Southampton to London Pipeline Project

Representations received regarding Southampton to London Pipeline Project

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on Southampton to London Pipeline Project and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Parker
"Understand the impact of the work with regard to my home. Request installation of quiet tarmac along the Red road between Macdonald road and Briar Avenue, wherever possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Swanson
"My representation is in respect of that section of the proposed new pipeline through the residential estate comprising the roads known as Canford Drive and Roakes Avenue Addlestone Surrey. I find it extraordinary that the proposed pipeline should be routed through this busy residential area which will cause both inconvenience to local residents and a great deal of vehicle congestion during the construction period. I can see no obvious reason the pipeline should not instead continue to be routed south of the Chertsey to Addlestone railway line, under the A320 St. Peters Way where there continues to be open grassland. The pipeline could then follow a route through further open areas, avoiding disturbance to the grounds of the school now under construction before joining up with the proposed pipeline route across Chertsey Meads. By adopting the realignment suggested above it would both make installation, reinstatement and future maintenance far more practical."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Crescent Residents Group (TW15) (Celia Crescent Residents Group (TW15))
"WE INTEND TO MAKE REPRESENTATION THAT THE SLP CONSULTATION PROCESS WITHIN OUR LOCAL AREA HAS BEEN INADEQUATE AND THAT THE SLP PROJECT HAVE FAILED TO FULLY EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE THEIR DECISIONS WITH REGARD TO THE LOCAL PIPELINE ROUTE, THE BUILDING OF AN OPERATIONAL DEPOT WITHIN FORDBRIDGE PARK AND THE PROPOSED ACCESS TO THAT DEPOT VIA CELIA CRESCENT."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Darren Coombs
"I live along the planned route and am interested in how it will affect my life."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr. John Upham
"My property is severely impacted by the project such that a Senior person from Esso has visited. My perspective and that of Carter Jonas is that of "Injurious Affection". Dr. John Upham"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Edwards
"Dear Sir/Madam, I own a property in (Redacted) & live in that house. It is very close to where the works are being carried out. Please keep me posted on any news or events. Many thanks Elaine"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Andy Grieves
"I am concerned that Esso and their advisers/contractors have, unilaterally, amended the chosen route for the Southampton to Heathrow Pipeline where it passes our property bordering Turf Hill Park. This is at variance to Esso's existing pipeline route and has been chosen without adequate consultation with the local residents who will be affected by the new route and with our local Parish, Borough and County Representatives. The consequential impact of the proposed pipeline route on the local community, local ecology and flood management for the area has been inadequately assessed or has been ignored. Andy Grieves (Redacted)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Kaye R Squires
"That Esso and their advisers/contractors have, unilaterally, amended the chosen route for the Southampton to Heathrow Pipeline where it passes our property, Turf Hill Park. This is at variance to their existing pipeline route and has been chosen without adequate consultation with the local residents who will be affected by the new route and with our local Parish, Borough and County Representatives. The consequential impact of their decision to the local community, to the local ecology and flood management for the area has been inadequately assessed and has been ignored before you, the Planning Inspectorate, accepted Esso's application for development consent."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Mary Adler
"I support the replacement pipeline away from the valley mire of Folly Bog on MOD land. I am interested in being kept informed of progress and decisions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd)
"I am registering an interest in order to be kept up to date on the examination process and notified when any decisions are made relating to the scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen English
"To challenge the requirement for a new larger diameter pipeline given that the existing pipeline will remain serviceable for the foreseeable future. 2. To understand how granting permission for the new pipeline fits in with Government environmental and climate change policy given that we should all be taking steps to reduce dependency on the burning of fossil fuels by restricting their use and seeking greener alternatives. 3. To object to Section G of the route and particularly for the pipeline to be routed along Canford Drive on the following basis. Canford Drive is a densely populated narrow residential road and therefore: i) Installation into this road would necessitate residents enduring significant adverse effects in terms of vibration, noise and dust pollution and restricted access to properties whilst installation works are carried out. ii) During installation there would also be considerable inconvenience for residents due to reduced postal services and courier deliveries. iii) There is also a potential health and safety issue resulting from a delay in refuge collections and a possible safety issue due to emergency services having restricted access and taking longer to attend call outs. iv) There is a further safety issue as Esso have not demonstrated how excavation and removal and delivery of materials can be accomplished whilst maintaining a safe working width during installation. Esso have favoured this route as their preferred option generally because it is the shortest and therefore cheapest of possibilities. There are numerous viable alternatives which should be further investigated and dismissed before installation into a residential area is even considered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Yusef Mamoojee
"I am interested to learn of the arrangements and contingency plans in place to underwrite any issues that are likely to be encountered when insuring properties and for potential losses in value on resale. Relocating the original pipeline route to a new route that is to be within a few yards of domestic properties has serious implications for both of these aspects."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Hepworth Thompson
"Until January 2019 EVERYONE believed that the pipeline would cross Turfhill Park alongside the existing fuel and gas pipelines. Then without public consultation the route was deviated to come directly adjacent to properties in Heronscourt; I am the largest sufferers of this change with 120-150 metres of hedges and trees along the route. This will have a major effect upon my amenities and the natural environment in Heronscourt This change is to the WRONG route. It is 300 metres longer than the existing pipeline, thus extending the construction disruption. It is largely for environmental reasons, that are marginal. It is proposed to fell hundreds of trees, whereas none would be lost by following the existing route. Thus the revised route demands PERMANENT changes to local ecology whereas following the existing route would require transient manageable changes to local wildlife Thus my statement is that the wrong route has been chosen, and that the decision was taken without essential consultation"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Glass
"I am a resident in (Redacted) Staines, where the pipeline could potentially run."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Dixon
"Questioning of decisions with regard to the precise routing of the pipeline along St Catherines Road and its routing through the surrounding area. . Questioning of decisions with regard to the proposals for engineering/construction of the route along St Catherines Road and their impact on the same and the vicinity. Questioning of the impact on properties, the countryside and wild animal habitats."
Members of the Public/Businesses
North Surrey Green Party
"North Surrey Green Party opposes the approval of this application because the application contravenes government commitments to reduce carbon emissions. NSGP is not convinced that a replacement pipeline is even necessary in that Esso has provided no evidence that the existing pipeline is no longer viable. We maintain that this is a false application and is only required to facilitate the expansion of Heathrow and to increase flights and the resultant air pollution from traffic in and out of the airport. We object to the health of people living near the airport being sacrificed for shareholder dividends."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clive Moulding
"The existing pipeline crosses Cove Road runs to the back of some properties in Nash Close along one of the banks of Cove Brook, before going under the railway embankment. The proposal for the new pipeline is for it to not cross Cove Road but to run for some 50+metres along Cove Road, turn right into Nash Close and run the whole length of the close before going under the railway embankment in a new location.So far in all the documentation I have seen there has been no indication of the likely timescale of this work, reassurances about maintained access to both the Close and individual property during this time. In addition there are several properties with residents over 70years of age, wheelchair users, and some who have daily carers. No consideration appears to have been made for their particular needs. Regrettably the ambulance service is a frequent visitor to the Close and the continued ability for emergency vehicles to access properties seems not to have been addressed. Whilst the work is done on Cove Road it is likely that the local bus will be rerouted and if personal transport is also curtailed due to lack of access, elderly residents will be effectively isolated for the duration of the work. If personal transport is curtailed through lack of access then so will the ability to use taxis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eleanor Winslet
"I am concerned about the potential increase in flights from Heathrow that will result from this change and the impact this will have given the current climate change emergency."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan Blackham
"My primary concerns are; - the total lack of consultation on this last minute switch of the preferred route through Turfhill Park from alongside the existing pipelines to immediately alongside the gardens of 17+ domestic dwellings of Heronscourt and Colville Gardens - the extensive and permanent damage to the Environment and the Natural Habitat on this new route compared to route alongside the existing pipelines - the many impacts on the Residents,the Community and the local roads through the planning and construction periods In summary, this new route was not properly consulted on and is the wrong route."
