Representation by T & R Fairley Farming Partnership (T & R Fairley Farming Partnership)
- Date submitted
- 21 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This representation is submitted by Thomas Fairley, on behalf of T & R Fairley Farming Partnership, occupiers of land owned by T Fairley & Sons Ltd, R Fairley Ltd, and M Cooper. The land is located between Horsley Cross and Little Bromley and is affected by both the proposed onshore cable corridor route and the proposed substation location. Outlined below are a number of principal matters of concern which have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Applicant, and which therefore result in us being opposed to the application in so far as it affects our land and business. It must be noted that our Property and the wider area is not only to be affected by this proposed Project, but also the similar North Falls scheme and the National Grid Norwich to Tilbury Pylon/Substation scheme whose DCO applications are yet to be submitted. With respect to the physicality’s of the project itself, the scheme will have a significant impact on our farming business and our Property comprising land at Abbotts Hall, New Hall, Braham Hall and Normans Farm to which Five Estuaries and their agents, have not given due consideration or engaged with us suitably on. Key areas of concern include; • The maintenance of existing agricultural field accesses, together with the careful management of accesses where shared use is proposed. • Severance of existing fields, field drainage schemes, the irrigation system and water abstraction boreholes. Five Estuaries, nor their agents and contractors employed to date, have given us any confidence in their ability to appropriately deal with these issues going forwards. • The excessive area of freehold acquisition in land for the substation and little clarity on what, if any, will be handed back. We are concerned that where land is acquired on a temporary basis and it is only determined at a later stage exactly what will be returned to us, an approach which we are aware of other projects trying to take, this prevents us from making meaningful plans for the future of our business and leaves us in a state of limbo, unnecessarily prolonging the disruption to our work and the mental difficulties the uncertainty creates. The proposed land take from our business for the two substations, is circa 75 acres, this acreage will have a significant impact on our margins, at a time when economies of scale are already so important to profitable farming businesses. Five Estuaries have not given any consideration to the fact that we cannot simply replace this land and that this loss may result in the business not being able to sustain the [Redacted] families it currently supports. • The destruction of prime arable farmland and a complete transformation of the character of the area as a result of the proposed location for the substation. The land is predominantly Grade 1, irrigable farmland with a flat topography meaning the substation will not only destroy some of the best arable land in the country, but will also be visually intrusive for the whole of the surrounding area. • The setting of our retained residential dwelling will be unrecognisable, cited immediately adjacent to the substation, and extinguishing its value. We are concerned about the potential health implications, both physical and mental, of living in such close proximity to the substation. No understanding has been shown by Five Estuaries for the potential uprooting of an entire family from their home as a result of their project. • The permanent acquisition of land for the provision of environmental mitigation works in connection with the project. This will potentially result in the loss of further Grade 1 land that could be mitigated for elsewhere on less productive land. • The implementation of utility / diversion works in respect of which the specific works, programme and period of temporary possession remains unclear. Throughout the Applicants consultation process, we have found engagement with not only ourselves but other local land owners, affected persons and the wider community, to be inconsistent, insincere, and at times insulting. • Collaboration between this Five Estuaries Project and the North Falls Project remains unclear, particularly with regard to the phasing of each development. The staggered nature of the consultations for both Five Estuaries, North Falls and now the National Grid Norwich to Tilbury Scheme, coupled with the lack of cooperation between the relevant companies and understanding of the other projects, has resulted in significant confusion and consultation fatigue. This lack of coordination, means we do not have the full picture in order to fully understand the impact on our business and therefore we cannot come to any mutual agreement. In the last month, we have now been informed that if the two projects are not constructed at the same time, the final cable corridors will need to be wider to prevent an already laid cable being disturbed by the second project. Clearly we cannot be expected to sign any Heads of Terms or come to an agreement when the Applicant cannot provide conclusive details on their plans. • Meaningful engagement at land owner meetings and public consultation events has been poor with representatives often unable to answer questions, and failing to relay concerns/questions to the relevant individuals. • The Heads of Terms, which were only sent to us in April 2024, lack specific detail relating to our concerns listed above. Five Estuaries have presented a “take it or leave it” approach without any concern for the substantial impact that their proposals have on our business and property which we do not feel is fair or reasonable. We have been told by Five Estuaries’ representatives that the project has to be affordable to generate a profit for its shareholders hence they cannot pay the market rate for the land they wish to acquire, yet we have seen first-hand their blatant disregard to operate efficiently throughout their surveys and archaeological digs. Throughout the process we have been willing to engage with Five Estuaries however we have not received satisfactory engagement with our concerns, nor have we received a sensible offer that would allow for a mutual agreement. Given the cumulative impact of the three known associated projects on Little Bromley and the surrounding area, we do not feel it is appropriate or justified that this project should be assessed in isolation. This Five Estuaries project can only go ahead if the National Grid Norwich to Tilbury scheme sites its new substation at the proposed location adjacent to our land, the consultation process for the Norwich to Tilbury scheme has not yet finished and therefore it is our view that this application should not be given consideration until such time as the National Grid make their application and an outcome is reached. The interconnected nature of these schemes means they should be considered as a whole, in order for the cumulative impact to be appropriately assessed. We reserve our right to make further and/or additional representations in relation to the Five Estuaries project proposals, as detailed in the application, and trust that our concerns will be given due consideration by the planning inspectorate in their assessment.