Issue link: https://fhpublishing.uberflip.com/i/831507
NETWORK / 18 / JUNE 2017 cables "Where there are people, there needs to be power," says the voiceover of an animated video produced by SSEN. "And where there needs to be power, in most cases, there are overhead lines." The video is not an attempt to educate audiences on the purpose and workings of the company and other networks, but rather a promotional tool to try and crowdsource its customers' views on which of its pylons should be removed. Explaining that power lines must be located in National Parks, National Scenic Areas or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), it calls for customers to provide the network with a grid reference, a photo, an explanation of their desire to see the pylon removed, and the details of anybody else who shares the view. With the information it receives from its customers, SSEN will inform its decisions on a £15 million project to remove a total of 90km of overhead lines from its regions that are currently perceived as blighting the landscapes of such highly treasured areas. With work already under way in the small Stirlingshire town of Callander to remove 2.2km of power lines from Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park at a cost of £233,500, the move from the network has been welcomed by the local community group as a transformative contribution to one of the "most spectacular views" in the area. However, such a move demands a trade-off on cost. "Overhead power lines provide a secure and cost-effective way of distributing electricity to our communities," explains Graeme Stewart, the head of region at SSEN. "But we also understand people feel they can have a negative impact on the natural landscape." The issue of power lines and the apparent 'blighting' of precious landscapes is one that has existed almost as long as they have been transmitting electricity across the country. However, it is increasingly an issue that requires both time and money from networks across the sector. It all stems from a long-held, and effectively argued position of groups and bodies such as the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), Campaign for National Parks, and the National Association for AONBs that the physical presence of power lines and pylons in special areas of aesthetic beauty is at best offensive and at worst a threat to tourism. They have run campaigns to have such areas elevated to protected status. Outlining its position on the issue, CPRE states: "We believe that as far as possible overhead electricity lines should be avoided in the most precious parts of Going underground our countryside such as National Parks and AONBs by routing lines elsewhere, including offshore, or burying the lines." However, for the networks themselves, it is not simply a matter of like for like replacement without disadvantages. It is a complex mix of higher costs, altered operational processes, and an inability to fully satisfy such objections. For a start, the simple capital cost of underground lines as opposed to the traditional overhead options is estimated at ten times the price, coming down to just five times as much once whole life costs are factored in. Furthermore, civil engineering complexity is vastly increased when carrying out construction under the ground rather than above it. Without the presence of such aesthetic objections, the tried and tested approach of overhead lines would continue and remain the most economic option. However, with those objections and courtesy of the political power held by such groups and the planning procedures which all such works must be processed through, an accommodation to meet the needs of both sides must be made. This is where the programme of work by SSEN and other networks including National Grid come in, with an increased push to try and limit the impact of power lines on the country's landscapes.