To celebrate our centenary, we are taking time to look at what we can learn from APRS’s history and the relevance for today. Here, our director Kat Jones looks back at one of our historic campaigns, the hydro-electric schemes of the 1930s-50s, to see what this can bring to debates about energy in the landscape today.
Back in the 1920s and 30s Scotland was undergoing an energy revolution. Hydro-electric power had come at scale to the Highland glens and huge changes to the landscape and ways of life were happening. Scotland was seen as the powerhouse of the UK and huge amounts of money were being invested in harvesting power in the form of giant hydro projects.
We are in the midst of a second energy revolution with Scotland once again, seen as the powerhouse of a nation. Scotland has plentiful renewable energy, especially wind, and is already a net exporter of energy. This is set to increase, even as our own demand grows, with a switch to low carbon energy for heating and transport.
Looking back on our history to learn how APRS dealt with this energy revolution, nearly a hundred years ago, is formative for the situation we find ourselves in today. The influence APRS exerted at the time, undoubtedly ensured that this period of massive hydro-electric development went ahead with the minimum impact on the landscapes we inherit today.
The early schemes
The story of Hydroelectric Power in Scotland roughly splits into two parts: prior to the 1943 Act, which nationalised hydro power; and after the Act, which replaced the private companies with the North of Scotland Hydroelectric Board.
This Board only came to an end in 1990, with Thatcher’s move to privatisation of public utilities.
APRS started campaigning on Hydro power as soon as we were formed and our first annual report details our worries about the wanton destruction of important landscapes, with an often scant justification.
“Attention has been called to the remarkable Falls of Glomach, which are threatened with virtual obliteration in the plans of the Grampian Scheme. There is the less reason for such a vandalism, as the catchment area concerned appears to be immaterial to the success of this scheme as a whole.”
1929 APRS Annual Report
APRS was concerned with a lack of oversight in the development of one of the early schemes at Rannoch. An amenity committee should have been set up to examine and comment on the plans but this hadn’t happened and led to more impact from the scheme than was necessary.
“Owing to an oversight between the Scottish Office and the Grampian Electricity Supply Company, no Committee had been set up, although the company was required by Act of Parliament to submit all plans to such a body (statutory amenity committee) for consideration from the amenity point of view.” APRS Annual Report 1934
APRS’s opposition to the Grampian scheme, and particularly the inclusion of the Falls of Glomach catchment, certainly saved the falls, one of the tallest waterfalls in Britain, with a drop of 113m. The huge impacts on the landscape that these early schemes had, without regard for mitigation were a concern for APRS, however it was also concerns about the impacts on local people which dominated our early campaigns against the hydro schemes. APRS was particularly concerned that the purported benefits did not justify the impacts that locals would suffer.
In their letter opposing the Caledonian Power Bill in 1936, which would have given over the water of many of the glens north of the Great Glen to a private company, diverting flow to the west for a generating station at Kinloch Hourn, APRS noted concerns of the lack of benefits that had flowed to local people in the schemes already built and the huge dis-benefits they had to bear. APRS wanted an inquiry into the existing schemes before the Caledonian scheme went ahead. They described the impacts on the landscape of these early hydro schemes and lamented that the only reason the Falls of Clyde scheme went ahead was due a threat of competition from another proposed scheme in the same catchment.
The proposed Caledonian Scheme bill was defeated in the House of Commons on 18 March 1936 199 to 63 votes.
“There are now six of these Hydro-Electric enterprises completed, or nearly completed, including those of the Aluminium Company at Foyers, Loch Leven, and Fort William, the Grampian and Galloway schemes, and the scheme which harnessed the famous falls in the Clyde valley. All these schemes have left an indelible mark on the countryside. In some cases places which were very beautiful have been completely robbed of their beauty by the drying up of rivers and the creation of reservoirs which have converted many acres of fine pasture into mud. We suggest that before this further scheme is sanctioned by Parliament enquiry should be made into the operation of those already in existence, in order to ascertain whether their results justify the destruction they have caused.” from letter written by APRS to the Government opposing the Caledonian Power Bill.
Before and after shots from a booklet published by APRS in 1936
The booklet ‘Scotland’s Natural Beauty as affected by Water Power’ was published by APRS for MPs as part of their bid to raise awareness of the dire consequences of the early hydro schemes of the landscapes and ecology, where whole rivers stopped flowing. In those early schemes there was no allowance made for flow in the rivers to continue, or for towns and villages downstream to have access to the water resources in their catchments.
