Power-line confusion adds to anger over loss of priceless asset

IF THE Scottish administration's announcement of approval for the Beauly-Denny transmission line was poorly handled, then today's report will leave many in Scotland deeply cynical about the way in which they have been treated. Barely two weeks after Jim Mather, the enterprise and tourism minister, insisted that "visual modification measures" by the power companies could still involve taking the transmission lines underground for the most sensitive parts of the route, we understa

That leaves a limited range of measures to offset the intrusion of some 600 giant pylons across some of the most beautiful scenery of Scotland. Campaigners believe the remaining options will do little to "mitigate" the intrusion at all. And it will add to the deep sense of grievance shared by more than 18,000 objectors to this project that their concerns have not been fairly dealt with. First, the minister failed to reveal he had gone against the advice of the planning inquiry reporters that planning permission be withheld on two sections of the line because of the major visual intrusion. Then he held out the prospect that the lines could still go underground in these sensitive areas.

Not only is it now highly unlikely that this will be the case, but it would appear it was never seriously considered as an option. The minister protests that he had no powers to order the power companies to put the line underground. But, as Helen McDade of the John Muir Trust points out, if he did not have this power, why was this option the subject of lengthy hearings in the inquiry?

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The impression left is that the administration wanted this transmission line to go through and that it is keen for work to start as soon as possible. It has had enough of objections and delays.

It has set itself ambitious targets in renewable energy. The Scotsman supports development in this area. It is a critical – and growing – part of our energy mix. We also support the technological innovation and development that has been the hallmark of the renewables industry, and which have enabled projects that seemed impossible a few years ago to become reality.

But the administration also has an obligation to protect and preserve Scotland's best landscapes. Areas of the country famed the world over for their rugged grandeur are not to be treated as no more than brownfield sites for power companies. This line makes nonsense of the rigorous planning protocols for the Cairngorms National Park, while ruining some of the best views around Stirling and the Ochils.

These landscapes are a national asset, more precious than any painting in the National Gallery or piece of heritage architecture. Mr Mather insists he still has the power of veto over the power firms' proposals if they do not mitigate enough. But his confusing words on undergrounding look to be nothing more than a mitigation ploy of his own to cushion the political fall-out of this shoddily argued decision. He has put our most precious heritage in danger.