Power line plans spark objections
Landowners appeal to Holyrood over upgrade bid
Landowners behind two of the biggest proposed housing developments approved near Perth in recent years are resisting a power provider’s move to upgrade an overhead line passing through both sites.
Scottish Hydro Electric Transmission ( SHET) is proposing to increase the operating capacity of a 275kV line between Kintore and Kincardine and is currently seeking to secure so-called wayleave agreements with landowners to carry out the works.
However the John Dewar Lamberkin Trust ( JDLT) has objected to the company asking the Scottish Government to grant it “necessary” wayleave to replace part of the line that passes over land it owns on the edge of Perth past Broxden.
And Almond Valley Limited (AVL) has similarly objected to workers being granted permission to upgrade part of the line that passes over land it owns west of the city’s A9/A85 interchange past Huntingtower Castle.
Both argue allowing SHET to access the line on their land for upgrades or repairs under agreements proposed will prevent them building anything within 70 to 80 metres of the line.
JDLT was given permission to press on with phase one of the planned Perth West development in June this year and AVL was granted consent for the first phase of the long contested Almond Valley Village project two months later.
Documents show JDLT hope to eventually build up to 1,500 new homes between the A9 southbound and Tibbermore while it’s understood AVL wish to build a further 1,500 more between Ruthvenfield and the River Almond under the second.
Lawyers acting for JDLT, Edinburghbased Turcan Connell, argue SHET ought to run any replacement line underground instead of over in order to free up more space for potential development.
They have said in a statement of appeal sent to the government: “If granted ... the wayleave would entail the preservation of a 70 metre wide corridor beneath and to the side [of the line] in which development would be prevented.
“If in the alternative the line ran underground the sterilised corridor would be only 20 metres in width.
“The extent of the land sterilised by an overhead line would consequently be 250 per cent greater than would be the case for an underground line.”
Lawyers acting for AVL, Brodies LLP, have similarly argued the so-called “limit of deviation” SHET is seeking agreement on relating to any development on their land near the line is “excessively wide and unreasonable”.
They also argue the presence of the line on the land, for which it is claimed there are no agreements in place at the moment, will have a “detrimental impact” on the residential amenity of future occupants of the Almond Valley village area.
Their statement of appeal says: “The overhead line currently represents a physical constraint sterilising a significant corridor through the development site which would otherwise be appropriate for the development of housing.
“Grant of the wayleaves would represent a legal constraint preventing development in that corridor on a semipermanent basis.
“In approaching the planning and design of the development site, AVL and the previous owners have reasonably attempted to mitigate their losses by designing green space around the overhead line corridor.
“In the absence of the overhead line, however, an alternative design would be pursued with houses located in the corridor.”
The statement of appeal goes on: “In the circumstances described in this statement of case, the overhead line will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the development ... and its future residents.
“This is particularly the case for the houses in close proximity to the overhead line, but the overhead line will be prominent over a wider area within the development site.
“As there are no wayleaves currently in place, the impact of the existing overhead line requires to be in addition to impacts arising solely from the upgrade apparatus.”
The government’s Planning and Environmental Appeals Division (DPEA) is currently considering both cases and is expected to arrange special hearings to examine the arguments further in due course.