Beauly to Denny Power Line
The next item of business is a statement by Jim Mather on the decision on the Beauly to Denny power line. The minister will take questions at the end of his 15-minute statement so there should be no interventions or interruptions.
This statement to Parliament is on my decision on the applications from SP Transmission Ltd and Scottish Hydro-Electric Transmission Ltd for consent under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and deemed planning permission under section 57(2) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 to install a 400kV double circuit overhead line connection between Beauly substation and Denny substation. The applications seek to upgrade and replace the existing line.
In addition to the statement, I am writing to the three parliamentary committees that have an interest in the applications—the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee, the Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee and the Public Petitions Committee. I have also placed copies of the decision letters and the report of the public local inquiry in the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the Scottish Government website. They are now available.
I sought to make a statement to Parliament because of the importance of this decision for our sustainable energy future, our energy sector, Scotland's position at the forefront of renewable energy development, our environmental and cultural heritage, and the communities and groups along the length of the proposed line.
It is clear that our electricity grid network needs further capacity to carry the levels of renewable energy that will be generated in Scotland in the coming years. Equally, to protect Scotland's energy security and deliver that energy potential, we need a transmission network that is fit for purpose.
Given its scale, the Beauly to Denny upgrade is the most significant and important electricity infrastructure reinforcement project in a generation. In view of the spectrum of interests involved, important infrastructure decisions can be difficult, therefore it is absolutely right to consider fully all the issues and all the views, especially on a proposal of this scale, detail and complexity. That is the right approach on an issue of such importance to our energy future, our economy, our environment, our climate change efforts and the communities along the line. I have therefore given the most careful consideration to the applications. I have considered the detailed and extensive submissions that were made to the public local inquiry and the representations that have been made since the inquiry closed. I have considered the findings of the reporters and their consideration of the issues raised.
In reaching my decision, I have balanced the macroeconomic need for and the benefits of upgrading the existing line and the visual and landscape impact at locations along the whole route. The reporters found a compelling need and technical justifications for the overhead line solution. They recognised the pressing need to reinforce the electricity grid to accommodate renewable electricity generation in the north of Scotland. Crucially, they also found that the economic justification for the proposal was strong. I agree with the reporters on all those issues.
On balance, I conclude that there are strong arguments for a whole-line solution, which outweigh the withholding of consent for the line or sections of the line. I have therefore granted consent to upgrade the power line between Beauly and Denny, which is key to unlocking the vast renewable energy potential in the north of Scotland.
However, in consenting to the applications—in giving consent for the project—I have not given a blueprint for unrestrained development. Consent is subject to a detailed and comprehensive range of conditions, including material mitigation of the impact of the line on the surrounding areas. That is proof positive that the reporters and I have listened to the representations that have been made and the interests of the communities along the line.
The aim is to balance the delivery of this important project with the protection of the vital interests of communities, the environment, our cultural heritage and Scotland's tourism sector. The key to that, and to ensuring that the development is delivered appropriately throughout, is the on-going engagement of local communities, their representatives and other key interests. The conditions that I am attaching to the consent require that. The details of the conditions are set out in the decision letters. They are extensive, thorough and detailed, which is entirely proper in a project of this scale and importance.
The existing 132kV overhead line will be dismantled and I will require the power companies to bring forward a range of improvements to the wirescape and undergrounding of a number of existing lines around and connecting to the line along its length. As a result, 86.5km of existing wirescape can be removed or improved at a potential capital cost of more than £50 million.
In addition to the five mitigation schemes recommended by the reporters at Muthill, Balblair, the Cairngorm national park, Errochty and Stirling, I have asked for further measures to mitigate as far as possible the visual impact of the line in the Stirling area, at Glenside near Plean and at Auchilhanzie house near Crieff. I want the applicants to be as flexible as possible in their approach to mitigating the impact of the line in those additional three areas. I also want them to consult closely the key parties and the local authorities in particular.
In addition, I have imposed conditions to protect the interests of communities and the environment and to mitigate further the landscape and visual impact. Those include an environmental liaison group to advise on mitigation, construction, restoration and habitat measures as the development progresses; and a tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group to advise on mitigation of the impact of the line on tourism and historical and cultural heritage, and to make recommendations on the potential wider benefits that the development will bring.
The developers will need to produce a construction procedures handbook that sets out how the development will be constructed and managed. It will cover important issues that relate to the protection of our natural environment, such as waste minimisation and management, watercourse crossings and wildlife and Natura site protective measures. That will ensure that the construction phase is as responsible and sensitive as possible to the spectrum of local community needs and interests.
