Representation by Abraham Uche Kingsley, AUTOCENTRIC LTD (Abraham Uche Kingsley, AUTOCENTRIC LTD)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
BC080001 Outline Objections of Abraham Uche Kingsley, AUTOCENTRIC LTD Introduction 1. I am the Director of Autocentric Ltd of Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of Autocentric Ltd 2. Autocentric Ltd services and repairs vehicles. 3. I have a rent Unit C0 from AGB Cars Ltd. 4. AGB Cars Ltd work closely with both me and the other sub-tenants, who are also Interested Parties and filing Written Representations. We all have a good working relationship and often cross-refer work. 5. I am very concerned that if the land that I use is subject to a CPO, LRCH will not find suitable premises for all the sub-tenants at the same location and for a reasonable price. This is the reason why I sub-let from AGB Cars Ltd. 6. Because of the nature of our work, we require a brownfield site away from residential properties. 7. Our location is in a very good spot close to Dartford Tunnel and the rent is very reasonable. 8. If we were to move from this site, we would incur significant losses which will not be fully compensated for. 9. Compulsorily purchasing our major base is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. Policy Position and Funding 10. 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. 11. 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. I also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 12. 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. 13. 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. I often see families with their children, walking their dogs at the marches along the number of public footpaths. 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. There has in my view been no proper environmental assessment and/or HRA. I am worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 14. I object on four principal grounds: (i) compulsory purchase of our base is not in the public interest; (ii) the London Resort lacks government policy support and does not appear deliverable and/or viable; (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