| nopylon.co.uk Proposed Substation for Network Rail
Substation Action Group
Press Release Page |
 |
| nopylon.co.uk Proposed Substation for Network Rail
Substation Action Group
Press Release Page |
|
PRESS RELEASES
The Substation Action Group and its thousands of supporters were delighted last November when Vale Royal Borough Council's Planning Committee voted unanimously to support their Officer's recommendation, and refuse permission for the Planning Applications from National Grid and Network Rail to build a huge substation and trackside feeder in Acton Bridge and Weaverham. Acceptance would have permitted development on an industrial scale, destroying the openness and amenity of this rural area, and setting a catastrophic precedent for future such outrages within the North Cheshire Green Belt.
Sadly, the fight is not yet over. Changes to the planning process, recently announced by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, have extended the period for lodging an Appeal from three months to six months. SAG has been advised that the developers now have until May 2005 to announce any Appeal against VRBC's refusal.
The applicants say they are reviewing their options, but if they decided to appeal, the matter would go to a Planning Inquiry. This could be a lengthy and costly process for both sides, but SAG, the two Parish Councils and local residents would then be working together with the Borough Council. Ever since VRBC's decision last November, SAG has continued to gather information supporting its arguments that the choice of the Acton Bridge / Weaverham site was determined by commercial and convenience factors, rather than by insurmountable technical obstacles at the alternatives SAG identified. If the matter goes to Public Inquiry, SAG will seek 'third party' rights, so as to have its own opportunity to question the validity of the NR / NGT case as 'independents'. The combined determination, experience and resources of several local organisations and VRBC would amount to an even more formidable adversary than the applicants have faced so far.
The central plank of the developers' argument in favour of the Acton Bridge / Weaverham site was that the 'load centre' for the enhanced electrical supply to the West Coast Main Line (WCML) should be at Crewe, or, failing that, no further north than Weaverham, where there just happens to be a 'convenient' 400kV overhead National Grid line. SAG, together with VRBC and its technical consultants IPSA Power investigated these arguments, and since the 'very special circumstances' claimed by the developers turned out not to be justified by the facts, the Planning Applications inevitably failed.
Much of the applicants' case was based on forecasts of traffic demand which seem increasingly unlikely to materialise. Proposals for a purpose-built high-speed railway line to Scotland, the doubling of the northern part of the M6 motorway, and further competition from the low-cost airlines all suggest that the WCML will never attract the kinds of traffic volume needed to justify such a huge increase in traction current at this location.
As well as a mythical increase in passenger traffic, Network Rail claimed the need for additional traction current for high-speed electric freight trains, but the mass conversion of diesel freight to electric haulage is a pipe-dream. EWS, the main freight operator on the WCML, has invested in fleets of powerful diesel locomotives, which have decades of service life factored in, and (crucially) can be used on lines which are not electrified, such as North Wales and cross-country routes.
February's 'Which?' report has a major feature on the state of the railways, and with an election coming up the political implications of Network Rail and SRA project management and traffic forecasts will be important, particularly in view of the Channel Tunnel's well-publicised failure to meet the forecasts on which its financing was based. Road and air travel are widely felt to be more reliable and flexible, and frequently less expensive, than going by rail.
If the demand is not there, the substation need not be here!
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
20. February 2005
[624 words]
Planning Committee Meeting, Vale Royal Borough Council, Tuesday 16. November 2004 - RESULT
The historic villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham are separated by the Green Belt, but united in cherishing it. Local residents, their two Parish Councils, Weaverham Trust and the Substation Action Group are delighted that Vale Royal Borough Council's Planning Committee voted unanimously on Tuesday, 16th November 2004 to support their Officer's recommendation, and refuse permission for the Planning Applications from National Grid and Network Rail. Acceptance would have permitted development on an industrial scale, destroying forever the openness and amenity of this beautiful area, and setting a catastrophic precedent for future such outrages within the North Cheshire Green Belt.
The Applicants had come across what the Minister of Transport called "the most convenient spot for a substation" in Acton Bridge. This choice of location was clearly arbitrary, and clearly wrong. It was an assault on the values of the North Cheshire Green Belt, and, most notably, on Vale Royal's own Local Plan.
It was a nasty surprise for residents to find that a "proposed substation at Weaverham" was actually an industrial-scale development, most of it within Acton Bridge. Many people, including Mike Hall MP, felt that this was disingenuous, and it was particularly ironic, since National Grid's own design manual is subtitled "a Sense of Place".
Network Rail's first contact with several villagers was to threaten them with compulsory purchase, and it wasn't until after the Planning Applications were submitted that National Grid eventually agreed to meet residents in Acton Bridge. Indeed, the insensitive approach taken by the developers, coupled with a sense that they were not being straight with us, only served to make opposition more determined. It is greatly to the credit of our supporters that, despite such provocation, our own arguments have been expressed with good grace and moderation.
Local residents, the Parish Councils of Acton Bridge and Weaverham and the Weaverham Trust formed the Substation Action Group (SAG) in October 2003. SAG's objective has been to research the implications of the proposals, and to coordinate local responses to this threat to our villages. Willingly assisted by professional and academic volunteers, many of SAG's arguments inevitably became highly technical. This played a part in the Borough Council's commissioning its own independent report from IPSA Power Limited, a firm of consultants associated with Manchester University. Their report seriously questioned the Applicants' case for needing to take 80 MVA of power, and for restricting their supply options to 400 kV. IPSA also showed that perfectly viable sites for these developments did exist elsewhere. Other research confirmed that the geophysical survey had shown the chosen site to be fundamentally unsuitable, and contrary to guidance in British Standards.
Vale Royal's Planning Officer's recommendations confirmed SAG's view that IPSA's independent report comprehensively undermined the developers' case for "very special circumstances" to overturn national and local 'Green Belt' policy. Sadly, rather than answer IPSA's criticisms, the applicants chose to dismiss this report as "not raising any substantive issues" - no doubt the members of the Planning Committee drew their own conclusions from this remark.
Local residents, the Parish Councils and SAG are delighted by last Tuesday's decision. All our arguments, plus a petition signed by well over two thousand residents, countless letters of objection, clear cross-party political support, an independent technical report, and the Planning Officer's own recommendations have combined to provide an overwhelming case for rejection of these Applications. The recommendations were resoundingly endorsed in the Council chamber, and not a single Councillor spoke in support of any of the proposals. We can take pride in the work which SAG and its many supporters have done, and we believe that we have carried out our task in a spirit of cooperation and integrity which we hope will serve as an example to others.
This historic refusal marks the end of this phase of the battle, if not the war. However, we understand that the applicants are reviewing their options. They may decide to appeal, and it would then go to a Planning Inquiry. Although this could become a lengthy and costly process for both sides, SAG, the two Parish Councils and residents would then be working together with the Borough Council. Our combined determination, experience and resources would amount to an even more formidable adversary than the Applicants have faced so far.
Our objective must now be to convince NGT and NR that the two communities have emerged from this process stronger than ever, and SAG certainly has further arguments, both technical and legal, at its disposal should it be necessary to deploy them.
SAG now hopes that the unanimous nature of the Refusal will persuade National Grid and Network Rail to recognize the logic of objector's views, and the strength of feelings expressed by local people against their proposals. We trust that they will look more seriously at the alternative connection arrangements that have already put forward, and abandon forever their plans for the wanton destruction of a sensitive and irreplaceable part of rural Cheshire.
Since the Borough Council's decision was announced, SAG members have received many messages of support and appreciation. Our campaign is already the subject of academic studies, and the website (plus a version on the BBC iCAN website) remains a valuable resource for groups who have campaigns of their own to organise.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
21. November 2004
[876 words]
Vale Royal BC Planning Committee Meeting, Tuesday 16. November 2004 - Anticipation
Tuesday afternoon's meeting of Vale Royal Borough Council's Planning Committee was the last opportunity for members of the Substation Action Group (SAG), and Acton Bridge and Weaverham Parish Councils, to make representations before the two Planning Applications from National Grid Transco and Network Rail were determined. The application for the replacement pylon has been withdrawn, for technical reasons.
