Representation by William Barker
- Date submitted
- 13 June 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a Land Agent, practicing my business in Lincolnshire, I am a member of the Lincolnshire Association of Agricultural Valuers (LAAV) Outer Dowsing Land Interest Group (LIG) and I have attended many live and virtual meetings with Agents for the scheme since June 2022 where we have successfully negotiated and agreed compromises and terms to most of the issues arising from the proposed cable affecting our client’s land. My objection to the scheme is in connection with the future liability for the cables which will only be buried to the industry standard 1.2m deep on Grade 1, silty soils. These are tidal flat deposits of marine alluvium; the former Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food commissioned the commonly referred to Land Classification maps to protect our best and most versatile/productive soils from development. The issue of cable depth on Grade 1 land is compounded by the intensive use of these soils to grow high value vegetables and root crops. These crops usually require harvesting in late autumn or winter months when the soils can be saturated and unstable. Modern agricultural machinery has grown in size and weight and albeit not common, it’s not unheard of for farm machinery to sink to depths similar to the proposed cable depth. This makes installing interconnector cables to only 1.2m on these silty soils an impact problem waiting to happen. It will only be a matter of time until the cable is impacted. Frequently harvesting machinery leaves ruts to alleviate the soil compaction from those ruts a deep tine subsoiler is pulled through the field in preparation for the next crop. (photos of ruts on this land and subsoilers as readily available). In my opinion, the 1.2 meters has not been adequately researched to confirm that this industry standard depth which may be applicable on grassland more stable soil types is appropriate for these Grade 1 silty soils. The Boston silts that the cable must cross are tidal flat deposits and have a variable thin firm “crust” but with the presence of soft and very soft ground condition below. This is commonly referred to as “running silts”, being the type of subsoil which is saturated and unstable. It is often found in ditches where the bank profile of the ditch or dyke is difficult to maintain. These soils have little or no structural stability, behaving more like a liquid than a solid. House builders building in this locality understand the subsoils and cannot use standard strip foundations to meet with National House Building Council guidelines. Builders can use the cheaper foundations on firmer soils, likewise this is where the standard cable depth of 1.2m would be appropriate. The cable depth issue is then further compounded the ongoing liability for impacting the cables. The terms offered by the scheme place the liability for damage on the landowner. A £4billion scheme based on a 10% return on capital it will generate income of £400 million per annum. None of the landowners affected by the proposed scheme can afford that level of liability. It is not appropriate for the landowners to have to hope they are not the unlucky ones whom have a future employee or Farm Contractor impact a cable and to have to accept the future liability after they have continually argued the cable is not being installed into the most appropriate soils, (the shortest route has been taken for least cost), nor installed to an appropriate depth and the landowners are then liable for its inadequate construction. Grantors need to have assurances that they and their farming businesses will not have to cover the liability costs of impacting a cable which they are forced to accept. My suggestions are the cable should either: 1.) Avoid this area of grade one silts, it should be moved onto firmer ground. Or 2.) Where it must cross silty soils, it should be inserted to a greater depth. or 3.) To avoid grade 1 farmland (and road and local infrastructure) it should have been routed along on the landward side of the outer Sea Bank. In the grassed outer Sea Bank, it will not be impacted by arable cultivations. Furthermore, the proposed scheme could also provide additional community benefits with greater flood protection from sea level rises by adding to the height of the Environment Agency Sea Defences.