Back to list Bramford to Twinstead

Representation by Peter Nott (Peter Nott)

Date submitted
18 July 2023
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses

REPRESENTATION IN RESPECT OF THE BRAMFORD TO TWINSTEAD PROJECT SUBMITTED BY LAND PARTNERS LLP AS AGENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF MR P J NOTT OF COLLINS FARM, PEBMARSH, HALSTEAD, ESSEX, CO9 2SQ Introduction Mr Peter Nott is the owner of Collins Farm, Pebmarsh and he farms the land in conjunction with his son, Edmund, trading as Peter Nott and Son Limited. Peter Nott is identified as ‘Person with an interest in land [PIL] number 634. National Grid are proposing to acquire a permanent right of access (defined as Class 4 – Compulsory Acquisition of Rights – Access) across Peter Nott’s land, identified as Land Parcel Nos.; 29-06 and 29-07 (in common with others). This will involve laying a temporary roadway from a new access point off the A131, in an easterly direction, across three arable fields to a point where it will cross Oak Road and run on to a neighbour’s land. The stated purpose of the right to be acquired is to provide access, during the construction period, to the Stour Valley West CSE Compound and provision, in the long term, for access to the site should National Grid have a need to undertake substantial repair or re-building works to the infrastructure in the future. From discussions with representatives from National Grid and their agents, Bruton Knowles, it is understood that following completion of the Bramford to Twinstead scheme, the road will be removed and the land restored to agriculture but, upon three months’ Notice, could then be reinstalled if required. When the Project was initially proposed in 2013, an alternative access to the Stour Valley West CSE Compound was at that time preferred, which would have had no impact on Mr Nott’s land at Collins Farm. In September 2022, Mr Nott received a letter from National Grid, advising him of a consultation under s.42, 44 and 47 of The Planning Act 2008, which enclosed a feedback form. This communication introduced the concept of the haul road and we note that no prior contact had been made, nor seemingly attempted, with Mr Nott. Mr Nott appointed Land Partners as agents and in confirming this appointment to Bruton Knowles, agents for National Grid, a request was made for a site meeting with NG and their representatives. Initially, Mr Nott was encouraged to attend the public meeting in Sudbury on the 15th September where he met with the project team and expressed his extensive concerns about the new proposal and the impact on his farm both commercially and personally. A formal submission to the consultation was made on the 17th October 2022. A site meeting was held at Collins Farm on the 9th November 2022 with Bob Jones of National Grid and Bill Simms of Bruton Knowles. Mr Nott and his son explained the practical implications of the proposal and we walked the area around Collins Farm to illustrate this. Mr Nott was pleased to receive a further consultation notice from WSP on the 27th February 2023, advising him of changes National Proposed to make prior to submitting their application. The plan accompanying the notice moved the haul road to the north, closer to the field headland. Mr Nott, via his agents, submitted further suggested amendments to the route on the 28th February, [plan A and plan B] primarily to avoid extensive drainage infrastructure lying in the locality of the NG suggestion. A further suggested alternative [plan C] was submitted on 6th March. These alternatives were minor ‘tweaks’ to the route, based on Mr Nott’s practical knowledge of his land. On 3rd March 2023, National Grid, via their agents, issued draft Heads of Terms proposing the requirements as now detailed in the DCO application, including the acquisition of permanent rights. On 29th March 2023, Land Partners, on behalf of Mr Nott submitted a formal response to the Consultation Notice issued by WSP on behalf of the Project, highlighting their clients’ concerns and referencing the alternative routes already submitted. A copy of this submission is included at Appendix 1 below. Between 3rd March 2023 and the submission of the DCO application, Land Partners, acting on behalf of Mr Nott, have been engaged with the agents for National Grid in seeking to; • clarify the rationale for the proposed route; • review potential alternative routes to minimise the anticipated disruption to Mr Notts’ farming activities; • highlight the concerns of Mr Nott as to the likely impact of the route for the access on the existing land and mole drainage in the fields affected by the work; • agree terms for a Non-Intrusive Licence Agreement (now completed); and • agree Heads of Terms reflecting National Grids’ requirements (not yet agreed). Mr Nott retains concerns over the proposal affecting his land at Collins Farm which we have set out below and which we draw the Inspector’s attention to: Heads of Terms Whilst Mr Nott (via his agents) has made every effort to engage with National Grid on the negotiation of the rights they require, there are significant elements of this document which are missing or require clarification: • A plan confirming the area over which they are seeking to acquire rights. This plan will help to answer questions on: o The width of the haul road along its length o Areas which will be isolated by the route so we can assess whether they can be farmed o Details of the access points onto the roads o Points where the road can be crossed by the landowner • Assuming that this plan will differ from that submitted to the DCO, clarity on how this will then be recorded as part of the DCO process • Confirmation of how the area National Grid are seeking an easement over will be calculated (this will have a significant impact on the amount paid by National Grid for the rights they are