The Parish Council is committed to continue with their objections to the consultation. Details of the latest response can be viewed below (as of May 2024)
Fordham Parish Council response to National Grid’s statutory consultation 2024.
Fordham Parish Council objects to the National Grid Norwich to Tilbury pylons proposal. This is on the basis of the arguments set out in our consultation responses in 2022 and 2023 by Fordham Parish Council, with contributions from Fordham Local History Society, Colchester Archaeological Group and the Essex Suffolk Norfolk Pylons action group.
In addition, multiple feedback forms and in particular the heritage form have all been previously returned with absolutely no response from N.G.
The consultation process has been, and remains inadequate; the fact is that at no point have we been actually consulted. We have been presented with one option only and despite our direct phone call, presentations and evidence there have been no changes made to mitigate the damage to our parish.
The only option that can fully protect our environment, heritage, economy and well-being is the offshore route for the power lines.
Local businesses have seen a major boost in tourism in the last few years, we get numerous groups of walkers and cyclists travelling the Essex Way, the linking public rights of way and country lanes, this vital part of the village’s economy will severely be curtailed during the pylon construction process.
The economic and logistical effects on two of our farmers will also be considerable, on top of the long term damage to multiple fields and hedgerows; Fossetts Lane provides links to many of the fields in the east of the parish. The proposed haul roads and working areas will cause massive disruption to the farming calendar.
The only option that can fully protect our environment, heritage, economy and well-being is the offshore route for the power lines.
While the bulk of the destruction to our landscape and farmland is on the east of the parish, some distance from most of the housing, the proposed pylons will still be very visible to those living along Mill Road, Fossetts Lane, West Bergholt Road and Church Road, completely fringing the eastern horizon of the parish.
Apart from being an area of great natural beauty, this is also an area of highly significant archaeological heritage. As N.G. have been repeatedly told, but were still apparently unaware of at the most recent 2024 statutory consultations, we have multiple, confirmed prehistoric, Roman and medieval sites. Even our nationally important, active Roman dig site has not been avoided; N.G. plans to put a pylon overhead line pulling location on top of it!
This is a direct breech of the Holford Rules that N.G. are required to adhere to.
One attendee at the recent NG consultations was told by a N.G. rep. that “We have our processes” (regarding archaeology) “We don’t need any input from you.” Such utter arrogance and ignorance, we know what’s in the ground and where it is. N.G. doesn’t!
The only option that can fully protect our environment, heritage, economy and well-being is the offshore route for the power lines.
As regards pylon placement, when you cross the river, passing the old mill house, proceeding up the hill towards the medieval church and Fordham hall, there will be a 50 metre/164 foot pylon within a few metres of the road, looming over you. This is exceptionally poor and thoughtless planning.
Likewise, as walkers of the future travel the Essex Way beside the River Colne, looking north towards the village, the scene will be destroyed by the string of pylons planted in front of them.
In addition, there is a “proposed overhead line pulling location” just 200 metres from our primary school with a pylon in the middle of it. Have N.G. no sense or consideration at all?
What will also suffer greatly are our roads. Fordham already has an excessively high amount of H.G.V. and large farm vehicle traffic, our roads are constantly breaking up, frequently making them dangerous to use. What will happen to them when N.G. add dozens or even hundreds more heavy vehicle movements per day?
Let’s not forget that the whole project is planned to last for three and a half years!
The only option that can fully protect our environment, heritage, economy and well-being is the offshore route for the power lines.
It has been mentioned that most of the domestic properties in the parish are not close to what could become a massive, strung out building site, yet there is one house up Fossetts lane that will suffer greatly. The fields immediately to their west and north will be a construction area, with a pylon being erected 60m from their property. The disruption, cost and personal distress to them will be enormous. Again this is poor and thoughtless planning.
There are two properties at the lower end of Mill Road that will also be greatly affected as N.G.’s haul roads cross Mill Road just north of the houses. They will see and hear the heavy traffic rumbling past and around them, day in and day out for months, probably years.
Whilst Fordham’s ancient heritage is considerable, it is not unique; there are Roman and prehistoric sites in the Horkesleys, West Bergholt, Wormingford, Aldham, Great Tey, Marks Tey and Little Tey and continuing along the A120 and A12 corridors, both Roman roads. Pylons are planned to march right through this historic region.
