• Agenda

Minutes of Meeting of the Planning, Development, Europe and Tourism Committee held in the Council Chamber, Council Headquarters, Glenurquhart Road, Inverness on 12 April 2006 at 10.30 a.m.

 

 

 

 

Officials in attendance:

 

 

Mr J D Rennilson, Director of Planning and Development

Mr A Brown, Principal Planner

Ms K McLeod, Principal Solicitor, Planning

Mr J Danby, Principal Engineer, TEC Services

Mrs R Moir, Principal Administrator, Corporate Services

Ms L Lee, Committee Administrator, Corporate Services

 

Mr A S Park in the Chair

 

Business

 

An asterisk in the margin denotes a recommendation to the Council.
All decisions with no marking in the margin are delegated to the Committee.

1.  Apologies For Absence

Apologies for absence were intimated on behalf of Mrs A Magee, Mr E C MacKinnon, Mr S J Shiels, Mrs L MacDonald and Mr A Gordon.

2.   Electricity Act 1989 – Section 37: Application To The Scottish Executive For  Construction Of A 400 Kv Steel Tower Double Circuit Overhead Electricity Transmission Line With Associated Works And Dismantling: Beauly Sub Station To Denny – Within The Highland Council Area: Scottish And Southern Energy Plc 05/01034/S37in And 05/00289/S37bs

 

In terms of Standing Order 13.2, the following Members had applied for and been granted a local member vote: Mrs H Carmichael, Mrs M A Davidson and Mrs S Slimon.

Declaration of Interest

Mrs S Slimon declared a financial interest in land affected by the application and left the room.

 

The application was subject to a formal hearings procedure and was conducted in four sections.  In attendance relating to the application in each section were:

1. Rationale and Alternatives, including Undergrounding

Applicants:

 

Dr K MacLean, Scottish and Southern Energy (SSE)
Mr M Turnbull, Landscape Architect
Ms G Beauchamp, Wardell Armstrong

Community Councils:

 

Ms L Fraser, Chairman, Beauly Community Council, speaking on behalf of  Beauly and Kiltarlity Community Councils.

Other Parties:

 

Mr B Clouston and Mr J Whittle,  Eilean Aigas Estate
Mr D Black, Ramblers Association and on behalf of the John Muir Trust
Mr A Chamier, individual and on behalf of Ardross Community Council

2.  Health

Applicants:  Scottish and Southern Energy – as above

Community Councils:

 

Mr I Paterson, Beauly and Kiltarlity Community Councils

3. Route Consideration – Inverness Area

Applicants: Scottish and Southern Energy – as above

Community Councils:

 

Mr R MacLean and Mr H MacLennan, Beauly and Kiltarlity Community Councils
Ms Louisa Fraser, Kilmorack Community Council
Ms C Williams, Strathglass Community Council

Other Parties:

Ms A Cairns
Mr J Graham
Mr N MacLeod
Mr B Clouston and Ms F Greenlaw, Eilean Aigas Estate
Sir John Lister Kaye
Mr I Mure, Strathglass Marketing Group

Some sixty members of the public were also in attendance as observers.

 

On 29 March 2006, Members had viewed the proposed electricity line route from various locations, including Balblair, Hughton, above Eilean Aigas, Cannich, Tomich, Fort Augustus, Kinloch (Ardverikie Estate), Dalwhinnie and the Drumochter Pass.  All Committee Members in attendance at the meeting, including those exercising a local Member vote, had also been present on the route inspection.

 

At the commencement of business, the Chairman summarised the Hearing Procedures.  He sought and was given an assurance by all parties that they had received a copy of the Hearing Procedures and understood the process.

 

There had been circulated Report No. PDET32/06 dated 22 March 2006 by the Director of Planning and Development on a consultation by the Scottish Executive on an application under the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a 400kV overhead transmission line between Beauly and Denny to replace the existing 132kV line, which would then be dismantled.  An extension of time for the Council’s comments had been granted to 30 April 2006.  

