AQUIND Interconnector

Representations received regarding AQUIND Interconnector

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on AQUIND Interconnector and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Irene Jay
"Will the inter connector have an adverse affect on the location where I live and will the surrounding area suffer environmental damage?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Evans
"The primary area of my concern is the route of the proposed interconnector, especially through the Milton area of Portsmouth. This is in relation to the inconvenience in the construction/installation and the potential effects high voltage cabling on people living in close proximity to it."
Other Statutory Consultees
Corporation of Trinity House
"Dear Sir / Madam We refer to the above application for development consent in respect of the Aquind Interconnector Trinity House is the General Lighthouse Authority for England, Wales, the Channel Islands and Gibraltar with powers principally derived from the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (as amended). The role of Trinity House as a General Lighthouse Authority under the Act includes the superintendence and management of all lighthouses, buoys and beacons within our area of jurisdiction. Trinity House wishes to be a registered interested party due to the impact the development would have on navigation within Trinity House’s area of jurisdiction. It is likely that we will have further comments to make on the application and the draft Order throughout the application process. Please address all correspondence regarding this matter to myself at [email protected] and to Mr Steve Vanstone at [email protected] Yours faithfully Russell Dunham Legal Advisor Corporation of Trinity House Trinity House Tower Hill London EC3N 4DH"
Parish Councils
Hambledon Parish Council
"Hambledon PC believes that it is important to represent the interests of the residents of the Parish, since they will inevitably be affected by road access issues during installation of the underground cable through Denmead. Hambledon is also situated such that the converter station at Lovedean will be visible from some areas of the Village."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Portsmouth Water Ltd
"We will be formally responding the the Draft DCO proposals by the deadline set. Our comments and recommendations will cover Land Contamination and groundwater protection to safe guard Portsmouth Waters assets and public water supply."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Veryard
"Our home is 8m from the proposed cable, my wife has a [] with is effected by magnetic fields, plus Aquind failed to answer some of my concerns. Eg. noise (buzz) from cable, effect on house prices."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Cross
"I spent many years working in the Electricity Supply Industry and am acutely aware of the need for a secure and reliable energy supply. I believe this outweighs all other considerations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jackie Stevens
"The Aquind proposal has an impact on where I reside. The proposal is to access a track to bring in the equipment which my garden overlooks. there is also an option that a telegraph pole in my garden may need to be removed to allow access to the track as mentioned above. During the building phase of the project there will be a significant noise level which will mean I may not be able to sit in my garden. I live in close proximity to the proposed development."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Sport England
"Sport England has a statutory duty to protect playing field which has been used or last used within the last 5 years. We also have a non-statutory responsibility to protect existing sports facilities unless exceptional circumstances apply as set out in national planning policy. Our understanding is that there is no statutory responsibility to consult Sport England in this particular case under national infrastructure planning regime. Nevertheless, we will seek to protect or mitigate against the potential loss, permanent or temporary, of sports facilities or playing field provision, or development which might prejudice their use as a result of the proposal. It is understood that the proposal is likely to affect or prejudice use of existing playing field and/or other sports facilities. Sport England would wish to work with the applicant/agent to fully understand the impact on sports and recreation provision across the length of the pipeline and consider how to minimize and mitigate this impact. Sport England would have particular concerns if the proposal is likely to affect important sites for sport and we would wish to avoid the situation where sports clubs and groups are left without facilities to fulfil training and match play requirements. Portsmouth City Council has particular challenges around meeting its needs for sport in the city given the land constraints it faces and therefore its ability to develop new facilities to meet a growing need. Understanding the impact on existing sites in Portsmouth City will need careful consideration given the pressure on suitable alternative facilities"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Husselby
"Hello, I would like to object to the plans for the site off Locksway Road in the old St James' Hospital grounds. There will be so much disruption to the already busy, congested queued up roads, over polluted, over populated area that the local people should not have to endure. Local wildlife in the area will lose their homes (and potentially lives). Portsmouth is a small over populated island with a lack of space and clean air; any new building work, energy stations, roads unnecessarily being disrupted and dug up etc need to be limited and as much as possible done outside of the island. The much needed bus route servicing the area between Baffins, Milton and the city will be disrupted, roads will be dug up causing more gridlocks in an area already queued up and busy and already deemed to have unsafe air quality. ------------------- I would like to understand why Portsmouth has been so inappropriately chosen for the cables. It is not only a small island but one of the most densely populated cities in the country and putting the cables through/along major roads seems pure stupidity. The city can not cope with the amount of traffic so how will it cope with roads being dug up. With only three roads on and off the island (and it often being gridlocked if there is an accident) then how will it cope with the roads being closed/narrowed/ dug up. You are quoting around 66 weeks for the work to take place - we all know that these things have delays and take longer. Portsmouth is currently experiencing major problems with poor air quality. The area where the cables are due to be laid has taken part in surveys and has shown to have unacceptable levels of pollution. We know that this can reduce life expectancy and produce a range of poor health. With traffic queued up as a result of the roads being dug up this will only get worse. There are real issues with bus routes and some of the roads (Locksway Road, Furze Lane, Eastern Road) will be greatly affected by the plans to lay these cables. Community events and people will be greatly disrupted. There are sewage pipes in Langstone Harbour - if we have to endure the cables in our area then why is this not the permitted route rather than disrupting already busy, populated roads. In fact, why are we having this energy from France when we should be looking as a country to produce our own renewable energy?!"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Associated British Ports
"Associated British Ports (ABP), in its capacity as statutory harbour authority for the Port of Southampton, has received correspondence from Aquind in relation to this project. ABP has been identified as a prescribed body in accordance with the Planning Act 2008 and the APFP Regulations 2009. For the avoidance of doubt, ABP does not wish to submit a representation in relation to this application."
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Southern Gas Networks Plc
"Application by AQUIND Limited (Promoter) for an Order Granting Development Consent for the AQUIND Interconnector (Order). Objection by Southern Gas Networks Plc (SGN). Addleshaw Goddard LLP acts on behalf of SGN and is authorised to make this relevant representation on its behalf in objection to the proposed Order. SGN is the licensed gas transporter for the Order area, and wishes to object in order to protect its interests in land and apparatus and to ensure the safe and effective operation of its gas transportation network. The Promoter seeks powers within the Order for the compulsory acquisition of land and rights in which SGN is interested, and seeks authorisation for the carrying out of works and the placing of new apparatus in the vicinity of SGN's apparatus. Accordingly, SGN will require appropriate protective provisions to be included within the Order to protect its statutory undertaking and to ensure that public safety is not compromised. Equally both the Examining Authority and the Secretary of State will need to be satisfied that the project will not cause a serious detriment to the carrying out by SGN of its statutory undertaking before granting consent to the proposed Order. SGN is in the process of reviewing the draft Order and associated plans, and will continue to engage constructively with the Promoter in an effort to resolve all issues of concern. In view of the above, and pending agreement with the Promoter, SGN objects to the application and reserves its right to make further representations during the examination process. Should the Examining Authority require any additional information from SGN further to this representation, please contact Gary Sector of Addleshaw Goddard LLP,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Martin Farrelly
"I disagree with the planned route for the interconnector. The plan is to take the cable corridor through the most densely populated city in the UK, outside of London. Portsmouth is a city that is currently battling with air pollution due to the overpopulated city and the amount of cars that inevitably brings. The heavy machinery required to lay the cable and make the corridor will exacerbate the air pollution, taking it beyond already dangerously high levels. Portsmouth's infrastructure is such that there are only three roads to be able to enter/leave Portsea island. One of the busiest is the Eastern road, which suffers from large delays and congestion during rush hour. It also comes to a complete standstill during Portsmouth Football Club home matches which then causes additional congestion issues on other routes throughout the city. The proposed route will reduce the capacity of this vital route and will make commutes and access to the football ground a nightmare. Anyone driving into Portsmouth from the east will take this route and will struggle to get to the city centre due to the proposed route of the cable corridor. The proposed route will also go along some roads that lead into one-way roads, which will mean that some people, including myself, will be unable to access their homes if these roads are closed. Therefore, I am inclined to oppose the proposal of the route of the cable corridor and ask if there are not more suitable places for the cables to make landfall and reduce the impact on so many people."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andy Parks
"I refer to the Aquind Interconnector application to which I would like to make a representation on the following grounds: 1. There is no provision for additional temporary parking in lieu of the loss of space at the Fort Cumberland car park (where the sea cable will join the land cable). As the proposed works here will last for 66 weeks this represents a significant loss to the community, particularly as the car is well used during summer months. 2. Disruption and congestion to traffic using the Eastern Road is likely to be excessive. The Eastern Road is a major artery in and out of Portsmouth, and already suffers from major congestion and delays during rush hour, and is generally very busy all days of the week. This will impact a very high number of people and business's. 3. Similar to above, disruption along the A3 and B2150 will be very significant for a long time. Due to a bus lane along this part of the A3, the road is single carriageway (in each direction), hence any works will lead to misery to this well used connection from Denmead & Waterlooville to Cosham. 4. The convertor building - The planning application states that a detailed design has not been submitted on the grounds of the requirement for "flexibility is retained until when a contractor is appointed". This is just not true, it is perfectly feasible that a detailed design could be provided pre application decision. 5. Noise - I am extremely concerned about the level of operational noise emitted by the convertor station. Electrical noise in particular can be very disturbing and debilitating, and as there are a number of dwellings within a 3 kilometre radius there is potential to cause misery to residents day and night, not to mention the wider impact to the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barry Scott
"The AQUIND proposal is based upon siting two six/seven storey buildings on some 9 acres of land in the middle of farming country, with close proximity to the South Downs National Park. In order to achieve this it requires them to run four HVDC through one of the most populace area in the country. This a huge imposition on the population causing chaos and loss of amenity. The company which is proposing the project has no track record in this area. Also for reasons, which are not transparent they are offshoring the company. It was initially based in Wallsend, then British Virgin Islands and now Luxembourg. I suggest that a UK Infrastructure project should be funded by the British people and surplus funds returned to people. At the moment the source and the legality of the funding is not transparent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Johnson
"I wish to object to Aquind's choice of landing spot insomuch as they have chosen to make landfall on the most densely populated Island in the UK and will cause massive traffic upheaval on one of the City's three access routes. They chose not to utilise adjacent mainly rural Hayling Island with a 20,000 pop against Portsea Island 180,000+ population. Also failing to utilise a disused railway branch line which runs the length of Hayling Island. I wish to take part in this process because I am of the opinion that choosing Portsea Island as the landing point for the overseas cable is the worst possible choice being the most densely populated Island in the UK with limited road access which will be severely disrupted when works are in progress, given that there are more rural areas available causing far less disruption"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brenda Lock
"I cannot believe that anyone could think it was a good idea to bring the cables through one of the most congested cities in the country. There are so many alternatives so why make life even more difficult for months on end for the people of Portsmouth? Please, please look at a more practical route or scrap the scheme altogether."
Non-Statutory Organisations
RWE Renewables UK Limited
"The proposed route for the marine cables of the Aquind Interconnector crosses the proposed Rampion Extension offshore wind farm site. It is noted that the routeing criteria outlined in the alternatives section of the Aquind Environmental Statement specifically precludes the location of any offshore wind farms, and whilst the developer of the Aquind project refers to the proposed Rampion extension site within the ES in consideration of impacts on other sea users, there has been no communication or consultation with RWE Renewables Uk Ltd (RWER) to date. We wish to understand any potential impacts / conflicts that may arise to the development, construction and operation of the Offshore wind farm as a result of the presence of the Aquind Interconnector. In particular of concern: - any sterilisation of the seabed in respect of structure exclusions; - Any potential limitation on wind farm cables crossing the interconnector - Potential commercial & legal arrangements for the crossing of the Aquind and offshore wind farm cables - Any impacts on construction due to the presence of the interconnector RWER would welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with the Developer to clarify the position in relation to any future development of the Rampion Extension Project. RWER therefore wishes to register as an Interested party for the examination of the Aquind Interconnector."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brian Hill
"I am a landowner within the Primary Consultation Zone Height of the two proposed connector halls at 22-26 metres will change character of area from rural to industrial and harm the visual setting Noise will disturb the tranquil rural area to which we moved some 30 years ago Construction traffic will be significant and disturb local area Proposed landscaping will not be sufficient to hid the proposed buildings which we will see from our property situated on the edge of the proposed site Saleability of our property will be impacted and the sale price greatly reduced"
Local Authorities
Eastleigh Borough Council
"As a neighbouring Local Authority we would like to register as an interested party in order to keep track of the application and assess any impacts on our local residents, which are likely to be linked to construction traffic movements."
Non-Statutory Organisations
National Federation of Fishermen
"The following is offered in response to the submitted application documents: Fisheries Liaison and Coexistence Plan It is noted that a number of fisheries mitigation measures have been identified including the appointment of a Fisheries Liaison Officer and the maintenance of an inshore fishing working group. While this is welcome, we recommend that fisheries liaison and coexistence plan is produced and secured via the DCO Deemed Marine Licence to cover inter alia how the disruption to fishing activities taking place is to be managed. This is relevant particularly given the worst-case scenario of an entire clearance of fishing activities away from the cable corridor. It also provides the basis for clarity in expectations between the applicant and potentially effected fishing businesses and so that appropriate oversight of those expectations may be /maintained. It should, for instance, include the approach for managing any necessary gear clearances and disruption during the construction phase, approaches to addressing any maintenance and remediation works occurring during the course of the project, as well as being a place holder for the full list of other related mitigation measures e.g. such as communicating marine hazards (further covered below). It is noted that this requirement was also included in the scoping opinion response of the MMO (22nd June 2018, p19). We responded to a consultation held by the MMO in May 2018 raising this matter, although this is not reflected in the commercial fisheries consultation responses document. Managing Cable Burial Risk and Fisheries Fisheries and gear types in use along the cable corridor should feature in the cable burial risk assessment with respect to the choice of any cable protection deemed necessary and in the event of cable and with respect to ongoing monitoring arrangements post-installation. Cable protection should be selected and deployed so that it does not constitute a significant risk to the snagging of fishing gears e.g. through the use of a tapered design in the case of rock berms. The fishing industry should be consulted on any choice of cable protection e.g. via the inshore fishing working group or other relevant fishing industry stakeholder depending on the location. Although not listed as a fisheries mitigation measure, the commitment contained in the DCO, Schedule 15 Part 2, Section 2 (12) condition to notify any detected cable exposure to the fishing industry. It is suggested this should also include the detection of sections of cable that are shallow buried and so at risk of contact with fishing gears. The following amendment to the condition is suggested to achieve this (in capitals): (12) In case of damage to, or destruction or decay of, the authorised development seaward of MHWS or any part thereof including [DELETE the] A STATE OF SHALLOW BURIAL OR exposure of the marine HVDC cables the undertaker must as soon as possible and no later than 24 hours following the undertaker becoming aware of any such damage, destruction or decay, notify the MMO, the MCA, Kingfisher Information Service of Seafish and the UK Hydrographic Office. Again, aspects relating to communicating hazard information to the fishing industry should be reflected in a fisheries liaison and coexistence plan."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Louise Baker
"I am worried about the effects for the Aquind interconnector that has now been accepted for examination by the planning Inspectorate. I believe this will not be examined locally and I have grave concerns that those who will investigate it do not have an understanding of the local area and the specific affects this will have on the environment and community. In the community update newsletter Aquind sent recently, dated January 2020, I was not surprised to discover that they only received 155 feedback responses from members of the local community. The feedback form was complicated, lengthy and not written in an accessible information format. I have an MSc and it took me 45minutes to complete properly. I am very concerned that in this newsletter it states the preferred route for the cable and then lists two alternative routes for the cable corridor. Surely Aquind should have completed all investigations by now and know exactly where the cable will run and how that will impact on the roads and traffic. Working in Portsmouth, as a community physio, I can tell you it will cause a year of absolute mayhem in Portsmouth if any part of the Eastern Road is disrupted. Portsmouth is an island and comes to a total standstill with any issue on the 2 main routes in or out of the island. This will also affect my daily commute for the time it is being developed, if successful. Where can these changes, to say the converter station plans, be viewed. I fail to see how such a large building, that will generate such a loud hum, can be built so close to the South Downs National Park. It will definitely alter the landscape and will be seen from Butser Hill, within Queen Elizabeth Country Park. I still fail to see why the interconnector cannot be built near a landfall site. Surely bringing it into landfall much closer to another existing power substations, to reduce the impact on the local community and environment, should be the preferred option. I have been to most of the public exhibitions and nobody can answer the question of how loud the hum will be where I live if the wind is blowing in the right direction."
Parish Councils
The Parish Council of Newlands
"The route chosen for the cables and if an alternative, less disruptive route is available The disruption to traffic and residents during the installation of cables The heat emissions once cables are installed and any effect this will have on the environment and clay soils"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Cox
"My submissions will include comments on: The need for the interconnector The positioning of the interconnector and why it has to be placed in the countryside and not nearer to landfall or on an industrial site The disruption to roads during the development especially around the site The design of the interconnector and the site"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Shepherd
"If allowed I am concerned at the following: 1 - The noise from the substation in a particularly quiet area and its impact on the community and SDNPA from the transformers and cooling equipment. 2 - The aesthetics of what is expected to be a 26m high building and visible for miles around are a major concern. Can the building be lowered into the ground and the arisings be used for bunding and landscaping to improve aesthetics and shield some of the noise. a green roof such as Peacehaven Waste Water treatment plant are essential for a scheme like this. 3 - Substations are usually exempt from CIL as structures that 'people don't usually enter'. I expect that this plant will be manned 24/7 so would like to understand more about the CIL position and how this and S106 can be used to ensure that there is provision for off site mitigation of the impact of the plant."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Joint Nature Conservation Committee
"JNCC are a public body that advises the UK government and devolved administrations on UK-wide nature conservation. In terms of this application, we will be advising on the nature conservation impacts of the proposed activities in the UK offshore waters (beyond the territorial limit to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Holden-Craufurd
"Registering as an interested party as the proposed cable route from Anmore Road to the interconnector site may possibly be running along the other side of my boundary and that of Salt Box Barn. If the cable is run close to Salt Box Barn boundary it will effect my Water supply. Portsmouth Water have never laid pipes under Edneys Lane. I have a private water pipe which runs under the field from the Denmead end of the lane to my property. It runs up near the road then along the field at the side of Salt Box Barn. Then goes across their garden and into my property. The route of your cable could effect my water supply."
Non-Statutory Organisations
CPRE Hampshire
"This Representation summarises the position of CPRE Hampshire We consider that specific and relevant policies clearly indicate that a Development Consent Order should be refused for the reasons set out below, which are based on observations of the site and surrounding landscape by our local planning team. The proposed development is surrounded on three sides by the South Downs National Park (SDNP) and in places is only 200-300metres from the boundary of the national park. It would have impacts on the national park. Accordingly the duty to have regard to the purposes of the SDNP applies to this project, per ONPSE-EN1 paragraph 5.9.12 and S62 of the Environment Act 1995. It is unclear how this duty has been met. The proposed Convertor Station includes two convertor halls, each measuring 90 metres in length, 50 metres in width and notably 22-26 metres in height. These are very large buildings, with a height well in excess of even the largest agricultural buildings and mature trees. Given the high sensitivity and high value of the landscape of the SDNP, buildings of this scale, utilitarian appearance and form sited in this location could not but cause significant harm to the setting of the SDNP in relation to landscape character and visual amenity. The ability of this landscape to absorb change cannot apply to buildings of this scale, which would not be mitigated by being seen against an urban or industrial background When viewed from elevated positions within the SDNP, and notably the Monarchs Way long distance trail, the landscape would be changed from one with an essentially rural character to one which is far more industrial. This potential for significant adverse impact on views experienced from the SDNP is confirmed by the Preliminary Environmental Information Report (PEIR). Such adverse impact would be amplified by the cumulative impact of the this development with proposed battery storage site, solar farm and extension to the substation, all within this narrow finger of land extending into the SDNP. While close to the existing Lovedean substation in an area associated with pylons and overhead lines, these features of this landscape would do little to mitigate the dominant adverse impact of the sheer size of the convertor halls on the immediate area and the wider landscape. Nor could it be much reduced by the mitigated measures suggested. The immediate area includes pockets of ancient woodland, historic field boundaries, historic routes and farmsteads which should be protected. The impact on the SDNP and landscape of the local area would be amplified by any loss of these important features. Noise from operation of the Convertor Station is also a serious concern in what, despite the nearby Lovedean substation, is a largely tranquil rural area. Electrical noise can carry over large distances and be disruptive to enjoyment of the countryside by the public. The Monarchs Way long distance trail passing nearby the proposed site, and giving access from the urban area of Horndean to the SDNP, is sensitive to any reduction in tranquillity. It is acknowledged in the PEIR that operational noise has the potential for adverse effects. The resulting significant adverse impact on landscape character, visual amenity, and tranquillity of the SDNP would be contrary to the first national park purpose, and so significantly compromise the purpose of designation of the SDNP. It would also be contrary to policies for the protection of local landscape, views and tranquillity contained in the newly adopted South Downs Local Plan, East Hampshire District and Winchester District Local Plans. Accordingly, for buildings of the sheer size proposed, this location almost surrounded by the SDNP and in fine East Hampshire countryside does not accord with either national or local planning policy. It is entirely inappropriate, despite the benefits available from connecting to the Lovedean substation. If, as is understood to be the case, buildings of this size are essential in technical terms, then another and more urban site needs to be found, even if this would involve additional expense at another substation to improve capacity to evacuate power, as has been done with other interconnector schemes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jeffery
"Objection Dramatic impact on the local area both visual and audible especially around the Lovedean area Major disruption to the road networks along the cable route and major effect on local communities along the cable route Unsuitable road network in the location of the main connector in Lovedean with suggested major road changes to accommodate hundreds if not thousands of HGV vehicle movements around Day Lane and Broadway Lane. A major blot on the landscape viewed from all surrounding areas which will not be concealed regardless of how robust the proposed landscaping schemes are.."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP on behalf of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc (together “National Grid”) Application by Aquind Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the AQUIND Interconnector Order (“the Project”) National Grid wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing and apparatus and land interests located within this area. The Book of Reference identifies land and interests owned by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and apparatus of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc within the Order limits. In particular, National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc has high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines and high voltage substations within, or in close proximity to, the proposed Order limits. The overhead lines and substation form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. Overhead Lines • VB (400kV) overhead line route: Fleet to Lovedean 2 • 4VF (400kV) overhead line route: Bolney to Lovedean 2; Bolney to Lovedean 1 • 4YC (400kV) overhead line route: Lovedean to Mann to Nursling • 4YE (400kV) overhead line route: Botley Wood to Lovedean; Fawley to Lovedean Substations • Lovedean 4 400kV substation • Lovedean 1 132kV substation National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the proposed Order to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to negotiate with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreed position."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (Clare Shaw-Carter) on behalf of National Grid Gas Plc
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas Plc (together “National Grid”) Application by Aquind Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the AQUIND Interconnector Order (“the Project”) National Grid wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. National Grid’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on National Grid’s existing and apparatus and land interests located within this area. The Book of Reference identifies land and interests owned by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and apparatus of National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc and National Grid Gas within the Order limits. In particular, National Grid Electricity Transmission has high voltage electricity overhead transmission lines and high voltage substations within, or in close proximity to, the proposed Order limits. The overhead lines and substation form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. Overhead Lines • VB (400kV) overhead line route: Fleet to Lovedean 2 • 4VF (400kV) overhead line route: Bolney to Lovedean 2; Bolney to Lovedean 1 • 4YC (400kV) overhead line route: Lovedean to Mann to Nursling • 4YE (400kV) overhead line route: Botley Wood to Lovedean; Fawley to Lovedean Substations • Lovedean 4 400kV substation • Lovedean 1 132kV substation National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the proposed Order to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. National Grid reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to negotiate with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreed position."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs. Jane Carter
"I object to the laying of the HV electricity cables within and outside the Portsmouth boundary as proposed by Aquind. There is a real danger of radiation from the cables up through the ground if these cables were to be operational. Farligton Avenue, inside Portsmouth's northern boundary, is a narrow residential road, with an infant school on one side, and a junior school on the other. There is naturally heavy footfall along Farlington Aveue's entire length. There is real risk of adverse effects of radiation to the children especially who walk along this road to and from school, as well as all other pedestrians. There is also danger to life to all the residents whose homes will only be feet away from the proposed cables due to radiation. One resident, who has an electrical spinal implant that can be overstimulated if she is to walk near any HV cables, is at the highest risk, especially as the cabling is proposed to be very close to her bungalow. Farlington Avenue is a busy road in and out of the city. If parts of this road are closed, it will have a serious affect on traffic and congestion on other routes for a long time. Blake Road, where I live, is a cul de sac off the blind bend half way up Farlington Avenue. Access to my home is a concern if the work was to come past Blake Road. Regarding closing parts of the Eastern Road in Portsmouth, if this were to happen, the whole of the city of Portsmouth would come to a standstill. This always happens if there is a road traffic accident within or outside the Portsmouth boundary. Thousands of people commute in and out of the city every day. Public transport is not available to many of us. Businesses will suffer, as people will avoid coming into the city. Livelihoods will be at risk. There will be more pollution due to increased vehicle emissions, as journeys will take much longer. The health of Portsmouth's citizens is at serious risk should any of the proposed work by Aquind be carried out. Portsmouth is the most congested city in the whole of the UK outside London. If Aquind's proposed work should go ahead, it would effectively shut down this city for several years due to the slow rate of laying the cables. JANE CARTER"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Crockett
"I live in a house which will be close to the route the cable will be taking. 1. I would like to be kept informed about how far away the cable will be. 2. I would like to know how the possibility of Corona discharge will be managed: Corona discharge is the creation of ions in a fluid (such as air) by the presence of a strong electric field. Electrons are torn from neutral air, and either the positive ions or the electrons are attracted to the conductor, while the charged particles drift. This effect can cause considerable power loss, create audible and radio-frequency interference, generate toxic compounds such as oxides of nitrogen and ozone, and bring forth arcing. Both AC and DC transmission lines can generate coronas, in the former case in the form of oscillating particles, in the latter a constant wind. Due to the space charge formed around the conductors, an HVDC system may have about half the loss per unit length of a high voltage AC system carrying the same amount of power. With monopolar transmission the choice of polarity of the energized conductor leads to a degree of control over the corona discharge. In particular, the polarity of the ions emitted can be controlled, which may have an environmental impact on ozone creation. Negative coronas generate considerably more ozone than positive coronas, and generate it further downwind of the power line, creating the potential for health effects. The use of a positive voltage will reduce the ozone impacts of monopole HVDC power lines. 3. I would like to know if the following WHO GUIDANCE is appropriate to this project and if so will be used: For high-level, short -term exposure to EMF, adverse health effects have been scientifically established. International exposure guidelines designed to protect workers and the public from these effects should be adopted by policy makers. EMF protection programs should include exposure measurements from sources where exposures might be expected to exceed limit values. • Government and industry should monitor science and promote research programmes to further reduce the uncertainty of the scientific evidence on the health effects of ELF field exposure. Through the ELF risk assessment process, gaps in knowledge have been identified and these form the basis of a new research agenda • Establishing effective communication programmes, including improving coordination and consultation among industry, local government, and citizens in the planning process for ELF, EMF-emitting facilities • When constructing new facilities and designing new equipment, including appliances, low-cost ways of reducing exposures may be explored. 4. Which body in the UK is now responsible for ensuring appropriate health and safety measures are applied to a project like this and what those measures are."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Alistair Thompson
"Dear Sir, I am writing to you about the proposed Aquind Interconnector, which will land in Portsmouth. The proposals and lack of public consultation are causing significant concern to residents along the route and users of the amenities that will be dug up during the process. A feeling that this project and those behind it are happy to ride roughshod over local concerns has rapidly grown - I am sure this was not your intention. Specifically, there is considerable concern around the environmental damage the project will cause to areas used by Brent Geese, slow worms and other species and what steps will be taken to prevent exposure and release of materials buried in some of the land on the proposed route many years ago. Additional concerns include the disruption to business and one of the City's major transport routes and the adversarial approach being taken by project team toward residents and the City Council. There is also consternation about the pace of this project and failure to engage with members of the Portsmouth community to explain what steps are being taken to mitigate these problems or finding ways of not causing them in the first place. To date, my neighbours and I have not received any letters or information from the applicant about their proposals, yet I live in an area that will certainly be affected by the internector. Having walked along a considerable section of the proposed route, there appears to be no signs or other information about this proposal, or information about how residents can support or oppose it. I believe the company have failed to meet even the minimum requirement of a very light touch consultation process. Consequently, there is a belief that the company is deliberately ignoring both the residents and has not discharged the requirements of the law. I believe this was even the topic of a discussion between a representative of the company, or those acting on its behalf and the Planning Inspector in File Note: EN20022. I would like to formally request under the Freedom of Information Act that any notes about this conversation, taken during or after the phone call, emails, documents or similar are released to me and published on the website. I originally copied in the Company's agents, but have received no response or acknowledgement to me hastily written email. This seems both discourteous and strengthens the view that the company has failed to consult those affected by these plans. Other areas of concern included the suggested CPO, the potential blight of land, lack of funding to complete the project, including making good damage caused during the work to lay the interconnector. From a personal and selfish perspective, the proposed route will cut across the land that I and many others use for recreational purposes. Indeed this land is used by many families and includes parkland and sports pitches. Questions have been raised with me about the fact the project as I understand, intends to attach the cable to the Eastern Road bridge without testing this ageing structure, or indemnifying against the possible disruption that damage to this bridge might cause and many more. If this required significant work to the bridge, who would pay and has any assessment been undertaken into the impact of carrying out in the harbour will impact the seal population. I would be happy to discuss these concerns with a representative of the planning inspectorate and as mentioned I made an offer to the Company's agents to discuss them and possible mitigation. Until the issue of the less than minimum consultation and other concerns have resolved, I wish to add my objection to this proposal. Yours faithfully, Alderman Alistair Thompson"
Parish Councils
Horndean Parish Council
"The Parish Council would like to repeat its request that an effective traffic management plan is produced and then managed to minimise the disruption to traffic in Horndean and in particular, to prevent gridlock."