Other Statutory Consultees
NATS LTD
"NATS operates no infrastructure in the vicinity of the planned route. Accordingly it anticipates no impact from the proposal and has no comments to make on the application. Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Swain
"My main point is that we are living in a climate emergency. Practically, this means a world for our children full of war, disease and famine, the destruction of the natural world and potentially even human extinction as a result of human greed and denial of the truth. As a country we have committed to ending co2 emissions by 2050. This pipeline, indeed the expansion of heathrow itself, makes a mockery of these commitments, allowing further burning of fossil fuels. I really don't understand why people have their fingers in their ears about this and hope that even if this is ignored at least whoever reads this looks into the scale of the problem and joins the resistance to all forms of environmental damage to our planet"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Worthington
"We strongly object to the current proposed pipeline which will be directly behind our property in (Redacted). We have a number of very tall Scots Pines which are TPO’d on our rear boundary which will potentially be at risk alongside the 200+ other trees which are bordering the current bridlepath and subject to removal. This seems like an extraordinarily strange decision in the current environmentally friendly climate! There is also the huge impact on the resident wildlife including protected bats which will be affected by the loss of habitat. Part of the appeal of our properties is the woodland outlook which will be destroyed and potentially de-valuing our homes for future sale when the pipeline could be located adjacent to the existing line further into Turf Hill Park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Chichester Land Agents on behalf of The Hood Estate - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. It is important for future cropping that the subsoil is not mixed with the topsoil during construction and the topsoil is put back on top of the reinstated ground."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Timothy Rix
"The application should fail or be deferred for further information on; 1. Poor consultation process where I was not notified as to the schemes progress and invited to the final route consultation 2. No visible details as to blast zones surrounding the pipeline which could be significant to the adjacent residential areas. No easily accessible H & S. risk assessment that covers the H&S's own guidance as to land use planning in such matters 3. No visible details as to whether Esso will become a statutory consultee on any new development alongside the pipeline and as to how many houses would be affected 4. No visible details as to whether a mitigation program was an option for the sand lizards and which would be in compliance with Natural England's own guidance for such matters 5. No visible details, that I am currently aware of, as to the existing contamination and environmental impact from pipeline leakage and a quantitive/ qualitative assessment that considers the de commissioning of the existing route and the implementing a new route as opposed to retaining the existing route or, perhaps, other options as mentioned in this representation. 6. No relative quantitive and qualitative risk assessment from Natural England or Esso as to the wider risk to the Turf Hill area from the options including risk from existing pipeline leakage to the environment. 7. No option "F1 D" was explored which extends the pipeline along Red Road to the Gordons School roundabout and then drops down back to the existing pumping station 8. The existing pumping station along the Guildford Road is in a Bog area but is proposed to remain. In conjunction with point 7 above, a full and sustainable long term option could have been to explore a scheme that materially avoid Turf Hill by routing the line along Red Road"
Members of the Public/Businesses
St Hilda's Ashford
"Environmental impact alongside the proposed route. Potential impact and disruption to local communities alongside the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
We're in the Garden / Wesson Fencing
"I WRITE WITH REGARDS TO THE SITE AND PIPELINE AT DINGLEY DELL NURSERY, WINDLESHAM ROAD, OUR WORKING YARD IS ON THE SITE, TOGETHER WITH STRUCTURE AND BUILDINGS AND I AIM TO ENSURE OUR BUSINESS DISTURBANCE IS KEPT TO A MINIMUM DURING PIPELINE INSTALLATION AND EXCAVATION NEAR TO THE BUILDINGS IS REASONABLE AND NO INTRUSIVE"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maura Clark
"I have a number of concerns about the proposed pipeline route which I feel would have a detrimental impact on residents of Colville Gardens. This mainly concerns the trees along the route, whether they would be de-stabilised and also whether the removal of any may increase the risk of flooding to the houses 'downhill' from the proposed pipeline route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Glenn
"My representation relates to the fact that I live almost next door to the pipeline, hence there will be major disturbance whilst work is undertaken. I need to know how this will affect me on a day to day basis and longterm."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Warner
"Ecological reasons may be behind Esso's decision to disregard their originally preferred route for section J so I want to stress the disproportionate and permanent impact this would will have on the residential environment. The relatively recent introduction of sand lizards has resulted in their rapid integration in Turf Hill and disturbance of their habitat created by re-adopting the original route would be overcome in a similarly short time. 200 trees, many established much, much longer than the introduced sand lizards, are earmarked for removal and, due to potential root incursion into the pipeline, they are not likely to be replaced. Esso's current decision contradicts what environmental protection should stand for... but this can easily be corrected."
Local Authorities
New Forest District Council
"As a neighbouring Local Authority we would like to register as an interested party in order to keep track of the application. We do not wish to make any comments at this stage."
Other Statutory Consultees
Southern Water Services Limited
"Southern Water is statutory undertaker with assets and interests being affect by the project. Accordingly, we are objecting to this project until adequate protective provisions which will safeguard our assets and ineterests are in place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew James Hemphill
"The end of our(my wife and myself) garden borders the Turfhill Park bridle path. The REVISED proposed routing of the SLP pipeline is along this bridle path which causes us severe concerns and distress. Until recently (March 2019) the new pipeline was to follow the route of the existing pipeline which would have been acceptable to us. Lack of consultation of the revised pipeline route is TOTALLY unacceptable. People living in Heronscourt want the right to reject the proposed route and cannot understand why it took place without our knowledge. WHY and WHO let this revised route go ahead without consulting us? No opportunity was given for concerns to be expressed. We appear to be insignificant. Some of our concerns are listed below:- a) As the revised pipeline route along the bridle path is longer, more environmental damage would occur. Apparently around 200 mature trees would be removed to make a 30ft corridor for the pipeline installation. The existing pipeline route would not require removal of mature trees, only bushes. All of Turfhill falls under a SSSI, so why cause more devastation by using a longer route. b) The end of our garden has a 12ft plus holly bush which grows from the Turfhill Park side. This provides a beautiful backdrop to our mature garden, plus gives us a great sense of security. If this was removed, access by burglars to our property would be easily gained. c) Construction noise and pollution would be excessive if the bridle path route is used. Using the existing pipeline route which is in the order of 150 yards from my property would alleviate noise and pollution. d) The use of the bridle path pipeline route would certainly impact the price of our property. How will we be compensated for the decline in property values and the disruption of our daily lives while the pipeline is under construction?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jill Crickmay
"I have been a resident of Heronscourt for 22 years with direct access to the bridlepath on Turf Hill park from my property . The bridlepath is used regularly by myself and my family. I am very fortunate to have this amenity literally on my doorstep. Until March 2019 the Esso pipeline route across the centre of Turf Hill park has been a silent neighbour. I understood that the new route for the new pipeline would follow the old route. Then by chance I discovered that the preferred route had been changed so that it would follow the boundaries of properties in Colville Gardens and Heronscourt along the bridlepath. After consulting my neighbours it became clear to us all that the preferred route had been changed by Esso with no consultation with the property owners, the Parish Council, Surrey Heath Council and Surrey County Council. The new route would mean that some 200 + trees would need to be felled. This was an alarming revelation as my house had suffered structural damage by a falling Scots Pine tree after the removal of several other trees surrounding it. I also have natural springs running from the park under my house and exiting onto the pavement at the front of my property. The trees are very old and make up a beautiful backdrop to our properties. These trees are very large and are the green lungs of Turf Hill park and would be impossible to replace. They help to shield our environment from the pollution caused by high levels of local traffic. The trees also help to shield us from road noise from Red Road. We have never been consulted by Esso on the change of route. I believe that Esso have failed in their duty of care in this matter to identify and explain the reasons for the arbitrary change of route without consultation. Jill Crickmay"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Fieldfisher LLP on behalf of West London Pipeline and Storage Limited- WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. Representation by West London Pipeline and Storage Limited ("WLPS") to the Southampton to London Pipeline DCO: WLPS is a private fuel transporter whose pipeline network connects into a larger system, which links the major storage and processing facilities with Heathrow and Gatwick Airports. Its major function is supplying Heathrow and Gatwick Airports with aviation fuel. WLPS wishes to make a relevant representation to the Southampton to London Pipeline DCO in order to protect its position in respect of apparatus, which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. WLPS’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 such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed, in relation to their impact on WLPS’s existing apparatus located within this area. WLPS has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. WLPS has high pressure fuel pipelines located within the order limits and in close proximity which may be affected by works proposed. As a responsible undertaker, WLPS’s primary concern is to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those obligations. WLPS is currently discussing the potential impacts on its network with the promoter and a form of Protective Provisions is being negotiated between parties. WLPS therefore wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process whilst negotiations are ongoing, but in the meantime will continue liaising with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement shortly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Barnard
"No information provided by any relevant party to the pipeline informing myself as a resident affected by the pipeline that that the original route had been changed and been moved nearer to residents property including mine which boarders the proposed route. No study appears to have been produced regarding the affect the excavation for the pipeline would have on residents trees, especially the scots pines, which if their root structure is affected could have a devastating outcome. One resident has already experienced a scots pine coming down and falling on their house narrowly missing the bedroom in which they were sleeping which could have resulted in fatalities."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Hudson
"I had been following Esso’s project to replace its Fawley/Heathrow aviation gasoline pipeline with interest but with little concern, based on the assumption that the new pipeline would follow the existing track in the middle of Turfhill Park. I find the revised proposal to re-route the new pipeline along the bridleway and directly alongside the borders with the Heronscourt and Colville Gardens properties alarming and unacceptable for the following reasons: 1) The plan would necessitate the felling of around 200 trees. As a property owner who had to negotiate hard with Surrey Heath to have only a few of our own trees removed as part of a recent garden landscaping project I am amazed that this can be allowed to happen for ecological reasons. Furthermore we own trees on the Park side of our fence which are on our land, and we will not give permission for these to be felled. 2) I assume also that digging a such a pipeline trench would require removal of many roots of trees which are actually in our gardens – thereby weakening them and making them more susceptible to toppling (on to our homes) in severely windy weather (this has happened before). 3) I am guessing that at least 20 properties back directly on to the proposed new track, with many others on the other side of Heronscourt and Colville Gardens affected by the potential close proximity of the pipeline. There would be a significant detrimental effect both during the building phase and also long-term, in terms of environmental, safety and reputational risk which would also have a negative effect on the values of the properties. 4) The bridleway is an important and heavily used community facility for walking and other leisure pursuits. It offers a safe, rural and peaceful ambience, not only for daily users but also for the many species that depend on it for their habitat. The rerouting of the pipeline would prejudice this substantially. 5) Finally I am very concerned and surprised that it can by permitted for an aviation gasoline pipeline to be situated so closely to residential properties. For all of these reasons I fail to understand why this new option is favoured compared with renewing and reusing the existing pipeline track, which must be a cheaper and more sustainable solution, with far less environmental and human impact."