 

The report recommended that:

 

(a) the Council affirm its support for the principle of a high voltage electricity transmission system between Beauly and Denny as a key infrastructure project to support the objectives of the Highland Structure Plan and the Draft Highland Renewable Energy Strategy;
(b) the Scottish Executive be requested to make no decision on the submitted application until the results of the UK Government’s Stakeholder Advisory Group on Electromagnetic Fields (SAGE) had been considered;
(c) the Council recommend that any approval for a high voltage overhead electricity line must adopt the precautionary principle in relation to a minimum separation distance between occupied property and the line, along with compliance with international standards;
(d) the Council object to the submitted application because, in the four specific lengths identified in the report, there were significant adverse amenity impacts;
(e) additional information should have been provided at that stage to allow the Council, as Roads Authority, to assess the likely effects of both construction and dismantling traffic on the local roads network and affected communities;
(f) the Council request that, in the event of the application being approved,  certain existing 132kV tower lines should be replaced by wooden pole lines to lessen the environmental impact in areas where there would be paralleling of 132kV and 400kV routes, or through parts of the National Park adjacent to the A9; and
(g) the Council request that the Scottish Executive convene early meetings between the applicant, affected Local Authorities, Cairngorms National Park Authority, Scottish Natural Heritage, Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Historic Scotland to explore and report on alternative overhead or undergrounding routing to the submitted application, with a view to avoiding the need for a Public Inquiry and/or reducing the objections to be considered at an Inquiry.

 

The Director of Planning and Development briefly outlined the application and explained the programme for consideration during the Hearing of the four aspects of the application.  He emphasised the need for all representatives to adhere to the given time limits for speeches.  The Chairman reminded Members that they were required to remain in the room for the full duration of the meeting, if they wished to take part in any vote.

Rationale and Alternatives, Including Undergrounding:

 

Dr K MacLean drew attention to the following points:

 

• Government  policy was to increase the proportion of energy generation from renewable sources, in particular making use of the wind, wave and tidal energy resource in the North and West of Scotland; there was a need arising from this for the upgrade of the electricity transmission grid; the Scottish National Planning Framework included provision for the upgrade
• the costs of the upgrade were paid for by the end user; decisions as to the kind of infrastructure that would be provided were therefore driven by considerations of costs to the consumer
• undergrounding was not suitable for transmission of high voltage electricity as installation involved large scale disruption, was more costly than overhead power lines, and the cables were not as accessible as overhead lines for repair and maintenance
• the proposed new towers would be fewer in number than at present, although they would be larger; the new route had been designed to avoid close proximity to dwellings – there would be significantly fewer houses situated within 100m of the overhead line than at present
• major public consultation had been carried out in arriving at the proposed route – there were no easy options; in some cases, measures proposed by a community to mitigate particular impact in its area gave rise to a knock-on detrimental effect in adjoining areas, and a balanced view had to be taken.

 

 In answer to questions raised by Members, Dr MacLean stated that:

 

• it was difficult to repair underground cables as they were buried deep in trenches or in concrete troughs; it was also important not to disrupt supply
• the Ofgem policy of surcharging transmission of electricity produced remote from point of use did not appear logical in view of the policy to promote renewable energy generation
• additional costs of undergrounding would require approval by Ofgem; further talks could be held in this regard
• undersea DC cables were useful for point-to-point transmission such as from the Islands to the mainland, but were not suitable for a network such as was required in the North of Scotland
• use of the railway line for routing underground transmission cables was not feasible as a wider track was needed, the cable would not be accessible and there would be considerable disruption to rail travel.

 

Members commented that the proposals as they stood made use of 1930s technology and were of the view that better solutions must be available.

 

Ms L Fraser then spoke on behalf or Beauly and Kiltarlity Community Councils and raised the following points:

 

• there had been 8,000 responses to the consultation – this was massive
• the communities accepted the need for the improvements to the transmission grid but did not accept that this should be to the disbenefit of the communities
• foreseeable disbenefits included: (i) a significantly adverse impact on tourism; (ii) an adverse impact on visual amenity; (iii) perceived health concerns; (iv) a disincentive for incomers to locate in the area, to the detriment of community sustainability; (v) a decrease in house values
• the method of transmission and the facts used to support the arguments for the choice of this were questionable; overhead power lines were subject to storm damage and there was energy loss during transmission; no comparative costs had been provided for an undergrounding option
• it was likely that other additional transmission line upgrades would follow the Beauly-Denny line proposal, making Beauly the centre of a “spider’s web” of power lines
• short term additional costs would be offset by benefits in the longer term; the decisions taken on the pylons would affect generations to come
• the communities sought the support of the Council for a Public Inquiry. 

