Cymdeithas Parc Bannau Brycheiniog
Brecon Beacons Park Society
www.breconbeaconsparksociety.org
Cymdeithas Parc
Bannau Brycheiniog
Brecon Beacons Park Society
www.breconbeaconsparksociety.org
RESPONSES TO THE PROPOSED NATIONAL GRID PIPELINE
The Brecon Beacons Park Soiciety has been invited to comment, as a non-statutory consultee, on the proposed 1220mm Diameter Natural Gas Pipeline from Felindre (North of Swansea) to Tirley (South-west of Tewkwsbury)
The Park Society responses to the proposed National Grid Gas Pipeline have been prepared by Roger White (Hon. Secretary) who can be contacted for more information. Telephone: 01873 811539 e-mail: roger.whiteuk@hotmail.com
28th October 2006 - Further response of the Brecon Beacons Park Society to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
With
deep regret, we bring to your attention the destruction of an area of protected
open moorland by National Grid and their contractors during the course of their
investigations for the proposed gas pipeline from Felindre to Tirley.
The damage has been incurred by four-wheel drive vehicles on the
ecologically sensitive and hitherto unspoiled landscape of Mynydd Myddfai and
Mynydd Bach Trecastell in the Brecon Beacons National Park.
%2022.10.06.jpg)
Park Society Chairman, Nigel
Phillips, examining the damage to the SSSI site on Mynydd Trecastell.
Picture by Roger Derbyshire ( tel: 01874 625397 ) taken on 22nd October 2006.
Both
of these photographs have been taken within the Site of Special Scientific
Interest (SSSI) known as Waun-Ddu. National
Grid have taken some care to avoid the Waun-Ddu SSSI in selecting their
preferred route for the pipeline. On
page 11 of the non-technical summary of their Environmental Statement, they have
shown their own photograph of Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell and have
referred to the “ecological, archaeological, landscape and recreational
importance” of this area. Sadly,
the care taken in route selection and the assurances given in their
Environmental Statement have been completely ignored in their recent field
investigations.
%2022.10.06.jpg)
Tracks left by 4 wheel drive vehicles on Mynydd Myddfai.
Picture by Roger
Derbyshire ( tel: 01874 625397 ) taken on 22nd October 2006.
Mynydd
Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell are greatly valued by members of the Brecon
Beacons Park Society and the general public.
It was one of our members who saw the wanton conduct of vehicles being
used for the archaeological investigations and reported the damage being done. We immediately contacted the offices of National Grid and the
National Park Authority, as a result of which further forays by these vehicles
have been stopped.
There remains the question of what should be done now and how the present
catastrophe may affect your consideration of National Grid’s application for
approval of their proposals. The Brecon Beacons Park Society has already suggested (my
letter dated 5th September 2006) that National Grid should be asked
to investigate alternative routes in more detail in order to avoid the National
Park and in particular to avoid Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell.
We repeat that opinion more strongly today.
It is clear that National Grid do not have adequate controls to deal with
investigation, let alone construction, of a pipeline in such an environmentally
sensitive area.
If,
however, you are still minded to give further attention to National Grid’s
proposed route, despite its evident defects, we suggest the following additional
actions:
2)
Ensure that the activities of National Grid and their Contractors are
contained within the proposed 44 metre route corridor.
3)
Require an independent Environmental Warden to be appointed with powers
to stop any work on investigation or construction of the pipeline where it
passes through the open moorland of Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell.
No further physical work should be allowed in the area until the Warden
has been appointed. The Warden
should be recruited and employed by BBNPA and should co-ordinate permitted
activities on the site between National Grid and its Contractors, CCW, Local
Community Groups, Brecon Beacons Park Society, Brecknock Wildlife Trust and
other interested bodies. The Warden
should be funded by National Grid for the duration of the preparation and
installation of the pipeline and the subsequent reinstatement, or attempted
reinstatement, of the landscape.
4)
Review the forms of contract being used by National Grid to ensure
substantial penalties for any failure to comply with statutory duties and with
the requirements of the Environmental Statement.
5)
Review the timetable for the pipeline and adjust it to ensure adequate
time for consultation and agreement regarding the preparatory work and
installation plans.
These
suggestions are, of course, in addition to the vital suggestions we have already
made in my earlier letter regarding remedial measures for the pipeline between
Gilwern and Hafodyrynys, and the need for long term monitoring and management.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if any further information is needed or if
you feel it would be helpful for your officials to inspect the damage caused by
National Grid.
Copies of this letter are being sent to
National Grid and to Gary Mohammed in your Department.
