shananna wrote:
... I was wondering Dave L. if you'd consider putting your 'pointers' on the forum so if anyone wants to write about Cwm Cynfal, they can send an individual letter as ILT suggests because they definitely carry more weight than a petition?
I agree with Shan that individual representations carry more weight than petitions and I would prefer not to make an internal WMS document public.
I think a better approach is for individual representations to focus on different aspects of the scheme. The WMS response will raise specific concerns about the impact of this scheme on mine itself and the possibility of contaminated ground as a result of mining operations. Ms Thynne has put together an eloquent argument on behalf of the landscape and the ancient trackway and the damage that would be caused to these aspects by the construction phase of the scheme. However, having said that, Ian does have a copy of my information for the WMS committee, so if you feel you need to see it I suggest you approach him.
Other approaches might be
- - to look at the installed electrical capacity of the scheme and make an estimate of how often this output would be achieved in practice (possibly not very often)
- - to estimate what the effect of the abstraction of water would be on the appearance of the waterfall.
tohatchacrow.blogspot.com/2014/02/hydro-...atkin+path+waterfall provides some interesting reading (with further links) with regard to the hydro electric scheme that was installed in Cwm Llan by the National Trust and which has taken some fo the flow from the waterfall visible from the Watkin path.
Dave