And so, the march of the pylons is officially underway. National Grid’s proposals to build 180km of overhead cables from Norwich to Tilbury has gone to planning. Readers will know how long I’ve battled for a different approach – not NIMBYism, as it’s called, but because there is a better alternative, and crucially, despite scepticism and guffaws from Labour politicians and National Grid’s hierarchy, we proved that.
It was at the end of August that National Grid (NG) submitted their application to the Planning Inspectorate for a development consent order (DCO) for their pylon proposal, running through South Suffolk and constituencies across East Anglia. As the proposals are known as a ‘National Infrastructure Project’, NG have to apply for planning from the Planning Inspectorate rather than the local authority. We found out late last week that the planning application had been accepted for examination.
Local residents, landowners and stakeholders will be able to register an interest so they can provide comments and take part in the examination period. I would urge all of my affected constituents to have their say on the proposals, particularly residents in Hintlesham, Chattisham, Holton St Mary, the Wenhams, Sproughton, Stratford St Mary, Raydon, and surrounding villages where the pylons and associated infrastructure is due to be built.
My long-running campaign hasn’t simply been to oppose the pylons - on the contrary, ever since National Grid first came forward with their proposals, I have been campaigning for alternative ways to transport the electricity generated offshore to where it’s needed. I’m a strong supporter of renewable energy as a key way to increase our energy security; provided it’s backed up by nuclear and full use of our North Sea oil and gas reserves. So I know we need the infrastructure – but the question was always whether we could transmit the energy we need whilst minimising despoilment of our beautiful countryside.
At first, National Grid didn’t want to know. Despite spending billions using offshore cables to transmit the fruits of offshore wind elsewhere in the UK, when they came to South Suffolk to speak to my constituents, they presented one choice – and dismissed talk of alternatives. Any other option was simply assumed to be more expensive. Nevermind that billpayers in East Anglia will join the rest of the country in facing an extra £6.50 a year to fund offshore cables instead of pylons in the north of England.
But I persisted, and eventually, National Grid ESO (now NESO, and separate from National Grid) agreed to do an independent study of the different options for Norwich-Tilbury. Crucially, this would include options other than pylons. ESO found that underground HVDC was cost comparable to pylons. In fact, assuming the same completion date for both of 2034 – necessary to avoid an unfair comparison, given the head start National Grid have given their pylon project – ESO actually found that in terms of total lifetime cost, underground HVDC was cheaper.
To be clear, that’s cheaper without taking into account the protection of our precious countryside; without taking into account the avoidance of impact on so many residential properties; and it’s cheaper without taking into account that the limited undergrounding for the Norwich-Tilbury pylons will require a far wider trench (as the cables would be AC) than with a proposal that was just a single underground DC cable, all the way to the edge of London, where it would need to be converted.
But isn’t undergrounding disruptive? I have been asked this – but I’ve a straightforward response. At the moment, a massive infrastructure project is underway across the Anglia Water region, to build a huge pipe taking rainfall from where it is more plentiful in North Lincolnshire, to dryer North Essex. The work to dig this pipe is inevitably disruptive. But I have not had one single piece of correspondence opposing it.
I believe that this is for one crucial reason - people know that the land will be ‘made good’ after the works have been completed. The pipe is being buried underground. There are already fields and hills in my constituency which weeks ago were a scene of earthwork, as the pipe was laid, but where any work is now done and its impact negligible.
So what I advocate is not ‘NIMBYism’ or a fantasy. Underground HVDC is the legal default in Germany. It can be buried away, without permanent blight, just like the big water pipe. A report from senior experts shows this option is price competitive. So I will be opposing the pylons – and supporting underground HVDC as a better, fairer option for my constituents, and our countryside.
Published in the East Anglian Daily Times.
