Representation by Gonville & Caius (Gonville & Caius)
- Date submitted
- 18 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Rep 1 – Scheme design Gonville & Caius College, Cambridge (‘The College’) is concerned by the design of the scheme and lack of detailed rationale for elements of its design. We believe the proposed acquisition of the College’s freehold land is excessive. The College, via their agent Bidwells, has repeatedly attempted to engage in productive discussions with Anglian Water (‘AW’) regarding the design and various comments had been reflected in plans which were being considered in negotiating Heads of Terms for an option agreement in relation to the scheme. Throughout the process, responses from AW and their agent, Savills, to requests for information have been slow, incomplete, and inconsistent. Whilst there has been engagement, it has not been particularly productive, although Bidwells are now in discussions with Savills for heads of terms, although on different areas when compared to the DCO plans. The plans submitted for the proposed DCO do not match what was represented to the College as the current plan and do not incorporate the numerous comments which have been made by Bidwells to Savills as part of the negotiation. Notably, the College’s field to the north of the A14 (021b) has been included for freehold acquisition in its entirety. The inconsistency and lack of reliable plans has made negotiations difficult, and the College does not have confidence that AW is acting in good faith. We now make initial comments based on the Land Plans submitted as part of the DCO application. Bidwells, as agent, note that this approach to DCO by developers seems to be becoming commonplace, with compulsory purchase powers being sought before sufficiently detailed design work is completed. Rep 2 – Scope of rights proposed for acquisition The design and proposed areas of freehold ground-level acquisition are ill designed and inappropriate for a working farm, which the property is. The College is extremely concerned by the excessive proposal to acquire the entirety of the field to the north of the A14 (021b) for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) purposes. This is addressed in detail below. The plans also propose freehold acquisition of two tunnel shafts, both in the middle of working arable fields (021r and 021s) whereas the rest of the tunnel involves just the acquisition of the subsoil. There is no sense in AW owning the surface level of two tiny parcels in the middle of a field, which will have no use after the shafts are decommissioned and no access. These should be covered by temporary access reverting to the College on completion of the scheme and so eliminate the need for ongoing tenancies between the parties. Whilst Savills have stated that the DCO does not have provision for these areas to be acquired in any other way bar freehold acquisition, this is not convincing and does not provide a solution to the long-term integrity of Poplar Hall Farm’s title, with various areas of third-party freehold acquired in the middle of working fields. Development over the rising main (area 021d) is heavily restricted under the proposed DCO. AW previously suggested only temporary restrictions on development were needed, but this is not in the proposed DCO. There is minimal detail in the proposed DCO as to why some areas are required. This includes the BNG land, the rising shafts, and the very general right of access across the farm track at Poplar Hall Farm. All of these matters have previously been discussed with Savills but are not reflected in the proposed DCO. Rep 3 – Biodiversity Net Gain The College notes that AW has imposed a target of a net 20% gain in biodiversity across the scheme. This is not a regulatory requirement but is AW’s self-imposed target. AW has decided to deliver the bulk of this 20% BNG via the freehold acquisition of a large parcel of Poplar Hall Farm (021d), without responding to the College’s reasonable objections. Bidwells, the College, and AW’s agents have discussed this point and the College has been clear that unless AW is able to conclusively demonstrate the 20% uplift is absolutely required and can only be delivered in that specific parcel, its acquisition will be objected to. It is important to note that recent discussions before DOC submission with AW’s agent on this parcel have been restricted to the northern ditch and to creating further ditches for water voles, along the northern portion of the field. The difference in DCO plans makes it very hard to reasonably negotiate with Savills, when it is unclear the actual position of AW. Bidwells remain negotiating with Savills on heads of terms for a consensual agreement, which are on the basis of a smaller area being acquired. We understand the desire to deliver the scheme in an environmentally positive way, however, it cannot be reasonably judged that AW’s proposal to acquire this northern field (021d) for a self-imposed BNG target meets the three requirements for compulsory acquisition under DCO and we strongly object on this basis. As part of the negotiation discussions, we requested a copy of the environmental report which suggested that the land at Poplar Hall was required to deliver their BNG uplift. The College eventually had to resort to Environmental Information Regulations to obtain it in late May 2023. The report, referenced as Appendix 8.13 in the DCO application, measures BNG using the Biodiversity Net Gain Metric 3.0, which identified Poplar Hall for creation of River Units. The report concludes that the River Units can only be supplied in certain areas i.e., where land is connected to the river. The report suggests that AW can either provide this within the scheme area (obviously preferable to them) or look to procure these on the market, albeit river credits are not currently available. Our view on this is that whilst the River Units may not be readily available, AW could procure these elsewhere from a third party. Bidwells has arranged this for other clients, so it is known to be possible. The report very briefly describes that there are no suggestions for other surface water features within the scheme area but this does not explain why the River Units cannot be achieved on the other side of the river i.e., within the scheme area and within the land already owned by Anglian Water. In short, we strongly reject to any College land being acquired solely for the purpose of delivering BNG for the scheme, because it is excessive, there is a market for obtaining it elsewhere and AW can provide it on land it owns. Rep 4 – General comments and further points to address The College will expect to address a number of matters in further detail as part of the in-depth representations including, but not limited to: • Field drainage • Reservation of rights across the rising mains • Access rights to the outflow structure and during works • Seeking confirmation on above ground structures with the College’s ownership • Vibration to the house and buildings during construction • Other disturbance to the farm during construction and post construction • Construction of the outflow structure and on-going security