Representation by Keith & John Langmead, and their associated trusts & companies (Keith & John Langmead, and their associated trusts & companies)
- Date submitted
- 6 November 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I hereby submit this objection on behalf of Keith and John Langmead (the "Landowners") with regard to the Rampion 2 project, specifically addressing concerns derived from the contents of the Environmental Statement (ES), the proposed cable route, and the draft Option and Easement agreements. Below are our key objections and recommendations: The Environmental Statement, Volume 3, Chapter 3, summarises the alternative routes considered by the applicant. The chosen route (LACR-01) was not part of the original options, but was instead subject to a mini-consultation exercise and therefore not widely publicised. - The sterilised easement strip is unnecessarily wide. In October this year, Rampion announced that it had significantly scaled back the rampion proposal (at sea) by nearly half. However, the opportunity to minimise the impact on the landward size, e.g by installing less cables and narrowing the easement strip (for example) has not been assessed. We question whether 20m is really necessary as this has major consequences for the land. The landowners seek a narrower easement strip. - The Landowners possess a significant proportion of high-quality (Grade 2) arable land. The current alignment bisects productive fields, creating numerous inefficiently sized parcels of land that pose economic and operational challenges for farming activities. Alternative alignments that could minimise such impacts seem to have been overlooked, as there is no indication in the ES that they were considered, despite alternatives being offered by the landowner. - Construction of the Lyminster Bypass, which began in October 2022, and its completion prior to the commencement of Rampion works are not accurately reflected in the route maps. The omission of the bypass from planning considerations may lead to misjudgments by the public. ES Category 6, Volume 2, Chapter 28 (human health) neglects to address the cumulative impact on the well-being of residents in Poling and Lyminster, who face consecutive construction projects, having already endured noise, dust and vibration as a direct result of the Lyminster bypass being constructed. The socio and economic impacts associated with development have not been considered either. For example, new development in Lyminster and Crossbush have been constrained for decades because of the difficult traffic conditions. The bypass will present new opportunities to develop land where previously highway capacity or visibility were significant issues. The cable route sterilises areas suitable for development and this impact has not been considered. The template Option and Easement agreements were finally released in late September 2024. The agreements seek to impose very unfair and unreasonable terms on the landowner. For example: - A farmer will not be able to undertake routine works, such as improving farm tracks or laying drainage pipes without first seeking consent from RWE. Furthermore, RWE have not stipulated the information they require in order to consider those requests, whether costs are payable, any obligation to reply in a specific timescale, or confirm whether any costs are payable as part of this consenting process. The ongoing disruption to the farming business will be significant, as often work must be carried out quickly in response to flooding or similar events, or can only be undertaken when the conditions are right. We argue that the need for consent should only relate to matters that actually pose a genuine and plausible risk to the cable, seeking consent should not incur any costs for the landowner, the Easement should accurately state the information required for RWE to make a decision, and works should be allowable if RWE does not make a decision within a given timescale. - It seeks to make a landowner liable for costs dealing with any natural or manmade contamination that the applicant might find in the land, whereas on Rampion 1, the cable was laid through registered landfill sites and known areas of natural contamination without imposing any mitigating costs on the landowner. - Previous (verbal) conversations with RWE and their agents confirmed that residential and industrial development would be possible on the easement strip, provided that the easement strip is not to be occupied by buildings, but instead roads, footpaths, verges, gardens etc could be positioned on the strip. The easement documentation now prevents this. It is effectively impossible to develop any part of this land because clauses prevent the surface from being levelled or for drainage ditches, SUDS etc from being installed. The applicant should identify all potential land and lay the cable at a greater depth (or undertake other measures) so that the development of a field is compatible with the easement strip. i.e the surface may be levelled, and new drainage ditches can be dug across the easement strip. - Farmers are being encouraged by the government to diversify, by engaging with natural capital projects such as Biodiversity Net Gain which may require tree planting. The agreement states an outright prohibition on ALL trees on the easement, however, RWE’s own Environmental Statement suggests that hazel coppice (for example) is acceptable on the easement strip. We suggest that a realistic and proactive approach is taken towards the presence of trees on the easement strip. The applicant should specify the types of tree species that may be compatible with the cables, and the height (or diameter) that other trees may grow to before they pose a risk to the cable. - The applicant acknowledges it will need to comply with BNG requirements, but it’s solution is to plant trees anywhere on the landowners estate. The ES states that RWE will look after the trees, however, the template easement agreements merely state that RWE can plant anywhere with no rights for continued management. BNG is a 30-year commitment and is it unclear which party will have the liability to comply with this. Landowners have not been offered the ability to claim compensation for land that may be taken for BNG. We argue that RWE should not be allowed to satisfy it’s BNG requirements by simply claiming ‘rights’ to plant trees outside of the easement strip. RWE should conduct itself in a proper and commercial manner without abusing it’s CPO powers. By comparison, Highways England seek to purchase land that is required for BNG and therefore a landowner losing land to BNG is compensated in the same manner and quantum to say a landowner losing land to an actual road. - We have been verbally informed that an operational access across the land, via the ‘Vinery’ is no longer required, however, this has not been confirmed in writing and is not reflected in the documents submitted in this process. The template easement agreement was only released in the last month and the applicant has therefore not had an opportunity to consult, discuss and negotiate the terms of easement in a meaningful or considered way. Government Guidance for the Planning Act 2008 clearly states that a Statement of Common Ground should be prepared and worked through (with the claimant) long before an application is submitted. This has not happened and much negotiation is required before the parties can be ready to prepare such statements, adding further weight to the fact that this application is premature.