“Mark Barber, Prince of Wales Pub:

Some stimulating comments - its good to have views like this for a lively debate...

1st - it was never on the cards for it to be anywhere near Chelt.

2nd - Why do you want it to be hear when extending the pipeline a couple of miles will result in cheaper Gas and Electric for you in the long term as less gas will have to be burned off?

And what have you got against the English countryside?

You should come out here for a walk - you'd change your mind about it being a 'dump'”

“Mark Barber, Prince of Wales Pub:

If you live at the Prince of Wales in Staunton - you will hear a constant buzz from the PRI when its up.... Some people are fine with that - and if you are, then cool.. my points are boring.... but if you think that would annoy you then we only have one chance to stop this monstrosity. I'll buy u a pint sometime... this will be bad for Staunton as well.”

“Stu, Tirley - BOOOOORING!”

“Part 1/3

Hi, Concerned Council Tax Payer:

Thanks again for the comments - it seems a bit like a personal attack against me although I'm merely pointing out various points from meetings, reports, notes, other news articles, websites etc.

I've not ever said I'm any kind of expert on anything like this - in fact I'm quite the opposite - my degrees are in a completely unrelated subject and I was never any good at mathematics or physics so I've had a hard time getting my head around all the facts and details - but I've tried to get as much of a comprehensive view on this as I can because I wanted to try and understand every aspect of this problem as fully as I possibly could. I've obviously formed my own views from this and yes, I don't want my life and work disrupted, nether would anyone else. I have lived in this area all my life - I've seen the change between these villages being local and most of the houses becoming completely unobtainable for locals - and that is sad - We have JUST managed to get a place in Tirley - by the skin of our teeth I have managed to live in the locality where I grew up - something that is increasingly difficult, if not imposable for a lot of people. Apart from my other views on the subject - if I couldn't work here because of the noise and I couldn't move because the house was suddenly worth nothing it would have a MASSIVE impact on my life - of course I don't want that but I've tried none the less to understand all sides of this argument to the best of my ability.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "I am concerned that Stuart may have borrowed his blinkers from Cheltenham Racecourse! He seems to have an ability to take facts totally out of context and twist them in his mind to support his narrow minded view."

There is no need for this sort of insulting language - I'm merely trying to protect the countryside I grew up in and love - and I'm disgusted that so many people are hateful of my love but I guess this is what society has come to today! Its very very sad!

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "In responding to his misinformation I do not know where to start there is so much flowing out - it is not surprising that he managed to bamboozle the self-interested folk that put themselves forward as councilors. Anyway in no particular order here goes!"

As I said - I've taken all my information from meetings and reports. In trying to make the case for my narrow mindedness you are demonstrating your own by not being open to the fact that a money driven FTSE100 listed company may be trying to push for the cheapest solution to keep their balance sheets healthy. I don't find this at all hard to believe but you obviously have more trust.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "1. You say you do not use gas yet as another educated party points out 40% of electricity is produced from gas fired power stations."

Its not about that, I understand there is a need - and had NG planned this pipeline properly it would all be up and running by now - NG knew, when plotting the route of the pipeline that AGI's and PRI's would be needed - and the way they planned it, some of these fell on areas where local and national planning policies protected areas of beauty and designated agricultural land. These rules have been there for a long time and are there for good reason. NG at that point should have sought permission before even laying one mile of pipe.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "2. You state that the PRI will make the noise of a jet plane passing directly over. You imply by your choice of phrasing that this will be the normal level of noise arising from the PRI. However as you put yourself forward as such an expert can you inform us all the frequency of such a noisy activity - is it infrequent? Say every 10 years or so!"

This is directly quoted from the evidence heard in the planning meeting - Specifics were not given apart from the fact that the noise would be c”

“Part 2/3

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "3. You try to highjack the previous inspectors report to support your position and say to people that they should read it. I would like to ask you if you think that the planning officers who are TBC planning experts have read this report? If they have and understand the report can you explain how they came to the conclusion that the application should be approved?"

The inspectorate did not come to this conclusion - they rejected the application after hearing 2 days worth of evidence, and stated that the location was highly inappropriate - this is coming from the same Secretary of state that recognises the need for a PRI. This enquiry also heard details and saw plans for the PRI at Wormington which, would be a lot smaller (seeing as it bypasses the bottleneck between Tirley and Wormington, more efficient (less gas would have to be burned off to reduce the pressure thus, in the long term having a beneficial affect on fuel prices and the environment) and not adding any visual difference to the existing Wormington installation. This site is also manned. I'm sorry if you don't agree - but this information came from international pipeline experts and it was agreed at the last appeal that this would be a good option.

