farmland.
•   We should be protecting green spaces and natural spaces, our existence
depends on it.
•   Concern of future use of 5ha of grazing land that forms part of the site – no
guarantee it will remain as such.
•   In a time of biodiversity crisis, this proposal will be an absolute ecological
disaster should it go ahead.
•   We are being asked to rewild the countryside but this proposal goes against
this and would result in the loss of green space in Speyside. 
Comments (PO): The proposal is not on land designated as prime agricultural
land that is offered a degree of protection under the planning process, therefore
the loss of this farmland is not considered to be unacceptable in planning terms in
the absence of any policies against its loss. 
Biodiversity enhancement is proposed as part of this development, which
alongside suitable mitigation measures against impacts on existing ecology,
means the proposal will not have an adverse impact on biodiversity. 
Policy/Procedural Considerations
•   The site is not identified in the Moray Local Development Plan 2020 as
industrial/employment land.
•   The site is not contained in Moray Council’s Hydrogen Strategy. 
•   Given location within Special Landscape Area designation of MLDP and
requirements of the policy restricting development to certain uses including
distilling, it would not be competent to restrict the use of the proposal by
condition to serve distilleries only, therefore the proposal fails to comply
with this policy. 
•   The Moray Local Development Plan 2020 designates the application site and
the surrounding area as a 'Special Landscape Area'. Thus, the site is not
designated in the statutory local development plan for development of a
hydrogen production facility. 
Comments (PO): The evaluation below under Observations considers this
proposal against relevant planning policies. Locations are indicated for potential
hydrogen production in Moray within the Council’s Hydrogen Strategy which is a
material planning consideration, however it is not part of the development plan.
Within this strategy hydrogen production is identified in the Aberlour area to
support the distilling industry. This is an indicative strategy, which provides an
illustrative strategy for the siting of hydrogen production facilities, and does not
identify specific sites. The siting of a hydrogen production facility in Speyside is
therefore not considered to be at odds with the strategy. 
Page 62

Page 63

Issue: The EIA Report is well padded out but is quite short in substance with
contradictory and missing information. 
Comments (PO): The EIA Report is considered to be competent and is acceptable
by the Council and statutory consultees with regards to their area(s) of interest.
The objection does not specify what information is missing and/or contradictory. 
Issue: The community benefits being explored by the applicant cannot be used to
offset any negative impacts on the local community as no evidence has been
provided and they are purely speculative. 
Comments (PO): Community wealth building is a policy requirement under
National Planning Framework 4, and the applicant has provided a statement in
line with these policy requirements. It is not being considered as a means of
justifying/offsetting any adverse impacts in all other respects. Any adverse
impacts are required to be mitigated in their own right to be acceptable. 
Issue: Matters raised at the pre-application consultation events have not received
acceptable responses. 
Comments (PO): The section covering the pre-application consultation in the
evaluation below considers the findings of the consultation undertaken with the
public. Invariably where a party is unhappy with a development, there will be
disagreement and not all matters can be fully resolved via the pre-application
consultation process. 
Issue: The Council should put in place a bond requiring the applicant to return the
site to agricultural land should the venture fail due to economic failure. 
Comments (PO): Bonds can and are often put in place as part of renewable
energy developments such as wind farms, which are generally consented on a
temporary basis. The proposal seeks permission on a permanent basis rather
than temporary, and on this basis it is not considered that a bond is necessary in
consenting the proposal. 
Issue: The Council’s adopted Screening Opinion, which would set out the
Council's view as to whether an Environmental Assessment and an Appropriate
Assessment would be required for the competent evaluation of the planning
application, is not included within the document list (as at 7 April 2025).
Furthermore, it does not appear to be embedded as an appendix within one of the
main EIA documents. It has therefore not been produced for the public.
Furthermore, given that this development proposal might impact very significantly
on a Special Area of Conservation and the protected species contained therein, it
is important that the basis of any Screening Opinion should be made clear.
Because the document has not been published, it is not possible to ascertain
whether the Council consulted with NatureScot, the Scottish Government's
nature conservation advisory body, when formulating this Screening Opinion. It
should have done this for the Screening Opinion to be of any merit or standing. The
scoping opinion has also not been shown.
Page 63

Page 64

Comments (PO): There is no requirement under the 2017 EIA Regulations that
requires a copy of the adopted Screening and Scoping Opinion to accompany an
EIA Report, however the applicant has throughout the EIA Report referred to
matters raised at the pre-application stage including EIA Screening and Scoping.
As noted in Circular 1/2017 (para 29), no consultation is undertaken at screening
stage with statutory consultees except in very exceptional circumstances.
Appropriate Assessment is always required where it is apparent a proposal may
affect a site covered by the Habitats Regulations Assessments, regardless of
scale. This is undertaken via legislation separate to the EIA process. 
Issue: It appears no Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken by the Council
and it is not evident as to whether the applicant is aware of there being a
requirement for the preparation of such an assessment by the Council. The
Council would be acting ultra vires and procedurally incorrectly (i.e. unlawfully on
at least 2 counts) were it to approve this planning application in the absence an
Appropriate Assessment. 
Comments (PO): An Appropriate Assessment has been undertaken and this is
contained in the Observations section below. It has been informed by feedback
from NatureScot. 
Issue: The EIA Report fails to provide detail in regard to the alternative sites that
were considered and why they were rejected. Given that the proposed
development is located adjacent to a SAC and SSSI, the need to demonstrate to a
high level of proof that no suitable alternative sites are available is imperative. This
ensures consideration against MLDP Policy DP5. 
Comments (PO): The applicant provided additional information in respect of the
locational justification for this proposal, though it should be noted that the
proposal is not considered against MLDP Policy DP5. 
Issue: It is instructive to note that the EIA Non-Technical Summary does not make
any reference to the flaring of the stack within the assessment of the development
proposal's visual impact (see page 27) notwithstanding that it would obviously be
visible from passing traffic and other vantage points, in particular during the
numerous long, dark winter days and at night. 
Comments (PO): The applicant has advised the stack will emit water vapour
rather than a visible coloured flame. Given this is invisible save for steam. The
visual impact of this is therefore considered to be negligible. 
Issue: The proposals have not been tested against National Planning Policy
Framework. 
Comment (PO): This is English planning policy and thus is not a material planning
consideration in Scotland. The application has been subject to due consideration
under Scottish planning policy and legislation. 
Page 64

Page 65

Issue: Allowing this development will set precedent for further development in
future. 
Comment (PO): Every application is considered on its own merits and does not
necessarily set a precedent for further development. Applications have to be
determined against the provisions of the development plan and any other material
planning considerations. 
Non-material Considerations
The following points raised by those submitting objections are not material
planning considerations that can be taken into account in the determination of
this application:
•   Proposal will decrease value of houses nearby.
•   My house took four attempts to gain planning permission and I was not
allowed a balcony due to impact on rural character of area, if Moray Council
allow this development it will be very hypocritical. 
•   Taxpayers money should not be used for this project, it should be put to
good use and not for vanity projects such as this. 
•   Concerns raised about the operation of Craigellachie biomass plant
(Macallan).
•   Concerns of impact of Springfield housing development in Aberlour has on
the landscape and traffic. 
•   The Council should be supporting truly green projects.
•   “Moray Council is the worst of the worst and if you approve this the Council
are not worth the air you breathe.”
•   If this goes ahead there will be large local protests until the locals are
listened to.
•   Land owner for this application is a major contributor with the Spey Fishery
Board which is supposed to be a conservation organisation looking after the
River Spey.
•   Waste of public money – paid for by levies on electricity bills. 
•   The Biochip plant (assumed Macallan Biomass) has resulted in vast
amounts of forest felled, nothing can replace a ruined landscape.
•   Reference is made to a petition by Innes Community Council to the Scottish
Parliament calling for a moratorium on freshwater-based hydrogen
production.
•   Marypark was chosen as it is a poorer location and our voices are
insignificant and unheard. Concerns raised with Storegga have been
ignored. 
•   No fire, explosion risk assessment available. Highly hazardous activities
have not been assessed adequately. 
•   Concerns regarding potential leaks, explosions or accidents from hydrogen,
and adverse impact on safety nearby residents.
•   What are the emergency procedures if there is a fire at the plant?
•   What is the effect of burning hydrogen from flare in close proximity to whisky
warehousing which emits ethanol into the atmosphere – there is no
assessment of this and it is another health and safety issue that has been
ignored. 
Page 65

Page 66

•   Health and safety issues with storing and transporting hydrogen. 
•   Risk to surrounding properties from hydrogen storage and a lack of fire
service coverage locally. 
•   Risk to neighbouring residents from explosions/fire at site.
•   Applicant has no experience of building or operating a Hydrogen plant.
•   The promise of permanent well-paid jobs often goes unfulfilled, negatively
affecting community wealth building. Additionally, hydrogen production is
exempt from Good Practice Principles, meaning no Community Benefit Fund
or shared ownership option will be available; however, it is acknowledged
these points are not material planning considerations. 
Comments (PO): The points raised are not material. With specific reference to
concerns about industrial accidents/incidents and risks of fire and explosion,
these are covered by health and safety legislation and governed by the Health and
Safety Executive. Where hazardous substances are stored in a certain state and
above specified quantities, an application for Hazardous Substances Consent
would be required from the Council, as Planning Authority. For hydrogen, storage
of hydrogen in excess of 2 tonnes requires consenting via the Hazardous
Substances Consent process. Given the plans submitted and quantities of
hydrogen to be produced/stored on site, it is likely this will be required. The Health
and Safety Executive are consulted on such proposals. This considers impacts on
the health and safety of the surrounding area, and if consented, is used to guide
further development in proximity to the installation. 
SUPPORT COMMENTS 
•   This proposal will produce a sustainable energy source for continued
operation of Speyside distilleries, which vitally important to the local and
national economies. 
•   Proposal will result in well paid employment and career opportunities. 
•   Pros of proposal outweigh the cons. The area needs investment, job creation
and economic growth.
•   Moray Council will ensure cautious management and accountability. 
•   This country has to embrace alternative fuels whether your opinion supports
this or not. 
•   A great step forward for distilling to be at the forefront of alternative fuels
and meet carbon reduction targets.
•   The majority of objectors have not properly read the supporting documents
accompanied with the planning application – e.g. raw untreated waste water
will not be discharged to the River Spey. 
•   Benefit of proposal on local supply chain 
Comments (PO): These points are noted. 
Page 66