I am also writing to Mr Carwyn Jones AM, Minister for Environment,
Planning and Countryside in the Welsh Assembly Government.
The
Brecon Beacons Park Society has received from National Grid a copy of their
Environmental Statement for the proposed 1220mm gas pipeline from Felindre to
Tirley.
We are a registered charity and one of our
objects is to advance the enhancement, protection and conservation of the
countryside and other amenities of the Brecon Beacons National Park for the
benefit of the public. We
also have a special interest in access to the open land and we organise about
180 guided walks in a year.
We have been in contact with Nacap Land and Marine, acting on behalf of National
Grid, since they opened their consultations to non-statutory bodies, and we wish
to commend the understanding of issues and courteous handling of our concerns by
their Environmental Manager, Graham Cowden, at each stage of the investigations.
We have been impressed by the high professional standard that the
National Grid team has brought to a wide-ranging environmental assessment on a
tight time schedule. They have
discussed and responded to numerous criticisms and suggestions that we have
made, and, in many cases, they have made appropriate amendments to their
proposals.
There are, however, outstanding issues which, in our opinion, need further
consideration, and we bring these issues to your attention below.
Specific suggestions for action by the Department of Trade and Industry
are highlighted in bold italics.
1.
Route through the National Park
In
our opinion it is wrong that National Grid is seeking to take a pipeline for the
National Transmission System through the Brecon Beacons National Park.
We believe that the proposed route fails to comply with the purposes and
duties set out in Sections 61 and 62 of the Environment Act 1995 and that
National Grid should have given more detailed attention to alternative options
outside the National Park before confining their investigations to the proposed
route.
In their response to our comments (ES
Appendix BIII, pages 19-20), National Grid have acknowledged the potential
conflict of national interest with respect to the necessity of the pipeline and
the purposes of the National Park, and they have drawn attention to their
project rationale (ES Section 2.2) and their route selection (ES Section 4).
They have also confirmed that they are committed to best environmental
practice to conserve and enhance the value of the Park and the more recently
designated Fforest Fawr Geopark within it, but they have not justified their
intention to override the statutory requirements of the Environment Act 1995
Incidentally, in our comments on the Draft ES, we observed that the Environment
Act 1995 was curiously absent from the list of key legislation in Table 12.1,
and we asked whether this was a subliminal oversight.
National Grid have replied (ES Appendix BIII, page 22) that the
Environment Act 1995 has been added to Table 12.1.
Alas, there has been a further oversight and it has not been added.
Subliminal resistance to the Environment Act 1995 appears to run deep at
National Grid.
We accept that National Grid are seeking to minimise the environmental impact of
the pipeline along their proposed route, and, within the confines of their route
corridor, we respect the care they have taken to achieve this objective, but the
fact remains that, despite their best efforts, the environmental impact will be
particularly significant and
long-term where the route crosses the environmentally sensitive moorland of
Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastle.
We
suggest that National Grid should be asked to investigate alternative routes in
more detail in order to avoid the National Park and in particular to avoid
Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastle.
2.
Environmental Monitoring and Management on Open Moorland
During
the course of consultation, we have expressed our concern about the long term
arrangements for monitoring and management where the proposed pipeline route
crosses open moorland. National
Grid is addressing the need for post-construction monitoring with a commitment
to Method Statements (ES Sections 17.3.9.3), but their position on
post-construction management (ES Section 17.4.1) is much weaker at this stage.
National Grid have amended their Draft ES to take into account that the
residual impact is likely to be much longer term on the open moorland than
elsewhere on the route (ES Table 15.17), but the acknowledgement of this
long-term impact has not yet been carried through into the post-construction
management plans (ES Section 17.4.1). Detailed
plans are not necessary at this stage, but there is a need for a firmer
commitment to long-term management as well as monitoring in the areas of open
moorland which National Grid are seeking to use for their pipeline route.
The
legacy of the gas pipeline which runs between Gilwern and Hafodyrynys does not
provide a happy precedent. Several
years after completion of construction, the open moorland has not properly
healed where the route passes over Mynydd Llangatwg in the National Park and
Mynydd Coety just outside the National Park.
Observations by members of the Brecon Beacons Park Society indicate the
presence of stray boulders, the failure of indigenous plants to become fully
established, and the growth of non-indigenous weeds and other plants. In our comments on the Draft ES, we asked for details to be
given on the avoidance of these problems on the proposed pipeline route.
