The report found that the although under-grounding electricity cables is more expensive then overhead lines, the cost is just 4.5 to 5.7 times more expensive [2], not 10 to 25 times more expensive as has previously been quoted by National Grid [3].

The report did not attempt to look at the wider benefits that would come from undergrounding, such as a faster planning process and environmental and social improvements which could lead to financial savings. It did, however, acknowledge these could also be an important factor in the final overall cost of any transmission method.

These findings vindicate the arguments of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) who have questioned previous cost estimates made by National Grid. The charity is calling for power cables to be put underground in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and evidence shows the public is willing to pay more for this to happen [4].

Tom Leveridge, Senior Energy Campaigner for CPRE, says: “We believe we have been vindicated in our claims that National Grid has historically over-estimated the cost of undergrounding power cables.

“This evidence from this report shows that the current public consultations into nearly 300 miles of new power lines have been proceeding with inaccurate information. We want National Grid to call a halt to any planned construction and restart the consultation process but this time with the real costs and benefits made clear.

“We are also calling for a further study that looks at the wider social and environmental costs of energytransmission.”

The Campaign for National Parks (CNP) has also welcomed the report’s findings. Its Deputy Chief Executive Ruth Chambers said:

“We welcome the report’s conclusion that underground solutions for electricity transmission are cheaper than previously thought – this is significant for the landscapes of the UK and will prevent cost being used as an excuse not to place infrastructure underground. There will now be a more level playing field between overhead and underground technologies, making it easier for solutions that respect England’s finest landscapes to be implemented.”

The report was produced by Energy consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff in association with Cable Consulting International, with the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) providing quality assurance.

End

A two page media briefing on undergrounding electricity cables is available to download:http://bit.ly/xyHDYB

As well as a map of current and proposed overhead 400v power lines: http://bit.ly/z1ywHH

Notes to Editors

[1] Institution of Engineering and Technology, Comparative costs of new electricity infrastructure, 31 January 2012, http://bit.ly/wWN2OR

[2] Cost of overhead lines = £2.2m – £4.2m per KM, Underground cable (UGC) = £10.2m – £24.1m per KM, Deep tunnel = £12.9m – £23.9m per KM.

[3] Letter dated 7 December 2010 from Martin Kinsey, Senior Project Manager, National Grid to David Kirkland, KEMA ltd. Copied available from the CPRE Press Office. National Grid cost estimates: Overhead lines: £1.6 million – £1.8 million per km; Underground cables (direct burial): £18 million – £22 million per km; Underground cables (tunnel): £26 million – £45 million per km

[4] Brunswick Research, Attitudes to Energy Transmission: Summary of Key Findings, http://bit.ly/zF5TlN and London Economics, Review of company surveys on consumers’ willingness to pay to reduce the impacts of existing transmission infrastructure on visual amenity indesignated landscapes, http://bit.ly/zvTE3n

Over the past year the subject of the report, originally to be published a year ago, has become increasingly controversial after National Grid announced nearly 300 miles of new overhead power lines to connect up new energy generation capacity – including offshore wind farms and new nuclear power stations [2]. Some of the proposed lines would cut through England’s finest landscapes like the Mendip Hills and the Dedham Vale.

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and others have long contested that National Grid has repeatedly overestimated the costs of undergrounding power lines, sometimes by as much as eight times the real cost [3]. This has led to requests to bury powerlines in our beautiful countryside, including National Parks and AONBs, to be dismissed as too expensive.

Tom Leveridge, Senior Energy Campaigner for CPRE, says: “We hope this report will finally provide some authoritative and independent information on the real costs of burying power lines. Until now, all we’ve had to go on are the costs predicted by the monopoly supplier, National Grid.

“There has been a concern that the delays in publishing this report may have prevented the public from being fully informed about some of the new overhead power lines proposed by National Grid. We must not have any decisions to erect ugly pylons in nationally designated landscapes without robust and independent data.”

A two page media briefing on undergrounding electricity cables is available to download:http://bit.ly/xyHDYB

As well as a map of current and proposed overhead 400v power lines: http://bit.ly/z1ywHH

History of the power line undergrounding report:

In October 2010 the Department of Energy and Climate Changes (DECC), at the instigation of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) Chairman Sir Michael Pitt, requested National Grid to commission an authoritative and independent report into the cost of undergrounding power cables.