Page 67

8.   OBSERVATIONS 
8.1 Section 25 of the 1997 Act as amended requires applications to be determined in
accordance with the Development Plan i.e., the adopted National Planning
Framework 4 (NPF4) and adopted Moray Local Development Plan 2020 (MLDP)
unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 
The main issues are considered below. 
8.2  Appropriate Assessment - Habitats Regulation Appraisal
In this instance, Moray Council will adopt the appraisal as modelled by
NatureScot and this appropriate assessment is detailed below. 
The proposed development will be located to the east/south of and takes in part
of the River Spey, as well as the Burn of Pitchaish which is a tributary to the Spey
and to the north of this site. Both the Spey and Burn of Pitchaish form part of the
River Spey Special Area of Conservation (SAC), whilst the River Spey is also a Site
of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The site's status means that the requirements
of the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 as amended (the
"Habitats Regulations") apply. Consequently, Moray Council is required to
consider the effect of the proposal on the designations and their qualifying
interests before it can be consented. 
In this case, the site is adjacent to and takes in the River Spey and the Burn of
Pitchaish and Burn of Inveraven tributaries. This proposal has the potential to
result on all four qualifying interests due to potential impacts on water quality and
water quantity, as well as have the potential to result in release of sediment and
other pollutants into the river and burn and affect qualifying interests of the River
Spey SAC and SSSI which are dependent on the water environment. There is also
potential for light emissions during construction and operation to adversely affect
qualifying interests of the nearby water courses. The SAC and SSSI have been
selected for the River Spey's populations of Atlantic salmon, European otter,
freshwater pearl mussel and sea lamprey. 
The proposal is not directly connected with or necessary for the conservation
management of the SAC and SSSI, hence further consideration is required. The
proposal has the potential to result in release of sediment and other pollutants
during construction activities and subsequent discharge of surface/foul water
which may adversely affect the water environment. There is also potential for light
emissions during construction and operation to adversely affect qualifying
interests of the nearby water courses. 
NatureScot has advised Moray Council that the proposal is likely to have a
significant effect on the interests of the SAC. Accordingly, suitable mitigation
measures will be required to ensure the development does not adversely affect
the interests of the SAC and SSSI. NatureScot has advised that a Construction
Environment Management Plan detailing measures to be put in place per those
contained in the Outline Construction Environment Management Plan should be
submitted and agreed with the Council and NatureScot.
Page 67

Page 68

This matter will be required by condition - and on this basis, the proposal will not
adversely affect the integrity of the site; including the conservation objectives of
its qualifying interests. 
NatureScot have advised Moray Council that the appraisal carried out considered
the impact of the proposal on the four SAC (and SSSI) species, their supporting
habitats, water quality and quantity. This has been supported by further
discussions with the applicant and SEPA regarding the potential impacts of the
abstraction and discharge on the SAC. SEPA will assess the impacts of the
proposal on water quality and quantity, based on further details to be supplied by
the applicant, as part of the CAR and PPC licence applications. SEPA have
confirmed that the Environmental Quality Standards are unlikely to be
compromised as a result of the proposal. NatureScot defer to their expertise on
these matters and are satisfied that any impacts on the features of the River Spey
SAC will be fully considered in the final assessment to be conducted by SEPA in
consultation with NatureScot. 
It is recommended that this appropriate assessment be adopted by the
competent authority Moray Council to enable Moray Council, as Planning
Authority, to proceed to determine this application (25/00203/EIA). 
8.2 Pre-application Consultation
The application is accompanied by a Pre-Application Consultation (PAC) Report,
as prescribed under section 35C of the 1997 Act. This outlines the statutory
consultation that the applicant undertook with the local community in relation to
this application. The form and scope of the pre-application consultation was
considered to be suitable, and agreed by the Council in response to Proposal of
Application Notice 24/00457/PAN. 
The PAC Report states two consultation periods were held: the first from 8 August
to 5 September 2024, and the second from 14 November to 12 December 2024.
These included in-person exhibitions, virtual meetings with community groups,
and online engagement through a dedicated website, email, and feedback forms.
Public exhibitions were held in Glenlivet and Aberlour, with attendance figures of
145 and 83 respectively. 
The applicant engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including local
residents, community councils, schools, environmental bodies, and government
agencies. Promotion of the events included newspaper notices, social media,
posters, and postcard mailings to over 5,000 properties. 
Concerns raised by the public included environmental impacts (especially water
abstraction and discharge and impacts on the River Spey), road safety, site
selection, visual and noise impacts, and community benefits. There was also
interest in employment opportunities and the use of local supply chains.
Feedback from the first consultation led to design changes, such as reducing the
site footprint, improving landscaping, and relocating the site entrance for better
road safety. In response to comments raised at the first event, concerns were
Page 68

Page 69

addressed by incorporating water recycling, adjusting the site layout, and
enhancing visual screening. The applicant also committed to using Dark Sky-
compliant lighting and designing buildings in keeping with local architectural
styles. A “You Said, We Listened” section at the second exhibition demonstrated
how feedback had shaped the proposals. 
The PAC Report submitted is considered to demonstrate suitable consultation
has been undertaken and feedback considered as per the requirements of section
35C of the 1997 Act. 
8.3 Principle of Proposal
There exists at a national level policy support for energy from renewable sources
to minimise reliance of carbon-based oil and gas, and other non-renewable energy
sources. Hydrogen is one such energy source. 
NPF4 Policy 1 (Tackling the Climate and Nature Crises) states that significant
weight must be attached to the global climate and nature crisis. It aims to reduce
emissions and supports development that addresses these goals. Development
of renewable energy is one such development and therefore significant weight
must be attached to its contribution toward emissions reductions. Similarly, NPF4
Policy 2 (Climate Change and Adaptation) seeks to encourage, promote and
facilitate development that minimise carbon emissions and adapts to the current
and future impacts of climate change. This can directly be linked to other wider
objectives of NPF4 in creating sustainable places and the production and
transmission of clean energy is part of the spatial strategy for the north of
Scotland. The Scottish Government sees hydrogen as a key route for
decarbonising heavy transport, industry, and off-grid energy use. The development
would help reduce dependency on fossil fuels, lower greenhouse gas emissions,
and support a just transition in rural areas. As such, a hydrogen plant aligns with
the climate crisis response outlined in Policy 1 and need to minimise carbon
emissions as per Policy 2. 
NPF4 Policy 11 (Energy) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate all forms of
renewable energy development onshore and offshore. Part (a) creates a
presumption in favour of renewable, low carbon and zero emission developments.
Hydrogen is considered to be a ‘low carbon and zero emission technology’ per the
definition within the policy intent. 
Whilst NPF4 Policy 11 creates a presumption in favour of renewable energy
developments, it also requires consideration of the potential impacts of the
proposal on the environment, amenity and infrastructure. Part (e) of the policy
requires proposals to demonstrate how these impacts have either been avoided
as part of project design and/or mitigated as part of the proposed scheme. 
The policy position within NPF4 in effect sets out that renewable energy
development is acceptable in principle, but such development can only be
supported if there are no unacceptable significant adverse impacts on the built
and natural environment, as well as infrastructure. At a local level, MLDP Policy
DP9 takes a similar position on renewable energy developments. These matters
Page 69

Page 70

are considered below, but the general position of Policy 11 in respect of
supporting renewable energy development should be noted with regards to the
principle of this development. 
8.4 Settlement Boundary – Marypark
The hydrogen facility lies outside the defined settlement boundary of Marypark, a
rural group as defined in the MLDP. Associated MLDP Policy EP6 states that
development should not occur immediately adjacent to the boundary of a
settlement. The development boundary lies circa 50 metres to the south of the
boundary of Marypark, with separation afforded by the A95 trunk road, a band of
trees as well as the Burn of Pitchaish. The purpose of this policy is to prevent
sprawl of settlements, ensuring there is a clear distinction between settlements
and their surrounding countryside. In this case the hydrogen production platform
that accommodates the plant and buildings for this proposal sits approximately
300 metres to the south of the boundary, with the closest elements of the site
comprising SuDS ponds. Given this arrangement, the built elements of this
proposal will sit separate to the group of houses at Marypark with sufficient visual
separation between them. Accordingly, it is not considered this proposal is at
odds with the aims of Policy EP6, and thus can be treated as an acceptable
departure from this policy in light of the above considerations. 
8.5 Moray Hydrogen Strategy
The Moray Hydrogen Strategy examines the short, medium, and long-term actions
required to develop a hydrogen economy for Moray and assesses the significant
opportunities to generate local community benefits in relation to social,
economic, and environmental wellbeing, supporting Scotland’s ambitions on a
Just Transition. The strategy outlines the development of a hydrogen economy as
a key enabler of Moray’s goal to be carbon neutral by 2045. It proposes using
Moray’s abundant renewable energy - particularly wind and solar - to produce
green hydrogen locally. This would support decarbonisation across transport,
heating, and industry, while also addressing fuel poverty and boosting energy
security. The strategy, as adopted by the Council, is a material consideration in
the determination of planning applications. 
The strategy notes the Scotch whisky sector is a major energy consumer in Moray,
accounting for over 45% of the region’s baseline fossil fuel demand. The strategy
identifies distilleries as key long-term users of hydrogen, especially for steam
generation in the distillation process. Hydrogen is seen as a viable alternative to
natural gas and fuel oil, particularly for off-grid distilleries. 
The strategy contains a spatial strategy with indicative locations for hydrogen
production facilities which includes the siting of a hydrogen
generator/electrolyser in the Aberlour area as part of the identification of potential
short-term production sites to serve the distilling industry. Locations indicated in
the document are illustrative, with no specific sites/areas of land identified for
development, however the siting of a hydrogen production facility as proposed as
part of this application would contribute to the strategy’s aims. 
Page 70