Members of the Public/Businesses
N Craise
"Whilst I have many concerns about the route of the proposed cable through Portsmouth my main concern is with the suggested route from Bransbury Park to the allotments via Yeo Court. Yeo Court is situated at the back of the even numbered houses in Godiva Lawn and provides the only vehicular access for those houses. The front of the houses in Godiva Lawn being a pedestrian walkway. Yeo Court is a narrow road that provides access to resident garages and parking and access to houses via back gates and there are no footpaths and it is a dead end. If one car is parked outside a garage there is room for another to pass by but no room for pedestrians. It is where rubbish and recycling bins are collected from and is the only access to the houses for deliveries and more importantly the only vehicular access for emergency vehicles. The plans states that access to front doors will be maintained during work but for the residents of Godiva Lawn even numbers, access to the back of the house is more important particularly in my case where there is a resident with mobility issues who accesses the car via the back gate and takes a wheelchair out via the back gate and Yeo Court. He could not manage to do either so if access was blocked and limited to the front of the house. The front of the house having two large steps and the car not being able to be parked anywhere close to the front door. As disruptive as it will be for all, if the plans are to proceed than better to continue the route of the cable through the park exiting at the pedestrian entrance on Kingsley Road and follow the route of this road. At least this road is wide enough to maintain access to vehicles, pedestrians, houses and access to surrounding roads whilst work is carried out."
Other Statutory Consultees
The Crown Estate
"The Crown Estate manages property and rights which are owned by Her Majesty in right of the Crown. This portfolio includes around half of the foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to 12 nautical miles around the UK (England, Wales and Northern Ireland). Under the Energy Act 2004 and the Energy Act 2008, The Crown Estate also manages the rights over the continental shelf to offshore energy generation and the rights to carbon dioxide and natural gas storage and transportation (respectively). The Crown Estate requests to be registered as an Interested Party in the examination of the Aquind Interconnector. Our interest in the project is that Aquind Limited holds an Option Agreement from The Crown Estate for the area of seabed to be occupied by the project that lies within English territorial waters (i.e. within 12 nautical miles), and (subject to obtaining the necessary development consents) The Crown Estate will issue a lease to Aquind Limited for construction of the project. We therefore wish to follow the progress of examination of the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Susan Crossley
"My objections lie with the Con,vertor Station- - to the overall height of the building, inspite of being lowered into the surrounds , and its final visual impact on the landscape. - the effect of the construction work,on the landscape and local infrastructure, - the visual impact of the site on the landscape during construction,and during its 'maturing ' period' . - the landscaping policy to reduce visual impact in all seasons, with particular reference to trees and hedging species - the impact of the site on the 'dark sky' policy, particularly on the neighboring National Park"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jeremy Warren
"Our interest is essentially from a landscape aspect. What is proposed is a massive building, some 7 stories high, within the open countryside. If approved, the landscape impact is bound to be very significant, and it would be highly visible from many vantage points, including as far away as Portsdown Hill some 9 miles away. Tree screening and bunding which would be totally out of keeping with the surrounding countryside and would make very little difference with a building of this size. Accordingly, the proposal is contrary in the strongest terms to policies in the East Hampshire District Local Plan for the protection of landscape. Further, the setting of the South Downs National Park seems likely to be adversely affected, which would also be contrary to Local Plan policies. There is concern about the amount of traffic disruption that will occur during the construction phase. Anmore Lane and Broadway Lane are restricted to HGVs and must be prohibited for use by construction vehicles throughout the project. The revised plans for the junction of Broadway Lane and Day Lane are totally inadequate and not acceptable and need to be revised. The noise and light pollution from the proposed site has to be measured in conjunction with the existing substation. This has not been done based on existing data. There are no accurate images of the appearance of the converter building or the mitigating landscaping to hide it. The only images published so far are entirely inaccurate and misleading computer images. In return for the inconvenience and disruption caused by the construction it would be expected that AQUIND would make a contribution to the local communities of Denmead, Anmore and Lovedean. There is no evidence of this to date. Given the potential for the site as a terrorist target there will be a need for 24 hour security. Provision needs to be made for this. The EU could potentially increase energy bills in the UK depending on the trade agreements after 31 December 2020. There would be an increasing number of Brexit related energy issues which would lead to higher household bills. The claim from AQUIND that their project will bring lower electricity bills is not necessarily true. Leaving the EU could result in a change to the VAT rate applied to the UK’s electricity. Equally Brexit could lead to reduction in EU investment and could push up electricity bills due to increased transport costs and leaving the EU Emissions Trading System."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Atkinson
"I am writing as both a resident and the owner of a small business directly on the route of the Cable Corridor proposed by Aquind. I strongly disagree with the entire proposal to make landfall on Portsmouth Island, only for the cable to leave Portsmouth Island again to continue inland. There is a little used harbour to the east of Portsmouth Island that could be utilised for the cable. I do not accept that this is not possible (as indicated by Aquind) - if the technology is available to enable the cable to cross the channel, the marine cable can continue up the harbour without disturbing Portsmouth town at all. Portsmouth is well documented as one of the most densely populated towns in England, and as an island it has only three points of access. One of these access roads is the proposed route of the cable and Aquind could cause massive congestion during works. Portsmouth has extremely poor air quality (worse than some parts of London) so ANY traffic disruption would be too much. The city is almost at gridlock every day. Furthermore, the safety of such a cable so close to residences and busy roads is inconclusive. Plastic/Rubber seals will always degrade over time and any small water ingress/equipment failure in the future could cause a catastrophic fire risk/danger to life. According to the plan, this cable would be within the distance of Neighbourhood electricity supply guidelines - but I believe the proposed cable should be at a distance equivalent to large voltage overhead power lines, not within 10 meters of residential property and under/alongside heavily used roads. In terms of cost, I would simply ask will French electricity be cheaper long term? How can this be quantified, particularly after Brexit? Why should we put the cost of our supply in the hands of the French energy market and the EU? Is that really the way forward?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
J R Sykes Farms
"AS THE TENANT OF WINCHESTER COLLEGE AT DENMEAD FARM, THE CABLING FOR THE INTERCONNECTOR WILL PASS THROUGH THE FARM WHICH I CURRENTLY FARM WITH ARABLE CROPS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Veronica Knight
"1.Proposed route will cause excessive disruption to the east side of Portsmouth, already suffering from considerable traffic flow problems. 2.That the route could have been through a less densely populated area than Portsmouth. 3.This disruption could be for a considerable length of time. 4.Specific concerns for Bransbury Park (specifically the proximity to trees) the allotments and foreshore at sections 9 & 10 and that areas like this; may not be fully re-instated."
Non-Statutory Organisations
APLEAL Action Group
"APLEAL (Action to Protect the Living Environment Around Lovedean) is a community action group representing residents in Lovedean, where the proposed Aquind interconnector station will be located, and the nearby village of Denmead. We strongly object to the Aquind development proposal on the following grounds: 1. The loss of amenity for neighbours and the wider community who regularly use the footpaths and roads surrounding the interconnector site in terms of noise, disturbance and loss of open, far-reaching views. 2. The negative adverse visual impact the interconnector site will have on the landscape. This will not just be affecting those in the immediate area but by anyone enjoying views from the South Downs National Park, Portsdown Hill and Catherington Down. 3. The detrimental effect that the proposed development will have on the character of the local area – from one that is chiefly agricultural to one that is distinctly industrial. 4. The sheer size of the proposal is not in keeping with the existing environment, and the accumulative effect will have a dramatic impact on the potential overdevelopment of a rural area. 5. The generation of construction traffic that will be completely unsuitable for quiet, rural lanes and the significant safety implications for local drivers, cyclists, walkers and horse-riders. 6. The major traffic disruption that will take place on the road networks along the cable route. 7. The proposal does not guarantee any benefits to the local community, nor does it include any compensation or benefit scheme to the community affected by it."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cllr Caroline Brook on behalf of Denmead and Newlands Residents
"Outreach of Consultation Location Carbon Footprint Long term Maintenance of Screening Impact on residents and local businesses Impact on school children Traffic management issues Options not properly considered Lack of plan for dealing with excavated materials, lack of radar or pit inspections to identify challenges"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Conran
"I own a plot of grazing land measuring 1 1/2 acres in Broadway Lane, Lovedean. My land is used for grazing horses. Aquind are proposing to use 104 square metres of my land to plant hedging and to have permanent access rights to my land to facilitate maintenance of the hedges. Below are some of the issues and concerns I have regarding these proposals:- 1. Will the hedging be safe for equines. 2. Health and Safety of the horses during access to the land for planting, fencing and while maintenance is being carried out. 3. What safeguards will be taken to ensure the land is not damaged by landscaping contractors and their equipment. 4. The fencing used to protect new landscaping must be safe for horses. 5. I am concerned that the Interconnector structure and the loss of some of my field will affect the sale and value of my land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Polly Beard
"I would like to register my interest as a resident living close to the proposed interconnector site and raise my objections to the Aquind project on the following grounds. Due to the sheer size of the interconnector station, and in particular the height of the building at 26 metres, located in the middle of open countryside, the impact on the landscape will be extremely significant and damaging. The interconnector site will seen by not just local residents using the footpaths and lanes in the immediate vicinity, but also by anyone further away enjoying views from the South Downs National Park and Portsdown Hill. The screening and proposed planting of trees and hedgerows proposed in the plan is totally inadequate to successfully hide such a huge development. Even after 20 years, when the trees will have reached some maturity, the building will still be very visible. The landscape will also change from a peaceful rural setting to a principally industrial one, and the accumulative effect of the interconnector site next to the Lovedean electricity substation will be both devastating on the nature and use of the area, and irreversible. The proposal therefore is ignoring many of the policies in the East Hampshire District Local Plan for the protection of landscape, and the Local Plan policies of the South Downs National Park. The significant noise pollution of the proposed interconnector site is also a huge concern. Particularly on the footpaths and lanes closest to the site, this will have a significant negative impact and any walkers, horse-riders or cyclists enjoying the area will suffer a loss of amenity. Given the possibility that the station could be an easy target for both vandalism and/or terrorism, the development’s security plans, or lack of them, are totally inadequate for purpose. Many of the roads around the area of Lovedean are not wide enough for two cars, and have poor visibility around bends, and are therefore unsuitable for a significant increase in construction traffic and HGVs. The plan also does not make it clear that under no circumstance should construction traffic use Anmore Lane and Broadway Lane which are restricted to HGVs. The revised plans for the junction of Broadway Lane and Day Lane are not acceptable either and need to be revised. Further afield along the proposed cable route, the development will cause major traffic disruption and resultant exhaust pollution to the surrounding areas. The proposal does not guarantee any benefits to the local community, nor does it include any compensation or benefit scheme to the community affected by it. Finally, the proposed scheme purportedly will lead to lower electricity bills. There are so many external factors that will govern whether this is feasible, including post-Brexit arrangements with the EU that are not even yet known, that it is simply impossible for Aquind to guarantee this. The assumption therefore that it is in the national interest on this basis is invalid."
Non-Statutory Organisations
University of Portsmouth
"Aquind's proposed development route will have a significant impact on land and properties belonging to the University of Portsmouth. The current plans will cause disruption to the University’s provision of facilities to students, in particular the provision of sports facilities on key subject areas for the University. As well as the potential impact on current University business, the University has future development plans for the areas of land which will be impacted by the cable routing. Our understanding is that the development of the land in this way would render it unsuitable for development in the manner we had anticipated and will therefore result in significant financial loss to the University. We would welcome further discussions with Aquind to seek to find a route which does not have the huge negative impact on the University as is currently proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Ann Clementson
"I am opposing the Aquind Limited's application for a DCO based the following reasons: - UK Statistical Information relating to energy consumption since 2000 - Climate Emergency and Strategic Planning to Reduce Carbon Impact - Affects of the Brexit Decision on Aquind and other Interconnector Projects - Cap and Floor regime and ‘Exempt Routes’ - Local considerations: impact to residents, local businesses, environment and ecology, including long term mitigation for road and landscape maintenance - Long term mitigation for decommissioning and making good Considerable statistical information from the ONS, OFGEM and other reputable organisatiions suggests that our UK renewable energy production has increased whilst our UK energy produced using fossil fuels has reduced. Approximately 10% of imported energy is electricity (oil and gas is the main import). However, our overall consumption has fallen from 357 TWh in 2005 to 307 TWh in 2018 and is expected to fall by a further 3.7% between 2018 and 2023. A 'climate emergency' has been declared in the UK and most other Nations and new legislation has ensured 'smart' use of energy resources which are already making a considerable difference to the overall energy consumption, ie green buildings, EVs and Hybrid transport. We are also increasing our own production of green fuel as our fossil fuel production facilities close. If we have an over supply of energy available through interconnectors and it is not required, the 'cap and floor' guarantee may see the UK consumer ultimately paying a 'top up' to the interconnector provider to enable the guaranteed revenue 'floor' level to be maintained. Brexit has increased uncertainty about the future relationship and tariffs that may be imposed if the UK does not remain in the IEM which requires adherance to other EU legislation such as the single market, FOM and EJC jurisdiction. Aquind Limited applied for an 'exemption'under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 714/2009. OFGEM and France's Commission de Regulation de L’energie (CRE) could not agree and it was passed to the Agency for the Co-operation of Energy Regulators (ACER) for a decision. They agreed with the CRE and it was refused. Aquind Limited had indicated "without an exemption, the Aquind interconnector cannot progress through construction and to commercial operation’ because ‘a regulated regime with financial underpinning is not available to Aquind in France". I am therefore concerned that the project may commence, the costs escalate (as have those for HS2) and Aquind will be unable to complete the project through lack of funding. I am also concerned that the UK will not remain in the IEM and no agreement to allow zero tariff cross-border energy is reached. There are many local aspects of concern to the residents of Portsmouth, Waterlooville, Denmead and surrounding areas which relate to the construction of the Interconnector which will cause major disruption for at minimum of 2 years to traffic flow; cause businesses along the route to suffer and a negative impact on an already struggling retail section in Waterlooville and Portsmouth. I understand the Aquind's preference for the highway route as this enables them to deal with local authorities only and negates the need to deal with many landowners which would be the case if they routed the interconnector across greenfield sites. No provision is being made in Aquind's submission for on-going maintenance of the roads which are likely to suffer from damage caused by the heat from the cables drying out the clay soil under the roads. In addition, there appears to be no plan or provision made for the decomission of the Converter Station once this interconnector is not longer viable."
Local Authorities
South Downs National Park Authority
"The South Downs National Park borders the proposed location of the Convertor Station on three sides and in places it is just 200-300m from the National Park boundary. We would wish to participate in the examination process and will be making a detailed representation at the appropriate time. However, at this stage our main issues are as follows: • National Grid is a Statutory Undertaker and therefore, as per section 62 of the Environment Act 1995, they are required to have regard to the purposes of the National Park in their decision making. It is not clear whether the assessment of alternatives (set out in the Environmental Statement Chapter 2: Consideration of Alternatives) by National Grid when preparing the NGET feasibility study in 2014 took into account the impact of the various options on the National Park. There is only limited information on how that duty has been met and the SDNPA will be seeking further information on this from National Grid. This is a matter that has been raised with the applicant throughout the process. • The location and scale of the Convertor Station causes significant harm to landscape character and impacts on the setting of the National Park as evidenced in the Environmental Statement Chapter 15: Landscape and Visual Amenity study. There are no comparable structures within this predominantly rural landscape. • The lengthy access track (1.2km) will widen the extent of the land impacted on by the development beyond the immediate confines of the site itself. It will cut across historic field boundaries; negatively affect the character of Broadway Lane and run through the centre of fields, contrary to their rural character. • We are currently assessing the landscaping proposals and will wish to raise detailed points at the relevant stage. The proposals rely on a combination of existing woodland, groups of trees and hedgerows supplemented by additional planting. The Arboricultural Survey is not comprehensive and no account appears to have been taken of the likely loss of ash trees from the landscape. Ash forms a large part of the existing tree cover in the location and its loss may have significant impacts on the visibility of the proposed convertor station in the long term. We will be seeking a proposal which adds value and is worthy of a nationally significant infrastructure project located adjacent to a National Park. • Although the SDNPA has raised concerns in relation to landscape impact and the proposed mitigation we are broadly content with the design parameters of the Convertor Station itself. However, we would like to question what steps have been taken to reduce the embodied carbon of the construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Patrick Whittle
"Please see attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mrs Cynthia Whittle
"Please see attached"
Parish Councils
Denmead Parish Council
"General issues 1. No evidence is provided that this energy supply is in fact ‘green’. 2. The use of the fibre optic link for commercial purposes is against the regulations 3. Design Principles for National Infrastructures "places" principle says that infrastructure projects should seek to deliver a net biodiversity gain and enhance local culture and character "without being bound by the past". This project does not contribute to biodiversity nor does it provide any enhancement to local culture and character. The Location 4. All other interconnectors are in industrial locations, this is in the countryside. 5. The construction will create a brownfield site in the rural countryside adjacent to the National Park Local Community 6. This provides no local employment or training opportunities 7. There will be significant loss of trade for shops in Denmead which rely heavily on passing trade. 8. There has been a lack of consultation, with only one consultation session held for Public and this was not publicised to people of Denmead 9. Children walk or cycle to school along Hambledon Road, we are concerned for their safety during the roadworks. The Building 10. It states that the station will be decommissioned. There are no guarantees that the land will be restored to it’s former pristine state. 11. The building plans show that there is an area where waste will be sorted, there is no mitigation for the visual impact of this 12. The building will be surrounded by fencing but there are no details of the mitigation of the visual impact Ecological Concerns 13. The developer is asking for wide-ranging powers. The mitigation for ecological impact is insufficient with TPO trees and ancient hedgerows being impacted, the documentation states it is not feasible to replant mature trees. The cumulative impact of this project is likely to be significant in its detrimental impact to Denmead’s ecology 14. Landscaping will be used to ‘soften’ the appearance of the building but this is not being secured on a long-term basis. 15. One siting of the building requires the removal of ancient trees and hedgerow which is contrary to planning policy Traffic issues 16. The advised 60 second delay along Hambledon Road is incorrect. No traffic survey has been done. 17. Hambledon Road is the police ‘preferred alternative route’ where traffic is diverted from the M27, it is the key road for the Household Waste Recycling Centre 18. There is no detail on the location 15mx5m inspection pits of these or plans to access these 19. Denmead is largely on clay, the pipes generate heat which will cause clay shrinkage and thus long term damage to the roads and land under which they are laid. Compensation/Community Infrastructure Levy 20. This application is being treated on the same basis as a generating station but the same criteria are not being applied in terms of benefit to the community. Denmead will have the building for the next 40 years and should be compensated accordingly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hannah West
"I object very strongly to the proposed Aquind cable going through one of the most densely populated cities in Europe. It will cause a horrendous amount of disruption and inconvenience to residents, and ruin local areas such as Bransbury park and Milton common, disturbing the wildlife that lives there. There needs to be a serious rethink of the placement of the Aquind cable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Peter Carpenter & Mrs Dawn Carpenter
"Relevant Representation This Relevant Representation is hereby submitted who wish to be registered as an Interested Party for the forthcoming Examination of the AQUIND Interconnector Development Consent Order ("the DCO") application submitted by AQUIND Limited ("AQUIND"). owners of the land known as Land on the South East side of Old Mill Lane, Lovedean, Waterlooville registered under Land Registry Title Number HP606300 ("the Land"). owner of Little Denmead Farm. Submissions in relation to the impact on Little Denmead Farm itself are dealt with under a separate Relevant Representation by the Owners of Little Denmead Farm as an organisation Interested Party. This Relevant Representation is concerned solely with the impact on . The Land is located on the proposed site of the Converter Station (Section 1) oppose the DCO on the following grounds: 1. Compulsory Acquisition The compulsory acquisition element of the DCO will affect a total area measuring 48,428 square metres. Over 11.25 acres (45,515 square metres) are to be compulsorily purchased (Plot 1-20) and 2,913 square metres will be subject to permanent landscaping rights (Plots 1-05 and 1-09). The field in Plot 1-20 which currently covers an area of 17.32 acres will be reduced by 65%, leaving just 6 acres. This will significantly interfere with Mr & Mrs Carpenter’s farming activities on the Land. The proposals are preventing re-introducing their herd of 80 cows back on the Land in case they need to be moved again. Combined with the impact on Little Denmead Farm described in the Relevant Representation by the Owners of Little Denmead Farm, the DCO will have a significant detrimental impact . They will no longer be able to make a living from farming due to a lack of land. At the age of 60, and a lifelong farmer, there will be limited opportunities open to find alternative employment with other local farmers. AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that the extent of the compulsory acquisition is necessary and proportionate, taking only what is required. AQUIND have failed to justify the need for permanent landscaping rights over Plots 1-05 and 1-09, when landscaping in the form of screening will planted along the northern edge of Plot 1-20, which prevents our client from being able to reshape the remaining parts of the Land. Part of the Land is used in connection with stabling, with safe riding routes through Little Denmead Farm. No information has been provided about what access rights will be granted to cross the Access Road or other land that will be compulsorily purchased. AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition have been explored. The disproportionate harm and loss of interest significantly outweighs any public benefit. Accordingly, AQUIND's proposed interference with their rights is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and does not meet the tests for compulsory acquisition. 2. Loss of Amenity reside in a caravan within the Little Denmead Farm farmstead. The noise and vibrations from construction traffic using the Access Road just metres away from the caravan will have a significant detrimental impact on their day-to-day lives during construction, together with the noise from the fans at the Convertor Station when operational. The Convertor Station will in effect turn an agricultural landscape into an industrial one which is likely to encourage further similar development in the vicinity, which is in very close proximity to the South Downs National Park. still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if agreement is not reached wish to maintain their objection. reserve the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blake Morgan LLP on behalf of The Owners of Little Denmead Farm
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of the Owners of Little Denmead Farm ("the Farm") who wish to be registered as an organisation Interested Party for the forthcoming Examination of the AQUIND Interconnector Development Consent Order ("the DCO") application submitted by AQUIND Limited ("AQUIND"). The Farm is located on the proposed site of the Converter Station (Section 1) and our clients oppose the DCO as follows: 1. Compulsory Acquisition The compulsory acquisition elements of the DCO will affect 32 acres out of the Farm's 53 acres. Over 30 acres are to be compulsorily purchased (Plot 1-32), representing 58% of the Farm's landholding. With over 60% of the Farm being affected overall through the acquisition of new permanent access rights (plot 1-51), acquisition of permanent landscaping rights (Plots 1-38, 1-69, 1-70, and 1-72), and temporary possession of land (Plots 1-57 and 1-71), this will significantly interfere with our clients' farming activities. The Farm's landholding is relatively small compared to neighbouring landowners, and it will therefore have a disproportionate impact on them compared to others. There will be a significant detrimental impact on those remaining parts of the Farm that will not be subject to compulsory acquisition rights. The proposed acquisition will split up fields (for example the proposed permanent access route (Plot 1-51) will bisect the existing field into two), leaving small, irregular shaped paddocks without straight boundaries, making it difficult to carry out farming activities as there will be insufficient space for livestock grazing and access will be rendered difficult. There is no other suitable farming land of this size available in the vicinity to replace the land that will be lost. Reducing the Farm to just 22 acres means that the Farm is unlikely to be able to continue to operate as a viable business. have owned the Farm since 1939 and therefore face the prospect of having to end over 80 years of farming history. The DCO will also devalue the remaining parts of the Farm leaving little that is marketable as agricultural land and any alternative residential development potential will also be devalued due to the close proximity of the Converter Station. AQUIND have failed to adequately assess the significant harm that the DCO would have on the Farm's ability to function, considering only the type of agricultural land that would be lost and failing to consider the effect on the agricultural business that operates on that land. AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that the extent of the compulsory acquisition is necessary and proportionate, taking only what is required. For example, AQUIND have failed to demonstrate why the telecommunications building (in Plot 1-32) cannot be situated further east towards the woods, leaving the existing 4 acre paddock intact. AQUIND have failed to justify the need for the laydown area/works compound on the Plot to be required on a permanent basis for landscaping, when such landscaping will only consist of grassland rather than as screening, nor provided adequate justification as to why permanent landscaping rights are required in respect hedgerows which prevents our clients from being able to reshape the remaining parts of the Farm. Part of the Land is used in connection with stabling, with safe riding routes through . No information has been provided about what access rights our clients will be granted to cross the Access Road or other land that will be compulsorily purchased (e.g. for the daily walking of family dogs). AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition have been explored. The disproportionate harm and loss to our clients' interests significantly outweighs any public benefit. Accordingly, AQUIND's proposed interference with our clients' rights is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and does not meet the tests for compulsory acquisition. 2. Inadequate Consultation Our clients will be the worst affected of anyone by the DCO as the Converter Station is proposed to be located on their land. However, there has been a lack of engagement from AQUIND. They have failed to acknowledge or respond to requests from our clients for site meetings to discuss the proposals. Many elements of the scheme had not been finalised until the submission of the DCO application. This is the first time our clients have been able to review many of the proposals and comment on them. 3. Loss of Amenity The dust produced by construction traffic will settle on the adjoining fields and paddocks preventing grazing. The noise and vibration associated with such traffic and the noise from the cooling fans when operational will have a significant detrimental impact on our clients' use and enjoyment of their property, their day-to-day lives and on their livestock. The Converter Station is likely to encourage further similar development turning this agricultural landscape into an industrial area. 4. Proximity to South Downs National Park A recent planning application for a battery storage development was refused partly due to the close proximity of South Downs National Park. The Converter Station would hugely impact the area on the very edge of the National Park. Our clients are still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if agreement is not reached wish to maintain their objection. Our clients reserve the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Rowley
