Beauly to Denny Power Line
The next item of business is a statement by Fergus Ewing on the decision on the Stirling visual impact mitigation scheme for the Beauly to Denny power line. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement and there should therefore be no interventions or interruptions.
14:05
I wish to inform Parliament of an important decision that I have made in connection with the upgrade of the Beauly to Denny overhead transmission line at Stirling.
The Beauly to Denny upgrade is Scotland’s key to connecting renewables and to the new jobs that that will bring. The upgrade is essential to our reaching our renewables targets and to ensuring energy security. Consent for the line therefore had widespread support across the Parliament. My predecessor, Jim Mather, announced consent for the Beauly to Denny line in Parliament on 6 January 2010. The consent attached a number of conditions to protect the public, the environment and our cultural heritage, and to take into account the views of communities along the length of the line. Those conditions are being met, existing pylons are coming down and work is progressing apace.
When consent was granted, the importance of mitigating the impacts of the line at Stirling was recognised and a condition was imposed accordingly. In short, condition 19 requires that proposals for mitigating the visual and landscape impacts of the line near Stirling must be approved by Scottish ministers before the towers and transmission line can be erected. Following a lengthy process of engagement and consultation, SP Transmission Ltd—Scottish Power’s transmission company—submitted proposals for the Stirling visual impact mitigation scheme on 26 August 2011. I inform Parliament that I am approving those proposals for the 400kV line, but I am doing so with some important additional proposals to mitigate the impact.
In coming to my decision, I have taken into account all the relevant material considerations and have had regard to the views that Stirling Council presented in representing the communities involved. I have also considered the views of my consultant, Ironside Farrar, Scottish Natural Heritage, and Scottish Government officials as well as the findings of the reporter to the public inquiry in 2009. I have toured the length of the consented line that is covered by condition 19 with my consultant and officials, and I have carefully considered the proposals in the scheme. The proposals that SP Transmission has made employ mitigation methods including landscape reinforcement, the undergrounding of existing low-voltage overhead lines and other compensatory measures in seven locations. The proposals offer an important level of mitigation regarding the visual impact of the line on the landscape.
Let us be clear: the Beauly to Denny overhead line upgrade is the most important grid infrastructure upgrade in several generations and there is a pressing need to get on with this development. The transmission network was built in the 1950s and 1960s, and it was designed to transport electricity generated by large plants that were located close to their sources of fuel—the coalfields in England and the central belt of Scotland. The renewables ambitions of modern Scotland have very different requirements. Energy that is generated at the periphery must now be transported to the centres of population. The clean, green energy revolution is transforming Scotland, building on our distinct competitive advantage in renewable energy, and delivering thousands of jobs and hundreds of millions of pounds of investment.
Condition 19 required the Scottish ministers to consult Stirling Council before they approved proposals, and that requirement has been met. I undertook a formal consultation with the council, beginning on 30 August, which I extended from 30 to 45 days. My officials met Stirling Council’s Beauly to Denny power line steering group on several occasions and I recently did so myself to hear its views at first hand. In making my decision, I was mindful of the view of many in Stirling that the new line should be undergrounded.
The idea of undergrounding the Beauly to Denny upgrade in the Stirling area was comprehensively examined during the public inquiry and, subsequently, in reports that were produced for Stirling Council, SP Transmission and our consultant, Ironside Farrar. I have considered all the recent relevant reports on the undergrounding of high-voltage transmission lines. Objective consideration leads me to conclude that the net reduction in impacts that would be realised from undergrounding the route would be relatively modest in most locations, especially once the potential impacts of sealing end compounds are taken into account.
The evidence that has been presented is that undergrounding the 400kV line would require sealing end compounds where the line was undergrounded and where it resurfaced. Those compounds would have a significant impact in their own right. Such compounds for a 400kV transmission line would be of a size upwards of 30m by 80m, which is almost as big as a football pitch. They would have to be accommodated in the landscape instead of the pylons.
