North Wales Wind Farms Connection

Representations received regarding North Wales Wind Farms Connection

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on North Wales Wind Farms Connection and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Harman
"I wish to object to this planning proposal for windfarm connections as I believe it will seriously damage the environment,iconic landscapes and wildlife habitats. It is in my opinion seriously misleading to approve wind farms without connections. In combination effects should mean that such applications should be determined together. "
Local Authorities
Denbighshire County Council
"Impact upon tourism and benefits for tourism."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melin Wynt Hafodty Ddu cyf
"Melin Wynt Hafodty Ddu cyf lease an area of land for the purpose of operating a wind turbine. We believe that the proposed route may affect this leased area and may therefore affect our business, now and possibly in the future."
Other Statutory Consultees
Civil Aviation Authority
"The proposed overhead line and supporting structures (which, from the documentation provided would appear to have a maximum height of approximately 20m above ground level) would not constitute aviation en-route obstructions for civil aviation purposes. Similarly I do not believe that the proposed sub-stations structure would constitute en-route obstructions. I have therefore few associated observations other than to highlight that the need for planning deliberations to take into account any relevant aerodrome specific safeguarding issues as dictated by Government Circular 1/2003. Note that responsibility for aerodrome safeguarding rests in all cases with any relevant aerodrome operator not the CAA. Additionally, I am aware that, in respect of military aviation operations, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) has expressed generic concerns associated with overhead power lines. It is consequently possible that the MoD would make recommendation related to the lighting of the towers and marking of the wires. PINS should be aware that in general the CAA would wish to support MoD recommendation concerning enhancement to wire conspicuity. Clearly, it is essential that the MoD have been given the opportunity to comment upon the subject application. As an aside, it should be noted that, the CAA promulgates known power lines which have a height of 80ft or more, drawing information from a Defence Geographic Centre (DGC) database. Any deviation of the existing route should accordingly be notified to the DGC (appropriate contact details - 0208 818 2702, [email protected]). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Gardner
"I would like to request that the consent is varied to underground the cables where they leave the sub station, and for Sections 1 and 2 of the route. The valley that would host the overhead cables would be visually damaged if the cables are not undergrounded. The existing Tir Mostyn windfarm is connected to the grid via underground cables and this respects the landscape and demonstrates that it is technically feasible to achieve this objective - even if this reduces the profit of SP Manweb / Iberdola as a consequence"
Parish Councils
Nantglyn Community Council
"Nantglyn Community Council is one of a number of Community Councils affected by this proposed development. The Council is the lowest tier of local government and is represented by seven Community Councillors who were last elected in 2012. There are approximately 300 electors, around 135 dwellings, a number of listed buildings and a Conservation Area in the Council’s administrative area. The Council has one principal objection to the development - its visual impact and in respect of this, it wishes to request that the development is undergrounded for as much of the proposed route that is visible from within its administrative area as possible. The Council wishes to ensure that conflict between adjacent Communities arising from the placement of overhead poles is avoided and believes that the best way for this to be achieved would be to underground the cables as has been achieved in the current Tir Mostyn windfarm"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Hopkinson
"The North Wales Wind Farm Connection in the form proposed will load unnecessary extra costs onto the electricity consumer. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Ramblers Association -- Conwy County
"Conwy County Ramblers Association contend that the construction of the proposed power line as an overhead line on the planned route option from Glascoed/St Asaph to Clocaenog Forest would have a major detrimental effect on the landscape within a wide corridor either side of the proposed line with the siting and scale of the necessary pylons forming a particularly prominent and intrusive feature. We contend that the proposed overhead powerline would be totally out of scale within the local environment to the detriment of the landscape and to the enjoyment of the local countryside by the many walkers using the extensive network of public footpaths and highways and areas of open access in the extensive area that would be affected by the proposals."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Martin Barlow, Chair on behalf of Cefn Meiriadog & Glascoed Road Residents and Users Group
"The Cefn Meiriadog & Glascoed Road Residents and Users Group comprises 180 members. It is especially concerned that, precisely along the route between the River Elwy and the terminal poles in Groesffordd Marli, the landscape was downgraded by two whole grades by SPM's Manweb commissioned “landscape experts” compared with their initial LANDMAP-basedassessment of Landscape Sensitivity. Remarkably, this highly convenient downgrading applied only to the relatively narrow corridor proposed for the overhead lines, and not to areas either side of it. It is concerned primarily at the landscape and visual impact of the proposal, both looking out from the community, since many have chosen to purchase property precisely because of the landscape views it offers, but particularly at the impact within the Cefn Meiriadog area due to its outstanding scenic value, again the reason many have chosen to locate here. The area's topography means that the area's landscapes are exceptionally visible from roads, tracks, footpaths, bridle paths and properties all along the route. The concern expressed by the applicant with avoiding ‘skylining’ is implicit acknowledgment of the deleterious effect of overhead lines and poles on the landscape, yet this acknowledgement must extend to recognition that, given the route's topography, overhead lines would be visible from many miles away. The exceptional and historic views enjoyed for generations from roads, tracks, footpaths, bridle paths and properties throughout their the area would be cut across along their length by an unsightly gash and spoiled forever. Regarding 'skylining' per se, the Group is concerned about the 'skylining' on the ridge at the area known as 'the Bryn'. The fact that a very much more visually intrusive terminal pole is involved means that from properties to the north, and from the nearby bridle path and the B5381, the 'skylining' effect will be particularly pronounced. The Group is concerned that SPM's assessment of visual impact understates the 'Significance' in many cases, especially evident in the assessment for Plas Newydd and Plas Hafod, and the former illustrating a failure to give weight to the impact on buildings of particular architectural, cultural and historical importance. That this is repeated with the especially historic Berain elsewhere shows a quite unacceptable disregard for the history and culture of both Wales and the communities in which the buildings are situated. It is also concerned at the effect on the proposal on the recently-inaugurated long-distance walking route the North Wales Pilgrims Way. It notes that the applicant wishes to put underground an existing line and contends that since it is necessary for technical reasons to put one line underground, the newly-proposed line is the one that should be placed underground. It inotes the applicant has failed to give a full total lifetime cost comparison for overhead and underground lines comparable with other such studies, and also that it has failed at any stage to acknowledge the compromise but perfectly feasible solution of placing the earth underground so that the remaining three wires can be carried on a single pole. "
Parish Councils
Trefnant Community Council
"The Members of Trefnant Community Council believe that the Company has a responsibility to future generations and should bury the cables."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin John Barlow
"This representation is submitted by me as an individual, separate from the submission made as Chair on behalf of the Cefn Meiriadog and Glascoed Road Residents and Users Group. My concerns are as follows: (1) The lack of certainty over what happens from the terminal pole north of the ridge at Groesffordd Marli onwards - SPM say they propose to go underground but this is not confirmed, and it is understood that in tests SPM encountered rock in the lanes leading down to Glascoed Rd proposed as the underground portion. (2) The original consulation had the poles 100 metres apart, but now the distance has been reduced to 75 metres - representing a one-third increase in the number of poles. (3) Cumulative impact - the proposed connection will add to the visual impact of what is already there, which itself will be significantly exacerbated once the crematorium recently given planning permission is built in the field adjacent to Groesffordd Farm. (The developer, Memoria Ltd, have stated their intention to begin construction in July 2015). In their document 7.1, when assessing the impact of the proposed development on properties, wherever possible SPM mention any existing overhead lines, suggesting that therefore the change involved in adding further lines is not great. On the contrary, the cumulative effect is what is the most impactful. According to Planning Inspector A. Novitsky 'harm which may already exist should not be compounded" (APP/N3020/A/2074820). The situation is particularly difficult for the group of properties around Groesffordd Farm with existing lines, the crematorium and now the proposed terminal pole. (4) SPM's assessments of visual impact on properties and groups of properties (7.1) uses measures of Sensitivity and Magnitude (of visual impact) into categories in such a way that the result (‘Significance’) never exceeds ‘Moderate’ and then only for 4 properties along the route, while for the remaining properties it does not exceed ‘Minor’. Without even challenging the particular decisions over categorisation, it seems a highly questionable methodology in which 'High' Sensitivity and 'Medium' Magnitude result in only 'Moderate' Significance, and 'High' Sensitivity and 'Small' Magnitude result in 'Minor (not significant)' Significance. It is not possible to minimise the visual impact on of the proposed line in the way that has been attempted by the Applicant, particularly in the way it crosses the limestone ridge above Groesffordd Marli and terminates in a very large and unsightly double-double pole structure with stays in a visually prominent position, a position which indeed constitutes skylining for various properties, a road, bridle path and footpath north of the ridge. The landscape and visual impact will be great for a rural community in which there is already a substantial cumulative impact through existing power lines and a consented crematorium which is about to be built. Preferably along the whole route, but certainly once it has crossed the River Elwy, the line should be place underground or at a minimum carried on a single pole with the earth underground. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roger Corbett-Jones
