SSEN 'looks forward to engaging with Highland community councils' over controversial 400kv power line project crossing Ross-shire
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
A ROSS-SHIRE led alliance of Highland campaigners has called for a massive power line project to be stopped in its tracks pending meaningful consultation and tabled an offer of its own to help the process.
Nineteen community councils back calls to SSEN Transmission warning of the long-lasting impact of inadequate discussion over 400kv reinforcement infrastructure running from Caithness through Ross-shire to Beauly.
Strathpeffer Community Council chairman Ron McAulay – in a letter endorsed by councils covering Ardgay, Ardross, Beauly, Brora, Contin, Dingwall, Garve, Golspie, Kilmorack, Kiltarlity, Kiltearn, Halkirk, Helmsdale, Latheron, Lybster and Clyth, Marybank, Scatwell and Strathconon, Muir of Ord, Rogart and Watten – says "the need to move to green sources of energy" is accepted.
We understand that you have a project to deliver and a target date to meet. Rather than simply complain, we would like to make you an offer. We are willing to work with SSEN to find the best solution for this project but need to know that our input will be recognised and will be considered in a meaningful way.
The letter [full text of the letter included below] to SSEN's Martin Godwin says it is the method of reinforcing the grid that is challenged.
It states: "When considering the long-term impact on the communities and the environment of these proposals, cost should not be the overriding criteria. Did the initial remit contain a requirement for SSEN to avoid blighting virgin ground wherever possible?"
It says the National Grid did not undertake formal consultation but relied on groups of stakeholders. It asks: "Did any of these targeted groups of stakeholders include representatives of the communities located in the Highlands?"
It says utilising existing power line corridors – where not detrimental to local communities and burying the cables below the ground close to communities and areas of natural beauty – should be given greater consideration.
The letter says the current consultation "lacks any credibility" with communities presented with three options for corridors and a preferred route.
It says: "We have been advised that the final corridors will be decided...within two weeks of the original closing date for consultation responses.This would suggest that the responses to the consultation will be given little, if any, consideration."
It notes: "Many people have asked questions seeking further clarity and have been met with 'out of office' responses."
The letter says: "We understand you have a project to deliver and a target date to meet. Rather than simply complain, we would like to make you an offer. We are willing to work with SSEN to find the best solution for this project but need to know that our input will be recognised and will be considered in a meaningful way."
Suggested is a forum of community councils "through which options and issues could be discussed and addressed".
SSEN should clearly set out the criteria used for assessing routes and the weighting given to specific criteria, it says.
It says: "The remit should be revisited and the design process stopped and only restarted at such time as the views of the communities that are directly affected have been taken on board."
A spokesperson for SSEN Transmission said yesterday: “We remain fully committed to working closely with the local community and wider stakeholders to help inform the design of this nationally significant project, and we look forward to working with a Highland Forum of Community Councils to help further engage on this project.
“We would like to thank everyone who has contributed their feedback to the project consultation so far, this feedback will be carefully considered as we further refine our proposals. While the project consultation period closed on Friday, April 14, our engagement will be on-going, we will be working closely with the local community and stakeholders, seeking their input throughout the development of the project.”
RELATED: Shock expressed by rural residents over 'monstrosity' proposed by SSEN
People power credited with consultation deadline extension
Full text of the letter to SSEN
Dear Mr Godwin,
SSEN PROPOSALS
SPITTAL- LOCH BUIDHE- BEAULY
400KV REINFORCEMENT
This letter has been written on behalf of most of the Community Councils across the Highland area that will be directly affected by your proposals. A full list of those Community Councils is given in the table below. Each of those listed has given this letter their full endorsement. While each of these Community Councils will write to you separately on specific issues affecting their own areas, this letter has been written to advise you of common concerns across these communities and to suggest a way forward.
It is worth emphasising at the start of this letter, that each of these Community Councils understands the need to move to green sources of energy and realise that to do so, will involve strengthening or reinforcing the national grid. That is accepted. It is not the principle of reinforcing the grid that is in dispute. It is the method by which that will be achieved that is being challenged.
We wish to raise two issues with you:
Remit set by the National Grid
We wish to challenge the initial remit set by the National Grid for SSEN.
In the document, 'The Pathway to 2030 Holistic Network Design (HND)', the National Grid set out their plans for reinforcing the network. In developing this HND, the National Grid admits it did not undertake a formal consultation but relied on targeted groups of stakeholders for feedback. Did any of these targeted groups of stakeholders include representatives of the communities located in the Highlands?
The same document lists four key objectives:
• Cost to consumers
• Deliverability and operability
• Impact on the environment
• Impact on local communities.
Do each of the four objectives listed above carry equal weighting? The document goes on to say that 'The impact on the environment' and 'The impact on local communities' are essential (and equal) design criteria. Has SSEN given these criteria their proper weight in their design considerations? When considering the long-term impact on the communities and the environment of these proposals, cost should not be the overriding criteria. Did the initial remit contain a requirement for SSEN to avoid blighting virgin ground wherever possible? If such a requirement had been included in the remit, we believe that greater consideration would have been given to:
• utilising existing power line corridors (where this is not detrimental to local communities),
• laying two subsea cables instead of one subsea cable and one over land, and
• burying the cables below the ground in close proximity to communities and areas of natural beauty.
Inadequate consultation process
The current consultation process lacks any credibility. National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4) lays considerable emphasis on the importance of the consultation and inclusion of communities as a meaningful part of the planning process and outcomes. It requires SSEN not only to consult but to act on these consultations and alter outcomes accordingly. We have been presented with three options for corridors with a preferred route identified. We have been advised that the final corridors will be decided upon within two weeks of the original closing date for consultation responses. This would suggest that the responses to the consultation will be given little, if any, consideration. The attempts made to advise people of the consultation exercise have been inadequate relying on local campaign groups to raise awareness. Public meetings have been held in a limited number of locations and offers to hold further public meetings, while being agreed to, will not be held until the middle of May by which time it would appear that decisions on the routes will have been made. Many people have asked questions seeking further clarity and have been met with "out of office" responses.
It is clear that the consultation process does not adhere to SSEN's own principles to 'deliver robust stakeholder consultation' and is not in line with the requirements of NPF4 as set out by the Scottish Government.
Offer of help
We understand that you have a project to deliver and a target date to meet. Rather than simply complain, we would like to make you an offer. We are willing to work with SSEN to find the best solution for this project but need to know that our input will be recognised and will be considered in a meaningful way. The contributors to this letter are therefore offering you the opportunity to form a forum of community councils through which options and issues could be discussed and addressed. We firmly believe that SSEN should clearly set out the criteria used for assessing routes and the weighting given to each criteria. The remit should be revisited and the design process stopped and only restarted at such time as the views of the communities that are directly affected have been taken on board.