The conditions are stretching but, in view of the development's significance and the importance of the environmental and community issues that have been raised, they are wholly appropriate. A range of other conditions will require the developers to safeguard against pollution, provide landscaping plans, minimise construction noise and traffic, and provide support for local businesses and community engagement.
I have sought a balance between developing and delivering Scotland's energy future and protecting environmental, cultural heritage, economic and community interests.
The line's route was arrived at after consideration of the existing long-established pylon route from Beauly to Denny and extensive consultation. The route was extensively discussed during what was the largest public local inquiry in the Parliament's history. I will take a moment to pay tribute to the inquiry reporters and the technical assessor for their diligent, detailed and professional approach. I also pay tribute to the organisations, groups and individuals who contributed to the public inquiry and who have contributed since. The scale, detail and range of that input testified to the passion and commitment of all those who were involved. That input was vital in helping to shape the report, the conditions and my decision on this important development.
As Parliament knows, the overhead line will be 220km—137 miles—long. The reinforcement of the line will reduce the number of pylons by more than a quarter—from 815 to about 600—and will follow the existing line for most of the route.
It is important to focus on the broader benefits that the upgrade will bring to Scotland. Before Christmas, world leaders met in Copenhagen to discuss how to tackle the challenge of climate change, which is arguably the biggest challenge facing mankind. Scotland's world-leading Climate Change (Scotland) Act 2009 and the actions that we are taking to meet our climate change targets have put us at the heart of that discussion.
It is vital that Scotland plays its part to deliver the low-carbon and secure renewable energy future to which we all aspire. To do that credibly, we in Scotland need to take the important decisions that will help to deliver that. The decision on the Beauly to Denny line, which is key to unlocking the north of Scotland's renewable energy potential, is one such decision.
Let us be absolutely clear about the scale of the opportunity that is in our grasp. With a quarter of Europe's wind and tidal power resource and 10 per cent of Europe's wave power, Scotland has a massive renewable energy potential. Through building on the legacy of our oil and gas and other energy industries, Scotland could be a European leader in clean, green energy.
Yet Scotland has a unique opportunity to do much more. Consequently, we have an obligation to future generations to do much more. Connecting and transporting Scotland's renewable energy are crucial to the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe. The Beauly to Denny overhead line will help to meet that aim by providing a circuit to which much of the generation in the north of Scotland and along the line from Beauly to Denny can be connected.
The upgraded line's capacity will increase from being able to transport 1.5GW of energy to being able to transport at least 2.5GW of renewable generation and will support wider grid capacity reinforcement to transport up to 5.2GW in the north of Scotland grid. As at October 2009, figures that National Grid has provided show that more than 50 projects, which total about 4.2GW, are queued behind the grid system boundary above the Beauly to Denny line. That represents two thirds of peak demand in Scotland. The decision today is therefore another significant step towards Scotland becoming Europe's clean, green energy hub and towards providing what the reporters noted to be the
"strong link for the connection of renewable generation along the route of the proposed Beauly to Denny line".
Let me be absolutely clear: today's decision provides an important and necessary grid upgrade in addition to rather than as opposed to an upgrade of existing infrastructure, including reinforcement of the grid down the east coast of Scotland and subsea cable development.
The Beauly to Denny line will help to unlock Scotland's onshore and offshore energy potential. It is the most significant and important electricity grid infrastructure reinforcement project in a generation. I have granted consent for the project with a range of conditions that recognise the legitimate concerns of communities along the length of the line. I have granted consent that recognises the wider context, benefits and challenges of a development of this scale and opportunity.
I welcome this opportunity to share my decision with Parliament.
Thank you, minister. I am grateful for the couple of minutes of extra time that you have given to us. Time is extremely tight. I have exactly half an hour for questions on the statement. Many members have requested to speak, therefore I ask that questions and answers be as succinct as possible.
I thank the minister for providing an advance copy of his statement. I welcome his decision to grant consent. The statement has been long awaited—indeed, the decision has been long delayed. It is difficult to see what the minister has told us today that he could not have told us six months ago.
As the convener of the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee noted before proceedings began, on its own the statement is somewhat devoid of detail. In addition, so far it has not been accompanied by copies of the decision letters, which I assume will contain some of the important detail. I will therefore ask the minister for some of that detail on two points in particular.
The minister said that he will require
"a range of improvements to the wirescape and undergrounding of a number of existing lines",
and that
"86.5km of existing wirescape can be removed or improved".