seeking to acquire, depending on how this is defined in the agreement) • Clarity on the rights being acquired permanently against those required temporarily. • Clarity on the planning status of the land once the initial scheme has been completed and the land reinstated to agriculture Rationale for the proposed route Mr Nott has consistently sought confirmation of how National Grid has reached decisions on the proposal as it effects his land. This includes the following: • Detail on why the public road network cannot be used • Confirmation on why it is not possible to select a hybrid route, accepting that passing places and areas of road-straightening may be required • Detail on why the width of the haul road varies along its length as it passes through Mr Nott’s land Mr Nott is concerned that no walkover surveys have yet been conducted on the land and all information provided in support of the application must therefore be desk-top. Mr Nott queries whether this is sufficient to inform the decision-making process [we note that Mr Nott has signed a non-intrusive access licence but no access has yet been sought under this]. Mr Nott also wishes to ensure that the survey information presented in the application documents is not mis-interpreted and wishes to highlight that if no results are shown on his land on the survey plans, this is an indication of the lack of survey, not the lack of findings. [for example at 6.4.5 Environmental Statement Figures Part 5 – Collins Farm appears on plans]. We note that under 6.3.5.2 Environmental Statement Appendix 5.2 Response to Consultation Feedback, at page 65, the comment states ‘the council would like to see the results of an ecological walkover survey of the temporary construction haul road off the A131’ to which National Grid had responded that they will ‘undertake the ecological walkover survey post application.’ Mr Nott has recently [6th June 2023] received an indicative survey timetable and we understand that these will commence in mid-August. Mr Nott notes that within 6.3.5.2 Environmental Statement Appendix 5.2 Response to Consultation Feedback at page 89, Council consultees proposed ‘a programme of trial trenching and assessment’ which was rejected by National Grid in the project response where they advocated a ‘watching brief’. Mr Nott asks that the Inspector confirms which approach will be used as trial trenching will have a far greater impact on his farming activities. We note that at page 125 of 6.3.5.2 Environmental Statement Appendix 5.2 Response to Consultation Feedback Essex County Council queried ‘will HGV movements associated with the construction of the haul road be considered’. National Grid’s response did not answer this question but rather referred to HGV movements on all temporary access routes. Mr Nott requests that the Inspector is duly satisfied on all of the above points. Requirement for a permanent right of way In initial discussions with National Grid, Mr Nott was given the impression that the haul road would be required on a temporary basis and he was likely to be paid consideration during the period of occupation. It was only on receipt of the heads of terms in March 2023 that he became aware of the permanent nature of the rights that National Grid are seeking to acquire. Mr Nott requests that the Inspector gives consideration to the need for the rights to be permanent and not just for this specific project. Whilst he accepts that works may be required in the future to the infrastructure being erected as part of the Bramford to Twinstead scheme, imposing a permanent limit on the activities he can undertake across a significant swathe of his holding is disproportionate; the justification for rejecting the alternatives (using the public highway or a hybrid of public highway and accommodations on private land) should be assessed at the date in the future when access is actually, rather than speculatively, required. Basis of acquisition of rights The rights to be acquired are defined within the Book of Reference as ‘Class 4’. It is unclear from both the plans attached to the DCO application and from the wording contained within the Book of Reference as to exactly ‘what’ area the proposed easement for the right of way will cover. Discussions with the agents’ for National Grid have not, as yet, provided a confirmation of their requirements nor a definition as to what the proposed easement will encapsulate; i.e. is it solely the haul road itself, or does it include for the provision of the land on which to store the stripped topsoil and a working area to construct the road? The wording of the proposed restrictions within Class 4 are not representative of the requirements of the Project across Mr Nott’s land, in particular those contained within Sub-Paragraphs (c), (d) and (e), which mainly bear relevance where cables have been installed beneath the ground or pylons placed over it. Mr Nott requests that the Planning Inspector consider whether the definition of the rights and restrictions contained within Class 4 are appropriate to the requirements of the Project over his land and whether an alternative ‘Class’ be defined. Land Drainage Mr Nott has expressed his concerns about the existing drainage infrastructure running underneath the route of the haul road since the proposal was mooted. He has provided copies of his drainage maps and he has highlighted areas of particular issue. Mr Nott has proposed a minor deviation of the route to avoid a particular area of confluence and it is hoped that the Inspector will support this. This should be to the advantage of the users of the haul road and the landowner to avoid flooding and water damage to surfaces. In the course of negotiations with National Grid’s agents, we have sought assurances on National Grid’s approach to pre-construction drainage and post-reinstatement and we have asked that