Page 71

In the short term, the strategy does note uptake is expected to be limited due to
supply constraints. However, by 2040, up to 80% of distilleries could transition to
hydrogen if infrastructure and supply chains are in place. Whilst there is no
guarantee that distilleries will necessarily use hydrogen, this proposal would
provide a supply that could address these constraints, therefore this proposal is
considered to accord with the strategy. 
8.6 Siting and Design, Landscaping
Policy DP1 - Development Principles of the MLDP requires all development to be
of a suitable scale, density and character and integrated into the surrounding
landscape. NPF4 Policy 14 - Design states development proposals should
improve the quality of an area and be consistent with the six qualities of
successful places. 
The proposed development comprises two distinct areas: the southern section,
which will house the hydrogen production facility, and the northern section, which
will accommodate ancillary infrastructure such as water abstraction and
wastewater discharge. The southern section would feature large industrial
buildings, a 20m high flare, and associated infrastructure such as tanks,
transformers, and security fencing. 
A Design and Access Statement accompanies this proposal. It states design
principles have been informed by the surrounding rural and agricultural character,
as well as nearby distilleries. The buildings will use dark-coloured cladding and
pitched roofs to reduce visual impact and blend with the landscape. The layout
separates process infrastructure from habitable buildings, with the former
screened by earth bunds and woodland planting. Stone from dismantled field
walls will be reused in the new development, and the buildings are set back
approximately 200 metres from the A95 to preserve open views. 
Process infrastructure proposed and their enclosures are of a standard
industrial/functional design typical of any installation of this nature. The largest
building by mass is the compressor building, which reaches a height of 12 metres,
41 x 22 metres footprint with a shallow pitched roof. Similar buildings (albeit
smaller) would be utilised as enclosures for two electrolysers and the substation. 
These buildings are to be clad with metal sheeting, which is commonly used for
industrial and agricultural buildings. The Council’s Landscape Architect has
advised the colour of these should be a darker brown/black to ensure it fits with
the landscape. A condition will be applied in order that the final colour of the
cladding can be considered in line with this advice. 
A flare stack is shown as part of the plant, siting separate to the processing
infrastructure. This is shown to be 20 metres high in the plans, and whilst
reference is made to a shorter flare stack, evaluation is given at 20 metres high.
The height of the stack is the highest element of this scheme. It would be unlikely
to be screened by planting until landscaping has become mature, however it
would comprise a relatively slim structure and would resemble the occasional
distillery chimneys seen in the wider Spey valley area. The applicant has
Page 71

Page 72

confirmed that the flare will not burn with any colour (e.g. orange flame) given it is
largely water vapour. 
Landscape mitigation is proposed as part of this proposal. Measures include
bunded woodland planting, wetland flora, detention ponds, hedgerows, and
native woodland pockets. These interventions aim to screen the development and
enhance biodiversity. The southern section will retain farmland for livestock,
maintaining the rural character of the area. It is acknowledged that landscaping
will take time to establish, however the overall approach proposed is considered
to offer suitable mitigation to mitigate the impact of this proposal on the
landscape. 
Considering the overall design approach to this proposal, the proposed
development is considered to be appropriately designed and landscaped. It
complies with relevant planning policies with regards to its design. However,
consideration has to be given to wider landscape impacts. 
8.7 Landscape and Visual Impact - Special Landscape Area
MLDP Policy EP3 - Special Landscape Areas and Landscape Character states
development proposals within SLAs will only be permitted where they do not
prejudice the special qualities of the designation, adopt the highest standards of
design, minimise adverse impacts on the landscape and visual qualities the area
is important for and meets all other Policy requirements. In addition to this the
development must be one of acceptable uses identified with the Policy and have a
location justification/need, demonstrating there is no suitable alternative
location. 
NPF4 Policy 11 (e) (ii) states “significant landscape and visual impacts,
recognising that such impacts are to be expected for some forms of renewable
energy. Where impacts are localised and/or appropriate design mitigation has
been applied, they will generally be considered to be acceptable”. NPF4 Policy 4
(d) states development proposals that affect a site designated as a local nature
conservation site or landscape area in the LDP will only be supported where: 
i.   Development will not have significant adverse effects on the integrity of the
area or the qualities for which it has been identified; or 
ii.   Any significant adverse effects on the integrity of the area are clearly
outweighed by social, environmental or economic benefits of at least local
importance. 
In this case the proposed facility is identified as a means of supporting the
distilling industry in the area to decarbonise, however it is not directly related to
distilling. Whilst the applicant has noted that memorandums of understanding
with 17 bodies covering 40 entities/distilleries. The specific companies have not
been disclosed, however the supporting information suggests the primary off-
takers of hydrogen would be distilleries. Speyside contains a number of
distilleries, accounting for approximately 60% of Scotland’s whisky output. There
must be a clear locational need for the proposed use and it must be
demonstrated that there is no alternative location. 
Page 72

Page 73

The EIA Report (section 2.1.3) outlines the site selection process for this proposal.
Initially, 25 potential locations for a hydrogen production facility were identified.
These were refined to 12 sites. 
To evaluate these 12 prospects, a site scoring matrix was developed, assigning
scores from 1 to 3 across several criteria. The four highest-scoring sites were
Craigellachie, Glenfarclas to Glenlivet Pipeline Area (including Marypark), Rothes,
and Tamdhu to Dailuaine Pipeline Area. Specific plots within these areas were
then assessed in more detail using a red flag matrix across technical disciplines
such as civil engineering, planning, power, water, and wastewater. 
The site scoring matrix used to evaluate potential locations included the following
key criteria:
•   Land: Availability and suitability for constructing a hydrogen production
facility.
•   Power: Proximity to power supply options such as substations and wind
farms.
•   Water Supply: Access to treated water mains or nearby watercourses.
•   Wastewater Discharge: Access to wastewater mains, treatment works, or
large watercourses.
•   Offtakers: Feasibility of supplying hydrogen via road haulage, private
pipelines, fuel blending, or refuelling stations.
•   Additional Value: Opportunities to utilise waste heat and oxygen from the
hydrogen production process. 
Environmental sub-criteria were also considered, including air quality,
biodiversity, historic environment, land quality, landscape and visual impact,
planning policy alignment, social receptors, and water resources and flooding. 
Ultimately, the applicant states the site subject to this application was selected
as the preferred location due to its favourable topography, proximity to existing
infrastructure (e.g. Glenfarclas substation), and alignment with the Moray
Hydrogen Strategy. 
The applicant provided an assessment of all designated industrial sites in the
MLDP at the request of the Council. This has found that the majority of sites are
too small to accommodate this proposal and/or are constrained to the point they
cannot accommodate the proposal, particularly from the perspective of water
availability, and economic viability. 
It is noted that representations make reference to the need for detailed
consideration of alternatives due to impacts on the River Spey SSSI and SAC.
Many sites in the Speyside area would have depended on the River Spey in some
respects to accommodate the proposal. 
Taking account of these considerations, and the spatial strategy of the Moray
Hydrogen Strategy which identifies the siting of a hydrogen production facility in
the Aberlour/Speyside area, the proposal’s location can be accepted and justified
Page 73

Page 74

against MLDP Policy EP3 as an acceptable departure, as it comprises a renewable
energy development that can support distillers to decarbonise. 
With regards to its landscape and visual impact, this proposal has been reviewed
by the Council’s appointed landscape adviser: 
Effects on landscape character 
The proposed development lies within the Broad Farmed Valley Landscape
Character Type (LCT) defined in NatureScot’s online national classification of
landscape character. 
The assessment of landscape sensitivity set out in Table 10.4 of the LVIA appears
to be based on generic criteria with little specific analysis of key characteristics.
The Spey Valley LCT is judged to have a medium value despite it being covered by
an SLA designation. The value and consequent sensitivity of this landscape is
under-estimated in the LVIA. The LVIA concludes that the proposed development
would significantly reduce tranquillity and the scenic quality of this LCT during
construction and operational phases up to around 15 years, prior to woodland
planting providing some screening. Thereafter the LVIA considers effects on local
landscape character to reduce to not significant (although the LVIA acknowledges
in Table 10.8 that some components of the proposal will still be visible beyond 15
years due to their scale). 
The LVIA does state that significant effects would arise on the Spey Valley LCT. It
is considered these effects would be adverse and major reducing to adverse
moderate (and still significant) after 15 years. These effects on landscape
character would extend up to approximately 1.5km from the site and would relate
to the loss of locally distinctive walled pastures which contribute to the diversity
of this part of the Spey Valley and an erosion of the strong rural character
associated with farmland, extensive mixed woodland and traditional buildings,
affecting the perceptual qualities associated with this landscape. It is not
considered that significant adverse effects would arise on any other LCTs within
the study area due to the scale, extent and relatively restricted visibility of the
proposed development.   
Effects on designated landscapes
The proposed development site lies in the Spey Valley SLA. While there would be
an adverse effect on some of the special qualities identified for this SLA, it is not
considered that the integrity of the designated area would be significantly affected
given the scale of the development and the mitigation measures proposed. The
Ben Rinnes SLA lies within 2.5km of the proposed development site and it is not
considered that there would be potential for significant adverse effects to arise on
this designated landscape due to the scale and distance of the development. 
Visual effects - The LVIA undertaken on behalf of the applicant
The sensitivity of visual receptors is set out in Table 10.5 of the LVIA. The
assessment of value does not seem to accord with “Guidelines for Landscape and
Visual Impact Assessment” in that a generic analysis of the scenic nature of the
view is made but no account given as to the relative importance of the view, for
Page 74

