AQUIND Interconnector

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

AQUIND Interconnector

Received 19 February 2020
From Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of The Owners of Land at [] Joseph Tee, Kathryn Moor

Representation

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.