Representation by Jointly: Landsul Limited; and Munster Joinery (UK) Limited (Jointly: Landsul Limited; and Munster Joinery (UK) Limited)
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Cory Decarbonisation Project Relevant representation on behalf of Landsul Limited and Munster Joinery (UK) Limited Introduction 1. This relevant representation (“RR”) is prepared on behalf of Landsul Limited (“Landsul”) and Munster Joinery (UK) Limited (“Munster Joinery”). Landsul is the owner, developer and manager of land at Norman Road, Belvedere. It is developed for industrial and warehousing purposes with offices and a display area. Part of the land is occupied by Munster Joinery, from where it operates a major distribution function for its UK operations. It took 9 years for Landsul to find an appropriate site for the business and for it to be developed to the stage of getting electricity into the building at Norman Road. 2. The development consent order application seeks authority for the compulsory acquisition of Landsul’s land. It is proposed that this land will be used in connection with the Cory Decarbonisation Project (“the Project”). If authorised and implemented, this will result in the catastrophic loss of Munster Joinery’s business from Belvedere with substantial job losses in both Belvedere and the business more generally and also wider economic effects as Munster Joinery nears completion of a £25m manufacturing expansion at its site in Wellesbourne which was undertaken to facilitate the major growth of future business from the Norman Road site. 3. Landsul and Munster Joinery’s case will be developed further in written representations once the examination commences. However, for present purposes its case in summary is: a. The acquisition of Landsul’s land is not necessary for the delivery of the Project; b. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that there are no alternatives to the compulsory acquisition of Landsul’s land; c. The Applicant has failed properly to assess the socioeconomic impacts of the loss of the Munster Joinery business; d. The proposals would amount to an unlawful interference with Landsul’s rights under Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention of Human Rights, and accordingly should not be approved. Compulsory acquisition principles 4. Section 122 Planning Act 2008 provides that land may only be compulsorily acquired pursuant to a development consent order when two conditions are met. First, it must be shown that the land: a. is required for the development to which the development consent relates, b. is required to facilitate or is incidental to that development, or c. is replacement land which is to be given in exchange for the order land under section 131 or 132. 5. Second, it must be demonstrated that there is a compelling case in the public interest for the land to be acquired compulsorily. 6. The “Planning Act 2008: Guidance related to procedures for the compulsory acquisition of land” further explains that applicants must have a clear idea of how they intend to use the land which it is proposed to acquire (paragraph 9). The Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the land to be acquired is no more than is reasonably required for the purposes of the development (paragraph 11). 7. Case law makes clear that any need for the development identified in an NPS does not, in itself, mean that a compelling case for the acquisition of land is made out. Thus even if there is an urgent need for the development in question, the land proposed to be acquired compulsorily may, on proper analysis, be found to be excessive because the development proposals can be constructed without needing that land to be acquired: see R (FCC Environment (UK) Ltd) v Secretary Of State For Energy & Climate Change [2015] Env LR 22. Absence of proper justification for the compulsory acquisition of the land 8. The Applicant has failed properly to explain why the land is required to deliver the scheme or to provide a compelling case for the acquisition of the land. 9. Landsul and Munster Joinery have commissioned an expert review of the indicative designs for the Project to consider whether the Project could be delivered without acquiring Landsul’s land. Landsul and Munster Joinery’s expert has sought to engage directly with the Applicant’s team and has carried out a site visit. A full report will be provided in written representations. 10. Landsul’s land is shown on the Indicative Equipment Layout plan [APP-011] to be proposed for various activities associated with the Project including a substation, control room, welfare and gatehouse facilities, and water treatment. To the south of Landsul’s land a further area is identified for operational laydown, a heat transfer station and water management area. 11. The design basis for these facilities, and their sizing, is not adequately justified in the application documents and Landsul and Munster Joinery have requested further details. Further, to complete their own appraisal, the design basis for other elements of the Project have been sought. Whilst the Applicant did provide answers to questions raised by Munster Joinery and Landsul’s expert they did not provide the further detail or justification that was sought. 12. At present, and in addition to the general point that the extent of land required for the development has not been properly justified in engineering terms, it suffices to note: a. The need for a further control room, welfare facilities and gatehouse in addition to those provided within the Riverside 1 and Riverside 2 energy from waste (EfW) facilities is not explained or justified. It is not considered that there is any operational necessity to construct further facilities of this nature when they are already available; b. The need for the indicated scale of heat transfer station is not explained, given that heat transfer is already provided for, or planned for, within the existing EfW plants; c. The area identified for water management (Area 20) is similarly not justified. d. There is an extensive area allowed for the electrical substation and transformers. The Applicant has not adequately justified why this is necessary as there are alternative options for the supply of electricity to the development that do not appear to have been considered. e. In terms of the process plant associated with the carbon capture process, it appears that opportunities to reduce the footprint exist that have not been adequately explored. 13. Initial expert review indicates that the land requirements appear excessive and that reasonable reductions could avoid the acquisition of the Landsul site. If Landsul’s site were to be excluded from the compulsory acquisition request, there is no operational necessity why some of the facilities could not be distributed to the south of Landsul’s site whilst still maintaining a contiguous site within the Applicant’s control. 14. It is clear that to satisfy s 122 and to avoid an unlawful interference with Article 1 of the First Protocol, the need to acquire the land should be fully justified. In considering alternatives, it is also necessary for the Applicant to show that there are no alternatives which would reduce the need for Landsul’s land. These would include alternative methods of working, reasonable reductions in the scale of the facility proposed, and the use of land within the EfW sites to meet some of the claimed operational requirements for Landsul’s land. Landsul and Munster Joinery further object to the exclusion of alternative locations more generally. Inadequate socio-economic assessment 15. Landsul and Munster Joinery is not satisfied that the Environmental Statement, in particular Chapter 14 Population, Health and Land Use, and Chapter 15 Socio-Economics, contain a proper and comprehensive assessment of the socio-economic impacts of the loss of the business from the land. 16. Initial review of Chapters 14 and 15, concludes that whilst both chapters have considered the loss of the site within their respective assessments, there are inconsistencies and omissions with regard to how the impact of the compulsory acquisition of the site at Norman Road and the loss of the Munster Joinery business has been assessed. 17. Furthermore, neither assessment properly considers the wider socio-economic impacts that would arise in the event of the loss of the Munster Joinery business, including impacts on the operation of its supply chain, existing workforce, growth plans at the site, and the disruption that would be caused to existing business operations. 18. Through failing properly to understand the role of the site in the wider business and the wider socio-economic implications of compulsory acquisition, the Applicant’s inadequate assessment means that the effects of the proposal have been understated. The impacts including on the wider supply chain provide a clear reason for withholding development consent. Conclusion 19. Landsul and Munster Joinery is firmly opposed to the acquisition of its land. Ongoing expert review indicates that the Project can be delivered without this land. Neither the compulsory acquisition, nor the consequent significant socio-economic effects of that acquisition, is justified. Accordingly either: a. Landsul’s land should be excluded from the application and the compulsory acquisition request withdrawn; or b. Development consent should be refused. For and on behalf of Landsul and Munster Joinery 14 June 2024