Page 75

example in terms of its location in a designated landscape or along a promoted
recreational route. It is therefore considered that the value associated with some
viewpoints is under-estimated in the LVIA. The findings of the LVIA in respect of
the significance of effects from the representative viewpoints selected are
accepted, aside from the judgements made on the sensitivity, magnitude of effect
and the degree of significance likely to occur. 
Effects on views from the A95 
It is considered that significant adverse visual impacts would primarily be
experienced from the A95 (represented by Viewpoints 6 and 7 of the LVIA) which
borders the proposed development site. For travellers using this route, the
proposed development site presents a suddenly revealed (and eye-catching) open
area of farmland with long walled fields backed by diverse woodland on rising
slopes. It is locally distinctive providing a strong contrast with the dense policy
woodlands of Ballindalloch Castle which are traversed when approaching from
the south-west. Visibility of the proposed development from the A95 would extend
approximately 1km between areas of woodland. The rising slopes of the
development site and the size and utilitarian appearance of the processing
buildings would increase the degree of intrusion experienced. These effects would
persist until at least 15 years post construction before woodland and hedgerow
planting would attain sufficient height and bulk to provide screening of most of the
larger buildings on the site. The proposed 20m high flare structure would be
unlikely to be screened by planting during this period although it would comprise a
relatively slim structure and would resemble the occasional distillery chimneys
seen in the wider Spey Valley area. 
The proposed development would displace much of the open walled pastures
which are a key feature of views from the route in this area and would also
interrupt views to the diverse mixed woodland, including mature Scots pine and
birch, lying on the slopes behind the site. It would introduce an obviously
industrial feature to the view with this function accentuated by tanker traffic
accessing the site. While the A and F Grant haulage facility is located nearby, this
existing industrial site benefits from better screening by woodland which reduces
the extent of built development and parked vehicles seen from the A95. The
effects on views from the A95 in the vicinity of Viewpoint 6 would be major,
significant and adverse. The magnitude of effect would reduce as woodland
matures but would remain adverse and significant due to the permanent change
occurring to the key characteristics of the view. 
Effects on views from nearby residential properties 
Housing at Marypark lies close to the northern extent of the proposed
development site. Visibility would be restricted from the majority of residential
properties by a shelterbelt on the eastern boundary of the site although there may
be some filtered views when trees are not in leaf. Houses aligning the A95 are
orientated with principal elevations facing the road and thus away from the
proposed development which would reduce the magnitude of effect. Residential
properties aligning the A95 in the Belleheiglash area close to the south-west
extent of the proposed development site would similarly have views screened by
dense woodland. 
Page 75

Page 76

Longer views
Visibility of the proposed development in longer views would be limited by the
extent of woodland present in this area. While there would be some visibility from
more elevated residential properties and the B9102 on the western side of the
River Spey, these views would be distant with the dark wooded backdrop to the
site, and a degree of foreshortening in these views, reducing intrusion. In some of
these views, the proposed buildings would be seen in conjunction with the large
sheds and tanks of the A and F Grant haulage site and impacts would thus be
reduced. 
The LVIA states that effects on Viewpoint 16 would be significant during the
operational phase with these persisting to around 15 years until woodland
planting provides screening. Significant adverse effects would also arise on
Viewpoint 14 affecting a short section of the Speyside Way during the construction
phase where the borehole abstraction site may be visible. It is not considered that
effects from the Speyside Way would be significant after approximately 2-3 years
once restored vegetation establishes and given the relatively small scale of the
visible above ground infrastructure proposed. 
Cumulative landscape and visual effects
The proposed development would introduce additional industrial development to
part of the Spey Valley lying within Moray Council area. While it would be located
close to an existing haulage yard, it would be more prominent than this in views
from the A95. Distillery development is a characteristic of this part of the Spey
Valley and although the hydrogen production infrastructure proposed would
appear similar to more utilitarian distillery buildings, it would increase the
incidence of industrial scale development seen from the A95 resulting in some
adverse cumulative landscape and visual effects. It is not considered that these
effects would be significant due to the generally wide spacing between these
dispersed clusters of developments and the relatively limited extent of visibility
associated with the proposed development. 
Consented wind farm development located on nearby upland areas will, if
constructed, further erode the rural character of the Spey Valley between the
proposed development site and the vicinity of Craigellachie. The proposed
development would make a minor contribution to overall cumulative effects of
built infrastructure on character and views in combination with these wind farms
due to its smaller scale and relatively limited visual influence.   
In considering the proposal, and in light of advice from the landscape architect,
conditions will be applied requiring material finishes of the proposed buildings to
be agreed with the Council, ensuring darker colours are used (as per Design and
Siting considerations). A condition will also be applied in respect of landscaping,
ensuring a degree of advanced planting is provided for hedgerow and tree planting
along the A95. 
The site is located in proximity to, but not within, the Dark Skies Park of the
Cairngorms National Park. In order to minimise lighting emissions from the site
Page 76

Page 77

once operational, a condition is recommended requiring a lighting
strategy/management plan to be in place. 
Landscape and Visual Impact Conclusion
Overall, the proposed development would not have widespread visibility due
largely to the well-wooded nature of the surrounding landscape. The design
strategy and landscape mitigation measures proposed would additionally help
reduce landscape and visual effects although earth mounding and woodland
planting would not screen all the buildings and infrastructure (including vehicles
accessing the site). The proposed development would introduce additional
development of an industrial scale and nature in part of the Spey Valley which is
characterised by a strong and diverse pattern of woodlands and contrasting open
walled pastures. While the A and F Grant haulage yard lies nearby, this proposal
would be more visually intrusive from the A95 due to the openness and elevation
of the site. Although large sheds, chimneys and other infrastructure associated
with distilleries are already a feature of this part of the Spey Valley, this
development proposal would be seen in close views unlike many distilleries which
are partially screened by woodland and/or lie in more visually discrete locations. 
Significant adverse effects would principally occur on views from the A95 affecting
views along approximately 1km of this well-used route into Moray with these
effects likely to persist for the duration of the development’s operation. There
would also be significant adverse effects on views from a short section of the
Speyside Way associated with the abstraction point and buried pipeline
construction works in the short term. While visibility of the proposed development
from the B9102 would be limited due to existing woodland cover, there would be
significant adverse effects on views from short sections of this route and from a
few residential properties. Proposed woodland planting would be likely to provide
screening after around 15 years. The presence of existing large sheds and tanks
within the A and F Haulage yard in these views from across the River Spey would
reduce the magnitude of effect. 
Recognising these conclusions and per conditions as recommended, the
proposal is considered to be acceptable under the terms of the NPF4 Policy 11, as
well as MLDP Policy EP3 with regard to its impact on the landscape and the Spey
Valley Special Landscape Area. 
8.8 Hydrology Impacts
NPF4 Policy 11 (e)(viii) states that the design and mitigation of a proposed energy
scheme should demonstrate how the effects on hydrology and the water
environment are addressed. MLDP Policy EP12 (c) states that the Council will only
approve proposals affecting water features where the applicant provides a report
to the satisfaction of the Council that demonstrates any impact, including
cumulative effects, on aspects such as water quality, water quantity, physical
form (morphology), river hydrology, sediment transport and erosion, coastal
processes (where relevant), nature conservation (including protected species),
fisheries, recreational activities, landscape, amenities, and economic and social
factors can be adequately mitigated. 
Page 77

