1. Overwhelming public objection, yet the project was still approved
860 of 862 public submissions objected to the Arnish Hub. Objections raised serious concerns about:

• destruction of Class 1 peatland
• risks to River Creed and salmonid habitat
• impacts on red listed birds and otter habitats
• traffic safety on the A859 and surrounding roads
• lack of clear local economic benefit
• missing or incomplete cumulative assessment with the HVDC link and large wind projects

Despite this, the final decision meeting involved minimal scrutiny, and key objection evidence was not meaningfully examined.
For a population the size of the Western Isles, receiving 860 objections is extraordinary and represents one of the highest levels of public opposition ever recorded for a planning application in the area.

2. Class 1 peatland and climate commitments at risk
The project would excavate approximately 480,000 m³ of peat on nationally important Class 1 peatland.
The developer’s own Biodiversity Net Gain assessment predicts a substantial net loss.
Under NPF4 and MPF4, development on peatland requires clear evidence that alternatives have been fully considered, an exceptional public benefit that outweighs impacts, and robust mitigation and minimisation.
Given the scale of peat disturbance and its climate implications, independent Ministerial examination is essential.

3. Confusion and uncertainty over the claimed economic benefit
The developer’s Socio Economic Assessment states that the project would support 17 job years in the Western Isles, which is a modelling unit, not 17 permanent jobs.
At the final decision meeting:

• a councillor referred to “29 annual job hours” and asked if this meant 29 full time Western Isles jobs
• officers were unable to explain the figures
• one officer incorrectly repeated “29 job years” even though the assessment states 17 job years for the Western Isles
• no officer could explain how job years translate into real employment or benefit

Because economic benefit was repeatedly used as a justification for approval, the lack of a clear and accurate explanation raises serious concerns about whether councillors had the information required for a sound planning decision.

4. Cumulative impacts and the industrialisation of Arnish Moor
The Arnish Hub is not a standalone development. It is the critical grid connection point for:

• the Western Isles HVDC Link (1.8 GW)
• major offshore and onshore wind projects such as Spiorad na Mara, Uisenis, Druim Leathann and Grimshader

Yet the Environmental Impact Assessment states that cumulative effects “cannot be fully quantified at this stage”.
This conflicts with NPF4, which requires cumulative landscape, ecological and traffic impacts to be assessed for large scale energy infrastructure, especially where multiple developments depend on a single hub.
Without a robust national level cumulative assessment, the Western Isles risk a piecemeal expansion of industrial infrastructure across Arnish Moor and surrounding areas.

5. A systemic gap between national energy policy and local planning assessment
The Western Isles HVDC Link was approved by Ofgem on the basis of expected generation from major future wind projects, most of which do not yet have planning permission.
Local planners, however, stated they could not assess cumulative impacts because these projects were “not consented”.
This inconsistency means that national infrastructure is being approved assuming large wind projects will proceed, while local planning treats those same developments as if they do not exist.
For a project involving significant peatland loss, ecological impact and community consequences, this gap undermines the level of cumulative assessment that NPF4 requires.

6. Why Ministerial call in is necessary
The Arnish Hub has long term consequences for:

• Scotland’s climate and peatland targets
• biodiversity and protected species
• communities in and around Stornoway
• the pattern of future energy development across the Western Isles

Given the gaps in scrutiny, uncertainty over key evidence (such as peat loss and employment benefit), missing cumulative assessment, and overwhelming public objection, it is appropriate and necessary for Scottish Ministers to call in this application, conduct an independent national review, and if warranted determine it through a Public Local Inquiry.
This petition is not anti renewables. It seeks transparent and evidence based decision making that respects Scotland’s climate, biodiversity and planning commitments.