Vale Royal's Planning Manager, Mr Colin Williams, completed and published his report to the Members late last week. This report recommends that both applications should be refused, on the grounds that "the proposed works would by reason of their size, scale, siting and design be harmful to the openness of the North Cheshire Green Belt for which no very special circumstances have been justified to relax the strong presumption against inappropriate development in Green Belt".
Speaking in advance of the Planning Committee meeting, Steve Pardoe, vice-chairman of Acton Bridge Parish Council, sounded a note of caution.
"SAG and the two Parish Councils are naturally delighted that the Planning Officer's report recommends rejection of both remaining Planning Applications, and that it does so in such unequivocal terms. We feel that we have done all we could to challenge the Applicants' proposals, and show that there are valid alternatives. However, we fully appreciate that the Planning Committee will have its own views on the merits of the case, and we are not at all complacent. Much will depend on how the Members decide to balance the Applicants' case against the values of national planning policy, and of course Vale Royal's own Local Plan, which surely ought to be paramount.
"Tuesday afternoon will be our final opportunity for making representations before the Committee, and we hope very much that the clear and forthright recommendations in the report will carry the day.
"Acton Bridge and Weaverham are two villages separated by the Green Belt, but united in cherishing it. The applicants have found what the Minister of Transport called "the most convenient spot for a substation". This choice of location is clearly arbitrary, and it is equally clearly wrong. We are relying on the Planning Committee to demonstrate that there is a higher power than National Grid, and uphold their Local Plan by refusing the applications.
"Whatever the outcome on Tuesday, I think we can take pride in the work which SAG and its many supporters have done, and I believe that we have carried out our task in a spirit of cooperation, integrity and fair dealing which I hope will set an example to others".
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
[419 words]
It was literally "standing room only" in the Parish Rooms on Monday night as well over a hundred residents of Acton Bridge and Weaverham met to take part in what may be the last local meeting about the proposed substation development. Acton Bridge Parish Council had invited the members of Vale Royal Borough Council's Planning Committee and other Borough Councillors to hear the Substation Action Group and residents of Acton Bridge and Weaverham discussing the planning considerations arising from the applications by National Grid Transco and Network Rail. The meeting was also attended by Dr Graeme Bathurst of IPSA Power Limited, technical consultants to VRBC, and Vale Royal's Planning Manager, Mr Colin Williams, who will be completing his report and recommendations later this week.
The evening was hosted by Cllr Bob Holt, Chairman of Acton Bridge Parish Council, who invited Mr Williams to introduce the planning history and context. The developers' Planning Applications had been submitted to VRBC last December, and since then a number of substantial documents had been offered by both sides to support their arguments. National and local planning policy was quite clear, and there was a statutory obligation to protect the Green Belt and Local Plan unless "very special circumstances" could be shown for a departure. The applicants would have to show a pressing need, and that they had explored all the alternatives, and sound reasons to discount other sites.
If Vale Royal were to approve the application, it would be "called-in" by the Secretary of State, and VRBC would have to substantiate their decision to breach planning guidelines. On the other hand, if the Council refused, the applicants were almost certain to call for a Planning Inquiry, and VRBC would have to show a robust defence of their policy. In either case there would be limited scope for further influence at a local level.
Dr Bathurst of IPSA Power then spoke about the independent report which VRBC had commissioned into the technical aspects of the electrical supply options. He outlined the need for additional power, but pointed out that there was no reason for the developers to insist on a 400kV supply, since with the right design criteria a 132kV supply would be perfectly adequate. A report from SP Manweb had shown that reinforcement at Crewe would be feasible. What's more, there were three comparable alternative sites, and it was wrong for NGT and NR to claim that Acton Bridge was the only possible location. Dr Bathurst also confirmed in later questioning that the case for the disproportionate increase in power demand to 80MVA (from less than 20MVA at present) would have to be justified in relation to rail traffic forecasts.
Three members of the Substation Action Group then took the floor to present their arguments. Glen Gidley, SAG Chair, led off with a spirited description of this lovely rural area and the planning issues that would arise. He mentioned the heavy-handed approach of Network Rail, who had threatened local people with compulsory purchase, and introduced SAG as a group of villagers who had come together to protect their environment.
SAG Secretary Albert Till then questioned the credibility of the developers, who had shifted their ground as key issues had been challenged. He showed a detailed map of the West Coast Main Line electrification, which revealed that Acton Bridge would be the only new installation which was not on already industrialised land or otherwise inconspicuous. Almost all the other sites merited full marks for environmental care - so why had Acton Bridge and Weaverham been singled out for such dreadful treatment? He also pointed out that 85% the WCML north of Crewe had only two tracks, and so there was negligible likelihood of increasing traffic on that part of the line, which the Strategic Rail Authority admits is already at 90% capacity.
Steve Pardoe, who is Vice-chairman of Acton Bridge Parish Council as well as a member of SAG, discussed the choice of site. From the developers' point of view (and that of the Transport Minister) it was simply "the most convenient". There was widespread local anger that even the scale and location had been misleading, and the site was as conspicuous and sensitive as could be imagined. Geophysical surveys confirmed that it doesn't comply with best engineering or safety practice, and there was widespread concern about the health implications of large electrical installations near to houses and public footpaths.
After a brief summary from Glen Gidley, Mr John Wilson, Chairman of Weaverham Parish Council, spoke to confirm his wholehearted endorsement of SAG's campaign. The Chairman Bob Holt then invited members of the audience to put questions to the visitors and SAG members. Dr Bathurst answered the first two, saying that a 400kV substation would cost more than one drawing its power from 132kV, and that there is no technical reason to insist on 400kV.
Further questions to Mr Williams and SAG members covered health matters, concerns about the quality of "optioneering" by the applicants, and environmental issues such as the presence of Great Crested Newts in the area. There were also questions about the Planning Committee meeting next Tuesday. Since there were clearly many objectors, how many would be able to speak? Mr Williams replied that whether the application were for a garden shed or for an industrial-scale development like this one, the procedure would be the same, and the applicants would have the same opportunity to put their case as the opponents.
After thanking SAG, the guests and visitors for their presentation, questions and interest, the Chairman closed the meeting.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
[927 words]
National and local politicians from across the party spectrum turned out on Saturday morning [9. October] to show their support for the Substation Action Group's campaign against the development of a huge installation in Acton Bridge. Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall, Cheshire County Councillor Nora Dolphin, and Vale Royal Borough Councillor Richard Gorrill lined up for a photo-call in front of the banners, which members of the Substation Action Group have erected to draw attention to the location and scale of the proposed National Grid Transco (NGT) substation site.
At least 80 local residents were also there to hear Glen Gidley, Chairman of SAG, introduce Mike Hall and Nora Dolphin. Several of those attending, including Mike Hall, added their signatures to the petition, which Nora Dolphin had inaugurated. Both spoke of the need to preserve the Green Belt, and Mike Hall pointed out that alternative sites were available and should be used in preference to that proposed in Acton Bridge. He went on to say that the first NGT presentation had not made clear the scale and extent of the proposed development, which would be the size of three rugby pitches. It goes directly against the provisions of the Green Belt and Vale Royal's Local Plan, it will be a blot on the landscape, and there will be serious loss of visual amenity. Although the enhanced electrical supply has to go somewhere, Mr Hall did not see the need to breach Green Belt policy. He didn't accept the "convenience" argument, and doesn't accept that somewhere else can't be found. Mr Hall concluded by saying that this was not yet a protest, but it was the expression of clear arguments to persuade Vale Royal Borough Council to turn the planning applications down.
Cllr Dolphin emphasised the evident and very significant cross-party objection to the proposed scheme, which would confer absolutely no local benefit, since train services in the area were being cut back. The development, she said, would be taking away an important part of the precious Green Belt.
Speaking to SAG members afterwards, Mr Hall praised their campaign and expressed concern that the forecasts of rail traffic growth, which the Strategic Rail Authority had put forward as justification for much of the power increase, were now in doubt. SAG provided him with some newly-released statistics, which he will follow up.
If the combined efforts of the two villages, with evident cross-party political support, succeed in defeating the NGT and Network Rail applications, it may deter other developers from opportunist and inappropriate attacks on the Green Belt, and help to safeguard the future of a sensitive and irreplaceable part of rural Cheshire.