National Grid commissioned international energy consultancy KEMA to produce the report. However, in June 2011 National Grid subsequently removed KEMA from the project after KEMA complained that they could not complete the report with the data available – which included that provided by National Grid [5].

In September 2011 National Grid commissioned international engineering consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) to carry out the research in association with Cable Consulting International (CCI) [6]. A project board to oversee the work was set up including the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET), which will provide a quality assurance function, National Grid, which is funding the report, and DECC. The project board is tasked with monitoring and scrutinising the progress of the project.  It is claimed that the report will be independent of both National Grid and DECC.

End

Notes to Editors

[1] The Institution of Engineering and Technology, Power lines report to be published in January 2012, 14 December 2011,http://bit.ly/wkwaV2

[2] CPRE map of proposed pylons: http://bit.ly/yySmaT

[3] CPRE, National Grid attempt to bury real costs of undergrounding power cables, 20 June 2011, http://bit.ly/m5ttdx

[4] Institution of Engineering and Technology press release: http://bit.ly/vZM9jc

[5] Institution of Engineering and Technology press release: http://bit.ly/x7ZrbT

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) and the British Astronomical Association’s Campaign for Dark Skies (CfDS) are asking people to take part in the 2012 Star Count Week between Friday 20 January and Friday 27 January.

Star gazers are asked to count the number of stars they can see within the constellation of Orion. The results will help create a 2012 Star Count map, illustrating how light pollution is affecting the view of the night sky across the UK.

Emma Marrington, Rural Policy Campaigner at CPRE, says: “Light pollution may not seem to be the most serious environmental issue, but it has a range of significant impacts. It damages the character of the countryside, blurs the distinction between town and country, and denies people the experience of a dark, starry sky. Light pollution can disrupt wildlife and badly affect people’s sleeping patterns.”

Information gathered during the 2011 Star Count week last January showed that the proportion of people taking part in the survey who are living with severe light pollution increased from 54 per cent in 2007 to a new high of 59 per cent. Only eight per cent of participants could see more then 20 stars and just one per cent of people had truly dark skies, seeing 30 or more stars.

Bob Mizon, Campaign for Dark Skies Coordinator, says: “The Star Count survey will help us measure the extent of light pollution.  We want to use this evidence to convince Ministers and local councils of the need to take action to tackle it, for example by ensuring that the correct lighting is used only where it is needed and when it is needed. This would cut light pollution, reduce carbon emissions and save money at the same time.”

Recently, more local authorities have been seeking ways to deliver their services more efficiently, and there is also growing awareness of the impact of poorly designed street-lighting. Switch off or dimming schemes for lighting, in consultation with the police and local people to ensure that there are not adverse impacts on safety, can be effective. Redesign of lighting to ensure it is better targeted on where it needs to be also saves energy, money and our long-term view of the night sky.

It is simple and easy to take part in Star Count Week 2012 and people can sign up for an email reminder to take part. Full instructions are available on the CPRE website www.cpre.org.uk/starcount.

Ends

How to take part in Star Count Week 2012:

Participants can choose any night between Friday 20 January and Friday 27 January but the sky must be clear, with no haze or clouds, so there is the best chance of seeing stars. It is recommended that observations are made after 7pm so the sky is sufficiently dark.

Organisers are asking people to count stars within the constellation of Orion in the south western night sky. The main area of the constellation is bounded by four bright stars. The star count should not include these four corner stars – only those within this rectangular boundary – but do include the stars in the middle known as Orion’s three-star belt. (A diagram is available at www.cpre.org.uk/starcount)

People should make a count of the number of stars seen with the naked eye (not with telescopes or binoculars) and then simply complete the online survey form: https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/starcount-2012 or send their count, the time and date it was made, and the location to our address: Star Count, Campaign for Dark Skies, 38 The Vineries, Colehill, Wimborne, BH21 2PX.

Further details of the Star Count Week and instructions on how to take part can be found at:http://www.cpre.org.uk/what-we-do/countryside/dark-skies/update/item/2666-star-count-2012

The British Astronomical Association is Britain’s largest astronomical organisation, with thousands of members nation-wide. Its Campaign for Dark Skies was founded in 1989, and aims to ensure quality lighting in the UK. A well-lit environment below and a view of the starry sky above are not incompatible.

Secretary for State for Transport, Justine Greening, has today announced that HS2 will proceed, with some welcome changes to the proposed route, with more tunnelling and mitigation, and a commitment to further local consultation [1].