"1. There is emerging evidence that the initial proposal to lay the last section of cable underground is being renaged on and that if this is the case then the implications on visual and environmental impact to my property are immense. 2. The financial effect on the value of properties in this small hamlet for the foreseeable future will suffer considerably whilst this scheme remains unclear. 3. This is the third major scheme introduced within a small geographical area in the past 24 months. It is clear that there is little regard for the established community and their environment. Particularly in the light of point 1. outlined above. 4. The consequences of the environmental damage proposed by erecting double posts every 75mtrs simply for cost saving at this point is indefensible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Barlow
"In the "Design and Construction Report" Application reference: EN020014 March 2015 Scottish Power in section 3.8.3 says "As described in Section 2.2, there is a need for the double wood pole design as it includes an earth wire. Other 132kV single wood pole designs do not have this capability and are therefore not suitable for this Proposed Development." This ignores the widespread use (abroad) of counterpoised systems in which the earth wire is buried and the resulting live cables can be carried on a single wood pole. I quote from an email from a power line expert who was an ex-colleague of mine. "... a continuously buried earth conductor (known as a Counterpoise) is connected to the two substations and bonded to each tower position and the associated "Crow's foot" tower earth system. This method of earthing and bonding is used in some countries to improve the lightning performance of the transmission line when it crosses soils of high resistivity where it proves difficult or impossible to achieve an acceptably low tower footing resistance. We notice that lightning performance is not seen as a high priority for this line (as judged by the non existent shielding angle provided by the earth wire), but we appreciate that removing the earthwire from the superstructure of the tower would enable a lighter and visually less obtrusive line to be designed." I believe that given the the rural path of the proposed line this option should have been considered and costed. It would be significantly cheaper than an all underground solution and significantly less obtrusive than an all above ground solution. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Fleet
"I moved to North Wales in 2000 and bought a property to run retreats for health care staff, hospice staff, Carer groups and more. The workshops allow time for quiet walking in the grounds and mindful meditation walks around a labyrinth on the lawn. Unless the network connection is put underground, we will be staring at a row of pylons instead of at the beautiful Clwyddian hills. My representation is to underground the connection"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jill Tyrer
"1.Whole consultation process flawed and therefore invalid. 2. Pylons and overhead cabling will vandalise this area; will cause problems in farming the land; reduce tourism here; reduce property values; will create health issues for humans and animals in the area; will create noise nuisance. Cabling must be undergrounded for the whole length of the Connection to reduce the effects of this vandalism."
Other Statutory Consultees
Network Rail (Property) (Network Rail (Property))
"Network Rail has received confirmation from SP Manweb that no part of this development crosses land in Network Rail ownership. We have also received confirmation that no railway level crossings, bridges or other Network Rail infrastructure or land will be affected by this development or used during the construction of this development. On the basis of this information Network Rail has no objection to the project. Should circumstances change and there is a need to use any Network Rail owned infrastructure or land, either in connection with the construction or operation of the development, Network Rail advises that SP Manweb contacts Network Rail's Asset Protection Engineers in advance of any works taking place to ensure that there is no adverse impact upon the safe operation of the railway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr B M Roberts
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPV on behalf of Mr D E Jones
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the productive (and related earning) capacity of the land . For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on the foregoing (including European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land) . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr D G Davies
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr D R Owen
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant on behalf of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the farming business . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr H M Parry
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant on behalf of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the farming business . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. This is particularly important given its close proximity to the farmhouse. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr I W Jones
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the farming business . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr J E Davies
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land [which has connotations on its productive (and related earning ) capacity]. For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr M Jones
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr R Evans
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mrs C A Owen
"The principal points of concern,amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. Moreover the current alignment and location of apparatus above ground would impact on the future potential versatility (and amenity) for the erection of a new rural enterprise dwelling on owned land which is located ,significantly, adjoining the farmstead (which is tenanted); being the long term intention to support the prospects for enhancement of the family farming business given the need of on farm labour for, amongst other reasons , livestock welfare requirements (e.g calving of dairy cattle). 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the roadside boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant on behalf of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the farming business . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr A A Owen
"The principal points of concern, amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawings have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land [which has connotations on its productive (and related earning ) capacity]. For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr A E M Owen
" The principal points of concern ,amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawings have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land [which has connotations on its productive (and related earning ) capacity]. For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr D C Jones
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land [which has connotations on its productive (and related earning ) capacity]. For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mrs J L Jones
" The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawing have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales - Clwyd Branch
"The Clwyd Branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales (CPRW) wish to object to the proposed North Wales Wind Farms Connection on grounds that: a) the project would have a significant, permanent and damaging impact upon the landscape, b) an alternative solution would result in less damaging environmental and landscape effects; i.e. undergrounding, which has been rejected purely on budgetary restraints; and c) there is a requirement for wind farm connections to be included within wind farm applications rather than dealt with as separate entities so that the combined impact of both developments are assessed jointly. "
Parish Councils
Cefn Meiriadog Community Council
"The cumulative effect of this development on this historic agricultural community cannot be underestimated - * the introduction of large poles will have a serious impact on the skyline and should be avoided at all cost with the route from the river to be underground. * manypeople have relocated to the area due to its outstanding natural beauty and historic houses such as Plas Newydd are designed to take advantage of the outstanding beauty of the region - the powerlines will ruin the outlook from this historic house. * Other planning impacts should also be considered - the recently approved crematorium coupled with this development are industrialising or urbanising an essentially rural area. * The distance between poles now seems to have decreased from 100m to 75m and we contend that - this coupled with existing lines is in effect compounding existing harm or damage and should be avoided ( by buring the whole line from the river) *the downgrading along the line route of the land by two whole grades from the original seems contrived and systematic and remarkably convenient from the developers point of view - we argue that if an independent surveyor were to review the land with no knowledge of this investment that the land would not be downgraded. The only option to preserve this area is to run the cables underground - regardless of he cost. It os unlikely that it will materially impact the total cost of this scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elgan Jones
"I have land which the proposed line is to be erected, this will affect my farming plans and business, I have already built a farm building and yard and my next plan it to build a farmhouse. I have already invested in the plans for our future house and this line would be within 40m of the new dwelling. My family and myself have been farming here for 5 generations . Why do these overhead lines have to come and spoil our plans and skyline views !!!!! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Glynne Jones
"I own the land over which approximately 1 Km of the over headline. The over headline impeads agriculture use of the land. The proposed line passes within 200m of our home and is fully visable from the majority of the rooms in the house. The line impeads on the farms business plans for the future development of wind turbines. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Meirick Ll. Davies
