Representation by THE MYRA MCKEOWN 2014 DISCRETIONARY SETTLEMENT (THE MYRA MCKEOWN 2014 DISCRETIONARY SETTLEMENT)
- Date submitted
- 17 May 2024
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Dear Sirs, [REDACTED] PROPOSED BYERS GILL SOLAR DEVELOPMENT (EN010139) REPRESENTATION COMMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE MYRA MCKEOWN 2014 DISCRETIONARY SETTLEMENT (CLIENTS REGISTRATION NO. 20048002) We write on behalf of our Client [REDACTED]. Our Client, Ms M Mckeown and Mr C Mckeown on behalf of The Myra Mckeown 2014 Discretionary Settlement wish to raise the following points in connection with the proposed Byers Gill Solar Development. 1. Background a. [REDACTED] a mixed farm and extends to approximately 193 acres (78.11 hectares) including a farmhouse, steading and land. b. The farm consists of predominantly Grade 3 agricultural land and is currently operated as a mixed farming enterprise including livestock, arable, and poultry. c. The farm is currently let out, and our Client is communicating in conjunction with the Tenant with regards to this proposed solar development. 2. Principle of the development a. Our Client is not in agreement with the principle of this solar development due to its scale and the sporadic nature of the design. b. Our Client also has considerable concerns regarding the accuracy of the information provided within the DCO application, and that which is stated in areas of concern relating to our Client lacks factual research. Some of which are highlighted in this representation. c. Our Client regards this scheme as inefficient in solar terms. A smaller number of sites with larger acreage would be preferable and much less intrusive to the community. The management of this proposed scheme will be unnecessarily complex. These sites planned around cabling are un-tested and open to all kinds of random development when removed. It is also possible that the current proposed scheme will be quickly superseded by technological advances in energy production. Under circumstances of de-commissioning, it is not a given fact that the most isolated sites intended by the developer will be financially viable to remove. 3. Client comments on the Development Consent Order (DCO) application and proposed Byers Gill Solar Development Our Client wishes to raise concerns regarding information within the DCO. Prior to the DCO being published, our Client was not made aware of changes that would affect their land and access; this is detailed further below. These facts did not go through the process of the early ‘Scope of Reference’ on which our Client diligently reviewed and responded to accordingly. The concerns of our Client extends to two sites in particular which are affected, but there are numerous factors of concern including environmental and habitat loss, disregard to historical and cultural factors, detrimental effects on a business and farming enterprise, and a direct challenge to access, safety and security of the tenants of High House Farm. a. Area of land for temporary possession Our Client has considerable concerns regarding the use of their land for temporary possession. Our Client had no prior or formal indication that ‘temporary possession’ was to be imposed over their land. There is currently no agreement in place between our Client and RWE in relation to this subject land. In the first instance, we request that a more detailed plan of the area identified for temporary possession (3/14) under our Clients ownership be provided, so that it can be more fully reviewed against our Clients deed plans. We also request confirmation on the length of parcel 3/14. We would like to highlight on behalf of our Client that there is an inaccuracy within the Book of Reference. Namely, that our Client only has an interest in parcel 3/14 and has no interest in parcel 3/15. The reference to fences is also incorrect within the Book of Reference, as the boundary does not belong to our Client. Furthermore, our Client has general concerns around the practicality of the temporary possession on the ground including fencing off of the area. The northern side will require good quality fencing for both sheep and cattle, and this fence will need to cross the dyke/waterway. In addition, our Client requires further information in relation to the reinstatement of the land and associated compensation. We request that the area be properly surveyed and mapped to a detailed scale, with details of fencing and reinstatement provided to our Client in advance of any access/use of the area. Can RWE also advise how drainage will be dealt with, this is of particular concern, and our Client highlights that there is a field drain running across the curve of the proposed temporary possession area, along with a drain that comes down from the steading of High House Farm and on to High House Lane. We request details of drainage works that will be undertaken pre-construction and as part of the reinstatement. After construction is completed, can RWE confirm if this area is intended to continue to be used as access for emergencies / maintenance? Our Client would also like to highlight that a narrow dyke will need to be crossed, and that 3/14 and 3/15 have vulnerability to flooding if water backs up behind the dyke crossing. It is understood that construction traffic for circa 100 acres of solar development will need to cross a man-made narrow dyke, which forms part of a flood alleviation scheme involving Network Rail. Our Client has serious concerns around the crossing of the dyke due to the potential flood risk this poses. Furthermore, as the dyke and fallen tree form a natural habitat, will an EIA be carried out. We would expect that the full extent of the dyke be surveyed and reviewed in advance. b. Use of High House Lane Our Client has considerable concerns regarding the use of High House Lane, which is a vital access used by the tenant of High House Farm to link two main blocks of land under the ownership of High House Farm. The viability of the farm is tied to the use of this lane. On the plans included as part of the DCO application, there is a discrepancy. The line on the RWE plan goes over the boundary of the Landlord’s land and into land registered to our Client. Referring to a photo, which can be provided, all of the land in front of the gate & stile is not under control of the Landlord, but is within our Clients ownership, and should therefore not be referred to in the DCO. Our Client would like confirmation from RWE that this is a mapping inaccuracy, rather than that land under our Clients ownership is intended for use as part of the solar development. Our Client can provide Deed plans confirming the extent of their ownership at request. Our Client also draws attention to the incorrect assumption within the Book of Reference that the Landlord has the right to lease to the developer the full length of High House Lane as defined in the PRoW maps. c. Alternatives Our Client has put forward alternatives to the three fields that will be covered in solar panels from High House Lane and also the land proposed to be affected by ‘temporary possession’. These alternatives would be cost efficient to the developer, and less harmful to the environment, and with less long-term consequences. Further details of this can be found in previous representations submitted by our Client. d. Client details Please note that within the Book of Reference Mr Christopher Mckeown’s address is incorrect. e. Impacts on the holding Our Client have various concerns with regards to the impact that the development will have on High House Farm, including but not limited to the following. i. Use of accesses, in particular High House Lane and Ketton Lane for construction traffic. ii. Noise during construction. iii. Disturbance to the farming tenant. These impacts will need to be assessed moving forwards. iv. Security concerns. v. Concerns regarding the use of Lime Lane for cabling. Lime Lane is the farming tenants main access to markets etc., and is already used heavily as a ‘rat run’ needing continuous repairs, and has inadequate drainage. vi. The use of temporary possession, when NIPI have requested no compulsory acquisition within the DCO. vii. Risk of flooding. viii. Harm to the environment and natural habitats. ix. There will be other items to include in due course as the scheme develops. Our Client also has wider concerns regarding the scheme including environmental, historical, and cultural. Further to this, our Client is worried that the developer seems intent on using PRoW for access. All PRoW’s to the north of Darlington are regarded by Darlington Borough Council as their most valued community amenity asset in the countryside. See quintennial document regarding rights of way provision dated 2014. 4. Survey Works a. Our Client respectfully requests that consent for any access or survey works required is obtained by ourselves as authorised agents prior to any access being taken as well as the Tenant. These are a summary of some of the issues, and by all means not an exhaustive list. Our Client and ourselves would welcome the chance to discuss matters further in due course, and in particular would like clarification on the inaccuracies as highlighted, contained within the DCO application. Please note a complete record of our Clients representation with referenced illustrations can be seen in our Client’s prior submission (representation number 20048002). Yours faithfully Davidson & Robertson As authorised agent on behalf of The Myra Mckeown Discreationary 2014 Trust