Representation by Gressier Family (Gressier Family)
- Date submitted
- 17 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
PROPERTY Puckle Hill, Shorne – residential property with private woodland and parkland extending in all to 34.23 ac (13.85ha). Owner-occupied by Interested Party. SCHEME 11.03 ha (27.26ac) compulsorily acquired for ancient woodland mitigation planting and HPGM diversion and provision for Public Open Space. Defined by Plots 03-15, 03-16, 03-23, 03-25, 03-39, 03-43, 03-52, 03-53, 03-54, 03-58, 03-60 & 03-80 in the Applicants numbered document 2.2, Land Plan, Volume B REPRESENTATION • Interested Party disputes the Applicants case for compulsory acquisition in the public interest. When the land was identified for acquisition for woodland planting, the Interested Party briefed the Applicant of their own intention to plant woodland on the land. The Applicant’s awareness of the Interested Party’s intention raises the question of whether the Applicant’s use of compulsory powers is necessary. • The Interested Party disputes the need for the Applicant to acquire land to the proposed extent for the proposed purpose. o Chapter 8 of the environmental statement confirms that the loss of ancient woodland is irreversible and irreplaceable. As such there is no basis upon which the extent of mitigation planting is calculated, however the Applicant has not considered the Interested Party’s request for amendments to the Order limits. The assessment approach for mitigation need has been assigned by Natural England to achieve connectivity between woodlands in the wider landscape, suggesting that the applicant’s use of compulsory powers would be an opportunistic means to an end rather than to achieving measurable mitigation. • The Interested Party disputes that due consideration has been given to the alternatives to acquisition of the land. o Much discussion has been held to explore possible alternatives to compulsory acquisition of the land for the woodland planting scheme. The expression of the Interested Party’s intention to plant trees on the land did not alter the Applicant’s approach to its Order Limits. A subsequent offer was made to agree a s.253 agreement for the interested party to manage the land – this was rejected on the ground of the Interested Party not being a competent authority. Next, the interested party requested input on the design and management of the woodland, which was rejected. The Applicant’s subsequent offer to install the Interested Party as a consultee on a steering panel for the management of the woodland was later withdrawn. As such it is believed that the applicant has not considered alternatives to justify the need for the compulsory acquisition of the land. • The claimant disputes that the application of compulsory powers will bring about the achievement of the aims set out in the Outline Landscape Environmental Management Plan (OLEMP) o The proximity of the Interested Party’s land to areas such as Park Pale raises concerns about the future use of the land for Public Open Space. The requirement for the general public to pay to park at Shorne Country Park already forces illegal park along Park pale Road. By extending the Public Open Space through the Interested Party’s land and through to connecting woodland will give rise to security concerns for the Interested Party and the likely increase of anti-social behaviour. This will contradict the aims and objectives of the OLEMP • The Interested Party disputes that the applicant has sufficient knowledge of the site and of possible alternatives to justify the proper use of compulsory powers of acquisition. o The Applicant’s planting scheme design fails to take account of the constraints of the landscape, a lack of on-site research during the pre-application stage has meant that other sites have been allocated for woodland planting based upon Title, not curtilage, an example of this being the proposed planting of the garden of a property on Bowesden Lane, Shorne, disregarding the curtilage boundary from the adjoining pastureland by favouring the Title Boundary. This example calls into question the accuracy adopted by the Applicant in its design.