"Rwyf yn gwrthwynebu cael y gwifrau trydan tros dir o ardal hardd a phwysig yn enwedig o Llannefydd i lawr i'r Elwy ac i fynnu am Bryn Meiriadog. Mae angen i'r gwifrau fod tan ddaear pob cam i gadw y tirlun yn naturiol ac wedi ei gadw fel y mae pob cam o Clocaenog i Gefn Meiriadog. Pe tae hyn yn cael ei wneyd ni fydd angen claddu gwifrau trydan (llai) presennol sydd yn croisi'r llwybyr y rhai mawr a gynigir. Ceir y gwifrau newydd tan ddaear o ben Bryn Cefn Meiriadog i'r orsaf Trosglwyddydd felly pam ddim pob cam o'r ffordd? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dafydd I Jones on behalf of Nerys Jones
"1. The consultation exercise undertaken by SP Manweb was flawed. The company failed to engage with interested parties in a consistent manner and there was a failure to re-consult on revised proposals. 2. We object to the use of an overhead line (OHL) to carry the 132Kv connection. 3. The property known as   , Peniel will suffer material detriment if the OHL proposal goes ahead. 4. We consider that any associated "Necessary wayleave", requested of DECC by SP Manweb, will be premature if made before the outcome of the Examination in Public is known. 5. The proposal is contrary to EU law as it interferes with the the Human Rights of the occupant of   . There will be an unacceptable impact on Nerys Jones's right to quiet enjoyment of her property. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
RWE Innogy UK Ltd
"RWE Innogy UK Ltd (Innogy) is one of the UK's leading renewable energy developers and operators. Across the UK, Innogy operates 17 hydroelectric power projects and 22 wind farms, and has a number of new schemes in development. Innogy wishes to register as an interested party to be able to participate in the examination phase of the North Wales Wind Farms Connection (NWWFC) project. Innogy’s Clocaenog Forest Wind Farm (CFWF) received planning consent from the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in September 2014 and, together with three other consented wind farms (Brenig, Nantbach and Derwydd Bach), will contribute some 180MW towards Welsh, UK and European renewable energy targets. These four wind farms will rely on the NWWFC project to deliver their generated electricity into the National Grid and have contracted Scottish Power Energy Networks (SPEN), as the relevant distribution network operator for North Wales, to progress the grid connection. The NWWFC project is essential for Innogy and the project must be completed on time to meet the commissioning timescales of our CFWF project. Innogy has had ongoing engagement with SPEN to ensure the NWWFC proposals are delivered in a coordinated and timely manner. Construction of the NWWFC project will be concurrent with the construction of the CFWF and therefore works in the vicinity should be planned, monitored and managed so as to avoid disruption to construction activities, as well as minimising potential cumulative impacts on the environment and on local communities. Innogy will continue to engage with SPEN as necessary throughout the lifetime of the NWWFC project to ensure works are carefully planned and coordinated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Peter White
"I believe that the route chosen by SP Manweb for the transmission line from Clogaenog to St Asaph is the wrong route and that the consultation for the selection was flawed even though accepted by the Inspectorate. This is an area of natural beauty ans this route of the pylons will be detrimental to our enviroment.The economy of this area needs tourists and I believe anything that blights our natural countryside should be reconsidered especially as in some places the route follows the skyline of the hills "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Roberts
"I remain concerned about the impact of windfarms and pylons on the landscape of rural Wales. How it affects tourism and property values"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Farmers Union Wales
"Farmers Union Wales - Representing our Members within the proposed area "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dafydd I Jones on behalf of Iwan & Helen Jones
"1. We object to the use of an overhead line (OHL) to carry the 132Kv connection. 2. The physical impact of the connection proposal on the holding known as Penygerddi will be significant. There is likely to be considerable disturbance to farming operations and material harm to the value of the farmland. 3. We consider that any associated "necessary wayleave", requested of DECC by SP Manweb, will be premature if made before the outcome of the Examination in Public is known. 4. The proposal is contrary to EU law as it interferes with the Human Rights of the owner occupier of Penygerddi. There will be an unacceptable impact on Iwan & Helen Jones's right to quiet enjoyment of their property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr Emyr Wynne Hughes
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawings have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
DMPC on behalf of Mr Hefin Wynne Hughes
"The principal points of concern amongst other aspects, at this stage apply to : 1.the electricity apparatus being proposed to be sited above (instead of below) ground. 2. the intended alignment route traverses productive agricultural land rather than along the boundary of the affected parcels . 3. the number and frequency of poles and stays proposed to be sited being more than considered necessary and accordingly not mitigating interruption to agricultural operations and enterprise. 4. the Applicant has been informed in writing that we are appointed to act as Agents on behalf of the client . However the information received directly from the Applicant in respect of the client is not sufficiently comprehensive and does not fully accord with the detail of the submission .For instance whilst drawings have been provided,” Land Plan Sheets” have not been received. We are concerned it is important for our client to be fully conversant with the impact of the proposed scheme on the subject property so that due representations can be made . To assist in this respect we have ,on numerous occasions , sought site meetings with the Applicant’s representatives and as yet this has not occurred . Moreover specific information has been requested on the impact of the proposed apparatus and vegetation plantings on our clients property with regard to the temporary and lasting use of agricultural land (which has connotations on the farming enterprise and therefore the client’s livelihood ). For instance on plantings ,whilst we have been led to believe that this would involve improving (rather than expanding ) established wooded areas , & existing hedgerows, we have sought detail (yet to be received) on the actual proposals including the acreage affected to ascertain whether this could have a detrimental impact on European Union Direct Payment regulations affecting the land . Accordingly we are concerned that the information received on behalf of the client is presently insufficient and will be continuing to seek for this to be addressed; so that our client in put in an appropriately informed position to decide on the full extent of representations required, whilst the Applicant’s submission is being determined . 5. the harmful visual & environmental impact (including in respect of landscape) of the intended scheme is also an issue. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dafydd I Jones on behalf of Emlyn a Nicola Davies
"1. We object to the use of an overhead line (OHL) to carry the 132Kv connection. In order to proceed, the scheme must reflect the wishes of the local community with the cables laid underground from Clocaenog all the way to the St Asaph Business Park. The Scheme must be properly funded by the windfarm Developers with no shirking of the undergrounding issue on the basis of cost. 2. The physical impact of the proposal on Plas Captain is significant. If implemented, there will be considerable disturbance to farming operations and material harm to Mr Davies' agricultural tenancy. "
Local Authorities
Llansannan Ward within Conwy County Borough Council
"The electorate living with the Ward of Llansannan have grave concerns regarding the proposals. Impact on historic woodlands, tourism, agriculture and also the visual impact have created a deep feeling of uncertainty and unrest within the local area. Concern has been raised and expressed on many occasions as to to the validity of the process - it's fairness and balance to those concerned - land owners and communities alike."
Parish Councils
Llanynys Community Council
"Llanynys Community Council oppose the proposal for the over head electricity line, whereas it should be underground. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dafydd I Jones on behalf of Neville Hughes
"1. We object to the use of an overhead line (OHL) to carry the 132Kv connection. In order to proceed the scheme must reflect the wishes of the local community with the cables laid underground from Clocaenog Forest all the way to St Asaph Business Park. 2. The physical impact of the proposal on Bodeiliog Ucha is significant. If implemented, there will be considerable disturbance to farming operations and material harm to Mr Hughes' agricultural tenancy. 3. SP Manweb has chosen to dismiss, on engineering grounds, representations made by Mr Hughes concerning the positioning of poles and stays within his fields. No formal explanation has been provided for this and it's therefore impossible to test the validity of the company's decision."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Pylon the Pressure Group
"• There are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. SP Manweb has dismissed the underground option on the basis that “the costs of a fully underground solution were unacceptable and therefore this was not taken forward”. However, the cost of the overhead line is not presented, and so it is impossible to determine the incremental cost of undergrounding, and there is no transparency in their cost-benefit calculation. Energy losses are up to 50% less by undergrounding. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. • We are very concerned by the significant effects on Residential Visual Amenity. We do not consider it acceptable for residents to have any impact on our visual amenity. The landscapes involved are of superlative beauty, in particular due to the topography involved and it is precisely because of the topography, that the lines would be visible from many miles away from roads, paths and properties, and the views into the landscapes affected are just as important as those from or within them. Assessment of Cumulative Residential Amenity Effects is limited to properties within 200m of the proposed development, and as such only Hafod Olygfa is identified as having significant effects. This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the impact of the proposed connection. • SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is in complete contradiction to local knowledge. • We disagree that Historic Environment is likely to be subject to a low number of significant adverse effects. There are a number of listed buildings of national significance which will be in very close proximity to pylons. • There will be significant adverse socioeconomic and tourism effects which have been underestimated. There are important long distance paths, Wales GB Rally (which has threatened to move away from the area), and businesses, caravan parks, B&Bs etc. that will be severely affected. The area is very popular with tourists. A Welsh Government study found 48% to highlight pylons as a factor which could detract from their tourism experience. • The route passes next to the Centre for Personal Development, which is a retreat “to provide a tranquil place in the countryside where visitors can more easily find inner peace” to the 12000 people already attended. The impact of pylons next to this Centre will have a devastating effect on the services provided to Doctors, Nurses, Care Workers, etc. • We are very concerned of the impact of overhead lines and pylons on property value, estimated by the UK Government as being up to 15% reduction, and on potential sales -visible overhead powerline cables or pylons could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 80%. • Residents are very concerned about the health effects of high voltage overhead transmission, which is inadequately addressed in the planning application. • Pylons are a negative externality to all the residents of this area who receive no benefit from the proposed development. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin Owen