The only option that can fully protect our environment, heritage, economy and well-being is the offshore route for the power lines.
National Grid Norwich to Tilbury Consultation July / August 2023 Consultation Response
We support, endorse, and subscribe to the submission of the “Great Horkesley, Little Horkesley and Fordham Against Pylons” group as well as that of “Pylons East Anglia”.
We object to the way this consultation is being conducted. I have not been presented with alternatives or provided with sufficient information to make a reasoned decision. At no stage have you consulted on alternative pylon routes, instead choosing to present a single route as a “done deal”. Asking about the specific location of individual pylons does not constitute “alternatives” as required in law.
Sufficient time has not been allowed for responses. The consultation events have been difficult to access for those working or commuting and it is not reasonable to expect residents to consider such complex matters during the holiday season when many are away or are preoccupied with childcare.
We am aware of the legal opinion issued by Charles Banner KC in respect of the first consultation and do not consider that your new material addresses the issues raised.
National Grid have failed to demonstrate the NEED for this project. The designed capacity of 6GW was already significantly more than the actual need outlined in your internal documents and released following an EIR request. Following the cancellation of the Vattenfall plans in Norfolk it is doubtful whether you need the proposed reinforcements at all. Certainly, your documentation does nothing to establish the need in a way which I can understand.
Your onshore plans will cause significant harm to the environment, landscape, ecology, and cultural heritage of our local area. They amount to an industrialisation of a so-far unspoiled area of the county and will do significant damage to protected landscapes of the Dedham Vale AONB, and to Great Horkesley, Little Horkesley and Fordham. Damage to the AONB will be caused by infrastructure both within the AONB and on its outskirts. Your plans would alter both the AONB itself and the setting of the AONB. To remind you, the relevant planning guidance and your own Holford Rules speak of avoiding “altogether” the major areas of highest amenity value. This is something your proposals clearly fail to do.
Your proposals bring works into close proximity to numerous listed buildings, and you have entirely failed to set out steps taken to avoid or mitigate damage to those protected settings.
Your proposals are also in close proximity to the airfield at Wormingford and will impact upon both runways.
We favour and believe that National Grid should implement a ‘Fully Integrated Offshore Alternative’ of the type set out by ESO in their November 2020 paper catering to the needs of the whole of the East Anglia region.
We do not consider the on-shore off-shore on-shore again alternative you set out in a letter to MPs in December 2022 to be an “Integrated Offshore Alternative” and do not favour it. Your design increases duplication would cost more and would indeed be even more harmful. The design demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the principles set out by ESO and their designs were much better.
If a fully integrated offshore alternative is shown to be impossible (which I do not believe) then instead, I favour and believe that National Grid should implement a “Partially Integrated Offshore Alternative” which combines Five Estuaries and North Falls offshore using Sealink to transmit power both north and south and hence avoiding the need to put infrastructure in the Dedham Vale and North Colchester area entirely. (I note that if used in this mode, the capacity of Sealink would be effectively doubled as 1.2GW could be carried in each direction, achieving 2.4GW in total and hence avoiding your stated capacity concerns). Various alternatives of this types were set out by ESO in their June 2022 paper. These alternatives would dramatically reduce harm both on- and off-shore as well as forming a more resilient basis from which further expansions in the future can be made in a cost-effective manner.
If with appropriate evidence both Fully Integrated and Partially Integrated offshore alternatives are shown to be infeasible, I make the following observations in respect of the proposals set out in the current consultation:
- The industrialisation of the Dedham Vale through use of Pylons and related infrastructure in the Great Horkesley, Little Horkesley and Fordham area is entirely incompatible with the setting and will do significant and irreversible harm to the protected landscape and setting of the AONB. The situation is made more problematic by the concentration of infrastructure in a small space which leads to unacceptable wire-scape and a significant “industrialisation”.
Holford Rule (1) states that Pylons should “avoid altogether, if possible, the major areas of highest amenity value, by so planning the general route of the first line in the first place, even if the total mileage is somewhat increased in consequence. “
Horlock Rule (2) states that sealing end compounds should “as far as reasonably practicable seek to avoid altogether international and nationally designated areas….”.