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Towell
"It is vital that there is proper consultation with affected parties. So far this has NOT happened and the decision making process is completely hidden - WHY? The proposal to alter the routing of the pipeline taking a much longer distance has adverse environmental consequences, use of more non degradable plastics, more destruction of SSSI habitat and long term higher energy cost of pumping fuel. Serious impact upon road traffic on B311 Red Road causing delays and misery to thousands of road users and considerable extra cost. Destruction of the trees alongside Herons Court and Colville Gardens will adversely affect rare protected species including bats, sand lizards, adders and nightjars. Residents in these areas will be adversely affected by noise, pollution and fumes as well as road congestion during construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Flannery
"I was aware of the proposed renewal of the pipeline and my understanding was that the route would follow the existing pipeline through the centre of the park and I was therefore not overly concerned. I was very surprised to hear from a neighbour that there had been a last minute change to the planned route on environmental grounds and it is proposed that it will now run along the bridle path adjacent to Heronscourt and Colville Gardens. This diversion will reportedly require the felling of circa 200 trees. I do not have full details but I understand that the main reason for the rerouting is to avoid disturbing the habitat of sand lizards. The whole park is protected and I would question how a decision has been reached to select a route where 200+ mature trees would be destroyed with the long term environmental impact of this over the existing route where there are no trees and the area and wildlife could recover relatively quickly (as it has since the original pipe was laid). I am aware that sand lizards have been spotted near the bridle path so I do not believe they are restricted to the area around the original route. The planned diversion would also require several hundred meters of additional excavation and pipe laying along a popular bridle path causing more disruption and permanent damage to a public amenity. I would like to register my objection to the proposed route and also highlight that as the owner and resident of a property that would be just a few meters from the pipeline I was not adequately consulted over the late change in order to challenge the decision earlier"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Derek Hammond
"The plan for the new pipeline will cross our property we have not consented to this and therefore would like to be registered as an Interested Party. We feel that the pipeline will devalue our property and make it difficult for us to sell in the future."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Paul Elmer
"The proposed route of the replacement oil pipe from Red Road to Guildford Road involves areas of long established woodland to the western, northern and eastern limits of Turf Hill Park. Excavation for this pipe and the operation of construction traffic will result in the loss of or root damage to a substantial number of trees that comprise an important landscape feature. Established trees cannot be replaced other in the extreme long term and the general character of this area, mostly comprising a well used bridle path for walkers, runners, cyclists and horse riders will be lost for ever. A logical, shorter and less environmentally damaging route, avoiding the woodland areas, exists by following the route of the existing pipe lines."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bryan Frost on behalf of Herons Court and Colville Gardens Residents Associations
"This Representation is made on behalf of the Herons Court Residents Association (HCRA), (formally registered as the Lightwater Residents Association Ltd), and the Colville Gardens Residents Association (CGRA) by me, Bryan D Frost, Chairman of the HCRA. The issues we wish to raise with the Inspectorate are as follows, and concern that part of the route which passes through Turf Hill Park, Lightwater. (1) INADEQUATE CONSULTATION. The fact that the final route across Turf Hill Park was chosen without any consultation whatsoever with the residents of either HCRA or CGRA whose properties are immediately adjacent to the finally chosen route. (2) INADEQUATE INFORMATION. At meetings held with Esso and separately with Surrey County Council, (SCC), we were given completely conflicting information. (3) ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. We wish to address, and argue against, the environmental priorities which have resulted in the finally chosen route. We will argue that the environmental damage caused by the chosen route is considerably greater than the originally preferred route by Esso, following the line of the existing pipeline. We will also raise certain environmental matters which we consider have not been adequately considered. (4) SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL. We wish to address the conduct of SCC, their totally inadequate consultation, and the misleading information given to the residents of HCRA and CGRA. (5) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT. SCC have been asked by us for certain information and reports which are in the public domain. They have refused to forward this information which we are now seeking via the above Act. We consider this information, when received, is essential to our arguments for a reversal of the chosen route decision."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katrina Baker
"I live within the current Esso pipeline, and I am interested in to how this will affect myself and my neighbours."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sherbourne Developments Ltd
"I represent a company that is developing two new houses on the former Wolfhanger Poultry farm. Currently the existing pipeline runs under part of our land however it appears that this pipe will now become redundant as the new proposed route takes it about 500 yards to the south of our development site. I would like to understand in greater detail what are the future plans and also what will happen with the existing and about to be redundant pipe."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew McLuskey
"I confirm that I have read and understood the above text for the submission of my representation. My principal concern is over health and safety of a neighbouring road where the pipeline is meant to run."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Heys
"I am an interested party as the route of the pipeline is now confirmed as taking a route close to my property. i would like to be as appraised and as up to date with information first hand as i can be."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Lamb
"The Southampton to London Pipeline Project is a necessary activity, however, there has been a significant change with respect to the planned pipeline route in proximity to Heronscourt, GU18 5SW for which there has been a complete lack of consultation and obscured communication. The pipeline route change will require the wanton destruction of over 200 mature trees that would take decades, if at all, to recover, exposing residents to significant increased road noise from the nearby Red Road and have an impact on drainage leading to an increase in flood risk."
