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 29 January 2021
From Kirsten McFarlane

Representation

Deadline 7a Submission - In relation to the Applicant's Change Request 2 EN020022: AQUIND Interconnector Deadline 7a: 28/01/21 Kirsten McFarlane ref: AQUI-013 Interested Party status, Nov 2020. 'affected person'. Plot tenant at Milton Piece Allotments, Plot 99A (since 01/07/20). Summary of concerns regarding AQUIND's Change Request 2: (ref.here as CR2). Request for changes to the Order limits, including addition of land. Dear Inspectorate, The objections, questions and submissions which have been sent by members of LETS STOP AQUIND FB group:(LSA) represent my CR2 concerns; especially (redacted). As of today, there are 1947 members in our group, so please consider all the evidence sent to you by our group members as representing all 1947 of us, including me. Since Oct.2020 LSA has tried to bring together the local community to contribute to your examination of the AQUIND proposal. We have varied concerns and focal points for this, but I hope the public help you find a positive, fair, healthy conclusion to your investigation into AQUIND's CR2. The overall message from the LSA is clear – the CR2 will not help to mitigate the plan's problems, it wont improve or make AQUIND'S plans acceptable. CR2 once again demonstrates an unacceptable level of conflicting messages/gaps/errors/omissions in AQUIND's project and communications. Their documents are littered with flippant disregard for the wellbeing of the population along their planned route, wild life, city infrastructure management, and the environment. CR2 does not do anything to change the impact of this proposal, nor improve quality of life, nor does it respect our human rights* including to live, flourish, be healthy if this project happens. (*Human Rights Act 1998: Protocol 1 Article 1; Right to peaceful enjoyment of my property. Article 6 ; Right to a fair trial ( or public hearing ) Article 8 ; Respect for my private life, home and correspondence. Article 14 ; Protection from discrimination in respect of those rights and freedoms.) Especially now we are under COVID Level 5 lockdown, with no idea of how long COVID will affect the world long term. CR2 perpetuates the major impact AQUIND has on (redacted). My (redacted) is now delayed another year because of COVID - DWP and other gov departments are deferring decisions by at least 1 year. Could the ExA also defer this decision? Or delay the proposed start date of the project? Please let us focus on what is essential in 2021-2061: Flood defence building, new health and community centres, focusing on concurrent critical issues; decisions: such as new home planning, meeting pollution targets, environmental problems, Brexit and EU issues, managing COVID. We dont need or want AQUIND as an additional burden. Ref: ExA's further written questions. 07.01.2021: I hope the responses will help the examination progress positively, and constructively. I and answer our previous questions. I concur with all the concerns submitted in: 1: MG2.1.3 and MG2.1.4 ''demonstrate that there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ of funds being available for this project'' 2: Air Quality: ''concerns remain that exceedances may be caused or exacerbated by the Proposed Development''. 3. Compulsory Acquisition: 'demonstrate that there is a ‘reasonable prospect’ of funds being available for this project.' 1. Miscellaneous and General: MG2.1.3 and MG2.1.4 : I am worried about what AQUIND will respond with. I hope AQUIND addresses issues truthfully, without further omissions or manipulation. e.g. AQUIND says their clay slurry piped underground won't actually 'affect the surface''. Clay coming to the surface will make our gardens, land and allotments unusable. There is no compensation or mitigation for this other than it should not happen. I repeat Violas (LETS STOP AQUIND) questions: • What health and safety risk assessments have been carried out for people working on the allotments during the HDD drilling underneath them for the anticipated 3 months of drilling. • What health and safety risk assessments have been carried out for allotment holders vehicles ( including vans) travelling on the internal paths whilst the drilling process is going on. • What is the evidence of health and safety / food standards effects of any bentonite break out to plants designed for human consumption. • If the HDD fails for any reason can the Ex Authority make recommendations and the SofS place a restrictions on the DCO stipulating that there is to be no open trenching for the cables across the allotments. AQUIND have had too many chances to change; 'fix' their proposal. Can you set a limit to number of further changes allowed hence forth? Many thanks, Kirsten References: 1. The Additional Submission from the Applicant seeking a second change request. (PDF, 144KB) = 11th December 2020, HSF Doc ref 18857/30985781 Titled''Request for changes to the Order limits, including addition of land Section 123(4) of the Planning Act 2008 and Regulation 5 of the Infrastructure Planning (Compulsory Acquisition) Regulations 2010 '' 2. The subsequent ExA issued examination of the second change request (PDF, 153KB): 18/12/2020. 3. ExA issued: The updated Examination Timetable is at Annex A to letter of 11 January 2021.