CPRE Leicestershire

 In 2004 CPRE launched a campaign to oppose inappropriately sited telecommunications masts. The problem was, and still is, that just about everyone wants a mobile phone and expects it to work anywhere they go. Where a mast and its antennae present a serious impact on amenity, any such application will be subject to a local authority's Development Control. The details are set out in the Government document Planning Policy Guidance 8. Beware though, some of these things can slip-through under Permitted Development Rights.

Here are some images of telecommunications towers and antennae:

By necessity, since the high frequencies used in many telecomms are 'line of sight', the antennae and supporting masts need to be in places of high elevation and therefore are conspicuous in the landscape. The picture on the left is the mast to the east of Sileby. The middle picture is the antenna array on the mast at the summit of Leicestershire's highest point, Bardon Hill (278 metres/912 feet above mean sea level). The picture on the right is an example of mast-sharing with a difference. These masts and their antennae are perhaps not so bad on their own and not close to peoples' homes, though what about the cumulative effect when they are in association with other structures, as shown by the picture below?

Looking in the opposite direction to the above photograph, this is the scene:

These being low voltage feeder lines from sub-stations to outlying rural locations, such as farms. These are typically 11 kilovolt lines and because of voltage drop due to resistance with distance from the sub-station voltage regulators are also mounted on the poles, as shown below:

These aren't the prettiest things in the countryside, though nobody appears to complain. After all, like mobile phones, there is a need for electricity. Could these lines be buried? In theory yes, but at a very high cost - not just the cost of putting them underground but the high costs associated with maintenance too. We'll come to the high voltage power lines, supported by metal pylons later. What about this 11kV system though? Aren't these low voltage distribution systems an eyesore, snaking their way across the fields? Here are some more pictures of low-voltage cables and their supports:

What about other tall structures in the countryside? Wind turbines are an obvious example, though they catch they eye because they aren't static all of the time. With wind turbines in your field of vision you become a 'receptor'. Why doesn't this terminology apply to other tall structures? On Charnwood Forest there are two very large supporting masts, each carrying dozens of antennae. No one seems to be making a fuss about these. These are at Copt Oak. To the north-west of Beacon Hill there are a couple of medium-sized wind turbines. On Beacon Hill itself there are two smallish wind turbines powering the car park facilities. These wind turbines don't appear to be exercising peoples' concern - this seems to be triggered when turbine size approaches the megawatt capacity. Over in the east of the county is the Waltham television transmitter. This is a huge structure, 314 metres (that's a thousand and thirty feet) high above the ground and it's been there for over forty years.

The Waltham TV transmitter with pylons and low voltage poles thrown in for good measure.

The Copt Oak masts in Charnwood Forest.

The wind turbines at West Beacon Farm.

The wind turbines at Beacon Hill car park.

On farms we see grain and animal feed silos like the one shown below. Do we regard these as intrusions, spoiling a rural idyll?

Being objective, regarding our perception of how the countryside should look is difficult, though it is tempered when we consider how our modern needs are to be met. We need roadstone and aggregate and yet our first reaction when a new quarry is proposed is one of horror. We need more non-fossil carbon derived electrical power and addressing this immediate need through proven wind turbine technology also causes adverse reactions - sometimes with justification.

Pylons and Polytunnels

One of the most obvious of intrusive structures in the countryside are the transmission towers carrying very high voltage cables. In Spring 2009 CPRE drew attention to a Draft National Policy Statement consultation on electricity transmission, which is expected in the Summer of 2009. It is highly likely that the Government will do with electrical distribution what it does with overloaded roads - build its way out of congestion. With electricity this could mean simply bolting on more centralised generation and more pylons. The 2008 Planning Act would be the vehicle to quickly deliver this expansion of 'nationally significant' infrastructure with little or no real public consultation. New power distribution lines will adversely affect National Parks, AONBs and Green Belt land. The details of the proposal are here on our CPRE National Office website.

In a saner world the NPS on electricity transmission will be an excellent opportunity for providing the means by which sustainable energy can be delivered. For example, smart metering, small-scale domestic generation and off-grid energy, along with energy storage technology, ought to be the sustainable way forward. This is the 'Smart' or 'Intelligent' Grid'. Additionally, the NPS will offer the opportunity to encourage burial of power lines in areas where the landscape value is of a high order. The aim of the 2008 Planning Act is to speed up the delivery of infrastructure projects. The suspicion is that fast = cheap and nasty and therefore campaigning for a 'smart grid' will be an uphill battle for CPRE and other NGOs.