Parish Councils
Chobham Parish Council
"I am making this representation of Chobham Parish Council.The Parish Council owns a piece of land in close proximity to the proposed the proposed pipeline route. The Parish Council wishes to be included in the consultation process. The main concern of the Parish Council is to ensure that any damage to Chobham Common caused by the installation of the pipeline is kept to a minimum. More importantly any negative impact to the biodiversity of the Common is restored to its previous condition."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
James Reed - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. I am a landowner whose property is affected by Esso's proposed pipeline. Esso have failed to satisfactorily conclude documenting the legal rights and operations over my land. Although negotiations are continuing I am reserving my right to raise these issues with the Planning Inspector should this be necessary, as and when required. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Rogers
"As the owner of a property on (Redacted) along which the pipeline currently runs and which it is also currently intended that the replacement pipeline will also run, I am concerned about potential and actual disturbance and access restrictions during the works and the final specification of the pipeline. Specifically, inter-alia, the depth of the pipeline in the ground, whether all or only partially within the verge and/or land on the non-housing side of the road, the protection around the pipeline, provision/ access points for gaining access for routine maintainance, and the likely or actual need to re-dig the route for maintenance purposes. I also wish to be fully informed of provision for compensation to owners and residents for these issues."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Philip Collins
"Mr Collins is owns and occupies land affected by the proposed scheme. He want to be kept informed through out of how this proposed scheme is going to affect his land, business and home and to ensure that Esso comply with all safety and environmental impacts. He want to ensure that alternative routes have been properly considered and want to ensure that the impact on his land is kept to a minimum and he is fully kept up to date with the activities on his property."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Yair Ziv
"the field right in front of our house is currently in the proposed pipe path. the exact line has 4 installations & usages that conflict with a fuel pipe: 1. we have underground heat source pipes that are the main heating element for our large house, which cost many tens of thousands to install. 2. we have a long awaited underground Fiber Optics cable servicing the whole village of Monkwood right under the proposed pipe route. 3. we have a 3-phase electricity pole and power box eight on top of the proposed route. 4. we have horses grazing in the field, not to mention a huge ancient tree that will most probably need to be removed. All that we ask is to move the pipe route few meters to the north, so it will not conflict with the installation (and will save Esso a lot of money as well). our agents and solicitors have contacted Esso's agents in this respect already."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mrs Anne Collins
"Mrs Collins is an affected land owner who want to be kept informed of the proposed scheme and how it will affect her land holding. She is concerned with impact on her land, business and dwelling. She want to ensure that Esso comply with all ecological and environmental legislation and do not cause any damage to biodiversity on the holding."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC and National Grid Gas
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc to the Southampton To London Pipeline Project (“the Project”) National Grid Electricity Transmission (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 their 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 apparatus and land interests located within this area. NATIONAL GRID ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE VICINITY OF THE PROPOSED WORKS The following assets, which form an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Overhead Lines • 4YC (400kV) overhead line route • VB 400kV) overhead line route • ZH (275kV) overhead line route • ZC (275kV) overhead line route • VW (275kV) overhead line route Underground Cables • Adjacent to the Basingstoke Canal Substations • Laleham 1 132kV Substation • Laleham 2 275kV Substation National Grid will require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that it’s interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. National Grid will liaise with the Promoter in relation to the protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. As a responsible statutory undertaker, National Grid’s primary concern is to meet their 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 negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rob Whitney
"The development and investment of fossil fuel infrastructure must be scaled back if we are to achieve the commitments made to achieve net zero targets. We need to understand why this pipeline is being laid and the net benefit to the environment. As part of the rewilding objectives to capture carbon we cannot kill existing trees, so the proposed route through Lightwater should be open to question and public consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colville Court Residents Association Ltd
"I am concerned at the probability of the destruction of many many trees on the skyline that we view from our properties, caused by changing the original pipeline route to now run along the pathway behind Colville Gardens on Turf Hill Park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Shutt
"Pipeline will come through Stake Lane Farnborough with the possible removal and financial removal of our garages."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Noel Lynch
"I object to the planned excess and egress to Fordbridge park proposed depot. Celia Crescent roads are too narrow for traffic when there is an alternative access gate in Wood thorpe road which would eliminate the problems the residents of Celia Crescent would have to face."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alfonzo Noto
"Lack of consultation on this very recent change of routing. The currently planned route is wrong because it causes: - Permanent damage to the environment (loss of 200+ very mature trees). No trees would be lost if the existing route was used - Permanent damage to natural habitat by destroying the nesting and breeding places of bats - My Garden and neighbouring gardens have mature trees in them close to the boundary. These trees will be permanently damaged. Damage to roots will be long lasting and cause the trees to become unsafe in future years - Permanent damage and loss of trees bordering properties in Colville Gardens and Herons Court. Significant visual impairment for residents and users of the bridle path - Depression of property value during the planning and construction phase of 2- 3 years. property prices and loss of property value. - Daily noise and dust pollution during the construction phase impacting the bordering residential areas - Disruption to pedestrians, dog walkers, cyclists, horse riders etc who daily use the bridle path"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Noel Hayden on behalf of David Hayden
"I am writing on behalf of my father to register his objection to the proposal. He is very unhappy with the lack of satisfactory answers received to date with regard to vehicular access to Nash Close and the amount of disruption caused during the installation of the pipeline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Virginia Alexander
"I cannot see how or why my opinion matters as the pipeline has received consent and is therefore a foregone conclusion. If I had a real choice I would say 'No - not in my backyard'."
Local Authorities
South Downs National Park Authority
"The SDNPA will be submitting a Local Impact Report in due course. The key issues will be the impact upon the statutory purposes and duty of the National Park."
Other Statutory Consultees
Surrey Fire and Rescue Service
"Surrey Fire and Rescue Service are required to ensure response plans are viable and business continuity plans maintained. Therefore we express an interest in this application with regards to the following: - the impact the planned works would have on the local road network and thus our response times to communities during an emergency. (road closures and diversion routes) - protected access and egress from all fire stations in Surrey. - the risk of fire arising from the proposed works and subsequent impact on the community. - the works on common land should maintain our access and egress from these areas to extinguish wildfires. - the logistics hubs located in Surrey, the nature of any materials stored, the hazards they may pose to fire-fighters or the community in the event of an incident - (fire or other)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Wendy Jane Brooks
"My interested is as local resident most effected by the chosen pipeline route, my garden borders the bridleway through Turf Hill Park, Lightwater. Major concerns about lack of effective consultation with local residents and borough councillors by Esso Major concerns about lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council Major concerns about environmental impact - removal of established trees - effects on bat habitat, potential flooding risk"
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Mansfield
"The consultation process did not include the Turf Hill can ages that have been agreed. The reason for the changes are not based on any meaningful information. The unintended consequences would have severe detrimental impact to the properties in Herons Court and Colville Gardens. The existing pipeline route should be used in this area, this would not then have any long term impact on the residents. The loss of trees would have severe impact on sound and light changes within the area and over the long term flooding issues would occur."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Charley Howell - WITHDRAWN
"The pipeline is running through a property my family own and at present we are unhappy with Esso's terms."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Piasecki
"The pipeline runs under part of my property, so I am registering interest in order to understand further and share views on the project regarding the impact it will have on houses in the area"
Parish Councils
Farringdon Parish Council
"Farringdon is located near Alton in Hampshire and is on the route of the current and planned pipeline. Farringdon Parish Council needs to be kept informed of the progress of the Examination as well as being notified of the final decision, due to the impact that the project will have on the residents of Farringdon."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mrs Julie Appleton
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Other Statutory Consultees
Transport for London Spatial Planning
"As the strategic transport authority for London, Transport for London (TfL) provides London Underground and Overground rail services, manages the Transport for London Road Network (TLRN) and provides bus services within the London borough of Hounslow where the West London Oil Terminal is located. We would want to ensure that any potential impacts on surface or sub surface rail infrastructure including the Piccadilly Line and Elizabeth Line (Crossrail), safety and operation of the TLRN or its junctions and any delays to bus services or impacts to road users caused by road closures or diversions as a result of pipeline replacement works are minimised. Mitigation may need to be provided for any negative impacts. Potential impacts and proposed measures should be discussed with TfL at an early stage. It is noted that some sections of highways land close to the London border are registered to TfL. It is particularly important that any works potentially affecting these areas of land are the subject of early consultation with TfL"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Anthony Vear
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Clive Tosdevine - R S Hill & Sons
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Dawn Vear
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners
"We are a firm of land agents acting on behalf of Landowners whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline and will be making representations on behalf of our clients throughout the DCO process"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of James Mayhew
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marcus Cranstone
"pipeline should not run on my property, pipeline should run alongside the pipeline as it is now, if they have trouble with it they would have to did in the woodland to put right, this plan at this time stopping me selling my property I have had 3 buyers turn it down for this reason"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Michael Newell
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. The land has significant development potential, Esso have located their pipeline through the centre of the developable area, with no concern or thought to the impact on the retained property. Esso have located the drilling site in the centre of the holding again having maximum impact on the landowner. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Miss Jane Clancy
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Miss Sheena Judd
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Ashwin Hill
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr David Mayhew
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Dennis Vear
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Eric John Newbury
