REVOLT opposing unnecessary, excessive and intrusive powerline development

opposing unnecessary, excessive
and intrusive powerline development

REVOLT Newsletter 355

Revolt news 18/07/2012 Print (pdf) Version

1. The June newsletter of Stour Valley Underground (SVU) proclaims good news and seeks to go further, saying it’s not enough. The good news is that the developers of East Anglia 1 [offshore wind] have now told National Grid (NG) that they do not want a connection at Lowestoft and that the segment of the windfarm nearest to Lowestoft is now unlikely to be built. So the pylon plans for north Suffolk [e.g. new line from Lowestoft to Diss] have been scrapped. SVU is promoting a more southerly landfall at Bradwell in Essex which is being given serious consideration by the offshore wind developers.

2. SVU’s main story: "We have already circulated news of National Grid's proposals to underground the Bramford to Twinstead connection as it passes through the Stour Valley. They also propose to underground within the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This news is good, but not good enough. SVU published their response to National Grid's announcement and supporting Connection Options Report in the form of a highly illustrated document that was provided to local government councillors and officers in time for their meeting to determine the local authorities' response. We can now report the very good news that all of the involved district and county councils have agreed a common response, pressing for a totally underground connection solution from National Grid. Press coverage available here."

3. SVU report from the Community Forum consultations that it became very apparent that National Grid had not done their homework on many levels. “Not only were they not prepared to answer our questions [submitted in advance], it also became clear that the evidence in their very weighty looking Connection Options Report was inadequate and that decisions within it had been based on scant knowledge of the landscape they affected.” … “The reason given verbally by National Grid's environmental consultant was at odds with the reasoning laid out in their document and the only conclusion to be drawn is that environmentally significant decisions are being made on poor quality, desktop research. Our advice to National Grid based on this is simple: You need to get out more! - visit the sites and genuinely research the best options.”

4. The European WIK EMF Brief #82 of 3rd July 2012 has three items of special interest:

5. A new research paper (Eder et al, 2012) in the prestigious journal PNAS reports analysis of magnetic material in a particular type of cell. The results show larger than anticipated magnetic structures and moments. The abstract concludes: “Our results show that the magnetically identified cells clearly meet the physical requirements for a magnetoreceptor capable of rapidly detecting small changes in the external magnetic field. This would also explain interference of ac powerline magnetic fields with magnetoreception, as reported in cattle.” This new line of research challenges the rather presumptuous industry-led view that biological effects from powerline magnetic fields are “bio-physically implausible”. Yet there is also much more research tending to do that – it is still very early days to be making presumptuous conclusions.

6. The July SVU newsletter reports: “On the 10th July 2012, UK Power Networks published their long awaited document outlining their need case and proposal for a substation in north Essex. This newsletter is intended to explain the key aspects of UKPN's proposals and provide you with some alternative options to such an unsightly and inappropriate addition to the beautiful countryside of north Essex border.”

7. The July SVU newsletter continues to reveal a familiar picture: consultations skewed to deliver a pre-determined solution … outdated attitudes and methodologies … massaging the figures … options not properly explored. SVU argue the new substation is not needed, and there are other options of reinforcing existing substations.

8. A supplementary SVU newsletter says “In a somewhat unhelpful move UK Power Networks have changed their website and moved their need case and proposal documents for the Twinstead Substation”, so SVU have installed them on their own site 


Statements made by the editor or by other parties and quoted for information do not necessarily represent the views of Revolt. Criticism of government and industry, and grievances from members of the public, are in the nature of Revolt's work, though we try to give credit where it is due. Revolt is strictly non-party-political and regrets any offence which may be inadvertently caused.




Custom Search

Search the web

Custom Search