Representation by Gina Perella Lewis
- Date submitted
- 4 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As a freeholder of LAND REGISTRY REF WSX 228882, in Lyminster, West Sussex, I would like to register my objections to the Rampion 2 cable route which would directly impact our land. I wish to advise you that I do not agree to the use of our land and strongly oppose the Rampion 2 modified route. In 2021, I, along with the other three trustees of land belonging to us, appointed a Land Agent to market our land for the purposes of development, for the construction of housing. The agent we appointed is Mr W McLaren of McLaren-Clark Consultancy, Arundel. A new Littlehampton bypass which runs directly to the east of our parcel of land had made our land desirable to developers and promoters. We had been contacted by various Interested parties over a period of several months and so we felt that it was the right time to seek professional help and appointing our land agent. After discussions and various meetings with builders, promoters and developers, it was concluded we would proceed with Stonebond Properties (Guildford) Ltd. After verbally agreeing on mutual terms, guided by our agent, the next step was for Stonebond to raise Heads of Terms for our signature, and to put in a planning application with Arun DC, all at the expense of Stonebond. We four trustees are individual family members and owners of the land. We are not a company or business. . Rampion 2's agent, Nigel Abbott of Carter Jonas AND their Land Transaction Manager, Vicky Portwain have met with us in our Land Agents offices. We have had to ask for every meeting held with a Rampion representative, and responses to our emails can take months. I am still waiting for a response to an email sent five months ago, despite requesting a response more recently, for points I would have liked answered before logging my objections today. Vicky Portwain of RWE has asked for proof of our position with plans to develop, in the way of minutes of meetings (which we never took) and documents of offers made etc. We have provided all the evidence we have, giving her the names of companies which initially approached us, and the short list of those invited to meet with us at McLaren Clark offices. We did not take minutes of any meetings. Nore did Stonebond get so far as to apply to Arun for outline Planning Permission. The first we heard of this unknown company, RWE, was by a letter inviting us, along with any other member of the public, to a drop-in centre held by Rampion advising of an alternative cable route. This route would impact any and all plans we have for developing our land, either now, or in the future. Subsequently, all talks with our chosen developer have ceased. The cable cannot be built over, crossed by drainage, sewage pipes, cables etc. We have asked Rampion for an alternative route to cross our land. One which would take the cable to the far south of our land, skirting around what has been designated as a flood zone area, but in over the 50 years that our family has owned the site, it has never flooded, At first Rampion's agent, Mr Abbott seemed open to our suggestion, and we were persuaded to enter into a Survey Access Licence, giving Rampion surveyors access to our land for a twelve month period. In doing so, I would like to make it clear that this was not a reflection of our intentions to stop RWE using our land for their own purposes. Nor were we tempted by the compensation fee which was offered. The non-evasive walk over tests that Rampion2 needed to have carried out was something we trustees were lead to believe showed our willingness to cooperate with RWE and Carter Jonas where we could. On the 30 May 2023 Vicky Portwain wrote to the trustees informing us of a meeting which was held to discuss The Trustee Proposed Cable Route Versus The Rampion 2 Proposed Route. We were left very disappointed and actually crushed to learn that RWE had completely held our hopes and plans for our land with such utter disregard and contemp. Had we been invited to attend the meeting held by Rampion engineers, environmental surveyors and land team when discussing the 'Trustee preferred Route V Rampion 2 Route,' we would have given a clear indication of where our preferred route would travel, and had the opportunity to give responses to their arguments in sticking to their 'Red Lines' for their cable route across our land. Their decision was made on three points: *Flood Zone Area *NOISE *COSTS. *Moving the cable corridor further south would move it into a flood zone area. The trustees preferred route to the south of RWE RED LINES, would avoid the flood zone area. *Moving the HDD pit further south (Should It Be Required) brings about environmental impacts in terms of noise impact at The Caravan Park- The Rampion 2 proposed route would bring about environmental impacts in terms of noise impacts on home owners and residence of Orchard Lane and Lyminstther Rd North. Both these roads/lane run directly north of the Trustee Land at Lyminster, with Orchard Lane running along the northern boundary of our land. The Lyminster 'A' Road runs between the Trustee Land at Lyminster and The Caravan Park, producing traffic noise from the main road. This traffic noise would eliminate some of the noise impact of the Trustees Proposed Route. Regardless of