Representation by Eldridge Family
- Date submitted
- 23 June 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Our clients are the owners of [Redacted] which is a detached residential property sitting in grounds of approximately 5 acres. The property is located approximately 550m north-east of the airport runway and around 3.3 acres of the property (6-04) has been identified in the draft DCO as being required for permanent rights and restrictive covenants to construct, protect, operate, access renew and maintain a new fuel pipeline and associated installations. Further permanent rights and restrictive covenants are sought to construct, operate, access, protect and maintain a habitat mitigation area. The rights and restrictions are not accompanied by sufficient detail to be able to understand the extent of rights, works and ongoing restrictions that would be imposed on our client’s property and subsequently the impact of these on the property and our clients. This has been a complete change in direction from the previous dialogue where our clients were advised the intention had been to acquire the whole of their property if the scheme were to go ahead. The taking of rights is a new proposal and needs to be better detailed and considered. The 4c(02) works are copied below and I have made notes of queries next to each item. The works 4c(02) also cross over other Plots in addition to our client’s so it is not clear to the extent some or all of these rights will be exercised and/or impact on our client’s land. Earthworks to provide site levels – It is not clear the extent of earthworks required on our client’s land and finished levels. Pipework monitoring systems – It is not clear where these will be located on our clients land. Will they be above/below ground, what size will they be (including any ancillary infrastructure)? Will this have potential to generate noise or light? Fuel pumps - It is not clear where these will be located on our clients land. Will they be above/below ground, what size will they be (including any ancillary infrastructure)? Will this have potential to generate noise or light? Landscaping – The landscape documents identify our client’s land as existing woodland but there is no detail over any proposed works. Security fencing, gates and monitoring systems – It is unclear if fencing will be located on or adjacent to our clients land. With regard to the monitoring systems it is unclear if these will be above/below ground, their size including any ancillary infrastructure and noise or light generation. Vehicle access track from highway to provide access and parking and loading area adjacent to national pipeline connection – We believe the connection to the national pipeline is on neighboring land to the north-east of our client’s property but have sought confirmation. It is not known where the proposed trackway, parking, loading area is intended to be located and therefore to consider and establish if they will have an impact on our client’s property. Additional Queries: Depth of pipe, width of pipe and width of excavation for construction? Width or working corridor and extent of any compound areas required during construction (presumably this is not over the whole of 6-04)? Time period for completion of construction works on our clients land? Width of corridor over which ongoing rights required for protection, operation, access, renewal and maintenance for the pipeline and associated installations (presumably not over the whole of 6-04)? The detail of “associated installations” as this is vague and leaves significant uncertainty. Presumably there will need to be removal of trees on our client’s land but there is not information provided on this. Post construction the frequency of access requirements onto our client’s land? Under Schedule 5 of the Draft DCO (Acquired Rights) 6-04 – “The rights and restrictive covenants to construct, protect, operate, access, renew and maintain a new fuel pipeline and associated installations.” 6-04 & 6-03 – “The rights and restrictive covenants to construct, operate, access, protect, and maintain a habitat mitigation area” There is no information on the rights and restrictive covenants that are required and this is left widely open. Depending on the covenants sought this could have a significant impact on our client’s and their property. In terms of “protection” provisions these could be particularly significant and could depending on the detail severely restrict or sterilise our client's land. Without any detail it is not possible to understand what is proposed and consider. Building Plots – Plot 6-04 abuts an existing outbuilding which has the benefit of planning permission (permission in principle) for conversion into two dwellings. The garden for one of the dwellings is within plot 6-04 and this creates significant uncertainty. This links to the lack of detail over restrictive covenants but placing any constraints on the garden area and including it in Plot 6-04 has a particular impact and it is not clear why this is necessary. It may be that there was no knowledge of the planning permission when the plan was drawn up and so we would draw attention to that. Water and services – our clients have rights for a private water supply pipe and we believe possibly other services over adjoining land which is within the draft DCO. This is over land plots 5-03, 5-13 and 6-18 and these rights are proposed to be brought to an end through the DCO if required. We would ask that this is considered and provision made for re-providing the rights lost. Our clients are concerned about the safeguarding and continuation of services to their property. The Land Registry do not hold a copy of the relevant conveyance documenting these rights so we are waiting to receive a copy to understand the full extent of rights. Background & Impact Our clients have had a dialogue with the airport over a long period of time during which they have been advised they will be included within any CPO proposals and their property would be acquired if the scheme goes ahead. Although some early discussions took place about a private treaty purchase, terms were not agreed. The project halted during Covid which left our clients in further uncertainty. They continued to be advised during this time that the intension was to acquire their property but that airport activity was “catastrophically” effected and the CPO process was not at a stage where a purchase of their property could be considered. Contact was established again in 2022 where our clients were again advised the intension would be to acquire their property and that the project was moving forward. However, in December 2022 our clients were then advised there was no longer an intension to acquire their property and that permanent rights would instead be required. Our client’s property continued to be shown on the draft compulsory purchase plans until the submitted draft DCO and documents were provided to our clients in May 2023. This has as a result caused a considerable amount of uncertainty and stress. They have dealt with the uncertainty of not knowing if they would be able to stay in their home longer term and equally not knowing whether to consider and make alternative plans. Our client would like to build two new dwellings on their property for their children and their families to live in for which they have planning permission. They have continued to progress these plan in absence of any certainty that the airport expansion would go ahead, but this has understandably caused them considerable difficulty planning for the family’s future. The new proposal of permanent rights is a complete change in direction and has created a number of new unknowns. As explained the lack of detail that is included in the new documents to be able to understand what is actually being proposed is causing considerable uncertainty. Pipe Route & Habitat Requirement Finally, we would question why the pipe route and habitat creation for which rights are sought is planned through and on our client’s property and not on the extensive land ownership held by Luton airport surrounding our client’s property. Our client is the only private property owner in the vicinity and are a relatively very small area on the edge of the scheme. It would seem routing the pipe around our client’s property would be quite possible alternatives and we would question why this is not the case. In terms of habitat, again the airport already owns significant land for landscaping and habitat creation opportunities. We therefore query why Plot 6-04 is required with rights sought which impose potentially significant restrictions on the only private residence in the vicinity.