Estimates for the cost of undergrounding vary depending on the option, from £28.7 million for a section of only 1.6km to £263 million for undergrounding the whole route that is covered by the condition. I do not find it appropriate to seek approval from the Office of the Gas and Electricity Markets for spending up to £263 million of electricity consumers’ money, especially at a time of such economic difficulty. Given the issues and the limited environmental benefits that undergrounding would bring, it simply cannot be justified.
Undergrounding is normally considered as a mitigation intervention only to address extraordinary circumstances—when major adverse impacts are predicted, when undergrounding would be effective, and when other mitigation options have been ruled out as ineffective. I have listened carefully to views from all sides, but I agree with the findings of the reporter as well as Ironside Farrar and I have concluded that those exceptional circumstances do not apply to Stirling. The conclusion of the public inquiry and of my consultant was that the consented line at Stirling will, in the main, have minor to moderate adverse impacts.
The prospect of programme delays is important. A timely Beauly to Denny upgrade is critical to the future deployment of renewables and to the wider programme of grid reinforcement that is required for Scotland to realise its enormous renewables potential. Best estimates suggest that undergrounding the main Beauly to Denny line would delay the development by approximately two to three years. It is therefore clear that there would be a financial impact through the restraint on renewables, but the wider implications of such delays for grid improvements and renewables investment would carry even greater economic importance.
Overall, I conclude that the position of the reporter to the public inquiry remains appropriate. It was that, having regard to the cost of the alternatives, the technical problems that are associated with undergrounding and the limited environmental benefits that it would offer, the case for it has not been justified.
If it is not appropriate to underground the main 400kV line, the question remains how best we can further protect and support the communities that are affected. First, I have requested that the existing overhead 132kV line from Fallin to Glenbervie should be undergrounded. That will carry a cost of £12.9 million for removing 7km of steel pylons, which represents a much more efficient use of money than the £28.7 million for a section of only 1.6km or the £263 million for a section of 15km, and it will not delay the main Beauly to Denny development.
The costs of that option are justified. The reporter to the public inquiry recognised the benefits that it would bring to the wider area, as it will provide landscape and visual benefits by reducing the wirescape. My consultant recognised the proposal’s value and surmised that it would produce direct landscape and visual benefits for south and east Plean by offsetting the proposed line’s impact as well as providing landscape and visual benefits to the wider area by reducing the wirescape.
I am satisfied that such undergrounding is justified. Undergrounding an existing 132kV line is a different proposition from undergrounding a 400kV line. It will be achieved at much lower cost, will not delay the project, and will not require further sealing end compounds. It will deliver significant benefits at manageable costs.
Secondly, I have asked for wider landscape enhancement to be pursued, which will develop the central Scotland green network initiative in the area. My consultant has recommended a wider landscape enhancement scheme to deliver a range of benefits. The costs of that will not be known until the relevant parties have worked together to develop a scheme. However, I ask members to consider for a moment what even a fraction of the money that some have proposed should be spent on undergrounding could do for civic and landscape amenity in the Stirling area and how it could deliver long-lasting benefits to communities.
Such an enhanced scheme will also help the Scottish Government to make progress against a number of national performance indicators by increasing people’s use of Scotland’s outdoors through the provision of foot and cycle paths, supporting biodiversity through the creation of woodland habitat, and reducing Scotland’s carbon footprint by creating new woodland. Clearly, that will require co-operative working in order to be successful. SP Transmission must now work alongside Stirling Council, Scottish Natural Heritage, the Forestry Commission and other relevant parties to develop a broad suite of proposals for widespread improvements to amenity in the area. Most important, I encourage the communities involved to actively engage with the process to facilitate environmental improvement in their areas. This is an affordable option with the potential to provide substantial, long-lasting landscape, biodiversity and civic amenity benefits.
Particular mention has been made of the increase in wirescape where the consented line meets the existing Longannet to Denny twin overhead power line to the south-east of Plean. That area was highlighted by the public inquiry and Ironside Farrar as facing among the greatest impacts on amenity. It will benefit significantly from the proposal to underground the 132kV line, but it will remain greatly affected by existing and new power lines. I have therefore asked that particular attention be given to that area.
Furthermore, I take on board the views that have been expressed on the impact on the Ochils area of great landscape value. Although the reporter and my consultant agree that the impact there will not be so significant as to affect the integrity of the AGLV, I have asked that particular attention be paid to improving amenity in that area.
