Energy minister Jim Mather gave green light to power line despite advice

Published on Wednesday 13 January 2010 21:36

ENERGY minister Jim Mather rejected the recommendations of inquiry reporters when he approved the entire Beauly to Denny power line.

• Jim Mather. Picture: TSPL

Public inquiry reporters recommended Mr Mather turn down permission for two sections of the controversial power line – one in Stirlingshire and one in Perthshire.

However, Mr Mather approved the entire 137-mile line from Beauly near Inverness to Denny near Stirling last week, even though it attracted 18,000 objections from the public.

Yesterday, he was criticised by opposition politicians for not making it clear to parliament he had gone against the reporters' recommendations.

Many people fear the 600 huge pylons, which will stand up to 217ft tall, will destroy some of Scotland's most precious views. Mr Mather was questioned by the economy, energy and tourism committee yesterday about his decision to allow the line at B-listed Auchilhanzie House, near Crieff in Perthshire and at Glenside Farm near Denny in Stirling.

The reporters concluded that the power line would have an unacceptably high impact on those areas, which make up 975 metres of the line.

They said it would have a "major adverse effect" on Auchilhanzie House and that the impact was "so great" on Glenside Farm that it justified an adjustment.

Mr Mather defended his decision by saying he wanted a "whole-line solution". He demanded mitigation measures be put in place to lessen the impact of the line on the two areas.

Lewis Macdonald, Labour's energy spokesman, criticised Mr Mather during the committee meeting for not making it clear to parliament that he had not followed the reporters' recommendations. "I don't understand why you decided not to tell anybody that," he said.

Mr Mather said that was a "matter of regret" but added: "That's a matter of fact and that's where we are."

If he had turned down permission for the two sections, Scottish and Southern Energy and ScottishPower, which are responsible for the line at the two sites, would have had to draw up alternative solutions.

This probably would have entailed submitting new planning applications, which would have delayed the power line – already on the drawing board for four years – even further.

It could have meant the power companies had to suggest burying those sections underground.

Peter Pearson, from campaign group Stirling Against Pylons, said he thought an important "point of principle" had been broken by Mr Mather rejecting the advice. He added he would continue to fight for the entire section through Stirling to be put underground.

"This section (at Glenside Farm] would be welcome but we will be fighting for the whole of the Stirling section to be underground," he said.

He denied that this could be too expensive, even though the reporters said it would not be economically viable for large sections to be put underground.

"There have been a lot of developments since the reporters completed their work two years ago.

"Scotland had the opportunity to put itself in line with other European countries and has decided to go with an outdated technology."

During yesterday's meeting, Mr Mather said he hoped work would start on the line by summer.

However, Mr Pearson questioned how this would give enough time for proper scrutiny of mitigation measures.

Mr Mather did not rule out sections could be put underground as part of visual mitigation measures, which he has demanded for eight sites along the line.

Committee convener Iain Smith asked: "Is undergrounding one of the things that could be done as mitigation?"

Mr Mather replied: "We can't require them to be underground. What we can require them to do is to mitigate. That leaves them the option to mitigate by undergrounding."