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Gary F Simmonds
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Hilton Ramseyer
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Mark Dunford
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process. There are concerns with the siting of valves on my client land and the impact that this will have on the enjoyment of the retained land and lack of justification as why the valves are situated in unsuitable positions and why Esso require the freehold ownership."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Peter Taplin
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Richard Harvey
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mr Steven Gregory
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Judd and Partners on behalf of Mys Lynda Ramseyer
"Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosemary Mostakhdemin
"Firstly, we do not want the pipeline on our land, however, as an infrastructure project it seems we have little alternative. We have therefore, in principle, agreed to the plan put forward by Fisher German and will, if the terms of the incentive payment are agreeable, acquiesce to their demands. This though is the issue: the terms of the contract are not agreeable and do not offer sufficient indemnity against pollution or accident arising during or after construction. These protections should cover our family, our livestock and our neighbours' property. Our solicitor, Moore Blatch, has made contact with Esso's solicitor, to ask for a review of these issues. The deadline for accepting the contract and incentive payment is close upon us, yet they are not responding to requests for re-consideration of the contract or an extension of the deadline. We feel unable to sign the contract in its current form and will, therefore, be pushed into a lower payment if, in the future, acceptable terms emerge."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The National Trust
"The National Trust owns and manages the Hinton Ampner Estate which lies in southern Hampshire. The Hinton Ampner Estate dates from 1597 and in its current form is a quintessentially English country estate. The estate extends to over 600 hectares including the main mansion house and associated outbuildings, parkland, woodland and the village of Hinton Ampner itself. The estate was bequeathed to The National Trust in 1985 by the late Ralph Dutton, Lord Sherborne. The existing pipeline currently runs through the southern part of the Hinton Ampner Estate and whilst the majority of it lies under arable fields within one of the farm tenancy agreement areas, part of the pipeline does go through an area of ancient woodland albeit that it utilises a ride through this area. The Trust has previously indicated that it supports the principle of the replacement of the existing fuel line and that the proposal to re-route the pipeline away from its existing line through ancient woodland on the Hinton Ampner Estate was welcome. The Trust has responded at each stage of the pre-submission consultations to assist Esso in ensuring that the replacement pipeline has the least environmental, economic and social impact on this part of the route. At the preferred option consultation stage in October 2018 the Trust indicated a preference for sub-option A2b as this runs the pipeline totally outside of land within the Trust’s control and would not, therefore, have any adverse impact on the character of the Hinton Ampner Estate or the operational use of it. However, following this response Esso contacted the Trust and provided additional information in respect of the environmental impact of sub-option A2b and asked for reconsideration of our response in light of this further detail. The Trust undertook this exercise and has concluded that it will not raise an objection to sub-option A2a coming across land within the Hinton Ampner Estate. The Trust has however identified the following areas of interest where we consider further information may be required to support the DCO and ensure that any impact on the Trust’s land and interests at Hinton Ampner are fully understood and appropriately mitigated: • Bats – the Trust is concerned that the bat survey information has not considered the trees which project out from Joan’s Acre Wood. Information has been provided to Esso which indicates a rare bat species present in these woods, but survey work is from a number of years ago and may not reflect the current position. • Tree loss – the Trust is unclear whether it is proposed to remove trees which connect to Joan’s Acre Wood. Reference is made in the ES to areas to the south east of Joan’s Acre Wood, but these do not appear to be identified on any plan, only an area of potential additional ancient woodland to the east. Reference is also made to notable trees which potentially lie in this area, but again it is not clear where these are. Whilst the Trust recognises that the loss will not change the magnitude of impact overall it is important that this information is provided. • Tourism impact – the Trust is disappointed that there is no recognition within the ES of the impact that the construction phase of the proposal will have on visitors to Hinton Ampner which is a major tourist attraction in the South Downs National Park. The pipeline lies less than 100m from one of the main estate walks at the property which is well used and it is considered that this is an omission from the People and Communities Chapter in the ES. • Inclusion of two Sub-Options – the Trust is somewhat surprised that the two sub-options remain as part of the DCO given that the organisation provided a further response following Esso’s request for reconsideration of our view in Autumn 2018. The Trust would like to understand if matters have changed since this time as no further approach has been made to the Trust regarding these options since this time (other than work to secure an easement). The Trust would welcome the opportunity to attend any part of the Examination where the Panel considered this in more detail."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mrs F J Roote
"We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. We run a busy equestrian business at the property and the impact of the pipeline is likely to be significant and detrimental. We intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential impact the pipeline will have on our property and business and ways to mitigate it (if any)."
Local Authorities
Surrey Heath Borough Council
"It is noted that host authorities have an important role in the Planning Act 2008 process. The Council will be producing a Local Impact Report and seeking to agree a Statement of Common Ground with the applicant as part of the Examination process. Therefore, the Council does not consider it necessary to include a detailed outline of its principle submissions at this stage in the process. The key issues of concern are impacts on the following areas: • Environment, ecology and biodiversity • Contaminated land • Highways • Local communities For the benefit of the Examining Authority, it is relevant to note that the Council is continuing to engage with the applicant on matters of ongoing discussion which include, but are not exclusive to, the following issues: Firstly, with regards to the potential impacts on the Thames Basin Heaths Specially Protection Area, the applications order limits currently pass through two Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspaces (SANGs) which mitigate the impact of new residential development in Surrey Heath on the Thames Basin Heaths SPA, namely St Catherine’s Road SANG and Windlemere SANG. The SANGs can be considered the only alternative recreation mitigation for the developments that are allocated capacity to the SANG and therefore if the construction of the pipeline were to compromise the functioning of the SANG, for even a short period of time, there remains the potential for a significant impact on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths SPA. Secondly, it is noted that there is potential for significant short term disruption to Surrey Heath’s local road network, especially in relation to Red Road. The Council notes that the applicant has committed to not severe vehicle access to residential properties during the construction of the pipeline and the Council welcomes this approach. Thirdly, the Council is yet to agree the applicants approach to Great Crested Newts in Windlemere SANG, due to the removal of a central pond during construction, and is seeking further assurances from the applicant as to how the impact on Great Crested Newts in this area will be mitigated. Fourthly, the Council is awaiting more information from the applicant in relation to the potential impacts on trees in the Borough during construction, following the completion of an arboricultural assessment, and will work with the applicant to ensure that, where trees are felled during the construction of the pipeline, a net gain is delivered. Finally, the Council notes that concerns have been raised by residents in the Lightwater area as to the location of the pipeline in Turf Hill and considers that the issues raised need to be fully examined."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tariq Ahmed
"This needs to be register because: There has been no real Consultation with local residents. The proposals have changed and not communicated. Our elected officials have either not been informed of have not kept us updated. The damage to the natural environment and established trees has not been properly impact assessed. The trees provide huge health and wellbeing benefits for the local community. The government has committed to planting millions of new trees. There are not enough available to plant, so by taking these trees out you are adding to the government problem."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of The Independent Educational Association Limited (IEAL) (The Independent Educational Association Limited (IEAL))
"The Independent Educational Association Limited Application by the Esso Petroleum Company Limited (Applicant) for an Order granting Development Consent for the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Section 56 Relevant Representation The Independent Educational Association Limited (IEAL) owns and operates St James Senior Boys School at 10 Church Road, Stanwell, Ashford TW15 3DZ (School) which would be affected by the Southampton to London Pipeline Project (Project) in respect of which a Development Consent Order (DCO) application has been submitted. The IEAL does not object in principle to the Project. However it is noted that the DCO seeks compulsory acquisition powers in respect of 5 plots namely plots 2227, 2234, 2236, 2237 and 2238 (Plots) currently owned and occupied by the School to enable works to construct a construction access and works to construct and operate the Project to be carried out (Works). The IEAL objects to the compulsory acquisition of its land, rights it has over the land and the compulsory creation of rights over land owned by IEAL or in which IEAL has an interest. IEAL submits that the acquisition by the Applicant of the Plots and the carrying out of the Works will have a serious detrimental effect on the School and its main concerns are summarised below. 1. School's Reputation The carrying out of the Works within the school grounds and the use of the main entrance to the School by construction workers and traffic will have a serious adverse impact on the operation of the School. It will also affect the attractiveness of the School to prospective parents and pupils which will have an adverse impact on the School's short term and long term financial health and viability. 2. Child protection The Works will have an adverse impact on safety of staff, students and all other persons who are present on School premises. The nature of the School's business also means that every visitor to the School, including the Applicant's contractors, will either have to have passed a Disclosure and Barring Service check or be accompanied by an authorised member of School staff. The Applicant has had no regard to this important issue in selecting its preferred pipeline route. 3. Impact on sport facilities The Works consist of the installation and operation of a high-pressure aviation fuel pipeline across the School's grounds which are used for a variety of sports by over 400 pupils on a daily basis. Sport is an essential part of the School curriculum and it is, in the IEAL's view, extraordinary that the Applicant has seen fit to seek compulsory powers to install an aviation fuel pipeline across school playing fields which will render them incapable of safe use during and after the installation of the pipeline. 4. Existing planning consent The School has obtained and implemented a planning permission for the redevelopment of the School for a new assembly hall on land which includes the Plots. In addition, another planning application for redevelopment of the School's premises has been submitted to the local planning authority and permission was granted on 11 July 2019. It is noted that compulsory acquisition of the IEAL's land and rights over its land will make implementation of the existing planning consent and the proposed development impossible. 5. Contamination It is noted that the School's north field, which include the Plots, was subject to extensive decontamination and site remediation works and that the Works will disturb contaminated material which will result in a consequential adverse impact on the environment and the health and well-being of staff and students at the School and the local population. 6. Loss of revenue The School is used for weddings and other events and the Works will make it impossible for the IEAL to use its premises for such purposes which will result in a loss of income. 7. Future restrictions The compulsory acquisition of the Plots and the Works will place unacceptable restrictions on the School's ability to manage its estate and to expand and carry out new development in the future. 8. Consultation The School submitted a response to the statutory section 42 consultation undertaken by the Applicant and provided its clear and detailed reasons why the proposed pipeline route through the School grounds is unacceptable and asked the Applicant to engage with the School about an alternative, more acceptable route. The School notes that the Applicant has not taken account of the consultation feedback provided and the proposed pipeline route remains precisely the same as it was at the statutory consultation stage. The IEAL considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition of rights over the Plots and no new rights or restrictions can be created over the Plots without serious detriment to IEAL. It also notes that no other land is available to IEAL which would mean that the detriment can be made good by them. The IEAL also notes that there are no protective provisions in the draft DCO for the School's benefit and also objects to the DCO on this basis and asks that such protective provisions are included in the DCO. IEAL reserves the rights to raise further issues in its written representation in evidence and intends to take a full part in the examination including attending and making oral representations at relevant hearings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Victoria Gladstone