"No to this pylon link spoil the countryside forever we must stop this before its to late The area is of outstanding natural beauty put it underground "
Parish Councils
Clocaenog Community Council
"• Adverse effects. There are a number of listed buildings of national significance which will be in We disagree that Historic Environment is likely to be subject to a low number of significant very close proximity to pylons. • There will be significant adverse socioeconomic and tourism effects which have been underestimated. There are important long distance paths, Wales GB Rally (which has threatened to move away from the area), and businesses, caravan parks, B&Bs etc. that will be severely affected. The area is very popular with tourists. A Welsh Government study found 48% to highlight pylons as a factor which could detract from their tourism experience. • The route passes next to the Centre for Personal Development, which is a retreat “to provide a tranquil place in the countryside where visitors can more easily find inner peace” to the 12000 people already attended. The impact of pylons next to this Centre will have a devastating effect on the services provided to Doctors, Nurses, Care Workers, etc. "
Parish Councils
Cvffylliog Community Council
"• By the UK Government as being up to 15% reduction, and on potential sales -visible overhead We are very concerned of the impact of overhead lines and pylons on property value, estimated powerline cables or pylons could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 80%. • Residents are very concerned about the health effects of high voltage overhead transmission, which is inadequately addressed in the planning application. "
Parish Councils
Derwen Community Council
"• We are very concerned by the significant effects on Residential Visual Amenity. We do not consider it acceptable for residents to have any impact on our visual amenity. The landscapes involved are of superlative beauty, in particular due to the topography involved and it is precisely because of the topography, that the lines would be visible from many miles away from roads, paths and properties, and the views into the landscapes affected are just as important as those from or within them. Assessment of Cumulative Residential Amenity Effects is limited to properties within 200m of the proposed development, and as such only Hafod Olygfa is identified as having significant effects. This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the impact of the proposed connection. • SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is in complete contradiction to local knowledge. "
Parish Councils
Henllan Community Council
"• There are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. SP Manweb has dismissed the underground option on the basis that “the costs of a fully underground solution were unacceptable and therefore this was not taken forward”. However, the cost of the overhead line is not presented, and so it is impossible to determine the incremental cost of undergrounding, and there is no transparency in their cost-benefit calculation. Energy losses are up to 50% less by undergrounding. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
I T Jones
"Concerned about the visual and health implications of overhead pylons and the residential visual amenity to residents along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julia Owen
"This pylon link will be a blot on the beautiful landscape Pylons are a waste of money and there are other ways of renewable energy which are much more economic and successful This link will spoil the countryside we live in we already have pylons all over the coastline of North Wales and now you want it on the land as well Stop this now why we have the chance once they are up that is it forever "
Parish Councils
Llanfair Dyffryn Clwyd Community Council
"We as Llanfair community council are anxious about the effect that large pylons would have on the environment in the Vale of Clwyd. An area that is designated as " An area of Outstanding Natural Beauty". "
Parish Councils
Llanrhaeadr Community Council
"underground option on the basis that “the costs of a fully underground solution were unacceptable and therefore this was not taken forward”. However, the cost of the overhead line is not presented, and so it is impossible to determine the incremental cost of undergrounding, and there is no transparency in their cost-benefit calculation. Energy losses are up to 50% less by undergrounding. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. • We are very concerned by the significant effects on Residential Visual Amenity. We do not consider it acceptable for residents to have any impact on our visual amenity. The landscapes involved are of superlative beauty, in particular due to the topography involved and it is precisely because of the topography, that the lines would be visible from many miles away from roads, paths and properties, and the views into the landscapes affected are just as important as those from or within them. Assessment of Cumulative Residential Amenity Effects is limited to properties within 200m of the proposed development, and as such only Hafod Olygfa is identified as having significant effects. This is a wholly inaccurate representation of the impact of the proposed connection. • SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is in complete contradiction to local knowledge. • adverse effects. There are a number of listed buildings of national significance which will be in We disagree that Historic Environment is likely to be subject to a low number of significant very close proximity to pylons. • There will be significant adverse socioeconomic and tourism effects which have been underestimated. There are important long distance paths, Wales GB Rally (which has threatened to move away from the area), and businesses, caravan parks, B&Bs etc. that will be severely affected. The area is very popular with tourists. A Welsh Government study found 48% to highlight pylons as a factor which could detract from their tourism experience. • The route passes next to the Centre for Personal Development, which is a retreat “to provide a tranquil place in the countryside where visitors can more easily find inner peace” to the 12000 people already attended. The impact of pylons next to this Centre will have a devastating effect on the services provided to Doctors, Nurses, Care Workers, etc. • by the UK Government as being up to 15% reduction, and on potential sales -visible overhead We are very concerned of the impact of overhead lines and pylons on property value, estimated powerline cables or pylons could reduce the number of potential buyers by up to 80%. • Residents are very concerned about the health effects of high voltage overhead transmission, which is inadequately addressed in the planning application. • Pylons are a negative externality to all the residents of this area who receive no benefit from the proposed development. "
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Llansannan Community Council
"Llansannan Community Council are very concerned regarding this development in their locality the wooden poles (Pylons) and cables will be very visible where they cross the main Denbigh to Groes highway (A543). This will have a very negative influence on local residents and tourists to the area. The development will have a detrimental effect on long distance panoramic viewers of the Clwydian Range which is an area of Natural Outstanding Beauty. The road is used by a large number of traffic every day many of them tourists. We understand that S P Manweb intend to hide the pylons by planting trees on both sides of the road. This we know will cause further road safety issues on this narrowing point of the highway where the cables cross the road. Numerous traffic accidents have occured at this point in the past. We understand that this issue has not been discussed with the highways department in either Denbighshire or Conwy County Councils. Llansannan Community Councils initiall proposal was for the line to be underground all the proposed route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to   Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property"
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural Resources Wales - Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru
"Please copy and paste the link below into your browser to view Natural Resources Wales' relevant representation in English: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NRW_Relevant_Representation.pdf Alternatively, for a Welsh version of this representation, please copy and paste the following link into your browser: http://infrastructure.planningportal.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NRW_Relevant_Representation_Welsh.pdf"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Public Health England, Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards
"Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on the proposals and Environmental Statement (ES) at this stage of the project. Our response focuses on health protection issues relating to chemicals and radiation. Advice offered by PHE is impartial and independent. PHE, including PHE’s Centre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards (Wales), has considered the submitted documentation and are satisfied with the conclusions drawn within the ES. PHE notes the conclusion that potential human health impacts from the development are not significant and any environmental impacts will be mitigated through the implementation of measures outlined in the Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). On the basis of the submitted information, PHE accepts that the operational and regulatory controls will be adequately managed by the Local Authorities and Natural Resources Wales to ensure that the development does not cause a significant impact on public health. PHE is satisfied that the development’s potential impacts on public health have been adequately addressed and, where necessary, suitable mitigation has been proposed. For this reason PHE does NOT intend to register any further interest in the planning process although we will of course be happy to provide further comment if so requested by the applicant or the Planning Inspectorate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Owen
