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 20/11/2018
Gan David Frankland
Gan David Frankland
Sylw
“My wife and I have not completed the Consultation Feedback Form that we were given at a consultative meeting in Llanfairpwll because we felt that completing the form implied acceptance of the over-land routing option which we certainly do not. We do not accept this option for the following reasons:
1. The economy of Anglesey is largely dependent on tourism, any development that prominently undermines the attractive nature of the island is bound to reduce visitor numbers and any income derived from that source. An additional over-land connection, on towers, clearly would present an unattractive sight; even if the very sensitive area of the Menai Strait was dealt with sympathetically by undergrounding at this point.
2. Two BWR generating plants are proposed at the Wylfa site and although the present 400kV double circuit connection is capable of carrying the output from both plants, prudently the proposed additional circuit is required for system safety considerations. Surely in addition to reinforcing the present system spur (Wylfa-Pentir) safety considerations should demand a diverse routing to cope with both natural and potential terrorist interference with supplies to the proposed plants. The best and cheapest NGC proposal that meets this requirement is that of the Hybrid undersea option that provides a connection back into the grid network at point remote from the grid substation at Pentir thus removing the physical vulnerability, as well as electrical, of the present spur connection from the main grid network.
In consulting with other Anglesey residents and various local representative bodies the consensus opinion seems to be that of total opposition to siting any further pylons on land in Anglesey, instead to place the cables under the sea. This is the only option acceptable to us and the residents of Anglesey and beyond.
In summary:
• The consultation process seems to us to be flawed by NGC not providing an opportunity to consult properly between all options - the consultation was largely confined to a discussion of over-land routing.
• We oppose any new over-land connection on towers
• We support the diverse route hybrid subsea cable option
”
1. The economy of Anglesey is largely dependent on tourism, any development that prominently undermines the attractive nature of the island is bound to reduce visitor numbers and any income derived from that source. An additional over-land connection, on towers, clearly would present an unattractive sight; even if the very sensitive area of the Menai Strait was dealt with sympathetically by undergrounding at this point.
2. Two BWR generating plants are proposed at the Wylfa site and although the present 400kV double circuit connection is capable of carrying the output from both plants, prudently the proposed additional circuit is required for system safety considerations. Surely in addition to reinforcing the present system spur (Wylfa-Pentir) safety considerations should demand a diverse routing to cope with both natural and potential terrorist interference with supplies to the proposed plants. The best and cheapest NGC proposal that meets this requirement is that of the Hybrid undersea option that provides a connection back into the grid network at point remote from the grid substation at Pentir thus removing the physical vulnerability, as well as electrical, of the present spur connection from the main grid network.
In consulting with other Anglesey residents and various local representative bodies the consensus opinion seems to be that of total opposition to siting any further pylons on land in Anglesey, instead to place the cables under the sea. This is the only option acceptable to us and the residents of Anglesey and beyond.
In summary:
• The consultation process seems to us to be flawed by NGC not providing an opportunity to consult properly between all options - the consultation was largely confined to a discussion of over-land routing.
• We oppose any new over-land connection on towers
• We support the diverse route hybrid subsea cable option
”
