Your local Member of Parliament 

The Rt. Hon. Dr Liam Fox has been the Member of Parliament for North Somerset (previously known as Woodspring constituency) since the General Election in April 1992.

He was born in East Kilbride in 1961, grandson of a miner, educated at the local St Bride's High School, went to Glasgow University and qualified as a doctor. He is a member of the Royal College of General Practitioners and has previously worked as a Civilian Army Medical Officer, as a divisional surgeon for St Johns Ambulance, and later as a GP in Buckinghamshire and Somerset.

He has had a varied political career. In June 1993, he was appointed Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Howard, then Home Secretary. In July 1994, he was appointed an Assistant Government Whip, and promoted to the position of Senior Government Whip the following year. He was a Minister at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1996 until the 1997 General Election.

In June 1997, Liam was appointed Opposition Front Bench Spokesman on Constitutional Affairs. For four years from May 1999 to November 2003 he served as Shadow Secretary of State for Health before being appointed Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party in 2003. Subsequently, from May 2005 to December 2005, he served as Shadow Foreign Secretary.  He held the role of Shadow Secretary of State for Defence from December 2005 until the General Election in May 2010, after which he was appointed Secretary of State for Defence a role he held until 14th October 2011.

He has lived in Somerset for 18 years and lives within the constituency with his wife Jesmé at Tickenham.

Dr Liam Fox MP

HOUSE OF COMMONS

LONDON SW1A 0AA

Mr Mark Wilson

Case Leader

Infrastructure Planning Commission

Temple Quay House

Temple Quay

Bristol

BS1 6PN

17^th May 2010

Dear Mr Wilson,

As you will be aware I have repeatedly called for a full and meaningful consultation on the route options put forward by National Grid for the Hinkley Point connection project.

There is a great deal of concern in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that not enough has been done to justify the exclusion of options for underground or under-sea cables in place of the pylon routes currently being proposed.

The consultation process we have been given has been between two different land corridors with overhead cables. I do not believe that National Grid has carried out as thorough and adequate a consultation with the public as they should have.

What we want to see is a genuine consultation that compares the wider costs and benefits of overhead cables with undersea and underground cables. A Severn Estuary route or a route underground cannot be ruled out on purely short-term financial grounds, ignoring wider measures of public interest such as environment, safety, green belt or the impact on property values. These options should be properly explored and communicated.

In February I welcomed the IPC report which stated that ‘substantially more work needs to be done to increase the level of understanding in the respective local communities about the environmental, cost and technical implications of undergrounding the line and / or the undersea route’. 

However, since then I do not believe that substantially more work on this issue has taken place. I hope that the meeting tomorrow will provide further answers. I understand that my colleague Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger is attending the meeting. I am therefore copying this letter to him so that he is aware of the strength of feeling within North Somerset on this issue.

I will wait to hear the outcome of these discussions and would appreciate a written account of the proceedings from the Chairman.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Liam Fox MP

Member of Parliament for North Somerset

Mr Chris Born

Chair – NHS North Somerset

Waverley House

Old Church Road

Clevedon

North Somerset  BS21 6 NN

27 November, 2009

Dear Mr Born

As you are aware, the proposal to reorganise general practice in Wrington is extremely controversial.  I met with representatives of Save our Surgeries in Wrington last week and promised to bring a number of issues that they raised with me  to your attention.

First, the Consultation Process itself

(i)          Lack of access to core consultation papers (1).  The Consultation document and its Questionnaire were only made available to the public in printed form on the morning of the first Public Consultation meeting (Tuesday 17^th November).  Even then they were only available in the Surgery waiting room in unmarked boxes.  This meant that virtually no-one had the opportunity to acquire a copy let alone read it and form any questions they wanted to ask later that day.  The next full Public meeting is not scheduled to take place until February 2010.

(ii)          Lack of access to core consultation papers (2).  In order to understand what is proposed the PCT has prepared a limited number of Reference Documents (including the Population Map handed to you when we met).  These remain available only via the website – further restricting peoples’ access to the basic information available about the proposal.  The PCT stated it would make the documents available at Wrington Post Office – but as at today (one week after making the commitment) the documents are not in sight.

(iii)       Wrington Parish Council in particular believes it was poorly consulted by the Practice about its favoured proposal to move away from the village.

Second, Option 2 – The Two Site Option

(i)   The Wrington Vale Medical Practice (WVMP) doctors have stated that there is no land available at either of the existing sites. According to SOS, this is simply untrue.  SOS is aware that: 

Mr Chris Born

     through initial conversations with the Church Commissioners Diocese Property Officer about the Wrington site the Diocese said they had not been approached by anyone who wished to acquire this land. Furthermore, they would be inclined to look "most favourably" at a sale for the extension to the surgery if it was to be used for the purpose of extending it. 

