Representation by Thomas Ralph Dickson (Thomas Ralph Dickson)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
REPRESENTATION FORM Rights Sought 1. Thomas Ralph Dickson (“Dickson”) is represented by Lester Aldridge LLP. Mr Dickson is the freehold owner of the land known as [REDACTED] (“Land”) and is an Interested Party for the purposes of the DCO. The relevant order plots are 24/17, 25/2, 25/3, 25/4, 25/5 as listed in Category 1 of the Book of Reference (“Order Plots”). 2. Mr Dickson objects the acquisition of rights and the imposition of restrictive covenants over his Land. 3. The acquisition of the rights and imposition of restrictive covenants via deploying open cut route cross-farm Order Plots. 4. A summary of the principal issues are below. Mr Dickson reserves the right to expand and add to these points as the examination unfolds and in result of any response from the Applicant. Equality Act 2010 (“EA”) 5. The Applicant has disregarded Mr Dickson's protection under the Equality Act 2010 due to his age. For example, in a letter to Mr Dickson dated 24 May 2023, the Applicant erroneously conflates age and disability, showcasing a total lack of understanding of equality legislation and a woeful neglect in adequately addressing his distinctive circumstances. 6. The cable routes will inevitably cause unnecessary operational difficulties for Mr Dickson in respect of the farm that could be avoided. This point will be significantly expanded as the inquiry unfolds. Failure to Consider Alternatives 7. The Applicant’s Statement of Reasons (“SoR”) alleges that as result of their consultation process, cable route amendment and construction related change requests have been subject to review by the Applicant’s team during the evolution of the scheme design and accommodated where justified (see SoR at 6.2.3). 8. Prior to a decision being made the Applicant ignored and failed to engage in meaningful and collaborative consultation in respect of the alternative routes and methodology through the Land: a. The installation of the cable via hybrid methodology part HDD part open-cut. b. Relocation of the open trench cable to the northern point of the field boundary of the Land (together the “Alternatives”) 9. The Alternatives would have significantly reduced the impact on Mr Dickson’s livelihood thereby negating the need to provide crossing points. The impact of the Applicant’s proposals are a breach of the EA due to Mr Dickon’s personal circumstances. 10. Sample evidence includes: a. Omission to include Mr Dickson’s land in Targeted Onshore Cable Route Consultation from 18th October 2022 to 29th November 2022. b. The final decision for the chosen cable corridor affecting Land was not communicated prior to the DCO Application being submitted. c. In a letter dated 14th April 2023, the Applicant confirmed a 25 metre stand off from ancient woodland, following consultation with WSCC and NE. Instead, the Order Limits is approximately 70 meters. 11. Other than an unsubstantiated funding explanation (a summary of which has been requested and not provided), there has not been a substantive reason as to why the alternatives cannot be accommodated. Mr Dickson (via his agents) is open to meaningful negotiation with the Applicant and awaits engagement to agree an acceptable route. Failure to Negotiate the CPO 12. Compulsory purchase is a measure of last resort, and the Applicant has not seriously considered alternative means of bringing about the objective of the CPO in respect of the Land: a. The Applicant's SoR acknowledges ongoing discussions with landowners, but no heads of terms for a voluntary agreement have been issued to Mr Dickson, despite documented requests from agents and assurances from the Applicant. b. The Applicant was only in negotiation with 25 out of 173 landowners (14%) and has agreed on terms with only 3 landowners (1.7%). c. No attempts were made to meaningfully and collaboratively negotiate with Mr Dickson before making the Draft Order despite Mr Dickon’s strenuous attempts over a long period of time as evidenced in very extensive written correspondence, phone calls and emails. 13. Relocation of the open trench cable to the northern point of the field boundary is feasible to deliver the objective of the CPO. Failure to Offer Dispute Resolution 14. The Applicant has not offered Mr Dickson access to ADR throughout the CPO process, contrary to the Government’s CPO Guidance. Failure to Adequately Consider Environmental Engineering and Ecology Factors 15. The Order would cause serious environmental issues in respect of the Land, which the Applicant has not considered, example: a. The proposed scheme poses risks to biodiversity, including vulnerable species like the turtle dove. b. Damage to a breeding pond for great crested newts. c. Foraging opportunities for invertebrates would be significantly reduced. d. Reptile species face direct risks of injury and loss of habitat. e. Disruption with connectivity with higher quality habitats, affecting terrestrial animals and bats. f. Priority habitats like deciduous woodland, waterbodies, and hedgerows are at threat and require conservation action. Lack of Funding 16. 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. Failure to Conduct with the Conformity of Natural Justice 17. The Applicant has repeatedly made verifiable inaccuracies to the determinant of Mr Dickson.