any remedial scheme can be reviewed by Mr Nott’s appointed drainage consultant at the cost of the Project. Mr Nott requests that the Inspector places obligations on National Grid to deal responsibly with all drainage issues. Soil management The treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after Project has been completed is one of the main issues of concern. Mr Nott has asked that the Planning Inspector consider imposing the following requirements, as a minimum; • prior to the commencement of work, detailed testing should be undertaken to establish existing soil nutrient values and soil profiles over both the working areas and adjacent land which will be sterilised from production; • detail of soil handling, storage, management and reinstatement, should be agreed in advance with the landowners and occupiers; and • details of post completion soils testing and aftercare management, should be agreed with the landowners and occupiers; It is noted from discussions with representatives from National Grid on 10th July 2023, that the final design for the proposed access to be constructed across Mr Notts’ land, will be left for the appointed contractor to design and implement, but that it is likely that the soil will be stripped to a depth of 300 to 350mm. Given that the preliminary designs and provision within the plans attached to the DCO application are for solely a single stack of soil, Mr Nott wishes the Planning Inspector to consider whether National Grid have provided sufficient storage provision to the suitable separation of the top and sub soils? Mr Nott would also like to have some say on the surface proposed by the contractor i.e. should a surface treatment be proposed (rather than the import of stone, laid over a terram-type material) that evidence is provided of its successful use and removal under similar circumstances elsewhere. Site Security Mr Nott is concerned that creating a new access from the A131, running across behind his house and farm-yard creates additional opportunities for unwanted access. Mr Nott seeks assurances that the haul road will be secured to prevent such unauthorised access throughout the course of it being in place. Mr Nott requests that, should approval to the haul road as shown on the plans attached to the DCO application, the Planning Inspector give consideration to reviewing National Grid’s proposed security arrangements and setting down minimum standards, including; • the requirement to fence the haul road, • to create secure gates / bollards across the entrance onto the land over the Public Highway, • provision of manned guards at each end of the haul road, when in use to ensure no unauthorised access is taken; and • provision of additional security measures outside of working hours. Crossing places Mr Nott asks that National Grid take heed of his requirements to maintain access to any land severed from the main holding by the construction of the haul road, at all times and for all purposes. Working hours. Document 7.5: Construction Environmental Management Plan, Paragraph 2.3 states that the core working hours will be, ‘between 0700 and 1900 Monday to Friday and between 0800 and 1700 on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holidays, unless otherwise approved by the relevant planning authority. Mr Nott asks the Planning Inspector to consider whether, given the duration of the Project over a four-year period, it is reasonable for the works to be progressed 24/7, 365 days of the year, resulting in continuous traffic movements over both the proposed access across his property and the surrounding road networks. The route of the haul road, running in the field behind his house and farmyard, will result in disturbance to his amenity. Mr Nott requests that the Planning Inspector consider that no works, unless for the reasons stated in Sub-Paragraph (2) are undertaken on Bank Holidays. Construction mitigation measures Mr Nott asks that as a minimum, more detailed consideration of physical mitigation measures that could be undertaken during the construction period to minimise disturbance to local residents are considered, including the strategic banking of topsoil to form an acoustic bund between the road and any residential property. Request to attend hearings and representations The landowner and / or agent requests to make oral representations at the Public Inquiry or any other Hearings that may be held. Appendix 1 COPY OF RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION NOTICE, SUBMITTED 29th March 2023 Dear Sirs, I am writing on behalf of our clients, Peter Nott and Edmund Nott who own and farm Collins Farm, Pebmarsh, in response to the second consultation document, received by email from WSP on 27th February 2023. The plans attached to the consultation show an amended route across my clients’ land, having shifted the original northwards. We have reviewed the plans for the realigned haul road and comment as follows: • No explanation has been given for the amendments shown • The land has not been surveyed and we therefore question the validity of a route which must be subject to change once surveys have been undertaken? For the avoidance of doubt, my clients have not resisted access but they have requested that it is granted on the correct basis and await a revised access licence from NG’s agents. On receipt of the original licence from Bruton Knowles (a one page document), we suggested using a version of the access licence negotiated most recently between the NFU and NG for the East Anglia Green Scheme which we believe to be a fair and sensible approach but which has seemingly met with resistance from NG. • On receipt of the revised plans, we submitted three alternative routes, reflecting my clients’ knowledge of the ground (drainage, land use etc) but have not received any response to these submissions. I attach a document showing the three alternatives to this submission for ease of reference. • As currently plotted, the route will have a significant impact on the drainage system of the field which is essential to maintain a viable arable area. We have submitted drainage plans which attest to the critical importance of this area for taking water off a large area of the surrounding farmland. I attach a copy of the plans sent to Oliver Harwood on 15th March 2023 for ease of reference. • We have not been provided with any explanation of why the width of the proposed easement varies along its length and request that this is provided. • My clients are now being asked to grant a permanent easement over the extent of the land shown on the plan which goes far beyond the impact on what is being described as a ‘temporary haul road.’ We reject the assertion that NG should be permitted to acquire a permanent right when we have not been provided with any justification of their rejection of alternative routes. Notwithstanding any evidence NG may provide for the absence of any alternatives at this moment in time, we contend that this may be time limited and any future use should not be inevitable but rather assessed at that future date. We note that we ‘do not need to repeat comments ..submitted at a previous consultation’ but given the dearth of any meaningful response to the previous submission sent by Peter Nott, we set out below points which remain extant (I have crossed through the point of concern relating to the original routing of the haul road): I am the owner of Collins Farm which is my place of work and my home. My business is Peter Nott & Son Limited and I farm the land with my son, Edmund Nott who is a director in my business. We were first made aware of the proposed haul road when WSP, undertaking land referencing, wrote to me in early September 2022 to advise that I had land affected by the Bramford to Twinstead scheme and enclosed a plan showing the route of a haul road, added to the consultation for the first time. I had had no previous contact from National Grid nor their agents. The unexpected imposition of this scheme, without any prior warning has compounded its effect and I believe a formal apology is due from National Grid. This proposed haul road proposal bisects three large fields at the northern end of my holding, extending to c.75 acres in total and will pass close to my home at Collins Farm and as plotted could not have had a greater impact. The personal and commercial effect of this proposal are difficult to express in their enormity but I have outlined below my concerns: • The road will bisect three arable fields, taking them out of production and reducing my ability to crop the land during the course of the works. This impacts upon my business and that of the contractors I employ to assist with undertaking field work. Potentially, I will lose the ability to crop an area of 75 acres for a period of 4/5 years which is approximately one third of my land at Collins Farm. In times of pressure on food production, it is reckless to prevent us from growing crops for this period of time. The land is classified as Grade 2 and has been well managed with consistently high productivity which is being put at risk permanently by this scheme. We have had incidents of agricultural vehicles becoming stuck on these fields when conditions are not favourable which demonstrates the soil structure’s unsuitability for heavy traffic. • I risk losing the contractors I currently employ if the acreage of my holding is reduced to such an extent for so long. Philp Farm Contracts will suffer losses as a direct result of this scheme. • The haul road passes close to my home which will be impacted by noise, light and dust as well as the impact on the general amenity of the property. Where my grandchildren currently have the privilege of roaming freely from my house, as did I and my children before them, the haul road proposal will curtail this freedom and place them at increased risk. In addition to the loss of amenity, a new road so close to the house will also increase the risk to our home security. • I have spent my lifetime caring for and improving the soils and general ecology of my farm and this is a passion I have passed to my son. We have recently entered the land into a SFI scheme which includes a commitment to maintain green cover on a set percentage of the land; the proposal will place us in breach of this agreement. In addition the land is within a stewardship scheme with various options over the fields to be run across. The stewardship scheme in place across the farm supports our aim to farm in harmony with nature which has resulted in a proliferation of species present, including turtle doves, badgers, breeding pole-cats, grass snakes, slo-worms and red kites. We note specifically the presence of hedge sparrows, a red-listed species and draw your attention to the fact that the affected land is currently specifically managed to provide habitat for these birds. We have won conservation awards for the farm and this project puts at risk all the gains we have made with our valuable natural capital. • No surveys have been undertaken on these fields to determine which species may be affected by the proposals nor the soil type etc. You appear to have made assumptions on the land which are not founded on any evidence of the ecology, topography etc. • The construction of a haul road will result in a large number of additional vehicle movements which will add to the carbon-footprint of the scheme. The volume of the material to be imported and then removed from site will be significant. • We note that the proposed access onto the A131 will require the removal of a significant length of well-established hedge and mature trees. This will further exacerbate the environmental impact of your proposals. • We are concerned about the potential