Photo caption above: Before and after shots of Bonnington, Falls of Clyde showing the almost complete elimination of flow of the River Clyde down the falls.
Photo caption above: Before and after shots of Stonebyres, Falls of Clyde also showing the lack of flow of the River Clyde down the falls.
Photo caption: The River Treig photographed before and after the Grampian scheme was in operation.
APRS position on Hydro-power
APRS was not against hydro per-se, we were at pains to point out that our position was to oppose the worst of the schemes and to improve those that were a prospect, so that they would cause the minimum of damage. Our position was laid out in our 1934 report
“The attitude of the Association towards electrical development is governed by national necessities….. but, as Sir John Stirling Maxwell has said, the Association asks that beauty in nature shall be regarded as itself a great national asset, to be duly appraised as such.” APRS 1934 Annual Report
and in more detail in subsequent reports:
“In order to avoid any misunderstanding of the policy of the Association on this matter, the Council would again state, as in previous Annual Reports, that their attitude towards hydro-electric developments in the Highlands is not negative, but essentially constructive. In dealing with proposals such as hydro-electric schemes, which necessitate large changes in the aspect of a particular area of the country, they are not actuated solely by a regard for the preservation of natural beauty. Under the constitution of the Association, which the Council sedulously observe, their attitude towards developments which are undoubtedly beneficial to the district concerned or desirable from a national point of view is directed to ensuring that any harm done to scenery and other amenities is as small as possible. But they claim the right to examine the evidence brought forward in support of any scheme and to form an opinion on its merits.” APRS 1939 Annual Report
This approach reflected APRS’s general approach from the point of its founding, including within its charitable objectives, and was not just related to hydro schemes.1
The campaign against the Caledonian Scheme
In 1937 the proposals for the Caledonian Scheme returned to parliament and APRS’s campaign continued. Concerns were raised about the benefits going to a commercial company while the impact were borne by local people. A petition against the scheme wrote
“It [APRS] protested against the dispossession of crofters and the serious injury to the amenities of the district which would result if the scheme were carried out; and it also protested against the giving of the proposed powers over a large area of country to a commercial company, and submitted that no public or local advantage would result therefrom which would justify the injury which would be done to the district.” taken from APRS Annual Report 1927
The bill was again defeated 180 to 144 votes.
The bill returned in 1938 APRS made the case that the number of jobs that would be created would be insignificant to the damage caused or the investment of money to other areas of industry. They argued that smaller power stations that would help activate local industry and for improved domestic conditions would be far preferable for increasing the situation of the people of the highlands.
“We wish to express a warning against the utilisation of the water-power of the Highlands for electro-chemical and similar manufactures, in which an enormous amount of power is absorbed while the number of men employed is insignificant. … A moderate amount of power, ample for appropriate local industries and for domestic uses, can be obtained with only a negligible interference with the natural features of the countryside, and the glens thus be repopulated to the limit of their habitable capacity, and yet preserved in all their beauty and grandeur” Quote from APRS letter to The Times in March 1937
In 1939 APRS wrote a report on living conditions and development in the Highlands and, again, expressed concern that the resources of the Highlands were being used for private gain of a company and for export to the central belt, while not significantly benefiting the local people. It concluded that: “If in any case the Commission or Commissioner grants facilities to a private body for the development of power for its own purposes there should be reservation of ample power for other local industries as described above, and for domestic uses existing or possible.”
The 1943 Act
The 1943 Hydro Electric Development (Scotland) Act nationalised the development of hydro-electric power across Scotland to deliver an ambitious social vision – to deliver power and social improvement to the people of the Highlands.
In their 1938 Report comissioned by the Scottish Economic Cmmittee, APRS advocated for a commission that would bring all power under strategic public leadership and put an end to the free for all from private companies which was not looking to the full public benefits and landscape impacts of schemes.
“We advocate that all the water power in the Highland area that is not already in use or authorised for use should be put under the control of the proposed Commission or Commissioner, who, as indicated in the Report, will have general charge of Highland development, and that this authority should undertake the provision of power to the various localities as described above.” Report quotes in the 1939 APRS Annual Report
This eventually came about in 1943 with the Hydro Electric Development (Scotland) Act. The Act created the North Hydro Board to create a strategic approach to commissioning projects, nationalising hydro power in Scotland.
This seemed to signal a turn around in positive relationships.
The later power schemes
In 1941 APRS opposed the initial proposals for a Glen Affric hydro-electric scheme and this Bill was also defeated.