After all this, NG decided to submit an application for exactly the same PRI as was just refused both by forest of dean council and the secretary of state, in the next field, just a few hundred yards away. At this point common sense has completely gone out of the window. I reference Dr Richard Furness's report on this. Its an interesting read.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "4. Stuart also has a tendancy to throw in spurious statistics and numbers like saying that as the presure is currently running at 80% of planned pressure then the volume of gas is at 80%. Considering that Boyle's Law would seem to inply that for each atmoshere (bar) change in presure then the volume of gas halves? This is not a straight line relationship!"

I got these from the CAPRI website - and while you are right - its not a straight line relationship national grid have simplified the percentages for their propaganda to make a point clear and accessible - Don't shoot me simply for relaying a point. The fact is that most of the gas that would be transported with the PRI in place - would also be transported without it. This is undisputable fact.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "5. Stuart and the other nimbys like to say that the PRI can go somewhere else but did the inspector last time not say that he recognised that the relative location of the PRI was efficient? Yes I am sure that the PRI could be put closer to some other people who live nowhere near the pipeline but can he explain how this would be a better solution? Surely extra miles of pipeline would have to be built and as National Grid are a regulated company the cost of this would be passed on to the end user - not to mention the environmental impact of extra miles of pipeline."

The pipeline has already covered over 200 miles - an extra few is not going to look like anything on the projects total budget and, since NG are a private, limited company reporting billions of profit last year why is it wrong for me to ask for a few extra million of investment for the long term benefit of our country. We retain our beautiful countryside and the country gets a less wasteful, more efficient supply of gas! Yes of course I don't want it in the next field, nether would you... be honest, but I also believe the expert reports I've read stating a very good case for the rethinking of this. I'm very very sorry that you do not see any merit in this report but there is nothing I can do about that.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "At the end of day my conclusions are that the country needs the gas, the PRI has to go somewhere, the nimbys have not given reasons, other than smokescreens and self-interested rant”

“Part 3/3

Yes - I agree we do need the gas - you seem to be angry for no reason though - I have lived here and loved it here all my life - I grew up playing in this countryside - its natural for me to want to protect it - so perhaps we grasp at straws but at the end of the day - if we all rolled over and let corporate bullies do what they wanted anywhere then everything that makes the UK great would be destroyed in a year. Its this fighting spirit and since of justice that makes us great - and I TRULY believe after reading the information that a rethink would be better for EVERYONE in the long term.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "The councilors going against there own experts recommendations is asking for another planning appeal, which if their own experts are correct TBC will loose at potentially considerable cost to the council. I think that it is only right that the nimbys and councilors should underright these costs rather than the taxpayer in general having further cuts to their services. Are the councilors not supposed to represent the many rather than the vocal few?"

This isn't actually true - in accusing me of narrow mindedness, you have demonstrated it yourself buy just making things up to support your anger against people who live in rural communities because that, is what this is about I think. Forest of dean did not pass any costs over to the council tax payer when they rejected this same installation across the road. This also went to the secretary of state when NG appealed and was rejected again. Why would Tewkesbury have to raise council tax if FOD didn't have to? And at the end of the day - this is not our fault - had NG planned this whole thing better there would be no need for any of this.

Concerned Council Tax Payer said --- "can you tell me if you and your nimby mates are going to put your hands in your pockets because I do not wish to pick up this un-needed expense."

Had NG taken independent advice from expert pipeline consultants - they would have run 2 smaller pipes from Milford Haven to Tirley - this would have allowed the same capacity running at a lower (safer) pressure and would not have required a PRI at Tirley - these 2 pipes would have connected directly to the existing AGI. Its also known that running gas pipes at 94BAR is illegal in a lot of other countries - why? If its on safety grounds then how is it any safer here in the UK?

Forest of dean rejected an application for this plant - it went to appeal, and lost. FOD council tax did not go up! Since that's the case I don't know why Tewkesbury would put its council taxes up in the same situation - I'd suggest writing to TBC about this.