[Acton Bridge Parish Council, Weaverham Parish Council, and the Weaverham Trust formed the Substation Action Group (SAG) to coordinate opposition and investigate alternatives to applications by National Grid Transco (NGT) and Network Rail (NR) to build a 400kV Substation and Trackside Feeder Station, on particularly sensitive Green Belt land between the historic Cheshire villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham. Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge. 441 Words]
National Grid Transco have applied for permission to install a huge 400kV substation on Green Belt land between the two historic villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham. It's on behalf of Network Rail, to serve a new 25kV trackside feeder, and positioned on a particularly prominent and sensitive site where the 400kV super-grid crosses the West Coast Main Line.
Members of Acton Bridge Parish Council, Weaverham Parish Council, and the Weaverham Trust formed the Substation Action Group (SAG) almost a year ago to coordinate opposition to these proposals. Thanks to continuing press coverage and SAG's campaign, most people in the area, and many outside it, are now aware of the development, but it seems that quite a few still don't appreciate how large and prominent the substation would be.
To draw attention to the location and scale of the proposed site, members of the Substation Action Group, with the full support of the landowner and another local farmer, have erected bright yellow banners to show just how far the substation complex would stretch along Station Road, ruining the view and destroying forever the rural nature of these communities.
SAG Supporters will be gathering at the site at 11:00 on Saturday morning (9. October) to reinforce the message, and hand out explanatory leaflets to passers-by. The petition has gained over 1,600 signatures, but there's still time to add more, so if you feel strongly about this development please come along and express your views.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
[249 words]
Balancing national and local planning issues has never been easy. Every right-thinking person acknowledges that a pressing national need for infrastructure development may have to take priority over local preferences. Examples are easy to find - swathes of Kent despoiled for the Channel Tunnel and its Rail Link ; thousands of acres for motorways and their subsequent widening ; sensitive coastlines taken for power stations or container terminals.
Now the conflict of interests is right here on our doorstep. National Grid Transco (NGT) have applied for permission to install a huge 400kV substation on Green Belt land between the two historic villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham. It's on behalf of Network Rail (NR), to serve a new 25kV trackside feeder, and positioned on a particularly prominent and sensitive site where the 400kV super-grid crosses the West Coast Main Line. They claim that their existing 132kV supply sources are not sufficient for the growth in passenger and freight traffic predicted by the Strategic Rail Authority.
Readers may have seen a letter in last week's Northwich Guardian (p23) from the farmer whose land has already been cut in two by the Weaverham bypass, and would suffer still further if the substation were built on his fields. Another letter was published on the same page from "Commuter", who makes sweeping generalisations about the protest and the protesters, arguing that the country's need for a modern rail network should take precedence over protection of our rural heritage. Had "Commuter" studied our arguments, she or he would realise that we are not anti-rail (witness our ongoing efforts to renovate the local station, which recently resulted in an award); and were the writer indeed a commuter, she or he would be aware that the faster trains for which the new development is claimed to be needed won't be stopping in the area, while existing local services have already been cut back to make way for them!
Planning law makes a presumption against new building within the Green Belt, unless the developer can show "very special circumstances" which mean that such "inappropriate development" is essential, and there is no alternative site. Much of National Grid's case rests on their argument that the new railway supply must be just at this point on the WCML, and that it must be derived from the 400kV super-grid.
From the very first public presentation of NGT's plans just a year ago, the Substation Action Group has challenged these assertions, and has backed this up with supporting evidence from the academic and engineering communities. SAG has consistently argued that NR's forecasts of traffic growth and NGT's technical arguments in favour of this particular site were lacking in precision and rigour, and that better alternatives were available, such as within NGT's existing 400kV substation between Frodsham and Runcorn.
In order to obtain impartial but expert technical advice, Vale Royal Borough Council recently commissioned IPSA Power Limited to investigate whether the proposed substation and Trackside Feeder Station are the best way of providing electrical connections to the WCML, and to identify possible alternative technical solutions. Their report is largely based on submissions to VRBC from Network Rail, National Grid, and the Substation Action Group.
IPSA Power's report overwhelmingly supports many of the arguments put forward by SAG, and concludes that the site chosen as being "the most convenient" (in the words of the then Minister of State at the Department for Transport, Dr Kim Howells) is certainly not the only suitable one. In particular, IPSA state categorically that there is no reason for Network Rail to demand connection to a 400kV supply, but that if a 400kV supply is preferred, a connection from the existing Frodsham substation is a clear option. This leads SAG once again to ask the developers : what is their hidden agenda for Acton Bridge and Weaverham?
By all means let NGT reinforce the supply to the West Coast Main Line - taking the broad view, the country needs its railways, even if they no longer serve this part of Cheshire as they should. But rather than simply dumping the substation and its associated structures in the "most convenient" field, which happens to be a very prominent site in the Green Belt, NGT owes it to the country to take a broader view of its location. Viable alternatives have been shown to exist, and should surely be used before yet another irreplaceable slice of rural England is destroyed forever.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge [740 words]
Following the outstanding success of its local petition, reported last week, the Substation Action Group's campaign received another boost this week when Vale Royal Borough Council published an independent report into the technical aspects of the proposed substation complex. IPSA Power's report overwhelmingly supports many of the arguments put forward by SAG, and concludes that the site chosen as being "the most convenient" (in the words of the Minister of State at the Department for Transport, Dr Kim Howells) is certainly not the only suitable one.
National Grid Transco and Network Rail have applied to construct a huge electrical development in Acton Bridge and Weaverham to supply additional power to the West Coast Main Line railway. SAG has consistently argued that NR's forecasts of traffic growth and NGT's technical arguments in favour of this site were lacking in precision and rigour, and that better alternatives were available. It's particularly gratifying that the detailed technical research which SAG itself has undertaken has been resoundingly endorsed by the independent consultants.
IPSA Power were commissioned by Vale Royal Borough Council to investigate whether the proposed substation and Trackside Feeder Station are the best way of providing electrical connections to the WCML, and to identify possible alternative technical solutions. Their report is largely based on submissions to VRBC from Network Rail, National Grid, and the Substation Action Group. There are several areas which the IPSA report does not address : SAG will be asking for clarification of these, such as the site soil resistivity and fault current issues, and whether gas-insulated switchgear would reduce the land-take, in line with current best practice.
However, IPSA have confirmed the points which SAG made about supply reinforcement at Crewe, which resulted in a specially-commissioned report by SP Manweb. The already strong 132kV supply at Crewe could be reinforced to provide the additional current required, and this would in fact be at the load centre which Network Rail have always preferred. ISPA also state categorically that there is no technical reason for NR to demand connection to a 400kV supply, which leads SAG once again to ask the developers : what is their hidden agenda for Acton Bridge and Weaverham?
What's more, ISPA supports SAG's suggestions that well-proven power electronics technology such as phase balancing should be considered as part of the mainstream design process, rather than as remedial measures. These solutions could dramatically reduce the size and layout of the site, thereby opening up alternative locations, such as within NGT's existing substation at Frodsham.
Taking all their sources of information together, IPSA Power have come to exactly the same conclusion as SAG did in its submissions to the Local Planning Authority. IPSA point out that although the Acton Bridge and Weaverham sites may suit the developers commercially, they are not the only ones that are technically feasible, and may not be the best options when environmental considerations are applied. After reviewing alternative trackside feeder stations, IPSA's conclusion is that "It is technically feasible to provide an electrical connection to all three of the Trackside Feeder Stations. Planning, environmental, and cost implications will determine the final choice".
This confirms SAG's opinion that the NGT planning application for Acton Bridge and Weaverham fails the test of "very special circumstances" which would be needed to overturn the national and local presumption against "inappropriate development" on Green Belt land, and should be rejected.
Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group, Acton Bridge
[568 words]
The Substation Action Group (SAG) continues to campaign against the Planning Applications by Network Rail (NR) and National Grid Transco (NGT) for a Trackside Feeder Station (TFS) at Weaverham, and a 400/25kV Substation and replacement Pylon at Acton Bridge, to supply power for the West Coast Main Line (WCML) upgrade.
