Representation by Constantin-Valetin Romanescu Seamonix Services Construction Ltd (Constantin-Valetin Romanescu Seamonix Services Construction Ltd)
- Date submitted
- 31 March 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
BC080001 Outline Objections of Constantin-Valetin Romanescu Seamonix Services Construction Ltd Introduction 1. I am the Director of Seamonix Services Construction Ltd, Unit C0, Manor Way Business Park, Manor Way, Swanscombe, Kent DA10 0PP. Nature of Seamonix Construction Services Ltd 2. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd is a construction company dealing with commercial constructions and renovations. 3. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd have a three year lease at Unit C0 which we lease from AGB Cars Ltd. 4. Seamonix Construction Services Ltd is strategically placed as it is very close to London with connections to Kent, Essex and the North. 5. I consider it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Seamonix Services Ltd to find brownfield land in this location. 6. Compulsorily purchasing one of our major bases is not in the public interest and would unreasonably interfere with our human rights. The rent for the premises is really reasonable and if I were to be located it will be a lot more, I work closely with AGB Developments Dartford Ltd and I am referred work by AGB and other lessees on the site and in the locality. Policy Position and Funding 7. We 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 we are 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. We also have doubts that a COVID19 assessment has been properly carried out which demonstrates that the project is viable in the future. Environmental Effects 9. We also object on the basis of the environmental effects of the proposal. we 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. We 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. We 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. We 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. We are worried too about the impact of construction works such as accommodating workers and traffic implications. Conclusion 11. We 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. We reserve the right to expand on these objections at a later stage and revise them as appropriate. Dated: 31 March 2021