Electricity versus Beauty
The two cases which have come into the news this week of a clash between the authorities interested in the preservation of natural beauty and those charged with the supply .of electricity have one fundamental feature in common—they both drive home the point that it costs money to keep the countryside unblemished. In dismissing an action by the National Trust to restrain the Midlands Electricity Board from erecting poles to carry electric cables on the Malvern Hills Mr. Justice Vaisey said he was sure the board would have preferred to put the cables underground if they could have afforded to do so. But they could not, so the poles will go up, the open country will be disfigured, but the taxpayers' money will be safeguarded. In Snowdonia, where a much bigger change is proposed in the British Electricity Authority's hydro-electric schemes for Snowdon, Nant Ffrancon, Upper Conway and Mawdach, the case is not yet settled. The B.E.A. must still get a private Bill through Parliament, and the National Parks Commission is doing its best to stop the scheme from going forward—as it is bound to do if the character of the area is to be preserved. But once again the question_of cost is bound to come up. It may not be easy to prove that the B.E.A. can produce electricity more cheaply elsewhere. But it is obvious that the attempt must be made to find an alternative. The National Parks Act is now in operation. When Parliament passed it it must have recognised that to maintain the general character of the designated areas it would be forced to oppose a certain number of new money-making or money-saving schemes within these areas. It is now faced with the logical implications of the Act in a concrete form.
Previous page