In their response, National Grid have said (ES Appendix BIII, page 21)
that these issues will be addressed in the site-specific Method Statements and
they have drawn our attention to Appendix M/XX.
This response is unsatisfactory. Appendix
M/XX provides details of post-construction monitoring, but, while providing a
protocol for botanical monitoring of grassland, woodland and hedgerow habitats,
it makes no mention of the crucial habitats for the open moorland.
National Grid have also said (Appendix BIII, page 22) that the issues on the
existing pipeline between Gilwern and Hafodyrynys are being addressed
separately. Again, this response is
unsatisfactory. People who care
about the Park and its surroundings are disturbed by the evidence of weak
restoration after construction of this pipeline.
This is not a separate issue. It
is an issue which impinges directly on the credibility of National Grid in its
present proposals.
We suggest that, before
any approval is given for construction of the proposed pipeline, the Secretary
of State should be satisfied:
(i)
that adequate remedial measures are being implemented on the existing
pipeline between Gilwern and Hafodyrynys,
(ii) that
adequate steps are being taken to avoid the same problems occurring on the
proposed pipeline, and
(iii) that
adequate long-term arrangements are being made for monitoring and management of
the pipeline route and for communication with interested parties where the route
crosses open moorland and where restoration is expected to take much longer than
elsewhere.
3.
Rights of Way and Other Footpaths
We
have had constructive dialogue on the maintenance of access across the pipeline
route and we have drawn attention to the existence of footpaths which are not
statutory rights of way but which are well used routes across the open access
land. In this context, we welcome
the statement by National Grid (ES Section 15.7.3.4) that “well used, but not
statutorily designated, paths are being identified with the help of consultees
and access will be either maintained, as for statutory ROW, or short diversions
will be signed, where appropriate, and with the agreement of the landowner/
occupier”. We shall be pleased to provide such further information as
may be required on these routes.
On a point of detail regarding the maintenance of access through the protective
fencing we draw attention to ES Appendix JII which provides the specification
for landscape works. Figure 9, in conjunction with Section 9.3 of this Appendix,
gives the specification for a stile in a public footpath to be constructed and
fixed by the contractor on site. Unfortunately,
the stile specified by National Grid has no treads.
With rabbit-proof netting on one side it would provide an effective
barrier not only to rabbits but also to walkers.
The cross-reference to Figure 3 is of no help as Figure 3 also shows a
stile with rungs but no treads. We
also mention here that it is normal practice nowadays to install a higher post
on one side of a stile in order to make the crossing easier for users who are
unsure of their balance. We assume
that the omission of treads is no more than an oversight, but it is an error
which could cause a great deal of ill feeling if implemented by the contractor.
We
suggest that National Grid should be asked to obtain standard design details for
stiles from the National Park Authority and that they should then amend their
specification accordingly.
We
hope that you find these comments helpful in your consideration of the
Environmental Statement. Please let
us know if you have any queries on the points we have raised.
A copy of this letter is being sent to National Grid.
Thank
you for your letter of 22nd May 2006 inviting the Brecon Beacons Park
Society to comment on the Draft Environmental Statement for the proposed 1220mm
natural gas pipeline from Felindre to Tirley.
In our opinion it is wrong that National Grid is seeking to take a pipeline for
the National Transmission System through the Brecon Beacons National Park.
We believe that the proposed route fails to comply with the purposes and
duties set out in Sections 61 and 62 of the Environment Act 1995, and we suggest
that more detailed consideration should be been given to alternative routes
outside the National Park.
With this major qualification, we wish to say that we are impressed by the
generally high professional standard of the work undertaken on a very tight
schedule for the production of the Draft Environmental Statement.
We are grateful to National Grid and Nacap for the attention given to our
comments in earlier stages of consultation, and we are pleased to note that
account has been taken of most of these earlier comments in the further
drafting.
While we are interested in all aspects of the proposals within the Brecon
Beacons National Park, we do not wish to duplicate the contributions being made
by statutory bodies and other bodies with specific interests.
We have therefore concentrated our attention particularly, but not
exclusively, on the less tangible issues affecting the open access land where
the proposed route crosses Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell.
Regrettably, it is in these very areas that the environmental impact on
the landscape and the long-term monitoring and management required for
restoration have not yet been adequately addressed.
In our opinion, it is essential that the environmental impact of construction on
the open access heathland and the arrangements for monitoring and management
after the completion of construction should be given more attention before the
Secretary of State is asked to consider approving the Environmental Statement.
Our more detailed comments on the Draft Environmental Statement are given below.
