The idea aired last year of paying local residents to agree to locate on-shore wind turbines near them has re-emerged with the suggestion that residents be paid to accept new electricity pylons near them. These are essential the government says to meet its goals for electricity to be fossil free by 2035. Demand for electricity is expected to double by 2050 as homes switch to electric cars and heat pumps. A new report by Nick Winser, a former National Grid chief executive and the first energy networks commissioner advocates paying households near to new power lines as a means of reducing widespread opposition to new transmission lines in rural areas. For example a 112 mile project in East Anglia is opposed by several Tory MP’s, including Dan Poulter, member for Central Suffolk. who says
“I remain opposed to erecting new electricity pylons across the countryside when there are better options, including offshoring these new energy connections or putting them underground”.
Sounds like the Cambridge MP, Andrew Browne, passionately opposed to major housing growth in his constituency, whilst also sheltering his opposition to change behind short term technical excuses.. Putting power lines under the ground will costs five to ten times more than pylons. The extra cost to preserve our green and pleasant land may indeed be worthwhile. If so, should it be paid for by the those who benefit most, whether they are consumers or local households whose rural views must remain sacrosanct? It is plain the same cost/benefit principle applies when measuring the impact of new housing. Should residents in host authority areas be paid to accept the upheaval and long term consequences of urban change? By the same measure, should residents whose local areas export their housing demand to preserve their areas of green belt or AONB be expected to pay.ro avoid accommodating the results of their own local prosperity in order to preserve unchanged their local area?
But persuading any residents to pay looks unrealistic. Without a national spatial plan for England that enables today’s residents and their children to see what areas will see benefits and what areas will pay the consequences, confusion and conflict will continue. There is an answer. It means a two generation look ahead, with cross-party support. Without introducing this radical step, Michael Gove cannot deliver the massive boost to economic growth prospects he rightly says is in the national interest. Simply put, he cannot move forward without grasping this spatial nettle: he must tell the truth, all the truth and not just some of the truth. It is time.
Ian Campbell
6 August 2023
