Representation by Green Properties (Kent & Sussex) Ltd (Green Properties (Kent & Sussex) Ltd)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS Rights sought 1. Green Properties (Kent & Sussex) Ltd (“Owner”) is the freehold owner of plots 33/4, 33/22, 33/23, 33/24, 33/25, and 33/26 (“Land”), listed in Category 1 of the Book of Reference. 2. The Applicant is unnecessarily seeking to acquire new rights, impose restrictive covenants, and temporarily use land within their ownership for the installation of electricity connection cables between the proposed converter station at Cowfold and the substation at Bolney. 3. The proposed acquisition of new rights and imposition of restrictive covenants will permanently affect the enjoyment and use of the Order Plots and the Applicant has not justified the need for this premature acquisition. Inadequacy of consultation process 4. The Applicant’s Statement of Reasons (“SoR”) confirms that consultations were conducted with affected persons and their feedback was considered in the cable route design decision-making process (see SoR ref. 6.2.3). However, the Applicant has woefully failed to appropriately consider alternative proposals put forward by the Owner. 5. The Applicant's route completely destroys the Owner's woodland planting scheme, which was previously accepted as part of the prestigious Queen's Green Canopy ("QGC") programme launched by the Woodland Trust specifically for the platinum jubilee of the late Queen Elizabeth II consisting of 70 acres. 6. The Owner kept a 50-meter strip free of saplings for the Applicant's cable installation and the Applicant has not considered this route. 7. The Owner repeatedly presented alternative routes that were ignored by the Applicant thereby demonstrating a continued pattern of disregard for consultation. For example: a The Applicant conducted a Targeted Onshore Cable Route Consultation from 18th October 2022 – 29th November 2022, including looking at different areas including at Area 7a (Cowfold). The map provided as part of Area 7a consultation shows two potential route corridors affecting the Owner running east from the proposed Oakendene Project Substation, yet the consultation document does not consult on these two options. b The Applicant presented a "third" option – by way of a single plan dated March 2023 - without any explanation or background information, and again chose not to consult or provide further details on this option. c The recent Cowfold Consultation (see Exhibition boards presented at the event on 21st June 2023) reveals conflicting information. Slide 2 shows the two cables corridors moving east from Oakendene (as per the 2022 material). The sketch on slide 3 shows a single corridor option which matches the current DCO Land Plans. It is therefore evident that the Applicant had already made a pre-determined decision on which corridor to pursue. Failure to negotiate the CPO 8. The Applicant has not seriously considered alternative means of bringing about the objective of the CPO in respect of the Land. 9. The SoR states that: Discussions with landowners for the land rights required for the cable route and associated operational access routes have been taking place and are ongoing with the majority of landowners and (where appropriate) their agents / advisors. Key Terms have been issued in the majority of cases where there has been active landowner engagement so as to enable heads of terms to be provided. 10. This is untrue and there is an overwhelming case that the Applicant has failed properly comply with the Government Guidance on CPOs & The Crichel Down Rules. For example: a no heads of terms for a voluntary agreement have been issued to the Owner. b The Applicant requires agreement with 173 landowners and its own records confirm that it is in negotiation with just 25 landowners (14%) and terms agreed with 3 landowners (1.7%). 11. The ground under which a CPO is needed because negotiations to acquire land by agreement have been unsuccessful. The acquiring authority must show that: a it (or its agent) has sought to acquire the land by agreement by pursuing negotiations with the Owner; AND b these have failed that therefore the CPO is needed as a measure of last resort. 12. The Applicant has not shown this and displays a continued unwillingness to engage with affected parties, including the Owner. The Owner (via its agents) is open to meaningful negotiation with the Applicant and awaits engagement to agree an acceptable route. Extent of CPO not justified 13. A CPO must only be confirmed where there is no alternative means of bringing about the objective of the CPO. This is widely accepted as meaning other than by use of compulsory purchase powers. 14. The DCO Land Plans identify a corridor of 100 metres through the Land over which it seeks rights. It completely contradicts the Applicant which previously confirmed in writing they required a much narrower corridor. The inclusion of 33/25 within the DCO also completely severs the entirety of the Land from the public highway and is not proportionate. 15. The only reasonable explanation for creating a corridor of such excessive width is that the Applicant is aggressively pursuing long-term strategic objectives that are completely irrelevant to the scheme objectives. 16. There has been not meaningful attempt by Applicant to justify the CPO by reference to alternatives which would achieve the same objectives in breach of their common law duty. Failure to Offer Dispute Resolution 17. The Applicant has not offered the Owner access to ADR throughout the CPO process, contrary to the Government’s CPO Guidance. Lack of funding 18. The Applicant lacks funds and cannot guarantee funding from its shareholders for the project as it is a SPV, which does not have assets of its own. There is a risk the Applicant cannot fund the project and would be unable to offer compensation to affected parties. This is also relevant as there must be adequate resources available to implement both the CPO and the CPO scheme within a reasonable time frame.