The issue is extremely important, and I have been acutely conscious of the feelings of the communities in the area of the consented overhead line, which have played an active role in the process and made a substantial contribution. My decision represents a way forward that maximises the potential benefits to the people of Stirling from the costs that will be incurred by the public and avoids delay to such a crucial development. My decision letter and submission of the advice from officials is being made available in the Scottish Parliament information centre.
I commend my decision to the Parliament.
I will allow about 30 minutes for questions before we move on to the next item of business.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.
I welcome the statement, but I am disappointed by the time that it has taken to reach the decision. In his statement, the minister confirmed that consent for the Beauly to Denny line was granted in January 2010. It is now close to two years later and this decision has made no material difference. Why the delay? Many communities and campaigners will be angry that they were given false hope at that time and that they have used their energy and resources to try to change the decision to no avail. From the statement, it is difficult to see what they could have said or done to change the outcome. What was the cost of the delay and who bears that cost? Has the delay impacted on the Scottish Government’s target of 100 per cent of electricity being generated from renewable resources by 2020?
We consider that the process has been handled correctly. It was correct to consult the communities in the Stirling area on the issues. Plainly, there are strong feelings in the area and it was right to have regard to them by requiring a process of engagement to be carried out. That involved nine meetings between the relevant parties—SP Transmission, Stirling Council and Scottish Government officials were represented—and 23 options were considered as part of the process. SP Transmission then made its proposals and a period of consultation followed. Stirling Council asked me to extend the proposed period of 30 days in which consultation was to be permitted. I felt that that was a reasonable request; indeed, members from other parties urged me to accede to it.
On the timescale, I point out that, because we looked so closely at the issue, we came up with significant mitigation that would not otherwise have emerged. The undergrounding of the Fallin to Glenbervie line would not have occurred if the course that Rhoda Grant urged on me had been pursued, and the mitigation in the green network proposal would not have been developed. Those two further examples of mitigation arose from the process that we carried out.
It is essential that we proceed and avoid any delay. That is why I have issued the consent and taken the decision that I have taken.
I thank the minister for the advance copy of his statement and welcome Derek Mackay to his new place on the front bench.
The minister’s announcement of the approval of the Scottish Power visual impact mitigation scheme is a slap in the face for the people of Stirling. The additional mitigation schemes that have been proposed amount to very little, given the huge visual impact of the new pylons close to the Ochils and the Wallace monument. The Scottish Power proposals faced widespread and united public opposition in the Stirling area. I attended a number of public events at which that view was made very clear. Every political group in Stirling Council, including the Scottish National Party group, unanimously took the view that the line should be undergrounded in the Stirling area and that nothing less would do. It is a tragedy that the SNP Government has ridden roughshod over not only public opinion but the views of its own group on the council.
The minister made great play of the costs of undergrounding, but the figures involved are minimal relative to the billions of pounds that we are spending on supporting renewable energy projects. What is the point of public consultation on this development and future ones if, at every turn, the Government will favour the multinational company over local people and put Scottish Power before Scottish people?
I am afraid that I reject the various theses that Murdo Fraser has put forward. Obviously, there are very strong feelings; I was made aware of that when I met representatives of Stirling Council, led by Councillor Campbell and colleagues. However, they accepted that undergrounding carries a considerably higher price tag. Everybody recognised that fact. The estimate that we have received from our independent professional landscape consultant, Ironside Farrar, is that a multiplier of between five and 15 applies. That means that the cost of undergrounding the extra-high voltage line would have been up to £263 million more. Consumers would have been required to pay that money in their electricity bills. I am surprised that the Conservatives take the view that we should add to electricity bills in that way at this time and I am astonished that any member should describe a figure of the order of £263 million as “minimal”. That is certainly not minimal. We will take responsible decisions with regard to both the deployment of taxpayers’ money and the impact on consumers’ electricity bills, which, as we all know, are fairly high.
