Arcane, convoluted,
obscure: stage one of the Beauly-Denny public inquiry
by FotO chair Nicki
Baker
AS I WRITE THIS, we are drawing breath for a much-needed two-week break over
Easter, following an intensive eight-week period which has seen the bulk of
the strategic and generic evi dence put to the public inquiry (PI) into the
bid by Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE) to upgrade the Beauly-Denny power
line. The PI opened on 6 February, with widespread media interest, extending
even to the London-based BBC Radio 4. But from that very first day, it became
abundantly clear that virtually no one, other than a handful of very highly
paid legal people, and presumably some similarly highly paid professional advisers
(mostly engaged by SSE), plus a few employees of the councils and Scottish Natural
Heritage (SNH), and the luckless Reporters employed by the Scottish Executive,
could possibly understand what on earth was going on - or could wish to. Certainly,
the faces of the handful of newspaper reporters who sat through that first day
of the PI said it all - rarely have I seen people look more tortured, out of
their depth, and disaffected. So it is no surprise, given the arcane, convoluted
and obscure nature of the proceedings, that there has been very little media
coverage of the progress of the PI itself.
One wonders how on earth we came to such a pass. For sure, this is not the way
to come efficiently to a sensible decision about such a nationally important
issue, with such complex and widespread impacts, as this bid to upgrade Beauly-Denny.
I for one had assumed that, if a PI were called, it would be for the Scottish
Executive to take active responsibility for developing a clear understanding
of all the circumstances, and all the pros and cons, and all the possible alternatives,
before coming to a view as to what should be done.
But that’s not the way of it. In a PI, the Executive takes a fundamentally
passive role. They sort out a venue and timetable for the hearings, and allocate
Reporters to chair and to adjudicate, but that’s all they do. As one would
expect, it’s up to the applicants to put forward all the evidence to support
their case. But it’s then left entirely up to the parties who object to
the proposals to make all the running in showing up the weaknesses of that case
and identifying alternative ways forward.
When the case in question is a normal planning application - for, say, an extension
to someone’s house - that might be quite sensible. But when the issue
is a 220km overhead power line, where the need is predicated on the determination
by the UK government and the Scottish Executive to cover Scotland with windfarms,
and where the issues include identifying how many other major power line upgrades
will be needed in short succession (answer: Denny-Wishaw, Beauly-Keith, Beauly-Blackhillock,
and a third Scotland-England interconnector), it’s not remotely fair to
expect hard-pressed councils, SNH, and unresourced local groups to sort out
the issues and find the alternatives. Particularly when the alternatives include
such technically complex and costly options as creating an electricity grid
undersea instead of overland, or, more locally, putting the power line underground.
The position we’ve reached at present in the PI can be summarised as follows:
There is a crying need for an independent, objective Strategic Environmental
Assessment to be carried out on all the alternatives to an overhead, inland
power line. This is a requirement of European law, and legal challenges have
been made to the Executive on its absence. We await the outcome.
Very serious consideration needs to be given to the possibility of putting this
and all future high-voltage transmission lines under the sea. This option is
technically feasible, and may be no more expensive than the overhead option,
if all the costs are recognised.
The main theme running through the PI is whether some parts of the Beauly-Denny
route should be put underground (if it goes ahead). There are precedents, and
the 1992 PI into a power line in North Yorkshire offers a strong precedent for
the Ochils case. This is one of just three stretches of the 220km route where
the possibility of undergrounding seems to be being taken seriously.
SNH looks likely to conclude that there is no route to the east of Stirling
that would be suitable for either an overhead or an underground power line.
They are investigating possible underground routes to the west of Stirling.
Stirling Council is supporting them in this bid.
Support us at the Stirling session of the PI!
At this stage in the PI, nothing is decided one way or the other. All the local
issues will be put forward and challenged at the Stirling area session of the
PI, due to meet between 20 November and 20 December. We would urge all members
to come along to one or more days of that session, to show support.
Lobby your new political representatives!
Finally, you’ll be aware that we’re coming up to elections for councils
and parliament, and by the time you read this we will have various new - or
reinstated - representatives. This period of change is a golden opportunity
to influence policy - so please, get in touch with your MSPs and councillors
and ask them where they stand on the pylons issue and, indeed, on the issue
of windfarms in the Ochils.
For further information on the issues, phone Nicki Baker on 01786 833399, or
email her at nicki. baker@btinternet.com