In conclusion, I am shocked and upset at the anger you guys have for people who, essentially just want to protect the area they love. I have not, as you suggest pulled any facts out of thin air - I have repeated what I've learned from meetings and reading various reports on the subject. Is it really so wrong to ask for a little further investment to secure.

a) a better and more efficient long term national gas supply and
b) conserve what I believe is a beautiful area of countryside.

Thanks for your points though - its interesting to hear your point of view on this and even though I very much disagree life would be boring if everyone agreed wouldn't it. Rest assured - I will be fiercely protesting at any council tax increase as I believe that this whole situation has arisen from NG's poor planning, arrogance and negligence. I do truly believe that a different solution would result in the more efficient and therefore cheaper delivery of gas to the nation. As well as not wanting something like that here disrupting my work and life, I do truly and passionately believe that NG have missmanaged this entire project and I don't see why we have to pay for this incompetence.

I hope you get a chance to come for a walk around Tirley and read more on the case - I shouldn't ex”

“Concerned Council Tax Payer: all my facts were ether raised at the meetings or in official expert reports. Tell me, have you been to any of the meetings... surely you have if you were so concerned.

None of the facts I'm presenting are from my own research, - I've simply copied and pasted them here in a pointless attempt to educate those who seem to hate us for wanting a better soloution.

The noise will be constant - at least that was what was said in the planning meeting. No one disputed it and there was a panel of experts there to bat for NG - I can only trust that information as it was presented to me.

Theres overwhelming evidence that there is a better solution and that will come out at enquiry, just like it did last time.”

“I am concerned that Stuart may have borrowed his blinkers from Cheltenham Racecourse! He seems to have an ability to take facts totally out of context and twist them in his mind to support his narrow minded view.

In responding to his misinformation I do not know where to start there is so much flowing out - it is not surprising that he managed to bamboozle the self-interested folk that put themselves forward as councilors. Anyway in no particular order here goes!

1. You say you do not use gas yet as another educated party points out 40% of electricity is produced from gas fired power stations.

2. You state that the PRI will make the noise of a jet plane passing directly over. You imply by your choice of phrasing that this will be the normal level of noise arising from the PRI. However as you put yourself forward as such an expert can you inform us all the frequency of such a noisy activity - is it infrequent? Say every 10 years or so!

3. You try to highjack the previous inspectors report to support your position and say to people that they should read it. I would like to ask you if you think that the planning officers who are TBC planning experts have read this report? If they have and understand the report can you explain how they came to the conclusion that the application should be approved?

4. Stuart also has a tendancy to throw in spurious statistics and numbers like saying that as the presure is currently running at 80% of planned pressure then the volume of gas is at 80%. Considering that Boyle's Law would seem to inply that for each atmoshere (bar) change in presure then the volume of gas halves? This is not a straight line relationship!

5. Stuart and the other nimbys like to say that the PRI can go somewhere else but did the inspector last time not say that he recognised that the relative location of the PRI was efficient? Yes I am sure that the PRI could be put closer to some other people who live nowhere near the pipeline but can he explain how this would be a better solution? Surely extra miles of pipeline would have to be built and as National Grid are a regulated company the cost of this would be passed on to the end user - not to mention the environmental impact of extra miles of pipeline.

At the end of day my conclusions are that the country needs the gas, the PRI has to go somewhere, the nimbys have not given reasons, other than smokescreens and self-interested rants (related to a perceived loss in value of their homes - is it the PRI or the negative publicity they have generated that creates this?) and the pipeline is where it is!

The councilors going against there own experts recommendations is asking for another planning appeal, which if their own experts are correct TBC will loose at potentially considerable cost to the council. I think that it is only right that the nimbys and councilors should underright these costs rather than the taxpayer in general having further cuts to their services. Are the councilors not supposed to represent the many rather than the vocal few?

Well enough of my rumenations and over to you Stuart - can you tell me if you and your nimby mates are going to put your hands in your pockets because I do not wish to pick up this un-needed expense.”

“My little pony: so all small businesses should be allowed to be destroyed by industry on a whim?

Gas guzzler: Your comments are very simple to address, you simply do not understand the case. This has gone to national government and everything I've said has been proven. Better be careful way up their on your pedestal, it would hurt if you fell off.”

“I quite agree with the unbiased comments from Tirley, horsebreeding is much more important to the national economy than a stable energy supply. ( pardon the pun).”