Representation by Maria Natale Hacon
- Date submitted
- 1 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I refer to the most recent letter received from Rampion 2 / RWE dated 25th September 2023 re The Rampion 2 Offshore Wind Farm Order 202X. I, Maria Hacon, am one of the four Trustees of land located at Lyminster, West Sussex (Land Registry Ref: WSX228882). This land is directly impacted by the proposed changes to the onshore cable route for the Rampion 2 Wind Farm and I wish to advise you of our objection to the latest proposals. By way of background this land has been in our family for several decades, it was originally purchased in the 1960s by our mothers and has subsequently been passed into Trust for the benefit of their children. Although the land has been used for a variety of purposes over the years the intention has always been ultimately to sell it for development at a suitable point in time. From 2019 to 2021 we as landowners were approached by a number of property developers, promoters and agents interested in developing our land. We met with several of these parties in early 2021 and subsequently appointed a land agent, Mr W McLaren of McLaren-Clark Consultancy, to market the land for sale/development. The following year we amended the Trustee structure from the two original Trustees to the current structure of four Trustees in order to facilitate the potential sale. This process was time consuming and the Trustees incurred considerable expense to carry out the process. On behalf of the Trustees, Mr McLaren sought expressions of interest from a number of developers and promoters and this was further refined to a list of the parties with whom we wished to progress matters. I can provide this information separately to the Planning Inspectorate if required. After further face to face meetings with the strongest bids - who informed us that they had informal discussions with Arun District Council concerning the suitability of the land for development and were confident planning permission would be granted - the Trustees together with McLaren agreed on a particular developer. It was also specified at the time that our land was particularly favourable for development because of the proposed Bypass which would in turn benefit the local community, the construction of which is currently well under way. This particular developer then made three separate offers within a short space of time, each of which took into account provision for biodiversity and affordable housing, and increased in terms of number of units to be built and the quantum that would be paid for the land. This quantum represents a life changing amount of money for the Trustees. However following notification from Rampion of the proposed revision to the cable route which now runs directly through our land, the developer terminated the negotiations and unsurprisingly, due to Rampion’s impositions there has been no further interest from any other parties. The Trustees also incurred significant additional expenditure as part of the process of preparing the land for sale. For example we engaged with a company to undertake physical surveys including winter ground water monitoring. On receipt of notification from Rampion of its revised proposals on 14 October 2022 we had no choice but to ask that this work be halted. However we were charged a considerable amount for costs already incurred by the company in question. The consultation document notes that “land affected by installation works would be fully restored back to its former condition once complete, other than occasional access covers for maintenance”. However this does not accurately reflect the impact of the revised cable route on the land in question. The subsequent need for access means that it will not be possible to develop the affected land and effectively eliminates it from development at any point in the future and substantially reduces its future value. The proposals require an initial 50 metre wide working corridor for installation of the cable and thereafter a 20 metre wide strip for access and maintenance. At a very minimum this removes around 25% of the land in question land from any future development. However in practice it appears likely that the percentage of land affected will be significantly higher and will prevent any of the land in question from being eligible for development. More recently the Trustees have sought to engage with Rampion and its representatives Carter Jonas with a view to establishing if there is a compromise that can be achieved by identifying a viable alternative to the proposed amendment. The Trustees have for example proposed an alternative route that passed through the southern side of the land in question rather than through the middle of the site. This alternative might allow developers to continue to develop part of the site and would involve minimal disruption or additional cost to Rampion. We have sought to compromise and co-operate with Rampion and Carter Jonas and have provided them with information on a number of occasions to facilitate further discussions. However Rampion and Carter Jonas have been unwilling to engage in any meaningful discussion on this topic. Whilst we have provided information whenever feasible, we have requested meetings and asked for replies to our many emails, Carter Jonas in return have been uncooperative as well as slow and vague in their responses. Finally the proposals will create a significant number of additional environmental impacts. In relation to the area including our land at Lyminster, these appear to include, but are not necessarily limited to, “landscape and visual, social economic, air quality, noise and vibration, traffic and historic environment (heritage) effects”. In addition other sections of the proposed cable route also appear to create significant negative environmental impacts, including but not necessarily limited to, the removal of ancient woodland and the contamination of groundwater. We also object to the proposals on the basis of the number and range of environmental impact the proposals will have. In conclusion therefore we notify you of our objection to the proposed cable route. If the Planning Inspectorate request any further information, we can provide this separately. We have hard copies of a great deal of information and correspondence relating to the matter of our land covering the past few years. Maria Natale Hacon together with other Trustees Teresa Natale Gina Perella Lewis Teresa Perella Camilleri