“One has to wonder that given the high level of opposition to NG's proposals and NG's maintenance, of their original stance in the face of this opposition, just who are we fighting here? A simple analysis of the events might lead one to the conclusion that we are actually fighting NG, the IPC and the Government. The reasoning is that, i) the government needs to ensure that sufficient power is available to meet ever increasing demand, ii) the Government set up the IPC, a completely autonomous quango to by-pass normal local government planning issues such as was seen with the Heathrow extension. I would surmise that their remit is to ensure the speedy passage of unpalletteable projects, while appearing to offer consultation to interested parties (providing a safety valve and deflecting criticism from the government), and iii) the Government have also appointed the NPC (National Policy committee) to formulate policy to support future projects of this nature. Quite clearly the creation of all this infrastructure was not done randomly, and follows a previously contstructed strategy aimed at the attainment of Government goals. Unfortunately, we in the UK are not very adept at formulating tactics and strategy to protect us from the dictatorial democracy. So far our concerted campaign efforts have followed the normal pattern which achieves media coverage and heightens awareness amongst the populus, but is easily ignored by the main protagonists. Much of what has been done has been playing to their rules which has no effect in slowing the juggernaut's forward progress. The latest response from NG stating that in their opinion the consultation was adaquate, and that they will not be offering any other options other than pylons, only serves to prove that they know that they have been assured a clear run to the finish line by no less than the Government, hence the infrastructure! Please can I suggest that we stop playing the game by their rules, and think outside the box to formulate some tactics and strategy that will hit them where it hurts, and thus gain their serious attention. A judicial review of the failure to consult at the early stages would be a good starting point, with the aim of halting the whole process using the law that exists for this purpose. Also carry out a SWOT analysis to determine the strengths and weaknesses on both sides, and the opportunities and threats that exist. Perhaps the weaknesses may show us a way to hurt NG by depressing their share price. Again, in this way you will gain their attention. In summary, if we continue to offer passive resistance, historically we will lose the fight to save our enviroment, etc, etc. More agressive, radical actions are required as demonstrated in Europe where these actions have sucessfully made the Government change in favour of what the people want. People power is strong, but it needs driving home to those in our society who believe that they can steam roller through their plans on an indifferent electorate. Or am I just being cynical and nieve?”

“If you are well informed, you can make a well informed decision. A public consultation is supposed to be a process by which the publics input on matters is sought. How can the public have an impact into National Grids proposals when all the facts have not been laid in front of us. This was an exhibition , not a consultation. Be more open with us National Grid and perhaps we can have some respect for you which unfortunately, you are lacking throughout Somerset and beyond.”

“How can National Grid declare that an undersea or underground route is when they have not provided any data to back up this claim? We need to look at whole life costs not just the initial costs of installing the transmission.
I support the other comments that a new consultation - looking at all options in a holistic and transparent manner is necessary.”

“National Grid's consultation was flawed from the very first piece of information that they sent out to householders. People need to know under what statute action is being taken. Look closely at the letter sent to householders and the little leaflet that was enclosed with it. It did not mention the Planning Act 2008. For a while I thought it was an informal consultation. And the "exhibitions" were pointless and passive, and information like the Statement of Community Consultation was not even on their website or in public libraries until very late in the consultation exercise. Need I go on?

There is no way that the Infrastructure Planning Commission can accept this as a valid application when National Grid make it in 2011. And in the meantime people all along the routes of these proposed corridors of pylons will live in anxiety and uncertainty, will see property prices plunging and may even find that their house is unsaleable. Do you know of anyone who would willingly choose to have 400,000 kilovolts of elelectricity anywhere near their house? There are suspected links to childhood leukaemia and Alzheimers Dementia? What price do we put on the health of our children and the older members of our community?

Come on someone: don't leave us in suspense for that period of time. Sort National Grid out and get them to admit that they got the consulttaion wrong and start the process all over again with all the options and costings (as they are required to do under the Planning Act 2008).

Contrast the actions they have taken to consult communities and individuals with those for the proposed new nuclear reactor at Hinkley Point. Look at how the public were consulted there: a proper forum with full information and an opportunity to ask questions and receive answers in a public forum. And all of that was recorded verbatim for reference.

If our democratically elected representatives at national and local level cannot force National Grid to admit that they misjudged this exercise because they did not follow givernment guidance for major infrastructure projects, then we must take National Grid to court for a "judicial review" of the consultation process. I suggested this at afull meeting of Somerset County Council members on Tuesday 17 February, but received a lukewarm response from Cllr Trollope-Bellew,. who suggested it woulod cost "hundres of thousands of pounds". In the first instance a potential litigant would seek advice from Planning Counsel (a barrister) to judhe whether teh case would have a chance of success. That would cost no more than £10,000.

Let's have some leadership here from the people who are elected to listen to and represent the interests of the people who elected them.”

“PLEASE don¿t be fooled by National Grid¿s ¿This was only the first phase of consultation¿.
If National Grid hoodwink the IPC into believing the consultation was fair, and they don¿t include the undersea option in their application, it will be too late! Don¿t be complacent. We must demand a new consultation with detailed costs of all the preferred options including underground and undersea.”