pollution from the haul road, both from any imported substance to create the surface and from the vehicles using it. We have not been provided with any information to address how this would be mitigated. • The number of proposed vehicle movements through the middle of our farm risks importing alien flora. • Due to the lack of information you have sought on this proposal, you will be unaware that there is a water inlet besides Collins Road which drains the whole road from the main road to the little spinney, approximately 200 yards from Collins Farmhouse. The drain pipe from this inlet would lie under the proposed haul road and result in flooding to the residential property, farm buildings, agricultural land and the public highway. • The communication of this proposal has been poor and very ill-timed, coming at the busiest time of the year for an arable farmer. We have continued to meet people on or around our land who, despite being local residents and regular users of the road and public access network, are unaware of the haul road proposal. The leaflet produced to provide an update on the scheme utilises an inadequate map which does not clearly show the haul road and its impact, given the scale it is produced at. • We have not had confirmation of what materials will be used to create the road surface but are aware that this is heavy, difficult land which is generally impassable during the winter months. Running large amounts of traffic along the length of the haul road, in all seasons for at least three years, will cause damage to the soil structure which will last well beyond the length of the construction period. • On completion of the project, the theory is that the temporary road will be removed and the land reinstated but we do not believe that this can be fully done to any practical degree and we will be left with damaged land which will take a life-time to reinstate. The productivity of the land will be affected, the presence of weeds will be increased after the top soil has been stored for a prolonged period and it will be impossible to remove all imported material. You only have to look at yield maps or satellite imagery on sites where there have been historical activities and how these alter the yields for tens, sometimes hundreds of years, to understand how significant this proposal is for our farm. • The land currently has an extensive drainage system in place including permanent clay drains which are supplemented by a regular moling programme. Land of this nature requires constant monitoring of the drainage infrastructure and this proposal will cause damage to the existing system and a comprehensive re-drainage scheme will be required post works across all three fields. The route of the haul road could not fall in a more unfortunate location as it crosses perpendicular to all the drains, thereby impacting the whole field. • We have scant details of what alternative routes have been considered and request that we are made aware of why the September 2022 consultation is the first mention of the need for a haul road. • It is our assertion that the existing road network along Collins Road would be adequate to accommodate the required vehicles. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss alternative routes and are waiting to meet with the project team. We have given considerable thought to how NG could take access and believe that there are viable alternatives to the current proposal. • We are concerned that the introduction of a new access from the main road will impact on the security of the wider farm and require assurance of what measures will be put in place to prevent unauthorised access. • We understand from attending a consultation event that it is likely that the haul road would be required from late 2024 through to at least 2027 which places this holding in a much worse position to those through which the cable and pylons are passing as it will be required for the duration of the scheme. • We understand from the consultation that the existing highway network cannot physically accommodate the large vehicles required to transport the cable reels which cannot be broken down to make smaller loads. We have requested confirmation of the dimensions of the loads and lorries and the number of lorry movements required but are yet to receive this. It is our understanding from the information received verbally that the amount of cable for the project worked from the Stour Valley West cable sealing end compound will require 40 lorries to bring it in. All other traffic during the course of the scheme is capable of moving to the site on the existing road network and we ask that consideration is given to traffic control to effect this, rather than all traffic to the compound travelling along the haul road. We have questioned whether the cables can be brought in by helicopter? • Whilst we cannot verify this, I was told by a man who had lived in the village all his life that in the second world war, a retreating German aircraft had dumped its bomb load on the field nearest the road. We have never found evidence of their location in the course of our usual agricultural activities but have concerns that the proposed haul road could disturb them. • On a personal note, this revelation is causing me great anxiety and is already impacting on my quality of life. I am consumed with worry and thoughts of how this proposal will affect me and my family for years to come. I cannot emphasise enough the impact that this proposal will have on my business and my home, for the rest of my lifetime and in the legacy that I leave to my children and my concern for this is causing my mental health to suffer. I implore you to reassess this proposal and remove the haul road from my land We look forward to receiving a meaningful and substantive response to the points raised above. Kind regards, Belinda