By the mid 1940s some of the schemes coming forward were, in APRS’s view, more acceptable. In 1945 many projects were brought forward and APRS supported the Morar, Lochalsh, and Gairloch projects, but opposed projects at Loch Sloy, Tummel-Garry, and Fannich. They managed to get changes made to the Fannich scheme to its improvement. In 1947 it was noted that there were fruitful discussions with the hydro-electric board over a new Glen Affric scheme, with APRS suggestions made and accepted, and a very optimistic outlook for the scheme.
The APRS annual report, looking back on 20 years of campaigning on hydro-electric projects, noted the success of their approach :
“the Council believes that the policy which it has all along pursued of not opposing Hydro-Electric Development, but of suggesting the best means whereby this can be carried out with the minimum spoilation of the countryside has, and will continue to bear fruit.” APRS Annual Report 1947
But it wasn’t all smooth sailing. Lord Haddington, at that time President of APRS, gave a speech in the Lords in April 1945 criticizing the Hydro Board for destroying national treasures such as the Falls of Tummel. He made a impassioned case for preserving Falls of Bruar which would have become part of the Garry scheme.
“The Falls of Tummel …were considered of such beauty that they were acquired by the National Trust of Scotland. They were gifted to the Trust by a public-spirited benefactor by conveyance, and the conveyance expressly provided that this property should be held for the benefit of the nation in perpetuity, that is for all time. Look what has happened. The Falls of Tummel have gone too. There are six other properties of the National Trust which may be affected by the Board’s operations as they come within the areas of their future development schemes.” Hansard 1945
By 1948 APRS was seen as a key stakeholder in planning hydro schemes. Several new hydro projects were submitted that year, none of which the APRS opposed, and the Annual report noted that “the good relations which were earlier established with the [Hydro] Board have borne fruit, and that the Board is doing its utmost to prevent more alteration of the countryside than is absolutely necessary.”
This theme of cooperation and improved scheme proposals continued and in 1952, three schemes were examined, and only one raised objections from APRS, which were withdrawn after changes were made. There was also a particular celebration of the Affric scheme as an excellent example, and senior APRS representatives attended the opening of the Affric scheme in 1953, also attended by the duke of Edinburgh, where they were very impressed by the efforts taken to preserve the natural beauty of the region.
Parallels with our work today
There are some obvious parallels with today. Over the past decade, a moratorium on wind turbines in England means that Scotland has been doing the heavy lifting on decarbonising the UK’s energy system. Scotland is already a net exporter of renewable energy and the power grids being built and upgraded across Scotland will take the estimated doubling of energy generated in Scotland by 2035 to huge connectors in Hunterston and Peterhead, powering the Midlands, London and beyond.
As we saw 80 years ago, there is also a lack of a strategic approach. Private companies are in competition, with benefits flowing to those who get permission first, rather than those developments that are most beneficial, effective or well located. What has happened in onshore wind is now happening in battery storage. Industry modelling suggests that Scotland will need around 6 GW of battery storage by 2030 and up to 7.6GW by 2045[1] but there is 18.6GW of Battery storage in the planning consent system as of July 2024[2] and more coming in weekly. Since profits from battery storage rely on arbitrage of electricity prices, overcapacity means companies will likely go bust, and Scotland could have hundreds of hectares of abandoned battery storage plants in the not so distant future.
At present communities beside some of Europe’s biggest wind installations are paying over the odds for energy because of the way energy markets work. This situation bears much in common with the early years of APRS’s campaigns where local people had to pay enormous costs for electricity:
“At present there is the anomaly that potential local users, adjacent to large generating plants, cannot afford the heavy cost of tapping a grid line, in addition to incurring a charge of about 8d. a unit for supplies” APRS 1934 Annual Report section block content here.
At the start of our campaigning nearly a hundred years ago, APRS was not, as a matter of course, consulted on matters related to hydro developments (‘the Association has no locus standi to appear at such inquiries as an objector’ Annual Report 1929). But what we see is that, over time, and after multiple defeats, planned schemes became better and APRS became a valued consultee, and one that was contacted at an early stage in planning for comment.
We believe that it is more important than ever that communities and organisations representing the public interest, such as APRS, are consulted and listened to at an early stage in planning. But even more than this, we need a strategic approach to land use planning that will ensure that developments are in the right place and at the right scale, that mitigations are in place for impacts, and that benefits flow to communities and to the public purse.
As in 1934, again we “ask that beauty in nature shall be regarded as itself a great national asset, to be duly appraised as such.” Renewable energy is one of Scotland’s key natural resources and we should be able to see the benefit from it, without destroying another of our most valuable natural resources, our landscapes.
[1] from from an FoI to Scottish Gov, Oct 2024: Meeting Net Zero in 2050 Battery Energy Storage System (BESS): EIR release https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202400433145/
I am hugely grateful to Isabella Park, our volunteer historian, who has read through our archive in detail and written the timeline below from which I was able to write the blog.
Timeline of Hydro-Electric Schemes and APRS (until 1954)
1929 – First Annual Report: APRS is already worried about Hydro-Electric (HE), arranging to meet Scottish MPs to discuss potential impact on countryside
1930 – Opposing 3 big HE schemes – Galloway, West Highland, Grampian scheme – latter two shot down
1933 – Big HE schemes proposed with the goal of feeding into the national electric grid, APRS uncertain whether the grid will actually work and what the electricity needs of the public will be.
1936 – APRS opposition to Caledonian power bill HE scheme at Glengarry and Glenmoriston. Appointed a council to discuss the issue and drafted a letter to the Scottish Secretary of State, included in full in Annual Report 1936. Raises the importance of an enquiry into the possible damage caused by HE schemes and whether the locals would benefit. The proposed bill was defeated in the House of Commons on 18 March 1936 199 to 63 votes.
Letter Quote – “When the Grampian Scheme was brought forward we were told that one of its objects was to supply Dundee with cheaper power. Dundee finds it cheaper to supply its own power from coal. When the power of the Lochaber Scheme was concentrated in Fort William great prosperity was prophesied for that burgh. At this moment there are 418 persons on its Unemployment Register.”
1937 – Again on the Caledonian Scheme. After the proposed enquiry committee was shot down by the government last year, the APRS decided to create a book to visualize how HE schemes destroy the landscape – Scotland’s Heritage of Beauty as Affected by Water Power Schemes. On top of that, the APRS Hydro-Electric Committee of the Council drafted and lodged a petition against the scheme,
“It protested against the dispossession of crofters and the serious injury to the amenities of the district which would result if the scheme were carried out; and it also protested against the giving of the proposed powers over a large area of country to a commercial company, and submitted that no public or local advantage would result therefrom which would justify the injury which would be done to the district.”
The bill was again defeated 180 to 144 votes.
The government then formed a committee to figure out the best location to set up a Calcium Carbide plant for Scotland (which was one of the aims of the scheme). In July, members of the APRS were invited before the committee to provide their opinion on the calcium carbide plant HE scheme, refuting the economic benefits while also pointing to disruption of scenery. The govt committee decided to support the ‘Corpach Scheme’ (the plant was to be built at Corpach in the West Highlands).
1938 – Caledonian Scheme again brought before parliament. In response to the govt committee’s support of the Corpach scheme, lodged a petition against the new Private Bill. Prepared another book entitled The Caledonian Power Scheme which contained photos of the landscape around Corpach contrasted with images of destruction from other HE schemes. This book was sent to every MP. This third bill was defeated with 227 to 141 votes, which the APRS viewed as a huge success. Says they are not anti-HE, they just think it needs to be carefully applied and considered to ensure the smallest negative impact and greatest positive impact.
Quote from APRS letter to The Times in March 1937, quoted in Annual Report 1938
“We wish to express a warning against the utilisation of the water-power of the Highlands for electro-chemical and similar manufactures, in which an enormous amount of power is absorbed while the number of men employed is insignificant. Taking together the proposed carbide factory and the existing British Aluminum works, some 2000 people at most would be employed, while the power would amount to some 800,000,000 units a year. One million units would thus be required for 2.5 workers. In the ordinary manufacturing trades 1,000,000 units give on the average employment to 230 people, nearly one hundred times as many… A moderate amount of power, ample for appropriate local industries and for domestic uses, can be obtained with only a negligible interference with the natural features of the countryside, and the glens thus be repopulated to the limit of their habitable capacity, and yet preserved in all their beauty and grandeur”
1939 – In a report on living conditions and development pathways for the Highlands and Islands, the APRS touched upon the HE schemes and their issues with them.
“We advocate that all the water power in the Highland area that is not already in use or authorised for use should be put under the control of the proposed Commission or Commissioner, who, as indicated in the Report, will have general charge of Highland development… If in any case the Commission or Commissioner grants facilities to a private body for the development of power for its own purposes there should be reservation of ample power for other local industries as described above, and for domestic uses existing or possible. We entirely endorse the view expressed in the Report that in no case should the Highland water power be exported to other parts of the country”
Again reiterates their opposition to the calcium carbide factory in the highlands.
