1. FMD is extending its influence. Culling teams are reported to be encamped at the cross roads by the A19 flyover between Knayton and Borowby. Following the multiple outbreaks near Thirsk, from this week there are livestock restrictions along the whole of the line to Shipton and down to the A64. Clearly this is a very uncertain time and it would be unwise to resume any pylons related work on highways or private land for the foreseeable future.
2. FMD is also reported to be bringing pressure on farmers through misleading information that they have no option but to accept the culls, whereas it is said the legal position is that farmer's agreement is required for contiguous culling. This sounds rather like the position of landowners, whose agreement is required by NGC to local access and working arrangements, though NGC try to obscure the fact and bluff their way. REVOLT does not have a position on FMD but is willing to pass on information from farmers' FMD groups. There are also reports of major potential burial sites near Deighton and near Alne which are of local concern. One farmers' group is Ground Force, contact Diane Ellis <email@example.com>. There is also the National F&M Group mentioned in news91, contact firstname.lastname@example.org. These two groups seem to be associated. A pack of documents from Ground Force is here.
3. Following a meeting with NFU solicitors, they are to pursue the incident at Pintail Nest, and further, the general issue of access rights. My follow up email to the meeting is appended below, showing the evidence in the form of wayleave hearings report and transcripts supports our view.
Appendix 1: note re NFU solicitors and incident at Pintail Nest
Further to our meeting with NFU solicitors yesterday, I am copying to you and to Alison Kay and Lawrence Cadman: (a) pages 10-11 and 31-32 from Mr Walker's hearings report of 3.3.95, (b) pages 49-55 of the hearings transcript Day 11 18.11.94.
These pages clearly show some of the differences between the wayleave and access matters.
The wayleave and the hearings made no consideration of site specific access matters at Pintail Nest. They were instead concerned with position and a change to a tower siting and with visual impacts. Further, the generic information in (a) clearly shows the misleading indications of vehicle trips and weights (confirmed elsewhere in NGC papers) which contrast greatly with the detail forthcoming some five years later in access applications to local authorities.
A further point is that Mr Walker's report indicates, as NGC implied, that a lightweight derrick would be used for tower construction generally, whereas the recent access information is that a 57 tonne mobile crane will be used instead. That is not the lifting ability of the crane, but the weight to be transported along highways and access routes, in contrast to the much lower maximum vehicle weight figure (14 tonnes) given in the Environmental Statement (Picton-Shipton vol.1 1992 sections B9 and B10) and not changed in the inquiries and hearings.
In conclusion, the inquiries and hearings certainly did not provide for nor actually consider site specific access matters, such as detailed access routes and working arrangements. These are among the matters for which NGC must obtain landowner's agreement in accordance with Nick Raynsford's parliamentary reply.
Perhaps Lawrence Cadman would reconsider his view as stated in his letter of 29.5.01 to Angela Quinn. The evidence makes clear that it is not a case of a "second bite at the cherry".
Three Tun Web