In 1959 the Central Electricity Generating Board established a set of rules for cable routeing, known as the Holford Rules, which state:

1. Avoid altogether, if possible, the major areas of highest amenity value, by so planning the general route of the line in the first place, even if the total mileage is somewhat increased in consequence.

2. Avoid smaller areas of high amenity value or scientific interest, by deviation; provided that this can be done without using too many angle towers (i.e. the more massive structures which are used when lines change direction).

3. Other things being equal, choose the most direct line, with no sharp changes of direction and thus fewer angle towers.

4. Choose tree and hill backgrounds in preference to sky background wherever possible and when the line has to cross a ridge, secure this opaque background as long as possible and cross obliquely when a dip in the ridge provides an opportunity. Where it does not, cross directly, preferably between belts of trees.

5. Prefer moderately open valleys with woods, where the apparent height of the towers will be reduced and views of the line will be broken by trees.

6. In country which is flat and sparsely planted, keep the higher voltage lines as far as possible independent of smaller lines, converging routes, distribution lines and other masts, wires and cables so as to avoid a concatenation or 'wirescape'.

7. Approach urban areas through industrial zones where they exist and where pleasant residential and recreational land intervenes between the approach line and substation, go carefully into the costs of undergrounding, for lines other than those of the highest voltage.

Now look at this map of Leicestershire showing the high voltage transmission lines and decide where undergrounding would be desirable...

Perhaps an obvious case is that concerning the forthcoming Planning Application for a new hard stone quarry to the south of Bardon Hill at Rise Rocks. If the application is successful a high voltage line and its pylons will need to be moved. The least expensive option is to simply relocate the line. However, to protect what is a high value landscape (Bardon Hill is a Site of Special Scientific Interest) CPRE ought to campaign for burial of the line through the most sensitive parts of that landscape.

There are approximately 22,000 high voltage pylons stretching over 7,000 kilometres of England and Wales. We haven't determined how many kilometres of high voltage cables there are in Leicestershire or how many pylons there are. If someone would care to sit down and examine the 1:25000 Ordnance Survey maps for the county and measure/count we'd be pleased to hear from you. No prizes though! Not everyone finds transmission towers unappealing though. Take the Pylon Appreciation Society for example, though one suspects that there's more than a hint of Asperger's at work here!

The following images illustrate the effect of pylons on the landscape. The photographs were taken in the Soar Valley and the eastern edge of Charnwood Forest.

The Not-so-Tall Intrusions in the Countryside

To what extent is the rural scene spoiled by pylons in the dozen pictures above?

So where do polytunnels fit into the scheme of things? In Leicestershire they don't - yet. In other counties acres of land are being covered by this advance in food production - and lots of people don't like to see these 'Spanish Tunnels'. The perception is that they adversely impact on the beauty and tranquillity of the countryside. This method of intensifying food production is used mainly by soft fruit growers, principally strawberries. An impression of the effect polytunnels have on the rural scene can be found here.

CPRE's mission statement reads as follows:

'CPRE wants a beautiful, tranquil and diverse countryside that everyone can value and enjoy; a working countryside that contributes to national well being by enriching our quality of life, as well as providing us with crucial natural resources, including food. We wish to see the sustainable use of land and other natural resources in town and country. The countryside, including its villages and towns is ever changing, but we strive to ensure that change and development respect the character of England's natural and built landscapes, enhancing the environment for the enjoyment and benefit of all.'

Obviously there is some sort of balance between a 'beautiful, diverse and tranquil' countryside and a 'working countryside that contributes to national well being'. Where is that balance though? We constantly strive for greater economic output to meet ever-growing demands and mostly in unsustainable ways. We need more food yet complain when farmers embrace new methods of production; we aren't happy seeing pylons and masts all over the countryside yet hardly (if ever) give a second thought to where the electricity comes from when we throw a switch - or give a thought about the harmful emissions produced by electrical generation. When a technologically proven and sustainable means of electrical generation is at hand using what is essentially free fuel we aren't happy if we can see wind turbines in fairly ordinary countryside. All of this needs a rational and radical re-think if we are to make sustainable advances.