On Mr Fraser’s other comments, for the reasons that I gave in response to Rhoda Grant’s question, it is clear that the consultation has resulted in substantial additional mitigation measures. I referred to the undergrounding of the Fallin to Glenbervie line and the creation of a green network, which will, I believe, with co-operation and a positive attitude by all participants, leave a lasting legacy that will improve the environment in the affected area. I am proud to be associated with that.
I note that a fraction of the undergrounding costs will help the Stirling area to get civic and landscape amenity improvements. On the wider mitigation of climate gas emissions, will the minister confirm that people in my constituency hope that the people of Stirling will be able to join in that vital national project, as the mitigation of climate gas emissions requires the development of renewable energy, which is not produced in the central belt but is sent there via this route?
Yes, I agree with Rob Gibson’s point. The fundamental analysis shows that the requirements placed on the grid by society have changed. The grid used to convey electricity from the centre to the periphery, but that is changing and it will now need to convey electricity from the periphery, where Scotland’s great renewables potential is located, to the centre. That will require major investment which, in the case of Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission Ltd—which is part of Scottish and Southern Energy and is the transmission system operator in the north of Scotland—is of the order of £4 billion. For SP Transmission, it will be of the order of £2.5 billion. If, as the Conservatives have urged, we did not take this decision today but delayed by a further two years, those investments would not take place, the achievement of our renewables targets would be impossible and the thousands of jobs that will be created as a result, in part, of this decision would not exist to be taken up.
Does the minister recall that his predecessor admitted that he had spoiled Christmas for quite a few officials in 2009 in order to meet a commitment to make a decision on the Beauly to Denny line before the end of that year? Given that Mr Mather rejected recommendations to withhold consent for two sections of the line but required the undergrounding of some 16km of existing line, does Mr Ewing believe that he can justify two years’ further delay in reaching this decision by his very modest requirement for the undergrounding of a further 7km of existing cable?
I have no wish to spoil anyone’s Christmas; I enjoyed my daughter’s Christmas public singing debut recently. Nonetheless, I hope that I am not casting myself in the role of either Santa or Scrooge today. We have come up with a significant and sensible package that cannot be described as modest. I certainly do not think that it will be described as such by the communities in Mr Crawford’s constituency, who will see the Fallin to Glenbervie line undergrounded, or by those who live in the Stirling area, who will be able to take advantage of the increased opportunities to take part in outdoor educational and physical activity. We will see a significant improvement in the green network around Stirling, and all parties will work towards that. It is unfair of Mr Macdonald to characterise the scheme as modest; I think that it will provide a significant and substantial legacy, and one that I hope, in time, he and his colleagues will come to welcome.
I am well aware of the concerns that have been raised over the many long years of the debate on the Beauly to Denny line by certain communities along its route. I am therefore pleased to hear that the Scottish Government will request that the existing low-voltage line from Fallin to Glenbervie be undergrounded. Will the minister provide a bit more information on the mitigation that is provided by the green network initiative? In particular, will he confirm that he is prepared to take charge of monitoring the roll-out of the initiatives and to provide periodic reports to the chamber on the actions that have been taken?
Yes, I am happy to assure the member that I will take an extremely close interest in this matter and will pursue it in a positive fashion with all the relevant parties, including the Forestry Commission, Scottish Natural Heritage and, of course, Stirling Council, as well as with the local communities and local politicians. I will be monitoring the progress of this important matter. We cannot put a cost on developing the green network initiative at this time, but we want it to be ambitious, so it will involve a fairly substantial expenditure and commitment.
I thank the minister for early sight of his statement, and I congratulate Derek Mackay on his meteoric rise to Government office.
I acknowledge the unambiguous clarity that the minister has given this afternoon that the Government supports the upgrading of a connection that I think we all agree is critical in allowing Scotland to achieve our renewables objectives. However, does he regret that Mr Mather’s yes dressed up with a series of undeliverable noes in January last year unfairly raised false expectations in affected communities that significant undergrounding around the Stirling area was ever likely? Will he acknowledge that there will now be a strong suspicion, notably in the Stirling area, that the delay in coming forward with this clear statement had more to do with the timing of last May’s election than any uncertainty over the costs or viability of significant undergrounding?