 

Other parties then also argued against the pylons, and, whilst generally accepting the need for the upgrade of the line, in particular due to the importance of mitigating climate change through use of renewable energy, made the following points:

 

• overhead pylons for the entire route were not acceptable; there was existing SSE policy supporting the view that, where there was exceptionally high value placed on the amenity of an area and no suitable overhead route could be identified, undergrounding would be considered; in particular the line as it approached Beauly should be undergrounded; this could be funded by utilising a small proportion (1%) of the subsidy paid to renewable energy generators
• the provision of extra capacity detracted from focusing on the more important CO2 reducing measure of curtailing demand for electricity
• appropriate affordable underground cable technologies were likely to be available in the near future; the experiences of other countries which had carried out major undergrounding projects should be drawn on
• the landscape should be maintained – the pylons would detract from the perception of Scotland as rich in wild land
• the Government was in the process of reviewing its renewable energy guidelines
• it was likely that further additional capacity and lines would follow the Beauly-Denny upgrade; in particular, lines between Dounreay/Caithness and Beauly would require to go through well populated areas – what was decided for Beauly-Denny would impact on decisions regarding future upgrades
• a Public Inquiry was required as the decisions taken would impact on future generations; it was not unreasonable for the nation to bear the additional costs of undergrounding.

 

There were no questions from Members and SSE had no comments on the points raised.

Health

 

The Chairman reminded the meeting that the Council had no locus in health matters.  However, the issue was being aired at the meeting in view of the depth of concern respondents had demonstrated in this regard.

 

Dr MacLean stated that SSE recognised that the issue of electric and magnetic fields and their possible impact on health was a sensitive one.  The Government had drawn up regulations after taking advice from many sources.  The SAGE report, to be issued in June 2006, would make recommendations, but it would then be for the Government to make decisions in light of the information before them. He gave an assurance that SSE would comply with existing and any new legislation and abide by Government regulations. 

 

There being no questions for Dr MacLean, Mr I Paterson addressed the meeting and stated that there was overwhelming evidence that living near high voltage power lines gave rise to health problems, including childhood leukaemia, depression, suicide, brain cancer, motor neurone disease and miscarriage.  Noise pollution also impacted on wellbeing.  He further stated that undergrounding of cables reduced the electric field.  In his view, the application had not given sufficient consideration to health issues - a full risk assessment was required.  He questioned the accuracy of SSE’s figure as to the number of houses which would be within 100m of the power line in the Stirling area and stated that Stirling Council had given serious consideration to the possible health implications of the proposals and had unanimously refused the application.  Highland Council had a moral and possibly a legal responsibility to protect its residents.

 

There being no questions for Mr Paterson, Dr MacLean responded to the points made, including that underground cables changed the characteristics of the magnetic field but did not eliminate it. 

Route Consideration – Inverness Area

 

With reference to a PowerPoint presentation, Dr MacLean gave the reasons for the choice of route in the Inverness Area.  The existing 132kV and proposed 400kV routes were illustrated.  Dr MacLean again referred to the difficulties of finding a balance between conflicting issues, including populated and ecologically important areas.  He reiterated that SSE’s aims in the choice of route had been to increase the distance between housing and the line; to maximise straight lengths of line, as this reduced the number of “angle” towers required; to remove the existing line from Strathglass and from within Cannich; and to use tree screening to decrease the visibility of the towers from Milness.  Consideration had been given to undergrounding the line between Beauly and Eskadale, but there were a number of constraints, including the number of bends required; the need for access over the whole route; the amount of disturbance over the whole width and length of the route; the location of sealing end compounds; and the impracticability of planting over the route with trees or hedges, as the roots of these would damage the cabling.  With regard to an alternative route between Cannich and Guisachan, there would be a requirement to construct access roads in remote areas and the Corrimony reserve would be adversely affected.  The Loch ma Stac route, whilst more remote from communities, impacted on ecological and archaeological features and was difficult, due to very deep peat.  It also had a knock-on effect causing increased impact in the Glenmoriston area.

 

Dr MacLean responded to questions raised by Members as follows:

Millness Croft and Holiday Development, Glenurquhart

 

The proposed distance of the line from the croft and holiday cottages complied with SSE’s permitted limits; to move the line further away would make it more visible from Strathglass; the proposed route as it stood was therefore the best compromise.\

Routing along existing Road/Rail Infrastructure

 

To route the electricity line along existing roads and rail tracks would require a tunnel to be created alongside the existing infrastructure.  Overhead lines remained the preferred option, notwithstanding the need to fell trees along the route and the problems which could be caused by winter weather.

