Cabinet Member for Planning
Decision:
This item is exempt from call-in under Grounds of Urgency, as agreed with the Chair of the Council.
It was RESOLVED: -
1. To respond to the consultation.
2. That the Assistant Director for Planning and Building Control, in collaboration with the Cabinet Members for Planning and the Leader of the Council consider any proposed amendments to the suggested response and be authorised to make amendments before submitting a response to the Government.
REASON FOR DECISION
To ensure the comments of the councils are set out for consideration by National Grid in the further stages of the project.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected:
2.1 To respond to the consultation with the response as set out in appendix a.
2.2 To respond to the consultation with proposed amendments to the responses set out in appendix a.
2.3 To not respond to the consultation.
Any Declarations of Interests Declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes:
The Chair, Councillor Ward invited the Cabinet Member for Planning, Councillor Arthey to introduce the report.
7.1 Councillor Arthey provided a brief summary of the item and proposed the recommendations in the report, and this was seconded by Councillor Busby.
7.2 Councillor Ward advised Cabinet that he had invited Ward Members to present their responses to the Consultation at the meeting. He then read a response received from Councillor Carpendale:
Response received from Councillor Sue Carpendale
Please would you add my following comments to those that will be presented to Cabinet on this matter. I'm unable to be present. I can't offer you any expertise, but my comments reflect my own views and those of residents in my ward. I know that some of these residents will be making their own, very substantial and well-argued objections direct to the consultation. I am completely supportive of their objections. Thanks.
I attended the consultation event and exhibition at Holton St Mary on 17th May 2022, and requested further information, including a set of maps. The event was busy, with many people present. As one might have expected, I didn’t hear one positive comment.
The proposed corridor for these massive 50m pylons passes along the edge of my ward. Needless to say, nearby residents are horrified and alarmed by the prospect. However, the proximity of these pylons is not just an issue for people living close by. The maps illustrating the 180km pylon corridor from Norfolk to Essex demonstrate the appalling intrusion into the area, both visually and in terms of land use and disturbance. I do not believe that undergrounding a short section through the AONB is either sufficient or acceptable, given the impact on the environment, including wildlife and natural habitat.
I am wholly supportive of the lobby gaining traction, at levels from our regional MPs at Westminster through to local residents, that a supply network of this magnitude should be routed sub-sea and river in its entirety. If France can ship power to the UK across the channel, the technology clearly exists.
Furthermore, in view of the number of power cuts suffered as a result of weather-related events, and in a time of climate change when there is a likelihood of more frequent and severe weather events, it surely does not make sense to erect such an important, long term and strategically significant power supply in a manner which will not guarantee continuity of operation.
This proposal is a monstrous imposition on rural East Anglia and dismissive of alternative supply-route technologies.
7.3 The Chair, Councillor Ward invited Councillor Hinton to present his response to Cabinet:
7.4 Councillor Hinton thanked the Chair and continued:
This proposal is, as Councillor Carpendale has pointed out in her written submission, extremely intrusive across a wide swathe of countryside from Norfolk all the way down through into Essex. It chomps through parts of my Ward, and across Stour Vale, and will be extremely intrusive, more intrusive than the power network already in place.
We know that these networks are vulnerable to weather conditions, we saw a few years ago a lightning strike on a gas power station in Bedfordshire that blacked out the whole of northern east Anglia and Ipswich hospital, for the simple reason that it then tripped out a wind farm. So even having wind farms off the coast, is not a reliable source when there is a storm around or anything like that.
Putting energy that’s generated off the coast under sea is a logical way to proceed, there are already proposals within this for part of it to be put under the sea around Tilbury. So why on earth can’t the whole thing be put under sea up from the start of the operation up in off the north Norfolk coast.
We know that in the possible near future, there is going to be a third nuclear reactor at Sizewell, that will presumably mean they’re going to have to put up some more pylons to take the power from Sizewell to where its actually needed. And that will mean further intrusion upon the countryside of Suffolk and North Essex.
We know also that within the plans, I hasten to say, the strategic thinking that the Government has got in place. But it doesn’t seem to have an awful lot of strategic thinking in place, as far as power generation is concerned. That the new mini nuclear reactors, if they ever get off the ground, that they’re going to be placed near to where the electricity is going to be consumed.
And that will reduce on transmission cost and transmission losses, so putting something underground or under sea now, will give positive benefits in the long term for the whole of East Anglia. Which at the moment is turning into an enormous great pylon farm. So, I support very much the objections of the Council to the overgrounding of the pylon erection of these proposals.
7.5 The Chair proposed that an amendment was made to recommendation 2 to include ‘and the Leader of the Council’.
7.6 This was put to the proposer Councillor Arthey and the seconder Councillor Busby, who both agreed to the amendment.
7.7 Councillor Ward further asked that a new paragraph be inserted into the Council’s response to the Consultation on page 16 in the report, between the current 4th and 5th paragraphs in the section titled ‘Principle of Development’:
The Councils are concerned that National Grid decided, prior to this consultation, to choose a land route for ATNC rather than a viable undersea route, SCD2. There is a lack of transparency about how and why the recommendation for SCD2 was changed to 'Stop' in NOA 2020/21 after it had initially been assessed as viable. This decision should not have been made without public consultation.
7.8 Referencing page 20, Councillor Ward also suggested that the best alternative location for the northern end cable sealing end compound would be at the Notley Enterprise Park on Raydon Road.
7.9 Councillor Arthey stated that Members should be mindful that they were trying to find a solution to a proposal they did not support.
7.10 Councillors McCraw and Councillor Osborne agreed with Councillor Arthey and that the response to the Consultation should state the concerns of residents and should be set out in stronger points and be robust.
7.11 Councillor Busby and Councillor McLaren raised concerns about the impact of the overground pylons on the Areas of Natural Beauty (AoNB) and the effect this would have on tourism.
7.12 In response to Councillor McCraw’s question regarding the response being a non-statutory response to the Consultation by National Grid, the Assistant Director – Planning and Building Control responded that if National Grid decided to take the planning application forward the next stage of the process would be a statutory Consultation.
7.13 Members agreed that subsea cabling was preferable, as overhead cabling damaged the scenery and was a blight on the landscape. Pylons would also affect the value of house prices and cause anguish to residents.
It was RESOLVED
1.1 To respond to the consultation.
1.2 That the Assistant Director for Planning and Building Control, in collaboration with the Cabinet Members for Planning and the Leader of the Council consider any proposed amendments to the suggested response and be authorised to make amendments before submitting a response to the Government.
REASON FOR DECISION
To ensure the comments of the councils are set out for consideration by National Grid in the further stages of the project.
Supporting documents: