Back to list East Anglia ONE North Offshore Windfarm

Representation by Mrs Annabel Newberry

Date submitted
26 January 2020
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

Representation in respect of the application for a development Consent Order in respect of the East Anglia One North Offshore Wind Project Interested Parties Mrs Annabel Newberry: My name is Annabel Newberry and I am the freeholder, along with my husband, [Redacted]. I am a ceramist, with a workshop at our property. Our property is set in 5 acres, next to the proposed site of the new substations for East Anglia One and East Anglia Two and potential extensions in the future. Our property includes a Caravan and Camping Club Certified site which is listed as a quiet getaway and a market garden. We have spent the last few years improving the site since we bought the property, including the creation of an entertainment barn, a shop and other amenities for the improvement of the camping income. We raise livestock, including chickens and pigs, and supply the local residents with fresh eggs and pork products, as well as seasonal fruit and vegetables from our market garden. We moved into the area to live in a quiet rural setting, expanding our tourism business to provide income for our future retirement. Lack of clarity of proposals/failure to consult: From the start of this process, Scottish power has been very unclear as to exactly what their proposals are likely to be. Initial consultations suggested that the Friston site was only one of 7 sites which was under consideration and so on detailed enquiry Scottish Power reassured us that this site was not top of their list and so there was little engagement on the details as to how it would affect us. After the site was definitively chosen the Scottish Power representative visited the site and informed us that the company did not need to purchase our site as they would not be using it for any of the scheme, and that we would only be compensated for noise, dust and disruption. However, no concrete proposals were advanced. Insufficient consultation on concrete plans/failure to consult: It was not until 22nd October 2019, almost two years after the initial public consultations and moments before the application was submitted, that Scottish Power indicated to us that areas of our property were to be included in the DCO boundary on a temporary basis. At no stage prior to this had they indicated this was likely, in fact the opposite was the case. The plan attached to that letter includes the whole of our property, apart from the house, including access, our private gardens, the entire camping facilities, land for animals, fruit and agriculture and our outbuildings. This would render our business unviable and it is entirely unclear how we would be expected to live in the property whilst these works are being carried out. We have still been given no indication of time periods, dates for entry and exit and what the land would be used for. In this letter the applicant is still stating that they don’t know and won’t know how disruptive this will be until detailed design is carried out at a date in the future which his not specified. This is wholly unacceptable, as it has a material impact on our ability to run our businesses from the site, or to develop our business further. Furthermore, should the proposals go ahead, it is extremely unlikely that we could continue to run our business and deprive income from the same given the proximity of a large industrial complex which will be fully visible and have sufficient noise and light pollution to mean it is incompatible both with family life and a tourism business. This has been a process which has been extremely stressful for both of us, particularly because of the lack of information, lack of process or engagement from the company and most recently the implication that this is not something for which the company itself feel responsible but has sub contracted to NGET. We have no interaction with NGET. Lack of engagement even after request for further information: Even now they are not being clear to us what exactly or how exactly we will be affected by the construction or operation of the site as Scottish Power, as applicant has wholly failed to consult us adequately or properly in respect of their plans for their proposed site. We have tried to engage with the company and its agents on numerous occasions and they have been extremely obtuse as to what their plans are and how they will affect us, despite our contacting them and asking for more information. Failure to discharge duty to consult: The applicant has a duty pursuant to s42 of the Planning Act 2008 to consult (a) such persons as are prescribed and (d) each person who is within one or more of the categories in s44. In particular, under s44 it is required to consult any person who if the Order were to be implemented would become entitled to make relevant claims. Given the proximity of our land to the proposed site and the inclusion of our land within the boundary of SPR’s proposed Development Consent Order application we understand that we would be entitled to make claims under both section 10 of the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965 and claims under Part 1 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. We are also entitled to be consulted pursuant to s47 of the Planning Act 2008 by reason of being a person living within the vicinity of the development land. Failure to discharge higher duty in respect of those with land within the DCO boundary: The intention of the 2008 Planning Act was to ensure that the applicant is required to carry out adequate consultation. It is a principle of law set out in R(Moseley) v London Borough of Haringey that the degree of specificity with which, in fairness, an authority should conduct its consultation exercise may be influenced by the identity of those whom it is consulting. The case clearly sets out that the demands of fairness are somewhat higher when an authority contemplates depriving someone of an existing benefit or advantage. Failure to consult/obfuscation: Very disappointingly, Scottish Power seem to have reached the erroneous conclusion that they do not need to properly consult us on their plans. At every turn they have sought to obfuscate what they are intending to do and the consequences on us. They have not indicated to us that they wish to use our land but have sought to use some existing powers which National Grid have to enter on to our land to maintain their existing overhead lines. As a result, Scottish Power have not fully consulted us at all. Reading the lease, it is very clear to us that this lease is wholly inadequate for the purposes of carrying out a substantial new development and we find it extraordinary that Scottish Power and National Grid should seek to deprive us of the quiet enjoyment of our land without paying us any compensation whatsoever or consulting us as to their plans. We have had no interaction with NGET at all. Noone has visited us or contacted us so to the extent that any work to be done as part of this project involves NGET using our land there has been a total and complete failure to engage or consult. Planning Inspectorate should reject the plans and require further consultation: This failure to engage properly with us, despite us as private individuals having sought information from them as to their plans, means that the Planning Inspectorate needs to consider very carefully whether there has in fact been a proper consultation or whether this application should be rejected, and Scottish Power required to conduct another round of adequate consultation. This is particularly the case given that the first indication that our land was included was in the letter dated 22 October moments before they submitted the application. Breach of human rights if no compensation: No authority has the power to deprive someone of the quiet enjoyment of their land without paying compensation. That is a basic human right which is enshrined in the both in international and in domestic law. Article 1 of the First Protocol of the Human Rights Act imposes an obligation of the state not to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of property or deprive a person of their possession. We understand that that interference with this right can be subject to conditions provided for by law, but it must achieve a fair balance between the general public interest and the protection of an individuals property. It is a fundamental principle of those protections for the individual that any interference must strike a fair balance between the demands of the general interests of the community and the requirement of an individuals fundamental rights. A lack of any compensation would be considered wholly disproportionate. Scottish Power’s plans will deprive us from not only our land and our home but the whole of Annabel Newberry’s income which is made wholly of the campsite, market garden and ceramist studio, plus a proportion of Simon Newberry’s income from his business and the barns where he stores his tools and conducts his business. One part of Newberry Engineering is making demonstration units for leading electrical underfloor heating manufacturer requiring large amounts of the space within the outbuildings. Without this workspace a considerable income source would be lost, or different premises would be required. Planning Inspectorate need to consider compulsory purchase powers: We understand that this representation is not meant to cover the issues of precise compensation but we have included our very legitimate concern that Scottish Power may seek to appropriate our land without paying any compensation whatsoever which would infringe our human rights and be unlawful under the statutes under international and domestic law, which allow for that fundamental balance between general public interest and protection of the individual’s property. DCO powers are too wide and extensive and insufficiently clear: The planning authority should consider the powers which are being requested in the draft Development Consent Order which would appear to be very extensive. The power in s18(1) of the draft DCO provides that the undertaker may compulsorily acquire so much of the Order land as is required for the authorised Project or to facility or is incidental to it. Our property is included in the Order land but Scottish Power (it is included as a red blob on Drawing Number EA2-DEV-DRG-IBR-000796 dated 16/09/19) and therefore is land which can be compulsorily acquired by the developer. Yet they have stated that they do not intend to compulsorily acquire our property. If this is the case, then either they accept that compensation must be payable for such rights to lawful or they need to remove our property from the DCO land in its entirely. Under the draft DCO the applicant should expressly set out which parcels of land are to be acquired. The powers sought are insufficiently precise and should be struck out or turned down by the planning authorities for vagueness. Temporary powers are incompatible with current land usage of sites: Under s26(1) of the draft DCO the applicant is requesting very broad powers to enter into and hold temporary possession of the land specified in column 2 of Schedule 9. They are requesting the power to remove, building, agricultural plant, drainage, fences and vegetation and he power to use the land as a working site and to conduct any work set out in part 1 of schedule 2. They are also asking for the power to enter into the site on not less than 14 days’ notice and then can remain on the site for up to a year after completion of the works. This makes our businesses completely untenable from the date of the Order until a year after the completion of the works. We cannot rehome our chickens and pigs on 14 days’ notice. Nor could we continue to run our camping business or our market garden if on 14 days’ notice Scottish Power could arrive with diggers. Lack of restrictions on temporary powers/restoration obligations: This is a very draconian power which is being sought and there are no restrictions on how these power could be applied. It should be the case the at Scottish power should need to specify when, what and for how long they are seeking