"1) Information about these works has only recently been posted on fixtures in and around Milton Common. They are severely weather damaged. They are very hard to see. I have spoken to a number of users of the routes and they have not seen these notices. 2) In respect of the above and the very short time frame (2nd Jan 2020 to 19th Feb 2020) whereby stakeholders have been given opportunity to respond and digest the extensive plans - this period is too short and not enough information has been given. 3) The cable is unnecessary and will not benefit the area it is supposed to serve. We have not been told of the source of the electricity coming through the cable (e.g. is it coming from Nuclear Power, Coal Power or renewable sources?) 4) There will likely be extensive disruption to transport links. Especially to cycling routes that are relied upon by members of the public of daily commutes. 5) Not enough is known about the disruption to wildlife - in particular the protected area around Langstone Harbour."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Havant Friends of the Earth
"Havant Friends of the Earth support the application, with reservations. In Support: With other interconnectors, Aquind will support the transition to more renewable sources of energy in the UK, by providing back up when these sources e.g. solar and wind, are in low production. It will provide greater energy security. While we re not happy that electricity from France is highly dependent on nuclear generation, another interconnector will reduce the pressure for the UK to build more nuclear power stations to back up supplies. Reservations: It is important that any work adjacent to Langstone Harbour and Farlington Playing Fields should take place between April and September so as to minimise disturbance to brent geese and waders. We have concerns about the environmental impact of the convertor station location and its approaches through Denmead. Proposals to use horizontal directional drilling under Denmead meadows and Kings Pond will be superficially less damaging to the site, but we note that there are risks to the underlying Aquifer Source Protection Zone which may impact on public water supplies at Bedhampton Springs. Has there been sufficient consultation with Portsmouth Water? Although no endangered species of wildlife have been noted on the site, it is adjacent to patches of ancient woodland and during the 2 year construction period there will be great noise and disturbance which will have an impact on whatever wildlife is there. Planting of trees, hedges and wildflowers, in mitigation and to screen the convertor station is to be welcomed. But it is important that the removal of existing trees and hedgerows should be kept to a minimum. It is appreciated that there will not be much human disturbance on the site, once the convertor station is operational but it is important that noise levels from its operation should be kept to the minimum with the maximum use of accoustic barriers. The landfall site at Eastney and route through Portsmouth and beyond will cause great disruption to people and traffic, even if this is only temporary. Of the many landfall sites originally considered, was there not a less disruptive option? IFA2 has the advantage of a less disruptive landfall site and less environmentally damaging location for its convertor station on a brownfield/airfield site. Would Aquind not be able to follow the same route?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey Bottrell
"I would like to know how this is going to affect the surrounding area. Trinity estates have received a planning application from Aquind.. I would like to know what impact this is going to cause myself and my family including how it will impact local bus services, how we are going to access Eastern Avenue and Eastern Road. I am also concerned about the environmental impact this will leave on the surrounding area and the pollution. I have spent a lot of money on the house I have bought and the information received is anything but clear and as a resident the communication should be clear!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Bee
"I do not think this plan is in the interest of my city or my local area. This proposal will cause traffic mayhem, destruction of our beautiful common. I believe there is a less intrusive way of doing this job. This plan is not the best way forward."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clara Allansson
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"Historic England (retaining the formal title of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England) is the government service championing England’s heritage and giving expert, constructive advice. We summarise our representation regarding this proposed project as follows: 1. There is potential for this development to impact upon the historic environment, and that without mitigation this impact will be significant in relation to some receptors, including maritime, aviation and prehistoric heritage assets within the Marine Cable Corridor and designated heritage assets within the onshore cable route. We are aware the application includes an Environmental Statement (ES) and some amendments have been made to the ES since our letter of 29th April 2019 in relation to the Preliminary Environmental Information Report stage. 2. For the onshore historic environment, we note that an Optical Regeneration Station (ORS) is to be positioned in the north-east corner of a car park, located west of Fort Cumberland (Eastney, Portsmouth) which is protected as a Scheduled Monument and Grade II* Listed Building. The ORS has a proposed height of 4m at a distance of around 250m from the glacis (an area of sloping ground constructed as a part of the outer defences) and screening is proposed. Although the positioning of the ORS should allow a partial continuation of the line of sight from the ravelin (a triangular structure located inside the main ditch of the fort as a forward defence point) towards Fort Cumberland Road, there will be some harm to the view. As a result of this we would want to see this line of sight maintained to maximum extent through the redesign or repositioning of the ORS, in agreement with Historic England. 3. The application includes an outline Marine Written Scheme of Investigation (WSI), PINS document Reference: 6.3.14.3) which sets out how the proposed project might mitigate against impact to the historic environment, to which we provided comments prior to the submission of this application. We will therefore be looking to ensure that the deemed Marine Licence within the proposed draft Development Consent Order (DCO) includes adequate provision for delivery of a project specific WSI (should consent be granted). 4. Any final and agreed Marine WSI must enable the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and reduce the impact from the development on the known and unknown historic environment. It is important that the marine WSI provides for the application of appropriate methodologies for further investigations conducted within the proposed project development area, as a key mechanism to inform the final stages of project planning, should consent be obtained. A relevant factor therefore is the timely way in which these matters are taken into consideration prior to the commencement of construction activities. Therefore, we recommend that the WSI is produced and agreed pre-commencement i.e. before the commencement of pre-construction activities and we will provide further advice within our Written Representation as necessary regarding Schedule 15 of the draft DCO. We will also provide further advice on any other matters relating to the proposed delivery of this development in reference to the details contained within the submitted DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ingie Porteous
"I am concerned about the proposed Aquind electricity supply cable making landfall in Eastney and the effect of the development required to continue this cable through its proposed route from Eastney, up the eastern edge of Portsea Island and further north through densely populated areas of Portsmouth and Waterlooville. I have concerns about: 1. the impact and probable disruption to traffic flow and access to roads, cycle ways, parks, green spaces, car parks, etc in my local area and beyond 2. the increased pollution, including noise, caused by increased works traffic, machinery in a city with very high levels of pollution 3. the length of time of the proposed project and vagueness of timings and plans 4. the lack of information provided to residents by the company 5. the unsuitability of Portsmouth, the second most densely populated city in the UK, as a route for a major electricity cable 6. the need for such an electricity supply in the first place to a country with such suitable electricity generating resources of its own"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kimberly Barrett
"I wish to object to the proposed Aquind Interconnector and plan on making an in depth written representation. ---------------------------------------------------------- I object to the Aquind Interconnector for these reasons: Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matthew Wright
"I wish to make known my negative opinion of the application and the negative impact the work would have on the land it would pass through."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Portsmouth Divisional Football Association
"This Association represents the interests of all local grassroots football leagues, youth and adult, male and female. We object in the strongest terms to these proposals. The impact that the works will have on the local sporting community, in particular football, will be catastrophic. There will be significant ongoing disruption at three football sites – Bransbury Park, Langstone Harbour and Farlington playing fields. This disruption could stretch across several seasons with significant reinstatement required after the initial works. History has shown that repair to pitches takes a long time with drainage etc often proving problematic. Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated cities in the UK, and is mostly an island with extremely limited green space. There is little potential to mitigate the loss of these pitches. Aquind has failed to engage with local groups, nor even the City Council, and currently argue that disruption will be only temporary when all experience shows that it will be long-lasting. The effect will be that fewer pitches will be available, which will obviously reduce participation at a time when we are attempting to improve the health of the population."
Other Statutory Consultees
PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and can confirm that: 1. We are satisfied with the methodology used to undertake the environmental assessment. 2. We note that operational emissions to air and ground water have been scoped out of the environmental assessment on the basis that traffic flows will be unaffected, and the onshore cable and converter station do not cause any emissions during operation. We are reassured that modelled air emissions from the use of backup diesel generators do not exceed air quality objectives and are likely to have a negligible impact on local air quality. 3. Potential impacts arising from historic ground contamination have been considered in the Environmental Statement and there is a requirement that a scheme to assess and manage these impacts be agreed with the relevant local authority in consultation with the Environment Agency, as the relevant regulatory authorities with regards to contaminated land. 4. The Onshore Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan includes provisions for the management, assessment and control of dust, pollution incidents, land contamination, plant and vehicle movements, impacts on water resources and waste management. The document proposes full consultation / agreement with the appropriate regulatory bodies and consequently we believe these matters can be satisfactorily addressed and wish to make no additional comments. 5. Potential impacts of the static and alternating electric and magnetic fields associated with the onshore electricity infrastructure have been considered and satisfactorily addressed, We are satisfied that, based on the submitted documentation and suggested control/mitigation measures, the development is unlikely to present a significant risk to public health. For that reason, we do not wish to register an interest in the application on this occasion. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Salt
"Traffic and parking problems"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blake Morgan LLP on behalf of Robin Jefferies
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of Robin Jefferies who wishes to be registered as an Interested Party for the forthcoming examination of the AQUIND Interconnector Development Consent Order ("the DCO") application submitted by AQUIND Limited ("AQUIND"). Mr Jefferies is the freehold owner of Mill View Farm, The Farm is located on the proposed site of the Converter Station (Section 1) and our client opposes the DCO on the following grounds: 1. Compulsory Acquisition The compulsory acquisition element of the DCO will affect a total area measuring 12,633 square metres. 9,495 square metres are to be compulsorily purchased (Plot 1-29) and 3,138 square metres will be subject to permanent landscaping rights (Plots 1-26 and 1-30). The 8 acre field in Plot 1-29 ("the Field") will be reduced by 2.5 acres, a reduction of over 30%. This will significantly interfere with our client's activities on this land. The Field is used in connection with stabling and is let out to a tenant who runs horse livery stable. With the loss of over 30% the remaining size of the Field will be too small to enable his tenant to continue to run the livery business there and will need to vacate, thus denying our client with a source of income. The Field will essentially become sterilised as it would be too small to rent out for any other form of agricultural use. Any residential development potential would also be negated due to the close proximity of the Convertor Station and the direct views that any such properties would have over it. The screening proposed on Plot 1-29 will not mature for many years and in any event would not completely screen the 26 metre high building. AQUIND have also failed to demonstrate that the extent of the compulsory acquisition is necessary and proportionate, taking only what is required. AQUIND have failed to justify the need for permanent landscaping rights over the hedgerows in Plots 1-26 and 1-30, when such hedgerows run perpendicular to the Convertor Station and offer no screening value. AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition have been explored. The disproportionate harm and loss to our client's interests significantly outweighs any public benefit. Accordingly, AQUIND's proposed interference with our client's rights is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and does not meet the tests for compulsory acquisition. Our client is still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if agreement is not reached Mr Jefferies wishes to maintain his objection. Our client reserves the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simone Taylor-Gray
"I wish to object to the Aquind Interconnector as Portsmouth cannot cope with the disruption to the island. Portsmouth Council have objected to this also and I wish to be registered as an interested party as a resident of Portsmouth who will be affected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Gosham
"concerned about the impact during and after the proposal"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Blake Morgan LLP on behalf of The Owners of Hillcrest
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of the Owners of Hillcrest, Old Mill Lane, Lovedean ("the Property") who wish to be registered as an organisation Interested Party for the forthcoming examination of the AQUIND Interconnector Development Consent Order ("the DCO") application submitted by AQUIND Limited ("AQUIND"). The Property is located on the proposed site of the Converter Station (Section 1) and our clients oppose the DCO on the following grounds: 1. Loss of Amenity Our clients have lived at the Property for over 30 years and are now in their seventies. The Property comprises a 3 storey dwelling with balconies on every floor at the rear which look directly on to the proposed Converter Station site. Our clients value the rural setting with their views of the meadow at the rear and surrounding countryside and the wildlife that they can observe such as deer and kestrels. The field at the back of the Property slopes downwards in a southerly direction. At 26 metres high, the Converter Station will be clearly visible and have an overbearing impact as the Property will overlook down on to the site. The proposed landscaping will not grow sufficiently tall enough to screen the Converter Station and, in any event, will take at least 10 years before any such trees are able to provide any form of partial screening. The noise, light and dust produced during construction and the noise from the subsequent operation of the Converter Station will have a significant detrimental impact on their day-to-day lives. Options B(i) and B(ii) will both have a very similar impact as the Converter Station would be located directly behind the Property. Were the Converter Station to be located elsewhere, or at least further east, it would reduce that impact. 2. Compulsory Acquisition The compulsory acquisition element of the DCO will affect a total area measuring 12,852 square metres. Over 10,074 square metres (2.5 acres) are to be compulsorily purchased (Plot 1-23) and 2,778 square metres will be subject to permanent landscaping rights (Plots 1-11, 1-13, 1-15, 1-16, 1-17, 1-19 and 1-24). AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that the extent of the compulsory acquisition is necessary and proportionate, taking only what is required. AQUIND have failed to justify the need for permanent landscaping rights over the hedgerows when such hedgerows either run perpendicular to the Convertor Station or run alongside Old Mill Lane and offer no screening value to any residential properties. AQUIND have failed to demonstrate that all reasonable alternatives to compulsory acquisition have been explored. The disproportionate harm and loss to our clients' interests significantly outweighs any public benefit. Accordingly, AQUIND's proposed interference with our clients' rights is not justified having regard to Article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR and does not meet the tests for compulsory acquisition. Our clients are still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if agreement is not reached the Owners of Hillcrest wish to maintain their objection. Our clients reserve the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Southsea Brewing Co.
"I own a business which is based in the proposed area for this project and I believe it will have a significant negative impact on my business and also the people in the community we serve. The points I intend to make are that this project is not suitable for such a densely populated area and the financial benefits of the project are not going to help the people affected by it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vienna Crimes
"I reject the necessity of this project due to the transport, pollution, wildlife devastation and disruption to community open places whilst providing no benefit to the people of portsmouth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allison Udy
"Portsmouth is already congested with traffic problems and heavily populated, in fact I understand it to be the most populated city outside of London. Conbined with the fact that we're an island, it's hard to understand why the city has been chosen for the access route for the cable. Surely, there are more rural routes tgat would cause less disruption - even coming in at Hayling Island and travelling up the west side with very few, if any, dwellings and rioads makes far more sense. Portsmouth has a popular foitball team that already causes traffic chaos in the winter and is a popular seaside resort that equally causes chaos in the summer months! Disruption to huge numbers of residents and commuters could be avoided if plans were diverted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Farrelly
"I wish to object to the Aquind Interconnector and will be submitting a more detailed written representation. My main points will include the chaos its work will cause to Portsmouth"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Annette Sartori
"I live on [Redacted]. To the back there is a small nature reserve. Ripping into this will be devastating to the people and wildlife that live here. Further down ripping into a close community narrow roads already. With an over populated area are busy. Roadworks of any description are just horrendous. Why can it not go up Langstone channel under the sea. It’s come across the channel so why not a bit further. We don’t want this in our area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Smith
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: ? Traffic and Transport; ? Air Quality; ? Nosie and Vibration; ? Landscape and Visual; ? Heritage and Archaeology; ? Ecology (with Arboriculture); ? Socio-economics; ? Water Resources and Flood Risk; ? Ground Conditions; ? Carbon and Climate Change; ? Human Health; ? Soils and Land Use; ? Electric and Magnetic Fields; and ? Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Wright
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Jones
"That the route will cause unnecessary disruption That the impact on wildlife will be irreparable That the destruction of habitats is unnecessary That there are better and less disruptive options"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Ash
"The proposed project is not wanted by the people or City of Portsmouth. It will cause major disruption to a major artery, the Eastern Road, one of only three routes into the city. Portsmouth is an overpopulated island, with densities of people second only to London. It already has dangerously high levels of air pollution and this project will only add to that. The proposed route through Milton Common will damage wildlife. The route through Bransbury Park and Milton Allotments will seriously disrupt leisure activities. I note with some disquiet that the application documents were lodged by Aquind in many libraries except the Beddow Library, in Milton, and the Lacey Library in Baffins, the most affected areas. Aquind need to explain how this happened. No-one in Portsmouth and especially the Eastney, Milton and Baffins areas wants this unnecessary project. It will be detrimental to the people of Portsmouth and the promise of cheap electricity may be a pipe dream post-Brexit. It will amount to over 600 days of pure hell for Portmuthians, and for little or no advantage to anyone except Aquind and its Russian backers. Do not approve this project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dan Brookes
"This will cause major traffic issue and effect local wildlife"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Danielle Preston
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Jordan
"It makes no sense to land the supply in the southern end of Portsea Island. It only makes sense to land it at the northern end of Langstone harbour."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dawn Gilbert
"Outline for representation Route a) potential gridlock in and out of Portsmouth b) request rationale for proposed route to previous submission and location of interconnector The % of the UK country which will benefit . % of Aquind benefits to their customers overseas . Estimated cost and time for works Impact on local wildlife Impact on residents within the vicinity - possible compulsory purchases - loss of business due to disruptions while works are carried out"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deborah Cutler
"There is no need to import energy from another country, alternatives such as wind power should be investigated. Much damage will be done to the local wildlife and environment. Landfall could be at the top of Langstone Harbour instead of having to go all the way through the east side of Portsmouth destroying allotments, parks etc and disruption to already congested roads for over a year will make travel within Portsmouth a nightmare at peak times."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debra Wallace
"Portsmouth is the most highly populated island city in Britain. This means that the digging up of one of the 3 roads in and out of the city will cause major disruption. There are many less populated areas on the southern coast these need to be looked at instrad of Portsmouth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Roberts
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ed Waller
"The UK has little difficulty in generating sufficient energy for its needs. Further until the UK government has fully investigated renewable energy within the UK, developing market opportunities that offer little guarantee of positive environmental impact. The installation of a connection between France and England will necessary cause environmental damage as well as disruption to the local natural environment. In short, there is no demonstrated need for the installation. Secondly the damage to local environments is unwanted, unwarranted and irresponsible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Doyle
"The intention by Aquind to lay this cable in the route outlined will cause unacceptable disruption to many Portsmouth residents, allotment owners, dog walkers as well as causing irreparable damage to conservation areas and wildlife. The necessity of this cable is not justified and consideration of local opinion has not been taken into account. The impact of the high voltage cable could be detrimental to health, land is linked to cancers and mental illness."
Members of the Public/Businesses
First Hampshire Dorset and Berkshire
"I think there are valid points to raise in line with the economic growth and the potential to affect our revenue growth throughout what will be months of disruption. Whilst We fully accept that this work has to continue we cannot dismiss the impact for our customers and the effect on future growth for the area – we have just as recently as January invested £4m in 24 new vehicles to operate on The Star route (Routes 7&8) along the A3 corridor. This investment was coupled with our plans to maintain and go on to improve our punctuality and reliability along this very busy route. With these new vehicles we fully expect to attract more passengers, impact on congestion and improve Air Quality within the area. We are looking to encourage more people out of cars and onto buses, the impact of the works has the potential to reverse this with existing and new customers choosing the car as they can divert to alternative routes. This will then potentially have a downturn in levels of service which ultimately is not in the interest of passenger transport. The net result being of course a fall in numbers which will not support any future investment,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Butt
"Objections to Aquind plan to place interconnector at Eastney and run through Milton, Baffins and along the Eastern Rd."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gp Capt S A Hickey OBE
"I object most strongly to the proposal. Digging up roads and communities when Langstone Harbour is available is wrong"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Graham O’Neil
"I am shortly going to be moving into Meon Rd. Public consultation for this project has been extremely poor. There are questions over the access to information via the USB sticks that were all were not sent to local libraries. The company claiming that 52% agreed with the plans are ridiculous since this agreement was made before details of the route were known. The environmental impact Will be huge and there are no plans in place to adequately deal with the impact. Overall, the impact on the residents of the city, the most densely populated city in the UK outside of London, have not been adequately addressed. The impact on the lives and well-being of the residents has not been properly considered."
Local Authorities
Hampshire County Council
"This is a single representation from Hampshire County Council (the Council) which summarises the current position of the Authority. The response progresses discussions which have taken place to date between the Council and the Applicant. It is accepted that the Development Consent Order process is ongoing and that many of the technical issues are the basis of individual discussions between the Council and the Applicant and are likely to be the subject of further discussion in the Local Impact Report. It is also acknowledged that the position of the Council on specific issues will evolve over the course of the DCO. At the time of writing this representation the Council’s main areas of concern are summarised in the following key areas: Highways – the Council are pleased with the progress of engagement with the Applicant to date, who have considered many of the Councils concerns and recommendations. However, the Council are seeking additional information in order to fully assess the application, including further clarification and justification as to why there are no suitable alternatives to the utilisation of the A3 and B2150 for cable laying in order to ensure the prolonged delay and disruption to the general public can be considered a necessity for the delivery of this project. The Council will seek appropriate mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the development and ensure residents, nearby development sites and businesses are not unduly affected by the proposed works. The Council notes that the submitted DCO is seeking to disapply elements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) and the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA). The Council’s overriding concern is that its ability to manage and coordinate activities on the Highways is not unduly prejudiced, to ensure they are safely executed and the specification for the reinstatement of openings in Highways is complied with as required. As such, it’s preference is to retain the elements of the NRSWA and TMA that the applicant seeks to disapply, including the provision of the permit scheme that the Council operates. In the absence of such an agreement with the applicant, it will seek to ensure that there is suitable wording, and agreement about the extent and format of information to be provided, within the DCO to replicate the requirements of these Acts to ensure that the operation of the highways are effectively controlled and managed. The proposals as set out by the applicant in the DCO for agreeing road space are likely to be resource intensive. Additional resources will therefore be needed to manage and coordinate the works and funds are likely to be sought from the applicant to undertake these additional tasks. Lead Local Flood Authority – the Council have some reservations about the flood risk assessment as submitted and have requested further information on a number of specific areas of uncertainty. The Council welcomes the provision made to ensure a consent/permit application is submitted in relation to those temporary or permanent works affecting capacity of ordinary watercourses. The Council is also concerned that the submitted DCO, as prepared, does not fully recognise the responsibilities of the LLFA in relation to surface water management nor provide sufficient details of a surface water drainage scheme. As with the highway considerations, it is likely that the additional resources required to oversee this work will need to be provided. Funds from the applicant are therefore likely to be sought in this regard. Heritage – the Council are generally satisfied with the information submitted in the Environmental Statement in relation to the three proposed strategies (greenfield, brownfield and highway) for addressing the archaeological potential within the route parameters. Landscape - The development will undeniably have a significant effect on both the landscape character and appearance on parts of the proposed route, particularly the proposed additional building at Lovedean. We note the concerns expressed by other local planning authorities in this regard, and seek further information on the details and justification for the proposal, including the bulk, size and siting of the building. Nevertheless, we note that the proposed mitigation appears to be in scale with the development and is capable of reducing the impact of the proposal in the landscape. Overall level of detail – there remains some concerns about the level of detail submitted, including the tolerance/flexibility currently provided for in the on-shore route and design/siting of above ground infrastructure. Hampshire County Council will continue engagement with the Applicant on these matters and detailed comments on the outstanding issues will be included in the Local Impact Report."
