19th February 2009
Dear Mr Rider,
NATIONALGRID plc – Proposed construction of PRI and
associated works;
Application Number 08/01665/FUL
Thank you for your letter of 3rd February and
for kindly supplying us with copies of the documents submitted to you by
National Grid plc (NG).
In your letter you invited CAPRI to comment on the
application: we believe that there are seven substantive issues raised by the
application and our comments are set out below.
1. THE
APPLICANT
NG is a public limited company - one of very many - and as
such enjoys no special status in planning matters and thus deserves no special
consideration in respect of any planning applications which it may submit.
CAPRI has learned from experience that NG makes claims
which need to be treated with considerable caution. NG has issued for public
consultation documents which are inaccurate and misleading; for example, Fact
Sheet 7 suggests that NG consulted local authorities and CAPRI before choosing
the two short listed sites mentioned in Paragraph 4 below. CAPRI was not
consulted; its representatives did no more than attend meetings at which NG
reported on the progress made with the search mentioned in that paragraph.
Similarly, Factsheet 7 contains an artist’s impression of
the proposed PRI 1 year and 10 years after construction. Neither impression
gives any indication whatever of the 12 x 8.5m high vent stacks and they
therefore contradict Drawing H132/BH/01/01/4629/954 A which shows clearly that
the vent stacks will be visible for many years after the PRI is completed.
2. THE
APPLICATION SITE (the Site)
The choice of the Site arises as a direct result of the
history of gas installations in this area . As far as CAPRI is aware, major gas
transmission works began in this area after planning permission was granted in
October 1969 to construct an underground control valve installation on the site
of the present Above Ground Installation (AGI). We do not know why this site
was selected and there is no evidence that such selection was part of a strategy
approved after careful research: we suspect that chance played a significant
part in the selection process. Because the majority of the proposed works were
to be underground, the planning authority granted permission doubtless because
there was no known good reason to do otherwise.
Subsequently NG applied to enlarge the original site and to
construct what is now the present AGI: again, because of the then existing
installation, the Planning Authority had no overwhelming reason to refuse the
application and granted permission in April 2000. Subsequently NG formulated
plans for the transmission of natural gas from Milford Haven to connect to the
National Transmission System (NTS) and it concluded that the proper location
for the connection was immediately proximate to the Tirley AGI where it would need
to build a Pressure Reduction Installation (PRI). NG therefore submitted a
planning application to Forest of Dean District Council in March 2006 seeking
permission to construct a PRI in that location; the Principal Planning Officer
of the Council recommended that the application be approved but CAPRI persuaded
the members of the Development Committee to reject that recommendation and
refuse permission because of the serious adverse visual impact of the
installation and the conflict with adopted county and district policies on
severely restricting development in the countryside.
NG appealed against that refusal of permission and their
appeal failed. The Inspectors agreed with CAPRI that the appeal site was not a
reasonable one for an industrial installation in a tranquil rural area and,
furthermore, expressed the view that NG had failed to search adequately for
possible alternative sites. After publication of the appeal decision, NG
commenced a search for alternative sites within the 10km radius mentioned by
the Inspectors; NG took nearly 12 months to complete that search, produced a
list of 23 “representative areas” for further consideration and concluded that
of those the two most appropriate were an enlarged area of the former appeal
site and the Site, both of which happen to be immediately proximate to the
existing pipelines. It is that proximity and the consequent saving in cost
which resulted in that choice of Site for the present application. Apart from
those two factors, the Site has no merit whatever as a site for a substantial industrial
installation. The history mentioned above demonstrates how a small,
underground, unobtrusive installation can become a much larger AGI and then –
possibly – become an even larger PRI. This highlights the risk inherent in
permitting the present application because if permission is granted it would
approve the principle of siting a substantial industrial installation in this
area and - because the principle had thus been established - it would be very
difficult for a planning authority to resist future requests for expansion or
even new installations.
3. PLANNING
POLICIES
You will be very familiar with the national and local
policies designed to protect the countryside from development. I will not weary
you with quoting from them but I would mention:
- PPS 7 Paragraph 1(iv)
which states that new development in the open countryside "should be
strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect the
countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the
diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife"
- Policy LND4 which
states that "in considering proposals for development in rural areas
- regard will be given to the need to protect the character and appearance
of the rural landscape".
The proposed development of the Site cannot possibly comply
with those Policies.
4. ALTERNATIVE
SITES
Notwithstanding the history of NG's developments in this
location, the issue of alternative sites for the PRI has been handled very
badly by NG. At the time of the previous appeal, NG asserted that 14
alternative locations for the PRI had been considered all of which lay within
1km of the existing AGI and very proximate to the existing gas pipelines. NG asserted
that the proposed PRI had to be located very close to the existing AGI but this
assertion was challenged at the Inquiry and NG was forced to admit that the
assertion was false and that the efficiency of the PRI would not in any way be
impaired if it were located anywhere within a radius of 10km of the AGI. Before
the present application was submitted, representatives of NG, three local
planning authorities and CAPRI visited the "representative areas"
mentioned in Paragraph 2 above; the process used by NG which resulted in the
selection of those "areas" was almost incomprehensible because some
of the areas were on open and elevated ground and thus patently unsuitable as a
site for an industrial installation. However at least one of those areas would
lend itself to development of the type proposed because of its isolation, the
existence of a natural depression in the ground and substantial adjacent woodland.