Page 78

Chapter 16 of the EIA Report evaluates the potential effects of the proposed
development on water resources, including surface water, groundwater, private
water supplies, and designated ecological sites. It considers both construction
and operational phases, with a focus on compliance with Scottish legislation and
planning policy. This is supplemented by a Ground Water Resource Impact
Assessment, Hydromorphology Impact Assessment and a Water Quality Impact
Assessment within the EIA Report appendices.   
The study area includes the hydrogen production site and associated
infrastructure, with a 500 m buffer for general water resource impacts and a 1 km
buffer for groundwater abstraction impacts. The methodology follows SEPA and
CIRIA guidance, using a combination of desk-based research, field surveys, and
hydrological modelling to assess receptor sensitivity and potential changes. 
This site lies within the River Spey catchment which has a high ecological and
hydrological value. Groundwater is present in both superficial and bedrock
aquifers, with the superficial Middle Spey Sand and Gravel aquifer classified as
“Good” and the bedrock Aberlour aquifer as “Poor”. Several private water
supplies (PWS) are located nearby, though most are hydrologically disconnected
from the site. 
Most construction-related impacts, such as sediment runoff and pollution, are
considered minor or negligible due to embedded mitigation and adherence to best
practice. However, specific attention is given to in-channel works, such as the
replacement of a culvert on the Burn of Inveraven and the installation of an outfall
to the River Spey. These are expected to have only minor, temporary effects if
managed correctly. 
The most significant potential impacts during operation relate to groundwater
abstraction. While abstraction from the Middle Spey Sand and Gravel aquifer is
expected to have negligible effects on the River Spey and most receptors, there is
uncertainty about its impact on smaller watercourses such as the Burn of
Inveraven and Burn of Pitchaish. These could experience reduced flows,
particularly during dry periods, potentially affecting ecological conditions. 
Water abstraction will be from groundwater, rather than from water flowing in the
River Spey. The volume of water to be abstracted would be 500 m3 per day as a
maximum figure. Operationally, the plant would require 370 m3 per day (500 m3 is
stated as this would be extracted during periods of high flow in the river and stored
on site for periods of lower flow). Storage on site proposed would accommodate
15,000 m3 of water, which means the plant could operate for approx. 40 days with
no abstraction or longer with lower levels of abstraction, without affecting overall
output. 
As groundwater relates to flows within the River Spey, consideration has been
given to the impact of water abstraction from groundwater sources, and this
represents a 0.04% in the reduction of the River Spey’s flow rate. The EIA Report
concludes this is a negligible impact on the River Spey. 
Page 78

Page 79

Enhancement measures include the creation of SuDS ponds to support water
storage and biodiversity, and the replacement of a closed culvert with an open
base culvert to improve hydromorphology and fish passage. Additional riparian
planting is proposed to support natural flood management and water quality. 
The assessment concludes that, aside from the potential operational impacts on
minor watercourses due to groundwater abstraction, all other effects are minor or
negligible and not significant. The abstraction-related impacts remain significant
in the absence of further mitigation, but these will be addressed through ongoing
monitoring and regulatory processes. SEPA have reviewed the information
submitted and have raised no objection, noting that the proposal is unlikely to
breach environmental quality standards. Ultimately, control of water abstraction
and water discharge are regulatory matters for SEPA to permit and enforce via the
Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (CAR). This
legislation sits separate to the planning process. 
In respect of water discharge, this proposal will discharge up to 67.9 m³/day of
treated wastewater from the hydrogen production process. The treatment process
includes filtration and reverse osmosis, with no significant chemical additions
except for occasional pH adjustments. A small volume of sanitary wastewater will
be managed separately via a septic tank. The Water Quality Impact Assessment
identifies that all determinands (i.e. chemicals/compounds/substances)
assessed passed relevant standards, whilst screening tests showed that none of
the pollutants exceeded environmental quality standards values after dilution in
the river. Ammonia and phosphate levels showed negligible change post-
discharge, and other determinands including aluminium, iron, and sodium had
minimal impact on river concentrations. 
Scenarios including reduced river flow (to simulate climate change), increased
discharge rates, and elevated sodium and sulphate levels have been tested. All
results confirmed that the discharge would not significantly alter river water
quality or exceed environmental thresholds. 
The discharge volume is extremely small relative to the River Spey’s flow and is
not expected to affect flow regimes, temperature, or habitat conditions. No
adverse impacts are anticipated for protected species or ecological status.
Accordingly no additional mitigation measures have been identified with regard to
water discharge. 
As is the case for water abstraction, water discharge is also a matter for SEPA to
permit under the same legislation, sitting separate to the planning process. 
The locational justification for this proposal places an emphasis on the need for
the provision of a water supply, as well as a water course that is capable of
accommodating treated waste water. The general principle of this proposal will
have an impact on hydrology of the River Spey and its catchment, which is
covered by environmental designations as noted above. Accordingly, a degree of
evaluation has to be given to the impact of this proposal on the hydrology of the
Page 79

Page 80

area, whilst acknowledging the control of water abstraction and discharge will
ultimately be consented and controlled by SEPA. 
It is noted that SEPA have no objection to this application, but this is caveated that
this does not mean there is no issues with the CAR licence necessary to
undertake water abstraction and discharge activities. SEPA advise in their
consultation response that evaluation has been given to the information
submitted in support of this application. Based on the assessment carried out by
the applicant in the EIA Report, and consideration given to it by SEPA, in-river
environmental quality standards (EQS) would unlikely be compromised. This is
critical in determining the impact of this proposal in terms of its impact on the
water abstraction and waste water discharge, noting this is within the remit of
SEPA and not the Council, as Planning Authority. 
NatureScot have considered the impact on ecology within the river (as covered
below under Ecology). This has also been informed by SEPAs consultation
response to this application. 
For the purposes of considering the general impact of the proposal on hydrology
and in light of SEPAs advice/position on the application, the proposal is
considered acceptable in respect of the NPF4 Policy 11 (e) and MLDP Policy DP12
(c). 
8.9 Drainage
A Drainage Strategy provided in support of the application outlines that foul water
from occupied buildings will be treated via a septic tank and drainage mound, with
final disposal through ground infiltration. Surface water will be managed using
sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) including filter drains, permeable paving,
swales, and detention ponds. Rainwater harvesting is also incorporated to
support the facility’s water supply with a total storage capacity of 15,000m³. 
The proposals drainage arrangements ensure surface water drainage is managed
to an acceptable level, with the overall water runoff from the site in line with
current surface water run off rates. Both Moray Flood Risk Management and SEPA
have raised no objections to the proposal. The proposal is therefore in compliance
with MLDP Policy EP12 - Management and Enhancement of the Water
Environment (and associated Supplementary Guidance on Drainage and Flood
Risk Assessment in New Development), as well as NPF4 Policy 22 - Flood Risk and
Water Management, all of which advocate use of SuDS principles to ensure
surface water drainage can be treated on site without detriment to flood risk
elsewhere. 
8.10 Flood Risk
This application has been subject to Flood Risk Assessment, which forms part of
the EIA report (appendix J1). It has found there is no identified risk of flooding in
the southern section of the site. The northern section where water abstraction is
proposed is at risk from flooding from the River Spey and its tributaries, as per
SEPA flood maps. Elements of the Proposed Development are designed to ensure
minimal above ground infrastructure within the floodplain. All above ground
Page 80

Page 81

infrastructure will be water compatible and will remain operational during times of
flood. The existing likelihood of fluvial flooding at the northern section both to and
from the Proposed Development will be unchanged. Both Moray Flood Risk
Management and SEPA have raised no objections to the proposal with regard to
flood risk, with SEPA noting the proposal is acceptable under NPF4 Policy 22. 
The proposal is therefore in compliance with MLDP Policy EP12 - Management
and Enhancement of the Water Environment (and associated Supplementary
Guidance on Drainage and Flood Risk Assessment in New Development), as well
as NPF4 Policy 22 - Flood Risk and Water Management. 
8.11 Transportation
MLDP Policy PP3 requires all development to be planned and co-ordinated with
infrastructure to ensure that new developments function properly and are
adequately serviced by infrastructure and services, including roads, access,
paths and parking, whilst MLDP Policy DP1 - Development Principles contains a
number of criteria to ensure safe and suitable access and parking arrangements.
With regard to NPF4, Policy 13 - Sustainable Transport contains a number of
criteria which aim to encourage, promote and facilitate development that
prioritises sustainable travel and reduces the need to travel unsustainably. 
The Transport and Movement chapter of the EIA Report evaluates the anticipated
traffic volumes, their effects on the local road network, and outlines mitigation
measures to minimise disruption. A separate Transport Statement has also been
submitted. Both Transport Scotland (roads authority for the A95 trunk road) and
the Council’s Transportation Manager have been consulted on this application
and have reviewed the supporting information. 
Construction is estimated to generate approximately 150 daily vehicle
movements, including HGVs and workforce transport. An Outline Construction
Traffic Management Plan is included with the Transport Statement, which aims to
reduce disruption and maintain road safety. The assessment found that even at
peak construction, traffic increases would remain below thresholds that would
trigger significant environmental effects. Community impacts such as severance,
pedestrian delay, and fear and intimidation were all assessed as negligible or
minor. 
During the construction period of the water abstraction and discharge
infrastructure in the northern section of the site, it is anticipated that construction
traffic may require the provision of either a temporary construction access from
the A95 or from an existing access onto the B9138 (Marypark to Blacksboat road). 
The B9138 is a narrow single-track road with passing places and in its current
condition cannot accommodate the construction traffic associated with the
proposed development. Several passing places on the B9138 are in poor
condition due to extensive usage and could deteriorate further if additional HGVs
are introduced on this section of the road. Additionally, houses at Marypark have
roadside parking on both sides of the road, making it a sensitive area for
introducing HGV traffic. The Transportation Manager has advised that this section
Page 81