I do not want to trespass into political terrain—I want to look forward and not back—but I think that it is always correct that we consult communities. We consulted seriously, positively and at length. As I have outlined, we did so in a structured way, holding nine meetings and considering 23 options. The process has resulted in substantial additional mitigation measures that would not otherwise have arisen. They arose because of the consultation process—because we decided that we would consult people.
I appreciate that, as we all know, there are strong feelings, but I believe that the decision that we have taken is without a shadow of doubt the right one for Scotland. I am pleased that Mr McArthur shares that view.
Will the minister comment on the efforts made in respect of mitigation schemes, particularly those involving the removal of pylons from the Cairngorms?
I was happy to preside over the first pylon-dismantling ceremony, which took place in Boat of Garten, just south of my home, in my constituency. John Finnie rightly points to the fact that one of the less appreciated consequences of the erection of the Beauly to Denny line is that there will be substantially fewer pylons and that a large number of pylons on existing lines will be removed, including from the line that runs from Boat of Garten to Tarland in Aberdeenshire. There will therefore be a benefit in that respect. That is balanced by the fact that the 400kV pylons are larger—that is true, as has been pointed out—but there will be significant environmental benefits in the Highlands.
Of course, communities along the whole length of the Beauly to Denny line have been affected by the decision. We are debating Stirling today, but many communities along the length of the line have engaged with the companies and the Government, have secured rationalisation and mitigation schemes and have welcomed the process. I am pleased that John Finnie has raised the issue this afternoon.
I remind all members that they should question the minister on the issues raised in the statement and not wider issues.
To continue the Christmas theme, the statement reminds me of pass the parcel. We begin with a large parcel, but when the music stops, we find that there is a very small item inside—the mitigation. The people of Stirling will not be fooled by the minister’s rhetoric today.
Will the minister publish the full calculations for his stated cost for undergrounding of £263 million? My calculation is that undergrounding would cost less than £85 million, which seems a small price to pay to avoid the visual impact of the massive towers that will now be placed across the carse of Stirling. Has the minister also asked SP Transmission to look at the new designs of towers? They are slightly less unappealing than the ones that are proposed to be put up. Finally, will he publish full information on the enhanced landscape measures that he now proposes—the very small piece of chocolate that is at the centre of this bad-tasting parcel?
I will leave the Christmas metaphor before it becomes hackneyed, but the question on new pylon designs is perfectly fair and one that many members of the public have raised, because some of the candidate designs have been publicised in the past few months. I point out that, striking as the new designs may be, consideration of the engineering impact of any new pylon design is a time-consuming process that must be undertaken before there can be any question of it being used. The structural integrity of pylons is key for them to fulfil their purpose, so consideration of changing from the existing traditional pylon design to new pylons would incur significant delays. It may be that some of the more eye-catching designs would inevitably be even more visually obtrusive, by virtue of being eye catching, than the existing design, to which we have perhaps all become accustomed. I hope that that answers the question about new pylon designs.
The other part of Dr Simpson’s question related to costs. Let me be clear: Mr Mather pursued the course of publishing all relevant documents; he put them on the website. I will follow that precedent. The information will be put on the website, along with the Ironside Farrar report, which I commissioned because I wanted the benefit of independent advice. Julian Farrar, who is watching the proceedings today, provided us with an excellent report. In that report, he was asked to do two things: consider the SP Transmission package of measures and report on the costs of undergrounding. He considered that the approach that I have taken today is the correct one. He advised us that the costs of undergrounding extra high-voltage cable of 400kV is extremely expensive. Dr Simpson might agree that the only argument is whether it is five times or 15 times more expensive. It is more expensive, not by a factor of two but by a factor of between five and 15. Obtaining that independent report from an expert in this area has served to allow rational consideration of the evidence in the debate and it has been extremely helpful to me in reaching the decision that I have announced today.
The minister touched on this in his statement, but I would be grateful if he could provide further detail on the national benefits that will be gained through this power line in relation to the potential for further economic growth.
The Beauly to Denny line is essential to enable our renewables targets to be achieved and our ambitions for Scotland to be realised. Mr McMillan asks a fairly open-ended question. Members might not be aware that a consortium of three companies recently announced that it intends to proceed with an offshore wind development in the Moray Firth, which would involve investment of £4.5 billion—creating potentially the biggest offshore wind farm in the world.