Sealing End Compounds

 

The land required for sealing end compounds was approximately the size of a football pitch.  Sealing end compounds near Torness, East Lothian, which some Members recalled as being smaller than this, were half-size units, as the electricity line split into two routes when the underground cables converted to overhead lines.

 

Representatives from Community Councils then gave their response to the proposals, including that:

 

• there was general support for the need to improve the electricity transmission capacity from the Highlands
• health implications were a cause for concern
• the line should be undergrounded, at least in part; the experience of other countries should be drawn on in this regard; the transmission network should not be expected to use the cheapest option - government subsidy should be available, as it was to other parts of the Renewables Industry; it was important to make the right decision for future generations; sealing end compounds were not the size of a football pitch and in any case were a price worth paying; as most faults in underground cables occurred at joints, or were due to leakage and pumping, repairs would generally not involve access to remote areas
• it was likely that the Beauly-Denny line upgrade would be the first of several to converge in the Beauly area
• pylons would adversely affect tourism; 16 pylons would be visible from Glen Affric; landscapes would be damaged - this constituted asset erosion and was contrary to numerous planning policies
• pylons would adversely affect quality of life, being a “monstrous intrusion”, affecting views, house prices and the sustainability of communities, as they would cause people to move away; there was zero benefit to the communities affected
• wildlife would be adversely affected, in particular at Eskadale Moor where a new line (not a replacement) would create a motorway size cut through nearby woodland
• communication with SSE had been unsatisfactory; SSE had not spoken to landlords; SSE had given an undertaking to consider alternative routes if the community could demonstrate a feasible option – the Strathglass community had done this, but SSE had blatantly ignored their proposals for the Loch ma Stac route
• a Public Inquiry was required to ensure that the proposals as they stood were properly investigated.

 

In response to questions as to how much undergrounding was sought in the Kiltarlity area, Members were advised that the community sought 100% undergrounding in the inhabited area; if the line were undergrounded from the start, this would require only one sealing end unit.  The community were not seeking for the Eskadale Moor section to be undergrounded.

 

Other parties as listed above then spoke, raising the following points:

 

• there was support for sustainable development and a desire to mitigate climate change
• ways to achieve the above should include promotion of locally based micro power and energy efficiency; sub sea transmission should be considered and options which reduced transmission losses should be pursued; nuclear development was not supported
• there were serious concerns with regard to health
• the highest level of protest per head of population had been from this area
• the proposals threatened tourism; pylons were a blight on the landscape and would be visible for miles; the tourist image of the Highlands as a wild, empty place would be jeopardised;
• the economy of the Highlands depended on the natural environment – ecotourism would be damaged; the film industry already tended to go elsewhere to avoid intrusive modern artefacts such as telegraph poles etc and the proposals would exacerbate this
• there was a need to think long-term, particularly as what was agreed here would set a precedent for future lines; the return on investment should be set at 100 years rather than 10 years; the only option given was the cheapest and comparisons could not be made; the costs for undergrounding were changing all the time as technology developed; heritage should be preserved – there was a need for a robust demonstration of how to do things properly
• the Environmental Statement (ES) was not adequate; Ruttle Wood at Hughton was a nationally important site for wildlife but this had been played down in the ES; SNH objected to the proposals for Ruttle Wood where 50 acres of trees would be felled and it was likely more would be lost to windthrow; RSPB were of the view that there were fundamental flaws in the ES; four species of raptor, including ospreys and red kites, would be affected; legal advice had been sought and had indicated that there were grounds to fight the proposals through the courts, up to the European Court - this would cause lengthy delay; it was in SSE’s interest to resolve the issues at this stage, as in the long run this could prevent delays caused by similar legal action being lodged against proposals for any future lines
• a Public Inquiry with wide terms of reference was required.

 

In response, Dr MacLean reiterated that the Loch ma Stac proposal had been fully considered but had been outweighed by other conflicting interests.