this, the noise levels would not impact on either area for long, and certainly does not stop land being passed for development. Building sites produce high levels of noise to neighbouring properties, yet land alongside existing housing is passed for development. The noise impact on either route would be minimal compared to, say, a nine acre development project. The Rampion 2 proposed route would impact on us the land owners, in perpetuity. I feel The Trustee Proposed Route is preferable in terms of noise impact. Environmental: Residential properties and community Facilities- Lyminster Trustees Proposed Route was considered by Rampion worse due to potential noise impacts on Brooklands Caravan Park- The Rampion 2 proposed route will also have an impact on the home owners along the northern boundary of Trustee Land at Lyminster. These home owners are closer to the Rampion 2 route than the caravan park is to the Trustees Proposed Route. It should be noted that my family have been shooting on our land at Lyminster for more than 40 years. This too has had an impact on noise levels. We are within our rights as the land owners to enjoy raised levels of noise within time constraints set by the council. Works on either route would be ongoing during the daytime only. Moving the cable to the south, as proposed by us, would have minimal impact on the Caravan Park, particularly as there is constant traffic noise from the main Lyminster A Road which runs between the two areas in question. *Water Environment: The Trustees do not propose the cable be situated in Flood Zone Area 2 or Flood Zone Area 3. The Trustees have asked that the route enters the Land at Lyminster west side from Lyminster Road and just north of the designated flood zone area, and once clear of Flood Zone Area 2, follow the southern boundary which is not a flood zone area. It is worth mentioning that although a south westerly strip of our land has been designated as in a flood zone area, this only due to what is known as The Black Ditch Area which sits some feet below our land. We have kept our horses, sheep, cows and pigs on that part of the field as it does not flood. I can't help seeing the irony of our situation, given that RWE Cables, Drilling, pipe lines etc. will be in The English Channel! Regardless of this, the trustee preferred route avoids this strip of FZA. It is clear from the diagram and map of Trustee Land at Lyminster that on exiting our land on the east side, the route 'elbow joints' north onto the neighbouring parcel of land. We propose a similar 'elbow joint' be adopted once the route has cleared the few metres of designated flood area on the south westerly corner of our land and continues along the southern boundary. It would then 'elbow joint' northbound to connect with the neighbouring land to the east. Why is Rampion 2 making this so difficult for us? We were led to believe by their representative that this would not be an issue, should we comply. Another route favoured by me and is also the favoured route of my MP, who I need not name. I'm sure he will be making his own objections to the cable route in its entirety. The Rampion 2 cable route would have less impact IF it were to follow along side (by the required metre gap) of the existing cable route of the Rampion 1 project. Is there a good enough reason to have impacted on more landowners and on more countryside. Where is the biodiversity and environmental impact consideration in that decision? Would these Windfarms be better placed in The North Sea, where they would produce far more energy than on the calmer, far less windy, southern coastline. Could this yet again be put down to costs and profit for Rampion. *Costs: Engineering costs would be higher with the Lyminster Trustee Proposed Route- The engineering costs of the Lyminster Trustees Proposed Route would not be greater than the loss incurred by the landowners with the Rampion 2 route. RWE are asking us to allow the annex of our land at the most economical rout for Rampion 2. No consideration has been made for us, the landowners, to have the right to use our land as we plan. We have been asked for proof of its imminent development. However, the proposed cable route will stop our land from EVER being developed. The Trustees have tried to work with Rampion 2. RWE agreed to work with us for our mutual benefit. How exactly have we benefitted? No compromise has been shown to us. We do not want the cable route set on any part of our Land at Lyminster. We have offered a compromise. One which may impact somewhat adversely for both Rampion and the Landowners financially, but does ensure both parties are able to deliver on their plans as quickly and smoothly as possible. It is clear that RWE's decision has been made solely on financial benefits to Rampion profits. I feel that Rampion 2 and their contractors have considered the Trustee Proposed Route merely on the impact it would have on the company profits, employee bonuses and shareholder dividends. It is beneficial for Rampion 2 to choose a route and acquire the use of land which have minimum costs for profit. The Trustees are obligated to secure the landowners maximum long-term potential for their asset, which of course is their land. Our asset is under threat of being blighted by Rampion 2. This is completely unnecessary. I feel we have lost our