Ministers refuse key pipeline project

A major gas infrastructure scheme has suffered a setback now the Government has refused permission to National Grid, the UK's biggest energy transmission company, for a pressure reduction installation (PRI) at Corse.

The proposal for the PRI, the gas equivalent of an electricity sub-station, was originally submitted to the Forest of Dean District Council. It is a key element of the Grid's £1bn project involving new pipelines which link liquefied natural gas terminals at Milford Haven in South West Wales with the main high pressure national gas grid near Gloucester.

National Grid appealed after the PRI proposal was rejected by the district council and the case has recently been determined by the Government.

Ministers decided not to approve the plan after agreeing with two planning inspectors that National Grid had failed to show that its chosen location – in open countryside – was the only suitable option. The inspectors said there were alternative sites which were less environmentally intrusive.

A decision letter from the Secretaries of State for Communities and Local Government and Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform accepted that the scheme was part of a nationally important project but argued that this did not outweigh what would be "an alien, intrusive and harmful industrial feature in the rural landscape".

The letter from the two secretaries of state said that the "quality of the landscaping" proposed by the Grid fell short of what should have been expected in the circumstances.

Without the proposed PRI the new pipeline will not be able to handle as much gas capacity as anticipated. The optimum design throughput will have to be cut by over 20 per cent.

Obtaining planning approval for other PRIs needed for the scheme also proved a headache for National Grid.

In a related development the Court of Appeal has reversed the decision of the High Court in a case where a decision to grant planning permission for another PRI project, part of the same pipeline scheme, had been struck down as unlawful.

That contested decision, by Neath Port Talbot Borough Council was made in committee by the narrowest of margins 13-12. However, four councillors did not vote as they were advised by council officers that there was a risk of a complaint to the Ombudsman or legal action because the councillors had been at a protest meeting relating to the proposal and had not attended a site meeting.

A High Court judge argued that the advice given to the four was wrong and said the vote should be retaken. However the Court of Appeal disagreed on the grounds that it felt that the advice given was in fact entirely appropriate.

Roger Milne

10 January 2008