Representation by James Sadler
- Date submitted
- 2 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My property directly abuts the Onshore DCO Limits. I would object to the proposal because there is little or no meaningful consideration made to mitigate the long term impact to the properties surrounding the proposed onshore substation for this project with regards to screening which within the scheme published to date is minimal and will take decades to take effect and also to the environmental effect the scheme will have on homes in the vicinity. The construction works for this scheme will be long and cause significant stress and disruption to local residents. The areas around the substation are already prone to localised flooding and the water table is very sensitive to change. Homes surrounding the proposed substation rely on groundwater for their water supplies and are served by private drainage. As recent prolonged periods of rainfall have demonstrated any effect on the water table in the area where the substation is proposed will likely see these private water and drainage supplies fail and risk contamination to the ground water supplies. From an economic perspective the value of homes surrounding the substation will be impacted significantly and be very difficult and if not impossible to sell during and after the construction process. The listed properties without foundations surrounding the site will be especially vulnerable to the construction of the onshore substation. It should also be fairly considered that the substation for this project is one of at least 3 more very large substations proposed for this very small focused rural area and the cumulative impact of all these schemes should not be ignored. These schemes would jointly create over 100 acres of very heavy industrial structures in what is currently farmland which will negatively impact the area for residents and wildlife for may decades to come. I strongly oppose this proposed scheme and would request that an offshore solution is taken. When looking at the proposed site plans for the OSS’s the location for those for Northfalls and Five Estuaries look to be much bigger and closer to the closest residential properties than both of their initial representations. Given their proximity to 3 houses I’m not really convinced enough has been done to try to limit the impact these large OSS's will undoubtedly have on the homeowners with regards to the loss to quality of living, visual appearance, long term disruption during the construction or the undoubted loss of value to those homes if the scheme proceeds. I also note the Northfalls visual assessment makes no evaluation as to the view point from Jennings Farm or Mulberry Lodge which seems an oversight given their immediate proximity. I can appreciate why a slightly higher density of trees look to be suggested around Normans Farm but given there is also Jennings Farm and Mulberry Lodge significantly affected would it not be better to plant the entirety of the field that is suggested to be returned to farmland as a woodland to give the best buffer available for all three properties? Given under the current proposal it will be relatively small area retained for agriculture, the benefit of a new woodland to these 3 homes and the habitat gain of a woodland for the area would seem to outweigh any loss to agriculture.