Page 82

of road should be avoided to ensure the safety of residents and prevent potential
conflicts with parked vehicles. However, details regarding the finalised
construction access routes and associated construction vehicle numbers that
would need to access the northern portion of the site are not available at this
stage. 
A S96 Wear and Tear agreement, along with sufficient road improvements such as
passing place provision and road strengthening, will be sought as planning
conditions attached to this response. A safety assessment will also be required to
demonstrate how the safety of residents along the B9138 will be ensured during
the construction period. This assessment will need to be submitted as part of the
Construction Traffic Management Plan. 
Once operational, the facility will produce hydrogen continuously, resulting in up
to 70 HGV movements per day and an overall total of 130 vehicle movements per
day. An Operational Traffic Management Plan (OTMP) and a Travel Plan will guide
traffic management and promote sustainable travel among staff. A new access
junction will be constructed on the A95(T) to serve the site. The applicant has
undertaken a Road Safety Audit confirming its suitability. Parking provision
includes 18 standard bays, two accessible bays, and two for powered two-
wheelers, with electric vehicle charging points included. 
The Council’s Transportation Manager notes that the Transport Statement
indicates hydrogen from the facility will be transported to local distilleries by
existing roads. While exact off-taker locations are still unconfirmed, the Transport
Statement states it is not anticipated operational HGV traffic will use the B9138.
However, traffic may use the B9138, B9102 (Grantown to Dandaleith road), or
other local roads to access distilleries such as Tamdhu, Cardhu, and Knockando
and those in the Forres area, as these are shorter routes than the A95 and A941.
Without details of “off-taker”, predicting the impact on minor roads and
identifying mitigation measures is difficult. Therefore, a condition for an
Operational Traffic Management Plan (OTMP) is recommended to mitigate
potential negative impacts. 
Ultimately both Transport Scotland and the Council’s Transportation Manager
raised no objections to this application, but have recommended conditions in
order to ensure suitable mitigation is undertaken. Subject to these conditions, the
proposal is considered to comply with NPF4 Policy 13 and MLDP Policies PP3 and
DP1 with regards to transport impacts. 
8.12 Biodiversity
NPF4 Policy 3 (Biodiversity) and MLDP Policy EP2 (Biodiversity) seek to ensure that
all development actively contributes to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.
Specifically for major developments, NPF Policy 3(b) requires proposals to:
•   be based on an understanding of the existing characteristics of the site and
its local, regional and national ecological context prior to development,
including the presence of any irreplaceable habitats;
•   where feasible, integrate and make best use of nature-based solutions;
Page 82

Page 83

•   assess potential negative effects which should be fully mitigated in line with
the mitigation hierarchy prior to identifying enhancements;
•   provide significant biodiversity enhancements in addition to any proposed
mitigation; and
•   consider local community benefits of the biodiversity and/or nature
networks. 
In order to ensure suitable biodiversity enhancement is undertaken on site, the
applicant has submitted a “Nature Positive Biodiversity Report”. The approach is
both quantitative and qualitative, using the Defra Biodiversity Metric as an interim
tool to assess and guide biodiversity outcomes in the absence of an adopted
Scottish metric. 
The on-site biodiversity enhancements are centred around a comprehensive
Landscape Mitigation Plan. This includes the creation of diverse habitats such as
mixed and broadleaved woodland, species-rich native hedgerows with trees,
mixed scrub, and species-rich grasslands. These habitats are designed to replace
low-value, heavily grazed modified grassland currently present on the site. The
plan also incorporates Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) with wetland
planting to further support biodiversity. These measures are expected to enhance
ecological connectivity and provide breeding and foraging opportunities for a
range of species including bats, birds, amphibians, and invertebrates. The
proposed habitat creation is projected to result in an 18.46% net gain in habitats
and a 12.14% net gain in hedgerows. 
In addition to habitat creation, several species-specific enhancements are
proposed. These include the installation of bat boxes, artificial otter holts, bird
boxes, and habitat piles to support a variety of fauna. These interventions are
intended to complement the habitat-based measures and contribute to broader
nature conservation goals. 
However, the development is expected to result in a 5.39% net loss in
watercourse biodiversity units due to the inability to enhance or create
watercourse habitats on-site. To address this, off-site enhancement measures
are proposed. These include improving the condition of nearby watercourses such
as the River Spey and its tributaries through actions including riparian planting,
fencing to reduce grazing, and removal of invasive non-native species. These
measures are designed to support the conservation objectives of the River Spey
SAC and SSSI. 
Further off-site enhancements under consideration include the restoration of
degraded ancient woodland along the Burn of Inveraven and broader invasive
species management in the surrounding area. These efforts aim to deliver
biodiversity benefits beyond the immediate development footprint. 
Overall, the proposal demonstrates a net positive outcome for biodiversity
through a combination of on-site habitat creation, species-specific interventions,
and strategic off-site enhancements. These measures are aligned with national
Page 83

Page 84

and local policy objectives and are designed to be ecologically meaningful and
sustainable over the long term. 
The approach has been evaluated by the Council’s appointed biodiversity
advisers, who have determined the proposed approach to biodiversity
enhancement is acceptable. A condition will be placed requiring the biodiversity
enhancement measures to be delivered in accordance with the approved details. 
8.13 Ecology
Both MLDP Policy EP1 - Natural Heritage Designations and NPF Policy 4 - Natural
Places create a presumption against development that will have a significant
effect on European Site designations which includes the River Spey SAC and SSSI. 
Chapter 6 of the EIA Report considers impacts of the construction and operation
of this proposal on aquatic ecology. Field surveys and desk studies informing this
proposal confirmed the presence of protected species such as Atlantic salmon
and freshwater pearl mussels. 
Potential construction impacts include disturbance to species, habitat loss, water
quality deterioration, and the spread of invasive non-native species (INNS). These
risks are mitigated through embedded design measures, such as culvert upgrades
and drainage strategies, and adherence to SEPA and CIRIA guidance. All
construction-related effects are assessed as not significant. 
Operational impacts primarily relate to groundwater abstraction and treated
effluent discharge. While the River Spey is unlikely to be affected due to its high
flow volume, there is uncertainty about the impact on baseflows in smaller
tributaries. This could affect species like Atlantic salmon and sea lamprey. These
impacts are considered potentially significant and warrant further monitoring and
mitigation. Ultimately, SEPA and NatureScot have raised no objections to this
proposal with regard to impacts on the water environment from a planning
perspective, but note that further consideration will be given to such matters via
the CAR and PPC licence regimes. SEPA note the proposal will not breach
environmental quality standards in light of the information provided with the
application. A condition has been recommended by NatureScot with regards to
the construction process and need for a detailed CEMP building on the outline
CEMP provided with this application. For the purposes of this planning application
and consideration against the aforementioned policies, the proposal is not
considered to adversely affect the integrity of the SAC and SSSI and its qualifying
interests. 
Chapter 7 of the EIA Report considers terrestrial ecology. Field surveys and desk
studies have also been undertaken to inform its findings. The site itself comprises
modified grassland, neutral grassland, arable fields, and woodland, with some
areas classified as priority habitats such as wet woodland and upland
birchwoods. Several protected species were identified, including otter, bats, red
squirrel, pine marten, wildcat, and breeding birds. Most of these are considered to
be of local importance, although their presence necessitates careful
consideration during construction and operation.
Page 84

Page 85

Construction activities will result in permanent loss of low-value habitats and
temporary disturbance to others. Risks include habitat degradation, species
disturbance, and potential injury or mortality. Operational impacts include minor
air quality effects, such as nitrogen deposition, which may affect sensitive
woodland and breeding birds. However, these impacts are not considered to be
significant. 
Mitigation measures have been embedded into the project design, including the
use of existing infrastructure to avoid sensitive habitats, lighting strategies to
reduce disturbance, and pollution prevention protocols. A Landscape Mitigation
Plan proposes habitat creation, including broadleaved woodland, hedgerows, and
grassland, alongside features such as bat boxes and otter holts to enhance
biodiversity. 
Overall, the assessment concludes that no significant residual effects are
expected due to the implementation of mitigation measures. 
8.14 Trees
MLDP Policy EP7 - Forestry, Woodlands and Trees requires all development to
ensure healthy trees are maintained where development may impact on them
(including offsite). NPF4 Policy 6 - Forestry, Woodland and Trees also supports
development that enhances, expands and improves woodland and tree cover. 
A Preliminary Arboricultural Appraisal has been submitted in support of this
application. It outlines the main risk to trees is from the installation of the
pipelines from the proposed facility to the River Spey. Woodland is identified to
the west of A&F Grant’s yard, as well as adjacent to the River Spey, the latter of
which is identified as ancient woodland. These areas of woodland have informed
the pipeline route, in order to avoid an adverse impact on trees within these areas.
Whilst a small number of scattered trees may require removal along the route of
the pipeline, and at the proposed outfall, no other significant tree clearance or
removal is anticipated to deliver the Proposed Development. Where the pipeline
transects ancient woodland an existing access route through the woodland will be
used to avoid the need for tree loss in the ancient woodland. This along with
suitable mitigation measures specified in the appraisal including use of
trenchless drilling in the area of ancient woodland, are considered to ensure that
sufficient protection is offered to trees. A finalised scheme of tree protection
measures will be required by condition as part of a Construction Environment
Management Plan, to ensure there is no adverse impact on trees. 
8.15 Soils
NPF4 Policy 5 - Soils also recognises the importance of ensuring disturbance to
soils is minimised by avoiding and minimising areas of soil affected, whilst also
ensuring development protects soil from damage including compaction and
erosion and minimising soil sealing. Chapter 14 of the EIA Report considers
impacts of this proposal on soil. 
The EIA Report finds that during construction, significant effects include the
Page 85

