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.
Piblinell Carbon Deuocsid HyNet
Gan J. Bradburne Price & Co. on behalf of Andrew & Karen Hirst
“1. Notwithstanding the number and extent of intrusive and non intrusive surveys undertaken on the subject land, there is no clear indication as to the exact line of the pipeline and the associated easement. This uncertainty causes concern to the landowner/occupier and it is not acceptable that they have been requested to enter into agreements with such uncertainty as to the rights that will be taken through the property and limits the ability to plan and make long term decisions for the subject property. Specifically relating to Oakfield the documentation has continuously included a recently constructed ménage, and part of the residential curtilage to the property despite strong objections made to this and the implications arising therefrom. It is respectively requested that these areas are removed from the DCO and that the area subject to the easement rights relates solely to the pasture paddock and does not include any part of the equestrian facilities or residential curtilage. 2. The requirement for an easement width of 24m is excessive and has not been justified. This potentially sterilizes a large area through the subject property and where relevant will prevent appropriate development and restrict other operations including some agricultural operations. 3. Heads of Terms and an Option Agreement have been submitted to which there are grave reservations and concerns. Despite representations made to the Heads of Terms, no response has been received and they remain in a format which is totally unacceptable. 4. The extent of the land included within the Option Agreement is excessive and has not been justified and is beyond what is reasonably required for the construction of the pipeline which relates to Point Nos. 1 & 2. The area of land in the proposed Option Agreement is consequently sterilized for the period of the option which is potentially up to 8 years. 5. There are no proposals or specifications in relation to all aspects of accommodation works required, both during and post construction, to include land drainage, fencing, retention of all utility services, crossing points to working width, timescale and specification for reinstatement and other such day to day encumbrances or provision of alternative grazing or livery as appropriate. 6. There is no indication within the proposals (though the Heads of Terms are requesting the grant of such rights) as to the number, size and location of manholes, vents, marker posts and other such structures which may be constructed along the line of the pipe. There is no provision for agreement with the affected landowner/occupier as to the location of these structures. 7. Health Concerns - There remains concerns that a pressurised pipeline carrying potentially poisonous or noxious gases in close proximity to residential properties will provide a health and safety issue to those properties with potential impact upon occupiers and also upon potential capital and rental values. 8. The ongoing uncertainty as to the exact location of the pipeline and the associated easement together with the excessive extent of the option area potentially places a blight upon the subject property in relation to valuation and possible near future sales. Assurances are sought that any diminution in the value of the property ahead of construction of the scheme will be compensated for.”