Representation by Emily Thorpe
- Date submitted
- 31 October 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Draft Development Control Order (DCO) EN010117 and the supplementary Notice of Acceptance of a DCO Plot Number 32/13. My husband and I object to the above DCO in our capacity as owners of third-party rights over the affected land. These rights exist to provide the sole and unfettered access to our home. Our right to use King’s Lane is contained in title numbers WSX181848 and SX148008. King’s Lane and Moatfield Lane are privately owned. Our house, [REDACTED] was built c.1901 and a right of access to the highway, Kent St Lane, has existed since then. The oldest house with identical rights was built in the 16th century and the lane’s longest resident has enjoyed these rights continuously for over 30 years without challenge. The conditions for us and others to enjoy presumptive rights of access over the affected unregistered land are more than satisfied. Our objection is made on principal and is independent of any opinions we may have of the wider Rampion 2 project. As such it falls within Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and European Convention of Human Rights and all other domestic law. Other properties (see below) are also affected and you may see similar objections. Passage over the affected land is the only vehicular access for all properties referred to in this letter. There can be no compelling operational reason for [REDACTED] to be compulsory acquired or for our pre-existing rights of access and easements for utilities to be extinguished. The applicant’s development proposals envisage trenching for cabling dissecting King’s Lane and Moatfield Lane in two places. The applicant is not seeking ownership of the trench corridor to achieve this. Following the same reasoning, the applicant does not need ownership to secure rights of access to this unregistered strip at the mouth of King’s Lane. The applicant is being inconsistent in its approach. The current ownership proposal is material overreach and unnecessary for the successful outcome of the applicant’s project. This is a ‘ransom strip,’ the purpose of which is divorced from project delivery. The motivation for seeking such a dislocated right must be seen in this context. There is no overriding public interest. A high bar of public interest is required in this case. The applicant is not a statutory or public body. Its motivation is to maximise profit and return to shareholders. Having no clear operational purpose, the applicant’s intention must be to secure some other tangential advantage not directly related to a successful outcome of its project. Moreover, the applicant’s process is questionable. No mention of this additional DCO was referred to in direct homeowners letters sent to us by recorded delivery on 18 Sept and 25 Sept 2023. The only notice we had about it was by chance when a neighbour spotted a letter fixed to a gate post at the end of King’s Lane. There has been no direct contact with any landowner or owner of any third-party rights to explain what is proposed. This ‘last resort’ measure is wholly ill conceived. Furthermore, the categorisation of King’s Lane in the DCO as a ‘bridleway and public footpath’ is incorrect, misleading and a misrepresentation to the Planning Inspectorate and the Secretary of State. This is a privately owned road and subject to legacy rights granted to neighbouring properties; it is for the owners of the roadway to use as they see fit. The applicant has made no provision for a diversion or similar to ensure continuous use of the roadway during works. By downplaying the significance of the roadway, the applicant is downplaying the significance of the DCO and the implications that could flow from ownership and lane closure. This is a choice the applicant has made, even though they are fully aware their categorisation is incorrect. On 29 Nov 2022 Carter Jonas, the applicant’s agent, further corresponded by email to the writer (with copies to various Rampion/ RWE addresses) stating ‘We have noted on file that King’s Lane serves numerous dwellings and farming activities’. In total, ten high value homes with a further two consented properties for development and two farming enterprises (involving c.100 ha across all interests) gain their only access over King’s Lane. If the applicant’s proposals adversely affect these third-party rights the compensation liability could be significant, potentially as high as £20m. The applicant is promoting the rationale for its actions as the ‘tidying up’ of a small strip of unregistered land and has generally flattered its position by miscategorising the nature of King’s Lane. This amounts to a bad faith misrepresentation to the Planning Inspectorate and Secretary of State. A more balanced approach under the DCO would be to:- 1. Secure only those rights of access or easements required for operational purposes alongside any preexisting rights or easements and 2. Ensure any third-party rights or easements can be enjoyed continuously and without undue interruption by appropriate working methods and scheduling. For example, in the case where conflicting needs arise, the cable could be moled rather than trenched. The applicant purports to be an experienced and sophisticated operator in its field and keen to live with its neighbours. This skill could be utilised to achieve this project by having proper regard for the legal position of those affected. In conclusion, this DCO application is deeply flawed: - 1. It is premature; the applicant has undertaken insufficient due diligence into affected party rights or easements. It is seeking a broad-brush approach to railroad its proposals through. 2. It has undertaken inadequate consultation with affected parties or has ignored or discounted unhelpful consultation. Either way it is in breach of its statutory duty. It cannot rely on a ‘last resort’ test. 3. It cannot satisfy an overriding public interest test and risks challenge under Article 8 HRA 1998 4. Specifically in this case, it fails to recognise the huge potential compensation which could arise if longstanding rights and easements are adversely affected. It is uneconomic. We request that we (or our representative) be granted the right to speak at any hearing during the Pre-examination stage of the process. Yours faithfully, Emily & Julian Thorpe