Suffolk: Power line proposals need more scrutiny

The Norwich to Tilbury Project - or as it was formerly known, East Anglia GREEN - is a proposal put forward by National Grid to reinforce the high voltage power network in East Anglia between the existing substations at Norwich Main in Norfolk, Bramford in Suffolk and Tilbury in Essex. The project also aims to connect the massive expansion in new offshore wind generation off the Suffolk and Norfolk coast with the rest of the power grid. The current proposals, which I believe are unacceptable, would comprise mostly overhead lines, including pylons and conductors, with only limited underground cabling through the Dedham Vale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) as well as a new 400 kV connection substation in the Tendring district.

Many parts of Mid-Suffolk will be detrimentally affected if these plans go ahead in their current form. I believe we must protect our beautiful Suffolk countryside, both for ourselves and for the generations to come.

What is positive however, is that at a time that we have a cost-of-living crisis caused by the War in the Ukraine, we have finally woken up to the challenges we face as a country in terms of improving our energy security and reducing the cost of producing our energy. We now all realise that we need to produce more of our own energy going forward. Some of that will come from renewables and some from new nuclear. We must also speed up the process by which energy production occurs and the transmission routes are established - but it’s vital that we look to energy and transmission routes which carry public support and which protect our countryside where at all possible.

I am concerned that the Norwich to Tilbury Project and the current proposals by National Grid fail to provide detailed costings or evaluations for alternative means of energy transmission, including the potential for the undergrounding of cables, or indeed my preferred option and I think that of many people, which is to offshore the energy transmission route along the seabed.

National Grid have put forward what appears to be a predetermined pylon route without providing sufficient evidence or an understanding of what the costings of the other transmission options may be. It could be that greater undergrounding or offshoring of cables comes with a cost, but the cost of these processes could then be distributed across a broad time frame which would protect consumers against substantial or sudden increases in their energy bills.

When we already have a line of pylons from Norwich connecting down through Norfolk, Suffolk and North Essex, rather than building a completely new line of pylons, why have National Grid not considered, for example, reinforcing the existing line of pylons or building another set right next to the original pylons? These are things that should be properly

evaluated and brought forward, so that the public can understand what the evidence base is for the current proposals, but once again, we have not seen proper evaluation and costings from National Grid.

In defence of their plans, National Grid have argued that existing lines do not have the capacity to accommodate the extra supply even with their own planned upgrades, but this doesn’t fully answer my question and explain why National Grid will not better evidence their current proposals and compare them to alternatives. Further to this, if National Grid are prepared to underground the network in the Dedham Vale area and ‘Constable Country’ then why is it not possible to do so elsewhere? Surely much more of our beautiful Suffolk countryside is deserving of such protection.

I have heard of a general estimation of it being five to ten times more expensive to use underground rather than overhead cables and that communities or individuals affected by new pylons may be offered financial compensation. 'Five to ten times more expensive' is somewhat vague and not strong enough evidence, especially when it hasn’t been directly applied to the Norwich to Tilbury project. Like many people, I want to protect the integrity of the countryside and preserve land primarily for agricultural use. I would not expect people to be persuaded by a financial bribe which also fails to protect the countryside for future generations.

If we look to other parts of the country such as Scotland for example, offshoring of transmission has always been the preferred route from day one, so I’m very optimistic that there are other viable options that could be brought forward by National Grid.

I was pleased that a recent report published by Suffolk County Council still raised important objections to these proposals. The county council fully recognised the importance of National Grid’s proposals in reducing emissions, decarbonising the grid, improving energy security and meeting the challenges of climate change, but they lodged very important objections ranging from the impact on AONBs, airfields, the historic environment and tourism, to name but a few.

It’s very difficult to garner public support or public understanding about why these are the right proposals so I will continue to work with other MPs to make the case that we need to have better alternatives than the current Norwich to Tilbury Project proposals and we need to fight to stop these new pylons from being built.

Should we not get into a better place, I am sure we shall see challenges brought not just by MPs but by local communities working with lawyers to bring judicial reviews forward about a failure to engage in a proper consultation process and national grid’s apparent predetermination of a decision about how they want to proceed when in fact there are many potentially better options.

In June, I was elected to sit on the new Parliamentary Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee and this position will give me a strong opportunity to properly scrutinise important energy issues including National Grid’s Norwich to Tilbury Project. I am looking forward to working with the committee to drive green growth and improve energy security across the country, and to scrutinise and make suggestions about how to improve the Government’s net zero by 2050 ambitions.

Dr Dan Poulter is MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich