Bruton Knowles are trying to contact landowners to obtain information on ownership of the land and access rights.
Until the IPC say so you do not have to disclose any information.
If you are threatened with fines or anything else please let us know and keep all correspondence.
On Tuesday Sir Michael Pitt held a private meeting with representatives from the pressure groups along the proposed routes. He was joined by the chief executive and Mark Olsen who is the project manager for Hinckley C.
The objective was to hear what the IPC expected from promoters prior to submitting their application although they could not specifically discuss the case as it has not gone to application yet.
The IPC has just been established as an independent body to agree or reject large infrastructure projects and give a greater level of consultation with all interested parties and have a more efficient and fairer way to agree large projects.
The Planning Act 2008 sets out the legislation under which the IPC operate which is clear as to what should be done prior to application. Sir Michael confirmed that they expect a high standard of consultation prior to application being submitted as this is one of their first large scale projects they have had to make a decision on. They may advise the applicant on the quality of the application but not on the merits of the application.
The local authorities have a vital role as legal consultees in this process.
The application will be agreed or rejected 28 days after the application is submitted
The application is not expected to be submitted until summer 2011 and it was encouraging to know that the letter of the law will be followed.
The pre-application consultation, a requirement specified by the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC) process closed at midnight on January 22nd. The next steps in the process will involve National Grid making a formal application to the IPC for development consent. This is expected to happen some time in 2011. In a recent press release, National Grid states that “During the 14-week consultation period more than 2000 feedback forms, around 1100 letters and e-mails, and nearly 100 telephone calls” were received by residents giving their views on the proposals. The press release goes on to say ‘We will be aiming for a route which has the best balance of community, environmental, engineering and financial factors. We will announce our preferred route corridor once we have examined all the comments and will show how these views have been taken into account in making our decision.”
From the press release it is clear that public opinion does not seem to have swayed National Grid to seriously consider other options and that they intend to proceed with one of the two highly controversial overhead routes. The press release can be found here: National Grid press release 29-Jan-10.
There is a lot for us to do before the application reaches the IPC, and all pressure groups along the proposed routes have now united to prevent National Grid dividing affected communities. Please continue to support Yatton Against Pylons and check our website regularly for updates.
On 19 January 2010, Conservative Shadow Defence Secretary, and Member of Parliament for Woodspring, Dr Liam Fox led an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on National Grid’s proposals. In his opening speech, Dr Fox declared: “I am deeply proud of local pressure groups and local residents for the dignity and self restraint with which they have handled themselves” and went on to reiterate one of the key points made by local groups such as Yatton Against Pylons that: “For a decision of this importance and magnitude, we do not believe that National Grid has carried out as thorough and adequate a consultation with the public as they should have.”
Dr Fox then went on to question the perceived health risks associated with such a project. He said: “Another issue is the unknown quantity of safety. The size of the proposed pylons is 46 metres. We all recognise that the issues concerning the impact of electric and magnetic fields (EMFs) are complicated and potentially open to a range of interpretations. Given the confused nature of the advice currently available we believe that it would be sensible for National Grid to adopt a cautious stance -the ‘precautionary principle’. This would avoid the positioning of pylons and power lines in close proximately to homes, public rights of way, community routes and schools and colleges where land based lines are in use. We welcome National Grid’s assurances on this but this should not be interpreted in any way as an acceptance in principle of the currently proposed routes.”
He then concluded: “before resorting to above-ground routes, the company should be obliged to investigate other options, including undersea and underground corridors, fully and properly; the Optioneering Report is not sufficient for this purpose. Above all none of us understand the logic of a recommendation that two coastal points should be linked by over-land power lines, especially when National Grid’s own Chief Executive has described the proposed ‘Western Undersea Grid’ (linking Merseyside and Scotland) as a ‘no-brainer’. The feasibility of an undersea route along the Severn Channel must be explored. Money should not be the critical factor in determining this matter (or other route options), particularly when costs can ultimately be shared across consumers who will benefit from the grid connection over a longer period.
“We cannot stand by and watch our countryside ravaged by the 46 metre high graffiti of this pylon scheme or our property values threatened.
“All members of the House of Commons should take note of this debate. Today it is North Somerset in the firing line. Others will follow.”
A BBC recording of the debate can be watched here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8465000/8465520.stm?t=38s
A video of the debate (with transcript) is also available here: http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-01-19a.273.0
Dr Fox’s opening speech is available on his own website here: http://www.liamfoxmp.co.uk/type2show.asp?ref=36&ID=6
Also reported in:
National Grid’s proposals are to be discussed in an adjournment debate in the House of Commons today (Tues 19th) following a request from Woodspring MP Dr Liam Fox.
Story reported in:
Liam Fox MP discusses National Grid proposals at meeting hosted by Yatton Against Pylons and held at Yatton Rugby Club on Friday 8th January 2010.
National Grid’s proposals to route new overhead power lines through Yatton have received a frosty reception from newly formed campaign group “Snow More Pylons”. A group spokesman said that although the current cold snap was expected to end soon, the campaign would not melt away and went on to describe National Grid’s plans and potential impact on Yatton as ‘chilling’!
[Sorry about that - admin].
Landowners along National Grid’s proposed ‘route corridor one’ have recently reported being contacted for information by property consultancy Bruton Knowles on behalf of National Grid. It is unclear at this stage whether landowners on any of the other proposed route corridor options are being contacted. It is also unclear as to whether there is any legal obligation for landowners to provide the information that National Grid are requesting.
Are you a landowner or do you have an interest in land affected by any of the proposed routes? If so, please could you contact us at rapyatton@hotmail.com providing the following information:
Bearing in mind the implications, we ask you to consider carefully whether you wish to provide National Grid with this information.
Letter by Councillor Tom Leimdorfer of Congresbury Parish Council in response to National Grid consultation now added to Resources at: http://yattonagainstpylons.co.uk/links/#Responses
Last night at a crowded public meeting organised by Yatton Against Pylons, Dr Liam Fox, MP for Woodspring vowed to seek a debate in the House of Commons over National Grid’s proposals to erect 37 miles of new 400kV overhead power lines through North Somerset’s countryside. Criticising the public consultation held by National Grid, and questioning the accountability of the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), Dr Fox however warned “he may be advised by the Speaker that you cannot have a debate in the House of Commons as no minister is accountable for decisions made by the IPC”.
When questioned on his views of the consultation carried out by National Grid, Dr Fox said that “although they may have followed the letter of the law, it is not within the spirit of the law” and on the route corridor options proposed by National Grid stated his view that “corridor two is there to be so outrageous that it would be rejected” and that “route two is a ploy” to force people to “democratically” choose National Grid’s preferred corridor one option without the company having to reasonably conisder underground or undersea alternatives. He then likened the choice being given to local communities as being akin to choosing between being ‘beheaded or hung, drawn and quartered!”
Commenting on the public response, Dr Fox said that to date he has received 1500 letters, by far the most number of letters on any one issue since the closure of the pits in the 1980′s. When asked how constituents should continue their campaign against National Grid’s plans, he encouraged residents to “keep up the bombardment” by writing letters to National Grid, and also to the Speaker of the House of Commons to push for the issue to be debated by ministers.
Also reported by Bristol Evening Post at: http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage/Powerline-plan-sparks-outrage/article-1690350-detail/article.html
Video to follow…
Show your support for the campaign by downloading and printing a copy of our A4 size poster. Display it in your window or in a public place and spread the word!