democratic rights, and Rampion 2 are aware they are able to take advantage of this. The Land at Lyminster is a prime developable site. Developers, Promoters and our Land Agent assured us that the new bypass to the East of our land would strongly benefit any future application for development. The Trustees were in the process of gaining the lands potential for development, and we had began putting those plans into action. The construction of the new bypass to the East of the land and prices per acre for developable land were now in our favour. The Trustees did not factor Rampion 2 into that equation. We are asked to supply proof of a planning application etc, yet RWE have been told on numerous occasions that we had not got that far. We had chosen our preferred developer and were in the process, with the help of our Agent, to drawing up a contract. Once Rampion 2's plans were made public, our plans were forcibly halted. Vicky Portwain has suggest we hold another meeting for further discussions in relation to the noise survey work that could be undertaken and further refinement work. The meeting that is being suggested is not to see how the cable could be set at the Trustees preferred route to the south of our land. Rampion 2 ask us to give permission for Further surveys to take place. We feel we are being tricked again, into signing another agreement. They have already carried out the Noise Survey. They are aware of engineering and environmental constraints. We signed a document allowing RWE to carry out tests on our land, with the promise of a compromise on the cable route. Our compromise was allowing them to take a part of our land for a cable we do not want, land which is worth far more to my family than it is to Rampion and its shareholders. We were tricked into allowing easy access across our land. It is clear to us now, that Rampion are only concerned with ease and minimal expense for their project, choosing landowners with no influence or power to affect the company's choices. Had we been aware of an unknown company's plans for our site, in hindsight we would have commenced with our plans to develop our land sooner and acquired planning a year or two ago. Thus providing RWE with the evidence they ask for, and forcing them to go elsewhere for their route. Perhaps Rampion would have stuck to its original route. Once again, our misfortune! We would have kept minutes of every meeting with our Land Agent, McLaren Clark and with each of the Developers and Promoters that we interviewed in our Land Agents offices, and during our informal chats with Arun District Council planning representative, and with Rampion's Agent, Nigel Abbott (with whom we HAD asked for minutes of meetings with him. None were produced). We would have kept every proposal and offer from the companies we ultimately disregarded. We could have provided Rampion with a file of our progress. How could we have known? Whether this would have influences Rampions decision, I doubt it! It seems this German company has been given carte blanche to trample over any plans we landowners have. Businesses and residence appear to be considered by Rampion. Why do the landowners feel they are forced to comply and get no such consideration? I am determined that as landowners, our consideration is paramount, particularly as we have given Rampion 2 every opportunity to work with us. We have informed Rampion of legal fees already incurred by us, physical surveys, land clearance, and all with a view of selling the land for development. We had engaged a company to carry out winter ground water monitoring. RWE's choice in using our land has prevented such work from being needed. No developer, either now or in the future, will invest and put forward for planning a parcel of land divided by a Rampion cable route. That cable, once set, cannot be crossed. The Rampion 2 project has already set back The Trustees plans for the site by a minimum of 5 years, this due to Rampion 2's works and completion schedule. It is the Trustees wishes to fence off the southern area needed for the cable route and re commence talks with our Land Agent and Developer to deliver on our plans for our land. We could re start the Winter Ground Water Monitoring this winter IF Rampion would consider our wishes more and their profits less. Rampion 2 have already imposed financial impacts on the landowners, in delaying the development of our site. Our land has been recognised as in an ideal position, set for being put forward for development. The new housing development in Littlehampton has stretched northbound, and can now be seen very clearly to the east of our fields. RWE wrote to the original trustee (no longer a trustee) at the old address in Angmering Village. Had they sent a representative to that address, they would have been given the names and addresses of the new trustees. RWE intended to use land it did not own for their project, and merely sent a letter to inform owners of its intentions. Each and every landowner impacted by RWE cable route SHOULD have been informed in a private meeting, not by letter and then a public drop-in centre with other members of the general public. Again, showing complete disregard and contempt for owners of land they make plans to acquire for their R2 project. Regards Gina Perella Lewis Trustee M Hacon MT Camilleri MT Narale Trustees