Representation by Philip Watson (Philip Watson )
- Date submitted
- 10 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We are writing in objection to the current proposals on behalf of Mr Philip Watson. The current proposals impact on land which is within the ownership of Mr Philip Watson (NYK89551) together with a right of way which benefits the land within Mr Watson’s ownership. We have the following concerns regarding the proposals: 1) Area of proposed compulsory acquisition The current proposed plans for compulsory acquisition of land from Mr Watson include approximately 2.3 acres of land identified as D1-33 on Land Plan section D page 1. This land includes the current principal access point to the field together with a large proportion of the road frontage benefitting the land which appears to be unnecessary for the long-term National Grid operations. This leaves an unsatisfactory situation for Mr Watson whereby he does not have control over the principal access point to his field. The prospects of creating a new access point on land which Mr Watson owns is significantly limited given the close proximity of the A64 slip roads and topography of the land which continues to have road frontage. This will have a significant impact on the value of the land should any future alternative use opportunities arise. We do not consider it necessary for the compulsory purchase to include the road frontage section of this field other than the access strip to the cable sealing end compound (CSEC). It is noted that the secondary access to this field is also to be compulsorily acquired by National Grid and the right of way is to be extinguished. 2) Orientation of CSEC It is noted that the current proposed compulsory purchase area indicated on the plan will leave unfarmable corners in the field. Mr Watson has had further discussions with National Grid which indicate that it may be possible to re-orientate the cable sealing end compound to impact less on the farming operations. We would request that this is considered in the final implementation of the scheme. 3) Extinguishment of access rights The secondary access to Mr Watson’s property is via a right of way over third party land. This right of access has in recent years been the subject of a court case which was brought about due to the National Grid scheme implemented on site whereby the new pylon was located in such a way as to make the access track utilised by Mr Watson impassable. This resulted in a 5 day court case between Mr Watson and the owner of the land in question, Mr Ingham. This case confirmed the legal right of way in favour of Mr Watson and awarded damages and a contribution towards his costs. The total legal fees in relation to this case were in excess of £100,000. This could have been completely avoided had National Grid engaged with Mr Watson prior to the commencement of the previous scheme. We are pleased that National Grid have engaged with Mr Watson at an earlier stage in this consultation; however, at present no financial compensation is being offered to Mr Watson in relation to the extinguishment of these rights on the basis that National Grid do not believe they could be utilised for any use other than agriculture. As it has been established through the courts that this access does have a value, we consider that an appropriate offer should be made in relation to this extinguishment, or the access should be re-routed to provide maintained access and appropriate compensation should be provided. As part of the court case a single joint expert was appointed who reported values which he considered appropriate for the extinguishment of the rights. We would be happy to discuss this with National Grid. Mr Watson does not consider that the full extinguishment of the right of way is necessary given the initial plans did not require this. We would therefore request that all possible diversion routes are considered prior to this option being progressed. Mr Watson has previously liaised with National Grid and not been provided with a satisfactory response or evidence as to why it is not possible to provide a diversion or work around the existing route. It would appear that extinguishment is the easiest option for National Grid rather than the most appropriate to reduce the detrimental impacts of the scheme on the landowners affected. We are happy to discuss the above matters further with National Grid and their agents in due course. Should you have any queries in the meantime please do not hesitate to contact us. Mr Watson would like to add: My name is [redacted] and I own the parcel of land [redacted] . I wish to object to the current proposals to the Yorkshire Green project. I believe my agent (Gillian Wilsher) has gone into greater detail about my objections. However I also wish to be included as an interested party. I object to the area of land that they are proposing to compulsory acquire adjoining the A659. This will have an adverse impact on my own access to the field. I object to the orientation of the CSEC on my land. This will result in a large amount of farmland being unworkable. The orientation could be altered to reduce the impact. The extinguishment of access rights caused by the CSEC on third party land. This is a valuable property right already subject to a recent court dispute caused by the placing of a pylon on a right of way. The judge found in my favour. National Grid have not engaged in any meaningful discussions to preserve the right of way.