The Substation proposals have been vigorously opposed within the local community, and it now appears that our combined efforts have forced the developers to make a drastic revision of their plans. Acton Bridge Parish Council and SAG received copies of the June 2004 NGT / NR Supplementary Report [SR] at the weekend (5. June).
The new SR is another big wire-bound document, with detailed arguments about electrical supplies, rail traction requirements, and further studies of alternatives such as a Frodsham / Weaver Junction arrangement, plus loads of maps and diagrams. SAG will prepare a summary report for the Acton Bridge Parish Council on Monday evening (7th), and for the public and local media.
From copies of covering letters, it looks as though there's informal agreement to consider the revised proposals at the 24. August VRBC Planning Committee, so SAG has at most a month or so to get its formal secondary response together, if it is to have further influence on the Officers' recommendations to the Members of Cheshire County and Vale Royal Borough Councils.
Among several things which SAG needs to establish are :
- in what ways the Supplementary Report differs from the original one ;
- whether it addresses all of the points which SAG and other objectors raised ;
- whether these points are dealt with satisfactorily ;
- whether any new content in the supplementary report requires additional analysis and response by SAG ;
- what timescale applies to further consultation and determination of the planning process at VRBC and CCC.
At first glance, the substation is still proposed to be on Station Road, though a little smaller (and with its boundary further from the road), and Tower 89 is also reduced in height and apparently in density, in consequence of which the Section 37 application has been withdrawn. There seems to be no change to the Trackside Feeder Station proposed for Weaverham. The SR admits that, contrary to NGT's earlier assertions, much of the area of the originally-proposed site was for later grid development completely separate from the Network Rail requirement. Unfortunately, NGT have reversed their previous mitigation proposal to sink the substation baseline down to the 34m AOD level, and the latest plan shows it back up to 35m AOD. One metre may not seem much, but it matters greatly if the installation cuts horizon sight lines, and we shall be analysing the scale drawings to see what the effect of this would be. It also reduces the amount of material available on site for screening mounds.
Although the new SR goes into much further detail than previously regarding the possibility of a connection from the existing NGT substation at Frodsham, much of the argument comes down to the relative environmental considerations, from a strict interpretation of local planning guidelines. This misses the key point that the visual impact of a slight increase in the area of the existing Frodsham substation, which is within an already heavily-industrialised area, would be negligible compared with the intrusive and insensitive location which the developers have chosen on the entirely rural Acton Bridge / Weaverham boundary. The SR admits that it would be technically feasible to connect from the Frodsham substation to a TFS in the vicinity of Weaver Junction, and presents some alternative cable routes, but despite this the Acton Bridge site remains NGT's preferred one.
There still does not appear to be any discussion of alternative sites along the Deeside - Daines 400kV line, such as at Tower 90, which SAG suggested as a much less intrusive location compared with Tower 89. Another alternative was near Crowton, where underground pipelines were stated to be an impediment, but this argument has not been developed either. In view of the reduced site area which NGT are proposing in the new SR, it might have been expected that these alternative locations would have been reconsidered.
NGT News Release
NGT have today issued a News Release which lists the key changes in their proposals and also has a "Q&A" section, with their own choice of easily-answered questions, and rather facile answers. Neither here nor in the full SR is the question of the necessity for the additional power, or the need to take it from 400kV supply, fully answered, especially in the light of the SRA's recent admissions concerning the scaling-back of high-speed train services on the WCML. A report commissioned from Scottish Power regarding the reinforcement of supplies at Crewe is included in the SR, and will be subjected to technical scrutiny, in the light of other information recently received from within the electrical supply industry, by SAG's technical committee over the coming days. All parties agree that a new feed based at Crewe would be the best solution, from a technical viewpoint. There's no mention of further public consultation.
Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group, Acton Bridge
[850 words]
The Substation Action Group (SAG) continues to campaign against the Planning Applications by Network Rail (NR) and National Grid Transco (NGT) for a Trackside Feeder Station (TFS) at Weaverham, and a 400/25kV Substation and replacement Pylon at Acton Bridge, to supply power for the West Coast Main Line (WCML) upgrade.
These proposals have been vigorously opposed within the local community, and it now appears that our combined efforts have forced the developers to make a drastic revision of their plans. This climb-down seriously undermines their own reputation, and any technical or environmental statements they make in future will be regarded with deep scepticism by SAG and surely, too, by the planning authorities.
At the time of writing, Cheshire County and Vale Royal Borough Councils are still awaiting the revised proposals from the developers, which were originally expected at the end of April, and then by the end of May.
Adding insult to injury, rail services from Acton Bridge Station have been cut even further, so weekday commuting to Liverpool or the south is now impossible.
Mike Hall, MP for Weaver Vale, has recently raised the topic in the House of Commons. Mike Hall said:
"The National Grid and Network Rail have been unable to find a site in the Crewe area, and have come up with a site in Weaverham in my constituency, adjacent to the west coast main line. It will be a massive development. What the National Grid did not tell people during consultations was that the development will be the size of three rugby pitches. It will be slap-bang in the middle of green belt, and will be a blot on the landscape.
"The supreme irony of that is not lost on my constituents. Although we can no longer use the west coast main line services from Hartford, the improvements to the electricity supply, which will speed up the trains going from the north-west to London and vice versa, will be bang in the middle of our green belt. I am not opposed to the upgrading of the electricity supply to the west coast main line, but I am absolutely opposed to this location for the so-called substation and trackside feeder station. I believe that there are alternatives in the area, which the National Grid has so far failed to explore".
The Minister, Dr Kim Howells, responded as follows: "I appreciate what he said; he is trying to represent the interests of his constituents who live in that lovely part of the world, and who face the prospect of a substation suddenly being dumped in their back yard. However, the site is at the point where the 400 kV electricity supply line crosses the railway line, which is the most convenient spot for a substation to feed the west coast main line, enabling the new trains plying that line, which need much more electricity than existing trains, to receive the upgrade".
So, the Minister confirms that it's all a matter of convenience - completely at variance with the long and detailed technical and environmental arguments put forward by the developers, and their public statements at Information Events and Parish Council meetings. SAG has always believed that these were a retrospective justification for a decision already taken by remote control. The Minister's statement to Parliament merely confirms our view that by siting the substation on a sensitive green field site in Acton Bridge, the developers are making a cynical breach of national and local planning regulations purely out of commercial opportunism.
To add insult to injury, the local train service has been cut still further. The full irony of the proposed substation development was brought home to local rail users when the new Summer timetable for Acton Bridge Station was posted up last week. The one early evening train from Liverpool has been deleted, and effectively makes commuting into Liverpool an impossibility. The only train back from Liverpool in the evening arrives at a quarter to midnight, and the last northbound train to call at Acton Bridge does so at 16:23, also making a day trip to the south impractical.
The full timetable (at Acton Bridge) on weekdays is now :
To Liverpool 06:32 07:40 07:56 08:32 12:23 16:23
It's not a clever way to encourage rail travel. Is the intention deliberately to reduce the feasibility of using the station, so that complete closure can be "justified" on the basis of reduced demand? It would be interesting to know whether this conforms to the Local Transport Plan, and how widely the SRA and the local TOC, Central Trains, consulted 'stakeholders' on the matter.
Sadly, the loss to local services is all part and parcel of the "higher-speed" long-distance services promised on the WCML. The intention seems to be to clear all the local commuter traffic off this part of the line to make way for headline-grabbing end-to-end services which shave just a few minutes off a full London - Glasgow journey. Surely what matters to real rail users (as opposed to the statisticians at the SRA) is the dependable home-to-destination journey time, not the theoretical maximum speed that a train may reach, on some parts of the line, under ideal conditions?
In fact, even the very minor improvements in journey time published in the SRA's WCML Strategy document of June 2003 have recently been eroded significantly, and in most cases the timetabled journeys will be hardly any better than before the massively expensive and disruptive investment in the WCML upgrade was started.
The SRA's April 2004 report* on the WCML shows [page 50] that most of the service forecasts made in June 2003 have already been quietly extended by a few minutes (five minutes in the case of Glasgow), and most of the improved end-to-end journey times are achieved simply by deleting intermediate stops! This is no help at all to people making connecting journeys, and it's hard to see how this very marginal improvement can justify the staggering cost of the undertaking.