     Wrington Parish Council can see no problem in releasing the unexpired balance of their lease on the land in question.

     Churchill Parish Council has expressed a willingness to make available land adjacent to the current Churchill surgery, for the purpose of extending the medical facility, and provide a new 99 year lease to cover the new area.

(ii)          Both Wrington and Churchill Parish Councils support the extension to       their respective surgeries. 

(iii)         At the first of the PCT Consultation meetings (17^th November) it was stated that extension to the Wrington surgery was not possible because it would mean closing a children’s play area.  Once again this is simply not true – there is a field between the existing surgery and the play area!  Part of the field would be used to extend the surgery – the children’s play area would not be touched.  The PCT speaker seemed embarrassed by this error in the information provided.

Third, Option 3 – The single site at Pudding Pie Lane

(i)             Residents in Langford have openly condemned the proposed Pudding Pie Lane site on health and safety grounds because it is right opposite Churchill Primary School.  The access roads nearby are narrow (with difficulty in passing) and the pavements are, in places, non-existent.  The risk of injury to young children and their parents/carers is said to be “an accident waiting to happen”.

(ii)         Any new surgery car park is likely to become a holding position for mums taking children to and from school.

(iii)        Building on a greenfield site outside the village envelope is contrary to planning policy.

Mr Chris Born
(iv)     Neither Parish Council supports the single site proposal.

Fourth, Accessibility

(i)          Walking:   Overall 34.7% of patients can currently walk to either surgery within 20 minutes if they choose to do so.  In Wrington that figure is 72.6%.  Under the new proposal only 16.3% of patients will have the option of walking to Pudding Pie Lane – and from Wrington that figure reduces to 0%!

(ii)          Driving:  Currently 80% of patients can drive to one of the surgeries within 10 minutes.  Under the new Pudding Pie Lane proposal that figure is only 60.3% - a 25% reduction in short drive times.  Longer drive times (some increasing by 100%) will be required by 1750 patients (20% of the practice).

(iii)          Up to 38% of WVMP patients live closer to a non WVMP surgery.  These people have already chosen to drive to access their medical facilities.  Why do their views have to be considered on a par with those who have chosen to live close to their current WVMP surgery?

(iv)         There is widespread concern by many different Groups within the community about the loss of the Wrington surgery:  young mums with children (many with no transport – and there are 200 children at the village primary school), the chronic sick and the older less mobile patients.

These findings indicate:

1.       a significant degradation to accessing our initial point of access to primary  

          care

2.       increased car journeys, contrary to environmental/green policies

I understand that the Outline Business Case given to the PCT by WVMP has not been made available to SOS or to local patients.  I would be grateful if you could make a copy available to me so that I can discuss it with constituents.  There are a number of questions relating to the financing of the changes.   I understand that a sum of £3 million is being mentioned for the cost of the proposed development.  Is this really justified for the increase in the number of services in the current financial environment and who, ultimately stands to benefit more, the practices or the patients?  I would also be grateful if you could tell me what discussions have taken place with the practices about the potential for private work being carried out at the new site?

Mr Chris Born

SOS inform me that, contrary to what the PCT has indicated, the two neighbouring rural practices (Yeo Vale – Yatton & Congresbury; Wavering Down – Winscombe & Banwell) have a growing concern about the proposed single site development by WVMP and the impact it will have on their own businesses.  This is particularly relevant given that 38% of WVMPs patients live nearer to other non-WVMP rural practices. 

Finally, I have discussed the timing of this whole issue with my Shadow Cabinet Colleague, Andrew Lansley.  We all know that a general election will be held some time between March and May next year.  Given that Parliament is likely to be dissolved in March, coinciding with the end of the consultation period, we both feel it would be completely inappropriate that major decisions on a health care provision should be made during this period, as an incoming government may take a different view and, in any case, there are technically no Members of Parliament able to represent the views of constituents, once Parliament is dissolved. 

I have personal concerns about the safety of the Pudding Pie Lane site, particularly in relation to children and I wonder what assessment has been carried out.

My last thought is about the consultation itself.  What real weight is given to the responses and is there a critical mass of opposition which would result in the new site being rejected or is this a consultation, as understood by our current Labour government, where the result is a foregone conclusion?  The changes proposed by the NHS seem to fail to understand that access is a bigger issue in rural areas and what is possible in an urban or suburban area is not always possible in the country.

I would be grateful for your views on all these matters.