What length of existing line will he require to be undergrounded? Where he does not require undergrounding, what will he require instead?
The minister also said that he intends to establish an environmental liaison group and a tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group, which he will require the developers to consult. Will the consultations add to the timescale for completion of the project?
Last year, the developers said that they could have commissioned the line by October 2012 if work had started by June 2009. Clearly, that did not happen. Does the minister expect that the conditions that he has set for the development will allow the developers to get started on the construction in the first half of 2010? Will the upgraded line be commissioned by October 2013? When will the work be finished? Will any condition that he has set for any part of the Beauly to Denny line or the essential lines that will connect to it require a fresh consent application?
I appreciate the member's welcome for the decision. I take his point on the delay, but I point out to him that the process was set in train by the previous Administration. The planning application was made in September 2005 and the public local inquiry was announced in September 2006. The PLI started in February 2007 and had to run until December 2007. We then had the report, which it took time for the reporters to produce. In essence, 80 per cent of the time was taken up by what the previous Administration set in train. We spent 16 per cent of the time on the necessary due diligence; we moved on as quickly as we possibly could.
The member referred to the wirescape. We anticipate that the wirescape could be reduced by 86km, which will be material. In essence, the ball has been put back firmly into the companies' court. They have the scope to come up with mitigation schemes, which we anticipate will involve a reduction in the wirescape and some undergrounding.
I do not believe that consultation will add to the timescale. Indeed, the process will accelerate, because there will be more cohesion. We also anticipate that the companies that have interests in renewables development in the north of Scotland will move ahead as quickly as possible to harvest that energy as best they can.
I thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement and welcome the fact that, at long last, we have a decision on this, the most controversial planning application in Scottish history. Few people would dispute the need to upgrade our grid infrastructure if we are properly to exploit Scotland's potential in offshore renewables. Nevertheless, today's announcement will be greeted with dismay by residents in Stirling, Perthshire and the Highlands who have campaigned against the line and by environmental groups such as the John Muir Trust, the National Trust for Scotland, the Ramblers Association and many others.
I have three short questions for the minister. First, what detailed consideration did he give to alternatives to the line, such as strengthening the east coast link, as proposed by Sir Donald Miller, or a subsea cable? Secondly, it seems that undergrounding sections of the line in areas of high scenic value has been ruled out, although without the decision letters being available it is impossible to be clear about that. Can the minister be precise about the matter? If he has ruled out undergrounding of the line, why did he not require that to be done to protect landscapes in sensitive locations such as around Stirling, where the new pylons will have a major impact on views to and from the castle and the Wallace monument? Finally, what compensation will be paid for loss of trade or amenity to those who are adversely affected by the new pylons or their construction?
I point out to the member that 25 out of 27 environmental groups, including WWF and Friends of the Earth, have supported and called for the line. We considered the east coast option. Scotland needs more than Beauly-Denny—it also needs the east coast option. Beauly-Denny is required to capture the 1.4GW of energy that will be generated along the line, not to mention the energy that is available to be collected more readily above it. The east coast development will happen in due course, along with other grid infrastructure developments as Scotland moves forward.
The member asked about the area around Stirling castle and the Wallace monument. We are reducing the number of pylons by 25 per cent and are moving pylons further away from certain areas. We are seeking mitigation in two locations in Stirling. In that climate, we have received feedback from Historic Scotland and the reporters that indicates that the differential effect will be minimal. There is a bit of collective amnesia on the issue—this is not a new line, but a replacement line. The mitigation that is proposed will improve the situation materially.
I thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement and for acceding to my request, and that of others, that he make a statement to Parliament, albeit later than promised. The delay in making this positive decision since receiving the reporters' findings almost a year ago is unfortunate and has caused needless uncertainty about a project that, as the minister said, is critical to realising Scotland's renewables potential. Such a situation cannot be allowed to arise again. Will the minister assure Parliament that a strategic approach will be taken to meeting our future grid and infrastructure needs, including the delivery of subsea cables?
Despite the positive tone of the minister's statement, it was lacking in detail. The implications of delivering this strategically important development will take time to emerge, not least given the absence of supporting documentation. Following the minister's response to Lewis Macdonald's question, will he have another stab at clarifying what mitigation is envisaged in relation to the five schemes that were recommended by the reporters and the three additional schemes that he has mentioned? Will any of those measures require additional legal consents to be sought? When does the minister expect work on this upgrade to get under way and to be completed?
It is important that members understand the issue. The canard of delay must be put to rest.