Members might not be aware of the significant investment that has been taking place in Scotland over the past 18 months, to the tune of more than £750 million, nor of the work that is taking place in the Pentland Firth in relation to the development of tidal and wave energy projects. Scotland is taking a lead on these matters, working with our colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the European Union, including making representations there.
The potential of that investment to increase the number of jobs for young people, to assist the new minister for youth employment in her task of providing jobs for young people in Scotland, is immense. The decision today is a sine qua non of achieving that success. Were we to proceed down the line that the Conservatives have advised, we would not achieve that success; it would be denied to us. The announcement today is about one in a sequential line of grid improvements that need to take place for the energy to get to the grid. It is as important as that. I hope that that answers Mr McMillan’s question.
The minister has acknowledged three times this afternoon the strength of feeling in some of the communities. He will also acknowledge that some of that strength of feeling, particularly among some of the Beauly to Denny power line steering group and the petitioners, related to health issues. Will he explain why there was no attempt to allay those concerns in his statement?
There is no evidence to conclude that exposure to low-level electromagnetic fields is harmful to human health. On matters relating to health, we take advice from the Health Protection Agency, whose view accords with that of the World Health Organization that no such evidence exists. I have a lot more detail; I suspect that Liz Smith will be aware of the arguments, which I know have been considered in Parliament at some length. I did not refer to the matter in my statement simply because we have already looked carefully at it and have reached the conclusions that I have described. That is why it did not appear to me that it was a matter that should take up additional time in my statement.
Many of my constituents will be disappointed. The minister stressed the cost of different measures and announced that the existing overhead line from Fallin to Glenbervie will be undergrounded, although he recognised that the area will still be affected by existing and new power lines. Who called for the undergrounding of that section of the line?
The minister said that the enhancements scheme for the Stirling area will require co-operative working to be successful. How will he encourage members of the community to engage actively in the process when they are concerned by not only the environmental impact but, as Liz Smith pointed out, broader issues, including the health impact?
The reporter in the public inquiry pointed to the impacts between Fallin and Glenbervie of the concatenation of the existing Fallin to Glenbervie line and—at a couple of points along its length—the new line, as well as the line that connects Longannet. The reporter considered the issue and found that there was a case for the undergrounding of the existing Fallin to Glenbervie line. The issue arose because it was raised by the reporter in the public inquiry.
Secondly, the issue was raised in the Ironside Farrar report, which concluded that the undergrounding of that section would be justified. Therefore, in taking the decision that I have announced, I acted on the advice that we received from the expert planner and the consultant Julian Farrar, and I believe that my decision will be welcomed. I have received substantial representations from the local constituency MSP, Mr Crawford, who argued the case on behalf of his constituents, as is his right so to do. I think that it is the correct decision and I commend it to the Parliament.
I would like to go back to the point that Richard Simpson made about the design of some of the pylons. Given the Scottish Government’s commitment to improved design in house building and so on, and given what has been done with former industrial sites, it is clear that there are things that can be done to improve appearances that do not necessarily incur a great deal of expense. Is there any possibility of involving some of the industrial product design departments of universities and colleges in Scotland? Although many people in the Highlands are supportive of wind turbines and see them as being quite beautiful works of art—
Could the member just get to the question?
The pylons are not like that, and I think that many people who are supportive of renewable energy are concerned about the landscape.
The new pylons will replace an existing line of pylons, although they will, of course, be larger. I point out to the member and the chamber that the environmental impact assessment for the Beauly to Denny line considered the use of the steel lattice L12 towers, which is what has been consented to. A change to the design of the pylons for the line would require that the consent that has been granted be removed and that the application process be completely reopened. The financial costs of delay, for example in constraining wind generation, would be significant—SP Transmission has estimated that they would amount to £1 million per month.
As matters progress, we will certainly monitor closely the progress that is made and any options that may be available in future in respect of new design but, for the reasons that I have outlined, it appears to us that the decision that I have announced today is the decision that will stand.