Route Consideration – Badenoch and Strathspey Area

 

With reference to a PowerPoint presentation, Dr MacLean gave the reasons for the choice of route in the Badenoch and Strathspey Area, including within the Cairngorms National Park.  The existing and proposed routes were illustrated.  In considering route options, the impact of a shorter route in the already developed corridor had been balanced against a longer route to the West and South via undeveloped “wild land”.  The choice of route had been constrained by the pinch point at the Drumochter Pass and by the conflicting interests of neighbouring areas.  The proposals as they stood would shorten the route through the National Park by 8km and would reduce the number of towers from 120 to 76 within the Park boundary.  Distance between the towers would increase from 250m to 350m.  The line would be removed from Dalwhinnie and would be positioned on higher ground at Kinlochlaggan, away from Laggan.  This latter proposal would impact on views from some paths but would be beneficial overall.  In general the proposed route reduced impact on populated areas and on views from roads.  Talks on the route were ongoing and minor changes had been made even since the ES had been prepared.  In answer to questions raised, Dr MacLean advised that it was expected that the works would take three seasons to complete, one section being worked on at a time.  The siting of works compounds was not yet known as these would depend on the final choice of route, but would be made public via the Construction Procedures Handbook.

 

Representations were then made by Laggan Community Association, including that:

 

• the National Park was a special area which should be protected and pylons were not appropriate
• business in the area depended on tourism and the pylons would be detrimental to this
• there were concerns regarding health
• SSE advice was that no houses should be within 400m of the power line, but this was not adhered to in the proposals
• a Public Inquiry was sought

 

Laggan Community Association had also sought the views of the five other Community Councils in the Park Area and reported these to the meeting.  Whilst one Community Council was supportive of the scheme, the others expressed concerns that alternatives had not been adequately researched and considered that overhead lines should only be used as a last resort.  There was general recognition of the importance of the grid however, and general support for a Public Inquiry.

 

There being no questions from Members, Dr MacLean responded on a point of information and advised that SSE guidelines were to avoid housing within 100m of a power line, rather than 400m as asserted above.

 

Other parties from the Badenoch and Strathspey area were then invited to speak and raised the following concerns:

 

• the aims of the Park Authority included the promotion of the area – the pylons would bring zero benefits;
• the Park was opposed to wind farms and should therefore be opposed to the pylons on the same grounds
• tourism was the main driver of the economy and the main source of employment in the area and the pylons would jeopardise this, given that (i) VisitScotland’s data showed that pylons were the No. 1 dislike of visitors to the area; (ii) the pylons would be sited at the Gateways to the National Park, both at Drumochter and at Loch Laggan – as 90% of tourists stayed in or near their cars this would be the abiding image they took home with them and they would not be encouraged to return; (iii) tourist expectations of the Park would be disappointed – pylons would industrialise the Park; (iv) the hard work and investment carried out to make the area an exemplar destination would be lost
• the power lines would be detrimental to the emerging film industry
• the proposals were a knee-jerk reaction by the Government to the Kyoto agreement and by the contractor to the instruction to opt for the cheapest route; the proposals had not been fully thought through
• decisions as to how to re-wire Scotland for the next 50-100 years should be agreed following full consultation between the Government, Non-Governmental Organisations, and communities – at present many parties were only permitted to comment on certain aspects of the proposals: for example, SSE could not discuss alternative options as they had to opt for the cheapest solution, rather than being able to consider the full scope of the issue
• cost should not be a factor in making the decisions, a long term view should be taken; this was a once in a lifetime chance to “get it right”; the line should be undergrounded through the Park with costs met by taxation; it was possible to find alternative routes, it was not possible to find an alternative Park
• proper photomontages had not been provided
• the ES was inconsistent and underestimated the impact on birds, including black grouse, golden eagles and crossbills; black grouse was a Biodiversity Action Plan species; the ES was too flawed to be relied on and the “moderate” levels of disturbance anticipated by SSE were questionable
• there had been a lack of consultation by SSE
• a Public Inquiry was sought, covering the route, alternatives to pylons, and the means by which the infrastructure should be paid for (such as by taxation).

 

There being no questions for the speakers, Dr MacLean clarified that the infrastructure was paid for by customers and not taxpayers; customers’ interests were protected by the regulator; it was the regulator who decided what level of costs were acceptable.  He also stated that SSE supported the continuation of multi-party dialogue.