to come onto the land. It would be the norm in development consent orders that the applicant is required to agree a detailed schedule of when it is to carry out what works when if they are temporary works. The powers derived would allow Scottish Power the right to level our home to the ground, including all the buildings on it, our sheds, outbuildings, toilet blocks, electrical hook-ups, fell all our trees, destroy our fences, fill in our pond and after they have finished walk away without having to replace anything, all with no compensation. Tree cutting powers are unduly extensive/ have economic consequences for those affected: Under s34 of the DCO there are wide powers for the felling and lopping of trees within or overlapping the Order limits. Much of the woodland on our land is grown and manged by us for the purposes of providing fuel and heating for our home, which is heated by way of woodburning stoves and a woodburning oven. Draconian powers to forcibly destroy trees and plant on our land to make way for temporary works deprives us of fuel and heating. It does not seem appropriate to us for these wide powers to be given with no protections are the amenity setting of our home, which has significant orchards growing many different orchards fruits which we sell as part of our market gardening business. There is no requirement to replace the trees which have been felled, no compensation for the loss of these income bearing assets. The powers derived would allow Scottish Power the right to level our home to the ground, including all the buildings on it Powers sought have potential for extended periods of blight: The power requested to allow for the works to commence up to 7 years after the Order has been made are too extensive. This is a very long period of time for people who are directly affected by the project. We have already been subject to over 2 years of blight and a further 7 years, plus any construction time, means that we are effectively prevented from continuing our livelihood for up to a decade. There is also a cumulative effect of both East Anglia One and Two and potential further extensions which could extend the blight yet further. This seems wholly disproportionate and is a factor which should be taken into consideration. Working hours on Site and impact on family life: Scottish Power has asked for very long periods of working on the site, which are wholly incompatible with family life and therefore have the power to breach our human rights. Construction periods are from 7 in the morning to 7 at night 5 days a week with Saturday working between 7-1pm. This would be intolerable from our perspective and these hours should be shortened significantly. Furthermore, the applicant is asking for additional powers to continue construction activities on an unrestricted basis 24 hours a day 7 days a week, including the shipment of abnormal loads, testing and commissioning, this would severely interrupt our sleep and give us no respite at all from the project. It should be noted that although the DCO applications for East Anglia One and East Anglia Two are separate applications, the planning authorities should when considering working hours consider the combined effect of both on the family lives of those living in close proximity to the proposed sites and the cumulative effect of the length of the overall impacts on the environment. It should also be noted that by their own admission Scottish Power accept that the impact of noise of construction on a predominantly rural location is much greater as there is no little background noise, and no background light pollution. Noise: The noise portrayed in the application only relates to back ground “humming” during normal operation. The reality is several years of construction noise, would have a devastating effect on our businesses, livestock and general health and wellbeing. [Redacted]. Dr Simon Newberry has already been dramatically affected by the [Redacted] and has recently been [Redacted] and sleep problems brought on by stress of the proposals. Annabel Newberry has also been significantly affected by [Redacted]. The noise created both by the construction and operation of the plant proposed would have very negative and detrimental effects on both residents at Fairacre, as well as making their engineering, artistic, camping, market gardening and livestock businesses unworkable. The proposed monitoring of noise by Scottish power is “conveniently” nowhere near our property which will be adjacent to the substation and therefore is merely paying lip service to the requirement to understand the impact of noise on local residents. As one of the closest residents to the site, monitoring equipment should as a minimum be on our property. We are aware that the operation of such sites has the potential to seriously disrupt sleep and given the cumulative effect of a number of substations in this area, with potential additional extension sites in the future, we believe it is unlikely that the applicant will be able to keep the noise to a level which is consistent with ordinary family life. If construction goes ahead, it would be imperative to have background noise monitoring of construction and operation on our property. There is no representation or proposals by Scottish Power in limiting construction noise, in fact they have in their latest proposal increased construction time periods to 24 hours. Substation switchgear: There is no mention of operational noise coming from the substation switchgear. Dr Newberry’s experience as a Project Manager at the Galloper Substation at Sizewell Gap has provided personal knowledge that the Air Insulated switches outside will be heard at short distances. The noise insulated GIS hall proposed, which is very close to our property, will have Gas Insulated Switches operating 24 hours a day. These can be activated by maintenance, general operation and tripping creating a very loud “thunder clap” type of noise, which can still be heard at a considerable distance even though suppressed. This could be alarming to anyone living within such a close vicinity to the site. Impact on tourism: The reality is