Representation by Gabriel Ciudatu, AGB Developments Dartford Ltd (Gabriel Ciudatu, AGB Developments Dartford Ltd)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
BC080001 Outline Objections of Gabriel Ciudatu, Director of AGB Developments Dartford Ltd Introduction 1. I am the Director of AGB Developments Dartford Ltd, Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of AGB Developments Dartford Ltd 2. AGB Developments Dartford Ltd. will soon be the freeholder of Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park. It is 1.25 acres I have wanted to have a freeholder interest in Swanscombe, for investment purposes, for a number of years now. My freeholder is Buckland Dartford Ltd. I have exchanged contracts to purchase Unit C0 which is due to complete any day now. When I am the freeholder, I propose leasing the property to AGB Cars Ltd who deal with second hand care sales and have a large amount of stock at Manor Way. AGB Cars Ltd will continue to sub-let to a number of tenants who specialise in car sales, salvage MOT centre, recovery and repairs. 3. AGB Developments Dartford Ltd, requires a brownfield site away from residential properties. My tenant AGB Cars Ltd needs to be at the same premises as it’s sub-tenants. 4. Our location is a very good spot close to Dartford Tunnel. The rent is very reasonable. There are no suitable premises in this location with the acres I require. 5. If we were to move from this site, I would incur significant losses which will not be fully compensated for. 6. Compulsorily purchasing our major base is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 7. I note that there is no National Policy Statement that covers the nature of the London Resort development proposal. Whilst other policies may apply to certain elements of the scheme (e.g. transport), there is no government drive to bring forward this development. It appears to be not a project of national significance, but rather a highly speculative private commercial development. 8. The funding position is opaque. The corporate structures and accountability should be examined in detail and I am continuing to research this position and understand that the group company, M S Al Humaidi Ltd. is now offshore in the Isle of Man after accepting a £5m government loan. Furthermore, it is understood that Mr Al Humaidi has only committed to funding the project until planning permission is granted (if it is). Once that is achieved he will seek other investors to cover the estimated £3.5billion needed to build the park. Where my business is due to be compulsorily acquired, it is essential to know that the ultimate project will be deliverable to the quality claimed and with appropriate mitigation and compensation. This is far from clear at present. Environmental Effects 9. I also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. I will object in detail in respect of the traffic impacts in the locality. Dartford and the Dartford Crossing is already heavily congested with industrial lorries and other traffic. I note that Highways England have stated that Dartford Tunnel is “one of the least reliable sections of the UK’s road network”. It is not viable for the London Resort to be so close to the Dartford Tunnel. Dartford also has, according to Public Health England, one of the highest percentage of deaths attributable to long term exposure to particulate air pollution. The introduction of the London Resort into this area will only cause increased traffic delays and increased pollution. 10. I support the position of Kent Wildlife Trust, Buglife and the RSPB, that this theme park is expected to destroy 76ha of priority habitat which is a vital part of the ecological network of the Thames Estuary. The Estuary has a unique climate which is more continental than the rest of the UK and the 620 acres of marshes is very tranquil. Building over this area of natural habitat will unacceptably destroy many habitats and species of importance. Reference is made to Swanscombe Peninsula being a largely unused brownfield site. This is simply incorrect. Conclusion 11. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of AGB Development Dartford Ltd’s base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable; (iii) if built, the effects on traffic congestion and pollution would be severe and (iv) the ecological harm done would be unacceptable. I reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. DATED: 31 MARCH 2021