Infrastructure Planning Commission
| On 14 June 2010 a meeting took place, arranged by the Infrastructure Planning Commission and chaired by a Commissioner, with representatives of National Grid, Local Authorities and campaigning groups including DVS. The campaigning groups including DVS which oppose any new pylons spoke from a common brief, which is below. It has been sent to the IPC. Click to view (pdf 77Kb) |
Pylons Bulletin June 2010
National Grid’s original timetable was for consultation on route corridor options to close at the end of February 2010, to be followed immediately by selection of the route corridor and consultation about detailed alignment. Consultation still continues, nominally about the choice of route corridor, but in practice about the stage prior to that, ie the choice between a new line of pylons from Bramford to Twinstead and the alternatives. NG attempted not to consult about this – the real issue – but have been obliged to do so, thanks to the community groups including DVS which refused to engage on NG’s terms and debate the choice of route corridor. NG now envisage announcing the route corridor in September, but accept that if consultation takes longer, that will be delayed. We continue to work against any new pylons. All this became clear at a meeting on Monday 14 June organised by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), the body which the previous government created to decide major infrastructure applications such as the Bramford – Twinstead pylons. There were four groups at the meeting:
The substantive part of the meeting opened by Charles Aldous – Chairman of the Colne-Stour Countryside Association and a retired senior QC - making a statement on behalf of the groups opposing all route corridors. This attacked both legs of the NG case: the need for new transmission capacity, and the choice between options for new transmission capacity. On need, NG’s original public case was that new generating capacity – two gas power stations, Sizewell C and offshore wind farms – necessitated new pylons. We now know
NG now tell us that their need case is not a matter of capacity, but of security of transmission. This is a highly technical matter, and one which emerged as central to their case only as the original consultation closed. We have had minimal opportunity to probe this issue, but already it appears that there are options to deal with security of supply issues other than by a second line of pylons Bramford – Twinstead. The simplest is simply to turn down the new gas power stations, should there be an incident threatening security of supply. NG were clearly on the back foot on this at the meeting. On choice, we pointed out that NG had offered no justification for concluding that the lesser cost of pylons outweighed their environmental detriment. They simply said “It’s a judgement call, which it is for NG to make”. We pointed out that their judgement had to be able to stand objective scrutiny ie had to be justified. This seemed an altogether new idea to them. Their stance was that environmental assessment is to be confined to micro-analysis of the choices within a predetermined route corridor. NG are also on the back foot about making public all the responses they received to their consultation. This is now automatic for responses to local planning applications. NG proposed not to do so, on the grounds that some contained matter personal to the respondent. The IPC then revealed that they will make all consultation responses public if and when the application reaches them (subject to “redacting” – ie blacking-out - any personal material – again, standard practice with local planning applications). We put it to NG that they should therefore make them public now, when they might assist the consultation process. We shall, with the other groups we have been working with, follow this up.
|
National Grid proposals for new overhead lines from Bramford to Twinstead
The Dedham Vale Society has made a full and carefully considered response to National Grid's proposals. Click here to view (pdf 92Kb) DVS has made a similar response - Click here to view (pdf 83Kb) - to the consultation on the government's National Policy Statements, which when approved will govern the working of the Infrastructure Planning Commission, which will decide on the National Grid proposals and similar major infrastructure investments such as new power stations and ports Prior to these submissions, the following items were sent to Parish Councils, Suffolk County Council, and Members of Parliament. Click here to view (pdf 60Kb) A: Submission
by Dedham Vale Society to Suffolk County Council, 28 January
2010 |
Taking
the Pylon Fight Online
East
Anglian Daily Times 4 November 2009
Groups
launch websites |
National Grid's Public Exhibition Programme
National
Grid launch public consultation about proposals to reinforce
the high voltage electricity network in south Suffolk and part
of Essex. They are holding a series of exhibitions where you
will be able to view their proposals, talk to project team representatives
and record your comments. 14
October 2009 |
Stour Valley Underground, the pressure group Stour Valley Underground (SVU) has been established following a meeting of councillors from the parish councils representing the communities of Lamarsh, Alphamstone, Middleton, the Hennys and Twinstead. These are the north Essex villages that lie along the sides of the beautiful Stour Valley. Stour Valley Underground has a highly informative web site available to fully brief on National Grid's proposals and their case for putting all of the power lines underground. This case details an argument that far from being an example of nimby-ism is a case that says yes, we need the power lines, yes they should come down the path of the existing pylon lines, yes they should be in our back yard - UNDERGROUND. |
East
Anglian Daily Times launches The EADT is today launching a campaign to oppose plans for a new line of gigantic power pylons across the beautiful south Suffolk countryside. National Grid is looking to link an extra set of cables between its substation in Bramford, near Ipswich, and a power junction in Twinstead, near Sudbury. The energy giant says the extra line is needed to help accommodate increased demand and the future generation of electricity along the Suffolk coast, including a planned new nuclear plant at Sizewell. |
|
Today, the EADT joins forces with groups representing landowners, the tourist trade and conservationists to call for an alternative way of transporting power to be found.
