Representation by Cole Family (Cole Family)
- Date submitted
- 22 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Representations on behalf of Alex Nyman Alison Jean Bush Amanda Mary Harborne Ann Louise Cole Chloe Evans C.H. Cole & Sons (Mill House) C.H. Cole & Sons (Heath Place) C.H. Cole & Sons (Cherry Orchard) Diana Mary Cole Edith Marion Cole Edward Hodson Grace Elizabeth Watson Harry Hodson James Andrew Cole Jeremy Paul Godsmark Finnis Jessica Bush Kathryn Ksenia Travis Natalie Bush Oliver Charles Finnis Riverside Willows Ltd Saffron Gardens Investments Ltd Sheila Elizabeth Hodson Sue Cole Thomas Nyman Toby Robert Finnis Walton Common Limited Willow Marsh Ltd To be referred to as the “Cole Family” care of Cherry Orchard Farm Conways Road Orsett Grays Essex RM16 3EL • There has been regular, detailed, and constructive correspondence and meetings with the Applicant since April 2017 on all aspects of the Project. The parties are developing a Statement of Common Ground and would hope to progress separate agreements for other matters. Opportunity to acquire land by agreement has been discussed but has not progressed at this stage. • There are a number of issues that we wish to bring to the Planning Inspectorate’s attention for the examination process and these to include: 1. Concern over the lack of evidenced soil management plans for areas of land affected by the scheme on a temporary basis. 2. Lack of information from the applicant on the imposed deeds of easement relating to enabling works and diverted services as well as the lack of information obtained and passed on to the Coles regarding these enabling works and the subsequent management control of these works. 3. Further detailed design requirements and justification for the extent of the proposed flood mitigation works and in particular around the Cole’s irrigation reservoir, together with potential implications arising from likely contaminants to the water source. 4. Whilst acknowledging that the Applicant has reduced the areas of permanent land take for environmental and ecological mitigation land, the Cole’s have concerns at the extent of the land required; the methodology adopted in assessing these areas; whether the Applicant is ultimately acquiring land for its own claim for Carbon Offset and Biodiversity Net Gain rather than simply for mitigation purposes; and ongoing management and access requirements to manage these areas and prevent anti-social behaviour and unauthorised public access. 5. The Coles object to the compulsory acquisition of their freehold land to relocate a Travellers site. 6. Whilst the Applicant has produced certain traffic modelling, ultimately the contractor appointed is likely to close roads temporarily during the construction phase. Without contractor commitment, the Coles have concerns over the future running and subsequent viability of their farming enterprises. 7. Further detail is required regarding dust and air pollution in order to understand the potential impact on these elements and how these will affect high value crops planted in the vicinity of the construction areas. As an example, if dust and other contaminants become airborne and affects crops grown for human consumption, which are not processed, then this will also have a catastrophic effect on the Cole’s farming businesses and exposes them to loss of valuable agreements and to potential prosecution. The Applicant should fully indemnify the Coles against any potential exposure to these effects. 8. Walkers, Cyclists & Horse Riders - From the outset the Coles have expressed their concern and strong objection to any additional access rights that may be sought over the Coles land. There is no statutory obligation to improve routes for walkers, cyclists and horse riders in the statutory process. The Coles will challenge any suggested additional rights that are being considered. The concern specifically relates to anti-social behaviour and concern regarding safety and security. Criminal activities arise from misuse of existing public rights of way and this statement can be corroborated by the support from Thurrock Council. An example of this can be made to the unauthorised access to Southern Valley Golf Club, Gravesend, which had to close as a result of the Applicant’s proposed Scheme in September 2022. Whilst security was put in place when the course closed, the golf course has now been destroyed by motorbikes and other means. By increasing public access, the same results are likely to occur across the area and impact not only on the Coles, but also on all those that reside in the area. 9. The Applicants have been informed that their scheme will have a detrimental effect on existing development opportunities to include development Option agreements in place with both Bloor Homes and Taylor Wimpey. In addition, the Cole’s land known as Shed Marsh and Walton Common has been subject to Local Plan Promotion. The developable area of circa 70 hectares is located to the east of Tilbury Power Station, south of the railway line and west of east Tilbury. The site has been promoted for employment land through the Thurrock emerging Local Plan with representations to the Regulation 18 Call for Sites Consultation (2018) and the Regulation 18 Issues and Options 2 Consultation (2019). A plan of the area can be provided. This land was included as a potential growth location for employment land within the Issues and Options 2 Consultation. The majority of the land has been identified as being required for the LTC both in terms of permanent land acquisition for construction and temporary land required for utilities, and permanent acquisition of rights for easements. This is a significant land take of a location identified for strategic employment growth. As a result of the LTC the Shed Marsh area and other land has been “blighted” and will almost certainly be identified as being undeliverable. Subsequently it is anticipated that through the emerging Local Plan process significant areas of the Cole’s land will be excluded. The result will be that the Cole’s will suffer significant financial loss due to the inability to bring forward these sites. 10. The farm irrigation network would also be extensively impacted by the Scheme. The parties are actively discussing an agreement to mitigate the impact of construction works on the irrigation network which is fed from an abstraction point at the Low Street reservoir, but matters are not resolved. 11. The parties are in ongoing discussions regarding the proposed replacement common land from both Orsett Fen and Tilbury Green. However, the Coles challenge the Applicant that additional land area is required to be compulsory purchased for mitigation over and above the area required for the Scheme and considers this excessive use of compulsory powers. 12. Concern is expressed over re-wetting of the current Orsett Fen land to be compulsory purchased and the impact further down the line and the increase and change in potential flood zone in the surrounding farm land. 13. The Coles have concerns about the use of the Linford Well for the supply of water to the north portal construction site and the tunnel boring machines. The Applicant considers the risk to be negligible as set out in the Environmental Statement (Application Document 6.3) Appendix 14.5 - Hydrogeological Risk Assessment (HyRA). Discussions are ongoing to establish a suitable mechanism for appropriate compensation should there be any impact on farming operations.