Local Authorities
Havant Borough Council
"Following the Planning Inspectorate’s acceptance of an application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for Aquind Interconnector, Havant Borough Council (HBC) is a host Borough requests to be registered as an Interested Party at the Examination. Havant Borough Council is not a unitary authority and therefore a number of matters, such as Highways, Transport and Archaeology fall within the remit of Hampshire County Council (HCC). This letter provides a summary of the main aspects of the proposal which HBC is presently able to confirm that it agrees and/or disagrees, together with an appropriate explanation, in accordance with the Planning Inspectorate Advice Note 8.3. The response below is an initial response as the Council is currently reviewing the detailed documentation submitted with the DCO application and therefore the Council reserves the right to make further written representations during the examination should it be required. The issues raised will be the subject of detailed written representations and a Local Impact Report which will be submitted during the examination process. Site selection HBC has considered the Environmental Statement Chapter 2 – Consideration of alternatives chapter, following concerns raised in our PIER response. HBC outlined to the applicant that there would also appear to be opportunities to take the cable off the highway and these should be given serious consideration by the applicant, with evidence provided if these are not considered acceptable. Paragraph 2.6.3, considers the proposed West Waterlooville Alternative Route, which would enable the cabling to avoid pinch points of the highway network around Waterlooville. The following paragraphs which have discounted this option, does not give any compelling advice that this option has been seriously considered by the applicant, no evidence has been provided of correspondence with Berewood, who are the landowners of the West of Waterlooville Major Development Area (MDA). Neither has this been supplemented with any information regarding the delivery programme for works for the MDA. As such HBC have concerns as to whether this alternative routing has been seriously considered. Alternative Countryside Routes HBC and Winchester City Council (WCC) also suggested a proposed alternative countryside route. The applicant has provided information in paragraphs 2.6.4-2.6.4.5 inclusive. It is acknowledged that designations do exist across the countryside route, however this proposed alterative appears to have been ruled out without full reference or sufficient information, in the form of appropriate mapping of constraints, which would enable the cabling across the countryside to avoid the constraints that have been highlighted, and in addition avoid the MDA, which is a further issue that has been highlighted. Noise, Vibration and air quality HBC acknowledges Chapters 23, and 24 which relate to this subject matter. HBC acknowledges that the impact would be temporary, whoever adequate measures need to be secured in the proposed CEMP. We will be providing a more detailed response on this points in the Local Impact Report (LIR). Socio-Economics Chapter 25 of the Environmental Statement considers the socio-economic impacts of the development. HBC raised concerns about potential effects on community resources, amenity, and accessibility, and businesses which may suffer disruption during the Construction Stage. It is noted that the applicant proposes to control such matter through the Onshore Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). HBC would request that discussions regarding programming should be proactively held with the Highway Authority, local business groups and local Councillors to ensure that road space conflicts are managed, and to utilise extensive local knowledge. This will ensure that any proposed traffic management systems and diversion routes are appropriate, access is a fundamental issue that would need resolving, to ensure that the construction phase does not significantly adversely impact on the viability of businesses and residents during this period. In conclusion, mitigation and, where necessary, compensation, is the only way, in HBC’s view, that many of the issues can be addressed. HBC continues to discuss the proposals, but as highlighted in this representation there remain issues where greater clarity and detail is required."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Shortall
"I wish to object to the Aquind Interconnector for various reasons and have a written objection to submit. Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Highways England
"Dear Sir/Madam Highways England wishes to register as an interested party in respect of the application by Aquind Limited for an Order Granting Development Consent for the Aquind Interconnector. Highways England is a strategic road authority appointed by the Secretary of State as the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road Network (SRN). In respect of the application our particular interest is in the A27 Trunk Road. Amongst other things Highways England's licence to operate as a strategic highway authority requires us to ensure the effective operation of the SRN; protect and improve its safety and to conform to the principle of sustainable development. Sustainable development means encouraging economic growth while protecting the environment and improving safety and quality of life for current and future generations. The Secretary of State's policy in respect of the SRN and the delivery of sustainable development is set out in Department for Transport Circular 02/2013 (Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development). Highways England has been actively engaged in discussion with the applicant and its project team up to the present time with a view to ensuring that the proposed Aquind Interconnector will not have a severe and detrimental impact on the SRN. Discussions are ongoing and meetings will be arranged with the applicant and neighbouring highway authorities as necessary. Currently formal agreement has not been reached between Highways England and the Applicant due to insufficient information available at this time. In particular the draft Order contains no protective provisions for the benefit of Highways England, these should, for example, provide for the procedures to ensure the safety and structural integrity of the SRN. Also the traffic impacts of the proposed development on the SRN during construction and operation and any mitigation required have not been established to the satisfaction of Highways England. Accordingly Highways England at this stage currently formally objects to the making of the draft Order until agreed next steps are in place. In summary the currently identified issues to be resolved are as follows: We are in ongoing dialogue with the applicant to develop assessments to identify the potential impacts to SRN and to the local road network. This in turn will be used to develop and identify an appropriate traffic management package throughout the period of construction to ensure the continued safety of the travelling public. It is recognised that the majority of impacts will be on the local road network managed by Hampshire County Council and Portsmouth City Council respectively, therefore agreement will need to be reached by all three highway authorities. Discussion is ongoing and meetings have been arranged and it is anticipated this will be resolved prior to examination. It will be necessary for the applicant to gain formal agreement to drill beneath the A27. This is expected to be approved under a New Roads and Street Works Act license which will be supported by detailed geotechnical assessments to ensure the structural integrity of the SRN at all times. Dialogue has commenced between Highways England geotechnical advisors and the applicant to detail the information required by Highways England and for Highways England to provide any information it holds to inform subsequent assessments. It is recognised that the drilling will take place 18 metres beneath the A27, therefore risk to the A27 is low, and due to this we anticipate this matter will be resolved prior to or during the examination. Within the book of reference there are a number of parcels of land identified as registered to Highways England. We believe this is incorrect and should be registered to Hampshire County Council as they are subsoils for roads that where de-trunked a number of years ago. Only parcel number 7-22 to our understanding, is correctly registered to Highways England. We will shortly commence dialogue with Hampshire County Council to resolve this issue and it is anticipated it will be resolved prior to or during the examination. Dialogue continues between the Applicant and Highways England with a view to reaching agreement before the end of the Examination and a Statement of Common Ground (SOCG) is expected to be submitted before the Examination begins."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Daye
"I object to the Aquind application and will submit a full written objection at the relevant time. I am a resident living in the effected area of this application. My main but not whole objections at this stage are the lack of information provided to me by the applicants of their final proposed route throughout Portsea Island and the large scale disruption that this will cause to residents, the environment and transport infrastructure over what will be a long period of time in what is a highly populated, crammed, island city. There are clearly other less impactive and disruptive routes available."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Stantec on behalf of Investin Portsmouth Ltd
"We have reviewed the information provided in relation to the Aquind Interconnector Proposal (Planning Inspectorate Reference EN020022). At this time, we propose that a HOLDING OBJECTION is made until the points below can be formally responded on. This recommendation is based on the premise that N&R are leading on the development of the Fraser Range site and that these works are in close proximity and indeed based on the legal drawings are seeking an easement across land controlled by N&R for the development (predominantly a section of the beach). Given that the application on the Fraser Range Site is still with Portsmouth City Council and yet to be determined and that the Aquind Proposals cross the proposed off site works proposed as part of the Fraser Range development, new access road, redefined car park and access and enhanced SINC. To minimise risk to the Fraser Range project we recommend that the following questions are asked, and suitable responses sought from the Aquind Project Team, given the possible overlap of the developments in terms of works and programme. Key Issues The following highlight the key issues to be addressed: 1. The proposed works require an area of land (easement on the beach) which is in the control of Fraser Range. 2. The new cable crosses the current road/access to Fraser Range which is due to be widened and upgraded with a new footpath/cycle way, which would overlap with the Aquind Compound. 3. The car park area being used for the compound is being altered in terms of access as part of the new road works. 4. The SINC (nature area) next to the car park is due to be enhanced by the Fraser Range proposals as such will be impacted by the compound and operations. Summary of Questions Given these key points we would seek clarification on the following 1 Timing: Can you please confirm the works programme for all aspects, so this can be compared to the Fraser Range Development, given both projects will need to use the same road to service their sites and routes to and from as to be agreed with PCC? 2 Coverage of Compound: The area shown utilises the car park as currently on site. There is concern that additional land may be required and such it could impact the SINC and any works that are being undertaken in support of the Fraser Range project. In addition, the new road, will reduce the current width of the car park and the access junction and boundary fences and could clash with the Aquind works? 3 Vibration: Both projects will inure earth works, boring, piling and open cut, possibly in close proximity to each other, as such is there any risk of vibration impacting the neighbouring sites. Clarification on exact methodology and timing should be requested? 4 Access Road: This is a key point in that subject to the timeline of both projects, the Aquind proposal cross the new road. Even if boring at depth there needs to a coordination of works, as Fraser Range has to widen this road and will also be introducing new utilities along this road at depth. There is a need to make sure works are not conflicted, given the road works will be traditional cut and fill. If for any reason the Aquind works need to break ground prior to the car park, that could impact on access to the site, again this programme and methodology related and requires clarity? 5 Legal Status: We need clarity on future legal status of the easement area on the beach as Fraser Range needs to retain access to the beach and has to tie in the new sea wall with the current arrangements to the west of the site, as such works will need to be carried out in the easement area. As such either before or after the works can Structure/landscaping/drainage etc be considered in that area.? 6 Access to beach: The easement area has to retain public access to the beach, will this be the case? 7 Shape of Easement: Why does easement flare given cable line is at 90 degrees to shore, clarification is required? 8 Method and Delivery of Mitigation: We have an agreement with Natural England and PCC the works required in the SINC and on site, what have Aquind agreed, is it in line with the Fraser Range proposals. From discussions it is suggested that nothing has been discussed or agreed, if this is the case it could delay of the Fraser Range application? 9 Cumulative Assessment: Has the Aquind Project team engaged with Natural England in terms of cumulative effect of their works with ours? This is offered as a high-level list for clarification by the Aquind Tram, it is not exhaustive, but these key issues that need to be considered and agreed prior to removing the holding objection. Indeed, it may be prudent to meet with the Aquind team and discuss the above and any other aspect of their proposals including any legal contracts, this may be a more productive approach than simply exchange of data via emails. We have provided this letter “without prejudice” as a high-level review of the possible impact of the Aquind proposals on the Fraser Range development proposals. As stated, we suggest that you submit a “Holding Objection” to the works until the above can be discussed, agreed or clarified. As with any development there is scope to mitigate impact and reduce abortive works, but this will require liaison with the Aquind project team."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Baker
"I am against this proposal on the grounds of the pollution , the upheaval, and destruction of the last green area in Portsmouth.."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jim Roberts
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katrina Corby
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: ? Traffic and Transport; ? Air Quality; ? Nosie and Vibration; ? Landscape and Visual; ? Heritage and Archaeology; ? Ecology (with Arboriculture); ? Socio-economics; ? Water Resources and Flood Risk; ? Ground Conditions; ? Carbon and Climate Change; ? Human Health; ? Soils and Land Use; ? Electric and Magnetic Fields; and ? Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Baker
"This development will cause untold nuisance for residents especially regard to traffic on one of the busiest roads in one of the UK's most densely populated cities. I can see no benefit to local residents of this but much disruption. I am also concerned about threats to wildlife in Eastney."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Dean
"Why should we allow this power line to run through our city and have no say or recompense over it?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelly Martin
"I totally object to this project to route the aquind cable through Miltom Portsmouth. It will bring chaos and disruption we do not need. Local people and wildlife will be affected by this. I have an alotment with newts that might be protected. This will have a negative impact on so many people. People put huge amounts of effort into growing their own food. You cannot just run a tunnel through this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kelvin Pyne
"This would pass out side my house and l object strongly,totally unwarranted"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kirstin Knowlson-clark
"I object to the aquind planning because of the following reasons Environmental impact on the local area. Milton Common is an area which supports many birds, foxes, and is an area of natural beauty rare in a city. It provides a space for people to enjoy and walk their dogs. As it is reclaimed land it still requires methane ventilation and any construction work would be a risk. Also it will disturb the rubbish buried underground. The impact on Langstone harbour and Farington marshes also is of grave concern. The disruption to the furze lane bus route, the only route in this area will cause no end of issues both for children and elderly who rely on this route. The construction traffic and the actual ground works will also cause massive disruption in an already conjested roads and increase pollution levels. There is nothing that this application has that is positive to the city. The area. The environment. I object."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Williams
"I would like to lodge my objection to this project. The planned route will destroy a lot of open common ground. I was awful when permission was given to the water company to sink tanks in Bransbury park. To now rip it all apart again would be utter scandalous. This piece of land was given to the people of Milton many years ago & should remain that way. To also destroy the allotments as more & more people are struggling to feed themselves is beyond comprehension. This project is critically flawed & would cause major disruption along a vital route into the city, just as more housing is being built. Cough cough turn your engine off is a joke. More pollution will definitely be caused."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lois Marshall
"I strongly object to the proposal which I believe will damage the environment, cause unacceptable traffic chaos and cause the quality of life for the local population to be unacceptable fore many years. It is unacceptable for dubious benefits. Further investigation needs to take place re a less damaging route. The damage to the environment would be irreparable. The damage to the health. mental and physucal of the inhabitants of portsmouth have not been taken into account. Profit seems to be put above the well being of people and the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorraine Willis
"Disruption to my area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louisa Newport
"I am verh concerned about the route, the lack of adequate condultation and consuderstion of local residents, businesses and effect on environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Mills
"I wish to object to the AQUIND interconnector for various reasons. As a local resident I object to the way the whole process has been handled, we have only resently been made aware of the proposed route. Letters were sent out to elderly neighbours requesting private information and causing great concern. The route will take away our use of Brabsbury park and the allotments, we do not no if we will loose the use of ours.we have frogs toads and newt son our plot and slow worms all of these are protected species. It is inappropriate to disturb our wildlife. The disruption to the lives off Portsmouth residents will be intolerable we will be trapped in a crowded city with our main archery road dug up and disrupted for nearly a year . Why take a route through one of the most densely populated cities in the country an island city at that .Why when there are other locations that would ot affect so many why why why must we have this through our neighbourhood and city.We do not want or need this in our neighbourhood.We have been treated very. Shoddily by AQUIND and I object vigorously. I could go on and on with objection. I object to the way this has been handled and the process seems to difficult to object if you are not computer literate,it seems very ageist to prevent my generation objecting to something we do not want. Ian greatly worried about the health impact of this cable, do we no the effect of the magnetic field on health. A lot of the land has previously been used as land fill and unknown rubbish tipped much navel waste etc. What will be unearthed and what affect will it have on our lives. This forms part of my objection. ----------------------- I am an interested resident who wishes to object to the above. But firstly I wish to bring to your notice the complicated method of objecting I have registered and had notice that it had been forwarded but an hour before the closing time I still have not recieved an email to continue, this stricks me as a process that is designed to prevent local residents voiceing our opinions an older person that is not very computer literate I feel it is very unfair and many residents in my Road have found it to complicated to object. my first objection is it is totally inappropriate to bring this ashore in such a densely poputlated city . it could have gone onto Harlingen island d not disrupted the lives of the residents of Portsmouth. much of the proposed route through Milton has previously been used for tip,much of it naval waste.what polutant s will we be exposed to. the route across the allotments will destroy or pest the wildlife, on our allotment we have frogs toads and newts and sloworms have been sited. these are all protected species. it then continues through a nature reserve and again disturb wildlife when eventually it reaches the eastern Road it will cause mayor traffic problem on one of the 3 main arc heroes in the city causing extra pollution and disruption to our lives for up to a year are we to remain trapped in Milton for this length of time, it could bring a standstill to the city and mayor traffic jams it is then proposed to cross the water and go through Farlington Marses another protected site yet again disturbing wildlife Why why why do we have to endure this disruption for a private company and profits we should be looking to more sustainable energy . will there been an impact on the health on the people living in the near the underground cables no one is yet sure the effects of the magnetic fields. These are a few of my objections to the proposal I could go on but time is running out. because the initial registration form was completed I may have filled an objection in a box on the form. I am not sure is so apologies the whole process is no user friendly. Lynn Mills."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynne Lush
"I wish to register my many objections to this AQUIND Interconnector proposal. I feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019, right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General Election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert us, the residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken in to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter we received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents. We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern Road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment on the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to limit the impact on the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone Harbour but at the allotments, Farlington Marshes and Bransbury Park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot lose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton Common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected receive financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project will force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us, the residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynsey Christopher
"I intend to notify of my objections to this plan. Apologies my RR didn’t contain enough information, the form wasn’t clear - I thought I would be asked for more details at a later stage. Anyway, I massively object to this plan. I live at [ ], right in the middle of the planned 66 week disruption. Our house faces the skate park - I would like to know what plans there are to replace the facilities? This stupid idea will cause major disruption to the local flora and fauna, the allotment owners will suffer and likely lose years of hard work and dedication. Why oh why do we need electricity from France? What about renewable energy sources? What about investing in something home grown? This city is massively over populated, the proposal involves tunnelling along a major road, need I go on? It is a recipe for disaster. Interesting also how the owner of Acquind has thrown loads of money at the Tories, a party the majority of Portsmouth South did not vote for. What is this ludicrous idea costing? What will France be charging the UK for its electricity?!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maritime & Coastguard Agency
"Dear PINS, The MCA is a Statutory Consultee and Primary Advisor to the Marine Licensing regulators, and we would appreciate the opportunity to assess the impact of the proposed Aquind Interconnector on the safety of navigation and the UK’s search and rescue capabilities. We expect a Navigation Risk Assessment (NRA) to be carried out which demonstrates that the risk to the safety of navigation can be suitably mitigated to our satisfaction, and that the risk remains As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP). We also have an interest in the proposals for the cable burial, and any cable protection required, and the impact of the works which will take place in close proximity to the Dover Strait Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS). Yours Faithfully, Thomas Bulpit Marine Licencing Lead MCA Navigation Safety Branch"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Lacey
"the massive disruption that the digging up of numerous major busy roads will cause. the possible health implications of super high voltage cables under the road of busy streets why are we trying to bring power from the continent rather than make it ourselves and be independent"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Juchau
"I would like to strongly object to the plans set out by Aquind. I think the whole communication process has been shocking and the impact on the local community un-considered. The EIAs all focus on the impacts after works have been completed. There is little consideration of the huge traffic issues, the MASSIVE increase in air pollution bought on by the stationary traffic - no consideration for vulnerable people such as the elderly or children. I want my objection to be noted. There is no benefit to the local community for this and quite frankly no real mention as to who or why it was decided that the cables should be dug under one of the most densely populated cities in England."
Members of the Public/Businesses
MR KE SIKORA
"I WISH TO ASSESS THE IMPASCT OF THE PROPOSED INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ON URBAN DISLOCATION"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Judith Webberley
"I strongly object to the Aquind development proposal for the following reasons: 1. The size and nature of proposed development is in direct contrast to the present characteristic of the area, which is chiefly agricultural. Aquind’s reasoning for using this Proposed Place is based on one of their fundamental arguments, namely the need to site the Converter Station as close as possible to the existing substation. However they are using an arbitrary figure of 2 km for ‘as close as’, which very conveniently is exactly the Proposed Place. In fact there is nearby one High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) Interconnector already under construction, namely IFA2 at Daedalus Airfield, Leigh on the Solent. There the distance between Converter Station and National Grid is approx 7 km. Using this distance from Lovedean there would have been potential sites more suited to industrial usage. 2. From their first public consultations in our area Aquind has been consistently underplaying the size and the obtrusiveness of the Converter Station. Our house is No.7 on the list of ‘Residential Receptors’ (PEIR Chapter 15 Section 5.2.47). The view from the back garden is just 200m from View point B, used to illustrate the visual impact of the Converter Station on the landscape. The actual and most recent view is now shown on EN020022-000722-6.2.15.36 ES - Vol 2 - Figure 15.36 Viewpoint B View from Old Mill Lane (south west). The huge building shown, which will clearly be visible even after 20 years growth of vegetation, is in direct contrast to the idealized view shown at the Public Exhibitions during January 2018 and even to Figure 9 of View point B on page 34 of the Consultation Document (February 2019). This view (Figure 9) was even referred to the Denmead Parish Council (District Cll. Brook’s question) as being an illustrative image. 3. A minor point: there is an Access Point shown on a drawing, which does not exist. It is on Figure 15.49 Indicative Landscape Mitigation Plan Option B(i) south (Envirtonmental Statement – Volume 2). The access point is shown in Broadway Lane (south) approx. 15m from its junction with Edney’s Lane/Old Mill Lane."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Julie Grove
"I wish to object to Aquind interconnected for the following reasons destruction it will cause to wildlife habitats and vegetation. Air quality issues, major disruption with it effecting major junctions and roads with the real possibility of causing gridlock as there are only 3 roads on and off the Island. Impact on different species and plant life with, Langstone harbour, allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. Loss of green and community spaces. Milton common is reclaimed land and a protective skin was placed over it to prevent the escape of methane gas -how will this been managed? It will cause major disruption all through the area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs S Bagnall
"I wish to strongly object to the Aquino Interconnector being pushed through Eastney and consequently the island of Portsmouth to link up to Lovedean. No consideration has been given to the residents and it has all been kept under wraps and not brought to the citizens attention so it can just go ahead giving no one chance to object. Even though our council has it has just been ignored! ------------------------- I wish to strongly object to the power lines coming through Portsmouth. This is going to cause total chaos in our city to residents and citizens alike and should have never been given the go ahead. Our local council has objected but has been totally ignored and I have tried to put in an objection but although it was accepted you did not send me an email to make it official! Obviously you decided to ignore my request along with any other residents so any objections were not received by the closing date tonight! THIS IS TOTALLY OUT OF ORDER ALL RESIDENTS HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO ENTER AN OBJECTION AND YOU HAVE DELIBERATELY OUT OF YOUR WAY TO MAKE THIS COMPLETELY DIFFICULT AND VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THEREFORE PLEASE NOW ACCEPT THIS EMAIL AS MY OFFICIAL OBJECTION THANK YOU MRS S BAGNALL"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Neil Hawkins
"I object to this application du to the issues it will cause the residents and businesses in Portsmouth: - traffic congestion - air quality (pollution) - environmental impact (loss of green space)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
P J Martin
"I object to this as I believe that it is wrong to choose Portsmouth as the route for the cable. It is the most densely populated place on the whole of the south coast and it will therefore affect the most amount of people..ANYWHERE else would be better."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Pam Wilkie
"I strongly object to the Acquind Interconnector being laid from the coast into the eastern side of Portsea Island on the following grounds:- The opinions of Portsmouth City Council, with valuable knowledge of the local area, should not be surpassed by jurisdiction from Central Government. The proposed route would pass through - and cause disruption to - residents in very densely populated areas. A section of an (only hourly) bus route would be rendered 'closed' during the work; it was highlighted recently, when closed for works, that there was no alternative bus for locals to use! In our local area of Milton alone it would disrupt an area of allotments, a wildlife reserve area and a park / rare open space in regular use by local people. In addition it seems proposed that the route would obliterate a skate park, which provides a rare 'letting off steam' facility for youth of our area. Longer term access to the route would always be required for maintenance. Please therefore take the above observations, together with those of my neighbours, into account."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick O'Gorman
"My wife and I wish to object to this proposal. We feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert us residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing us residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. We feel that the lack of consultation is poor and we have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, we are concerned with how we have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why we residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to our area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city, we run a small business and access in and out of the city is critical, it is bad enough now without this major artery being effectively blocked. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and will damage our company and local economy as access in and out of the city will be affected for a long period, the major A & E department is on the outskirts of the city and causing gridlock will cost lives. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, (we have one of those so our hard work over the years to make it work will be lost), Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that we have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. We believe this should be the case. All in all, we feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s or residents face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept us informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents, businesses and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. We hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Wright
"My representation will be based upon the following points. 1) The necessity to make landfall in one of the most densely populated cities in Europe and the disruption this will cause. 2) The necessity to make landfall on an island rather than directly onto the mainland. 3) The undesirability of the location when a short diversion would permit landfall in a non-urban area. 4)The avoidable disruption caused by laying the cable along a major arterial road 5) With HM Govmt's stated move towards wind generation the UK should not need a continental power link 6) The unsuitability of the strata of Portsea Island"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Handley
"This cable will cause immense disruption and destruction across the city, with very little tangible benefits to the population that will be most disrupted. The length of time required to do it means that disruption will cause misery for Portsmouth residents for an intolerable amount of time"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter James
"There is no reason why the cables need to go through Portsmouth island, they should go through the harbour and be connected to the mainland at an appropriate point. Portsmouth already has 300,000 people populating it during the day and the traffic chaos this work would cause is unbearable. The island is only 4 miles long and the cable will already have been laid in the sea from France, so there is no point in causing the pointless destruction to the Portsmouth people that do not want it."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel James
"The chaos of this going through town will be unimaginable! When a single accident or roadworks now causes such a traffic build up you know that doing this will bring Portsmouth to a standstill. There has to be an alternative to this proposal"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Norris
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: ? Traffic and Transport; ? Air Quality; ? Nosie and Vibration; ? Landscape and Visual; ? Heritage and Archaeology; ? Ecology (with Arboriculture); ? Socio-economics; ? Water Resources and Flood Risk; ? Ground Conditions; ? Carbon and Climate Change; ? Human Health; ? Soils and Land Use; ? Electric and Magnetic Fields; and ? Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Rogers
"Objecting. This is not green and environmentallyfriendly"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Walden
"I wish to know more of the impact of this poorly advertised plan. I can only Express an opinion when this is done. My pcossible objections would depend on where this is sited and the impact of this route of the cables etc"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Toman
"I want to know if these works will effect where I live?!"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shaun Nightingale
"My representation centres around concern of the impact the works involved with this project will have on the communities it will disrupt. The traffic in and out of Portsmouth using the Eastern Road is already often close to a standstill. This work could cause serious disruption. I feel there must be a better, less invasive route for the cable to take?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheila Roy
"This is to distrubtive to the local traffic infastructire to a Island city that has only 3 RDS on and off it. It will also damage a huge part of our common that is already reclaimed land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sylvia Holdforth
"As a Southsea resident I have grave concerns regarding the effect on the environment at Langstone. I also do not understand the sense of importing power from abroad particularly the EU, when the government has recently decided to leave the same. We should be exploring ways of generating green energy in order to lessen the impact on our planet."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracy Barker
"I would like to object to the Aquind Interconnector in the strongest terms. In Portsmouth we only have three main roads on and off our island city which can become quickly grid-locked by roadworks or accidents. The proposed cable laying along the Eastern Road will cause such major problems for our residents in an already congested city. We have major issues with air quality in Portsmouth and this disruption to our road networks will only worsen the situation. I also have very deep concerns regarding our green open spaces such as Farlington marshes, Langstone harbour, Bransbury Park and the allotments. What effect will that have on our local wildlife and residents? Many people have expressed concerns for their properties near to the route and the amount of noise and disruption that will be caused. I think it is very concerning that our own council have not be able to have a say in these proposals, they the people who represent and know our residents concerns best. There has been a complete lack of the full facts and up until recently we weren't even told the route for the cable. I am sure even at this late stage many, many residents in Portsmouth are totally unaware of this proposal as information distribution has been totally inadequate. I hope that this application will not be allowed and that our peoples' voices will be heard."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracy Smith