"We are all custodians for our future generations and the pylons will spoil our beautiful countryside The landscape we live in is of outstanding natural beauty and they will be a blot on this landscape "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alys Owen
"Undergrounding - there are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for undergrounding. Energy loss is halved by undergrounding. There are a number of Historical Buildings of great national importance very close to the pylons. It is not acceptable that the pylons will spoil our beautiful landscapes, because of the nature of the topography the pylons will be visible from many miles around. The pylons proposed are far too close to some residential properties. SPManweb has dismissed the effect of environmental issues as not being adequate. There will be an adverse effect on tourism which will have a damaging effect on the local economy. A Welsh Government study found that 48% of tourism found pylons had a negative impact on their tourism experience. I am very concerned that the pylons with their overhead lines will have a serious impact on the decline of property values for miles around because of their proximity and visibility over a wide area. I am very concerned about the impact of high voltage transmission on health issues. I feel this should be addressed further. Residents in the area receive no benefits from the pylons but the impact of the pylons are detrimental to many factors of great importance to the residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cyngor Cymuned Llangernyw
"Mae Cyngor Cymuned Llangernyw yn gwrthwynebu'r cais i osod peilonau uwchben y ddaear oherwydd byddent yn anharddu'r olygfa mewn ardal brydferth iawn o Sir Ddinbych. Rydym yn cefnogi sylwadau Cynghorau Cymuned Llannefydd a Llansannan. Diolch Elwen Owen Clerc, Cyngor Cymuned Llangernyw"
Parish Councils
Cyngor Cymuned Llanrhaeadr-yng-Nghinmeirch Community Council
"• Residents will have significant cumulative effects both visually and regarding noise. The cumulative effects are significant in Saron and Peniel, considering the existing wind farms, proposed wind farms and the already consented wind farms as well as the proposed substation and the overhead line connection. . We do not feel SP have fully considered using the spare underground ducts from the existing wind farm for the connection. • SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is in complete contradiction to local knowledge. • There will be significant adverse socioeconomic and tourism effects. • We are very concerned of the impact of overhead lines and pylons on property value. • Residents are very concerned about the health effects of high voltage overhead transmission, which is inadequately addressed in the planning application. . We do not feel that Scottish Powers consultation has been adequate. They have failed to provide information to several residents. Some visual representations and documents have also been very missleading and inaccurate. . Llanrhaeadr yng Nghinmeirch Community Council were not included in the consultation. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Tyrer
"SP Manweb has supplied no figures to directly compare the cost of underground and overhead lines. For example there is much less electricity loss underground, compared with overhead. Over the lifetime of the line this is a substantial saving. Why are those figures not included? When it has been forced to go underground, SP Manweb avoided farm land. What are the comparative compensation figures, if there is no payment to farmers? SP Manweb has dismissed the impact on the landscape and the many business activities that rely on it. Local caravan site owners, B&Bs etc have reported adverse reactions from visitors who heard of the possible interference to the views – the reason they bring their money here. The Wales GB Rally is worth £10m to the local economy. It has already announced it will be re-routing to avoid wind turbines and ancillary work (forestry clearance, pylons, etc). The pictures of the rally and surrounding scenery are transmitted around the world. It encourages tourists worldwide to visit the countryside shown. That will not include the Clocaenog/ St Asaph area. There have been several films made in the area recently. That will cease if the area is festooned with overhead lines. It’s not the image the film maker wants to portray. Years ago the occasional film was made in Liverpool. It is now a multi-million pound industry there. Denbighshire and Conwy Councils both called for full undergrounding of this particular line. As locals they are aware of the devastating impact of the proposed line. Surely their respective opinions should not be dismissed out of hand? When the Freedom engineer called at my property, he admitted that there would be noise from the line in various circumstances. Why is that not included in the application? I could find nothing in the application about the adverse effect on property prices. Why? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gordon Owen
"Sp Manweb has dismissed the underground option as being too costly, but the cost of overhead line was not presented. We need to know the cost of both options to compare. Energy loss are up to 50% less by undergrounding . It is not acceptable that our landscape would be scared by these pylons and that they are far too close to houses . The erection of pylons and overhead lines will cause problems for agriculture not only will they be taking up land but in many cases it is not acceptable that they will hinder the farmer's work and safety. I disagree that Historic Environment is likely to have low number of adverse effect. There are a number o f historical sites of great national importance in the area in very close proximity to the pylons. I am very concerned on the impact of overhead lines and pylons on the tourist industry. The area is very popular with tourists. The decline in property value is another great concern caused by the pylons and overhead lines. Visible overhead power line cables and pylons could reduce the number of potential buyers by 80% according to UK Government. Another cause of concern is that health effects of overhead high voltage transmission was not addressed adequately in the planning application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lois Williams
"I wish to object to the proposed development on the following grounds 1 The planned development, with more pylons now proposed than originally stated in the various consultation stages, will permanently blight the landscape. For this reason the power lines need to be put underground. 2. I am seriously concerned that no decision has been made regarding the eventual underground route of the cable from the terminal pole to the Substation. As the owner of   , one of the properties situated near the terminal pole at Groesffordd Marli it is obvious that at this late stage I should know what is happening. 3. This development will be the ‘final straw’ in the cumulative impact pf developments which are making my home feel under threat and an increasingly stressful and unpleasant place to live in. Cefn Meiriadog, a beautiful and significant historic area, is being subjected to inordinate amounts of inappropriate building development, massively out of scale with the location. The fact that pylons already exist on the north side is being used as a ‘Trojan Horse’ i.e. a justification for more to be added on the grounds that the landscape is already deleteriously affected. In addition to the terminal pole and pylons on the south side the number of poles is being increased on the existing line on the north side, Scottish Power having declared their intention of adding poles to the existing line. My property and those nearby will be virtually surrounded by poles and pylons. Devaluation of property and the desecration of the countryside seem to be of no consequence to the applicants. 4 In the summary of the residential Visual Amenity Effects on Properties, the effect on the area and route as a whole is minimised, focusing entirely on views from the house and garden. Apparently, as my property   is in a dip, I will be marginally less affected than my immediate neighbours. It is assumed that the impact of the development is restricted to the view from static points in my (and others’) house and garden, without any account being taken of how I perceive the impact of the development on the area as a whole. Not at any time does the report say how the terminal pole and up to three other pylons will impact on the old original road through and alongside which they pass. It is as if its history does not exist. Where the road and lane cross is the original Groesffordd Marli after which the settlement is named, the old road continuing southward between Plas Newydd and Plas Hafod down to the river. 5. The pylons will have a significant impact on Plas Newydd, a Grade 2* listed building and one of the finest and best-preserved examples of Elizabethan regional gentry houses. It has remained unaltered since 1583. The pylons will be visible from the solar room, one of the most important rooms in this special house. Again the report totally minimises the impact of the development on a house which we, in Wales, should be seen to be taking very especial care of. 6. The terminal pole and the other pylons crossing the Bryn, the historic limestone ridge will be very visible from the northern valley and present a major skylining issue. The terminal pole is a particularly large and unattractlive structure, incompatible with the landscape and environment in which it is to be placed. It is ironic that in the controversial planning application for the crematorium soon to be built on Glascoed Road (the B5381) - an application originally turned down but now granted on appeal by the Planning Inspector - a major feature used to ‘sell’ the building was the large window looking towards the limestone ridge. This ridge and view will now present three dominant pylons and the terminal pole. 7. As someone who has lived in Cefn Meiriadog all my life, and as one who cares deeply about this special place, I feel I am in a David and Goliath situation and powerless to fight against such a huge development happening. If permission is granted for this development, this area and its landscape, which generations have treasured, can never be the same again. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Menna Eluned Jones
"Dylid rhoi y ceblau o dan ddaear ble maen croesi'r A543 oherwydd y rhesymau canlynol - -Maen croesi mewn lle ble mae golygfeydd pell gyrhaeddol 360o gan gynnwys golygfa o ardal o harddwch naturiol bryniau clwyd. Bydd y linell yn hynod glir ar draws ffordd sydd yn cael ei defnyddio gan tua 2000 o gerbydau yn ddyddiol gan gynnwys nifer helaeth o dwristiaid. - Nid yw planu coed newydd yn mynd i guddio y peilonau ond yn hytrach cuddio yr olygfa mae bobl lleol a twristiaid yn mwyhau. -Bydd y peilonau ar coed yn creu peryglon defnydd ffordd ble mae nifer o ddamweiniau yn digwydd gan leihau golwg ir rhai sydd yn dreifio, ymuno ar ffyrdd, gwaethygu problem o croni dwr sydd eisioes a cynyddu risg sylweddol o ddamweiniau. -Mae melin wynt yn agos ir a543 yma a bydd ychwanegu y peilodau i'r olygfa yn ychwanegu at olwg mwy diwydiannol i beth sydd yn ardal wledig."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iona Edwards- Jones on behalf of Mr & Mrs E G & A Edwards