1940 – In Annual Report, APRS notes it is relatively confident the Corpach calcium carbide production scheme is unlikely to return.
1941 – A letter detailing APRS opposition to the Glen Affric hydro-electric scheme was sent to Parliament, with the hope of halting progression until the end of the war.
1942 – An APRS memorandum drawn up by Professor F. G. Baily on hydro-electric power was presented before and adopted by the Government Committee on Problems of Water-Power in Scotland.
1943 – The government issued the Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Bill and the APRS issued a memorandum on it.
“The Council’s examination of the Cooper Report led them to the conclusion that it pointed to a state-sponsored exploitation of Highland water-power not less objectionable than that proposed in the many private Bills rejected by Parliament. Had the Bill confirmed the recommendations of the Cooper Committee the Council must have engaged once more in opposition, but their examination has satisfied them that the Bill contains promise of fulfilment of a programme for electric supply which may go far to meet the needs of the Highland people.”
1945 – The Hydro-Electric Development (Scotland) Act 1943 proposed three total schemes made up of several smaller projects – Loch Sloy, Loch Morar, Lochalsh, Tummel-Garry, Gairloch, and Fannich. The APRS supported the Morar, Lochalsh, and Gairloch projects but had problems with the other ones. Tummel-Garry in particular was a problem, as they viewed it as a test drive for viability of Highland power, and feared it would be followed by more increasingly exploitative plans. Reiteration of HE attitude.
“Their attitude towards hydro-electric developments in the Highlands is not negative, but essentially constructive. . . . Their attitude towards developments which are undoubtedly beneficial to the district concerned or desirable from a national point of view is directed to ensuring that any harm done to scenery and other amenities is as small as possible. But they claim the right to examine the evidence brought forward in support of any scheme and to form an opinion on its merits.”
1946 – the APRS sent objections to the Tummel-Garry scheme but “objections were not sustained in the Report of the Commissioners” which implies that they failed to defeat/amend the scheme. They also sent a letter to the North Scotland Hydro-Electric Board regarding the Fannich scheme, and were pleased to see some concessions made.
1947 – In discussions with the hydro-electric board over the Glen Affric scheme. Some suggestions were made and accepted, and the APRS was optimistic about the scheme going forwards.
1948 – Several new HE schemes were submitted, none of which the APRS opposed because they have an increasingly positive relationship with the HE board.
1950 – No new major schemes have been presented, and members of the APRS are in constant touch with the HE board regarding the Glen Garry scheme.
1952 – 3 schemes examined – Loch Shin project, Kilmelfort Project, and Breadalbane Project. The APRS initially raised an objection to the Breadalbane Project but retracted it when their two points of contention were resolved by the HE board. Continued relationship with the HE board; a meeting was arranged b/w APRS members and the General Manager and Secretary to the Board during which all parties agreed to work together to solve problems. Also specifically mentions that the HE board did a good job with the Glen Affric scheme, and that the beauty of the glen was preserved.
1953 – As part of their commitment to working together, APRS raised issues with several HE schemes to the board, including the Fort Augustus-Glen Truim transmission line. The HE board agreed to amend the route of the line with the APRS’ input. Top members of the APRS were invited to the Glen Affric scheme opening which was led by the Duke of Edinburgh. They were very impressed by the efforts taken to preserve the natural beauty of the region.
Notes from modern examples:
From link consultation
There continues to be significant pressures on peatlands. For example, the application for Balliemeanoch Pumped Storage Hydro in Argyll and Bute proposes the extraction of a huge amount of blanket bog habitat, a priority peatland habitat. If consented, the proposed scheme would result in the loss of around 164 hectares of habitats. NatureScot have objected to this proposal, as have RSPB Scotland, due to impacts on peatland.
- APRS’s approach has never been against development per se, but is concerned with making sure that development is directed to be the most appropriate in the circumstances. In fact it was laid out in our charitable objectives by the founders.
This position was articulated in our 1930 annual report explaining that APRS was “sparing no pains to handle such problems in an even-handed way, so as to steer a middle course between undue interference with reasonable expansion on the one hand, and allowing the countryside to be spoiled through default of timely action on the other. In pursuit of this policy, [APRS] has endeavoured to thresh out exhaustively every question, and to obtain the most up-to-date advice from approved experts at every step.” 1930 Annual Report ↩︎