Shaun Spiers, CPRE Chief Executive, says: “We are pleased the Government has shown its commitment to Britain’s railways while being sensitive to the impact that HS2 will have on communities and the countryside.

“It appears that Ministers really have engaged with the consultation responses.  So we welcome the changes that have been announced, notably the further tunnelling in the Chilterns and alterations to the route to avoid important heritage sites. Justine Greening is right that in delivering this important scheme we must safeguard the natural environment and our beautiful countryside.

“Today’s announcement is just one step in a very long process. There is still much more work to be done.  The route proposed today requires detailed study and it is likely that further changes will need to be made.  In particular, CPRE would like to see flexibility on the maximum design speed to allow more sensitive routing with greater curvature of the track. This will allow for necessary alterations following further local consultation.

“But the Government deserves congratulation for showing commitment to the future of our railways and to addressing regional economic imbalances, rather than concentrating development in the south east.  We are particularly pleased that this appears to have been a genuine consultation and that legitimate concerns about the likely impact of HS2 on the landscape have been heard.

“CPRE has branches and member parish councils across the country and we will continue to engage closely with the Government and HS2 Ltd to ensure that the new railway is as environmentally sensitive and beneficial to local communities as possible.”

End

Notes to Editors

[1] DfT, 10 January 2011 http://www.dft.gov.uk/news/statements/greening-20120110

[2] In announcing next steps the Government has confirmed it will implement an ‘engagement programme’ along the London to Birmingham route on Environmental Impact Assessment issues in spring of this year and consult on an Environmental Statement for phase 1 in spring 2013.

A new survey finds well over four out of five British adults (84 per cent) believe that farmers have a responsibility to look after the landscape and wildlife for future generations. [1]

These findings mirror the aspirations of a new, ambitious vision for the future of farming published today by the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) [2]. The CPRE farming vision outlines the changes to farming practices and agricultural policy CPRE would like to see by 2026.

The survey has found that fewer than a fifth of British adults (17 per cent) would accept a more industrialised farming sector and an overwhelming 78 per cent of people want farmers to get more support to carry out environmentally sustainable farming practices [3].

These findings provide timely food for thought, given recent calls to increase food production and productivity. Such a move would present challenges for the environmental sustainability of farming. A recent report claimed that the current agricultural practices of European countries, which make intensive use of water, fertiliser and energy, are unlikely to be sustainable in the near future [4]. This demonstrates the need for a fresh debate on how we manage farmland now and in the future.

Ian Woodhurst, Senior Farming Campaigner for CPRE, says: “It’s great to see that people clearly want the environmentally sustainable future for farming set out in our vision. There are huge challenges, including growing populations, increasing demand for land and natural resources, and pressures due to climate change. But we must find ways to cope with these challenges if we are to secure a living, thriving rural landscape

“We need to be ambitious if we are to ensure we have both a vibrant farming sector and a beautiful countryside alive with wildlife. The Government, farmers, the food industry and environmental organisations will need to work together over the coming years to ensure that the public’s aspirations are realised.”

In its farming vision, CPRE looks to a future when:

• Farmers who adopt new environmental sustainability standards benefit from a price premium that recognises the additional environmental measures they are taking, for example creating wildlife habitats.
• Fairer milk prices for dairy farmers help to reverse the decline in traditional, pasture-based dairy farms, and make them more profitable helping to maintain much loved landscapes.
• There is a massive increase in the number of community-based horticultural enterprises supplying local vegetables, salad and fruit, strengthening local food webs.
• Polytunnels for growing fruit and vegetables have become much less contentious after being brought into a planning system which controls their cumulative impacts on the landscape.
• Most pigs and poultry are free range and reared outdoors, which is what the majority of consumers demand.
• Farmers in upland areas have capitalised on the environmental and cultural services these areas provide by, for example, managing water and soils sustainably and creating beautiful landscapes.
• Nearly all farms in England are producing renewable energy through sensitively designed and located small-scale schemes, such as anaerobic digestion plants which generate energy from farm waste.

Ian Woodhurst concluded “CPRE’s farming vision will guide our work and, we hope, provide inspiration to all those who want to see a future where a profitable farming sector and a beautiful, rich and diverse countryside go hand in hand.”

