Representation by James Smethurst (James Smethurst)
- Date submitted
- 2 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I strongly object to the Rampion 2 proposals a substation at Oakendene. I grew up in Cowfold, and am aware that there has been an almost complete lack of information in the village until after the substation site had been chosen. There has also been a complete lack of engagement with the local community, and if there had been, the many problems with this site would have been discovered earlier. I also feel that the alternative site at Wineham would be a hugely better choice of substation with far less disruption to the traffic flow. The cable route direct to Wineham would be shorter and therefore damage far less distance of the Sussex countryside. Flooding at the Oakendene site: I have separately sent photographs and videos taken on 3 Nov 23, which I understand that the Planning Inspectorate team can attach to this Relevant Representation. The locations and direction of the photographs are labelled. The photographs show: • The picture and video with the gate are of the PRoW 1786 which runs close to the site on the south west. • The ones showing a bridge with the far end submerged in water are of the west end of the lake. • There is also a photo showing swales already near the top of the bridge on Kent Street, even without any construction run off. • The proposed Oakendene substation site immediately to the north of the tributary of the Cowfold Stream where it feeds into the Lake at Oakendene. This clay-based field is already heavily waterlogged and would clearly not take construction traffic. The water on the southern part is clear, but the whole field is boggy and waterlogged underfoot. Also attached is a video of the same field. These fields will be waterlogged now until April. Based on the experience of residents in the immediately surrounding area, the fields are likely to be around 10cm of grass and silt over 3.5m of Weald Clay formation. Soakaways are not possible in this clay as it is not permeable. Ground water seepages can be encountered as groundwater can be expected at 1.5-2m; probably significantly closer to the surface in this location by the stream in fact. They would need an extensive water drainage strategy as local brooks cannot take this much water from the hard-standing run-off. Water Neutrality: “If a planning application cannot demonstrate that water neutrality is achievable, it will be refused”. Rampion have not provided this evidence. Water neutrality is very difficult to prove as there can be no increase in water usage from the baseline. In this case, the baseline usage is zero. They plan to install mains water. During construction and decommissioning, they will need to use copious water for cleaning tyres before exiting the site, rest rooms etc. Water will be needed in large quantities for concrete mixing, and cooling activities. During operation, cooling facilities will use water. In all three phases; construction, operation and decommissioning, there is also a risk of contamination of water. Drainage Strategy: There is no mains drainage here so, without appropriate action, it will all be going into the water courses. Discharging into the water courses would clearly not be acceptable, particularly given the evidence shown above. From the design and access statement (doc ref 5.8) it does appear that SuDS is what they are proposing in order to prevent water run-off. For a project of this size, and given the height of the water table for at least the winter months, it is difficult to see how this could work Future resilience: The amount of flooding in this area has become worse over time, as is generally witnessed in the country as a whole; we are undoubtedly experiencing heavier, more frequent rain in the autumn and winter and we can expect this to get worse as time goes on. Rampion have not provided a credible argument to show that the site is resilient to the effects of climate change. Instead, this is further evidence that this proposal is not in the right place. The site was chosen for the wrong reasons.