The April 2004 SRA document makes revealing admissions on the introduction of tilting "Pendolino" services, and the speed limitations north of Penrith, where
"... the proposed speed profile for tilting trains was not a good match with the train characteristics or train driving requirements. The work also demonstrated that the use of tilt is most valuable in improving the line speed at the relatively few points where speed is significantly restricted by curvature. The revised work scope will now deliver a constant speed of around 110 mile/h over these more highly curved sections. This compares with a current situation of intermittent speed limits of 110 mile/h punctuated by restrictions to 80 to 90 mile/h and with the original proposal of 125 mile/h but with frequent restrictions to 110 mile/h."
Isn't it a bit late in the day to discover this? Remember that the original blueprint for the WCML upgrade was talking confidently of tilting trains running at up to 140mph. No-one is mentioning 140mph any more, and now it seems they are backing off even the 125mph tilt operation in many places where it was previously trumpeted as the whole point of the exercise!
The latest forecast for London to Crewe improvement by December 2005 is just one minute, or less than 1% of journey time, and the Glasgow saving is barely 3%, and only 7% (20 minutes) even on the December 2008 service after deleting a stop, rather than by increased speed.
The SRA's Tony Francis (signatory of their April 2004 report) told this writer, face to face on 21. January 2004, that persuading business passengers to make the "modal shift" from air to rail is their main argument for the faster timetable, and hence for the WCML upgrade. We are still awaiting the traffic statistics which Mr Francis promised to provide to SAG to back up their forecasts, but it's hard to see that sort of difference swinging the rail / air decision for anyone, in which case our local rail services will have been sacrificed in vain.
Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group, Acton Bridge
* www.sra.gov.uk/publications/index_page/westcoast0404/westcoastdoc
The Substation Action Group (SAG) continues to campaign against the Planning Applications by Network Rail (NR) and National Grid Transco (NGT) for a Trackside Feeder Station (TFS) at Weaverham, and a 400/25kV Substation and replacement Pylon at Acton Bridge, to supply power for the West Coast Main Line (WCML) upgrade. These proposals have been vigorously opposed within the local community, and it now appears that our combined efforts have forced the developers to make a drastic revision of their plans. This climb-down seriously undermines their own reputation, and any technical or environmental statements they make in future will be regarded with deep scepticism by SAG and surely, too, by the planning authorities.
SAG submitted its formal responses to the three Applications to Vale Royal Borough Council, Cheshire County Council and the Secretary of State in February. A public presentation of SAG's responses to Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall is expected to take place at his Weaverham surgery on Friday 19. March, but had not been confirmed as we went to press. SAG's research, summarised in its three documents, showed that the key arguments the developers used in support of their applications were based on flawed data and inaccurate environmental reports, and failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances needed to justify industrial construction in the Green Belt.
We have recently learned that NGT requested that its Applications be withdrawn from consideration at CCC's Environmental Strategic Panel (ESP) on 10. March, in the light of 'significant' changes. We have not yet been given details, but we understand these to include making the replacement pylon much less obtrusive (possibly even smaller than the existing one), and reducing the size of the substation site, originally as big as three rugby pitches, by abandoning the provision for later conversion to 'single switch mesh' operation. The next ESP is not until 13. May, and feeds into the 9. June Environmental Executive Committee. VRBC is unlikely to consider the PAs formally before receiving the consultative report from CCC.
Greatly assisted by volunteers and local professionals, SAG has also been working hard to update its technical research into the rail and power industries, and has come up with some very interesting new findings, which call into question the integrity of the developers' previous technical arguments, and whether the need for any such installation in Acton Bridge and Weaverham can still be justified. Our view remains that there are more appropriate locations for the substation site, and that the entire development should be reconsidered in the light of a holistic approach to electrical supply reinforcement in the Cheshire area, and more realistic forecasts of rail traffic.
We are providing summaries of our research to VRBC, at their request, in support of their own external consultancy process, and hope to be able to publish more details shortly. The SAG website is at www.nopylon.co.uk.
Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group, Acton Bridge
The Substation Action Group has reached an important milestone in its campaign against the construction of a huge substation by National Grid and Network Rail on Green Belt land between Acton Bridge and Weaverham. Local people are outraged by the three proposals for the substation, trackside feeder and replacement pylon, since, if built in such a sensitive location, this colossal installation would be an environmental disaster.
SAG's formal response documents have been printed, bound, and submitted to Vale Royal Borough Council, and a set will be placed in Weaverham Library for public inspection on Friday 20. February. Copies can be made available to interested parties on request to any member of SAG, a local Parish Councillor, or by e-mail via the website, and a four-page summary has also been prepared for ease of reading and distribution.
The developers' Planning Applications were submitted to VRBC just before Christmas, imposing a very tight deadline for representations to be made, and the Action Group's volunteer members have been working night and day since then, investigating the environmental and technical aspects of the plans, and cooperating with the two Parish Councils in formulating their own replies to the Local Planning Authority. This marathon effort included several site visits, meetings with the planners and local interests, background research through the academic, engineering and environmental communities, and countless telephone calls and e-mails. Many willing helpers came forward with useful articles and contacts, and SAG is extremely grateful for their assistance. Detailed studies were also made of comparable sites elsewhere in the country, with very interesting results.
SAG felt it was vital to present a balanced argument, rather than a 'NIMBY' reaction. Public meetings were held with the developers, who were also invited to meet the Parish Councils in both villages, so that the issues could be debated thoroughly. The turnout to these meetings was exceptional, and showed the keen interest and deep concern within the local community. SAG members were even granted a meeting with the Strategic Rail Authority, to establish the basis for the development in the context of the West Coast Main Line Upgrade and traffic forecasts. This shows how seriously the central authorities are taking the case. No-one can doubt the thoroughness of the resulting documentation, which runs to a carefully-edited 75 pages of text and photographs.
The arguments for and against the development, which even its proponents concede is in complete contravention of national and local Planning Guidance, will now be considered by VRBC, and also by Cheshire County Council as consultees. The massive replacement pylon, which SAG believes betrays a 'hidden agenda' for later expansion of the site, is also the subject of 'Section 37' consent, and is being vigorously opposed by SAG and many local people who have written to the Secretary of State. The new tower would be extremely conspicuous from all directions, standing on high ground and clearly visible from the surrounding villages and the Weaver Valley.
Objectors to the development have been writing to the Planning Officers and Councillors at VRBC, and also to Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall, who has stated his unequivocal support for the Substation Action Group, and has written to VRBC with his own list of six grounds for objection. There is still time for members of the public to express their views, and they are urged to do so as soon as possible.
Press Release (for 13. January 2004)
A large contingent of over a dozen personnel from National Grid and Network Rail put on another information event, so that residents from Acton Bridge at last had an opportunity to review the proposed development of a huge electrical substation in their own village, even though the two companies' Planning Applications had already been submitted to Vale Royal Borough Council before Christmas.
There was a good turn-out of local people, and a number of them remarked that splits seemed to be appearing between the two firms, especially on technical matters. Depending on which of the developers you questioned, the answer might be subtly different. Network Rail in particular were acutely sensitive to accusations that this blatantly inappropriate site had been chosen simply on grounds of cost and convenience, but admitted that the location was based on computer projections of traffic which were forecast by the Strategic Rail Authority, in turn based on new electrically-hauled freight trains which would also require new high-speed rolling stock, which had not yet been designed. At the Parish Council meeting last week, the developers had promised residents that a representative from the SRA would be present tonight to answer questions about traffic forecasts, but he failed to make an appearance.
Steve Pardoe, vice-chairman of Acton Bridge Parish Council and a member of the Substation Action Group, challenged Network Rail's circular argument that the existing National Grid substation at Runcorn, which feeds an industrial site and is technically capable of expansion, would not be suitable because it is too far from Weaverham. "If the Trackside Feeder at Weaverham were moved a little to the north, the connection could be short and straightforward, and there would be no need for the new substation in Acton Bridge", he said.
In separate correspondence, Network Rail admitted to Mr Pardoe that the height given for their Trackside Feeder Station was incorrect by over 70 metres (230 feet). As Mr Pardoe had remarked at last week's Parish Council meeting, this lack of care made one wonder what other 'inaccuracies' their submission and forecasts may conceal.