1.4
Environmental Impact Assessment (page 5)
The
last sentence of Section 1.4 invites the reader to “please see Section 3.2.3
for details”, but there is no Section 3.2.3.
3.2.2.1
National Grid’s Obligations: Brecon Beacons National Park (page 2)
The
obligations of National Grid with regard to the purposes of the Brecon Beacons
National Park are properly stated, but National Grid is failing to comply with
these obligations in its promotion of a pipeline route through the National
Park.
6.2.6.1
Tourism: Existing (page 8)
This section refers to small
towns, the Fforest Fawr Geopark, the Wye valley and the Usk valley in the
context of tourism but it ignores the common land and open access land which are
the glory of the Brecon Beacons National Park and the magnet for tourists. This omission should be corrected.
10.6.8
Peat Bog (page 38)
The
reference to sites by index number in Section 10.6.8 and in Table 10.9 is not
easy to follow. It would be helpful, both here and elsewhere in the report,
if grid references or Figure number references could be added.
10.7.6
Grassland and Heathland (pages 64 to 69)
We
welcome the development of detailed methodologies from the generic mitigation
measures. We would, however, like
to see a firmer commitment to the application of these methodologies in areas
like Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach Trecastell.
The words “will be considered” at the end of the second sentence of
“Methodologies” are too weak and should be strengthened.
Also, where fencing is being maintained on common land and open access land in
the National Park, we suggest that the BBNPA should be included in the
consultees listed in the closing paragraph of “Methodologies”.
In
Table 10.14 (Specific Mitigation Measures for Grasslands and Heathlands) against
RDX38 G1 at Mynydd Myddfai and
Mynydd Bach Trecastell, what is the meaning of “pipeline fragments the site at
the northern end, causing less than a third of the site to be affected”?
10.10.1 Monitoring (page
79)
We
attach great importance to monitoring and await completion of this section.
Monitoring should include a watch for invasive plants as well as the recovery of
indigenous plants.
The list of sites to be monitored should include Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd Bach
Trecastell.
10.10.2
Management (page 79)
We
also attach great importance to the long-term management and we await completion
of this section.
Members of the Brecon Beacons Park Society have expressed concern that, several
years after completion of construction, the route of the gas pipeline between
Gilwern and Hafodyrynys has not properly healed where it passes over the open
heathland of Mynydd Llangatwg in the National Park and Mynydd Coety just outside
the National Park. Reports indicate
the presence of stray boulders, the failure of indigenous plants to become fully
established, and the growth of non-indigenous weeds and other plants. Comments on the avoidance of these problems on the proposed
pipeline route should be described in detail in the report.
We suggest that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that adequate
remedial measures have been implemented on this existing pipeline between
Gilwern and Hafodyrynys and that adequate steps are being taken to avoid the
same problems occurring on the proposed pipeline before any approval is given
for construction of the proposed pipeline.
12.2.1
Key Legislation (page 2)
The
Environment Act 1995 is curiously absent from the key legislation which is
listed in Table 12.1. Is this a
subliminal oversight?
12.2.2.1
Policy Guidance: Brecon Beacons National Park (page 4)
The
Environment Act 1995, Section 61, is properly quoted here.
It should be noted that the proposed pipeline is in direct conflict with
this Section of the Environment Act 1995.
12.7.6.1
Landscape Designations: Brecon Beacons National Park (page 54)
We
agree with the assessment of high sensitivity for the landscape of the National
Park but suggest that there should be a reassessment of the magnitude of impact
caused by construction and operation of the pipeline which is described as
“moderate to low”. We have referred above (Section 10.10.2) to the
unsatisfactory reinstatement along the route of the gas pipeline over Mynydd
Llangatwg and Mynydd Coety. The
landscape of the pipeline route there was an ugly open scar for more than two
years before vegetation returned and it has still not properly healed today.
The classification of “moderate to low” fails to grasp the visual
impact on open heathland and the fact that regeneration will be slow.
Unless there are significant improvements in the methodology, which are
as yet undeclared, the impact on the landscape will be “high”, not
“moderate to low”.
12.10.1
Landscape Monitoring (page 75)
We
await the monitoring programme which has not been included in the Draft
Environmental Statement.
12.10.2
Landscape Management (page 75)
There
should be specific provision for on-going management, not just the
acknowledgement that “there may be a need for on-going management”.
We suggest that BBNPA should also be included in the consultees.
15.6.6.1
Common Land and Open Access Land (page 12)
It
should be noted that open access land is normally available for access on foot.
Comments should be added on what will be done to maintain this access for
walkers.