Page 86

temporary loss of approximately 19 hectares of non-prime agricultural land,
disturbance to over 20 hectares of soils, and disruption of up to 40 hectares of
carbon-rich mineral soils. These are all rated as moderate adverse effects.
However, impacts on lower-quality agricultural land and soils supporting the River
Spey SAC and SSSI are considered negligible or slight. 
In the operational phase, the permanent sealing of soils for infrastructure results
in a continued moderate adverse effect on class 3.2 land and subsoil carbon.
Impacts on the SLA and topsoil carbon are minor adverse, while effects on other
soil-related receptors remain negligible. Mitigation measures adopted by the
developer include an outline Soil Management Plan and design changes to reduce
land-take. A condition will be placed requiring a detailed soil management plan to
be prepared by the applicant as part of the Construction Environment
Management Plan to minimise disturbance to soils and ensure adequate
protection for them in the course of construction works. Subject to this condition,
the proposal is considered to comply with NPF4 Policy 5 with regards to soil
impacts. 
8.16 Noise and Vibration
Operation and construction of this proposal could give rise to potential pollution
in terms of noise and vibration. MLDP Policy EP14 - Pollution, Contamination and
Hazards requires all development that may cause pollution or exacerbate existing
issues must be accompanied by assessment reports, and any adverse impact
must be mitigated else it will not be acceptable. NPF4 Policy 23 - Health and
Safety has similar requirements with regards to noise. 
Chapter 12 of the EIA Report considers Noise and Vibration. It evaluates potential
impacts during both construction and operational phases, focusing on nearby
sensitive receptors such as residential properties, places of worship, and local
businesses. 
During construction, noise levels were predicted using standard methodologies
and typical plant data. While some receptors that are close to the site may
experience noticeable increases in noise, these levels remain below the threshold
of 65 dB LAeq and are therefore not considered significant. Vibration impacts from
activities like piling were also assessed and found to be negligible, as no sensitive
receptors lie within 100 metres of such works. Construction traffic noise was
similarly found to result in negligible increases (less than 1 dB), meaning no
significant effects are expected. 
Operationally, the predicted noise emissions were modelled using worst-case
assumptions. Most receptors, including properties at Marypark and Belleheiglash,
are predicted to experience noise levels below background or WHO guideline
thresholds, resulting in impacts assessed as not significant. The nearest
residential property may experience moderate adverse impacts due to low
background levels, but these too fall below WHO thresholds. Emergency flaring
events could cause short-term high noise levels, but their rarity and brief duration
(around 15 minutes) mean they are also assessed as not significant. 
Page 86

Page 87

No significant residual effects were identified for either phase. While adverse
impacts were noted, particularly due to low ambient noise levels, these do not
cross thresholds requiring mitigation. Nonetheless, good practice measures and
potential design refinements such as acoustic screening, equipment selection,
and layout optimisation have been recommended to further reduce impacts. 
The Environmental Health service have reviewed this proposal and are content
with the findings of the Noise and Vibration assessment, subject to conditions
requiring mitigation to be undertaken during construction. Reference is made to
WHO guidelines in the supporting assessments, however it is acknowledged that
these levels are relatively high given the rural context of this site. In assessing this
proposal Environmental Health have applied a lower noise level requirement (i.e.
stricter in recognition of the low background noise levels at present). Matters in
regard to the operational noise will be covered by Pollution Prevention Control via
SEPA rather than the Council.   
The impact of this proposal with regard to noise and vibration is considered
acceptable, in line with MLDP Policy EP14 and NPF4 Policy 23. 
8.17 Air Quality and Health Impacts
NPF4 Policy 23 (d) states that any development proposal that is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on air quality will not be supported, and an air quality
assessment will be required where the nature of the proposal or the air quality in
the sites location suggests significant effects are likely. The air quality assessment
within the submitted EIA Report evaluates potential impacts on both human
health and ecological receptors during construction and operation. It considers
emissions from construction dust, road traffic, and hydrogen flaring, using
dispersion modelling and established environmental standards. 
During construction, dust emissions were assessed as a medium risk but are
expected to be reduced to negligible levels through mitigation measures outlined
in the Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Emissions from
construction vehicles and plant were deemed insignificant due to low traffic
volumes and the mobile nature of the equipment. 
In the operational phase, the main sources of emissions are road traffic and the
hydrogen flare. The flare is designed with a high stack to aid dispersion, and two
scenarios were modelled: normal operation (daily flaring of 256 kg of hydrogen)
and emergency operation (a one-off event flaring 10,000 kg). In both cases,
predicted concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) at human health receptors
were well below national air quality objectives, with impacts classified as
negligible. 
For ecological receptors, the assessment found that changes in nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and acid deposition were not significant. However, increases in ammonia
(NH₃) concentrations and nitrogen deposition at the River Spey SAC and nearby
ancient woodland could not be ruled out as insignificant. These findings were
given further consideration as part of the ecology impacts, which concluded that
the ecological effects are not significant.
Page 87

Page 88

Overall, the report concludes that the proposal will not result in significant air
quality impacts, and no additional mitigation or monitoring is required beyond
standard best practices. SEPA has not objected to this proposal. Ultimately, the
installation if constructed would be regulated by SEPA under the Pollution
Prevention Control (Scotland) Regulations 2012, but for the purposes of
considering this application, the proposal is not considered to result in a
significant adverse impact on air quality that would warrant its refusal. The
proposal therefore complies with NPF4 Policy 23 (d). 
The 2017 EIA Regulations require that any EIA must appropriately identify,
describe, and assess the significant direct and indirect effects of the Proposed
Development on population and human health. At their heart, NPF4 and the MLDP
both place an emphasis on ensuring development creates healthy places.
Chapter 13 of the EIA considers impacts of the proposal on the Population and
Human Health. It concludes that no significant adverse effects are expected
during either the construction or operational phases. Temporary, minor
disruptions - such as short-term traffic delays and limited access to local
amenities - may occur during construction, but these can be mitigated through
traffic management plan as required by recommended transportation conditions. 
Operational impacts are predicted to be minimal and the project design includes
measures to reduce visual, noise, and environmental effects. Overall, the
development is not expected to negatively affect local health or wellbeing. 
8.18 Historic Environment
NPF4 Policy 7 is in place to protect and enhance the historic environment,
covering listed buildings, scheduled ancient monuments and non-designated
buried archaeological remains. MLDP Policy EP8 takes a similar position for this
historic environment, with MLDP Policy EP10 covering listed buildings. 
Chapter 9 of the EIA Report covers cultural heritage, assessing the potential
impacts of the proposed development on both designated and non-designated
heritage assets within and around the site. Its study area includes designated
assets within 1 km and non-designated assets within 500 m of the site, with
additional consideration for assets of regional significance beyond these
boundaries. 
The scope of the document was informed via consultation with the Council, HES,
and Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology Service. Key concerns raised included
the visual impact on Ballindalloch Castle and the need for archaeological
evaluation through trial trenching. 
One scheduled ancient monument (Pitchroy Stone Circle), several listed
buildings, and numerous non-designated assets are identified in the surrounding
area. The area shows evidence of prehistoric, early medieval, and post-medieval
occupation, with archaeological potential considered unknown for prehistoric
remains and low for other periods. 
Page 88

Page 89

Two significant effects were identified: one on the Pitchroy Stone Circle due to
changes in its setting, and another on any unknown archaeological remains that
may be disturbed during construction. All other historic assets in the study were
subject to either a negligible or neutral effect from this proposal. 
Mitigation measures include design adjustments to avoid key assets, a Landscape
Mitigation Plan, and a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) with
protocols for archaeological discoveries. A programme of archaeological
evaluation is planned to investigate the southern part of the site. 
Residual moderate adverse effects are expected for the Pitchroy Stone Circle and
any unknown archaeological remains. No significant operational impacts are
anticipated for other heritage assets, and no in-combination effects were
identified. 
Historic Environment Scotland have reviewed the proposal and have raised no
objections to this application. Given their remit covers Scheduled Ancient
Monuments, it is not considered the impact of this proposal on Pitchroy Stone
Circle is unacceptable. 
Aberdeenshire Council Archaeology have requested a condition be placed
requiring a Written Scheme of Investigation be undertaken. This mitigation is
considered to be suitable within the context of the findings of the EIA Report. 
Subject to this condition, the proposal is not considered to conflict with the
aforementioned historic environment policies. 
8.19 Community Wealth Building
NPF4 Policy 25 supports proposals that contribute to local or regional community
wealth building strategies and those that are consistent with local economic
proprieties. Guidance has also been prepared locally to ascertain instances
where Community Wealth Building will be sought for a project, and this proposal
falls within the realms of this guidance. This establishes “local” wealth building as
the Moray Council area whilst “regional” covers Moray, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen
City and Highland Council areas. NPF4 Policy 11 (c) states “development
proposals will only be supported where they maximise net economic impact,
including local and community socio-economic benefits such as employment,
associated business and supply chain opportunities.” 
A Community Wealth Building Statement has been submitted by the applicant to
demonstrate the economic impacts of the proposed development. The project is
expected to support around 150 jobs during planning and 735 jobs during
construction, and create 25–30 permanent roles during operation. The applicant
pledges to engage local contractors (noting that specialists based in Inverness
and Aberdeen have undertaken assessments in support of this application),
recruit local staff to operate the facility, offering guaranteed interviews for
qualified local candidates, and partnering with Jobcentre Plus and Developing the
Young Workforce to promote career opportunities. Training will include CSCS
Page 89