In the CPRSS for your first consultation your own engineers stated in Chapter 5 that material damage would be done to the AONB and its setting by Pylons within 2km of the boundaries and that mitigation would be required. Your current proposals only include undergrounding within 1.3km of the boundaries and fall short of your own engineers’ recommendations let alone the views of the local population. Given the elevation of surrounding land the proposals as set out would mean that Pylons TB1 – TB35, towers and gantries associated with both Sealing End Compounds, and Pylons TB36-40 would be visible across a large proportion of the AONB. Pylons TB1-TB35, if allowed, would form arches above every major ingress to the central and eastern AONB. Pylons TB36-TB40 would do the same to the western section of the AONB as well as to the Stour Valley Project Area (which your own engineers recognised as needing protection). The damage to protected landscapes of the AONB and Stour Valley Project Areas, as well as to their setting, would be very material indeed.
- It is unclear what justification there is for the relatively short distance of overground line with associated infrastructure from Ardleigh EACN to Great Horkesley; the visual impact of the pylons and associated infrastructure stretches across significant areas of the AONB (due to the topography of the area and height of the pylons – as demonstrated by viewsheds) as well as its setting. Making this whole section underground will reduce the visual blight on the AONB and its setting and reduce overall infrastructure (the sealing end compound NE of Horkesley Plantation becoming otiose).
- The location selected for the Sealing End Compound at Great Horkesley (NE of Horkesley Plantation) is extremely flat and offers no screening at all. It is in close proximity to the AONB, listed buildings, and the Essex Way (which passes close by both to the West and North of the site). The separation of pylons from the AONB, listed buildings and the Essex Way could be dramatically increased (and their impact on the AONB and other assets dramatically decreased) by moving the Sealing End Compound a relatively short For example, the line-of-sight distance to the AONB from TB30 is almost double that at TB34/35 and as a minimum this should have been considered as an alternate position.
- The Holford Rules require the avoidance of residential areas. Use of underground cables through residential land is unacceptable and to be avoided at all Given the rural nature of the area many buildings known as “Farm” or “Barn” are in fact residential and not agricultural or commercial properties. The underground section of route must be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that trenching does not occur through residential land or parkland / paddock land associated with residential properties. Agricultural land should be favoured in all cases. In particular, the split cable arrangement at Knowles Barn (Farm) proceeds directly through residential land and is not acceptable. Cables should not be routed through or oversail residential land and this route segment requires modification.
- The location selected for the Sealing End Compound at Crabtree Lane, Little Horkesley will provide no meaningful screening and is
Firstly, the dip to the landscape mentioned in your documents is not significant being only approximately 8 to 10m beneath the surrounding landscape and only one end of the gantries would be located at that elevation with the other being much closer to the ridge and thereby higher. Given the size and required orientation of the compound, and the height of gantries and pylons, no significant screening will be afforded to the AONB.
Secondly, the location will negatively impact upon numerous listed buildings. The Grove is a Grade II Listed 16th and 18th century timber framed house likely the same residential site associated with Roman archaeology nearby. Gladwins Farm, Holts, Upper Dairy Farm, Cockerells Farmhouse and Maltings Farmhouse are each Grade II listed farmhouses dating as far back at the 14th / 15th century. In each case uninterrupted views across open countryside including in to and out from the AONB have been enjoyed for 500 or more years and are integral to the cultural and heritage value of the region, setting and property. In all cases the agricultural setting and absence from modern infrastructure is of cultural importance.
This site therefore fails in respect of Horlock Rule (2) and Holford Rule (1).
The alternate site highlighted in your Design Development Report would offer significant advantages including being further from the AONB, lower set in the landscape (at 16m lower elevation than the selected site it is twice as far beneath the ridge) and screened from the listed buildings. Notwithstanding what is written below, the alternate site at TB40 offers significant advantages to the selected site at TB36/37, being far better screened it would reduce harm to both the AONB and Listed Buildings, and hence would be strongly preferable given that you currently intend to build at both. This change can be easily made and hence is required when measured against Holford Rule (1).