"1. The consultation undertaken by SP Manweb was inadequate. Stage 3 consultation documents contained misleading information and inaccurate representations. 2. As landowners we feel that our concerns and views on the route corridor and access route have not been taken into consideration. 3. In particular, there has been a significant lack of information and dialogue relating to key aspects, including access and precise location of the route corridor on our land. 4. Our property and land will suffer significant detriment if the OHL proposal goes ahead. 5. Representatives of Scottish Power have trespassed on our land, causing great distress. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Williams
"I wish to object to the proposal to install a 17km of 132kV overhead line from Clocaenog Forest to St Asaph owing to severe visual impact, including from my property. Tourism is a vital part of the economy of both Denbighshire and Conwy. In 2012, it is estimated (STEAM), that tourism generated £132 million of revenue for rural Denbighshire and supported 2,400 FTE jobs. The quality of the landscape is one of the main reasons for visiting Wales. Research has shown that overhead power lines and pylons have a significant negative impact on landscape and will severely damage our tourism industry. The only way to reduce this impact is to place power grids underground. Although capital costs of underground cables are high, lifetime repair and maintenance have been demonstrated to be less than over-ground grids. Many countries are now retrospectively positioning their cables underground or have policies that only allow for underground cabling e.g. the Netherlands has 100% of its grid underground. Underground cables are low maintenance and the value of land and houses is unaffected. Underground cabling is not affected by weather. In Canada in Jan 1998, millions were left in the dark, some for months. In France, “Cyclones Lothar and Martin in 1999 left 3.4 million customers in France without electricity … These storms brought a fourth of France's high-tension transmission lines down and 300 high-voltage transmission pylons were toppled.” Repairs took 6 months to complete during which public supply was significantly interrupted. Although it can be argued that such extreme weather conditions do not affect the UK, in Oct 2013, an unsafe pylon at Porthmadog affected local roads and trains for days. Extreme weather conditions are projected to be more prevalent in future. To ensure the least impact, the North Wales windfarm grid connection must, be put underground for the whole length of the route. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ardro Limited
"loss of agricultural land loss of future development "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cefn Meiriadog Excludees on behalf of Cefn Meiriadog Excludees
"1) Along with five other properties between   and   in Cefn Meiriadog we were crucially not notified of the project until Phase 2 of the Pre Application process by which time the preferred route had been all but determined. Given our obviously strategic placement within a short distance from the proposed substation at St Asaph this omission was a serious breach of the applicant’s obligations of consultation with affected parties. Despite our protestations we were still unable to have any influence on the selection of the route of the pylons deeply affecting us which was ultimately submitted for Development Consent. 2) The manner in which the corridor was selected was established through the use of misleading statistics and appeared predetermined. The feedback used was only selective; alternative routes were neither offered nor entertained and the argument for the eventual route was deeply flawed. 3) The environmental assessment by the applicant does not give recognition to the sweeping and great unspoilt natural beauty of the middle Elwy Valley and Cefn Meiriadog. Viz: • Visual Impact (close proximity to properties in a sparsely populated area, skylining ) • Cumlative Effect (three electricity lines already present on the pylon route between Plas Hafod & Maes) • Woodlands, (cuttings through Registered Ancient Woodland on the R. Elwy) • Landscape Sensitivity (good land arbitrarily downgraded two levels between Phases) • Cultural & Heritage Sites (   , Grade 2 Star listed property inappropriately affected as is the Grade 2 Star listed property Berain, across the valley, of very great historical importance) • Impact on Business (double pylons every 75m & stays seriously impairing agricultural productivity) 4) Without warning the applicant retrospectively declared that Phase 3 only was the statutory phase. The erasing of the earlier processes which spawned the virtually unchanged Phase 3 is challenging to comprehend unless it is designed to nullify the inadequacies of consultation in Phases 1 & 2. 5) The applicant refuses to compensate for the effects of any of the foregoing by the obvious solution of undergrounding the transmission. They do so purely on the on the basis cost to their contracting principal, RWE. With undergrounding the harm to the environment would become virtually nonexistent and it can be shown to be much cheaper and greener in the long term and it must be the choice against the permanent visual and physical harm of the proposed pylons "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dewi Parry
"1. The visual impact of the proposed development is severely damaging to the north Wales landscape. We are concerned that SP Manweb failed to present an option for undergrounding the grid connection. A survey, costing and consultation for undergrounding was not presented for consideration despite repeated requests by landowners and residents. We don’t accept the contention that an overhead line is the only solution that meets the requirements. 2. We disagree with SP Manweb’s assessments on visual impact and also with their mitigation measures. In 6.7 ES Table 7.18 a ‘Medium-High’ rating for value and sensitivity is given for our area, yet the mitigation measures proposed are poor for even this rating. 3. Document 6.7 ES 7.7.30 states “the scale of effect of the 132 kV Overhead Line is considered negligible due to distance and the fact that both of these areas are already influenced by nearby wind energy developments. The overall significance of landscape effects is therefore predicted to be negligible.” The ‘negligible’ assessment is subjective. To say that the effect of the overhead line is negligible because the area is already influenced by nearby wind energy developments is illogical and ignores cumulative visual effects. It’s akin to saying that for someone with existing back pain the introduction of knee pain would be negligible. The cumulative visual impact has not been properly considered. 4. We consider the descriptions in the application are highly misleading and erroneous and do not show the true effect on residents. Here is just one example: 6.20.1 ES Chapter 7, p.7-8 “...properties approximately 190m from the nearest pole located on the centreline of the Limits of Deviation at its closest point.”… “Primary views towards the Proposed Development would be distant and oblique.”… “Distance to nearest point on the edge of the Limits of Deviation is approx. 170m - this represents the worst case scenario in terms of potential nearest proximity” …“Primary views are not orientated towards the Proposed Development”…“Rationale and Summary: Minor (not significant)” The true situation: West facing: Open direct views of the route at 156m from the nearest pole, Skylining at 180m. South facing: Open direct views of the route at 180m distance, Skylining at 820m. All the ‘errors’ in the application serve to downplay the effect of the development, never the opposite. This will mislead the reader. 5. Section 7.7.70 (p.93) - SP Manweb mention visual impact in our area but misrepresent the severity The mitigating measures proposed are ineffective and in any case only apply to one skyline view. The result is that we will be confronted with two open direct skyline views and multiple pylons and lines. SP Manweb indicated in 2014 that a number of existing lines may instead be put underground in order to ease the visual impact but this solution is no longer offered to us. 6. There are no benefits to us or our community from this development. There is only harm. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Durand Hotham
"We are the owners of   an important Grade 2 Star listed property which is planned to be closely fronted by the planned pylons and we wish to submit that: 1) Along with five other properties between   and   in Cefn Meiriadog we were crucially not notified of the project until Phase 2 of the Pre Application process by which time the preferred route had been all but determined. Given our obviously strategic placement within a short distance from the proposed substation at St Asaph this omission was a serious breach of the applicant’s obligations of consultation with affected parties. Despite our protestations we were still unable to have any influence on the selection of the route of the pylons deeply affecting us which was ultimately submitted for Development Consent. 2) The manner in which the corridor was selected was established through the use of misleading statistics and appeared predetermined. The feedback used was only selective, alternative routes were neither offered nor entertained and the argument for the eventual route was deeply flawed. 3) Physically & architecturally prominent,   is an important (Grade 2 Star listed) example of a well preserved Welsh Elizabethan gentry house dated 1583and its sighting overlooking the Elwy Valley and the planned pylons has not been adequately considered. Despite being designated as a Visual Receptor no attempt was made to evaluate the perspective from the house itself and the publication of a unrepresentative “visual” bears no relation to the reality. 4) The environmental assessment by the applicant does not give recognition to the sweeping and great unspoilt natural beauty of the middle Elwy Valley and Cefn Meiriadog. Viz: • Visual Impact (close proximity to properties in a sparsely populated area, skylining ) • Cumlative Effect (three electricity lines already present on the pylon route between Plas Hafod & Maes) • Woodlands, (cuttings through Registered Ancient Woodland on the R. Elwy) • Landscape Sensitivity (good land arbitrarily downgraded two levels between Phases) • Cultural & Heritage Sites (   as above & the Grade 2 Star listed property Berain, across the valley, of very great historical importance) • Impact on Business (double pylons every 75m & stays seriously impairing agricultural productivity) 5) Without warning the applicant retrospectively declared that Phase 3 only was the statutory phase. The erasing of the earlier processes which spawned the virtually unchanged Phase 3 is challenging to comprehend unless it is designed to nullify the inadequacies of consultation in Phases 1 & 2. 6) The applicant refuses to compensate for the effects of any of the foregoing by the obvious solution of undergrounding the transmission. They do so purely on the on the basis cost to their contracting principal, RWE. With undergrounding the harm to the environment would become virtually nonexistent and it can be shown to be much cheaper and greener in the long term and it must be the choice against the permanent visual and physical harm of the proposed pylons. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eirian Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to Berain House Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eirian Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to Berain House Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elin Mars Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to Berain House Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eric Jones