We inherited a system that was going forward along certain lines. We had to ensure that that due process was fulfilled and we had to carry out our due diligence in the proper way. Remember that there were three reporters; a civil service panel; six volumes of documentation; 200 witnesses; lots of late submissions; huge media and organisational interest; and enormous parliamentary scrutiny.
Compared with what happened in the past we are very much taking a strategic approach. That is where the national planning framework and our plans to optimise the totality of grid in Scotland in the long term come in. The member must give us some credit. We are trying to take, and I think we are succeeding in taking a much more structured approach. We owe an enormous debt to the reporters, the technical assessor and the many people who gave evidence to the public local inquiry, because that work put us firmly in a position to take matters forward in the way that we should.
Does the minister agree that carrying green "power from the glens", in the words of the old slogan of the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board, and now from the coasts of the north via the Beauly to Denny link, will secure Scotland's clean electricity independence and that this pylon route, constructed with care and with every speed, will begin the necessary expansion of the transmission network that can eventually include undersea cables that will take far longer to build?
I thank Rob Gibson for invoking the power from the glens, which in my generation was very much welcomed. In this instance, we share a vision with Scottish Renewables, Professor Jim McDonald, the European grid co-ordinator, the United Kingdom Department of Energy and Climate Change and many others. It is necessary that the development progresses appropriately, which is why we have put in place the environmental mitigation and construction handbook conditions.
The development is key to unlocking Scotland's renewables potential to become a European green hub. That is within our grasp. Through the replacement of the existing line and the conditions that we have put in place, we are protecting communities and, in the long term, protecting all the communities in Scotland in respect of security of supply, the competitiveness of their businesses and the affordability of energy in Scotland.
I ask the minister, for the third time of asking, where the undergrounding will occur. In particular, will it occur around Stirling and Crieff in my constituency? He has given no indication of that, although he has been asked three times.
We have left scope for the companies to do that. Under section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989, we may or may not approve overhead power lines. On undergrounding, we can put the ball back in the companies' court, which is exactly what we are doing. We have left scope for the companies to do that; we can only approve or disapprove overhead lines.
The minister referred to his personal decisions on mitigation measures in three areas: in the Stirling area, at Glenside and near Crieff. What will the mitigation measures be in those three areas?
In those three areas—Stirling at the Ochils, Glenside farm near Plean and Auchilhanzie house near Crieff—we have put the issue right back with the companies. The conditions have to be met to our satisfaction. We have the final say on the matter. We have put the mitigation issues back to the companies, which is entirely the right thing to do, and we will see what they bring forward. Remember that we have the environmental and community liaison groups. We have the combined scrutiny of Scotland on the case.
How much influence will communities that are affected by the line have on mitigating measures that are brought forward by the applicants and who will have the final say on whether the measures are acceptable?
As I said, we are looking to ensure that community involvement is very much improved. There will be mitigation, and if we achieve interactive, constant, proactive engagement we will secure a much better outcome across the line. People in Scotland are working together to get the best possible result. I expect to see that being done openly, with the involvement of the liaison groups and communities. We will look to achieve a much better outcome than would have been the case and a better outcome than there has been historically.
What special consideration has the minister given to the fact that the power line reinforcement runs through the Cairngorms national park, which is an area of extreme environmental sensitivity, a vital asset for tourism and a stunning location for the international film industry? Did the minister consider the use of new-generation underground cable technology such as cross-linked polyethylene installation, which requires less maintenance and is less hazardous to the environment? Does he share my view that it is possible to provide a springboard for renewables without scarring the landscape of Scotland?
Again we hear from a member who thinks that we have the power to dictate that undergrounding should happen. We do not.
We have, however, been able to achieve a significant reduction in the extent of the line that will go through the park: there will be fewer pylons and a shorter line. The rationalisation scheme that I mentioned will tidy up and reduce by 63km the feeder lines into the main line. The main line through the park will be reduced so that it takes up 28km instead of 35km and 128 pylons will be reduced to 76.
We can see why the Government refused to provide in advance a copy of the decision letter, given the confusion that the minister has displayed about what is meant by mitigation schemes. I ask him yet again what is intended by the five mitigation schemes that the reporters recommended in the report that only he has seen, and by the measures to mitigate the visual impact of the line in three more areas, to which the consent letter—which we have not yet seen—refers. What additional consents will be required? What delays might result from the approach? When does the minister expect work on the line to start and finish? Those are fairly straightforward questions, to which we deserve answers.
I can tell Iain Smith that I expect work on the line to start within four years and to finish within 10 years. That is the timeframe, but the companies involved have a greater sense of urgency.