"Please can you register my interest as an affected party in the proposed new Esso Pipeline that is currently proposed to cross my farmland. I also hereby authorise my agent Carter Jonas and my solicitors Thrings to represent me on these matters (and any further matters that may arise) and to act on my behalf. Yours sincerely Victoria Gladstone, (Redacted)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deirdre Rook
"Myself and my husband and landowners whose land is going to be crossed by the pipeline. This pipeline will have a significant impact on our land which could be to its detriment. We intend to make a representation with regards to the potential impact and ways to mitigate it if possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Duncan Manuel
"I am greatly concerned regarding the extent of tree removal associated with this project, specifically along the south-western edge of Queen Elizabeth Park, Farnborough. There are three points I wish to make: 1) The trees are a wonderful resource for local wildlife, and provide a canopy that stretches from our garden, across our neighbours garden, and into the wood. Removal of to many trees will destroy this corridor, impacting wildlife. 2) In an age where we the more enlightened are understanding the harmful effect that humanity is having on the environment, the destruction of trees is again not good for the environment as mature trees represent natural carbon-sinks. 3) The removal of too many tress will have a detrimental impact on the view from our garden (front and back) into the wood, changing it from one that is characterised by vegetation, to one that is not. Tree removal should be kept to an absolute minimum, with all efforts made to assess each tree. This should be overseen by an impartial 3rd party, and should not be made by ESSO themselves, as the driver of the organisation is unlikely to be saving the trees, but ease of access."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jen Rook
"I am a landowner whose land is going to be crossed by the pipeline and the pipeline will have a significant and potentially damaging impact on my land. I intend to make a representation regarding the potential impact and any ways to mitigate this."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr James Foot
"As a landowner we wish to be kept informed at all times of any decisions made regarding the Esso Pipeline and wish to be registered herewith in order for us to comment when we require to do so"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr John Potter
"I am a landowner whose land is going to be crossed by the pipeline. The pipeline will impact my use of the land during construction so I am making representation to mitigate any possible impacts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nick Jarman on behalf of The residents of 16 Queen Victoria Court
"Regarding Section E - Queen Elizabeth Park, Farnborough. We are registering as an interested party because our garden backs onto Queen Elizabeth Park and we will be affected by the proposed pipeline development. We are concerned that some data in the application is not accurate. In particular, the co-ordinates of many of the tree groups in Appendix 10.2 (Schedule of Notable Trees) are not along the route of the pipeline. This makes it impossible to know which groups of trees the applicant intends to remove. We are also concerned about the following aspects of the route through Queen Elizabeth Park: * The number of mature trees which might be removed from Queen Elizabeth Park and the long term change in its character. * The fact that replacement trees would take many years to establish and reinstate the screening between the park and houses in Queen Victoria Court. * The loss of privacy in our house and garden which the clearing of trees in the park would cause, including introducing a direct line of sight into our bedrooms and kitchen. * The increased noise and disruption from the park, due to the loss of the noise screening trees and vegetation. * The reduction of house value, due to the loss of the tree canopy. This park is used by locals for dog walking and by families for exercise and outdoor activity. The work will hugely impact the benefit of the park for many years to come. We are requesting that the impact of the pipeline installation is as minimal as can be achieved and that action is taken ensure that tree loss in Queen Elizabeth Park is reduced as much as possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ann Stephenson
"Have walked this beautiful route regularly for 40 years - loss of well used public amenity for the six plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife (Redacted. deer, foxes) Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Reynolds
"Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ashford Road (TW18) Residents Group (inc adjacent roads) (Ashford Road (TW18) Residents Group (inc adjacent roads))
"We intend to make representation that the SLP CONSULTATION process was in fact NOT consultation on any proposed route since the decision had been made on Ashford Road, having de-selected H1a and H1b. The ‘glossy’ brochure and letters received would first appear that you are invited to ‘consult’ on the ‘proposed route’. However, it quickly became apparent that this was not the case in relation to Ashford Road. We were informed that there is no other possible route for the pipeline and that this was the final route. We understand there is an alternative available on the QMR, alongside the existing route, that SLP have refused and dismissed out of hand without good reason or cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bundini Gadhoke
"If this application goes ahead, flood risks are going to be even higher, resulting in residents either not being able to get flood insurance or paying over the odds for it. Trees that are over 200 years old will be cut, bats will lose their habitat and there are lots of other small animals which will be impacted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles March
"Insufficient consideration to loss of established flora and fauna including areas of importance to ground nesting birds, established trees and wildlife The scheme as proposed will lead to irrevocable loss of established trees and other areas of significant habitat Removal of open space and amenity areas for the significant period works will be underway with little consoderation to mitogation"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Catt
"Concerns regarding Turf Hill and Brentmoor Common: the increased risk of flooding due to work carried out disturbance to wildlife habitat loss of trees in direct opposition to SCC proposals this week to ensure planting of trees across the county"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dave Kelly
"Removal of established trees, which is also in conflict with local council policy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Richardson
"I wish to register my objection to the current planned pipeline route that is going to affect TURF HILL. As a local resident who may well be affected by any potential flooding. If the trees are damaged, due to the proposed route, and close proximity to existing root structures. Not only are the trees at risk but the surrounding properties are at risk of being damaged if the trees die and fall on them. The pipeline must be routed away from these mature trees. It is widely accepted by environmentalists, government authorities and the scientific community that there is a global crisis and an urgent need to take action to reverse climate change. The current routing flies in the face of this crisis, the planning authorities must act to ensure that minimum impact is caused to the natural environment. The current proposals fall very short of this aim."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Taylor
"Reference proposed works in Turf Hill Park in Lightwater. I object to these works as the park is a very important facility for local residents to walk their dogs and enjoy the countryside, the works will destroy it's natural beauty, increase flood risks, reduce pollution reduction and increase noise pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elise Seurre
"The trees on this route protect Lightwater from noise, they clean our air and act as a flood defence. Not only that there has been a local of effective consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Georgina Mayne
"I regularly walk along Turf Hill in Lightwater and the loss of many trees along the route would be detrimental to the area. Some trees are over 200 years old and are a natural habitat for many birds, bats and other wild life. The trees act as a flood defence for the many houses near by and if removed may put the houses in increased risk of flooding. This many old and beautiful trees should be protected from being cut down."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gillian Higgins
"loss of well used public amenity for the six plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Gill
"The importance of the trees on the proposed route they protect Lightwater from noise, they clean our air and act as flood defences. The removal of established trees many 200 years old"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Isobel Gould
"I disagree with the proposed removal of these space of woodland for several reasons, first and foremost, trees, shrubbery, soil, the canopy provided by the trees and all other forms of nature provide invaluable habitats for wildlife. Furthermore, the ecosystem services provided by these particular trees are not sufficiently accounted for in the ESSO planning proposals. Such services include improving air quality, maintaining pH balance in groundwater, maintaining soil quality etc. Additionally, I believe the general public have not been suitably engaged with and their opinions heard on the matter. This area of woodland also provides a space for people to enjoy and relax in, as it is a popular walking route, thus the removal of these private trees would detract from said route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Sherrard-Smith
"Effects on wildlife, bats, birds, butterflies, pollinators Trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council Removal of established trees many 200 years old Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer Li
"I am a homeowner and resident of Nash Close, on the proposed new route of the Esso pipeline replacement in Farnborough, the Cove Road section. Here they have deviated from the direct crossing of Cove Road down the original/ current route following Cove Brook, instead choosing to re-route down a long section of Cove Road, a main thoroughfare through Farnborough, and then down the entire length of Nash Close to cross the railway line at the end of the street. Esso claim the reason for the change of route is technical reasons, but we want to make sure it’s not just the cheaper option (open cut compared to trenchless) given the increased traffic disruption to the town, and overall disruption to all residents of Nash Close that the new route will cause."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jose Oliveira
"This route is across the road from me and forms part of my daily exercise. The blocking of this path will be a major inconvenience to myself and many others who use the route on a regular basis. I see a variety of birds and other wild life living in the trees which form a valuable habitat not only to birds but also bats. Other wild life such as adders are often seen in the vicinity. The trees act as an important noise barrier to the B311. Trees are essential in our fight against carbon and older trees capture far more carbon than saplings, some of these established trees are as old as 200 years. The trees prevent flooding in the area. I personally remember Riverside flooding 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill causing serious disruption to the Guildford Road not to mention residents whose homes were flooded. Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already. The removal of trees will make this worse and increase the risk. There has been a notable lack of effective consultation with the public. Despite lodging objections our concerns were not taken into consideration and no notification was given of this alternative route along Turf Hill. Everyone expected the original route to be taken. Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels is also a clear demonstration of the complete disregard to the democratic process. Residents unsurprisingly now have major concerns about the lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council and any serious debate about the pipeline route. SCC this week declared a climate crisis stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". The Council needs to abide by it's own principles and consult openly with Esso. Esso need to be transparent in their dealings with local representatives and consult with all concerned. Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso despite the fact that they exist and have not been considered unsuitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judy Meekings