"I'd like it to be noted that the above sceme is bitterly opposed by many residents tourists & event organisers in the area . There is a altertinive ie underground cabling . We therefore belive this should not be approved ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gerwyn Jones
"1. The consultations undertaken by SP Manweb has been inaccurate and missleading. 2. Our concerns and views about the route corridor and the access route has not been considered. 3. There has been a lack of information. 4. Representatives of SP Manweb have been trespassing and have caused great concern. 5. When we eventually spoke to a sp representatives, their approach was heavy handed and made us very uncomfortable. 6. Our property, land and businesses will suffer significant detriment if the overhead line goes ahead. Sp manweb have not approached us to discuss the affects on outlr business. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iona Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to Berain House Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Beedles
"My (sadly) late husband and I moved to our house more than 15 years ago, extending the property to enjoy the countryside and take advantage of the beautiful views . If sp manwebs application is successful you are going to totally obliterate that view causing a massive impact on my visual amenity. Surely you should look at putting the cables underground . Why should people who live in the countryside be victimized."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jannine Poletti Hughes
"• There are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. It is unacceptable for the unspoilt landscape to be ruined forever for the benefit of windfarms shareholders. Local residents bear all the externalities, yet receive none of the benefits. SP Manweb has made no case for the cost-benefit analysis of undergrounding vs pylons and overhead lines. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. • We are very concerned by the significant effects on Residential Visual Amenity. We do not consider it acceptable for residents to have any impact on our visual amenity. SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed effects as being insignificant for the entire route, based on their own subjective analysis. This is in complete contradiction to local knowledge, is not a true reflection of the real impacts, and not based an objective consideration of the evidence. • Our current uninterrupted views of the countryside at Llys Hedydd will change for a 180 degree view of overhead cables and pylons, with at least 45 degrees of skylining. SP Manweb’s conclusion that “the benefit of an underground cable as an alternative to an overhead line in this area would not outweigh any extra economic, social or environmental impacts” is wholly inaccurate. • We disagree that Historic Environment is likely to be subject to a low number of significant adverse effects. There are a number of listed buildings of national significance which will be in very close proximity to pylons. • SP Manweb’s Tourism Impact Assessment concludes that ‘the project is unlikely to have any significant adverse effects on the overall tourism economy.’ This cannot be reliable. A study commissioned by the Welsh Government showed 48% of survey participants highlighted pylons as a factor which could detract from their tourism experience. There are currently impressive views of Dyffryn Clwyd, Snowdonia, North Wales and North West England from the summits of Moel Tywysog and Moel Fodiar. These views will be spoiled by pylons traversing the countryside along the Hafod section. Moel Fodiar is a common destination for walking holidays and historical walks • The route passes next to the Centre for Personal Development, which is a retreat “to provide a tranquil place in the countryside where visitors can more easily find inner peace” to the 12000 people already attended. The impact of pylons next to this Centre will have a devastating effect on the services provided to Doctors, Nurses, Care Workers, etc."
Parish Councils
Llannefydd Community Council
"There will be a significant impact on residents' visual amenity, a natural, unspoiled landscape, the beauty of which has been enjoyed and appreciated over many years without disruption and to which the residents should be able to continue to do so. The pylons would present a discordant visual feature in the locality. Further more, from other vantage points, the line of pylons will present an unacceptable feature. Also visible overhead powerline cables/pylons could be detrimental in the selling of properties in close proximity, with a reduction in potential buyers by a large percentage thus causing a devaluation and a much reduced revenue. The community will receive no benefit whatsoever from this proposed development. Listed buildings of great historical interest which are regularly visited by interested parties, along with sites of historical significance will be affected by these proposed pylons. Tourism, on which a number of the local people depend for their livelihood or subsidized income, will be affected, as the areas with pylons will have an adverse detrimental effect on the landscape. Pylons are totally unsuitable for this particular route as the areas are of outstanding natural beauty - absolutely not inkeeping with the environment. Grave concerns have been expressed and raised in respect of the overhead transmission affecting the health of the residents close to the pylons. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding, this being a policy for Conwy. Energy losses are up to 50% loss by undergrounding."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Margaret Parry-Jones
"• The route should be fully costed and the cumulative impact of over head cables in comparison to undergrounding undertaken by independent, qualified personnel with no vested interest. • The proposed high voltage overhead power lines will be a significant threat to the health of the residents with potentially fatal consequences with a high risk of huge implications for the UK and National Government at a later date if allowed. The immediate threat to health include nausea and vertigo and in the longer term the risk of cancer including childhood leukaemia. • Those that would be reaping the financial subsidies are companies from outside the UK – the UK government must now allow local residents to suffer in order that large global companies reap the financial benefits. • The impact assessments show very few benefits to the areas affected • The substantial effect on properties – loss of view, amenity, reduced property value estimated at up to 20 – 40% in various studies. It would undermine people’s enjoyment of their homes • The damning effects on the local economy including tourism and jobs and the general prosperity of the areas. It would significantly reduce the attractiveness of the area to newcomers • The destruction of our beautiful countryside – including damage to landscape character and cultural heritage, scenery and historical properties. The natural environment would be substantially affected. • Natural resources Wales are part of the Welsh Government and have a vested interest. They are set to benefit financially by significant amounts. Similarly Visit Wales and Cadw are linked to Welsh Government. • The cumulative impact of the windfarm project appear to be predictions only and in the main appear to be based on desk-based exercises • The Environmental, socio economic, tourism, etc reports are misleading. They appear to have been prepared on behalf of SP Manweb and are subjective and misleading • The data provided does not appear to be technically competent and it is difficult to see transparency of how accurate the data is within documents. • Power lines are associated with lower milk yield and abortions in animals. • The grid connection is not needed; the region has adequate power sources including a huge development of off shore wind farms along the North Wales coast "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mari Roberts
"• The results of SP Manweb’s primary and desk studies lack detail and are a mis-representation of the areas’ landscape, wildlife and environment. Their ecological and environmental observations are an overview of the route and appear vague and lacking in detail. I for one know that these primary studies have not been conducted accordingly and corners have been cut. For instance, the Hafod dingle valley, part of my land where the proposed line crosses, has not been investigated on foot. This section of the route is an area of significance in terms of the wildlife that habitat here, the landscape, and other natural features. This area of woodland is a significant habitat for many wildlife species and contains other natural features such as a waterfall and a historic cave. This area of the dingle valley where the line supposedly crosses consists of an 80m drop. A proposal of this magnitude would have a detrimental impact on wildlife here and the isolated landscape. SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed many ecological and environmental effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is a complete contradiction to my knowledge. • Pylons are a negative externality to all the residents of this area who receive no benefit from the proposed development. • Overhead lines and pylons cause a significant blight to property values, up to 20% in some cases where pylons can be seen from the residence. My property/farmhouse is identified by SP Manweb under the assessment of Cumulative Residential Amenity Effects as significantly affected by the proposal. For me personally, and for the sake of my family’s future, this could potentially be a financial burden. From the business perspective, pylons and overhead cabling pose significant issues. Pylons take up valuable land and they will have an impact on farming decisions concerning the use of land from season to season. They will restrict my flexibility in terms of what I can do on my own land. There are also issues concerning health and safety, specifically when livestock are grazing in fields containing pylons and when agricultural machinery are being used to conduct essential land maintenance work. • There are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. SP Manweb has dismissed the underground option on the basis that “the costs of a fully underground solution were unacceptable and therefore this was not taken forward”. However, the cost of the overhead line is not presented and so it is impossible to determine the incremental cost of undergrounding, and there is no transparency in their cost-benefit calculation. Energy losses are up to 50% less by undergrounding. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Meilir Jones