15.6.6.2
Rights of Way (page 12)
We
welcome the acknowledgement of footpaths which are not public rights of way and
the efforts that are being made to take account of these paths.
Regarding the request at the end of this section, we confirm having
handed to you a sketch showing some of the routes over Mynydd Myddfai and Mynydd
Bach Trecastell which are regularly used by walkers but which are not classified
as public rights of way.
15.7.3.4
Rights of Way and Cycle Routes (page 19)
We
also welcome the steps being taken to consult walking groups regarding
diversions and closures. The Brecon Beacons Park Society organises about 180 guided
walks in a year and some of these are bound to be affected by any pipeline
construction in the National Park. We
have a lead time of up to nine months in planning this programme and it is
therefore very helpful to have advance notice of diversions and closures.
15.8
Summary of Residual Impacts and Significance (pages 21 & 22)
Under
the heading of tourism and recreation in Table 15.9, the residual impact is
described as being “temporary” for disruption to rights of way, disruption
to informal paths, disruption to common land and open access land, and visits to
tourist attractions. Our understanding is that fencing along the open heathland is
likely to be kept in place for five years or more. This is longer than might reasonably be expected for a
“temporary” impact, and we suggest that a different classification needs to
be used for open heathland. “Long-term”
would be more appropriate where the impact is neither temporary nor, hopefully,
permanent.
In the same Table, under proposed mitigation measures for tourism and
recreation, it is simply not true to state that “all footpaths will be fully
reinstated on completion of pipeline construction”.
The footpaths will not have been reinstated until the security fences
have been removed, and, on the open heathland, that is expected to be a full
five years or more after the completion of pipeline construction.
16.3.6
Method Statements (page 7)
We
await the method statement being developed for Mynydd Myddfai.
16.4.1
Management of Reinstatement and Restoration (page 10)
In
our opinion it is essential that there should be professional monitoring at
regular intervals with a commitment to any necessary follow-up action after
construction. Monitoring and
management must be applied to fences as well natural restoration.
Plans will need to be made, for example, to move crossing points in order
to limit erosion, to make associated changes in diversion signs, and to repair
any broken fences and stiles. There
should be a contact point for the whole of the period of restoration to receive
and act on information from members of the public.
This contact point should be widely publicised.
The first comment attributed
to the Brecon Beacons Park Society claims to be based on a letter dated 16/03/06
from Roger Wood, but is a diminution and misrepresentation of what was actually
written in that letter. Would you
please arrange for the following amendments to be made.
Firstly, correct my name to read White, not Wood.
Secondly, include our opinion that the route corridor proposed in the
Scoping Report is incompatible with the statutory purposes of National Parks.
Thirdly, reinstate the word “particularly” in front of
“concerned” (we are particularly concerned about Mynyd Myddfai, but that is
not the limit of our concerns). Fourthly,
include our comment on the need for more detailed examination of alternative
routes avoiding Mynydd Myddfai.
The second comment in the matrix helpfully summarises our wish to maintain
contact regarding open access land and rights of way, and we are glad here to
note the response that this will be implemented.
We
look forward to further consultation.
The
Brecon Beacons Park Society is glad to have had the opportunity to be
represented at meetings which you arranged to discuss plans for the proposed gas
pipeline.
Our Executive Committee met yesterday evening and we remain of the opinion that
the route corridor through the Brecon Beacons National Park, as proposed in the
Scoping Report, is incompatible with the statutory purposes of National Parks,
which are set out in the Environment Act 1995, Section 61(1), as conserving and
enhancing their natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and promoting
opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities.
Within the Park, we are particularly concerned about the risk of long term
damage on the open access land of Mynydd Myddfai where detailed assessment is
needed of the deep peat and marsh land as well as the archaeological heritage,
the flora and fauna, and the landscape.
The problems already encountered add to the mounting reasons why
alternative routes avoiding Mynydd Myddfai should be examined in more detail.
You have already had a range of more detailed comments at the meetings to
discuss rights of way which were attended by me on 12th January and
by Geoffrey Williams on 1st February, and also at the further meeting
which I attended on 7th March to discuss the scoping report.
Subject to our overriding concerns, which are summarised above, we are
glad to note that you are taking account of our comments regarding rights of way
and open access land.
If, notwithstanding the concerns which we and others have expressed, the route
taking the pipeline through the north west corner of the National Park is
adopted, we should be glad to maintain contact with you regarding the effect on
people who use the National Park and particularly those who ramble on the
footpaths and in the open spaces.
Click below to continue: