Glyn Rhonwy Pumped Storage

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

Glyn Rhonwy Pumped Storage

Received 10 January 2016
From Mads Huuse

Representation

Objection to the Glyn Rhonwy development by QBC

1. Environmental concerns:
• The proposed scheme will have an output of 100 MW. The UK need for pumped storage of energy is projected to rise by 3.5 GW by 2025. The proposed development would only provide 2.8% of this. If UK demand is to be met by such small-scale plants it would need 35 such developments in pristine highland areas around the UK. Moreover, the revised Glyn Rhonwy scheme is designed to maximize profit from price fluctuations linked with balancing of the grid and intended to be emptied every day, generating a 20% net energy loss every day.
• The areal footprint is the size of Llanberis and only 30% within the brownfield site of Glyn Rhonwy. The rest is in an area designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, right on the border with Snowdonia National Park and the head pond and other installations will be clearly visible from Snowdon and other areas within the park, in contrast to the views and conclusions given in the EIA.
• The Environmental Impact Assessment grossly mis-represents the impact on the local community along the upper access road through Waunfawr which will be adversely affected by traffic and noise. This is in direct contrast to the EIA which states that no significant increase in traffic or nuisance is projected. Recent pilot drilling on a much smaller scale than the development highlighted the general traffic increase and the increase in abnormal loads and abnormally noisy machinery along the peaceful mountain road, both during works hours and out of hours including early mornings and evenings.

2. Health and safety concerns:
• The traffic up the unnamed road to Cefn Du is going to be severely increased with abnormal loads and multiple HGV trips daily and a large numbers of vehicles trasnporting workers up and down each day. HGV trips represent an increase of 300-900%, exceeding the limit for ‘substantial’ adverse effect. The traffic taking workers up and down each day will be a very significant increase at times when hardly any vehicles use the road. The traffic statement concludes the impact will be ‘minor adverse’, which conflicts with their own definitions. Only if traffic numbers are averaged over the day can the commuter traffic be considered incremental, but such an approach does not adequately capture the impact on local residents who are due to be woken up each day by a cortege of vehicles taking workers up the mountain.
• School children, walkers, bikers, equestrians and residents will all be severely impacted by increased traffic for up to 3 years. As there are no pavements and the road is single track. In particular school children will be at risk in early morning and afternoons.
• Numerous houses along the road are within a few metres of the road and situated on adverse slopes (up to 25% gradient), beneath the road level. These properties would suffer significant risk of collapse when subject to abnormal loads and vibrations from repeated 40 ton trucks passing.