Iain Smith should recognise the work that was done by the reporters and acknowledge that the feedback that the reporters took from the wider community has resulted in material rationalisation in the five areas that I mentioned. The reporters put in place the opportunity for me to identify the three key areas that I mentioned, in which we look for further mitigation. That is in place.
On top of that, the tourism, cultural heritage and community liaison group, the environmental liaison group and an independent environmental contractor will focus on the issue, and the community liaison scheme will ensure that the connection with communities is total.
The minister is well aware that Scotland is a net exporter of electricity. Can he confirm that the decision that he has made, alongside other good improvements that are set out in the national planning framework, will safeguard not only Scotland's energy security but our position as an electricity exporter?
The key issue is that the decision will unlock our renewables potential and help us to achieve a high level of energy exports. We are talking about the potential to export some 11.4GW from Scotland, which is exceedingly material. Another important point is that the decision puts Scotland back on the European map and provides credibility such that more and more people throughout Europe will realise the significance of Scotland in helping the United Kingdom and Europe to meet their renewable energy and climate change targets. This is a positive move in the right direction.
Why does the minister think it might take four years to start the project? He has asked for applicants to be as flexible as possible on environmental mitigation and he keeps saying that he has put the decisions back to the companies. Will he clarify whether they now need more planning permission to proceed with the scheme? Will he give us a bit more detail on what he has decided today?
Four years is a limit. We expect the companies to start within four years but think that they will start well into 2010 and that they will crack on at a good pace because the commercial imperatives exist for them to do so. I do not anticipate any delay in driving the project forward. The line will become an iconic project of which many people in Scotland will be proud in the years to come, as we tidy up the legacy of the past.
The minister is working hard not to give detailed answers to clear questions, so he will understand that there is concern among members. The project should get under way within months, not within four years. I am the fifth member to ask for a clear guarantee that the project will not require further consents before the companies can begin work.
I have no reason to believe that the project will require further consents. We will see what mitigation processes the companies come up with and we will then make decisions. As I said before, there is an understanding that it is imperative that the matter be addressed. There is big appetite to see the project in place and, now that consent is in place, I expect the wheels to be set in motion.
I appreciate the minister's proposals for a range of improvements to the wirescape and the undergrounding of a number of existing lines around and connecting to the line, and that those improvements will be up to the companies. Will the improvements include the line itself, and how quickly does the minister expect decisions from the companies?
We all knew that it was technically unfeasible to underground anything like the whole line. We are also clear that, on certain parts of it, there would be environmental, ecological, cultural or archaeological reasons why undergrounding could cause greater damage. Therefore, we will have to wait for the responses and make our judgments accordingly. However, our criteria are firm.
I thank the minister for bringing this long-standing question to a conclusion. Will he say any more about what form any future connection from Beauly to Ullapool might take?
The Beauly to Denny line is a key part of strengthening the grid network in the north of Scotland, but more is needed. Our second "National Planning Framework for Scotland", which was published last summer, is a key element in planning reform. It is the spatial dimension of national policy and identifies a suite of strategic reinforcements that will provide further capacity to deliver the overarching aims of sustainable growth and maximising our renewables. Therefore, it is a question of waiting and seeing.
On a point of order, Presiding Officer. In his statement, the minister said:
"I have also placed copies of the decision letters and the report of the public local inquiry in the Scottish Parliament information centre and on the Scottish Government website. They are now available."
When the statement was made, that was not accurate. I hope and believe that the minister did not deliberately mislead Parliament, but it is important to emphasise that those documents were not available at any stage during his statement or the questions and answers afterwards. I checked with SPICe from time to time throughout the statement and was told that a link to the documents was made available to it after the minister sat down, but it has proved not to be possible to print copies to make available to members of the Parliament. That is a grave discourtesy and—which is worse—has lessened members' ability to scrutinise properly the minister's statement and to make proper sense of it.
This is an important point of order, because it is important that the documents should have been made available to the Parliament when the minister stated that they had been.
The minister has indicated that he is happy to respond and I am happy to let him do so.
All I can say is that we will look into the matter and that no discourtesy was intended to Parliament. I will try to find out exactly what happened.
I hope that you will come back to me when you have looked into that, minister. If there is anything further to report to Parliament in that regard, I will do so.
We have come slightly early to the next item of business. The member who is meant to lead the item is not in the chamber, which is highly regrettable. Given the time in hand, I will suspend the meeting for two minutes.
Meeting suspended.
On resuming—