Yours sincerely

LIAM FOX 

Update on Hinkley Point Pylon Project

Following the public meeting held on 27^th November Dr Fox promised to write again to the National Grid to raise a number of concerns and questions relating to the various options available for the routing.

The original letter from Dr Fox is available below (Item 1).

He has now received a response which you can view below (item 2).

Dr Fox is concerned that the National Grid have not provided a sufficient justification as to why they rejected the non-pylon alternatives.

Dr Fox is very keen to get public response to this letter. If you have further comments please put your views on paper and send them to the address below:

Dr Liam Fox MP

House of Commons

London

SW1A 0AA

December 2009

 ITEM 1

Dear Mr Mercer

Firstly, I would like to thank you and your colleagues for taking the time to attend our public meeting in Nailsea last Friday.  I am sure you will agree it was a very measured meeting, although the strength of feeling was extremely clear.  There were a number of issues raised, which I promised to take up with you.

As I said at the meeting, the costs of the pylon replacement scheme need to be measured in more than simply monetary terms – the quality of life of our local environment has a value too.  We therefore need more information about genuine alternatives, rather than simply a choice between two different corridors (one of which is so horrendous and would represent such environmental vandalism that it could never be a really viable option). 

As you saw, there was considerable interest in the issues of undergrounding cables or having them under water.  There was a huge appetite for more detailed costings about these and more information on the technical issues, albeit in language designed for a lay audience.

Could you tell me in detail what is different about the Neptune Project and other underwater projects, which make them so radically different from a project in the Severn Estuary?  Could you give us costings on similar projects to take cables underground where there are large population centres?  One of the most surprising answers that we received at the meeting was that the difference to electricity consumers from a pylon project cost of £90 million and an underwater or underground programme of over £500 million would be only around one per cent on electricity bills.  More information on this relationship would be very useful.

I would also be grateful if you provide us with evidence on the superconductor idea and how technology in this area could take us into supply for the 21^st century.  I would also find it very useful if you could give estimates not only of the initial cost but of the through life cost for the various options.

Finally, as we are well into the consultation period and with Christmas approaching, we need time to look at all these options and all this information.  I think it would be a very good seasonal gesture to extend the consultation period so that a good decision can be reached, rather than simply a quick one.

On a personal note, as I said at the meeting, I find it outrageous that the current government’s legislation has resulted in a situation where the IPC is not answerable to a Secretary of State.  The lack of democratic accountability in this whole process is wholly unacceptable and it is an area that a Conservative government would wish to change. 

Thank you once again for taking the trouble to come to Nailsea and I look forward to your reply in due course. 

Yours sincerely

LIAM FOX 

ITEM 2

Dr Liam Fox MP

 High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology is also used around the world in special circumstances; typically where very long connections are required (hundreds of kilometres) and to provide interconnections between different AC transmission systems, such as our own interconnector with France.

HVDC systems use direct current, either through overhead lines or underground and subsea cables,to transfer power. Convertor stations are required at either end to interface with existing AC networks. Convertor stations are extremely expensive and as a consequence HVDC. using overhead lines as the transmission medium, only becomes economic over very long distances. Where the transmission medium is underground or subsea, HVDC systems can be economic at much shorter distances but only when compared against an equivalent AC underground or subsea connection, not compared with an AC overhead line.

The Neptune Project connects Long Island with the mainland, has a capacity of around 660MW and cost in the region of $650m. The urban nature of the New York/Long Island area would have prevented an on-shore overhead connection and justified the high cost of a subsea HVDC connection. The Neptune cable allows Long Island Power Authority to purchase electricity from outside the area.An HVDC connection in the Severn Estuary would need to be rated at around 4000MW and we estimate would cost in excess of £1 bn more than an AC overhead line connection. Any HVDC connection in the Severn Estuary would in addition have its own environmental, technical and engineering difficulties and would require multiple cable connections.

As I explained at the meeting, the cost of either a subsea or underground cable on this connection would result in only a very small increase in charges to consumers. This connection is however just one part of the very major capital programme of works National Grid has across its networks, and this in turn is part of an even larger investment across the UK's energy networks as a whole. This investment is vital to the UK achieving its targets to move towards achieving a low carbon economy, and includes the connection of new renewable and new nuclear electricity generating capacity.

National Grid's approach of using overhead lines to provide transmission connections has been accepted by the Secretary of State in granting consent for a number of overhead lines over the last 15 years, including the Seabank Power Station connection to the north of Bristol. More recently on 2 December 2009 the Secretary of State granted consent for a new 21 km 400kV overhead line in County Durham.

