Nid safbwyntiau’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio yw’r rhai a fynegir ar y dudalen hon. Yr hyn a ddangosir yma yw cynnwys a gyflwynwyd i’r Arolygiaeth Gynllunio gan y cyhoedd a phartïon eraill â buddiant, sy’n rhoi eu barn ynglŷn â’r cynnig hwn.
Cysylltiad Gogledd Cymru
Derbyniwyd 16/11/2018
Gan Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, Caernarfonshire Bra
Gan Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales, Caernarfonshire Bra
Sylw
“North Wales Connection – second Row of Pylons across Anglesey
Response from Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) Caernarfonshire Branch
CPRW Caernarfonshire Branch objects to National Grid’s (NG) proposed routing of a second overhead high voltage transmission line across Anglesey for the following reasons:
1. This solution would have a significant, permanent and damaging impact on the landscape of Anglesey, in particular the nationally designated landscape of the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). While some mitigation is proposed by placing cables underground when crossing the section of AONB close to the Menai Strait, the pylons would damage views into and out of many sections of the AONB which border other coasts of the island. The approach ignores the guiding principle of the European Landscape Convention that ‘All landscapes matter’
2. We maintain that NG has not adequately considered alternative options of full undergrounding of cables or a sub-sea route. National policy guidance does not accept that the additional costs of implementing a more expensive but environmentally less damaging solution should be the primary or determining factor. NG’s preferred solution here sits oddly alongside its current £500mn visual impact programme to bury sections of existing overhead lines affecting designated landscapes. In the 21st century we should not still be erecting new pylons when cables are being buried elsewhere in acknowledgement of the uniquely devastating landscape damage caused by 50m high pylons. We maintain that energy infrastructure decisions affecting the next 50-100 years should not be based on short-term budgetary constraints
3. We have long advocated a sub-sea route for the cables direct from Wylfa to Deeside. NG now has extensive experience of constructing and using long-distance subsea transmission and we do not accept that it has been adequately demonstrated that unique technical factors relating to connection of a nuclear power plant rule this option out.
4. We are concerned that NG implicitly seems to use the existing overhead line of pylons to justify a second. Will further expansion of generating capacity lead in the future to a third or a fourth line? We reject this approach.
5. The proposals do not fully account for the negative economic impact on the areas the lines would pass through. Tourism largely based on landscape and heritage is now the principal economic activity of the region. Any development which threatens the integrity of these landscapes runs the risk of undermining local economic prosperity. The additional costs of a subsea or underground route are trivial compared to the economic harm which an overland route would have on the tourism and leisure industries which depend on the quality of the landscape for their survival.
6. There is almost universal local opposition in Anglesey to these proposals and we consider it contrary to democratic principles as well as the intentions of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act to press on with this proposal, riding roughshod over these views.
”
Response from Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) Caernarfonshire Branch
CPRW Caernarfonshire Branch objects to National Grid’s (NG) proposed routing of a second overhead high voltage transmission line across Anglesey for the following reasons:
1. This solution would have a significant, permanent and damaging impact on the landscape of Anglesey, in particular the nationally designated landscape of the Anglesey Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). While some mitigation is proposed by placing cables underground when crossing the section of AONB close to the Menai Strait, the pylons would damage views into and out of many sections of the AONB which border other coasts of the island. The approach ignores the guiding principle of the European Landscape Convention that ‘All landscapes matter’
2. We maintain that NG has not adequately considered alternative options of full undergrounding of cables or a sub-sea route. National policy guidance does not accept that the additional costs of implementing a more expensive but environmentally less damaging solution should be the primary or determining factor. NG’s preferred solution here sits oddly alongside its current £500mn visual impact programme to bury sections of existing overhead lines affecting designated landscapes. In the 21st century we should not still be erecting new pylons when cables are being buried elsewhere in acknowledgement of the uniquely devastating landscape damage caused by 50m high pylons. We maintain that energy infrastructure decisions affecting the next 50-100 years should not be based on short-term budgetary constraints
3. We have long advocated a sub-sea route for the cables direct from Wylfa to Deeside. NG now has extensive experience of constructing and using long-distance subsea transmission and we do not accept that it has been adequately demonstrated that unique technical factors relating to connection of a nuclear power plant rule this option out.
4. We are concerned that NG implicitly seems to use the existing overhead line of pylons to justify a second. Will further expansion of generating capacity lead in the future to a third or a fourth line? We reject this approach.
5. The proposals do not fully account for the negative economic impact on the areas the lines would pass through. Tourism largely based on landscape and heritage is now the principal economic activity of the region. Any development which threatens the integrity of these landscapes runs the risk of undermining local economic prosperity. The additional costs of a subsea or underground route are trivial compared to the economic harm which an overland route would have on the tourism and leisure industries which depend on the quality of the landscape for their survival.
6. There is almost universal local opposition in Anglesey to these proposals and we consider it contrary to democratic principles as well as the intentions of the Wellbeing of Future Generations Act to press on with this proposal, riding roughshod over these views.
”