- Pylon site TB39 is situated at precisely the location of a Roman Kiln, archaeology is readily visible even at soil level. The type and nature of tiles indicates a more complex facility with underfloor heating and hence likely of value. A pylon cannot reasonably be situated there. A path approximately 50m to the East would be required if you wish to maintain the same line. Unfortunately, such path would be much higher in elevation, dramatically more visible within the Dedham Vale AONB and would damage nearby listed buildings. Such route would be incompatible with pylons and the underground section from Little Horkesley needs to be extended at least as far as the alternate site proposed in your documents, and potentially
- The Sealing End Compound at Crabtree Lane as well as pylons TB36 to TB48 would impact upon the airfield at Wormingford. As highlighted in NPS-EN1 “It is essential that the safety of UK aerodromes, aircraft and airspace is not adversely affected by new energy infrastructure”. CAA regulatory guidance CAP 738 places specific requirements on developers close to The distance threshold in respect of vertical structures (such as pylons) is 10 nautical miles. Specific requirements exist in respect of structures above 45m tall within 2500m (non-instrument) and 4000m (instrument) as well as the establishment of “obstacle free zones”. There is a runway orientated from the airfield in the direction of Fordham and hence your proposed pylons. The distance from the runway to the nearest pylon is approximately 1km and hence significantly within the thresholds set out. CAP 738 further states that the aerodrome operator is the only authority competent to determine safety.
- Pylons TB42-48 are in a natural valley formed by a tributary to the river Colne. The area is of special character, being largely free of properties save for historic listed buildings largely associated with farming. The only access roads to this valley are single-lane with occasional passing places meaning that the valley is also largely free of traffic and as a result unspoiled by modern Several species of birds of prey hunt in the area and their calls can be widely heard by day and night. The valley also provides home to many deer because of the ready supply of water and broad open fields together with the nearby woodlands at Hill House.
This landscape is of high amenity value. Hill House Woods are known throughout the Colchester area and attract walkers in all seasons from a wide catchment area. Known for their carpet of bluebells in spring these woods contain many paths down into the valley, with walkers often crossing the valley for refreshment at the public house in Fordham. The natural amenity value of this area will be significantly harmed by pylons between TB43 and TB47 and the effects will be felt over a far wider area due to the popularity of the woods.
Similarly, the Essex Way tracks the river Colne and brings in walkers from across and beyond the region in high number. The route of pylons will be close to, and given the size of the pylons, highly visible from the route of the walk along an extended section. Pylons will cause significant harm to a route which has been heavily used for 50 years. The route is designed to take in areas of highest natural beauty as well as historic sites and such proximity of pylons is incompatible.
The Woodland Trust has acquired significant land in the area. In recognition of the special character of the area it has previously been designated as a “Countryside Conservation Area” by Colchester Council and is clearly equivalent in value to that within the nearby Stour Valley Project and Dedham Vale AONB.
Pylons TB42-TB48 are problematic and would cause damage to this important landscape as well as to the setting of several listed buildings. Old St Mary’s Church, West Bergholt, is a Grade I Listed Building situated on the ridge of the Valley
immediately adjacent to Grade II* Listed The Hall. Both buildings are visible from the Valley, enjoy views into the Valley and would be negatively impacted by TB42-44.
Coney Byes Farm and Fordham Place are Grade II Listed Buildings placed high on the Valley sides just below the ridge. These, along with Highfield Farm and Kings Farmhouse – both of which also Grade II Listed but nestled in the valley – enjoy far reaching views across and along the valley. This area is wide and open and lacks any natural screening along the proposed route of Pylons. The planning history of these buildings indicates several occasions on which residents have been required to modify proposals to ensure that views of listed buildings from across the landscape are protected. This includes, for example, one instance in which installation of double-glazed windows to a modern extension to Coney Byes Farm were felt to be unsuitable because of the impact to views towards the house from across the valley. Against this backdrop the presence of Pylons anywhere within the length of the valley will cause harm to the setting of these buildings and is clearly inappropriate.
- There is significant archaeology in the area between TB43 and TB53. At TB48 a dig site is operated by Fordham Local History Society and Colchester Archaeological Group and has produced Roman buildings and Roman and Iron Age artefacts. Bronze Age burial sites lie immediately west of the river crossing at TB50/51. Damage to these sites is unacceptable and careful routing will be required to avoid entirely, regardless of whether pylons or underground cable are The woodlands at Fiddlers Farm / Fiddlers Woods are ancient and Fiddlers Farm is a Listed Building, ruling out a more easterly route.