that this development will have a serious impact not only on our campsite but on tourism in general if the development consent order is granted. Our business will be wholly lost, and the many other businesses which depend on tourism in this area will also be hugely impacted despite Suffolk Coastal Council actively promoting Tourism. The noise, dust and loss of views will deter regular and new visitors to the site, the loss of the “quiet site” status would undoubtedly be removed from our campsite, even if after it has been temporarily taken away from us with no compensation, we finally get our land back. Not only would we lose a considerable annual income, local shops, restaurants and pubs, used by the campsite visitors would have a noticeable drop in business. Impact on wildlife: We would lose birds and wildlife which are a draw for the campsite. There would undoubtedly be disruption to migratory swallows and bats that roost at the property and all the wildlife that use our nature pond. The proposals would also completely disrupt / remove numerous country walks and footpaths / rights of way, another draw for our tourists. Livestock: With the acquisition of our land, even if only for the period of construction, our livestock business will be lost. Our chickens are free range and roam the fields at leisure, which will no longer be possible, and we would lose the income from eggs. The annual pig livestock will no longer be possible due to the pens being acquisitioned for the “construction depot” and we would need to cease this business. Construction: Initial consultation stated set working hours; this appears to have change to 24 hours, which would leave our property subject to dust almost continually. There is no proposal to limit noise and dust with respect to our property, which is one of the closest. The proposals show insufficient monitoring of construction. Here appears to be insufficient or no impact studies on traffic, drainage, cable corridor construction issues, local heritage and effect on tourism. Disruption to the environment, especially local wildlife and their habitat or the impact on the loss of valuable agricultural land. Traffic and Access: The increase in traffic due to construction and deliveries will increase noise, travel times and general exhaust pollution. Grove road and other minor roads will become “rat runs” for traffic trying to avoid the major construction routes. Grove road is one of the National cycle routes, it will become extremely dangerous for cyclists as the construction traffic and delivery vehicles increase. Access to our property will be hampered by the increase in traffic. New “access routes” to the substation and cable routes, although with the latest proposals were never in the original consultations, specifically ones leading off Grove Road. Views: We moved to the property for the “quiet life” and beautiful country views. Due to “Technical Issues” we have been informed that it will not be possible to construction bunds and /or screening between ourselves and the substation. We have been given no explanation of why there can be no amelioration of what is a large industrial complex in a completely rural location. We will have and be within full view of this blight on the landscape. Property devaluation and Compensation: Scottish power have informed us that there will be no compensation. This will be crippling to our personal finances, ability to support ourselves and our health and wellbeing. The property is now (due to the proposals) and in the foreseeable future unsaleable at a reasonable market rate. The years of personal and financial investment in the house, gardens, land and businesses will be lost without compensation. The planned further property improvements and business expansion, specifically with regards to the campsite and tourism are now in doubt, creating a stressful hiatus in our lives. Friston Parish Council representations: We have reviewed the Friston Parish Council representations, and the key issues put forward by Friston Parish Council and agree as a local resident with all of the issues which have been advanced. We fully support these issues and incorporate each and every one of those issues by reference into our submission as though we had written them all out in full here. We include every issue which has been raised by Friston Parish Council as our own objections to Scottish Power’s proposals and draft DCO application. SASES representations: We have reviewed the representations put forward by the SASES, and the key issues put forward by SASES and agree with all of the issues which have been advanced. We fully support these issues and incorporate each and every one of those issues by reference into our submission as though we had written them all out in full here. We include every issue which has been raised by SASES as our own objections to Scottish Power’s proposals and draft DCO application. Failure to comply with both letter and spirit of the planning laws: Finally, Scottish power seemed to have forged ahead with their plans without consideration to the locals or ourselves. They have shown complete disregard of public consultations, provided misleading information prior to actual planning proposals and until recently completely concealed the planned acquisition of our land for the construction period. They seem to seek to hide behind NGET lease granted to maintain existing infrastructure to seek to absolve them of the obligation to compensate us for the loss of amenity, loss of value, and impacts on our health, finances and wellbeing. Scottish Power will make huge sums of money from consumers selling power with state subsidies and underwriting of the power price. And yet they will be able to drive small holders, small businesses and local residents impecunious with impunity. We have been treated disgracefully throughout this process and object to the powers being granted in the manner sought. This is a case of “big business” using National Infrastructure regulations to treat individuals as inconsequential in the greater scheme of things, which is against both the letter and the spirit of the planning laws.