From: WILLIAMS, Sarah
Sent: 03 December 2009 19:51
To: WILLIAMS, Sarah
Subject: Update from Tim Yeo MP
DICTATED BY TIM YEO MP AND SENT ON HIS BEHALF:
I have continued to receive many emails detailing the profound
concerns of local residents about National Grid's proposals.
I am delighted that the main campaigners have now agreed on a
single objective - opting for Option 2 as long as this opportunity
is also used to bury underground all the cables, both existing and
proposed. This is a sensible idea which I also strongly
support.
Even if it eventually proves impossible to underground the
cables along the whole of corridor 2 it is absolutely essential
that cables in all the sensitive areas are undergrounded.
I haven't yet had a reply from National Grid to my questions
about the true costs of undergrounding but this will be sent to you
as soon as it has been received.
I am planning to hold another public meeting in the New Year at
which our campaign against the National Grid proposals will be
taken forward.
Yours sincerely
TIM YEO
* * * * * * * * * *
Sarah Williams
Parliamentary Assistant to Tim Yeo MP
020 7219 4175
From: J&S McDonald
To: 'WILLIAMS, Sarah'
Sent: Sunday, December 06, 2009 4:23 PM
Subject: RE: Update from Tim Yeo MP
FAO Mr T Yeo.
I was somewhat taken aback when reading Mr Yeo's latest
correspondence.
My understanding from the recent meeting held in Bildeston and
chaired by Mr Yeo was that as a group the decision on the way
forward should be agreed (the preferred option being under
grounding).
I appear to be missing something in that, to my knowledge no
representative from the Hintlesham group has been involved in this
decision to agree on the Option 2.
What I do see is that certain groups are "going their own way"
and would appear to be speaking on behalf of Suffolk to the benefit
of their own area, again my understanding from the Bildeston
meeting was that a united front was the way forward. Reading the
recent local press anything but "united" appears to be
occurring.
From a Hintlesham viewpoint as a group to date, we have put
Suffolk at the forefront of our objections, In light of the local
press, your statement and the attitude of other groups I am now
questioning whether we should continue in our protection of Suffolk
and lower ourselves to that of the other groups and take the
strategy of "not in our back yard".
In conclusion I strongly object to the the statement that "the
main campaigners have now agreed on a single objective"
Who are these "main campaigners"?
Is it people who opposed to addressing the bigger issue are
simply bombarding your office with correspondence?
What is the justification behind this decision?
I totally disagree with the contents of your email and would
request that you despatch a further email addressing what clearly
is an assumption on your part ie residents of Hintlesham have not
agreed to the proposal as detailed in your e mail.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Jim McDonald
DICTATED BY TIM YEO MP AND SENT ON HIS BEHALF:
Dear Mr McDonald
Thank you for your email of 6 December.
At the public meeting in Bildeston in October I expressed the
view that the best chance of resisting the current proposals from
National Grid, which will be damaging to many communities in South
Suffolk, was to reach agreement on a single alternative which the
majority of objectors could support.
Inevitably it is extremely difficult, and maybe impossible, to
find a solution which commands absolutely unanimous support and
thereby reach a decision that will please everyone. However
choosing option two and campaigning for all the cables to be placed
underground is in line with the views of the overwhelming majority
of people and organisations who have contacted me (including the
Dedham Vale Society and the Groton Pylon Alliance).
I have therefore concluded that it is best to support this,
given the importance of presenting a common front.
Yours sincerely
TIM YEO
* * * * * * * * * *
Sarah Williams
Parliamentary Assistant to Tim Yeo MP
020 7219 4175
Dear Mr Yeo,
I was most disappointed to receive your recent e-mail.
Following the meeting at Bildeston I understood the position to be
that you would pursue accurate costings for undergrounding, as this
was what the majority voted for.
Now you seem to have made a choice before even the official
consultation meetings are complete.
I would be interested to hear what has occurred for you to let
so many people down.
Regards,
Janet Martin, Hintlesham
Dear Mr. Yeo
As residents of Hintlesham we were very disappointed to read that
you are backing corridor 2 as a route for new pylons, stating that
this is the preferred route, ( perferred by whom, who are the main
parties that you refer to?), when the consultation process is not
yet complete.
It seems to us that a route that does not involve the homes of so
many of your constituents might be a better one - for instance
corridor 4. We also feel that which ever corridor is used the power
lines should be under the ground and that no one has yet come up
with a viable reason as to why this cannot happen. The cost of a
new sub-station would of course be saved if corridor 4 were to be
used.
We hope that you will feel that you need to rethink your response
and talk to the residents of Hintlesham and Chattisham.
Mac and Jenny Cox
Back to the No Pylon
Page