Conclusions
Proper consideration must be given to a fully integrated offshore route. To date this has been ignored.
As to the route under consultation, the area of undergrounding needs to be significantly extended – from Ardleigh to Great Horkesley and from Little Horkesley to Fordham. As an absolute minimum the 2km outlined in the CPRSS minimum distance from the AONB should be applied. Proper account needs to be taken of the extremely flat topography of the area, including the ridge, especially when combined with the lack of natural screening such that the pylons will dominate the landscape and have widespread visibility within the AONB itself and its setting; and proper account needs to be taken of the presence and position of Listed Buildings and the Airfield near to Crabtree Lane and Fordham. Damage to the AONB and its setting must be avoided entirely, impact upon Listed Buildings must be minimised, impact to archaeology must be avoided and the airfield must be operated safely.
As a result:
TB1 – TB35 must be removed and cables undergrounded.
The sealing-end compound at Boxted Road / Horkesley Plantation should be removed entirely, no longer being necessary.
An alternate route is required at Knowles Barn
- The position of the Sealing End Compound at Crabtree Lane is unsuitable, and undergrounding must be extended to at least the alternate site at TB40, but ideally as far as TB42, to mitigate impact on AONB protected landscapes and listed
- Pylons TB42 – TB48 will cause harm to a high value landscape, to Listed Buildings as well as to their setting. These pylons should be replaced by further
- The presence of the airfield at Wormingford, the orientation of runways and use of the airfield indicates that undergrounding may in any event be necessary as far as TB48 to protect the inner horizon
- A detailed expert study is required to assess and balance impacts in the area near to Ford Street where a significant cluster of listed buildings in a confined area would indicate in favour of undergrounding, but the presence of archaeology needs to be considered. National Grid must contact Fordham Local History Society and Colchester Archaeological Group to be made aware of archaeology in this area and agree upon changes to proposed routing between TB 43 and TB52 to avoid and protect these
END
======
Consultation response
Fordham Parish Council discussed the application at their Parish Council meeting on the 10th May and prepared the following response:
Fordham Parish Council strongly object to the consultation on the following grounds:
Public rights of way.
The Essex Way public footpath runs 81 miles from Epping to Harwich; it passes through Aldham and Fordham, following the river Colne. There are six other public rights of way that branch northwards from it, into Fordham. This is a tourist area, with many walkers and rambler groups passing through and around Fordham throughout the year, the proposed Pylon route will run parallel to the Essex Way, through the river valley and pass over at least five other public rights of way.
The beauty and appeal of these ancient rights of way will be permanently degraded and blighted by the National Grid’s proposals.
Pylons or buried cables are not a “Green” solution.
Ecology.
The national Grid’s preferred, proposed pylon route will pass through the River Colne valley, running over Woodland Trust land as it heads north east through the parish.
The river valley floods regularly and creates a wetland that supports many species of plants and birds, including white egrets and at least four different birds of prey.
There are also water voles, which are an endangered species.
The Woodland Trust land, woodland and meadow, has seen an enormous increase in fauna and flora in the parish, including several species of orchid and fritillaries.
The balance of nature and rare species is fine and easily tipped as climate change is proving around the world.
The disruption and damage to the local ecology will be considerable.
Pylons or buried cables are not a “Green” solution.
Geology.
The geology of Fordham is a multi-layered mixture of sands, stone and clay washed down in the last Ice Age, the edge of the glacier almost reached the northern edge of Fordham parish.
The long downward slope from the north of the village to the river valley promotes a continuous flow of underground water creating numerous springs as it moves toward the river.
Fossetts Lane, which the pylon route will cross, possibly twice, is named because of all the springs, (fossett, an obsolete word for faucet).
Water often runs out of the banks and down the lane even though it might not have rained for weeks.
Sinking forty metre square, concrete pylon rafts may become something of a challenge in these conditions, leading to possible instability by the action of the underground water in the future.
Pylons or buried cables are not a “Green” solution.
Archaeology.