In Leicestershire we have seen a dramatic growth in the use of contractors by farmers to lay biodegradable protective film over sown crops. This ensures a good rate of germination through moisture and heat retention and also prevents losses of seed to scavenging by wildlife. The pictures below illustrate the effect, albeit temporary:

Can we really afford to be precious about how farmers use the land to increase food production, unless the methods used are hopelessly unsustainable and damaging? We are a crowded isle and not enough attention has been paid to food and energy security. At school many of us learned that the Netherlands was the most densely populated country in Europe. This is no longer the case in that the UK recently took pole position. England has an average of just under 400 people per square kilometre, increasing to 405 people per square kilometre by 2011 and by 2031 trends indicate that this figure will grow to 465 people per square kilometre. By 2081 trends indicate that there will be 575 people per square kilometre of England. The average for the whole of Europe is around 120 people per square kilometre. Here's what a square kilometre looks like:

(This is the southern edge of the village of Gilmorton, near Lutterworth)

Of the UK as a whole (population approximately 61 million) England makes up 84% of the total. England is in fact one of the most densely populated countries in the world. To put it bluntly, there are too many of us demanding too much. Making sacrifices and cutting back is anathema to many and an understanding of what sustainable development means is beyond the ken of those many. Until wants and needs are curbed the land will always suffer, if that's the perception.

It is very difficult to achieve the necessary balance when countryside protection is at stake. What exactly do we mean by countryside protection? Lowland farmscapes are going to change dramatically fairly soon, not only as a result of the intensification of food production but due to intense biofuel production too. Consider the effect that expanses of Miscanthus grass and short-rotation willow and poplar coppice will have. Consider also that farms specialising in these forms of biofuel production will most likely have pelletisation machinery and storage silos. That is, lorries will collect fuel pellets for Combined Heart and Power plants, much in the same way that milk is collected.

CPRE have carried out a mapping exercise to determine the extent of disturbed and undisturbed land. These are our Intrusion Maps. Here's what the map for our part of the East Midlands looks like:

In 1991 Secretary of State for the Environment, Nicholas Ridley, denounced country dwellers who were in favour of land development as long as it didn't happen near them - this quickly gave rise to the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) acronym. However, it emerged later that Mr Ridley himself had objected when a local farmer tried to build in a field backing on to his eighteenth-century Gloucestershire rectory! A groundswell of local opposition - often from groups with green affiliations - has over the years (and in less enlightened times) halted renewable projects designed to generate electricity from waste, wind, biomass and hydroelectric resources, which as a necessity ought to have gone ahead. Objectors say such projects are harmful eyesores - although many in fact say they are fundamentally committed to the need for renewable energy.

Since the exposure of Mr. Ridley's hypocrisy several related acronyms have arisen in our language to express contempt or approval:-

BANYs Builders Against NIMBYs

GOAH Gedoudaheah

GOOMBA Get out of my business area

GUMBY Gaze upon my backyard

KIIMBY Keep it in my backyard

NIABY Not in anyone’s backyard

NIMD Not in my district

NIMEY Not in my election year

NIMFOS Not in my field of sight

NIMFYE Not in my front yard either

NIMTOO Not in my term of office

NITL Not in this lifetime

NOPE Not on planet earth

NORF No observable redeeming features

NOT None of that

NOTE Not over there either

NUMBY Not under my backyard

PIITBY Put it in their backyard

QUIMBY Quit urbanizing in my backyard

WIIFM What’s in it for me?

WIMBY - Why In My Back Yard?

YIMBY Yes in my backyard

BANANA - Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (or Anyone)

CAVE people - Citizens Against Virtually Everything

On May 10th 2009, Mark Tully, the presenter of BBC Radio Four's 'Something Understood' said, "NIMBYism can be avoided if we remember that we have responsibilities as well as entitlements." To make a point, the track 'NIMBY' by a cappella trio 'Artisan' was played over the air. A clip of the soundtrack can be heard here. The writer, Brian Bedford, has very kindly allowed us to reproduce the lyrics here:

So, hopefully we are all able to make rational decisions when considering plans affecting the landscape but putting NIMFOS out of the equation can be difficult!