National Grid had commissioned a 'virtual reality' display of the proposed development, which could illustrate its appearance from a number of viewpoints and at various stages of construction. However, a frequent criticism was that this model sanitised the appearance of the installation, and the much heavier replacement pylon was a lot less conspicuous than it would be in reality.
Objectors to the development have been writing to the Planning Officers and Councillors at VRBC, and also to their local MP, Mike Hall, who has expressed his unequivocal support for the Substation Action Group, and has written to VRBC with his own list of six grounds for objection. The SAG website is at www.nopylon.co.uk.
Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group
The Parish Council Meeting started earlier than usual this week, so that representatives of National Grid and Network Rail could address the PC and members of the public on the subject of the proposed Substation in Acton Bridge. Their two Planning Applications have been submitted to Vale Royal Borough Council, and were made available to the Parish Council just before Christmas.
An unexpectedly strong contingent of seven personnel from the developers was more than matched by an exceptional audience of local residents, numbering between 80 and 100 [estimate subsequently revised to between 60 and 80 - Ed.], who packed the Parish Room to listen to the debate and ask their own questions.
Parish Council Chairman Bob Holt welcomed the guests and audience, and set the tone of the meeting. There had been considerable local resentment at the developers' decision to hold their only Public Information Event in Weaverham, rather than in Acton Bridge (which, despite their publicity material, is where the proposed site is located) and that Acton Bridge residents had not had a similar opportunity to consider the proposals or comment until after the Planning Applications had been submitted. He invited the representatives to redress that this evening.
Mr Alex Machin of Network Rail, and Mr Steve Knight-Gregson of National Grid, then made a computer-based presentation of their case, citing the need for additional power in the area of Weaverham for the West Coast Main Line, to support forecast increases in passenger and freight traffic. There were convenient 400kV overhead lines in this neighbourhood, though either an existing or a new 400kV / 25kV substation could be used.
Mr Knight-Gregson then described the proposed installation in Acton Bridge, which had been chosen over several nearby alternatives, and the modifications, including ground level changes, by which National Grid hoped to mitigate the admitted severity of its environmental impact.
A brief response on behalf of the Parish Council was made by the vice-chairman, Steve Pardoe, who acknowledged the courtesy of National Grid in their relations with the local community, and expressed the wish that such courtesy would be reciprocated this evening. However, it was clear from the remarkable size of the audience that there were strong feelings in the village, and Mr Pardoe identified just a few of the many items in the Planning Applications which were of concern to local residents.
"We are not anti-rail", he said, "several people chose to live here because of previously good rail connections, though ironically the local services are being sacrificed on the altar of the WCML upgrade and higher long-distance train speeds, so the substation would be of little direct benefit to these communities.
"The Planning Applications do not make a convincing case for what the developers recognize as 'inappropriate development' within a particularly sensitive part of the Cheshire Green Belt, and contain serious mis-statements which need to be challenged".
In the context of ground level changes, which had excited some discussion, Mr Pardoe pointed out that Network Rail propose to locate their Trackside Feeder Station at 98.4 metres Above Ordnance Datum, which would be over 200 feet above the railway! This lack of care made one wonder what other numerical "inaccuracies" their submission and forecasts may conceal.
Network Rail and National Grid rely on a circular argument to say that the existing 400kV substation at Runcorn, which is on an industrial site, would not be suitable, as this would require a "prohibitively expensive" 25kV connection to the Trackside Feeder Station at Weaverham, which was chosen for its proximity to the 400kV Deeside - Daines transmission line. However, if the TFS were moved a little to the north, the 25kV connection could be short and straightforward, and there would be no need for the new substation in Acton Bridge. Moreover, installation cost is not a valid planning consideration.
Mr Pardoe showed a site plan and aerial photograph which the Action Group had obtained of an existing substation on the WCML at Patford Bridge [Northants], which is a much more compact design, and is also very close indeed to the railway. These facts demolish National Grid's argument that the substation has to be as large as they have specified (1.5 hectares), and that it can't be nearer the railway. It seemed clear that cost and convenience had taken priority over respect for the Green Belt. The smaller site area might also overcome National Grid's objection to extending the Runcorn substation.
The Chairman then invited members of the public to put questions to the representatives from National Grid and Network Rail. About twenty local residents challenged a variety of aspects of the proposals, ranging from economic arguments, through technical questions about the electricity supply, to environmental concerns and in particular the impact the substation would have on the rural character of the village. There was a vigorous but good-natured debate, and by the end it seemed that both sides had learned something from the event.
Steve Pardoe enlarged on one of the environmental points by quoting John Gittins, the Director of the Cheshire Landscape Trust - "The impact of the development and the indicative landscape proposals fail to give due weight to the negative impact on the wider landscape and the community. [...] In fact, the proposal fails to give evidence of any special circumstances to justify constructing the Sub Station in Green belt land. Therefore, it is suggested that the Planning Application be refused".
After thanking the guests and visitors for their presentation and interest, the Chairman closed the public meeting, and the Parish Council business was undertaken as usual.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
Press Release (for 15. December 2003)
After making a special visit to Vale Royal Borough Council's offices in Winsford, and then working through the weekend, members of the Substation Action Group met on Monday night to review a copy of the Planning Application, and getting on for 200 pages of supporting documents and diagrams, submitted to VRBC by National Grid (NG). The Planning Application from Network Rail (NR) was made available too late for detailed analysis, but appears to set out the requirement for the Trackside Feeder Station (TFS) and upgraded electrical supply, which is the basis of the NG proposal.
Here are some initial reactions to our first sight of the NG Planning Application.
1. NG's "preferred" site for a new 400/25kV substation located at Tower 89, in a highly visible position on the Acton Bridge / Weaverham boundary, is predicated on the location of NR's TFS, which in turn is based on the presence of the Daines - Deeside 400kV overhead line. However, NG then use a circular argument to say that their existing substation at Runcorn would not be suitable, as this would require a "prohibitively expensive" 10km of underground or overhead 25kV connection to Weaverham. If the NR TFS were moved to the north, the 25kV connection could be short and straightforward, and the TFS would also be closer to the midpoint between the existing TFS at Rugeley, and the next proposed installation near Heysham.
2. Now that we have seen them in detail, the changes which NG claim to have made to their plans in response to "local consultation" are minimal. Although they claim to have increased its distance from Station Road threefold, the increase refers to the fence, which has been angled to achieve this. The distance to the highly intrusive 100-tonne transformers and other plant has increased only marginally, and the site remains at a visually sensitive place. We've also learned that, in addition to the 2.4m fence previously admitted, there will be a 3.4m (11 ft) electrified fence inside it.
Although NGT say they have considered the impact of the substation on visual amenity, they are seriously understating the appearance of the substation from viewpoints on Station Road and neighbouring properties, particularly before the proposed screening matures, which we are told may take 15 years. To users of Station Road on foot, on horseback or in vehicles, the substation will have a serious and permanent impact on the rural appearance of the two villages, and will utterly ruin the open views from the road.
Travelling west, this fine view is the first significant opening since leaving the Northwich conurbation, and often shows spectacular sunsets. This charming aspect would be completely obliterated by the substation, and its proposed earthworks, which would dominate the scene.
3. If, despite its effect on Green Belt land and amenity, the substation must indeed be connected to Tower 89, the SAG believes that there is no reason, other than a slight increase in construction cost, why the substation cannot be relocated to the south of the 400kV lines. Here, on lower ground and closer to the railway, it would be much less intrusive from all directions. At the Weaverham Information Event, Network Rail made technical arguments precluding this relocation, but the SAG has obtained firm evidence to the contrary.
Steve Pardoe, Acton Bridge
The Substation Action Group is actively campaigning against the proposed development, and we shall be meeting again this week to put together a concerted response to the Planning Application submitted by National Grid Transco to Vale Royal Borough Council last week. We are informed that the material runs to three boxes of documents. We think (and several supporters have commented without being prompted) that dumping such a huge bundle of
material on Vale Royal Borough and the Parish Councils, at a time when all good folk are sure to be busy with Christmas and family matters, is a cynical ploy to minimise objections to the scheme. For VRBC, it also comes on top of the massive Urban Village proposals.
