Representation by D, M & A Green (D, M & A Green)
- Date submitted
- 15 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Having submitted a comprehensive response to the previous NLGEP planning proposal consultation on behalf of myself, Andrew Green (owner of the Fenestra Conference Centre), along with Derek Green, as Partners of D, M & A Green, owners of Church Farm, Flixborough, we wish to register our interest in this next part of the planning process. In our previous response we raised a broad and comprehensive range of points in two specific areas. Firstly, with regard to questions as to the project as a whole and secondly, points specifically that were relevant to how the proposed development would directly affect Church Farm, its viability and ability to function. Specific issues included our rights of way over the former rail line. The original planning proposal documents included “Future Potential Mitigation measures on land adjoining the former railway line. I pointed out, at that time, that NO contact or discussions had been made / taken place between the Landowners and the potential developer. The proposal to re-instate the former rail line, which bisects Church Farm, is perhaps the most significant element as to the viability of the proposed project on this chosen site. Now that the planning application as been formally submitted, with all its 118 large and detailed documents, I find it extremely disappointing that my response to the consultation has not been acknowledged or acted upon. I do not understand, when concerning an element so fundamental and crucial as the rail line, rights of way and mitigation measures, that the developers have not once been in contact to discuss the situation before the submission of the planning documents. The huge amount of documentation submitted as part of the planning application means, as an individual, it is extremely hard/impossible to read every document and comprehensively assess which parts refer to land that forms part of Church Farm, Flixborough. However, from what I can glean, the farm is partially covered by the following designations: 1. “Freehold to be compulsorily acquired and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights”. 2. “Temporary use of land and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights” 3. “New rights to be compulsorily acquired and in relation to which it is proposed to extinguish easements, servitudes and other private rights” I understand that changes / additions to public rights of way are envisaged that would involve Church Farm, also the planting of substantial areas of “Woodland strips”. In the planning consultation documentation, it referred to” removal of all vegetation within 5m of either side of the railway line”, this is excessive and unnecessary. It would remove excessive valuable wildlife habitat and remove a visual barrier to the proposed development site that would take another 40 years for any replacement to have any meaningful impact. I am also concerned to see reference to “100m of clear felling at the site of the crossing across the railway at Church Farm”. This is the point at which the proposed development will be most visible from the village and the absolute minimal removal of vegetation should need to happen, if permission were to be granted. I have located the following specific mentions of the planning proposal that would involve Church Farm: Sec 7 para 7.1.1.5. Planting of woodland strips to replace cleared vegetation and provide screening. Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.3 Arrangements for the maintenance of farm and field accesses, land drainage and water supply where these are affected by construction. Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.3 Ensure provision and maintenance of appropriate stock fence Sec 7.2 para 7.2.1.4 15m wide x 1km long belt of “compensatory woodland” (nb Flixborough is not a “town” as referred to here). Sec 7.3 para 7.3.1.1 Reinstatement of 6km rail line with continued amenity access across the line, including an upgrade for where the footpath 175 crosses the line south west of Flixborough. Sec 7.4 para 7.4.4.2 Woodland management to new woodland within Railway Reinstatement Land (as stated, this list of issues may well not be comprehensive). These are specific issues with relation to Church Farm, Flixborough. I have previously stated my concerns as to the project as a whole. I believe that the premise of the scheme is flawed. The emphasis today is on the reduction of waste streams. The increase in re-cycling, composting and anaerobic digestion will reduce the amount of RDF, not only that but there is already sufficient incineration capacity for what is being produced. The proposal would cause an immense and irreversible impact on the people and village of Flixborough, both during construction and operation phases, a community that has suffered more than enough as a result of poor planning and operational failures. The list of the dead on the Nypro Memorial being testament to that. I strongly believe that a planning proposal such as this, with such huge impacts as it will have, should not have the benefit of poor previous planning (or lack of planning constraint with specific reference to the former Enterprise Zone status) being used as justification or as a case of precedence for future planning decisions. Planning decisions should be appropriate, make things better, not compound inappropriate development and decisions.