"I walk regularly in Turf Hill, and feel that it is an important part of the environment of Lightwater. The trees, some more than 200 years old, are vital for cleansing the air in an area of high vehicular traffic, and for reducing the flood risk to surrounding properties. And the area is home to bats, adders and other wildlife, which would be driven from their natural habitat. Esso has failed to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels. I also have major concerns at the lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council, which this week declared a climate crisis and stated that ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katherine Legge
"This where I take my dog to walk every day it will prevent me for enjoy this well used outdoor space"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Bradley-Cole
"I walk on Turf Hill and the ranges regularly. This would not only lead to a loss of well used public amenity land for the six plus months construction time, it would also disrupt traffic on a major road route (Red Road). The recent construction of the maultway roundabout shows how easy it is for traffic in this area to become gridlocked and it is unfair to put residents through this again. The removal of so many well established trees is an unnecessary damage to the environment. Even replacing them with young tress will not protect Lightwater from the impact to air quality and flood risk. There will also be a considerable impact to bats, birds, adders and other wildlife. There has been a lack of effective local consultation from both Esso and SCC. I have major concerns at lack of democratic process by SCC, who declared a climate crisis this week and stated ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding" and yet have done nothing to negotiate properly with Esso. Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso - my recommendation would be for the route to more closely match the existing route and run up the ranges path and not along Red Road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laird G Davison
"Turf Hill and especially the old trackway on the Ridge above Lightwater Manor & its Lake, is a great area for walking - to lose this amenity during the installation of Esso's pipeline - and find it denuded of beautiful mature trees and Rhododendron shrubs afterwards is too much to contemplate. Additionally, the trees help in soaking up water after rainfall on the scarp slope leading down to the Lake ... I understand that obvious alternatives like running parallel to the existng pipeline, or in the empty swathe under the Pylons, or on the track that runs alongside the Red Road have been rejected by reason of alleged Species population ... these species are also present on the selected route it should be pointed out."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lenny Holdsworth
"Terrible route, will damage the TPO trees in our garden which no one seems to give a hoot about or want to talk to me about."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marjorie Roos
"alternative routes must be taken to prevent the following risks - The destruction of beautiful established trees - damages to our village - negative impacts to the wildlife (deers, birds, bats, hedgehogs, etc) - flood risks"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Melanie Kelly
"I walk with my dog in this area several times a week and think it would be utterly shameful and unethical to remove beautiful old trees in the name of progress, when there are alternative routes that have not been properly explored. We are at a time when we should be preserving nature for our common good, not destroying it. Please, please think long and hard before you ‘railroad’ through our lives and environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Charles
"There has been a lack of effective consultation. Esso's currently proposed route was not part of the original consultation process and there has no communication and engagement with local Councillors at Parish, Borough and County levels since proposing this new route. Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Lyons
"The removal of well established trees ... no TPO whatsoever"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Shackleton
"I am concerned that the wildlife and the risk of flooding to houses below the hill have not been taken into account. What information has been given to the owners of houses in lightwater about how they claim for compensation from Esso when their homes flooded, due to the trees being removed?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs C Stephenson
"I think when laying the pipeline there is a need to protect trees in this area, many of which are over 200 years old. They help protect residents of Lightwater from road noise, traffic pollution, and they help form flood defence to parts of the village that are already at high risk, some of which have been flooded before. This area is one enjoyed by many for walking and enjoyment of the countryside, and it is an area that is crucial to local wildlife, such as bats, adders, deer, birds and butterflies. Great consideration and respect should be shown for these essential resources, once gone probably lost forever. Is the proposed pipeline following the course of the present one? Have all other alternatives been thoroughly investigated? And will Esso be obliged to repair damage and replace any felled trees?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Gene Clements
"I do understand the necessity for the pipelines what I do not understand is why you cant use the existing route. This would be less intrusive for Turfhill Park, the habitation there and us as neighbours. Turfhill is such a lovely park and is enjoyed by many walkers and riders. Please re-consider your route to remove such beautiful trees is sacrilege, when at the end of the day you could just use the original route. As a neighbour who backs onto the park it worry’s me the implication of the work and it could have an adverse effect on our house price. Please reconsider it’s not too late."
Members of the Public/Businesses
P Huntley-Blecken
"Losing this beautiful public amenity would be disastrous to our community and the wildlife and plants within it. The trees help protect us from harmful CO2 emissions, dampen down the noise of vehicles, provide habitat to endangered bats and reptiles and hedgehogs. There has long been a flood risk in the area, and trees are essential protection against such damage to properties. It would appear there has been a lack of consultation with local councillors at Parish, Borough and County level. Many trees have preservation orders but Esso plan to destroy both public and privately placed trees with no regard to said TPOs and ownership."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paige Norton-Edwards
"This will ruin where I have lived for 18 years. Queen Elizabeth Park is a substantial part of Farnborough as a community, and removing part of the park would ruin some of the history of Farnborough. My fence line also borders the park, and will degrade the views of the houses in the cul-de-sac. As a community (Redacted) , a lot of us bought houses here because it is closed off from the main roads, and completing this will upset a lot of home owners here, and completely devalue our houses. As an 18 year old girl, I have seen the urbanisation of the south completely take over, and soon we will have no Greenland left. I understand why you would want to put the pipeline down, but this is at the expense of the community of Farnborough, and I will not support this"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rowena Evans
"Unnecessary removal of trees, ruination of wildlife habitat and beautiful scenery. Lack of consultation and use of available alternatives e.g. existing route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Dover
"Why should we lose a beautiful green space with trees and habitats that are 100's of years old, when an existing route already exists along with other alternatives that doesnt destroy our local countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sharon Galliford
"This route is across the road from me and forms part of my daily exercise. The blocking of this path will be a major inconvenience to myself and may others who use the route on a regular basis. I see a variety of birds and other wild life living in the trees which form a valuable habitat not only to birds but also bats. Other wild life such as adders are often seen in the vicinity. The trees are also a important noise barrier to the B311. Trees are essential in our fight against carbon and older trees capture far more carbon than saplings, some of these established trees are as old as 200 years. The trees prevent flooding in the area. I personally remember Riverside flooding 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill. Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already. The removal of trees will make this worse. Lack of effective consultation with the public. Our concerns were not taken into consideration and no notification was given of this alternative route along Turf Hill. Everyone expected the original route to be taken. Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels is also a clear demonstration of the complete disregard to the democratic process. Residents unsurprisingly now have major concerns about the lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council. SCC this week declared a climate crisis stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". The Council needs to abide by it's own principles and consult openly with Esso. Esso need to be transparent in their dealings with local representatives and consult with all concerned. Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso despite the fact that they exist and have not been considered unsuitable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Fox
"I have been walking my dogs around Turf Hill for 18 years. It is a beautiful tranquil area with a significant amount of wildlife that will be forced out of the area . This planning application must NOT be approved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sue Wright
"This is a beautiful walk that is used by dozens of people every day, including myself. It could never be the same again, whatever landscaping was done. The trees have been established for many years and it would be vandalism to cut them down. I cannot walk far with my dog, so the car park and accessibility is very important. I don’t think that enough research has been done on alternative routes."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Surrey Heath Tree Wardens
"As Chairman of Surrey Heath Tree Wardens we regard the route chosen as extending the damage already caused to the Special Protection Area(SPA) by being placed on the SPA boundary and thus increasing the total area of the SPA subject to both construction damage and damage from maintenance. We believe that the existing route which already consists of multiple fuel pipelines, a gas pipeline and high voltage electricity pylons/cables should be utilised to prevent extending the area of damage despite the statutory protection issues. It is our view that Esso have not conducted the necessary investigations and consultations in sufficient depth to justify their deviation from the route of the existing utilities and thus enlarging the area subject to damage."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terry Turner
"Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso Removal of established trees many 200 years old Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Walk this beautiful route regularly - loss of well used public amenity plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Todd Bradley-Cole
"I walk on Turf Hill and the ranges regularly. This would not only lead to a loss of well used public amenity land for the six plus months construction time, it would also disrupt traffic on a major road route (Red Road). The recent construction of the maultway roundabout shows how easy it is for traffic in this area to become gridlocked and it is unfair to put residents through this again. The removal of so many well established trees is an unnecessary damage to the environment. Even replacing them with young trees will not protect Lightwater from the impact to air quality and flood risk. There will also be a considerable impact to bats, birds, adders and other wildlife. There has been a lack of effective local consultation from both Esso and SCC. I have major concerns at the lack of democratic process shown by SCC, who declared a climate crisis this week and stated ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding" and yet have done nothing to negotiate properly with Esso. Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso - my recommendation would be for the route to more closely match the existing route and run up the ranges path and not along Red Road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Holt
"I cycle on Brentmoor Heath regularly and I would hate to see the destruction of this absolutely beautiful environment. Even the smallest changes would largely affect the wildlife and ecosystem there."