Some initial points to make regarding the National Grid Transco Planning Application (based on draft plans seen today) are :
1. Movement away from the B5153 Station Road is minimal, just a couple of metres, as far as I can see. The substation (and especially one of the very prominent transformers) will still be almost adjacent to the roadside footpath and hedge.
2. Lowering is also minimal : at 34m Above Ordnance Datum, the base of the site is only a couple of metres below the road level, and the structures and buildings will be well above eye level. NGT apparently admit that tree screening will take 15 years to develop, but this is completely unacceptable. Residents can't be expected to endure 15 years of blight (and depressed property values) while the trees grow. This is one of the areas in which we are considering invoking the Human Rights Act.
3. Tree screening will in any case not be possible under the 400kV overhead cables, as from NGT's own documents we know that a 20 metre wide (66 feet) clear corridor is required beneath the cables. This corridor will be even wider than usual, since NGT are planning to divert the cables to a temporary tower during construction work. This corridor is on the most conspicuous sight line as one travels along the B5153 Station Road into Acton Bridge, so there will be negligible visual mitigation from that crucial direction.
4. The site is still to the North of the existing 400kV overhead cables, whereas at the Public Information Event in Weaverham many visitors asked NGT to consider relocating the site to the South, and closer to the railway, where it would be much less conspicuous. They came up with some technical arguments as to why this would not be possible, but the Substation Action Group has obtained compelling evidence that this is not the case, and we think their basis for siting the substation so close to the road is simply down to cost and convenience. This suggests that the developers have little concern for the visual amenity of this rural area of designated Green Belt, and the "public consultation" has simply been a cynical window-dressing exercise.
The Substation Action Group is meeting again this week, and will be formulating a concerted response to the NGT / Network Rail Planning Application (which we are informed runs to three boxes of documents) just as soon as the two Parish Councils are able to obtain working copies from Vale Royal Borough Council.
Steve Pardoe
Mike Hall MP attends Weaverham Public Meeting
Substation Action Group, Public Meeting 21. November 2003
There was strong support for the Substation Action Group's public meeting in Weaverham Community Centre, on Friday evening [21. November]. This followed the same "drop in" format as the first meeting in Acton Bridge on 14. November. New visitors brought the total number of our feedback forms to over 200, almost all of them offering help and expertise to support the campaign.
Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall attended, following extremely busy surgeries in Northwich and Owley Wood, and listened to the feelings expressed by opponents to the proposed Green Belt location of the substation and feeder station. Roger Moss, one of the landowners who has been approached by National Grid for land for the feeder station, explained to Mike why he was so implacably against the proposed location, and had refused National Grid's offer to purchase some of his land, which would have entailed an unacceptable new access route to his property.
Mike Hall again made clear his unequivocal support for the Action Group's campaign against the "so called substation on Green Belt". He has written to the Chief Executive of the Strategic Rail Authority asking specific questions on the need for a 400kV supply to the line, the timescale for the West Coast Main Line Upgrade project, and the appropriate body for the Action Group to address on technical questions. He has also urged the Chief Executive of National Grid to respond to his earlier letter.
Local support for the campaign against this monstrous proposal on such an obtrusive Green Belt site continues to grow!
Peter Young / Steve Pardoe, Substation Action Group
Press Release (for 17. November 2003)
Substation Action Group, Public Meeting 14. November 2003 : "WOW !"
There was quite exceptional support for the Substation Action Group's first public meeting in Acton Bridge Parish Room on Friday 14. November. People from Acton Bridge, Weaverham and surrounding villages turned out on a horribly wet and windy Friday evening to discuss the proposed substation, and make their views known.
[Photo 1 shows the scene]
This was "drop-in" style of meeting, informally hosted by members of Acton Bridge Parish Council, Weaverham Parish Council, the Weaverham Trust, and Vale Royal Borough Councillors. Excellent display boards and publicity material, press articles, photographs, maps and diagrams were available for information and discussion, and members of Acton Bridge Women's Institute served complimentary tea, coffee and biscuits.
Weaver Vale MP Mike Hall [second from left in photo2, holding paper] spent a full hour with the Group before the public meeting began, to offer advice, and his unequivocal support for our campaign. Mr Hall had also attended the National Grid / Network Rail "event" in Weaverham in September, and remarked that it was "totally and utterly misleading" for the developers to describe their proposal as a substation. He seemed well briefed and very enthusiastic about the work we were doing, and undertook to make some detailed enquiries on our behalf.
We counted 115 visitors who returned our feedback forms, about 90% of them from Acton Bridge, plus of course the SAG members and helpers. This remarkable turnout would represent some 20% of the Acton Bridge Electoral Roll. That shows, as clearly as anything can, the strength of feeling within the local communities about this proposed substation : disbelief at the Green Belt location and industrial scale of the development, followed by outrage!
A supplementary display event was held as part of the Acton Bridge WI's annual Soup and Sandwich lunch on Saturday, and a further dozen or more villagers expressed their concern and completed our feedback forms.
The Substation Action Group found to its delight that many of our visitors have specific expertise or contacts in the communications, electrical engineering, legal, media, and planning fields, and without exception were willing to offer detailed advice and technical support for the campaign, or just to help delivering leaflets or putting up posters. Among the suggestions made were that the CPRE may be able to offer specific advice on campaigns to save the Green Belt, and that there may be a case under the Human Rights Act to prevent the proposed development, on the basis of its impact on the quality of life and amenity of residents. A local Barrister has kindly offered to do some preliminary pro bono work on this, on behalf of the SAG.
This is a magnificent response, and underlines the plain fact that the substation is not wanted here. If National Grid and Network Rail persist with their planning application for the Station Road site, the villagers of Acton Bridge and Weaverham and their campaign partners are prepared to give them a very hard time!
The display boards will be moved to a similar meeting in Weaverham Community Centre on Friday 21. November between the same times, 6pm to 9pm. Over 3,000 specially printed flyers have gone out with the Weaverham News to advertise the second event. Our Weaver Vale MP, Mike Hall, was briefed by the Action Group on Friday 14th, and has confirmed that he will be present at the Weaverham meeting from about 7pm, following his constituency Surgery.
Steve Pardoe, Communications Officer, Substation Action Group
17. November 2003
[565 words appx]
Press Release (for 10. November 2003)
There will be a public "drop-in" meeting in Acton Bridge Parish Room on Friday 14. November, at which people from Acton Bridge, Weaverham and surrounding villages will be welcome to discuss the proposed substation and make their views known. The time of the meeting is now confirmed as from 6pm to 9pm (18:00 to 21:00), and there will be some publicity material,
press articles, photographs, maps and diagrams available for discussion. We'll be offering advice on whom to write to, and what to say (which may depend on whether the formal planning application has been received by then). We're intending to make this a very informal "drop-in" style of meeting, so as to suit as many people as possible who can call in for a few
minutes or longer, and get the maximum benefit from the time they can spend.
Members of Acton Bridge Women's Institute will be serving complementary tea, coffee and biscuits.
There will be a similar event in Weaverham Community Centre on Friday 21. November, between the same times, 6pm to 9pm. We are expecting that our Weaver Vale MP, Mike Hall, will be present at the Weaverham meeting from about 7pm to meet his constituents.
Steve Pardoe, Communications Officer, Substation Action Group
30. October 2003
[348 words. Updated Editors' notes below]
The Inaugural meeting of the Substation Action Group was held in Acton Bridge Parish Room on Tuesday 21. October 2003. It was attended by members of Acton Bridge, Weaverham and Hartford Parish Councils, and the Weaverham Trust ; Vale Royal Borough Councillors representing Acton Bridge and Weaverham; and a small number of concerned residents, by invitation.
Officers were elected, and the minutes of the previous meeting with Vale Royal Planning Department, and progress on actions which had been agreed at it, were discussed. The principal business of the evening was to agree a series of further actions, and to delegate same to the Officers and volunteers. A Technical Committee was also formed, to research some of the arguments being put forward by National Grid and Network Rail in support of their claimed need for the substation to be in this area at all, and in this location in particular.
It was decided that we should have a public meeting in Acton Bridge Parish Room on Friday 14. November, at which people from Acton Bridge, Weaverham and surrounding villages would be welcome to discuss the proposed substation and make their views known.