|
 Click to view the Suffolk Pylon Plan (pdf 405Kb) |
An
opportunity to put all high-voltage wires underground
| National
Grid now has an opportunity to put all the existing high-voltage
wires as well as the new ones underground rather than
inflict a blight on the countryside that will last for generations,
possibly for hundreds of years. Our grandchildren will not thank
us if we give up the fight now. Please let me have your views. |
Robert
Erith
Chairman, Dedham
Vale AONB & Stour Valley
Project Partnership & President Dedham Vale Society
An opportunity to put all high-voltage wires underground
My view is that it
is much too soon to give up on the undergrounding option. We
have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get all the high voltage cables
on this route undergrounded. The present wire-scape is a monstrous
intrusion into a beautiful part of the Essex/Suffolk landscape and
the proposed new line will make it much worse wherever it goes. I believe
this is absolutely unacceptable and will meet with massive opposition
if this can be properly organised.
National Grid now has an opportunity to put all the existing high-voltage
wires as well as the new ones underground rather than inflict a blight
on the countryside that will last for generations, possibly for hundreds of
years. Our grandchildren will not thank us if we give up the fight now.
NG should look on undergrounding as an opportunity to project itself as an
organisation which is environmentally friendly and aware.
Skills and experience doing the work will enable it to acquire cutting edge
technology to put cables underground on an ever cheaper and more efficient
basis.
Costs must inevitably come down as more undergrounding is put in place and
as a result the company should become the leading provider of undergrounding
services worldwide.
I realise that the immediate cost of undergrounding is far higher
than putting up new pylons but that is not how we should look at this matter.
The key aspect is the long term cost over say, 100 years, of construction and
maintenance compared with construction and maintenance of the overhead option.
Overhead wires will inevitably need to be replaced more frequently and are
subject to the vagaries of weather and hazard in a way which would not apply
to undergrounded cables.
Add these factors to the environmental and safety benefits which loom far larger
than they did fifty years ago when the last pylons were erected and there is
a compelling case to put to National Grid and to the regulators who will make
the final decision.
How this can be financed? Again, I believe that it would be quite possible
to raise very long-term finance for undergrounding and amortise it over a great
length of time. There are plenty of organisations who would be very interested
in long term bonds from a utility with a guaranteed, probably inflation linked,
cash-flow for as long as we can foresee.
Current interest rates are at the lowest for decades and it would be an ideal
time to structure a major deal for this project.
I think we need technical help from independent sources who could give us an
idea of the long-term cost/benefits of undergrounding v overhead and also bankers
and fund managers (not just in UK) who would be interested in long-term funding
from utilities such as NG. Some understanding of the accounting issues would
also be helpful.
In short, there must be a lot of thinking “outside the box “and
a lot of support will be needed
along the lines of the excellent campaign by the East Anglian Daily Times which
has given a first class lead.
Please let
me have your views. I think this is the big one!!!
Robert
Erith, 1 October 2009
Chairman,
Dedham Vale AONB & Stour Valley
Project Partnership & President Dedham Vale Society
My view is that we
need a Plan B, because it is unlikely we win this one.
The cost of what is probably National Grid's preferred option, replace the
existing 132 kv line by a new 400 kv line on the same alignment as the existing
400 kv line, costs them around £45 million including a new sub-station.
The cost of undergrounding two 400 kv lines from Bramford to Twinstead, using
the lower of the figures they quoted, is around £1,000 million. This
would halve if the undergrounding is only from Polstead to Twinstead.
National Grid say that the cost of maintenance of underground cables is higher
than that of overhead lines,because of the difficulties of access. They already
have considerable experience of undergrounding, because they have to do it
in cities.
And, what I'm afraid will weigh heavy with the Infrastructure Planning Commission
who will decide this, is that if all new and existing National Grid lines are
to go underground in and around the Dedham Vale AONB, the same must hold for
the other AONBs and National Parks. Simultaneously with the Bramford to Twinstead
project, National Grid have a similar project to connect Hinckley Point C on
the Somerset coast. This goes through the Mendip Hills AONB. Undergrounding
there on a similar basis would cost around another £500 million. And
so on. We can argue that if the environmental benefits outweigh the costs here,
they do so in other AONBs - but the costs of undergrounding both new and existing
become very large indeed.
At least, if a big campaign of opposition can be generated, we can extract
a heavy price in other directions if the wires do go up.
Two constructive points:
- 4 miles of undergrounding was agreed in the Lower Lea Valley in east London for (a) the Olympics (b) regeneration
- We should press National Grid on the implications of "smart grids" for their capacity needs. In this context, a "smart grid" is matches the erratic output of wind power (a large part of the rationale for the Bramford to Twinstead link) with the massive increase in electricity storage capacity associated with electric/hybrid cars. So the electricity transmission can be "time-shifted" to periods when the transmission capacity is available, thus not only making best use of the wind power but also of the grid. Maybe this would render the Bramford to Twinstead unnecessary? We should at least ask.
Adam
Sedgewick, 1
October 2009