Page 90

certification and technical operator courses in partnership with the University of
the Highlands and Islands. 
The applicant has also been engaging with schools and universities, offering guest
lectures, mentoring, and STEM workshops. A “Hydrogen in Schools” programme
is planned to raise awareness of hydrogen technologies and careers. 
The applicant has stated they will prioritise local suppliers for construction and
services, where feasible and that opportunities may arise for new businesses in
hydrogen refuelling infrastructure, off-grid fuel supply, and oxygen reuse. 
Following internal consultation with the Council's Community Wealth Building
Officer, it is deemed that the submitted Community Wealth Building Statement
satisfies the policy requirements and the associated guidance. 
8.20 Climate Resilience
NPF4 Policy 2 requires proposals to be designed to adapt to current and future
risks from climate change. 
In considering the climate resilience measures, Chapter 8 of the EIA Report
considers the impact of changes in a future climate on this proposal. It concludes
that, subject to mitigation measures as identified through various studies and
supporting information accompanying the EIA Report, the proposal is not
considered to be subject to significant effects arising as a result of climate
change. 
8.21 Carbon
Under the requirements of NPF4 Policy 2 and the Council’s guidance on the
policy, a carbon statement is required for certain developments including
industrial development of a scale such as the building forming part of this
proposal. 
The proposal aims to support regional decarbonisation within the distilling
industry, by replacing fossil fuels with green hydrogen. The Carbon Balance
Assessment within the EIA Report evaluates the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
over the facility’s lifecycle. Emissions were calculated using activity data and
emissions factors, with a 26% uplift applied to account for early-stage design
uncertainties. 
Construction emissions are estimated at 8,300 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent (tCO₂e).
The majority (71%) stems from material production (A1-A3), particularly concrete
(67%) and steel (15%). Transport and installation contribute smaller shares. 
Annual operational emissions are projected at 21,300 tCO₂e, primarily from
electricity use. Water use and hydrogen transport contribute minor amounts. The
assessment assumes 85% of electricity will be sourced from renewables to meet
UK Low Carbon Hydrogen Strategy targets for low carbon hydrogen production. 
Page 90

Page 91

By replacing fossil fuels in local distilleries, the hydrogen facility could avoid up to
84,343 tCO₂e annually (if replacing fuel oil) or 59,921 tCO₂e (if replacing natural
gas). These figures represent potential benefits but are not formally included due
to current uncertainties. 
A Carbon Management and Reporting Plan is also within the EIA Report, which
details the applicant’s approach to managing and reporting greenhouse gas from
the proposal. This supports the Carbon Balance Assessment and focuses on
mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of emissions throughout the design,
construction, and operational phases of the project. It identifies mitigation
measures include sourcing renewable electricity, using high-efficiency
electrolysers, minimising water use through recycling and rainwater harvesting,
and reducing fugitive hydrogen emissions. It also recommends using low-carbon
materials, prefabrication, efficient transport, and promoting energy-saving
practices during operation. The plan will be updated annually and revised at key
project milestones, such as detailed design completion and prior to
decommissioning. 
These documents have been reviewed by the Council’s Climate Change Officer,
who has raised no objection or issues with the findings of the reports. This
proposal therefore complies with the requirements of NPF4 Policy 2 and the
Council’s guidance on the implementation of the policy. 
8.22 Waste and Materials
NPF4 Policy 12 requires all development to adopt sustainable waste management
practices, prioritising waste reduction, reuse, and recycling throughout the
lifecycle of the project. Developers must implement measures to minimise waste
generation during construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning,
ensuring compliance with environmental standards and promoting circular
economy principles. 
Chapter 11 of the EIA Report considers the generation and management of waste
during the construction of the proposal. It also considers the use of materials to
construct the proposal. It focuses on minimising environmental impacts through
efficient resource use and adherence to the waste hierarchy, which prioritises
prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal as a last resort. 
Baseline data shows that Scotland has sufficient reserves of key construction
materials like sand, gravel, and crushed rock. Waste management infrastructure
in Moray and across Scotland is capable of handling the expected waste volumes.
The project is not expected to significantly impact these resources. 
The project design incorporates circular economy principles, including the reuse
of excavated materials, use of precast components, and sourcing of recycled
materials where feasible. A Construction Environmental Management Plan
(CEMP) and a Site Waste Management Plan (SWMP) will guide sustainable
practices on site. 
Material requirements include concrete, steel, aggregates, and fencing materials.
Page 91

Page 92

The estimated use of Scotland’s aggregate and steel reserves is minimal - less
than 0.05% - and is therefore not considered significant. Similarly, waste
generation is expected to be low, with most waste being inert or non-hazardous
and managed through reuse or recycling. 
A worst-case scenario estimates that 5% of materials may become waste. Even
under this assumption, the impact on Scotland’s landfill capacity is negligible. No
hazardous waste is anticipated. The environmental effects of both material use
and waste generation are assessed as neutral and not significant. 
In light of the conclusions of this assessment, the proposal is considered to
minimise environmental impacts through efficient material use and responsible
waste management. No additional mitigation or monitoring is required, and no
residual effects are expected during the construction phase. A condition will be
applied to ensure these measures are implemented during construction and
operation. Subject to this condition the proposal complies with NPF4 policy 12. 
8.23 Developer Obligations
No financial contributions to offset infrastructure impacts have been identified via
the developer obligations process for this proposal under the terms of NPF4 Policy
18, MLDP Policy PP3 and the Developer Obligations Supplementary Guidance. 
8.24 Health and Safety
A number of the representations received raise concerns about the potential
impacts of this proposal on health and safety. These matters are covered by the
Health and Safety Executive under legislation separate to the planning process,
and ultimately it is not a material planning consideration in the determination of
this application. However, as part of the EIA Report, chapter 17 gives
consideration to accidents and disasters associated with this proposal. 
Several potential hazards were screened out due to low consequence or effective
mitigation already in place. These included extreme weather events, power
failures, and animal intrusion. For hazards that remained in scope, such as
hydrogen fires or explosions, chemical spills, and malicious attacks, detailed
mitigation strategies were outlined. These include fire detection systems, blast
walls, secure storage, and compliance with COMAH regulations. 
The assessment concluded that, with embedded mitigation and adherence to
good practice and legal requirements, the risks associated with major accidents
and disasters are managed to an acceptable level. No significant residual effects
are anticipated, and no cumulative or in-combination effects were identified. 
Hazardous Substances Consent will likely be required for the storage of hydrogen
at this proposal. This will be dealt with separate to this application, and will largely
be informed by consultation with the Health and Safety Executive. 
Conclusion
This proposal raises a number of issues that must be carefully considered and
balanced against relevant planning policies and input from statutory consultees.
Page 92

Page 93

While the number of objections received from the public, Community Councils
and the Spey Fisheries Board are acknowledged, a variety of technical and
environmental considerations have been thoroughly reviewed by statutory
consultees with expertise and regulatory roles in these areas. These consultations
have concluded the proposal is acceptable, notwithstanding compliance with
other regulatory consents and permits in respect of water abstraction and waste
water discharge, as well as pollution prevent control. The proposal's landscape
and visual impacts are considered to be localised which is permissible under
national planning policy for renewable energy developments. The broader impact
of this proposal on the amenity across the wider area is deemed acceptable. The
proposal is deemed to be an acceptable departure from the Moray Local
Development Plan 2020 Policies EP3 (Special Landscape Areas) and EP6
(Settlement Boundaries), and complies with the development plan in all other
respects. As such approval is recommended subject to a suite of conditions to
ensure the proposal is constructed and operated with suitable mitigation
measures in place. 
Period of Consent
The applicant has requested that 5 years be applied for the period to commence
works under this consent (should it be approved) rather than 3 years, in
recognition of the projects scale and need for funding. Conditions in place would
ensure appropriate environmental controls to ensure compliance with relevant
development plan policies, and would support renewable energy development. In
light of this and recognising that renewable energy projects permitted by Scottish
Ministers via section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 generally have a period of 5
years, a 5 year period has been applied as per recommended condition 1. 
REASON(S) FOR DECISION
The Council’s reason(s) for making this decision are: - 
The proposed development is regarded as an acceptable departure from Policy
EP3 – Special Landscape Areas of the Moray Local Development Plan 2020
(MLDP). This is because the facility would produce hydrogen as a renewable
energy source, intended to support the decarbonisation of local industry,
particularly the whisky distilling sector. While the proposal is not directly linked to
distilling operations, it would provide a sustainable energy supply to the industry.
Given the strong policy support for renewable energy and climate action within
National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) and, as a material consideration the Moray
Hydrogen Strategy, the proposal can be considered a justified exception to Policy
EP3. Whilst the site boundary for this proposal is adjacent to the settlement
boundary of Marypark (as defined in the MLDP), it is also an acceptable departure
from MLDP Policy EP6 – Settlement Boundaries because of the separation of the
hydrogen production facility’s plant and buildings from the settlement boundary,
ensuring the proposal is visually separate and not viewed as an extension to the
settlement of Marypark.  In all other respects, the development is consistent with
the provisions of the development plan - namely NPF4 and the MLDP - and there
are no material considerations that would suggest otherwise. 
Page 93

Page 94

Moray Council's assessment of the information presented within the EIA Report
and other environmental information in relation to the development is contained
within the Committee Report. It is considered that the development will not have
any significant impacts on the environment. 
Moray Council is satisfied that other effects/issues can be addressed by way of
mitigation. A detailed description of the proposed mitigation is contained within
the EIA Report and the Committee Report. 
All documents can be viewed online at
https://publicaccess.moray.gov.uk/eplanning and searching using case reference
number 25/00203/EIA.   
Author/Contact
Officer:
Andrew Miller            
Acting Principal Planning Officer
Ext: 01343 563274 
Neal Macpherson
Acting Development Management & Building Standards Manager
Page 94

Page 95

Appendix 1 – List of Persons/Parties Submitting Representations 
Page 95

Page 96

Page 96

Page 97

Page 97

Page 98

Page 98

Page 99

Page 99

Page 100

Page 100

Page 101

- 
Page 101

Page 102

Page 102

Page 103

Page 103

Page 104

Page 104