End

Notes to Editors

[1] This survey was commissioned by CPRE and carried out by ICM research between 13^th and 16^th December 2011.  ICM interviewed a representative total sample of 2,005 adults in Great Britain aged 18+. Interviews were conducted through the ICM online omnibus. Results are weighted to the population profile of Great Britain. ICM is one of the largest and best known research companies in the UK and a leading research company. For more information please visit: www.icmresearch.com/

[2] CPRE, Vision for the future of farming, 09 January 2012. The vision accompanies CPRE’s 2026 vision for the countryside and aims to take a more focused look at farming and the critical role it plays in managing the rural landscape: http://bit.ly/xmmZwn

[3] see [1]

[4] Scottish Agricultural College for Oxford Farming Conference, Power in Agriculture, 04 January 2012, http://www.ofc.org.uk/news/global-agricultural-power-be-debated-ofc-2012

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) today welcomed the call by a cross-party committee of MPs for ‘significant changes’ to improve the draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) [1]. These suggested changes reflect many of CPRE’s aspirations for the final policy [2].

Kate Houghton, Planning Officer at the CPRE, says: ‘This report shows a strong cross-party consensus that the role of planning is to treat economic, environmental and social needs equally, not to favour short term economic growth at any cost. The Government must now make substantial changes to its proposed planning policies if we are to get the efficient, locally oriented and environmentally sensitive system we believe Ministers want.’

In the report the MPs:

• call the document ‘unbalanced’ in favour of economic growth alone and call for the removal of a proposed default ‘yes’ to all new development;
• state that the Government’s proposed ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development’ could undermine local plans;
• call for a stronger definition of sustainable development, based on the UK’s Sustainable Development Strategy; and
• highlight the ‘inevitable risk’ of more countryside being lost in the absence of a clear policy of developing brownfield (previously developed) sites before greenfield.

The draft NPPF, consulted on during the summer, sparked major interest and controversy, with over 14,000 public responses. Despite this, Ministers have said they do not propose to hold a second consultation in 2012. The MPs see a strong case, however, for a further short consultation with planning practitioners.

The MPs also criticise the ‘unhelpfully vague’ wording of the draft document. The Government claimed that condensing over 1,000 pages of current policy to just 52 would provide simplicity and clarity. The MPs instead conclude that the draft NPPF ‘does not achieve clarity by its brevity.’

Kate Houghton concluded: ‘We all want to see a return to a healthy economy. The Government will not achieve this by putting the countryside at risk of poor quality development and undermining cities by allowing greenfields to be built on before brownfield land. The Committee’s conclusions are considered and well-informed and we urge the Government to respond positively. Otherwise we risk returning to the unsustainable development of a generation ago, when an area of countryside three times the size of Stevenage was built on each year.’

End

Notes to Editors

[1] For more details about the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select Committee and its reports go to www.parliament.uk/clg.

[2] What CPRE wants to see from the National Planning Policy Framework, September 2011. Available from www.cpre.org.uk.

 Emma Marrington, Rural Policy Campaigner for CPRE, says: “We are pleased the Forestry Panel agrees that the benefits of woods and forests are greatly undervalued. The Government were wrong to see Forestry Commission land as just another asset to sell off. This report makes it crystal clear that the benefits provided by the public forest estate offer value for money.”

The final recommendations by the Independent Panel on Forestry, due in April 2012, will come at a vital time for the future ofEngland’s countryside. The final National Planning Policy Framework is expected around the same time and if this is not greatly improved, it is likely to leave much of our countryside as an easy target for development.

Emma Marrington concluded: “The Government must listen to the Forestry Panel’s recommendations and ensure that a secure future is planned for the public forest estate.  Our trees, woods and forests need to be more effectively protected, for the benefit of all, for generations to come.”

Ends

Notes to Editors

[1] The Independent Forestry Panel was established on 17 March 2011 by the Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, to advise government on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England. The Panel will submit its final report to Government in April 2012. The progress report is: http://www.defra.gov.uk/forestrypanel/reports/

The plan would place even more importance on how ‘sustainable development’ is defined in the National Planning Policy Framework [2]. The Government has so far refused to make this explicit, leaving many concerned that this will simply mean almost any kind of development.

The three Government agencies are often active in highlighting when proposed developments would be damaging, and in exceptional cases they lodge formal objections. Unless sufficient priority is given to the role of the agencies in protecting and enhancing the environment, this move could effectively emasculate these environmental watchdogs and do untold damage to England’s countryside and heritage.