 

In answer to Members’ questions, Dr MacLean explained that the other lines in the Beauly area to be upgraded were Dounreay to Beauly – this would be by adding an additional circuit to the existing line - and Beauly to Blackhillock in Aberdeenshire – this would also be by using existing towers.  Final decisions as to how to transmit electricity from the Western Isles and the Northern Isles had not yet been made, but undersea options were being considered, which would avoid mainland upgrading.  If undersea cabling from the Northern Isles went ahead, electricity from Orkney and Shetland was likely to be brought ashore in the Eastern Moray Firth or perhaps at Cockenzie power station.

 

The Chairman having sought and been given an assurance that there were no further parties wishing to speak, and that those present were satisfied with the way the hearings process had been conducted, the Chairman declared the hearing closed and Members proceeded to consider the application.

Summary and Debate

 

The Director of Planning and Development reminded Members that the application was made under Section 37 of the Electricity Act 1989 and therefore the role of the Committee was to comment to the Scottish Executive on the proposals, rather than to determine the application.  The Committee was advised to comment on the application as proposed; it was not the Committee’s role to suggest or endorse other alternatives.

 

The Director briefly summarised the recommendations as set out in the report.  He advised that (i) if a Public Inquiry were to take place, this was unlikely to be before the Autumn and he would strongly recommend that dialogue with SSE and other Councils and agencies continue in the intervening months; (ii) should undergrounding options be pursued, there would be less scope for the Council to input, because this would not technically require Section 37 consent; and (iii) the Council would not be able to impose conditions on the application post-Public Inquiry; however, as part of the Inquiry, the Reporter would consider the Council’s comments on possible conditions, if approved. 

 

The Principal Planner, Mr A Brown, having been thanked by the Chairman for his hard work with regard to the application, gave a PowerPoint presentation illustrating in particular those areas which it had not been possible to reach on the site visit.  He asked the Committee to consider how the proposals fitted with the landscapes shown, visual impact for nearby houses and settlements, and the likely impact on tourism.  He also drew attention to the concerns of TEC Services relating to the need for a fuller appraisal of the impact of construction traffic on minor roads in particular.

 

Discussion then followed encompassing the following points:

 

• the need for a transmission network for electricity for renewable energy was accepted; however, it was argued that this must not be “at any price”; a cautious approach must be taken; the Council needed to keep some control over the development
• the proposals could be seen as amounting to industrial vandalism on a massive scale; individual pylons would be the height of a 15 storey building – there were no such buildings in Highland
• contentious sections of the route should be re-routed or undergrounded; undergrounding would cause disruption but the land would recover; at Torness it was difficult to see where the cables were and a motorway sized scar was an exaggeration; it was negligent of SSE not to have considered undergrounding – the true costs were needed for comparisons to be made; the route between Beauly and Kiltarlity provided an excellent opportunity to demonstrate new undergrounding technologies
• the route should be revised to avoid the loss of (i) ancient woodland and (ii) impact on settlements at Torgoyle and Auchteraw; further consideration should be given to routing the line alongside the rail network and the A9, with the transport infrastructure being upgraded concomitantly
• the importance of the tourism industry to the Highlands was stressed; economic survival of the Highlands depended on tourism which was worth £950m to the Highland economy; the SSE application would destroy the Highlands’ most important asset; the Tourism Minister had stated that “Tourism was everyone’s business” and a 50% growth of the industry was sought for 2015; COSLA had stated that Councils had an important role to play in tourism
• there was a need to protect roads, particularly minor roads, during the construction phase
• a Public Inquiry would lead to a loss of Council control over the final decision; it was not the best forum for the Council to achieve its aims and objectives; there should be ongoing discussion, including with local Members, before any Public Inquiry took place
• the way forward was for all parties to pressurise Westminster to finance undergrounding of sections of the route; the development was for the benefit of the whole of the UK and it was unreasonable for one area to be seriously disadvantaged in the course of meeting the nation’s requirements
• it was important to argue from the facts and avoid sentiment – the whole of the Highlands bore the imprint of the hand of man to some extent – but tourism and the environment must be protected
• Ofgem’s charging policy, which worked against electricity produced in remote areas, should be challenged
• dialogue with SSE and other Local Authorities should continue.

 

Thereafter, the Committee AGREED the recommendations as set out in the report and at (a) to (g) above, subject to an amendment to recommendation (f) to read “…in the event of the application being approved, certain existing 132kV and 33kV tower lines should be replace by wooden poles….”.

The meeting ended at 3.20 p.m., having adjourned for lunch between 12.45 and 1.30 p.m.