Cae Ysgubor
Penrhosfeilw
Holyhead
Anglesey
LL65 2LT
31st October 2019 The Planning Inspectorate
Crown Buildings
Cathays Park
Cardiff
CF10 3NQ
By email only to:
Your Ref: 3234121 – Transport & Works Act
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I am a Plant Manager for Eaton Corporation running a small production facility in Holyhead and manage a larger business in The Netherlands and a 3rd generation part time farmer.
Having been brought up in the area on a family farm and seeing the hardship over those years, I recall when the Welsh Government introduced what was termed then ‘Diversification’ – turning your hand to other business opportunities in those days to survive, such as tourism etc. During the last decades I’ve seen many small family businesses begin and help the local economy grow with respect to tourism. Indeed, my family also branched out with a very small camp site. In recent years we now see many events being hosted on Anglesey promoting visitors to the area for events such as ‘Tour de Mon’, Coastal path marathons, the Trearddur Bay Oyster fair and our local Council promoting cruise ships to the area, where we see buses taking these visitors all over the island from the castles to the wonderful coastline, up to the RSPB Nature Reserve in South Stack. Tourism in the area rests strongly on the beauty and the health of the local environment.
So, it seems contradictory that this same County Council would endorse a development that could risk the significant attraction that a natural and thriving environment presents to visitors, ultimately, by creating a new threat that will also damage the local marine ecology.
Therefore, I write to object to the proposed development listed above, on the following grounds;
1. The Consultation process has not been followed nor has been transparent. I tried to attend the local meeting on the 11th October with MM but was advised by my neighbours that MM (Menter Mon) felt that representation was believed to be adequate as 2 people living in the area were attending. Therefore, positively excluding me and my views. Yet the policy clearly states something different – see below. (I also attach a copy of my correspondence to MM and Albert Owen MP expressing my views).
So, reading the policy statement above and the emailed response from MM about my attendance seem to be a contradiction. So, it does beg the question what else isn’t true from a policy perspective? The plethora of information 5 boxes in the library, 1000’s of pages necessary or deliberate tactic to induce confusion? Not a great way to build trust or be transparent/ inclusive, one could think that there was a more sinister reason?
2. The impact on the Marine ecology. – specifically where this proposed development is planned to be sited. The shear thought of damage to a natural eco system for this development is mind boggling. I understand that the RSPB are also concerned that colonies of bird species will be impacted as their natural feeding area is at risk due to these structures, so they may die due to collision or leave the area to find more suitable feeding grounds, unspoilt by man. And what about the many mammals we now see along the coastline from rare dolphins to the seals and their pups they have. We have a duty to protect the natural wildlife for generations to come. Why damage the environment to save the environment?
3. The visual impact. This rugged coastline is incredibly unique as it is untouched. Whether it be a beautiful sunset or blowing a gale, 2 things remain 1) It’s beautiful, of that there is no doubt 2) You still see people enjoying it whatever the weather. This proposal would change this dramatically. Who would want to visit the area to see these barges on the surface? So close to the shoreline? The knock-on effect could be for it to impact tourism and the number of people visiting to see the fore mentioned delights. Which then would impact the local businesses both small and large. Tourism has been built up over 30+ years and can be damaged in just a couple. The Energy Island initiative would be just that – nothing else!
4. Disruption to the local area. The works suggested would mean digging up the entire route from South Stack to Porth Dafarch, through Mill Road to Anglesey Aluminium. These works could take years to complete and much misery to few dozen locals living in the area but more importantly the thousands of people visiting the area.
To conclude, the need for renewable energy is important, but it should not be sought at any cost and certainly not at the expense of a flourishing marine eco system or bird colonies that have been established over decades. This development would change that permanently. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that also means it is a thriving environment. There may be few places that can claim that. We all have a duty to protect it. The proposed development by MM, endorsed by the local council, supported by our local Member of Parliament Albert Owen MP is not necessarily a responsible development and seems they have lost sight of what has been considered important: tourism and a eco system that has been built over many years but can be negatively and permanently damaged in one or two.
Yours faithfully,
Mr D W Rees BEng(Hons)