Power firms reject burial of Beauly-Denny cables

Published on Monday 18 January 2010 21:44

THE energy giants responsible for the controversial Beauly to Denny power line have ruled out burying any sections of the cable underground, The Scotsman can reveal.

• Campaigners want power lines to go underground near Plean. Picture: TSPL

The news undermines repeated claims by energy minister Jim Mather that it was still a possibility part of the 137-mile line would be buried out of sight. It also dashes the hopes of campaigners who have been desperately fighting to have sections of the 350 million project hidden from view.

Instead, it leaves the prospect of little action being taken to mask the giant pylons, which will stand up to 217 ft tall, other than tree planting.

The Scottish Government, which approved the line a fortnight ago, argues it is crucial for the development of renewables in Scotland, but campaigners fear the 600 giant pylons will destroy some of the country's most beautiful landscapes.

An energy company insider insisted neither ScottishPower nor Scottish & Southern Energy, who are responsible for the line, had any intention of burying any of the sections.

A source from one of the firms told The Scotsman: "The companies are keen to press on as quickly as possible and do not want to go back to (regulator] Ofgem. They are looking at solutions outwith undergrounding."

When asked to clarify whether burying any of the sections underground was an option, the source replied starkly: "No".

Mr Mather has ordered the energy giants to come up with measures to mitigate the visual impact of the line in three areas: Stirling; Glenside Farm, near Plean, Stirlingshire; and at Auchilhanzie House, near Crieff.

He has repeatedly insisted it is a possibility this could involve the power companies burying these sections of the line underground, while making clear he has no power to force them to do so.

However, campaigners and opposition politicians yesterday criticised Mr Mather for raising hopes that burying sections was still an option.

They accused him of trying to win back the support of voters appalled by his decision to approve the scheme, which attracted more than 18,000 objections.

Lewis Macdonald, Scottish Labour's energy spokesman, said although, in a "technical, pedantic, legalistic sense", it was correct of Mr Mather to say undergrounding was still possible, "everybody knows it won't happen, and he must know that too".

The Labour MSP said he believed the SNP had been trying to keep voters onside. "I think what they have been really unwilling to do is admit to all the people who objected that their views have been disregarded," he said.

Critics pointed out it was highly unlikely the power firms would propose burying the line, unless ordered to do so by government.

It would cost about ten times as much to bury sections of the line compared with using overhead cables and would delay the project by up to four years.

The inquiry reporters concluded there was no justification for burying sections.

Mr Macdonald said: "If the reporter has said that and the minister has endorsed his report, as he has, no developer imaginable is going to take a situation where they have been told they can go ahead and do what they want and then do something they don't want to do."

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, which campaigns to protect Scotland's wild land, was equally sceptical about Mr Mather's motives.

"A cynic would say elections are coming and people are very upset and what would help smooth that over is extending uncertainty rather than being clear-cut that actually this is the position," she said. "If you keep saying there might be some crumb of hope, then people might still be engaged and hope there is a genuine possibility."

Peter Pearson, from campaign group Stirling Before Pylons, which is fighting for that section of the line to be buried, said he was "extremely disappointed" by the stance of the power companies.

"Undergrounding is our bottom line," he said. "It's the only acceptable solution.

"Planting a few trees and bushes is completely irrelevant when you are talking about giant power lines. Any solution that doesn't involve undergrounding is a complete waste of time."

Mr Mather has the power to reject mitigation measures proposed by the power companies for the three sections, if he deems them inadequate.

However, Mr Pearson said he did not "hold out great hope" that Mr Mather would insist on tougher measures. He said if the minister had really wanted sections to be put underground, he could have withheld consent for those parts of the line, to force a new planning application that proposed burying them.

The inquiry reporters concluded that, while undergrounding

was "technically feasible, and probably economically viable", they had "not been persuaded that any of the undergrounding proposals offers sufficient environmental advantages to justify the substantial increase in the cost of the project, which would render the project less efficient".

A spokeswoman for Scottish & Southern Energy, responsible for the Crieff section, admitted it was "unlikely" the firm would propose undergrounding as a mitigation measure.

ScottishPower, responsible for the other two sections requiring "visual mitigation", said: "We are still considering our plans for the conditions."

A Scottish Government spokesman insisted it was still a possibility that sections of the line could be put underground.

"The Beauly-Denny upgrade – with a quarter fewer pylons – will help unlock Scotland's vast renewables potential," he said. "Jim Mather has put in place wide-ranging and stringent conditions in Stirling, and in other areas the developers must mitigate the visual impacts of the upgrade. Undergrounding is an option for meeting those conditions."

Analysis:

Jenny Fyall: Mather's tactics seem to have backfired