We'll be offering advice on whom to write to, and what to say (which may depend on whether the formal planning application has been received by then) at the event. We're intending to make this a "drop-in" style of meeting, open from late afternoon into the evening, so as to suit as many people as possible who can call in for a few minutes or longer, and get the maximum benefit from the time they can spend. It's expected that the event will be informally hosted by members of Acton Bridge Parish Council, Weaverham Parish Council, the Weaverham Trust, Vale Royal Borough Councillors representing Acton Bridge and Weaverham, and possibly our local Member of Parliament Mike Hall MP, though this has yet to be confirmed. There will be some publicity material, press articles, photographs, maps and diagrams available for discussion.
Steve Pardoe, Communications Officer, Substation Action Group
[348 words. Updated Editors' notes below]
There is a rising tide of anger among local residents at the proposal by National Grid to build a huge 400kV substation for Network Rail, on Green Belt land between the historic Cheshire villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham.
Members of Acton Bridge and Weaverham Parish Councils, the Weaverham Trust, and Vale Royal Borough Councillor Mrs Anne Hooker, met Mr Colin Williams, Planning Control Manager of Vale Royal Borough Council on Friday [evening of 10. October] to discuss the technical issues of the planning process, and the environmental problems which this Green Belt "departure" would present. Mr Williams gave us a clear and forthright statement of the planning process and the legal position, and we were given ample opportunity to ask detailed questions in a very productive and cooperative session.
There is a strong presumption, as long-standing national policy, against any such developments on Green Belt land. National Grid want to ride rough-shod over these established planning rules, but will have to demonstrate, using rigorous technical arguments, that this development is essential, and that this location is the only possible one, despite the suspicions of local people that such an exceptionally inappropriate and visually intrusive site has been chosen simply on grounds of convenience and cost, without apparent regard for the Local Plan or Village Design Statements. The "consultation" event in Weaverham last month was seen by many as a cynical PR exercise, and the brochure presented there seemed to be a "done deal". Although the brochure shows some token screening, this would still leave the electrical complex highly visible from the road, nearby houses, and local public footpaths, one of which is said to be the most ancient right of way in the area. It would spoil our villages forever, and the effect on local property values could be very serious.
Acton Bridge Parish Council, Weaverham Parish Council and the Weaverham Trust will be cooperating and coordinating a vigorous response to the National Grid proposal. We plan to hold both private and public consultations with the intending developers, so that as many residents as possible can appreciate the full extent of this outrage, and make informed representations to their local and national politicians. A campaign website has been set up at www.nopylon.co.uk, and is already attracting widespread interest and support.
Steve Pardoe
[381 words. Editors' notes follow]
Editors' Notes : (Updated 30. October)
National Grid are planning to install a 400kV substation on a green field site, on Station Road (B5153) across the boundary of the historic Cheshire villages of Acton Bridge and Weaverham. It's on behalf of Network Rail, to serve a new 25kV trackside feeder on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) as part of the upgrade initiated by the Strategic Rail Authority (references below). It will be roughly the size of three rugby football pitches, with all-night illumination and an electrified fence, and highly visible from the road, nearby houses, and local public footpaths. The site area covers about two hectares (approximately five acres) of long-established Green Belt land, and would be highly visible to the many local residents, and those of the surrounding villages, who live on the B5153 or use it on a daily basis.
It's particularly galling that this development should be dumped on the two villages just as train services from Acton Bridge are being cut back even further. It's now impossible to commute to Liverpool for a normal working day, and the Pendolino trains, for which the increased power is required, won't even be stopping at Hartford.
It's ironic that the reason why services calling at Acton Bridge and Hartford are being cut back is that the new, faster trains require much longer running gaps behind slower traffic, partly as a result of a long-term failure to invest in more sophisticated signalling and train safety controls. If trains stop at the smaller stations, which for historic reasons don't have bypassing track layouts, it causes delay to other services which have to wait while the bottleneck is cleared. This was less of a problem in the days when the speeds of local and long-distance trains were more comparable.
Network Rail say that the proposed substation is required to provide increased current to the new, power-hungry Pendolino tilting trains. Despite requiring significantly more power than the present trains (so much for the "green" credentials of rail travel), the new ones can actually accommodate fewer passengers. This begs the question of whether the train operators think rail traffic is really increasing.
The Strategic Rail Authority publishes regular statistical reviews of passenger and freight traffic: the trends in passenger kilometres travelled, and freight tonnage, are as follows. Comparative data are given for the most recent quarter (Q1 ended June) for the last three years.
Data from SRA website at http://www.sra.gov.uk/publications/nat_rail_trends/2002_09_12/nrt.1_Sept02.pdf. E&OE.
The trend in passenger travel is a gradual but persistent decline, the greatest proportional decrease being on long haul routes outside the London commuter area (that is, on routes such as the WCML). As far as freight is concerned, the trend is also one of steady decline, after excluding coal, which has little long-term future as coal-fired power stations are phased out in favour of renewable sources.
According to its own statistics, the SRA doesn't seem to be delivering "the Government's key targets of 50% growth in passenger kilometres, 80% growth in freight moved". It's also hard to see much justification for Network Rail's projections for increased passenger and freight traffic, which are the basis of its proposal for the substation (and in particular for its being necessary to take the power directly from the 400kV super-grid).
Links to resources on the World Wide Web:
[1350 words]
Press Release (for 15. March 2004)
Proposed Substation for National Grid at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
[474 words]
Navigation bar... ...you are at the page with a coloured background
Main substation page
Substation Action Group
Press Releases
Public Meetings
Rail traffic trends
Runcorn substation
Visitors to website
News media
Press Release (for 16. February 2004)
Proposed Substation for National Grid at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
Public Information Event by National Grid and Network Rail in Acton Bridge Parish Rooms, Monday 12. January 2004
Proposed Substation for National Grid at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
13. January 2004
[457 words]
Press Release (for 6. January 2004)
Acton Bridge Parish Council Meeting, Monday 5. January 2004
Proposed Substation for National Grid at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
6. January 2004
[916 words]
Navigation bar... ...you are at the page with a coloured background
Main substation page
Substation Action Group
Press Releases
Public Meetings
Rail traffic trends
Runcorn substation
Visitors to website
News media
Substation Action Group : Proposed Substation for National Grid at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
15. December 2003
[545 words]
Press Release (for 8. December 2003)
Substation at Acton Bridge / Weaverham
Substation Action Group
8. December 2003
[401 words]
Press Release (for 24. November 2003)
24. November 2003
[256 Words]
Navigation bar... ...you are at the page with a coloured background
Main substation page
Substation Action Group
Press Releases
Public Meetings
Rail traffic trends
Runcorn substation
Visitors to website
News media
Meeting with Mike Hall MP and Public Meetings in Acton Bridge and Weaverham
Double boost for substation campaign
Public Meetings in Acton Bridge and Weaverham
Press Release (for 30. October 2003)
Substation Action Group Formed
30. October 2003
Press Release (for 13. October 2003)
Substation Action Group, Acton Bridge / Weaverham
12. October 2003
Navigation bar... ...you are at the page with a coloured background
Main substation page
Substation Action Group
Press Releases
Public Meetings
Rail traffic trends
Runcorn substation
Visitors to website
News media
Year (Q1)
Passenger km (billion)
Freight traffic
Total
Long haul, excluding London and South East
Tonne km (billion) excluding coal
2000-01
9.8
3.5
3.5
2001-02
9.6
3.3
3.4
2002-03
9.6
3.3
3.3
Substation Action Group campaign website : www.nopylon.co.uk
Campaign to Protect Rural England www.cpre.org.uk
National Grid : www.nationalgrid.com/uk
Network Rail : www.networkrail.co.uk
Strategic Rail Authority : www.sra.gov.uk
[End]
Navigation bar... ...you are at the page with a coloured background
Main substation page
Substation Action Group
Press Releases
Public Meetings
Rail traffic trends
Runcorn substation
Visitors to website
News media
This content of this web page is the responsibility of its editor, Steve Pardoe, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Acton Bridge Parish Council or any other organisation
Click on the house for
ActonBridge.Org Home Page
Website © 2003
Site directory
E-mail to us at :