"I wholly object to this power cable being placed in Portsmouth and the surrounding area. This will have a drastic impact to the local community and their mental health and wellbeing because of the chaos of traffic changes, noise and traffic problems in an ever growing city. I OBJECT TO THIS PROJECT ?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trevor Clifton on behalf of Trevor David Clifton
"I strongly object to the proposed route of the power cable(s) which passes close to my house because I am unwilling to abide within range of what I consider to be harmful electro-magnetic emissions. Routing the cable along the Eastern Road, Portsmouth will cause unacceptable disruption during the constuction Phase and further disruption during any maintenance of this section."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Trudy Farley
"This route is going right past our house and onto the eastern road. No explication as to the disruption expected has been advised to us in our residential area, and the route planned is already a busy one. We already have a lot of work due to start within the small vacinity of milton,which will cause disruption as it is, increasing pollution in an already highly polluted area. I am objecting to the aquind suggestion of work through Portsmouth. No clear information has been provided to us householders individually and in a way that advises the work that is expected around our properties. On top of this the work is due to go through a highley dense population with extreme pollution and due to go through one of our main route which would mean huge delays for a number of years not months. 66 wks has been quoted. We also in this time have other works due to be carries out at St james and kingston prison which is already due to have a major impact to our daily life. Surely we should be looking at sustainable electricity within our own country rather then importing from other countries."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Campbell
"I am objecting to the limited amount of consultation that residents who will be impacted by this cable's route have had. As I understand it, important final decisions have only been published in the last month, with no further consultation about the route. The planned route will be passing through heavily populated residential areas, very busy road junctions and nature reserves (Milton Common and Farlington Marshes). Surely there is a more sensible way to undertake this project? The proposed 66 weeks of disruption is also very concerning. As a city that has declared an air quality emergency, we cannot withstand having the levels of air pollution further raised due to the traffic congestion that this project will surely cause. I am also concerned about the effect that this project will have upon properties bordering the cable route, as well as the impact on the wildlife that we have in the area. It seems that neither Aquind or the government have been open and transparent about this project and I feel that it needs further consideration."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills on behalf of West Waterlooville Development Ltd/Grainger Plc
"The red line denoting the interconnector cable route encompasses land in West Waterlooville Developments Ltd/ Grainger Plc’s ("Grainger") control and which benefits from planning permission for infrastructure development associated with the delivery of 2,550 dwellings, a local centre, community and employment uses at West of Waterlooville. The red lined area for the cable route, including any easement required for its maintenance/replacement, should be allocated outside of all land under Grainger's control so as not to prejudice the delivery of future development. This is relevant to both the land at West of Waterlooville (also known as the Berewood development) and the Blue Star Land which is allocated for residential development under policy H42 of the Havant Local Plan. All works should be limited to land within the A3 highway corridor so as to not sterilise the Blue Star land for development or adversely influence the layout of a residential development of the site. It is imperative that construction timeframes are discussed with Grainger prior to any works starting, in order to prevent conflict with the delivery of development at Berewood and Blue Star Land. Any collaboration on the works required would need to be on the basis that the S278 programme or costs would not be adversely affected. The following phases of works are of particular relevance. Phase 8 is comprised of circa 171 dwellings, with works expected to start in early 2021 on a five year build out timeframe. The cable route, including any easement required, should not include land identified for development with Phase 8, or its temporary access, as this will interrupt the construction of the approved development, slow down housing delivery rates and potentially impact on the approved design and layout of the residential scheme. Section 4b of the red line extends over land allocated for the development of the Town Park. Planting and installation of infrastructure associated with the Town Park is currently being installed. The extent of the red line in this location must be reconsidered in order to avoid any impact on delivery of the Town Park. The Southern Access design is advanced, with S.278 approvals in the process of being finalised with Hampshire Highways and works due to commence in spring 2020. The timing of the laying of section 4c of the cable should be considered to prevent any disruption to the delivery of the Southern Access junction, which is imperative to meeting the requirements of the S106 and ensuring sufficient network capacity to accommodate the delivery rate of housing within the Berewood development. We note the engagement with the Applicant to date in relation to the proposed easements and we expect to continue those discussions prior to and during examination if necessary – our approach to date has been, and will continue to be, to ensure that our own development at Berewood, West of Waterlooville, and its future residents are not adversely impacted by the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alida Clifton
"I am do not wish to live near to high power electro-magnetic emissions. I believe the disruption to traffic during such a construction on one of only three roads in and out of the city will be unacceptable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alison Gregory
"For the attention of the consultation manager: I am trying to write to object to the Aquind project bringing electricity from France to England. First, I am opposed to this whole idea, as I believe we should be looking at green energy, such as solar panels. Secondly, as a local resident who will be impacted, I oppose for the many reasons already highlighted to you by others. It is documented the the grounds at Fraser Range are contaminated, yet you plan to expose this and potentially spread further ground contamination once this land is disturbed. Not to mention, the air pollution to our already densely populated city. And, Bransbury Park is common land for the people. Please sit and reflect how you would feel if your local neighbourhood were to ... • have your local park dug up, which is every well used by residents of all ages, at all times of the day (Bransbury Park). • have your local beach area disturbed and contaminated • have unnecessary construction on your doorstep • Loose precious green space • Have your allotment patch disturbed, which you had loved and tendered for years • have an unnecessarily created health risk for friends and family, as known contaminated land is disturbed during a needless project and will have a likelihood to affect the health of residents off all ages (this is documented as MoD land) • have unnecessary increased traffic congestion, causing increased high pollution levels, as the Eastern Road is a main artery out of our city • have the physical and mental health of your friends, family and neighbours unnecessarily affected adding further burden on our already stretched NHS I strongly oppose this work, and sincerely hope you will consider that our council and residents are against this. Should you really have to proceed, then why not Chunnel in the sea and bring the pipe up closer to land base along the coast to cause the least disruption to our precious green space and homes; also to minimise the impact on the mental and physical health of residents. Regards Ali Gregory"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amanda Whiteland-Smith
"As a local resident, I am concerned about the environmental impact and the potential impact on property prices in the Eastney area, I have seen the promotional material for the scheme, but would like accesss to information relating to all sides of the proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrea Fay Smith
"Why disrupt the whole of Portsmouth, causing traffic chaos in an already chaotic city. Put it through the harbour."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Angela Herring
"My fear is that a) the impact of such a large, tall structure close to a National Park will detract from the beauty of the natural surroundings and distort the tranquility of the area - including an impact on wildlife b) furthermore the traffic involved to not only build the converter, but subsequently to maintain it, will have a massive, detrimental impact on surrounding country lanes. The lanes involved (Anmore Lane, Broadways Lane, Edneys Lane and Old Mill Lane - to name but a few) are trying to cope with increased traffic from the increased housing in Denmead and this will only get worse and more dangerous, especially if large lorries are involved"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anna Carter
"I am writing to you concerning the proposed route of the Aquind Interconnector. I object to the need to dig up some of our most wild and valued leisure spaces, thus preventing access to these rare spots on our densely populated island,and creating havoc for so many months across our city. This government should be looking at home grown and sustainable green energy to protect our already polluted city and indeed across the country. I don’t want our children breathing in toxic air on their way to school and when they are out playing in our ‘green’ spaces. Furthermore if the proposed works are to go ahead on the ‘Eastern Road’ this will cause traffic gridlock across the city, as this is one of only 3 main roads on and off the island. I object to the rather surreptitious dispersal of piecemeal information, instead of a clear consultation with residents. I object to the assumption that this is a ‘done deal’, with powers taken from our local counsellors, further muffling our voices, opinions and possible disagreements with the proposed route. I ask that you please consider resiidents voices in this matter, as it is not right that such a huge project should go ahead without open and honest discussions with the people who live along this route. Many Thanks Anna Carter"
Non-Statutory Organisations
David Lock Associates on behalf of Atlas Hotels
"David Lock Associates (DLA) have been commissioned Atlas Hotels, owner and operator, of Holiday Inn Express Portsmouth – North. In general terms Atlas Hotels are supportive of the AQUIND Interconnector development. However, our clients have some concerns regarding the proposed construction activities and request that the Planning Inspectorate safeguard the general amenity of the hotel. Working hours It is noted from the relevant documentation that Holiday Inn Express Portsmouth – North is close to both proposed marine cable installation and trenchless techniques. It is planned that such works will be subject to 24-hour working shifts. Atlas Hotels wish to stress that such lengthy shifts should be kept to a minimum as they are likely to cause significant disturbance to the operation of the hotel and affect the amenity of its perspective guests. Atlas Hotels request advance warning of such lengthy shifts so that the appropriate measures can be put in place to forewarn perspective guests and safeguard their amenity. Highway access / car parking The relevant work plan, submitted for approval, shows that construction traffic will use the highway access in front of Holiday Inn Express Portsmouth – North due to the one-way nature of the existing highways arrangements. Atlas Hotels wish to request that the Planning Inspectorate ensures that the existing highway arrangement in front of the hotel is maintained to its current state during the construction process and restored if necessary. Atlas Hotels also wish to request that the Planning Inspectorate ensures that no construction traffic, whether that be deliveries or employee vehicles, park or sit idling within the highway and block access to the hotel at any time during the construction process. Atlas Hotels are concerned that construction related parking may occur within the hotel’s car park to the detriment of the hotel’s perspective guests. Please can the Planning Inspectorate, if minded to approve the application, ensure that stringent construction conditions are in place to safeguard the amenity of the hotel and wider area. oOo We trust the Planning Inspectorate will take these comments into account in the determination of the AQUIND Interconnector Development Consent Order. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss this representation any further."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bernard Johnson
"OBJECTION. 1. Our original contact with Aquind suggested that the site area would be about 3 Acres with a storage shed for batteries fed by one cable. this has now grown to 30 Acres with 70' high sheds and at leat 4 cables plus other communication cables. 2. Because of the strength of opposition, a second meeting was arranged and then promptly cancelled with the obvious purpose of excluding public debate. Decisions have since been made at Council level behind closed doors to exclude public debate. 3. This is a rural farming area and will have impact on the following: The impact on wildlife on the area's not been resolved, again no consultation . The health implications from the electro magnetic radiation to the people of the area through which the cables pass has not been explained - just ignored. The rain run-off from 30 Acres from the roofs will cause flooding. Again, no answers from Aquind. The present water/sewage infrastructure of Southern Water is unable to cope with the existing volume, without additional input causing more pollution. Massive disruption from cable laying to a very large area. Let alone the the proposed 90 lorries per day on the local B roads from the build of the facility. There has been little or no Public Information forthcoming from the local authorities, which I find to be suspicious. Many people I have spoken to are not even aware of the project. 4. We have been badly informed and deliberately misled over the impact of this proposal and find Aquind to be untrustworthy in their response to our objections. A very real concern that the project, if passed and the precedent set, that Aquind would seek yet further expansion. To Summarise A huge over development in a rural area and the proposer (Aquind) has been less than transparent with the local population, preventing us from knowing the full impact of the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bruce Graham
"The Converter Station location is in unspoilt countryside miles from the coast. It will turn the local area into an industrial site. The final leg of construction traffic is through housing estates and narrow country lanes. The cable installations will paralyse Portsmouth and the surrounding areas. At present the traffic jams are horrendous. When the roads are dug up there will be very few alternative routes. Aquind have considerably underestimated the construction timetable and effect on local and main routes. Traffic in the area will grind to a halt. A site for the station should be found closer to the coast to allow onward transmission using existing or upgraded overhead lines."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carol Tarr
"The amount of disruption this will cause in my opinion outweighs the benefits. Portsmouth is a very condensed city and any work has major disruption to an already congested city. Full investigation into another way or route for this work must be carried out in order to avoid Portsmouth"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Seaton
"As a local resident who's family's daily quality of life will be significantly effected detrimentally, I would like to register my interest in this project. This is the first time that I have been made aware of this project and the potentially disastrous effect that the project will have (if granted) on the mental well-being, health (through loss of playing fields during installation work), lifestyle, travelling / commuting and general family health conditions as a direct result of the project. This is in addition to the financial implications of the work that will negatively effect house prices in the local area and therefore our equity in our family home."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christian Hannam
"The proposed route will have a far bigger detrimental impact than a positive one due to the impact in certain areas - particularly the start of the route and then moving on to the already heavily congested and difficult to navigate eastern road. It will take one of the major artery roads and make it much more difficult for commuters - on a road that is often chaotic already. Then there is the environmental impact of going through green/nature areas and the impact it could have for reserve areas and its inhabitants."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Burrowes
"I would like to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed Aquind Interconnector. The proposed route in Portsmouth will cause disruption to the local residents in terms of traffic congestion, and will also have a detrimental effect on the green spaces and wildlife in the area. Furthermore, the lack of information and dialogue with local residents is particularly concerning. -------------------------------------- Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey.Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site,this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residentsto access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately,for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the routein good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issueswhen they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in.A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plansput forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. Wealso hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Brookes
"Residents feel distrust and anger towards the application that has been put forward. The complete lack of information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known what the proposed route of the cable was. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right before Christmas, literally the busiest time of year and whilst a General election was playing out. It has therefore left a limited amount of time to be able to process this information and get this out to the residents that it will most definitely effect. It is a shame that Aquind decided not to alert residents as to the final route of the cable rather than just publishing it in over 537 documents. We only found out due to a few people taking the time to sift through all the documents and then informing residents. These residents had taken over a month to reach this stage of sifting through the documents where they had then found the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and panic particularly with elderly and vulnerable residents yet have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect from Eastney right up to Lovedean. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add on extra time to their journey. Add to that that there is a proposed new development at Frasers range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park) of 134 homes. It has been said that this has been taken to account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling ferry and people who enjoy the beach near to the Hayling Ferry. Furthermore, residents are concerned with how they have been treated (other than by the upsetting letter they have received in November 2018). Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Milton (Beddow library) and Baffin’s (Lacey library) were both missed off the list which is a huge shame. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. It is another reason why residents feel distrustful. It feels like these libraries were missed off on purpose so that residents would not know what was happening to their area. A very poor oversight on Aquind’s behalf and a huge problem for residents – some who were unable to make the trip to the libraries to the west and centre of the city due to mobility issues and involving several bus trips making it unfeasible. A leaflet was also sent out in May 2019 and stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response (and I am still yet to find a single person who is in favour of the cable), but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has something set in stone been publicised yet not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Also, it is disgraceful that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas. The Secretary of State has not come down to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person yet expects residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics and that all councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK) yet the government are suggesting (if they allow this application to go forward), to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to just disrupt as many lives as possible in many different ways. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. In a time where we face these climate problems, surely the government should be looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. Councillor Darren Sanders asked during a Milton Forum public meeting whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and there was not really any comment or promise back. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. Councillor Gerald Vernon Jackson asked for funding for a free bus pass for residents or sustainable transport etc amongst many other suggestions to try to do what we can to. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows that there will have to be some very serious considerations made and thought out because of the impact this will have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone harbour but at the allotments, Farlington marshes and Bransbury park. There also seems to be no mitigation for residents especially when it looks like their open, green and community spaces will be lost to them for however long building work takes place. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for fitness but also, to enjoy the city they live in. A news report (3/5/2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people so this further shows that we cannot loose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned with how the cable will affect where they fish out in the Solent but also, there are concerns when it comes to the Harbour. We were told that due to the harbour being an SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest) that the cables could not be placed there. However, with the new plans put forward – it can now be seen that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it OK to put the cables across this part of the harbour but nowhere else? Also, what effect will this have on the wildlife that live in the harbour. Why (to save the disruption) could the cables not have made landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island. It would mean less disruption to many people and it would be closer to the proposed substation especially as they are already underwater coming from France. Furthermore, there is a question why existing routes used by others could not be repurposed/shared. Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the harbour (which was allowed to be built some years ago). Was a conversation ever had to see if these could be shared? But why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city that also has an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected harbour and nature reserve to the east of the city. Also, there is the lost green space where the power station will be built in Lovedean which is now suggested to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m. A pressure group in Lovedean are highly concerned with the proposed height of the building which they believe will affect property values in the area. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that does not have all the issues we as a city face. 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work will take to complete. Although it has been said that this is not constant – this means that this project will take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging these trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This will cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation. This is due to the combined effect of the magnetic field which can sometimes become an issue. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin that was laid onto Milton Common. This was to help contain the methane gas that is produced from underneath. I have yet to see conclusive remarks made as to whether this has been considered, especially when it looks like work to dig a trench may take place on Milton common. The tall vent tubes are across the common but are there to protect properties around the common from this methane gas. This is a worry for residents near to the common. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work that happens may have on their properties. They are worried about vibrations but also, their home insurance premiums. Many properties on the path of the cable are over 100 years old and there are significant concerns that issues may arise and, what would then happen and who to speak to and how long that process would take. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone number given is not answered or going through and that emails have also not been replied to. Also, will the city or wards effected received financial compensation for the disruption caused such as CIL funds or a general compensation payment. When wards face development, CIL is paid to help towards the community and its infrastructure. Will each city and ward be compensated in any way, shape or form. Residents believe this should be the case. All in all, we as residents feel let down by Aquind and by our own government. We feel let down that our own council has had their rights to decide this taken away and that they are in the same position that we as residents are. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come down to talk to the council’s face to face. We feel let down that Aquind have not kept residents informed with the route and we also feel let down that they scared residents into believing that their homes would be taken away from them. We also feel let down that they decided not to keep us up to date with what was happening and we feel let down that we had to find out the actual route via residents using their own time to delve through the hundreds of documents and through our councillors rather than from the company proposing it. We also feel let down that the government will not help with the air quality issues that this project with force on the residents of Portsmouth yet government chastise the council to do better and enforce government policies and not provide adequate funding to mitigate or better the issues we already face let alone with this cable if it does go ahead. We also feel let down that we will lose our community and open spaces for this to occur and we know that habitats, plant life and wildlife will be lost due to this project. We also know that it will cause chaos and disruption for over a year to the residents and workers of Portsmouth and further afield whilst no proper mitigation or help has been offered or suggested by the government or Aquind. We implore the planning inspector as well as Aquind and the government to reconsider this project. Instead of forcing it onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Council’s and going through heavily congested routes and junctions, we hope that other options can be considered. We also hope and pray that our views will be taken into consideration but also, the lack of trust on many levels makes us believe that this will just be another bit of paper and just part of a ‘tick box consultation’. I/we hope that is not the case and that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues that we do. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand where we are coming from as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not affect the people reading this, but you literally have the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in your hands whether it comes to health, mental health, safety, wellbeing or general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. But by submitting this – I object to the Aquind Interconnector and hope that you will listen to us residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Matthew Winnington
"I am a Portsmouth City Councillor for Eastney and Craneswater ward and as such represent the area when the interconnector cable is planned to come ashore and begin its on land route. I oppose the application for the Aquind Interconnector. I oppose strongly it coming ashore at all in Portsmouth and having any route through the city. In Eastney it will have a particularly devastating effect on resident's amenity as it will entail the digging up of the main access roads, Fort Cumberland Road and Henderson Road, to the eastern part of Eastney (and partially block that area of Portsmouth off completely at one point). Those roads being dug up for a decent length will also disrupt the only bus route that connects to that part of the city and the Hayling Ferry and National Cycle Route 2. Further on in Eastney it will also cross protected green space across Bransbury Park either needing to dig up a shared walking and cycle path and providing a temporary route through the park or digging up the protected green space itself. The place where the cable is going to come ashore is a car park that is a vital place for people to park for access to the beach next to the Fraser Range site and also Fort Cumberland Open Space (the latter is a SSSI). In the documents this council owned car-park is going to have intermittent work going on in it (and presumable the part of it work will be going on in will be inaccessible for the entire time) for 66 weeks which will mean it will not be able to be used at capacity for this entire time which will put further parking pressure on local streets, and thereby disproportionately affecting local residents, that will be further exacerbated when the road it is off is dug up. It is also proposed that there will be two structures on the car-park left in perpetuity after the end of construction which will permanently reduce the car park capacity (which is impossible to expand in any direction due to the road and on all other sides is surrounded by the SSSI). It is also very possible that the interconnector could be built at the same time as a major housing development next door at Fraser Range which will exacerbate the pressure on amenity for local residents even more. On a wider note, I consider the landing of the Aquind Interconnector in Portsmouth utterly perverse. It is nowhere near the closest part of the UK to where it leaves France so that in itself makes no sense, its route is through the most densely populated city in the UK and seems intent on maximum disruption especially in Eastney but also in other parts of Portsmouth and beyond on its way to the Converter Station at Lovedean and finally it is coming to land on an island where you then have to tunnel under the sea again (at the far north west of Langstone Harbour) to actually get to the mainland! To say that this application is seriously flawed would be a massive understatement and I hope that it will be refused as it caused maximum disruption to the people of Portsmouth & South East Hampshire for what appears to be absolutely no benefit to our communities at all and indeed to their detriment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Jacqueline Porter
"I wish to register as an Interested Party as the Cabinet Member for the Built Environment at Winchester City Council: all NSIP’s fall within my remit. Winchester City Council has submitted a detailed submission. I would like the Inspectorate to consider: 1. The impact of the large building on the countryside, so near to the National Park. I note that all other Interconnectors are on industrial type estates, and therefore I am challenging why this one should be sited as proposed. 2. The impact of the cable laying will be considerable. I am concerned about the impact of the heat of the outer side of the cable on the ecology-at both ground and below ground level. This is especially concerning because the land to the east of Denmead is marshy- even if the cable is buried deeper, I would like to be reassured that will have minimal effect effect on the ecology. 3. The impact of the cable laying on the road network. Reconciling a long period of disruption for local businesses, safety for children travelling to school, and the likelihood that all trenches will drop after a couple of years (especially if the clay base geology of this area dries out, or re-compacts) and the trenches will need refilling. Thus the period of disruption could be double that expected. 4. I would like to explore what can be done to mitigate the economic impact on the local businesses in Denmead whose custom is expected to decline throughout the construction period. In common with Hampshire County Council and other local Councils in the area, our Council has declared a Climate Change Emergency. In our pre application discussions with Aquind, we sought three major reassurances which have never been given. We are seeking reassurance on these matters:- 5. The interconnector will only transmit non carbon generated energy. 6. The construction of the Interconnector (both in building terms and electrical engineering) should provide vital education and skills programme n the form of apprenticeships, develop inspiring links from local FE colleges, and schools. 7. The community should be compensated in some way for the duration of the disruptive building programme and throughout the life of this considerably large building in the countryside. We were seeking a specific sum (annual or lump sum) to be agreed for distribution to the City and Parish Councils affected to improve environments and help them to reduce their carbon footprint too. This is in line with those provided by the energy generation processes and against this policy (EN1) by which this application will be judged."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dana Bubenickova
"- The cables are proposed to be installed too close to people's homes, so as they emit radiation they will be a big health risk to the inhabitants of Portsmouth and other areas. - Portsmouth is already overpopulated and the traffic is very problematic especially in rush hours, so if you close one road in Portsmouth, the whole city grinds to a standstill. This will increase already very high pollution levels in the city."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Sanders
"As a ward councillor for the proposed section through Milton Common and part of the Eastern Road, I object to the proposals as they will damage an area adjacent to a SSSI as well as the valuable Langstone Harbour. This is so important when determining planning applications in Portsmouth that, if they are permitted, mitigation payments are made. I do not understand why similar payments are not due to be made when this scheme will cause disruption to the same area. This environmental impact can only be worsened when the contaminants that lie under the Common are taken into consideration. Lead and other dangerous chemicals have lain dormant for decades, yet this scheme risks releasing these noxious gases and dangerous elements. This will have a negative impact on the amenity of those using the Common. I note section 3.8.1 of the scoping report indicates significant environmental impacts are, at least, possible. Approving this scheme will worsen air quality and increase air pollution at a time when the Government that is passing this to you is asking this city to improve the first and cut the second. It will do so not only through the environmental damage to Milton Common, but also the impact of the route through Furze Lane and Eastern Road. Residents around the former will be impacted by the proposed route, both due to the nature of the work and also the consequent loss of its only bus route. This must have a negative environmental impact. The Government's insistence on a Clean Air Zone for the western roads in the city puts increased pressure on the third road into the city, Eastern Road. Yet, if this plan goes ahead, it is threatening either closure of a stretch or a reduction to one lane. So we have a Government insisting that we cut air pollution and congestion one side of the city while at the same time allowing a scheme that will increase both on the other. This is madness. This disruption may be worthwhile if there was some clear environmental or social benefit for the city. With HS2, the consequent reduced reliance on domestic flights, increased capacity on existing routes and ability to level up the economy are easily understood. Here, there is no such social or environmental benefit. The power supply is not going to Portsmouth homes, there is no guarantee the electricity on the cable will come from renewable sources nor a guarantee that the project itself will be carbon neutral. Portsmouth is the host of something designed to benefit others while it suffers environmental damage and increased pollution and congestion at a time when the Government that she passed this to you wants it to cut both. I urge you to reject this plan because it will harm the amenity of residents in my ward and it will harm the lives of people across the city due to the increased air pollution and congestion it will cause, all for the benefit of others."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Bailey
"Concerned about the proposed route which appears to follow main roads and the disruption it will cause, especially when there appears to be less disruptive routes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"The Ministry of Defence (MOD) has been notified by the AQUIND Interconnector Project that the above application for a Development Consent Order has been submitted to and accepted by The Planning Inspectorate. The MOD has previously commented on a Scoping Opinion request and a Section 42 consultation relating to this development. The offshore cable route will intersect military Danger Area D037 however we have no safeguarding concerns with the cable route passing through this danger area. We have no other offshore safeguarding concerns with this proposal however historic explosive munitions disposal sites and unexploded ordnance (UXO) should be taken into account. There are also no safeguarding concerns with the onshore cable route. I trust this clarifies our position on this consultation. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you wish to consider these points further."