National Grid works closely with manufacturers and other utilities on the development and application of new technology. Superconducting cable technology may in time develop to present a practical and economic solution but currently, to our knowledge, there is no practical installation of any significant scale commercially operational.

 I hope this reply is helpful. I would emphasise that we are committed to effective consultation with Hinkley Point 'c' Connection.

Thank you for your letter dated 3 December 2009. I hope the local community found the public

meeting on 27 November a useful addition to our consultation programme. We fully understand the strength of feeling of the community and I hope the answers we provided were helpful.

I attach a copy of our detailed optioneering report which was made available on our website on 7 December. This report sets out details of all the connections options considered, and the methodology by which we arrived at the proposed system reinforcements necessary to connect Hinkley Point C, including any potential for subsea cables as an alternative to new on-shore power lines.

The report concluded that the option which provided on balance the most appropriate solution would be to construct a new 400kV overhead power line between Bridgwater and Sea bank substation in Avonmouth, and our current public consultation exercise is seeking feedback from local communities on two possible route corridors for this line. This consultation will close on 08 January 2010, after which we will consider all feedback and comments received. We will then determine a preferred route corridor and carry out a further public consultation on a proposed route alignment within that corridor to ensure local people have every opportunity to give us their views. Of course, we will be happy to answer questions about the optioneering process and the project as a whole throughout this period.

In your letter you refer specifically to the Long Island Neptune Project and I hope the following comments are helpful.

The transmission network in the UK, in common with most other nations, uses high voltage alternating current (AC) power lines as the means of transporting electricity. Overhead lines are used wherepossible, with underground cables being used more frequently in built-up areas. Underground cables cost around 12 to 17 times as much as overhead lines, and therefore we reserve consideration fortheir use to built-up areas where it is not possible to achieve an overhead route, and areas designated for their very high amenity value such as National Parks.

News Release – 24th November 2009

PROPOSED PYLON ROUTE THROUGH WOODSPRING

 Hinkley Point C National Grid Connection Project

Dr Fox met earlier this month with representatives of the National Grid to discuss the issue of electricity pylons in North Somerset, which has been a cause of great anxiety for many constituents.

Under the arrangements set out in the current Labour Planning Act 2008, consent for overhead lines comes from the Infrastructure Planning Commission. This does not require planning permission from the local district council.

There is an extensive timescale on this system. No application will be made until summer 2011 at the earliest and no decision is likely to be reached until autumn 2012.  The new system needs to be in place by 2017.

The new lines will carry 400,000 volts (compared to the current level of 132,000 volts) so they will need to be kept higher for safety reasons. This inevitably means taller pylons though the numbers will be reduced from around 4 pylons per km to around three pylons per km.  This is due to the much higher output from Hinkley C (around 3600 megawatts) compared to Hinkley B (around 1300 megawatts).

Dr Fox has been informed and witnessed first hand, the overwhelming support for corridor 1, but believes that the environmental damage proposed by route 2 is utterly unacceptable and would strongly oppose it.

Dr Fox explained that if route 1(a) is chosen (i.e., the current route) then there should be sufficient scope to move the pylons away from some, if not all, the housing at the North West edge of Nailsea.  They agreed to look at this in detail.  He also said that lines should not go over any existing houses. They were happy to give an assurance that this would not happen.

As an alternative to the pylon system, an option for a partial undergrounding of lines and the proposed underwater route has been discussed. Representatives from the National Grid explained that the vastly increased cost of underground cables would have to be passed on to electricity customers. As for the underwater option, they believed that the extremely high tidal range would make engineering very difficult if it was possible at all. There would also be difficulties because of the environmental designation of the area.

Subsequent to this meeting, Dr Fox has written to the National Grid to further debate the use of undergrounding cables and the issue of laying them on the sea bed. He has conducted a significant amount of research on a similar project called the Neptune Regional Transmission System 500 kV HVDC Project, which has laid an interconnector system between New Jersey and Long Island and consists of 65 miles of under sea and underground cables. The majority of which, is underwater.  Dr Fox has therefore suggested the possibility of conducting a similar project in North Somerset, baring the cost of such a project in mind.

Dr Fox has asked for evidence of studies that the National Grid have looked at to come to the conclusion that such a project would not be viable in the UK. He has also asked for a cost assessment on the comparison expenditure of an undergrounding project versus the pylon project, and an examination into alternative systems to meet a requirement for what, by 2017, should be the technology of the future.

As part of the ongoing consultations Dr Fox is also planning to attend the Public Meeting organised by the Save Our Valley organisation on Friday 27^th November in Nailsea.