Neil Sinden, Director of Policy at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, says: “Time and again we hear that the economic departments are really calling the shots over the Government’s planning reforms.  So while this latest announcement is no surprise, it should be deeply worrying for all those who care about the environment and long term economic health.

“The Government appears determined to make every organisation a tool for promoting its ill-defined notion of ‘sustainable development’. Unless there are explicit environmental safeguards, it could enable developers to ride roughshod over the countryside and the views of local people.

“By making these agencies a tool for promoting development, their critical role as champions of our landscape, wildlife and heritage is undermined. They do not exist to promote development; they are there to make sure any proposed development does not destroy our national treasures and environmental support structures.”

End

Notes to Editors

[1] Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, Implementation of the Penfold Review, 30 November 2011

[2] Currently under review following a public consultation.

Following the autumn statement by the Chancellor George Osborne, Ralph Smyth, Senior Transport campaigner at the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says:

“These new plans to build old road schemes have clearly been picked off a dusty shelf without time for much thinking. A return to building new roads in the name of job creation will lead to more traffic, move bottlenecks along rather than solving them, often at an irrevocable cost to the local environment. The idea is sadly all too characteristic of a Chancellor who has shown little concern for protecting our countryside

“Laying new tarmac to allow the building of new out of town housing and superstores is not a plan for economic success but a road to disaster. It will weaken already struggling high streets and permanently disfigure our countryside.”

Examples of damaging new road schemes:

Lower Thames Crossing – Proposed in 1989 in the ‘Roads for Prosperity’ White Paper, this bridge could unleash so much new traffic that much of North Kent and South Essex could grind to a halt. The Government has ‘committed’ to this scheme before detailed plans for any route have been drawn up let alone costed. The environmental impact on the Kent Downs could be devastating.

Kingskerswell Bypass, Devon - The Department for Transport awarded Devon millions this summer to cut car trips and reduce the need to travel around Newton Abbott, now the Treasury is proposing to do the opposite by spending millions on this bypass first planned in the 1930s. Despite the cost of slicing through rare and beautiful habitats on Kerswell Downs, the road is predicted simply to move traffic jams down the road into Torbay.

A453, Nottingham - Though described as widening, most of the dual carriageway would be off the existing route, ploughing through agricultural land in the Green Belt. Even with the road built, by 2030 congestion during the morning peak is predicted to be worse than it is now. If High Speed 2 goes ahead, East Midlands Parkway station, which the road links to, may see its rail services cut, damaging the justification for the road.

Manchester Airport Link Road – Originally scrapped in 1998, this dual carriageway would rip through countryside that is Stockport’s green lungs, ancient woodland in the Ladybrook Valley and decimate ponds near Styall that are the home of protected Great Crested newts.

Ralph Smyth concludes: “The French investment plan proposes spending just a fifteenth on roads, with most of the rest going to rail and local public transport schemes. Osborne clearly has a lot of learning to do if he wants to catch up with our competitors.”

In advance of the autumn statement to be delivered by the Chancellor George Osborne on Tuesday, Ben Stafford, Head of Campaigns for the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE), says:

“As the Chancellor prepares to give his autumn statement, we hope he’s learned from his recent mistakes and does not try to make the planning system his whipping boy again [1]. Despite his previous claims, the Government has now acknowledged that the slowdown in house building is a consequence of the economic downturn [2] and not a result of sensible planning rules that have been in place for more than 60 years.

“New construction might deliver a short-term boost to some businesses, but this is not the same as delivering long term prosperity.  Development needs to reinforce urban regeneration and not be at the expense of the countryside. For example, a return to building new roads in the name of job creation will lead to more traffic, moving bottlenecks along rather than solving them, often at an irrevocable cost to the local environment.

“Rural areas have considerable potential to contribute to sustainable economic development but this requires careful planning.  We hope the Government will recognise this potential by enabling the sensitive provision of rural affordable housing and supporting farmers in producing the food we need while also protecting and enhancing the countryside.”

End

Notes to Editors

[1] Financial Times article by George Osborn, 4 September 2011,  http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d14169b0-d598-11e0-9133-00144feab49a.html#axzz1f14rwRfn

[2] Department for Communities and Local Government, New strategy to deliver homes and strengthen the economy, 21 November 2011http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/2033731