Local Authorities
East Hampshire District Council
"East Hampshire District Council (EHDC) is a host Authority for part of the project (access and track to the converter building from Broadway Lane) but also has an interest in works relating to the converter station and the impacts on the local environment and residents and through impacts arising during construction. This response sets out a summary of current observations/concerns from a review of the submitted documents to assist the Examining Authority. Detailed comments will emerge through the Council's Local Impact Report and involvement throughout the examination process. The Council has undertaken to work with Aquind to develop a Statement of Common Ground, however, at the time of this Representation, no draft has been seen by the Council. Site selection EHDC has consistently raised its concern at the site selection process for the converter building. If, accepting Lovedean as the connection point in the south of England over Chickerell and Bramley substations, the converter station search area and the initial five options were all in the immediate vicinity of Lovedean and thus, immediately adjacent to the South Downs National Park. There is no evidence that environmental considerations were weighed in this step of the site selection process, which was instead led by technical and commercial issues surrounding transmission losses and wider easements associated with AC cables. There is therefore a step missing in the site selection process between the chosen strategic connection at Lovedean and the 'fine tuning' of the converter building in the immediate vicinity of Lovedean substation, which may have yielded a site away from a nationally designated landscape and which better relates to development / landscape forms. Landscape impacts and design (converter building) The proposed access track from Boundary Lane would dissect fields and is poorly related to landscape features to the detriment of the landscape and setting of a public footpath. It is imperative that a landscaping maintenance and management plan is agreed as part of the DCO Requirements to secure long-term landscaping features. Notwithstanding existing infrastructure at Lovedean substation and associated pylons, the scale, massing and industrial form of the converter station would have a significant harmful impact on the rural landscape character. The design parameters have been the subject of discussions with the Council, however there remains a concern that the buildings would be of a utilitarian design that would not respond positively to landscape context or mitigate or enhance its appearance other than through the use of coloured cladding. No indication of cooling systems to be installed on the exterior together with concern with indicated external staircases and lighting columns / lightning masts. Onshore ecology (specifically Work Areas 1 and 2) It is imperative that sufficient working practices and forward mitigation are in place ahead of all preliminary works. The scheme puts forward minimal biodiversity enhancements. An ecological maintenance and management plan should form part of the DCO Requirements to secure biodiversity enhancements. Noise impacts (converter station) There should be certainty that noise mitigation will achieve the desired effect. It is important noise mitigation measures are incorporated and secured through the DCO Requirements including a mechanism by which noise levels are monitored and further noise mitigation measures incorporated if necessary. Construction Transport Management Plan Residential properties are not listed as ‘sensitive receptors’ – given the nature and type of traffic movements, including reference to night time / abnormal load activity, many dwellings along the construction route are deemed to be sensitive to impacts. It will be imperative that there is effective pro-active communication with the local community in the Lovedean area in respect of work programmes, advance notice of any anticipated issues e.g. road closures and abnormal load deliveries and monitoring/active response to issues raised locally and secured through the Stakeholder Communication Plan. Simon Jenkins Director of Regeneration and Place"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eastney Area Community Association
"At our Trustee Committee meeting this evening we unanimously agreed that I should write to you in support of the many local residents who will be adversely affected by this ridiculous proposal. In particular we agree entirely with the objections made recently by Mrs Kimberly Barrett which outline in detail the reasons for residents' many concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eastney Community Centre
"This will cause traffic chaos in a part of the city where there is just 1 road on and off the island. The congestion will disrupt daily life and add to pollution levels in a city where we have already declared a climate emergency."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"Dear Sirs, We have sent further details of our relevant representation in a letter as sent by email (to [email protected] inspectorate.gov.uk). However, to summarise our position, we do not have any outstanding issues of significant concern, but there remain some matters that require clarification/consideration as follows: - Protection of sensitive groundwater at the site of the converter station at Lovedean (located in a Source Protection Zone 1 and public water supply). - Main river crossings along the cable route. - The impacts of offshore cable installation techniques on migratory fish. - The potential impacts of the project on European sites designated for nature conservation. - The potential impacts on freshwater and transitional waterbodies under the Water Framework Directive. - Potential impacts of the cable installation upon planned coastal flood defences. - Assessment of the impacts on marine water and sediment quality, Shellfish Waters and Bathing Waters. Please refer to our relevant representation letter dated 19 February 2020 for further details of the above. Thank you very much. Yours faithfully, Anna Rabone Sustainable Places Advisor Environment Agency"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hannah Payne-Cook
"I object to the proposed Aquind Interconnector on the following grounds: * Lack of communication, over the last 2 years. * Delay in issuing the proposed route (date on map 7/11/2019 date of issue 12/12/2019) * Access to information handed to libraries in the city excluding those in the area affected. * Portsmouth is in a high pollution zone - No consideration has been made towards zero carbon measures or damage to natural habitat in the local area. *The proposed route is through major East side of Portsmouth junctions, the current road system is already fully stretched. Closing these routes will cause chaos to city residents. * Proposed length of time for the construction * Environmental damage during the proposed construction: Traffic and transport, Noise and vibrations, Landscape and visual, Heritage and Archaeology, Ecology, Socio Economic, Water Resources and Flood Risk, Ground conditions, Carbon and climate change, Human Health, Soils and Land use, Electric and Magnetic Fields, Waste and Material resources."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Cleugh
"I am against this proposal, Portsmouth is one of the most densely populated city's in England so to even consider excavating all the way through Portsmouth is beyond belief."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners
"We are Land Agents instructed to act on behalf of Land Owners affected by the proposed scheme. We act for Peter and Geoffery Carpenter at [], Michael and Sandra Jefferies at [], Robin Jefferies at [] and Joe Tee at [] We have been in brief discussions with Alan O'Sulivan, Aquind Agent, but are yet to agree to any terms for any land owner. We reserve the opportunity to make further representation throughout the DCO process on behalf of our clients."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Perryman
"What a ridiculous plan this is. A cable is run on the seabed from France but then instead of hitting land at the last moment so as to cause as little disruption as possible it comes up in Portsmouth (one of the most populous cities in the country) and then travels a route through Nature Reserves on the way to one of only 3 main thoroughfares into an Island City? Daft. But it's fine because the elected Council will not allow it to go through on behalf of the electorate. Well that would be true in a democratic society but it appears a decision has already been made at central Government level to ignore the electorate. I object to the Aquind Interconnector."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Leonard
"1. Continuing concerns about the impact of cable laying on road traffic (mainly in Portsmouth but also surrounding areas) and households impacted. The density of traffic in Portsmouth means that even a minor delay on one of the key roads such as the Eastern road can cause chaos and gridlock the city. 2. Concerns about the HGVs carrying equipment and materials to and from the Converter Station. The proposal is for this traffic to come off the A3m at junction 2, go down the old A3 and down Lovedean Lane to the site. There are houses all along this (narrow in places) route, some very close to the road. I estimate there will be an HGV movement every 5 minutes at the height of construction. I am seriously worried about the impact on air quality, the noise and also any possible damage through vibration to houses. There will also be an impact on traffic on the busy A3 even outside rush hour. I believe this traffic should be split between junction 2 and junction 3 to spread these challenges across 2 areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Townsend
"As a resident of Milton and prolific user of the Eastern Road, the planned route of the scheme looks frightening. Portsmouth is already ridiculously crowded, both with human beings and motor vehicles. Looking at the map shown above, I cannot see any way in which disastrous experiences would be common to all residents of the Eastern half of the city. We have seen many times the results for the whole city if one of the three routes into Portsmouth is out of action."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Jewitt
"I am concerned about the Aquind pipeline as a resident of Milton, Southsea. I feel this will be detrimental to wildlife in the area, especially the Brent Geese. I'm concerned regarding the environmental impact and the effect the work will have on traffic using the Eastern Road as this is already horrendous during rush hour and particularly bad when Portsmouth FC are playing at home."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Coles
"ref EN020022 Dear Sir, I would like to have a say in this matter as I live right in the middle of it. Going back a while now to the Aquind meeting at the old Demead School, a member of the public got up to say if this goes ahead a year or so time more land would be required and so on. Look what's happened, 2 acres of seventy high tin sheds have suddenly become 22 acres and planning passed behind closed doors ( sounds a bit iffy) and I believe has been increased even more since. Then another lot would like to build some smaller sheds to house batteries for all the electric cars that are coming (more Cancer pollution from EMF and EMR). Then Winchester Collage comes up with the idea of renting out 266 acres of land for Cancer producing solar panels. Only a bunch of brain dead idiots would come up with the idea to encircle people inside of a solar panel farm. But they live far enough away from here so it doesn't matter, does it. Portsmouth and the Isle Of Wight have the highest Cancer rate in the country and all this is just going to make it worst. The electromagnetic fields and radiation that will come from this lot will be huge, and yet you expect people to live in it. ( well it doesn't effect you does it?) Go back to the sixties and seventies, you had about a 1 in 500 chance of getting some form of Cancer in your lifetime. Now it's 1 in 2. Go back to the sixties you had no microwaves, no computers and laptops, no satellite tv. no speed camera's, no cctv. no wifi, none of the electronics that is in modern cars, no mobile phones, eighty million used daily in this country and 65 thousand base stations spewing out EMF'S ENR's, think about it. You don't need a degree from Nasa to put two and two together. So I don't think this Aquind Interconnector a very good idea at all. Yours sincerely K. Coles."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Leonard Sirett
"Dear Sir or madam, We object to the Aquind Connector because of the interference to the Eastern road. Portsmouth only has 3 roads in and out of the city and we need all three to remain open. Yours Sincerely Mr. L. M. Sirett"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Hewett
"Local Residents are extremely unhappy towards the application that has been put forward. There has been very little information over the last 2 years has meant that we have not known been informed as to proposed route of the cable. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on the 7/11/2019 but was not published until 12/12/2019 right. It left a limited amount of time disseminate the information to those who need to view it. Instead of just informing residents a huge document was published and residents had a lengthy process of sifting through the documents until they find the map. Aquind were very quick to send out letters asking for information about mortgages and personal information in November 2018 that caused huge upset and yet they have decided not to send out the map to all residents it would effect. Residents feel that the lack of consultation is poor and they have not felt part of the process of it all. The residents in Fort Cumberland road had no idea about the landfall of the cable in the car park and therefore causing huge disruption to their road. I believe there is also a legitimate concern as to the lifeboat station. There is a proposed new development at Fraser Range of 134 homes. There is only one single access road. Aquind gave out information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city for residents to access at the end of 2019/beginning of 2020. Unfortunately, for residents in Baffin’s, Milton and Eastney, the closest library to view this information would be have been at the central library or Southsea library. Local libraries were both missed off the list especially for people with mobility issues. Libraries on the west side of the city were given sticks but not in the areas affected which is shocking. Why would you give information to people who don't need it rather than people who do - somewhat lacking in sight or underhanded perhaps?. A leaflet was sent out in May 2019 stated that out of 155 responses that Aquind had received, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. Not only was that a poor response but it was only recently that the route was publicised and officially decided on. How can anyone make a decisive decision on how they feel if they have not been properly informed of the route in good time. This ‘consultation’ has been going on for over 2 years now and only in the last 6-8 weeks has it been publicised but not actually distributed to the public it will affect. Not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries. Why should they only be consultees when they know their own areas and should oversee planning in their own areas? The Secretary of State has not yet had the decency to come to visit the areas effected or to talk to the council leaders and officers in person. And yet they expect residents, councillors and MP’s in all areas to let Aquind get on with it. The level of opposition this proposal is bringing from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this goes above and beyond party politics. We are facing a climate emergency (of which has been declared in Portsmouth is one of the worst cities in the UK) yet the government are suggesting to woefully destroy habitats and vegetation, to close access to green areas and community spaces, to ignore air quality issues, to not put into place zero carbon measures and to cause huge disruption to the lives of local residents. The cables are proposed to go through or next to some pretty major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. There are only 3 roads on and off this island and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked and that's without summer/seasonal traffic.. What is proposed along the Eastern Road will cause nothing sort of pure chaos across the city. It will lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. Why are the Government not looking to provide reassurance during projects like these that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems that this cable will put on the people of Portsmouth. Yet there has been nothing from either the government or Aquind. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the government are looking to force air quality zones onto Portsmouth. Yet in the same breath – are now looking to accept such a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is also whilst refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth could do with to combat these issues. How can this government approve a project that will add to these issues when they are actively telling US that we need to do better? In the scoping report, it suggests that Portsmouth city council should only comment regarding the environmental impact due to the landfall. There is no suggestion that they should comment of the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the most busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city that will cause misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping report submitted to Portsmouth City council). To add to that, the report also states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact of the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it will cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: ? Traffic and Transport; Air Quality; Noise and Vibration; Landscape and Visual; Heritage and Archaeology; Ecology (with Arboriculture); Socio-economics; Water Resources and Flood Risk; Ground Conditions; ? Carbon and Climate Change; Human Health; Soils and Land Use; Electric and Magnetic Fields; Waste and Material Resources."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Wilkinson
"I object to the proposal because I consider it unnecessary and disruptive."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Luke Stubbs
"I am a councillor for an area covering the first part of the route through Eastney. These comments are both personal and reflective of comments made to me by members of the public. Many people are concerned at the impact the construction phase of this scheme could have. The Fraser Ranges site is the subject of a planning application for a housing scheme and clearly the development of that site and this scheme are intertwined. Fort Cumberland Road is the main access route to that site, as well as to 400-500 homes and it is the only access route to the Hayling Ferry. Closing it in both directions is not really feasible and restricting it to single direction traffic for any length of time would be problematic. Similarly road works along Henderson Road would be problematic. It is also worth noting that the council intends to install a pedestrian crossing near the Mobile Home Park and I would hope a condition of any consent is for its full reinstatement. There are obvious concerns about how this scheme will work along Eastern Road. I would prefer it to be under the parkland, although as the widening of the road cannot be ruled out in the longer term, any installation needs to be future proof."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Smith
"The cable should not be installed through Portsmouth, it should be laid through Langstone Harbour and come ashore at the top of the harbour. Portsmouth is a very congested city and this work would cause a lot of disruption."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Marine Management Organisation
"Dear Sir/Madam, Due to the word limit in this section, please refer to the email sent on the 19 February 2020 to the following email address [email protected], for the Marine Management Organisation's relevant representation. This document comprises the MMO’s initial comments in respect of the DCO Application. Yours Sincerely, Daniel Walker"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Milton Neighbourhood Planning Forum
"The proposed route in Portsmouth is unnecessary and creates a public nuisance. An alternative and viable route using the former Hayling Island Railway link to Havant and on to Lovedean is available and will create far less disturbance."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Natural England
"Dear Sirs, Natural England is the statutory adviser to government on nature conservation in England and promotes the conservation of England's wildlife and natural features. We wish to be registered as an interested party, however we have a number of comments to make in our relevant representations. As a result, we have emailed a copy of our full response letter and associated appendices to the project email address. I would be grateful to receive confirmation that our response has been received. Kind regards, Zara Ziauddin"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Dentons UK and Middle East LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"Network Rail Infrastructure Limited ("Network Rail") is a statutory undertaker and owns, operates and maintains the majority of the rail infrastructure of Great Britain. The Book of Reference identifies Network Rail as the freehold owner of plot 7-11, described as 4018 square metres Railway (Hilsea and Bedhampton) and woodland (Eastern Road, Portsmouth). The proposed onshore (underground) cable route will, if authorised, cross under Network Rail’s operational infrastructure in this location. Network Rail is carrying out a review exercise to confirm if it has any other interests (including historic rights) which may be affected by the proposals. The draft Order seeks powers to compulsorily acquire 'New Connection Works Rights' over Plot 7-11. Those rights are wide ranging, and include the removal of structures and items on the land. Plot 7-11 constitutes land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and is used for that purpose. If exercised the powers sought would seriously compromise Network Rail's ability to carry out its statutory undertaking. Accordingly Network Rail objects to the inclusion of Plot 7-11 in the draft Order and to the grant of compulsory acquisition powers in respect of this land. Network Rail also objects to all other compulsory powers in the draft Order to the extent that they affect, and may be exercised in relation to, Network Rail's property and interests. In considering this representation the Secretary of State should have regard to section 127 and 138 Planning Act 2008. Network Rail considers that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that the New Connection Works Rights can be purchased without serious detriment to the carrying on of Network Rail's undertaking, nor can any detriment to the carrying on of the undertaking, in consequence of the acquisition, be made good by the use of other land belonging to or available for acquisition by Network Rail. In order for Network Rail to be in a position to withdraw its objection Network Rail requires: 1. Amendments to the form of protective provisions Network Rail welcomes the inclusion of the protective provisions in its favour in the draft Order. However, the protective provisions included in the draft Order need to be updated to: (a) Reflect modernised language that has been introduced by Network Rail since the earlier draft was shared with the applicant. These amendments include the use of gender neutral pronouns. (b) Incorporate all necessary cross-references (particularly in paragraph 4). Network Rail is in contact with the applicant's solicitors and will be sharing that revised form of wording with them and, if necessary, can update the position through their written representations. 2. Agreements to regulate the interface between the development and Network Rail assets. In particular Network Rail requires: (a) A commitment from the applicant that the requested form of protective provisions will be promoted as part of the draft Order, and adhered to when exercising powers under the Order. (b) Appropriate asset protection agreements and property agreements be put in place to govern the carrying out of works in the vicinity of the operational railway network to safeguard Network Rail's statutory undertaking. (c) Any commitments to be binding on any person to whom the benefit of the provisions of the Order, if made, are transferred Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Bertenshaw
"I object to this planning proposal, and I am extremely concerned that the local council was given no say in this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Hicks
"I wish to register my objection to the AQUIND Interconnector project because of the adverse effect it will have on Eastney foreshore and the wildlife of shore and adjacent marsh land, Milton common and the wildlife of that area and the severe disruption to the eastern road main route in and out of the city on the eastern side. There will also be severe disruption to the residents of the roads adjacent to the Milton common with excavation / construction traffic. This project has not been thoroughly thought through and will not provide any benefit to the Eastney and Milton areas and should therefore not proceed"
Local Authorities
Portsmouth City Council
"Relevant Representation of Portsmouth City Council in relation to the Application for a Development Consent Order made by Aquind Limited in respect of a proposed development - Aquind Interconnector Project - for an electric power transmission link between the South Coast of England and Normandy in France PINS reference EN020022 1. Introduction 1.1 The proposed development covers the administrative boundaries of four UK local planning authorities (also with a marine licence component, under jurisdiction of the Marine Management Authority). It affects land within the ownership of Portsmouth City Council ("PCC"). PCC is an 'affected person' within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008 and related legislation. 1.2 PCC objects to the DCO Application by Aquind Limited and wishes to take a full part in the examination, including any issue specific hearing and compulsory acquisition hearings relevant to its interests and the matters set out herein. 1.3 This relevant representation describes the principal concerns and objections of PCC in relation to the Application. PCC intends to submit detailed Written Representations in relation to the points raised in this relevant representation when the examination has begun and timetable set. 2. Procedural and Legal Issues 2.1 With regard to the Draft DCO Content, a failure effectively to engage with PCC and other stakeholders at the crucial ‘frontload’ stage in respect of key details of the scheme prior to the DCO application has in turn produced a draft DCO that overreaches and fails to justify the powers it seeks in principle and detail. 2.2 Further, the breadth of Order Land to be burdened is excessive and unjustified. This is exacerbated by the fact that significant areas of Order Land exist for public use and the Order is unable to offer any certainty as to the duration of interference during and beyond construction. Instead, the Order defensively seeks to reserve maximum flexibility for Aquind, causing maximum uncertainty and inevitable disruption to the public. Even where land is not to be compulsorily acquired, Aquind seeks to secure powers that hand it special rights going forward and exceptions to the usual process. For example Aquind would not through the Order need to seek approval for the felling etc. of trees, despite their immense value to the public on an island city. The powers sought to maintain the development after completion are wide ranging and onerous, for example, the draft powers seek to limit development potential of land and deny access during maintenance operations. 2.3 Additionally, the proposed amendment through the DCO of existing legislative frameworks that empower local authorities to govern, for example, interference with trees, highways and traffic is a recurring theme throughout the provisions of this draft Order. The Council takes the view that the justification offered by Aquind for the loss of these public rights and protections amounts to no more than convenience to Aquind and that this falls far short of justifying the transfer of such powers away from a democratically accountable local authority into the hands of a private body. 2.4 Even where Aquind proposes in the Order to request approvals from local authorities, it seeks deeming provisions that allow Aquind to proceed as it wishes where a local authority is unable to respond within a short, fixed number of days. 2.5 It is unacceptable for Aquind to have provided so little detail of its programme whilst seeking maximum flexibility for itself and actively seeking to curtail the power of local authorities to make reasonable decisions which affect the public in an appropriate and fair timescale. 2.6 The nature and breadth of the powers sought, the exceptional amendments sought to existing statutory regimes and the priority it seeks to award itself over democratically accountable local authorities are symptomatic of Aquind attempting to obtain special, unwarranted treatment through the DCO process, overreaching itself and behaving without due regard to proportionality. 2.7 In relation to Special Land, under Article 23 of the draft Order the developer seeks the compulsory acquisition of rights and the imposition of restrictive covenants for the allotments and public open space. The developer has wholly failed to satisfy the requirements of s132 of the Planning Act 2008. For example, no replacement land is being offered. 2.8 In respect of Human Rights, the human rights of the Council and members of the public associated with the legal ownership of and use of public land which would be lost as a consequence of confirmation of this DCO are also threatened. 2.9 Open space and garden allotment land are assets for the purposes of Article 1 to the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights ("ECHR"), benefitting the Council and members of the public generally (in relation to open space) and specifically (in relation to allotment holders). The breadth of land-take and the onerous restrictive covenants sought over public open space land, combined with short notice periods to enter onto the public open space land and take control of it represent an indeterminate, uncertain, fluctuating control of Council land that at short notice will deny the Council and the public possession of its land. 2.10 The proposed acquisition of subsoil to the highway, where the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 are available to Aquind like any other undertaker is overreaching the necessary minimum measures, demonstrating inadequate consideration and proportionality. A statutory framework exists in the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and it is submitted that interference should only be in accordance with this accepted regime which provides checks and balances in the public interest. From the perspective of proportionality, Aquind has not made a clear case for the need to alter the regime as necessary; amendments to the legislation are solely posed in reality for Aquind's own convenience. It is submitted that no good reason has been given to depart from the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 as the pre-eminent English statute that is accessible, precise and foreseeable. It is also an example of the abuse of the Planning Act 2008 by Aquind. 2.11 Further, the attempt by Aquind to acquire highway subsoil unnecessarily will impact upon the Article 8 ECHR right to respect for private and family life where private homes adjoin affected highway and own that subsoil under the ad medium filum presumption. It is not clear that such persons have been properly consulted on the loss of this part of their property or at all - any suggestion that such interests are ‘nominal’ and somehow do not warrant full consultation with affected properties and cogent justification like any other interest in land proposed for compulsory acquisition, is wrong in law. Deprivation of such property without compensation would also offend Art 1 of the First Protocol of the ECHR and is counter to the Planning Act 2008 in any event. 2.12 This application for development consent with regard to the compulsory acquisition powers it seeks is notable not only because the would-be ‘acquiring authority’ is a private company with an interconnector licence with minimal public standing, reputation or goodwill but also in this instance is a DCO which is targeting mostly public, not private land. The protection of public interest is in strict contrast to the applicants’ aims which is to serve its own profitable business venture. This is a further example of an abuse of the Planning Act 2008. 2.13 The Council as a long-standing, archetypal public authority represents a significant population and strongly rejects the applicant’s claim that the compulsory acquisition of rights sought is in the public interest and is compelling in any way. The applicant must as a matter of law demonstrate this and it cannot. The Council maintains that the interference with public land to the extent that has been articulated within the application to date is both weak as well as unorthodox. The interference is in short unjustified due to the prejudice identified by the Council and the absence of public benefit. 2.14 In respect of CJEU Litigation and Regulatory Uncertainty, the Court of Justice of the European Union ("CJEU") litigation relating to regulation of the continental half of the interconnector represents a serious impediment to the underlying scheme and its likely implementation within a reasonable timescale. It raises clear issues as to the scheme’s viability and the applicant’s expectation of implementation even within the 7 years sought. 2.15 As noted by PINS in its s51 advice Aquind has 2 cases pending at the CJEU: Aquind v ACER, Case T-735/18 and Aquind and Others v Commission, Case T-885/19. In Aquind v ACER, Case T-735/18, Aquind has pleaded with the CJEU to acknowledge "the legal impossibility for the applicant to operate the proposed interconnector in France without an exemption". This submission undermines the Aquind’s case which must be proven as compelling and in the public interest and underscores the unquantified risk that the vague financial statement alludes to; the financial viability of the project is in therefore in evident and serious doubt. 2.16 As for this application including the laying of Fibre Optic Data Cables together with the electricity cables, the facilitation of a commercial data cable under Electricity Act 1989 powers is incompatible with that legislation. In terms of the nature of the equipment and the commercial purpose it will be applied to; it is not a necessary part of this project if it is to be treated as a nationally significant infrastructure project. It finds no support in National Policy Statement EN-1. It is therefore ultra vires the Electricity Act 1989 and the Planning Act 2008. The applicant does not appear to hold a relevant telecommunications licence, is not a statutory undertaker in this regard and therefore is in no legal position to interfere with the public interest in this matter. The inclusion of data cable is quite clearly motivated in purely commercial terms and is not ‘associated development’ within the meaning of the Planning Act 2008. It is a further example of the abuse of the 2008 Act by Aquind. 3. Background and Context 3.1 A previous joint response from PCC, Havant BC, East Hants DC and Winchester CC considered the project should be determined by the relevant local authorities through the planning application process rather than a Development Consent Order. 3.2 Whilst PCC acknowledges the Secretary of State issued a direction under s35 of the Planning Act 2008 that the scheme be treated as an NSIP and the application has been accepted, PCC considers for a number of reasons the project in reality fails to meet the requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and therefore cannot lawfully be allowed (see above). 3.3 PCC has now seen the Environmental Statement (‘the ES’) which purports to set out the need for new electricity infrastructure project of this nature. PCC will draw attention to the original business case from when the National Grid Transmission Studies identified 10 substations that could accommodate the Interconnector and whether the decision to discount of 7 substations was re-examined and properly justified in light of the s.35 direction in July 2018. 3.4 In particular PCC will draw attention to Aquind’s decision at the earliest stage that the route should be in highway and also to its early rejection of Chickerell, near Weymouth, as a potential location. This latter decision was seemingly based solely upon the potential cost of rebuilding and reinforcing the electricity network. 3.5 This decision was not based upon any or any proper consideration or understanding of the environmental effects as a consequence of choosing other locations compared with this location. 3.6 PCC considers that the ES has still not provided a robust justification for discounting this location. 3.7 Available information on alternative options at the time the decisions were made about them and their impacts were inconsistent and insufficient. The ES and the application have not clarified these significant matters any further. Consideration of alternative landing points and cable routes for the Interconnector still appear incomplete. Hayling Island, for instance, is discounted for constraints associated with crossing Langstone Harbour and inability of Langstone bridge to carry the cables; the same constraints exist for Eastern Road bridge that also forms a crossing of the same environmentally sensitive harbour. Cabling along the former Hayling railway ‘Billy’ line could have significant benefits during construction compared with a highway route, for any future disruption of repair/maintenance of the Interconnector over its lifetime use and path improvement upon completion. 