At the Public Inquiry, CAPRI advocated that the PRI should
not be constructed on undeveloped land anywhere within this 10km radius but at
the existing NG site at Wormington, an important hub within the existing NTS
and where there is adequate room to accommodate the PRI without any significant
expansion of the existing installation. In the Inspectors' report after the
Inquiry, they concluded that it was technically feasible to locate the PRI at
Wormington but NG had claimed that the additional cost of laying the new 48”
pipe from Tirley to Wormington would be in the order of £57m and that such additional
cost was not justified. In view of the Inspectors' conclusion, the only
remaining argument against the Wormington site is the matter of cost, and cost
is not - and never has been - a planning
consideration. It seems to us that in dealing with industrial installations of
this size and importance it makes more sense to group them together in one
location – for reasons of safety, security and efficiency – than to have them
scattered over a wide area. The total cost of providing the pipeline from Milford Haven
to Wormington with the attendant installations is believed to be approaching
£1bn and £57m is a very small proportion of that overall cost.
5. APPEARANCE
The application which became the subject of the appeal
envisaged an industrial installation contained within a rectangular, engineered
embankment with an average height of 3.5m, topped by deciduous trees and
shrubs; the height of those new trees projected by NG was described by the
Inspectors as being ‘significantly higher than even the optimum growth rates
would achieve’. The design was pedestrian, unimaginative and inadequate and the
Inspectors said that the “quality of the landscaping … would fall far short of
what should be expected from a statutory undertaker”.
The present application proposes yet again the creation of
embankments – this time of an average 5m in height - around another rectangular
site, together with an inadequate plan for planting deciduous trees and shrubs.
Rectangular embankments are an unnatural feature in a rural landscape and the
proposal is to plant only deciduous trees with the result that for six months
of the year the trees could not provide effective screening of the new
installation. In fact, the new landscaping proposals are little different from
the previous proposals and continue to fall far short of what would be needed
to integrate the PRI into the landscape effectively.
We have mentioned in paragraph 1 above the appearance of
the 12 vent stacks each 8.5 m high but the plans submitted show that NG
proposes in addition to erect 20 maintenance lighting columns, each 8m high,
the purpose of which is to illuminate the entire site at night when maintenance
is required. The columns themselves will be visible for many years but their
illumination at night is bound to create significant light pollution.
6. ACCESS
We believe that there will be substantial problems arising
from access to the Site from the B4213 particularly during construction but
also thereafter. The B4213 is a heavily used, straight and fast road with
hidden dips which can seriously impair visibility.
7. SECURITY
The issue of security is a matter of major concern to local
residents. The PRI inevitably becomes a potential terrorist target as soon as
construction is completed. There are occupied dwelling within 350m of the
centre of the Site which is designed to be unmanned and will be protected only
by a 2.4m high security fence with an internal electrified fence 4m high. The
fences of themselves would present little difficulty to a determined terrorist
who could use explosives to gain entry. We understand that within the site
there will be electronic detection devices and security lighting which will transfer
data to NG's control centre which would alert the Gloucestershire Constabulary
whose officers would then travel to the PRI and take whatever action appeared
appropriate. We understand that the police response would probably be either by
a single officer in a police car or an armed response team. The time taken
between receipt of the alert and arrival at the PRI would depend on various factors
including the availability of resources, weather conditions and – very relevant
to this area - flooding. If a terrorist did force an entry, explosives could be
used firstly to fracture pipes or other parts of the installation and then
ignite the escaping gas to cause an explosion which could devastate a
significant area. Local residents therefore run the risks of losing their homes
- a risk which is uninsurable - and also their lives.
8. CONCLUSION
It is well established that all planning applications
should be considered on their merits and this application has no merit
whatever. The Site is not suitable for the construction of an industrial
installation and conflicts with approved national and local planning policies.
No justification whatever on planning grounds has been provided by NG for the
selection of the Site as suitable for the construction of a significant
industrial installation in an undeveloped, tranquil area of open countryside.
NG has selected the Site as a matter of economic convenience because of
proximity to the existing pipelines and NG has never considered any alternative
that was not proximate to those pipelines. That primary consideration made the
search for alternatives mentioned in Paragraph 4 above a pointless exercise
because NG decided many months ago that no alternative would be selected unless
immediately proximate to the pipelines. The search which NG took a year to
complete was an endeavour which they did not want to succeed because they were
looking for something
they were determined not to find namely a suitable site
which is not proximate to those pipelines.
You will recall that in September 2006 a report was
prepared for your Council in
respect of the previous application submitted by NG which
later resulted in the appeal that was dismissed: the recommendation in the
Report was that the Council should object to that application "on the
grounds of landscape intrusion". The recommendation was approved, the
objection submitted and the appeal failed. In view of the issues raised in this
letter and the approval of that recommendation I hope that the Council will
decide to refuse the present application
Yours sincerely,
Peter McMurtrie
Chairman