Case studies of EIA in practice - Introduction to Environmental Impact Assessment - page 257

the assessment of the terminal…, which failed, contrary to Article 3 of the
Directive, to take into account the effects of its siting on the choice of
[route for] the rail link. (Letter from the Environment Commissioner to
the UK Government, 17 October 1991).
The same argument seems to apply in the Wilton example. The power station and
transmission lines are also indivisible, since the power lines would not be required were it
not for the new power station, and the location of the power station is critical to any
subsequent decisions on the route of the power lines.
9.2.3 The Lackenby-Shipton power lines public inquiry
As noted above, the installation of power lines to service the new power station was the
responsibility of a separate developer (the NGC) and was subject to separate—later—
consent and EIA procedures. In the event, five alternative routing proposals were
considered concurrently at a public inquiry, which started in May 1992—some 18 months
after consent had been given for the power station; indeed, by this stage, construction of
the power station had already begun.
The proposed power line routes started in Lackenby, adjacent to the Wilton power station
site, and then proceeded south to Picton, via alternative southern and northern routes.
From Picton, alternative western, eastern and central routes ran south to Shipton, north-
west of York (Figure 9.1). The total length of new power lines and system upgrades
required was between 75 and 85 km, depending on the route options selected. The NGC
itself expressed a preference for the shorter southern route from the power station to
Picton, and for the western route option from Picton to Shipton. All of the proposed
routes passed through or adjacent to (and visible from) important protected landscapes,
including the North York Moors National Park and the Howardian Hills AONB. Key
objectors to the proposals at the public inquiry included the local authorities through
which the proposed routes ran (North Yorkshire County Council, Cleveland CC and
others), the Country Landowners Association, the National Farmers Union and CPRE, as
well as many individuals including farmers and local residents. The principal issues
considered at the inquiry included the visual impact of the pylons and overhead lines,
potential health risks from electromagnetic radiation, issues of need and alternatives and
effects on farming operations.
CPRE argued at the inquiry that the visual impacts of the proposals were unacceptable
and should have been foreseen at a much earlier stage. It urged that the inquiry inspectors
“should not feel obliged to grant consent for the power lines simply because consent for
the power station had already been granted and it was already being built” (Sheate 1995).
It also invited the inspectors to comment on the inadequacy of the existing EIA
procedures in such cases, in which consent for electricity generation is divided from
consent for electricity transmission.