3.8 The promotion of the formal consultation in local media and via social media was insufficient. More resources/advertising should have been allocated to promoting the consultation events and promoting the consultation to the wider population as well as those directly impacted by the proposed cable route; for example, people who use the recreational areas that will be affected would likely be unaware of the consultation and would have missed this opportunity to voice their opinion. The engagement with other stakeholders, community or interest groups and others who may have an interest in the proposed development as well as hard to reach groups has not been sufficient for a project of this size and significance. 3.9 The A2030 (Eastern Road) conveys in excess of 40,000 vehicles per day and represents only 1 of 3 road links between Portsea Island and the mainland. Any reduction in capacity on one of these three key routes seriously reduces the resilience of the already strained highway network in Portsmouth. 3.10 A final route through Portsea Island and the mainland beyond has yet to be defined. This is unacceptable at this stage of the process. 3.11 It is still not clear why Portsmouth, the most densely populated city outside London and the UK's only island city, has been chosen as the landfall point for the on-shore cable. Whilst Aquind suggest the cable route encroaches into the highway as little as is practicable in certain locations this is unavoidable. Implications of cabling through the highway would in fact have far greater an impact than off-road routing and result in severe impacts upon traffic movement with significant disruption and inconvenience to city residents, businesses and visitors. Queueing, diverted or rat-running traffic will significantly impact air quality, detrimentally impairing the ability of PCC to achieve its statutory obligations. 3.12 In national policy, where a new energy NSIP may give rise to substantial impacts on the surrounding transport infrastructure, including during its construction phase, the applicant should mitigate these impacts of the development. Given the serious congestion on the local highway network the Construction Management proposed is an entirely inadequate response to mitigate the serious issues which will arise during construction. 3.13 PCC consider that a fund for community benefits to secure localised improvements for road users should be at least be required from Aquind to assist project mitigation. Biodiversity enhancement measures and a delivery programme for such improvements at Eastney after completion of works for the landfall underground connection bay should also form part of essential mitigation works. 3.14 The potential for cumulative effects and co-ordination of the Interconnector project with other development schemes have not been adequately assessed. A number of planned works and events conflict with the proposed cable route(s). The most significant of these will be the Coastal flood defences being renewed along both the eastern side of Portsea Island and the Seafront, Eastney to Old Portsmouth; these schemes will clash with the Interconnector construction programme. Whilst coastal defences work will not encroach into the A2030, there will be a number of associated HGV movements, as compound space is extremely restricted. Due to constraints imposed upon these works as a result of the protections placed upon Langstone Harbour, no delay can be accepted as the programme is carefully planned to avoid impacting on protected wildlife for overwintering periods. 3.15 The absence of a clear rationale and weighting of environmental, social and economic effects, taking into account technical feasibility, call into question the decisions made to discount the East Wittering cable route where crossing private land could have significant benefits during construction compared with the disbenefits of mainly highways routing. As noted this seems to have been set as a scheme parameter at a very early stage with no proper understanding or justification for the implications of that choice. 4. Traffic and transport 4.1 As noted PCC has considerable concerns about the impacts the scheme will have upon its highways and the adequacy of Aquind’s assessment and understanding of these likely impacts and which are of fundamental importance at this stage. 4.2 Given the density of population in Portsmouth and significantly congested road network, a development of this type in this location would be highly unsuitable. The A2030 - Eastern Road - is a prime example; large parts of it will be significantly affected over an extended period of time. The A2030 conveys in excess of 40k vehicles per day and forms one of only three road links between Portsea Island and the mainland. Any reduction in capacity on one of these three key routes will load further demand onto the other routes and as a consequence seriously reduce the resilience of an already strained highway network in Portsmouth. 4.3 Significant impacts would be experienced by all road users along the routing of the cable during construction. The roads proposed to form the cable route through Portsmouth are mostly classified roads and form a corridor linking the eastern areas of the city to the national strategic road network. It is expected that motorised users of the affected roads including Public Transport and Freight Vehicles; and non-motorised users, including pedestrians and cyclists, will be significantly affected. 4.4 A defined route through Portsmouth has in fact yet to be determined and the extent to which the cable route will pass through the Highway remains unclear. This is especially relevant in the Milton area of Portsmouth where two very different alignments are indicated. The implications of the Highway route would be far greater than the mostly off-road route however both potential alignments would be expected to cause significant disruption to residents, businesses and visitors. 4.5 The number and location of joint bays are still unknown. Whilst it is suggested that the intention is to place these "off-carriageway", like the cable route, this will ultimately be decided by the contractor or contractors whom have yet to be appointed. Unlike the cable route, no suggested locations have even been given for these joint bays and as such their impact is impossible to assess. Furthermore, the location of the cable route and joint bays could prejudice future road improvement works as the cost of diverting such services would likely be prohibitive to undertaking a future scheme; this is especially the case were a contractor to choose a Highway route at A2030 Eastern Road. 4.6 The traffic modelling has been carried out in line with the scoping note previously submitted to and agreed by the LHA. In line with this approach, the applicant has attempted to replicate a "worst case" scenario. However, the modelling does not cover a possible cable route along the A2030 between Tangier Road and Eastern Avenue nor does it account for cumulative residual impacts of traffic merging to pass-by works or diverting away from works. It is noted that SRTM does make an assumption as to the redirection of traffic however it does not accurately predict vehicle movements at a microscopic level and as a consequence, the overall impacts of the works are likely to be greater/wider than anticipated. 4.7 Abnormal loads are briefly referenced within the Framework Traffic Management Plan however incorrectly state that "a vehicle is considered abnormal when…. the gross weight is over 80 tonnes". The official definition of an abnormal load is those in excess of 40 tonnes (amongst other criteria). The applicant's consultants suggested during pre-submission consultations periods that 50 tonne cable drums would be brought to site each day during cable-pulling (possibly from the Ferry port where the cable drums could be stored). This would result in abnormal loads being transported through the centre of Portsmouth on a daily basis, which would inevitably disrupt traffic and bus services even if undertaken outside of peak hours. The frequency and/or proposed route of abnormal loads have simply not been addressed or their impact assessed. 4.8 A framework Construction Traffic Management Plan has been provided, however a tailored CTMP produced for each construction phase is proposed to be submitted only when a contractor(s) is appointed. This would be too late as the impact should be properly understood at this stage. 4.9 Presently the traffic management drawings are very high level and simply indicate where lane closures/road closures are required and what the likely diversionary routes will be. It is suggested that roads closed will prevent vehicular access for residents; this will be unacceptable, access to residents and business, and for emergency services should be available at all times. Details of the consultation strategy for each cable section should also be included, to be agreed with the LHA. 4.10 No over-arching programme has been provided at sectional (and sub-sectional) level, as a consequence it is not possible to ascertain whether the various assumptions/restrictions applied to each section (and sub-section) will translate to a viable programme. In a "worst case" scenario, some elements of the provided programme would appear undeliverable. At engagement meetings with Aquind's transport consultants, it was suggested that due to the scale of the project, more than one contractor is likely to be granted contracts for work packages associated with this project. It is of paramount importance that coordination is achieved between the two (or more) contractors, delays to one (or more) of the contractors has the potential for additional and unnecessary delay especially of working on the same section of road. The CTMP should detail how this relationship would work if multiple contracts are to be awarded and who will ultimately be responsible for coordinating highways works on behalf of the applicant. 4.11 The Overarching National Policy Statement for Energy (ONPSE EN-1), in para 5.13.6, states that a new energy NSIP may give rise to substantial impacts on the surrounding transport infrastructure, including during the construction phase of the development. The applicant is required to mitigate these impacts with an aim to secure more sustainable patterns of transport development when considering mitigation measures (para 5.13.9); funding to bring forward proposals for increased capacity in the P+R (Tipner) earlier may, for instance, present an effective management measure for road congestion and mitigate against contributing to poor air quality. 4.12 The proposed programme of works for the development will likely clash with significant schemes being delivered in Portsmouth and risks delaying these work packages; in the case of proposed works associated with the Transforming Cities Fund any delay could jeopardise the overall delivery given the time restrictions likely to be placed upon the funding. The City Council, in conjunction with Hampshire County Council and the Isle of Wight Council, has been shortlisted for a share of this Fund and will receive a decision from DfT in March 2020. The proposed cable route will intersect and travel along sections of the route proposed to form the new South East Hampshire Rapid Transit (SEHRT) network (both in Portsmouth and Hampshire authority areas). If successful in obtaining funding, the programme of works will run until March 2023 and is time limited. Implementation of what will be a congested delivery period could not be delayed nor could newly installed highway infrastructure be disturbed/undermined. 4.13 Through a PFI, Colas contractually undertake the network duty of coordination of third parties/statutory undertakers on the public highway acting as Local Highway Authority. All works on the public highway are required under the New Roads and Street Act 1991 and Traffic Management Act 2004 to have notices served correctly on the Street Works Register, appropriate traffic regulation orders etc. It is probable that Portsmouth will be operating a permit scheme by summer 2020, with a lane rental scheme to follow; any works on the highway associated with this development will be expected to adhere to the procedures set out by the Local Highway Authority. Portsmouth LHA objects to any deviation from or disapplication of the NRSWA 1991 (the '91 act). As statutory undertaker, the '91 act provides sufficient rights and protections to undertakers to install and maintain any apparatus or carry out any other activity related to the operation of that apparatus. 4.14 Portsmouth LHA objects to an undertaker having rights to make, alter, impose and enforce Traffic Regulation Orders (both permanent and temporary) as if it were the LHA. The LHA will be unable to properly manage and control its network should the Undertaker be given such powers. The LHA already has robust set processes for drafting, advertising and making TROs (both permanent and Temporary) that are used successfully for other undertakers carrying out works on the Highway. There appears to be no justification for obtaining this power other than previous precedent. 5. Air Quality implications 5.1 The City Council is currently in receipt of ministerial directives from DEFRA with regard to the Air Quality in Portsmouth. Whilst the areas subject to these directives are not located along the proposed cable routing, it is highly likely that the works will result in diverting trips to the other two main routes which each have a ministerial directive placed upon them (A3 & A2047). 5.2 Recent Air Quality modelling also suggests that the air quality in Portsmouth is worsening with the areas of exceedance likely to increase from 4 to approx. 12. Compliance in the areas subject to ministerial directives must be achieved by mid-late 2021, putting this date firmly within the construction period for this project. A sustained period of disruption as would be caused by the proposed works will contribute further to the serious issue of poor air quality in Portsmouth which the city is seeking to address and this in itself should be a key reason to consider alternative routes outside of the city. 6. Surface Water Resources and Flood Risk – Sequential Test 6.1 The ES is inaccurate. It describes the site of the proposed ORS buildings at Eastney as located within Flood Zone 2. The Environment Agency Flood Maps show the site within Flood Zone 3. 6.2 This means that a full sequential test should be applied and met which has simply not occurred. 6.3 The test would need to set out what other locations with a lower risk of flooding have been considered for the proposed siting of ORS buildings and why it cannot reasonably be located within an area with the lowest probability of flooding (Flood Zone 1, or if no site is available then Flood Zone 2). 6.4 To that end the application and the ES is wholly deficient in this regard. 7. Heritage and design 7.1 The introduction of two buildings, power supply equipment and fuel tanks is not justified at the proposed location (or at all). The original intention for the scheme at landfall was "…works to connect the onshore HVDC underground cables to the marine HVDC cables, comprising two underground chambers to house the cable joints, known as transmission joint bays." Aquind has never explained the true nature or relationship of the electricity undertaking with the commercial telecommunications undertaking. There is also an extraordinary level of uncertainty around how many FOCs are necessary which can be treated as genuinely incidental and ancillary to the requirements of an electricity interconnector (eg how many cables in total, how many are proposed to link to Normandy and how many to Lovedean). 7.2 The site at Eastney is in use as a public car park, which is finished in rolled scalpings. The parking facility nestles inconspicuously into the scrubland character of the adjacent open space to the north-east, which forms part of a Local Wildlife Site encircling Fort Cumberland. 7.3 The proposed ORS buildings at Eastney would significantly affect the setting of Fort Cumberland, a Scheduled Monument and in a group containing one Grade II* and three Grade II listed buildings. The ORS buildings are intended to be prominently sited in the car park, in close proximity to adjacent highway, within the 'fields of fire' from the ravelin towards Fort Cumberland Road. 7.4 Functional in form, the indicative parameter plan shows rectangular boxes with back-up power supply enclosures and fuel tanks, in a fenced compound; in the open coastal plain and within the setting of heritage assets these permanent ORS structures would be dispiriting and out of place, would not represent the principles of 'good design' and have a significant adverse landscape and significant impact upon visual amenity. The suggestion made by Aquind that the ORS buildings are analogous with more simple electricity generation plant is nonsensical. Other small-scale infrastructure buildings are indeed often assimilated into the built environment but this is because they demonstrate a more appropriate or sympathetic approach to architectural quality. 7.5 To meet the requirements of the NPPF (2019) the applicant should demonstrate harm to heritage significance has been minimised as far as is possible through careful design of the proposals. They should also sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets, and make a positive contribution to the distinctiveness of the local area. 7.6 The ORS buildings should be more sympathetically assimilated amongst other built-form on the Eastney peninsula rather than prominently sited in the open coastal plain and setting of heritage assets, where it may be visually receding if the intended architectural quality is functional at best. 7.7 There are also archaeological concerns in this location which the applicant has not properly considered or addressed. Appropriate Requirements will be needed to ensure the archaeological value of the area is not prejudiced and this is a matter PPC will address further in its LIR. 8. Impact on trees 8.1 Trees are a valuable component of Portsmouth city's green infrastructure network. Trees contribute to urban character and soften the appearance of the built-up area, especially in a city covering just 40 sqkm that is the most densely populated outside of London, at over 5000 people per sqkm. PCC has around 30,000 trees under its care in parks, other open spaces and adjacent to roads. More than 3,000 trees of particular importance are subject of Tree Preservation Order (TPO); these will typically be on private land in the city. 8.2 PCC’s practice is not normally to TPO trees within its guardianship and consequently has important trees in the city that are not subject of a TPO. Trees contribute to the city's environment by providing oxygen, improving air quality, climate amelioration, conserving water, preserving soil and connectivity that provides movement corridors for wildlife. 8.3 The loss of any tree, including those of such amenity value to warrant protection by TPO, must be avoided. The DCO application requirement for felling of any trees, including those protected by TPO, is not considered acceptable. Despite a dense urban nature, there is a rich variety of biodiversity within Portsmouth with 30% of the city covered by statutory national and international nature conservation designations. Langstone Harbour includes SSSI, Ramsar, SPA and part of the Solent Maritime SAC and sections of Portsdown Hill as designated SSSI. There are also a number of areas used as feeding sites by waders and Brent Geese or categorised as local wildlife sites, all of which add to the markedly more verdant character of the east side of the city along route options between Eastney and Portsdown Hill. 8.4 As examples, after reviewing entries in Schedule 11 of the DCO, a suggestion of potential felling of trees marked G654 (in TPO 75) is completely untenable and unacceptable. There are a variety of species through the site but largely Common Beech trees along its frontage in London Road. These prominent trees on raised ground behind a listed wall contribute significantly to the local area and graveyard setting of the Grade II listed "Christ Church Portsdown". In addition, an avenue of trees in Furze Lane (TPO 215) form a valued local feature in Milton. Any felling requires overriding justification as a last resort rather than first preference option, at the whim of any future contractor(s) whose priorities for swiftness and value-for-money may be held to outweigh environmental interests. Replacement tree planting would takes decades to make any substantial contribution locally. Existing trees along the site boundary of the west side of the football pitch used by Baffins Milton Rovers FC, fronting onto the A2030 (Eastern Road) and south of the junction to Kendall's Wharf, provide a crucial screening function to an existing industrial seaborne aggregates operation. Felling of the existing trees, without replacement, would have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the site and its surroundings. It would also undermine the careful design and mitigation measures for North Portsea Island Phase 4 coastal defence works. 8.5 The impact upon eco-system services provided by the current trees potentially for removal has not been calculated; mitigation planting should be engineered to compensate for the total current eco-system services to be lost. Impacts of a loss of established or mature trees and their contribution to air quality, health and well-being that cannot be readily compensated for in the shorter–term by equivalent numbers of replacement (smaller) tree planting. The proposed one-for-one replacement using nursery stock will take years to adequately recreate the current levels. 9. Socio-Economics/Human Health 9.1 The Interconnector route would go through sports pitches at Bransbury, Langstone and Farlington resulting in the loss of sports provision for both football and cricket with no mitigation measures in place. The current provision of pitches at these key sports grounds are: (a) 10 senior + 1 junior football pitches and 2 cricket pitches at Farlington, (b) 3 senior football pitches at Bransbury and (c) 1 senior pitch and 1 cricket pitch plus one football pitch leased to Baffins Milton Rover FC (Wessex League Premier Division) at Langstone. All of these pitches are intensively used and there is no spare capacity to accommodate games at alternative venues. To give an indication of the scale of disruption to organised sport, there are an average of 238 football matches and 38 cricket fixtures in a season at Farlington, 64 football matches and 42 cricket fixtures in a season at *Langstone and 54 football matches at Bransbury. The intensity of use at Baffins Milton Rovers FC (on a separate leased football pitch at *Langstone) is less straightforward to quantify but includes 18 home Wessex League fixtures as well as home games for 'Portsmouth Ladies' team as well as training and practice games for other squad players that form part of the wider team setups. 9.2 At Farlington Playing Fields, the potential but unspecified requirement for existing parking facilities that serve the football and cricket pitches is problematical. Parking provision at Farlington is oversubscribed on match days. Alternative parking facilities proximate to the pitches would be required to fulfil the sporting fixtures. Temporary loss of parking provision serving the open spaces during construction will also effect wider public access, with localised change to patterns of dog walker activity likely to impact recreational disturbance on the SPA for waders and Brent geese. It is unclear whether the timing/duration of cabling activity on the playing fields recognises non-availability and prior reinstatement for bird foraging during overwintering periods (1st October to 31st March). 9.3 The ES describes the magnitude of impact to Farlington Playing Fields/Bransbury Park as moderate adverse and to Langstone as low. Such assertions lack credibility. Without mitigation, by reprovision elsewhere within the local area, the impact on players/followers if unable to complete football and cricket fixtures for up to three sporting seasons has been fundamentally underestimated and for many would be devastating. 9.4 The DCO application fails to recognise the length of time required for reinstatement of playing field surfaces to a condition where sport can once again be played; depending on timing of works reseeding of grass (spring or autumn) will take 6-12 months, including reinstatement of existing land drainage schemes. 9.5 The timing and duration of temporary loss of open space and loss of pitches is unclear. No mitigation strategy, by reprovision of open space and sports pitches during the period of works, has been devised with a resulting detrimental effect on leisure/recreational provision, play facilities serving local communities with consequential effects on the health and well-being of residents. 9.6 Life expectancy for both males and females residing in Portsmouth is lower than the regional and national average. In general, the health of people in the city is worse than the rest of England, and there are significant health inequalities. Accessible sports facilities and opportunities to be physically active have a vital role to play in addressing local health inequalities. 9.7 The presentation by Aquind to the Milton Allotment holders assured the tenants of allotments that the cabling route tunneled under the site by Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD). The DCO application now reneges on this position and introduces potential significant interruption to tenancies of allotment plot holders. 9.8 There will be significant impact on and loss of open space for the holding of events or use to support events elsewhere in the city. Off-site camping for 'Victorious Festival', the major yearly August Bank Holiday weekend event on Southsea Common, is accommodated across the whole of the Farlington Playing Fields. Mitigation measures to ensure the timing/duration of appropriate reinstatement of ground conditions suitable for camping, with associated car parking, are essential for the sports fields and car park for Victorious to operate. 9.9 The works permitted under the order are too broad for the public open space and allotments and would impact on their long term use (eg the order permits bunds, embankments, footpaths, apparatus etc) and no replacement land is being offered under Planning Act 2008. 9.10 The maintenance rights sought are too onerous for the public open space and allotments and would impact on their long term use (eg the order permits broad maintenance of the works at short notice). 9.11 During the construction period there will be significant adverse effects due to temporary diversions of 7 PROW and four long distance footpaths and an off road cycle route. 9.12 The proposed programme of cable works will potentially give rise to a loss of business activity within the city due to increased congestion. 10. Funding 10.1 PCC considers that funding should be a principal issue for detailed testing and interrogation at examination. Aquind Limited's Funding Statement is manifestly insufficient in detail as to how the proposed project costs have been calculated, and how the project is to be funded. 10.2 There is paucity of information regarding the ability of Aquind Limited to fund either the construction costs, or the costs of land acquisition of the proposed development. As acknowledged in the Funding Statement, "the Project does not have the benefit of full funding at this stage", and in fact given that "funding for the project is expected to be subject to grant of the development consent order" this would indicate that the project is almost entirely unfunded and at risk. 10.3 Aquind Limited states it intends to raise equity capital and project debt financing to meet the estimated costs of the proposed development, these are stated to be secured against the operational profits of the project. However the Funding Statement is entirely silent on what levels of revenue will be generated by the project, the timing of such revenue, and whether these would be sufficient to act as the required security. This is a crucial component of the overall viability of the project as well as its case for compulsory acquisition. 10.4 Equity capital and project debt financing is proposed to be funded from a number of sources (including infrastructure funds and institutional investors). Aquind state that "Market engagement has been undertaken", this is not evidenced, and additionally there is only anecdotal evidence that there "is a strong interest in the provision of finance for the Project." 10.5 Usually, SPV companies promoting Development Consent Orders are backed either by Government departments or by UK registered parent companies (such as regulated utilities) or by publically listed companies with audited accounts, extensive assets and track records for delivery of similar projects and detailed public information regarding shareholdings and governance. Aquind Limited is a recently incorporated SPV company with little trading history. Its most recent set of accounts filed at Companies House (for the year ended 30 June 2018) show that the company has a Shareholders deficit of £1.85m. Additionally the accounts show an amount of £12.6m being owed to group undertakings, this is an overseas entity which would require an additional level of due diligence to be carried out on it. 10.6 The current capital cost estimate for the proposed development (£622m) shown within Aquind Limited's Funding Statement is based on an equal split of the estimated overall cost of the project between the elements in France and in the UK. This is an incredibly simplistic assumption and the Funding Statement does not in any way demonstrate how realistic this is. Are the construction elements required in France and the UK similar in nature? In complexity? The Funding Statement is entirely silent on this. 10.7 The broad breakdown of the proposed development cost estimate is very high-level. With regards to a project of this size PCC would expect to see a much more detailed breakdown, especially of the £599m construction cost figure (representing 96% of total costs). Additionally development costs are stated at £19m which is confusing given the statement that "As at 30 June 2019, it is estimated that the total assets of the Applicant were approximately £24.5m, mainly consisting of the capitalised development costs of approximately £23m." 10.8 It is unclear whether there are any allowances for risk or contingency within the proposed development cost estimate, which would be a pre-requisite of any financial modelling at this stage of a project of this size and infancy. 10.9 Aquind Limited's Funding Statement asserts that "the costs of interest and other debt servicing will be met from revenues generated by the Project". To reiterate the comment made above, the Funding Statement is silent on what levels of revenue will be generated by the project and whether these would be sufficient to meet the costs of interest/debt servicing (as well as providing security for the project finance funding). 10.10 The land acquisition costs stated within the Funding Statement exclude the valuation of the Crown Estate's seabed interest. There is every chance that this is a material cost which would further add to the sizeable unfunded capital cost estimate of the project and would require additional funding to be identified and secured. 10.11 Aquind Limited also do not anticipate any claims for blight will arise, this is a rather disingenuous position given a project of this scale and the proposed route of the HVDC onshore cables. If they do arise they would add to the unfunded proposed development cost estimate. 10.12 Beyond that, there is only anecdotal evidence that there is any prospect of credible investors agreeing to invest the hundreds of millions of pounds necessary to deliver the proposed development on the basis of the limited business case set out in Aquind Limited's Application. It is PCC's case that investors require a significant amount of certainty that the project is viable, and that they would see a return on their investment before they would even consider to invest circa £600m for the construction of the proposed development. 10.13 There is no evidence from the Application materials that Aquind Limited has actually assessed the commercial viability of the proposed development. There is no evidenced business case for the proposed development. Aquind Limited should be called upon by the Examining Authority on behalf of the Secretary of State to present a full viability appraisal as part of the examination of the proposed development. This should include as a minimum: • details of the land valuations used in the model; • details of the assumptions and projections for build costs for each element of the proposals; • details of any allowances for risk and uncertain costs; • details of provisional values of operational costs, replacement costs and decommissioning costs; • revenue assumptions and short, medium and long-range revenue forecasts for each revenue element; and • details of project financing costs and structures. 10.14 Once the information detailed above has been provided and due diligence is carried out it will then and only then be possible to understand if Aquind Limited's development proposals are at all viable and realistic. 10.15 The current Funding Statement and other application materials contain no information on how the estimated land compensation sum of £4m has been calculated. PCC does not consider that this figure represents a full and proper valuation of the costs of land acquisition for the proposed development. 10.16 Similarly, the Funding Statement and other application materials merely assert that the total construction cost of the proposed development will be £599million without any proper breakdown or explanation as to how this figure has been arrived at, or how this expenditure is to be phased through the life of the proposed development. 10.17 There is no consideration given in the Funding Statement or elsewhere in the application to the lifetime costs of the proposed development, or how ongoing maintenance costs are to be met from expected revenues. 10.18 There is no information on the expected operational revenues, which would be necessary in order to inform a view on the likely economic viability of the proposals. This is a key requirement due to the reliance on the revenues to secure project finance funding. 10.19 Accordingly, PCC requests that a full viability model is provided as a highly important part of the examination into this purported DCO. 11. Ground conditions/contamination 11.1 There are parcels of land with significant pollution along the route options. A detailed assessment of each of these parcels of land would have been expected as part of the DCO application; the desk study should have included a sampling rationale and progressed onto the testing of identified sites. Some of these areas have been previously remediated for their current use (Milton Common being the most obvious example). A desk study review of available records for several areas encountered by the route has been started but not completed. For each location of previously used land a conceptual model, as described in the relevant British Standard BS10175, should be created to risk assess the impact that the cable construction will have, to ensure exposure will not occur during or after works, and where remediation has been undertaken, show that remediation will not be compromised by the groundworks. 11.2 The limited data in the ES is not a pollution focused survey. It is baseline testing and the pollution focused survey is intended to be completed at a later date. A desk study of the route was to be created and any further sampling, as suggested from that preliminary Conceptual Model, is yet to be completed. This proposed testing should be summarised in the form of a sampling rationale. There are no proposals in the ES for consideration. Testing of these potentially polluted locations would normally already have been undertaken and no adequate justification for their absence is provided. 11.3 Any polluted locations that can be identified from historic records or local knowledge should be considered in advance, and the approach to these areas to ensure no new exposures, not allowing the movement of pollution, both during and after works should be documented in advance of works. There should also be a Watching Brief for the entire route for any unexpected areas of pollution that may be encountered. The details in the ES are therefore incomplete. 11.4 Whilst a Watching Brief and Method Statement should be in place to resolve unforeseen pollution that maybe encountered, there should also be site investigation and Remediation Method Statement documents to guide site working, remediation and waste disposal for any areas where pollution is reasonably foreseeable. In particular the remediation of any disused landfill sites that the cable route will encounter, such as Milton Common, must not be compromised. The quality of restoration soils left at the surface should be proven clean and documented as such, so that no concerns remain. The migration of bulk gases (both carbon dioxide and methane) must be prevented both during and after works are complete. Dust and exposure to landfill wastes by public and workers should be prevented. This requires a desk study to consider available records, site investigation to resolve any unknowns, and a remedial method statement to show what will be done to restore each of these areas. After works and remediation/restoration, a verification report will be needed to show each of the land areas is now suitable for use. The cable run is a linear feature and so is likely to encounter several areas of previously used land with pollution present. 11.5 Whilst a general Method Statement should be in place to resolve unforeseen pollution encountered, there should be assessment and remediation documents in place for foreseeable areas to guide site working, remediation and waste disposal. 