People have been living in the Colne valley for tens of thousands of years, the number of archaeological sites through Aldham, Fordham and west Bergholt is considerable.
We have an active Roman dig, just east of Mill Lane, Fordham Local History Society and Colchester Archaeological Group have been working there for nearly seven years, there is still much more work to do as we continue to make new discoveries.
For several reasons the site is of national importance, last year we discovered a piscina (an indoor fountain/water feature), it is only the second one found in the entire UK, there are only two others in the whole of mainland Europe (excluding Italy), they are incredibly rare.
One Saxon and two Roman burials have been found on the site…….so far.
But our dig is not the only Roman site in Fordham.
Within National Grid’s pylon corridor through Fordham, is our current dig and four other confirmed Roman sites, including a Roman road with a large amount of the stone surface still intact, this in itself is very rare, particularly in East Anglia where it usually gets ploughed out.
There is also another likely, but not yet confirmed, Roman site.
In addition, along the pylon route are a number of medieval sites, one of which is likely to be the lost manor hall of Great Fordham (there were four manors in Norman times), so far the pottery and coin finds suggest the site is thirteenth century, this is an historically, very important site for Fordham and it’s early history.
Then there’s the Iron and Bronze Age periods, again, within the pylon corridor there are literally dozens of Bronze Age burial ring ditches and Iron Age features.
Finally, running along the eastern side of Fossetts Lane, there are two multi-period sites. The geophysical surveys and field walks of these sites show an extremely complicated and very long history of human habitation from medieval back to Neolithic, and quite likely to Palaeolithic periods.
These heritage sites are not only of great historical value to the country, they also provide research and practical, archaeological experience, our dig site is run by volunteers and attracts students, families and academics locally and from around the world, i.e. France, Germany, Australia and Argentina.
It’s unthinkable to destroy such a valuable and rich archaeological history.
Pylons or buried cables are not a “Green” solution.
Effect on Fordham and its people.
The preferred pylon route will run almost parallel to the main road through the village at an average distance of only 435 metres from the road, starting at the school and ending at the corner of Plummers Road and Thrift Lane.
The view for the people along this route is currently farmland, meadow and woodland.
No amount of additional tree planting will disguise 50 metre pylons, Fordham’s entire eastern horizon will be a string of these monstrosities.
On the subject of Fordham’s primary school, the pylon corridor is only 85 metres away, this is unacceptable.
Just a little further up the Church Road is the medieval heart of the village with All Saint’s church (built before 1087 AD, current fabric is at least 14th century), Fordham Hall (seat of the largest and earliest manor of Fordham), the Three Horseshoes pub and a number of 15th to 17th century buildings.
This is a tourist area, the proposed pylons will loom over this frequently visited place and blight the view of Colchester across the river valley.
Pylons or buried cables are not a “Green” solution.
In addition Fordham Parish Council is in full support of the letter that has been submitted from Colchester Borough Council on behalf of all residents and councils in the Borough
“National Grid’s current proposals for a new over-ground pylon route across much of its East Anglia is totally unacceptable. We fully support of the concept of North Sea wind farms to generate abundant, cheap, clean electricity. Furthermore, the recent increase in energy prices, coupled with the global insecurity of energy supplies gives added impetus to this strategy.. At the recent public consultation events, National Grid confirmed that upgrades to the offshore route was a viable alternative.
Therefore, our strongly preferred approach is an upgrade to the offshore route. By doing so, the environmental damage, disruption and despoliation that would be caused to East Anglia by the installation of hundreds of over-ground pylons would be minimised
We demand that National Grid holds a full public consultation on all options, with full details and costings being made available for public scrutiny, not simply an informal consultation on their pre-selected over-ground route.
We will continue to lobby National Grid and the Government to ensure that all necessary infrastructure is delivered in a sustainable manner. For us, this means moving the proposed new pylon route to an off-shore location.
Fordham Parish Council
17th May 2022
What can you do ?
We would urge all communities to have their say on National Grid’s consultation portal and sign the petition for offshore upgrades instead:
Please write to your local MP, details below, you are free to use the text above:
Sir Bernard Jenkin
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Email: bernard.jenkin.mp@parliament.uk
Will Quince
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Email: will.quince.mp@parliament.uk
You can view information from the recent Colchester webinar below