"The line is to close to my bunglo which i have had planning . There is health and safety issues. i will not be able to farm the land as the pylons will be in middle of the fields. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr David Roberts
"• The results of SP Manweb’s primary and desk studies lack detail and are a mis-representation of the areas’ landscape, wildlife and environment. Their ecological and environmental observations are an overview of the route and appear vague and lacking in detail. I for one know that these primary studies have not been conducted accordingly and corners have been cut. For instance, the Hafod dingle valley, part of my land where the proposed line crosses, has not been investigated on foot. This section of the route is an area of significance in terms of the wildlife that habitat here, the landscape, and other natural features. This area of woodland is a significant habitat for many wildlife species and contains other natural features such as a waterfall and a historic cave. This area of the dingle valley where the line supposedly crosses consists of an 80m drop. A proposal of this magnitude would have a detrimental impact on wildlife here and the isolated landscape. SP Manweb’s application has effectively dismissed many ecological and environmental effects as being insignificant, based on their own subjective analysis. This is a complete contradiction to my knowledge. • Pylons are a negative externality to all the residents of this area who receive no benefit from the proposed development. • Overhead lines and pylons cause a significant blight to property values, up to 20% in some cases where pylons can be seen from the residence. My property/farmhouse is identified by SP Manweb under the assessment of Cumulative Residential Amenity Effects as significantly affected by the proposal. For me personally, and for the sake of my family’s future, this could potentially be a financial burden. From the business perspective, pylons and overhead cabling pose significant issues. Pylons take up valuable land and they will have an impact on farming decisions concerning the use of land from season to season. They will restrict my flexibility in terms of what I can do on my own land. There are also issues concerning health and safety, specifically when livestock are grazing in fields containing pylons and when agricultural machinery are being used to conduct essential land maintenance work. • There are no areas along the route suitable for pylons. SP Manweb has dismissed the underground option on the basis that “the costs of a fully underground solution were unacceptable and therefore this was not taken forward”. However, the cost of the overhead line is not presented and so it is impossible to determine the incremental cost of undergrounding, and there is no transparency in their cost-benefit calculation. Energy losses are up to 50% less by undergrounding. Both Conwy and Denbighshire County Councils have passed motions for full undergrounding; this being a policy in Conwy. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Mars Jones
"Health issues on the family members Detrimental impact on the farm business and future expansion plans. Damage to farming practices and affect on fields and thus profitability. Tourism Impact Potential damage to Berain House Grade 2* Listed, with long standing links to Welsh Culture Impact on value of farm and property "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Parry
"I wish to object to the proposal to install a 17km of overhead line from Clocaenog Forest to St Asaph owing to its detrimental effect on the permanent and migratory wildlife. Wildlife is prevalent throughout the forest and surrounding moorland and farmland and brings in many visitors, summer and winter, to both the forest and its environs, including the visitor centre at the Brenig reservoir. Wildlife in this area includes several rare or endangered bird species including Black grouse, Nightjars, Crossbills, Ravens and Ospreys, one of which was recently killed by an overhead line. Mammals include Brown Hares and Red Squirrels. “Clocaenog Forest This huge forest is home to a wide variety of wildlife and some rare species, including the largest population of Red Squirrels in Wales, rare Black Grouse and wild Przewalski horses… A series of short walks and more challenging longer walks put together by the Forestry Commission allows visitors to discover the varied scenery of forest landscapes, open moorland, rivers, a beautiful lake, as well as its wildlife and ancient history …The Forest has been a site of a major conservation and research since 1992. Its peace and quiet means that many rare species are now able to thrive. The population of rare black grouse has increased by 88%...” www.hiraethog.org.uk And it’s not just the forest which is being destroyed by this blight but includes the open moorland, lakes and the surrounding farmland; the wildlife, landscape and the peace and quiet are the main reasons for visiting Wales in general and the area around Clocaenog in particular. Overhead power lines and pylons can be shown to have a significant negative impact on landscape and, therefore, the visitors to it. The present, relatively small, Tir Mostyn turbines can easily be seen from the Clwydian AONB, as will any pylons, thus causing a huge visual impact at a greater distance. Reduction of this impact can be achieved by placing the power grids out of sight underground. As if it’s not enough to blight the moorland with an excessive amount of soon-to-be-built over-bearing turbines this stunning landscape now has to face being even more blighted by a large number of unsightly pylons. Underground cables are low maintenance and have minimal impact once in place; the value of the environment to wildlife is unaffected in the long term. I believe that the cables should be placed underground for the entire length of the route to maintain the beauty of this special landscape. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wyn Wilkinson on behalf of D Wyn Wilkinson
"I am writing to you in connection with my interest in the above planning application.I want to make the following points- 1. I would object to any compulsory purchase application made by the applicant to acquire any rights over my land. 2. I am concerned about the position of the new posts on my land and I request that further consultations are held to agree the final position of any posts on my land. 3. I would prefer to have an annual wayleave payment for the disruption to my business rather than the one off payment proposed. Such payments should be in line with the wayleaves agreed with the NFU. 4. There is currently no mention about compensation payments for damage sustained to the land and I would need assurances about this before I agree to any work to be carried out on my land. The land should be reinstated to the condition prior to the work and any land drains repaired etc… I trust that these points will be taken onto consideration and I would be grateful if you could confirm safe receipt of my points and that these points will be taken into consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of Huw LL Evans
"With regard to Option B, we are still very much opposed to either Option A or Option B. As we have already stated, putting the 132kv line above ground will have a huge impact on any future land use and my clients will not be able to farm the land in the same way as they currently do. The present use is arable, but if the new line is constructed, the field would be limited to use for grazing purposes. We are also concerned with the impact on the environment and the negative impact upon the visual quality of the area. We therefore firmly believe that the new line should be buried underground which would alleviate the above points. If the line is to be built above ground, then it should be moved further east, into the hedgerow, to ensure that the line does not run down such a productive part of the field. It has been stated that my client requested the layout shown in Option B, from SPEN. This is not the case and my clients have not agreed to Option B However, after giving consideration to both Option A and Option B, without prejudice to the above points, then in the unfortunate situation that it came down to A or B, we would prefer Option B."
Members of the Public/Businesses
J Bradburne Price & Co on behalf of John LL Evans
"With regard to Option B, we are still very much opposed to either Option A or Option B. As we have already stated, putting the 132kv line above ground will have a huge impact on any future land use and my clients will not be able to farm the land in the same way as they currently do. The present use is arable, but if the new line is constructed, the field would be limited to use for grazing purposes. We are also concerned with the impact on the environment and the negative impact upon the visual quality of the area. We therefore firmly believe that the new line should be buried underground which would alleviate the above points. If the line is to be built above ground, then it should be moved further east, into the hedgerow, to ensure that the line does not run down such a productive part of the field. It has been stated that my client requested the layout shown in Option B, from SPEN. This is not the case and my clients have not agreed to Option B However, after giving consideration to both Option A and Option B, without prejudice to the above points, then in the unfortunate situation that it came down to A or B, we would prefer Option B."
Parish Councils
Cyngor Cymuned Llangernyw
"Mae Cyngor Cymuned Llangernyw yn ategu'r sylwadau a wnaethom rai misoedd yn ol. Rydym yn gwrthwynebu'r datblygiad o osod peilonau ar draws tiroedd cymuned gyfagos i ni. Mi fydd peilonau mawr yn ymyrryd a harddwch y cymunedau"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jones Peckover on behalf of Robert Lloyd Thomas
"1. The application affects land and property which I own at Bodeuliog Uchaf, Groes, Denbigh, Denbighshire LL16 5RS, and if consented, would result in a new, overhead, high voltage power line crossing through the farm over a distance of approximately 460 Metres. 2. Bodeuliog Uchaf is a highly productive, mixed arable/stock-rearing farm, extending to 85 acres in total (including farmhouse and buildings), and all land affected by the proposal is classified Grade 3 on the Agricultural Land Classification Map of England and Wales. 3. The proposal involves the erection of 7 No double-pole above ground structures (with supporting stays) to carry the overhead lines, and will not only take useful land permanently out of production. The effect of this loss is especially damaging on such a small agricultural unit. 4. The applicant has made no attempt whatsoever to consider the alternative possibility of undergrounding the scheme, whether in whole or in part. The applicant's sole reason for such refusal is understood to be on the grounds of cost. That is not considered to be a valid reason when other statutory undertakers in the provision of essential services (gas, oil, water etc) almost invariably lay the major part of such schemes underground."