11.6 The ES should have included a plan showing areas that have historical uses and indicating which areas that works will be undertaken by Method Statement with Watching Brief alone, and areas with Remedial Schemes. Any detailed mitigation must include the following requirements: (a) The Phase 1 desk study. This is in progress but not yet complete for all parcels of land with potential pollution present. Each area would need its own conceptual model (diagram, plan, and network diagram) showing the potential contaminant linkages, including proposals for the testing if required (the sampling rationale for all proposed sample locations and depths should be linked to the conceptual model). Although commenced, this work is incomplete. (b) The Phase 2 site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the various parcels of land. This should include testing as identified by the conceptual model, with the sampling rationale being linked to that model. The report should refine the conceptual model of the site and demonstrate how the route can be safely constructed over each parcel of land using, at its simplest level, the general Method Statement and Watching Brief, or indicate that a Remediation Method Statement will be required to work in this area and (c) For each of those identified areas, a Remediation Method Statement report detailing the remedial scheme and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants and/or gases when the development should be provided. 12. Onshore Ecology 12.1 Until there is greater clarity on the final cable route there is potential for significant effects on bird disturbance to the Solent SPAs (notably the adjacent Langstone and Chichester Harbour SPA, designated predominantly to protect over-wintering birds) and Functionally Linked Land lying outside the physical boundaries of the SPA/Ramsar sites used by birds associated with the designated sites or measures for mitigation required to reduce impacts to acceptable levels to ensure the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitat Regulations) and integrity of any relevant European sites are met. 12.2 Eastern Solent Coastal Partnership (who provide a comprehensive coastal management service and is directly employed by PCC and three other partner authorities) raised concerns surrounding the adequacy of the impact mitigation and the impact being secured as part of coastal defence projects being undertaken to Portsea Island. Cumulative impacts are based on inaccurate information and requires updating to reflect overlap in construction and therefore in-combination impacts. The DCO needs to ensure any flood defences are retained or replaced, to ensure the same level of flood protection is maintained and Aquind reduce any cumulative impacts and disruption, to ensure ecological mitigation of sea defence works remains effective. 13. Impact on Coastal Flood Defences 13.1 The project proposes HDD from Farlington to the north-west of Kendall's Wharf to avoid impacts on Langstone Harbour and Phase 1 of the North Portsea Island (NPI) coastal defence scheme. The project identifies a construction compound use of the yard to the south-west of Kendall's Wharf. Depending on timing there is the potential for conflict with delivery of NPI Phase 4 coastal defence works that already has its construction compound there. 13.2 To the south of Kendall's Wharf there are options for cabling (a) to the west of the Baffins Milton Rovers FC playing pitch, through the cricket pitch and the second southern football pitch before crossing a car park and into Eastern Road or (b) along the eastern side of the Baffins Milton Rovers FC pitch. If the latter option is used it would likely affect the landscaping/screening that will be installed as part of the NPI Phase 4 works to mitigate disturbance to birds using the Core SWBGS site (P11) from re-routing of the footpath landward of the Andrew Simpson Watersports Centre/Tudor Sailing Club. 13.3 Between Airport Service Road and the northern end of Milton Common the cabling options are in the carriageway and/or verge of the highway. The cumulative construction traffic effects and potential impacts on access to the NPI construction compounds/haul roads requires assessment. However, the Access and Rights of Way Plans includes land to the east of the highway that raises potential concern that (a) south of the Langstone Harbour Viewing Car Park, this land will be realigned in 2022 as part of the NPI Phase 4 coastal defence works and (b) on the northern end of Milton Common, this area will be used as a construction compound during the NPI Phase 4 works and based on the current programme will be unavailable from April 2021 until September 2022. 13.4 Across Milton Common, it is anticipated that the cable will progress through the corridor adjacent to the path which runs from north-to-south through the Common, parts of which form the coastal flood defences. At the northern part of the coastal defences, a short HDD will be required below the bund of the coastal defences. The cable would then continue south, adjacent to the path to the south-east corner of Milton Common. This suggests that only the crossing of the secondary defence will be HDD and the remainder of the route across the common will be open trenched. 13.5 The HRA (ref 6.8.1) and the Winter working restrictions (ref 6.3.16.14) documents indicate that no works will be undertaken in SWBGS core, primary or secondary sites during October to March. There should, therefore, be no impact on the bird usage of the mitigation areas ESCP propose on Milton Common to offset the impact of the NPI Phase 4b Compound 6 on the SWBGS core site P23R during the winter (NB Aquind ES refers to P23R and P23A – in the latest [2018] version of the SWBGS these polygons have been merged and are both now included within P23R). However, these mitigation areas are very close and potentially overlapping the proposed route north-south across the common. The project must ensure that it would not inadvertently impact on the mitigation areas during construction works in the summer months and their need to be returned to grass by the end of September. 14. Cumulative effects 14.1 New development at Fraser Range Eastney is identified. A planning application for this site, ref 19/00420/FUL, has been formally submitted for new housing (for 134 dwellings) with sea defence works, which is pending consideration. 14.2 Reference is also made to Coastal Defence Schemes for Portsea Island. A planning application for Phase 4A of the North Portsea Island defence scheme, between Kendall's Wharf and the A2030 (Eastern Road), was granted planning permission in July 2019. Construction of the Phase 4A works is underway. A planning application submitted for Phase 4B, between Kendall's Wharf and Milton Common, has been resolved to be in February 2020 and the intended construction programme will form a continuation of the Phase 4A works. Furthermore, in December 2019 planning permission was granted for the £115 million Southsea Sea Defence project. It relates to a 55.75ha site along a 4.5km stretch of seafront, from Old Portsmouth to Eastney, designed to protect 8,077 homes and 704 businesses from the risk of tidal flooding for the next century. Construction is programmed to start in early 2020 and the project completed in 2026. 14.3 The HRA in-combination assessment for onshore defers to the onshore ecology cumulative effects assessment. The NPI Phase 4 sea defence project (see above) has been screened out of cumulative effects with the Aquind project at Stage 2 on the basis that it "…will not interact with the Proposed Development to lead to cumulative effects." This cannot be accepted as correct. Based on the potential interactions outlined under 'Onshore Ecology' and 'Impact on Coastal Flood defences' and, in particular, the potential of the cable route and construction works to impact mitigation measures incorporated into the NPI Phase 4 works to avoid an adverse effect on the SWBGS sites there clearly would be such effects. The final cable route and its timing/access would require close working with the ESCP to ensure no adverse effect on brent geese and waders. 15. Compulsory land acquisition 15.1 It is clear from the application and as set out above that Aquind does not have in place the required agreements with the French authorities. In addition, in light of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU Aquind failed to provide any or any sufficient evidence as to how and when these will be obtained (doc 5.2). 15.2 Prior to the application being accepted by the Examining Authority the applicant (a) did not engage with PCC about the compulsory acquisition sought of PCC land and compensation (b) did not provide heads of terms for PCC land (c) did not provide the proposed Order land plans or details of the parcels of land 15.3 The applicant has not demonstrated that all of PCC's land is required for the development or is required to facilitate or is incidental to the proposed development (s122 PA 2008). 15.4 The final cable route through the City of Portsmouth is not clear from the application. Consequently, the breath of the order land sought is evidently far too wide for what Aquind purportedly need it for in places and is more than is reasonably required for the development. 15.5 The applicant is seeking permission for commercial telecommunications infrastructure under the Electricity Act 1989 powers. As noted earlier this is incompatible with that legislation in terms of the nature of the equipment and the commercial purposes for which it will be applied and is not a necessary part of the interconnector development and is ultra vires. Minimal Fibre Optic Cables (FOCs) are required for monitoring this interconnector scheme alone there is no justification for building an ORS to address the FOCs which are to be used for commercial purposes unrelated to the HVDC cables. No other interconnector schemes have an ORS. 15.6 In order for the commercial FOCs and the ORS and indeed any development related to the project to be treated as ‘associated development” under the Planning Act 2008 it needs meet the following in accordance with the PINS Guidance : (i) a direct relationship between associated development and the principal development. Associated development should therefore either support the construction or operation of the principal development, or help address its impacts. (ii) should not be an aim in itself but should be subordinate to the principal development. (iii) should not be provided in order to cross-subsidise the cost of the principal development or only be necessary as a source of additional revenue for the applicant, (iv) should be proportionate to the nature and scale of the principal development. (v) should be typical of development brought forward alongside the relevant type of principal development or of a kind that is usually necessary to support a particular type of project, for example (where consistent with the core principles above), a grid connection for a commercial power station. 15.7 It is clear that the laying of the large number of FOCs for commercial telecommunications and the ORS which is only required for the FOCs in that capacity fall short of all the criteria above. 15.8 The compulsory acquisition of the land for these works is therefore not reasonably necessary for the purpose of the interconnector development and is not proportionate. Such powers therefore cannot lawfully be provided under the DCO. 15.9 The proposed interference with the Council's rights in land and the public's rights to use that land (highway, public open space and allotments) for the commercial telecommunications is not for a legitimate purpose and is not necessary or proportionate. 15.10 There is no compelling case in the public interest to justify the compulsory acquisition of the PCC's interests in land. The public benefit does not outweigh the loss that the Council, its residents and users of the land within the Order Limits (including the highway, public open space and allotments). 15.11 The applicant has the benefit of an Electricity Interconnector Licence and is therefore a statutory undertaker for the purposed of the New Road and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSW). The acquisition of highway subsoil is not necessary where NRSWA can be applied. 15.12 The applicant is seeking permanent rights, restrictive covenants, access rights as well as temporary use of all of the order land, during construction and for maintenance of the development and to seeking extinguish of existing rights. The extent of the rights sought by the applicant are far too wide and would conflict with the use of the land, in particular the highway land, public open space and allotments which are held for public use. This will significantly and adversely affect the existing and future use, character and nature of the Council's land. 15.13 The applicant is seeking compulsory acquisition of rights of special category land. This land comprises of allotments, public open spaces including Portsmouth Primary Public Sports Fields. 15.14 Under Article 23 of DCO the developer requires the compulsory acquisition of rights and the imposition of restrictive covenants for the allotments and public open space. The developer has not satisfied the requirements of s132 of the Planning Act 2008 for example (as recognised by PINS in its s51 advice to Aquind) no replacement land is being offered. 15.15 The applicant does not take into account the nature and character of the land over which such rights are being sought and the persons currently benefitting"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Dawson
"I am very much objecting to the Aquind interconnector. i am a local resident and strongly feel. this information has not been shared with me as a local resident. I know nothing about it...I also believe that the information about it and how it will considerably affect me as a local resident, the local environment and habitats has not been made transparent and accessible for me to have an opinion and be included in any decision making."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Sirett
"I wish to object to the Aquind Interconnector plans to come ashore in Portsmouth and its route through Portsmouth. I understand it will not only involve digging up valuable parking space and cutting across local parks which provide recreational activities but it will also disrupt one of the main routes into and out of Portsmouth . The Eastern Road is a heavily used and often congested road, Portsmouth is an island city with only three main roads out of the city, to have one of these routes disrupted for weeks will only add to the congestion and pollution in Portsmouth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Taylor
"I object to this plan as its installation will be so disruptive to the City and environs. I query its value to us when there is headway and opportunity to create energy from natural sources."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sally Englefield
"This will disrupt the whole city and destroy the small amount of green space that we have."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Shelagh Simmons
"We wish to object to this application for the following reasons. There has been a complete lack of information over the last 2 years which has meant that the proposed route of the cable was not made available in a timely fashion. It was drawn up (date on the map in the plans on the government website – Aquind Connector) on 7th November 2019 but was not published until more than a month later; this was during the Christmas period (the busiest time of the year) and a General Election campaign. It has therefore left a limited amount of time for residents who will be most affected to process and assess this important information. Moreover, it was not published in a ‘user-friendly’ format but released in a series of hundreds of documents. The route map was within these so not easily accessible. Residents feel that the consultation has been inadequate and have felt excluded from the process. For example, those in Fort Cumberland Road were unaware of the landfall of the cable in the car park, which would cause huge disruption to their road. There is also a legitimate concern about the lifeboat station and any disruption that these works could cause that may add extra time to their journey. In addition, there is a proposed new development of 134 homes at Fraser Range (just past the Fort Cumberland car park). It is claimed this has been taken into account in the cumulative assessment but with a single road to the site, this will cause huge issues for the residents as well as to the users of Southsea Marina, the lifeboat station, the Hayling Ferry and the nearby beach. Furthermore, dissemination of information has been poor. At the end of 2019/beginning of 2020, Aquind provided information on memory sticks to certain libraries across the city. However, for residents in Baffins, Milton and Eastney, the nearest library was in the city centre or Southsea. The libraries at Milton and Baffins were not included, making it difficult for many residents – especially those with mobility issues and/or reliant on public transport - to access the information. A leaflet sent out in May 2019 stated that out of 155 responses received by Aquind, 52% supported or were neutral regarding the proposed approach to the cable route’. 155 responses can hardly be said to be representative in an area as densely populated as ours, and since the route was only recently publicised those responses cannot have been based on complete information. We are also deeply concerned that the decision has not only been taken out of Portsmouth City Council’s hands, but out of the hands of the surrounding councils who also face the cable coming through their boundaries yet only have consultee status. The Secretary of State has not even visited to discuss this plan with council leaders and officers. The level of opposition to this proposal from residents and all political parties in Portsmouth shows that this transcends party politics. All councillors are worried about the effect this will have on their wards and residents A climate emergency has been declared in Portsmouth and other cities across the UK. If the Government approves this application it will destroy habitats and vegetation, close access to green areas and community spaces and ignore serious air quality issues. It will flout necessary zero carbon measures and disrupt many lives. The cables are proposed to go through or next to major junctions and roads including the Eastern road, A and B roads and residential roads. Portsmouth residents know that there are only 3 roads on and off this island city and if there are any accidents or road works, our city is grid locked. What is proposed along the Eastern Road would cause chaos across the city. It would lead to huge amounts of air pollution due to queueing cars and could also damage our economy as people will not want to come into Portsmouth if they know that they could be stuck in traffic for large amounts of time. At a time of climate emergency, the Government should be looking to provide reassurance during major projects that zero carbon initiatives will be used to help mitigate air quality problems. Yet there has been no such reassurance from either the Government or Aquind. During a Milton Forum Public Meeting, Councillor Darren Sanders asked whether the project would be looking at zero carbon emissions and received no satisfactory answer. We have a huge issue with air quality in parts of the city, so much so that the Government is considering enforcing air quality zones. Yet at the same time, it is considering a huge project that would add to the climate emergency and air quality issues through traffic build up/congestion and emissions from building equipment and transportation. This is while refusing to help with extra funding that Portsmouth needs to combat these issues, including free bus passes for residents or sustainable transport (among other suggestions). We are trying to do our bit. The Government needs to support us in our efforts rather than undermine us by approving a project that would do such damage. The Scoping Report suggests that Portsmouth City Council should only comment regarding the environmental impact relating to the landfall. There is no suggestion that it should comment on the route of the cabling even though it will go through some of the busiest roads in the city as well as one of 3 roads out of the city, causing misery for the inhabitants of the city in general. (1.3.2 in Part 1 of the Scoping Report submitted to Portsmouth City Council). Additionally, the report states that ‘during excavation and laying cables in roads, it is proposed that roads go down to one lane whilst works are ongoing to ‘limit the impact on the local community during cable installation works’. This adds to the evidence that it would cause huge disruption across the city. Furthermore, regarding concerns about environmental impacts, Section 3 states: 3.8.1 In the context of the above, the construction and operation of the Proposed Development may lead to significant environmental effects on the following parameters, although effects could be limited in their temporal and geographical scope: • Traffic and Transport; • Air Quality; • Nosie and Vibration; • Landscape and Visual; • Heritage and Archaeology; • Ecology (with Arboriculture); • Socio-economics; • Water Resources and Flood Risk; • Ground Conditions; • Carbon and Climate Change; • Human Health; • Soils and Land Use; • Electric and Magnetic Fields; and • Waste and Material Resources. This shows the wide-ranging impact this would have on many different species and plant life not just in Langstone Harbour but at the allotments, Farlington Marshes and Bransbury Park. There appears to be no mitigation for residents who would lose access to their open, green and community spaces for the duration of this work. There are high levels of obesity and long-term ill health in the city and people need these spaces for their physical and mental well-being. A news report (3rd May /2018 – ‘Obesity-related hospital admissions in Portsmouth increase’ The News, Portsmouth) states that Portsmouth had the third highest number of total obesity related admissions in the Wessex region in 2016 and the highest rate per 100,000 people. We could not afford to lose these spaces even for a short time. Fishermen are already concerned about the affects the cable would have on where they fish in the Solent but there are also concerns relating to the Harbour. We were told that as the Harbour is a designated Site of Specific Scientific Interest (SSSI), the cables could not be placed there. However, the new plans show that part of the route involves the cables going from the Eastern Road across the Harbour and coming out at Farlington Marshes. Why is it thought permissible to put the cables across this part of the Harbour but nowhere else? What effect would this have on the wildlife that live in the Harbour? Why could the cables not make landfall elsewhere closer to Lovedean, such as to the east of Hayling or via Thorney Island? That would mean less disruption to many people and would be closer to the proposed substation. Furthermore, why could existing routes used by others not be repurposed/shared? Southern Water has 2 concrete tunnels under the Harbour. Was the possible sharing of these ever discussed? And why choose Portsmouth? It is the most densely populated city outside of London and is an island city with 3 roads on and off. This is a city with an air quality issue, a large population density and a protected Harbour and nature reserve to the east. There would also be lost green space at the power station proposed location in Lovedean, which is now proposed to be several buildings with a height of up to 22m, and which is causing considerable concern to residents there too. Why could it not make landfall somewhere that would not have all the issues we as a city face? 66 weeks is the proposed/estimated time that this work would take to complete. This means that this project would take over a year (and that is also not including any delays or problems that may come about whilst digging the trenches). That is 66 weeks of disruption for the city with no break and no benefit to well over 210,000 residents who live and work here. Two 0.7m trenches are required for the interconnector. This would cause disruption twice over because they cannot be placed during the same excavation due to the combined effect of the magnetic field. There are many unanswered questions that residents have. It is common knowledge that when Milton Common was reclaimed, a protective skin was laid onto it to help contain the methane gas that is produced beneath. There does not appear to have been any consideration given to the possible impact of any work undertaken at this location. Furthermore, residents near the route would like to know the impact drilling or any type of work undertaken may have on their properties and insurance premiums. Residents have contacted Aquind but have reported that the phone goes unanswered and emails have received no response. We as residents feel let down by Aquind and the Government. We feel let down that our own council has had its right to decide this removed. We feel let down that the Secretary of State has not come to have direct talks with the local authorities affected. We feel let down that Aquind has not kept residents informed about the route and we also feel let down that residents have felt under threat of possibly losing their homes. We are disappointed that Aquind has not kept us updated and that vital information was not made available in a timely manner and user-friendly format. We also feel let down that the Government has refused any mitigating funding to help with air quality issues should this application be approved. We are deeply concerned that our community and open spaces would be sacrificed were this to go ahead and habitats, plant life and wildlife would be lost too. We know that it would cause chaos and disruption for over a year people living and working in Portsmouth. We implore the Planning Inspector - as well as Aquind and the Government - to reconsider this project. Rather than forcing this project onto Portsmouth and Hampshire Councils, we hope that other options can be considered. Trust in the system is low so we also hope that our views will properly be taken into consideration and are not just part of a ‘tick box’ exercise. We hope that this application will not be allowed or at least, will be reconsidered for somewhere else on the South Coast away from any cities that face similar issues to ours. We implore whoever is reading this to consider all that has been said and understand our perspective as residents who will have to live with the choices you are about to make. It will probably not personally affect you, but it will affect the lives and wellbeing of hundreds of thousands of residents in terms of health, safety and general day to day life. Please take note of our objections and the number of objections that you will be receiving from the residents of Portsmouth and further afield. We object to the Aquind Interconnector."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Bosher
"I am registering my objection to the proposed route. I am a City Councillor representing Drayton and Farlington. The consultation approach adopted by Aquind has been worrying to residents who’ve had land and mortgage details demanded of them. Little information other than a single local event. The proposed route follows residential streets in Farlington, close to two schools, which I consider unnecessary. Furthermore, the emf of the cables may affect residents with spinal or cranial implants for which replies to correspondence on this issue have been woefully inadequate."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Marta Karpezo on behalf of Southern Water Services Ltd
"SWS is the statutory sewerage undertaker for the area of the proposed development. SWS has apparatus and interests in land which is the subject of the proposed application. Me may provide a spreadsheet listing the SWS’s assets/easements in proximity to the proposed works, including approximate Grid references. The applicant will need to obtain copies of SWS’s records to ascertain the full extent of plant affected. The information and data contained on these drawings are copyright to SWS and are provided as a guide to the approximate position and details of the assets listed. SWS accepts no responsibility in the event of inaccuracy. The actual positions and details will need to be determined on site in all cases. Appropriate protective provisions will be required to ensure the protection of SWS’s assets and ensure that necessary provisions are in place to ensure that the apparatus can be maintained in perpetuity. Without such provisions the proposed application will have an unacceptable impact on SWS’s assets. We look forward to hearing from you in due course, ideally to agree protective provisions in advance of the submission of your application for a Development Consent Order. Correspondence relating to this response should be sent to the address shown in the footer of this document. The information and data contained on these drawings or supplied by any other means are copyright to Southern Water Services Ltd. and are provided as a guide to the approximated position and details of Southern Water Assets as listed above, but Southern Water Services Ltd. accepts no responsibility in the event of inaccuracy. This information must be treated with caution and the actual positions and details should be determined on site, in all cases. Southern Water Services Ltd. records will not necessarily record the location or show information associated with private sewers which may have become public sewers under the transfer of private sewers. Any sewers shown coloured yellow on the plans may be public highway drainage, culverted watercourses or private sewers and should be subject to Site Investigation to establish their ownership and function. Please note, the proposed development site lies within Source Protection Zone 1,2 and 3 as defined under the Environment Agency’s Groundwater Protection Policy. Southern Water will rely on your consultations with the Environment Agency to ensure the protection of the public water supply source. For any queries please contact us at [email protected]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence Garnett
"Concerned as there will be impact on roads, the area and possibly my property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of The Landowners of land at []
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of the Owners of Land at [], being Julie Elliott, Robin Elliott, Richard Elliott and Phillip Elliott who wish to be registered as an organisation Interested Party for the forthcoming examination of the Aquind Interconnector Development Consent Order. The land Ownership is reference 3-08 to 3-10 in the book of reference. The landowners' property is proposed to be affected by permanent easements through the center of their holding. To date, Aquind has been very poor in communicating with Landowners, with a lack of clarity or certainty in relation to the routing, impact, works, timings and terms of any agreement. We do not believe Aquind has any intention of reaching an agreement with landowners and are relying solely on their compulsory purchase powers. Given the lack of detailed provided, at this stage, it is difficult to comment on the impact on our clients' property at this time. From the limited information to date the route is impractical from a land management view point, with limited consideration given to the impact on landowners. Our clients are still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if an agreement is not reached they wish to maintain their objection. Our clients reserve the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of The Owners of Land at [] Joseph Tee, Kathryn Moor
"This Relevant Representation is submitted on behalf of the Owners of Land at [], Joseph Tee, Kathryn Moore & John Moore, who wish to be registered as an organisation Interested Party for the forthcoming examination of the Aquind Interconnector Development Consent Order. The land Ownership is reference 3-05 in the book of reference. It comprises one of three possible routing options in this location. We have not been given any clear indication by Aquind as to why DCO rights are being sought over the 3 options or which option is favourable. Locating the cables through our clients land is by far the most impractical options put forward for the following reasons: Impact on Anmore Lane- This option would involve laying cables in and along Anmore Lane, resulting in prolonged road closures, in comparison to the other options. This would have an adverse impact on the residents and businesses along Anmore Lane. This impact should be avoided by taking a shorter and more direct route. Residents and businesses will require 24-hour access along Anmore Lane during any construction period. The option will involve the removal of a large oak tree in our roadside boundary. This tree and the surrounding hedge provide a visual screen from the highway to our client's residential property and wildlife and habitats for ecology. My clients were not aware that their land had been included in the Development Consent Order and nobody from Aquind had been in contact since an original and only meeting in March 2019, to discuss the consultation at that time. Aquind has made no attempt to purchase rights in our client's land by agreement, other than to issue terms to their Land Agent on 10th February 2020. We understood that as part of the Compulsory Purchase Process Aquind is obligated to attempt to buy the rights by agreement. This clearly has not been demonstrated. We are led to understand that our Client’s land is only been considered because the alternative routes have development potential and our route could be a cheaper alternative to buy. If this project is of National Importance, Aquind should pay for the most direct route to have as limited an impact as possible on landowners and residents. We are of the opinion that our client's land may have long term development potential, the proposed Easement will cover approximately 1/5 of my client's field, making any future development potentially unviable. We strongly object to Aquind laying any third party fibre optic or other cabling/ ducting in the easement, unless that cabling/fibre optic/ ducting is required solely for the purposes of operating the Aquind Interconnector. We do not believe Aquind should be granted rights to lay third party apparatus through our Client's land, as a backdoor to subletting rights to third parties. Our clients are still willing to work with AQUIND to achieve agreement on reasonable terms to the satisfaction of both parties. However, if an agreement is not reached they wish to maintain their objection. Our clients reserve the right to make further detailed representations during the Examination stage of the DCO application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Brown
"I am concerned about the disruption to traffic on the Eastern Road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Viola Langley
"I object to these plans as I am aware of possible health risks and the disruption for the local community."
Local Authorities
Winchester City Council
"Winchester City Council Relevant Representation Aquind Interconnector Planning Inspectorate Reference: EN020022 Summary of main aspects: The main site for the Converter Station, part of the access roadway and a section of the cable route lies within the Winchester City Council area. As one of the host authorities, we wish to register to participate in the Examination of this DCO. Detailed representations will be made in the Local Impact Report but at this time our main issues are as follows: 1 Questions continue over the level of engagement by Aquind with the local communities of Denmead and Hambledon. 2 The option of considering a route for the cable across the open countryside to the west of the A3 has not been properly assessed as an alternative to the road route. 3 There is a lack of detail in the evidence base for the choice of Lovedean over other alternatives and the degree to which the proximity to the National Park played in that decision. Correspondence with NGET should be included. 4 This is a significant building in a countryside location. 5 The evidence base for the choice of 85.1m AOD as the finished floor level should include exchanges of correspondence with consultees on why this limit was set. 6 The building design principles need further refinement. The cladding needs to be a darker recessive colour. 7 There is a question if sufficient mitigation or enhancements are being offered for what will be a significant building in respect of both the landscape and biodiversity impacts that will result. 8 The method of securing suitable control over the long term retention of landscape features on land not intended to be purchased is unclear. 9 The landscape and biodiversity mitigation work needs greater security in terms of delivery, maintenance and future management. 10 There is an absence of detail relating to the methodology and impacts. associated with laying the two cable circuits in the Hambledon Road when the constraints which are evident in and alongside this single carriageway road are taken into account. 11 The questions raised regarding point 10 above lead to concerns over the assessment of delays and impacts on the local community of the roadworks. In the event more extensive impacts are identified, clear mitigation needs to be put forward. 12 There are questions why no further actions are proposed over Carbon emissions in the construction phase. A large residual amount still remains from the anticipated emissions which are not mitigated in any way. 13 The claimed benefits to the local economy from expenditure and over night stays are considered unrealistic. 14 There is a lack of a firm commitment regarding an Employment and Skills Plan. 15 A statement indicates that spare telecommunications capacity will be used on a commercial basis. It is not clear what percentage is being considered and if this is truly associated development. 16 The proposal offers no legacy benefits to the wider community which will endure the presence of a significant building over the next 40 years. 17 The structure and nature of the Requirements needs reviewing. 19 February 2020 ."