Other Statutory Consultees
Cadent Gas Limited
"Representation by Cadent Gas Limited (Cadent) to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project Development Consent Order: Cadent is a licensed gas transporter under the Gas Act 1986, with a statutory responsibility to operate and maintain the gas distribution networks in North London, Central and North West England. Cadent’s primary duties are to operate, maintain and develop its networks in an economic, efficient and coordinated way. Cadent wishes to make a relevant representation to the Southampton to London Pipeline Project DCO in order to protect its position in light of infrastructure which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. Cadent’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 including should be maintained at all times and access to inspect such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed in relation to impacts on Cadent’s existing apparatus located within this area, and Cadent has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. Cadent has low, medium, intermediate and high pressure gas pipelines and associated below or above ground apparatus located within the order limits which are affected in multiple locations by works proposed and which may require diversions subject to the impact. Cadent has been liaising with the Promoter in respect of potential impacts to its apparatus however an adequate form of Protective Provisions has yet to be agreed for inclusion within the DCO. As a responsible statutory undertaker, Cadent’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. Cadent wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will seek to engage with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Hannis
"The proposed new route of this pipeline at Turfhill Lightwater is going to impact on the roots of some very old trees and disturb the habitat of wildlife. Could you please reconsider this by keeping the route to where the current pipeline is routed which does not impact so much on wildlife, trees or near residential properties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Hartshorn
"Lack of communication with residents must be addressed, the pipeline was the original route of existing pipeline , confirmed with residents, beginning of March route was altered without advising residents or local councillors. The chosen route has a huge impact on well established trees at a time when there is a climate emergency and trees are invaluable for the environment Nowhere has the bridal path running parallel with Red Road been considered as a route The removal of trees will have a detrimental effect on adjacent residences and flooding"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ciska Paton
"Esso has no regard for our neighbourhoods, the impact their planned work will have on our environment. We don’t want our natural habitats disturbed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Davies
"Before you consider granting permission for this, please imagine what the future might be like for our children and their children when we have failed to act on the vital importance of trees and the role they play in reducing pollution. Diesel has been directly linked to lung cancer by the world health organisation. Some of these trees are 200 years old. Planting simply cannot mitigate the effectiveness of large mature trees. Sound Pollution is also significant here. Residents in this area especially need the barrier the trees provide to noise from the M3. You only need to listen on a wet or windy day to realise just how loud and uncomfortable it can be to be outside. Surrey Wildlife Trust will be looking for a net gain to biodiversity for the removal of the homes to bats and birds. They will not cross the M3 and with all the development in the neighbouring West End, where will they find alternative habitat. Any expert will tell you that providing boxes on new dwellings are largely ineffective. Must we destroy the beauty and landscape of this setting used by many residents for walking, the one thing we are trying to promote to aid mental wellbeing and combat obesity. Yes there are SANGs in the area but must we send everyone there, so it becomes too busy and impacts the protected wildlife there. Please consider the Residents wishes when ESSO have enough resource and financial capability to find an alternative solution. They will only want the cheapest option and will be long gone when the residents and wildlife will be left with the destruction to their homes. Please have courage to push ESSO for alternatives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claudia Gordon
"Lack of effective consultation by Esso - unclear outcome and communication of alternative route considerations which are deemed better. Significant impact to area - removal of trees over 200 years old protecting area from noise, flooding and pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Griffiths
"The plans show that the pipeline is to follow Red Road from Frimley towards West End. I wish to voice a concern over the amount of disruption which could be caused by works on this main through route from the M3 towards Frimley. Also over any plans which would remove trees from this route as they currently act as a sound barrier from the motorway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma-Jane LaRoche
"I am unhappy with the effect this will have on the natural habitat of the area and am a regular dog walker in this area. It will me mean the destruction of trees that are possible over 200 years old !"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Heard
"OBJECT TO PIPELINE Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Talbot
"To have that beautiful space destroyed by an unnecessary option would be devastating. I walk there regularly with my dog as it’s an easy accessible safe walk for my myself having (REDACTED)who sometimes have trouble walking but it is also a safe walk to take my children on the walk when holidays."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nikki Brook
"Walk this beautiful route regularly - loss of well used public amenity for the six plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul McMahon
"We any many other local residents walk this area regularly, the works will make this impossible for an extended period of time. The area is prone to flooding and removal of the trees will increase that risk. It is home to a huge amount of wildlife including rarer birds and it would be disgusting to cause damage or destroy this. We are strongly opposed to these works and also feel frustrated that as local residents we have not been consulted by Esso, the council or any officials and believe many residents are unaware of the proposed works meaning it is unfair to make this decision without proper public consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penelope Doherty
"Regarding the proposed pipeline route through Turf Hill, Lightwater: As a local resident, I Walk this beautiful route regularly and am concerned at the loss of this well used public amenity for throughout the construction process and possibly afterwards due to potential damage to the area. The trees in this area not only protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence but many are over 200 years old. Wildlife and bat habitats will be destroyed. I am also extremely concerned on the impact of this pipeline route on local residents who live very close to this route - specifically, the disruption and potential destruction along the Turf Hill section and along the Red Road. I feel that better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Blake
"Please protect these trees. Loss of well used public amenity for the six plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding"."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Shelton
"Dear Sir's, Subject: The Southampton to London Pipeline - Turfhill Park Section Having attended a meeting last week on the 15th July at the Church Hall in Lightwater, to meet and respond to the many concerns from the Residents of the two Estates which border the F1a route for the SLP project. I was appaled that this meeting by Esso representative presented this as a fata compile and this meeting was in no way a consultation with us local residents, merely an opportunity for the residents to seek answers to crucial questions and to voice their anger. The responses received to our questions totally failed to clarify the vast majority of questions raised with one exception. That exception was the admission that there had been no third public consultation before you decided to go forward with a new route comprising F1a, F1b and a totally new 130 metre section, about which the Residents of the dwellings bordering this new section, probably still know nothing about. The Team failed to answer the most important question on the night, of why, at the very last minute, Esso changed its preferred route, F1c to the new route, when at the last public consultation in October 2018 and all the way through to February 2019, everyone including Mr Gove through local Councillors, was led to believe that F1c would be your chosen route. I'm very annoyed that a highly respected company like Esso, could show such a total disregard for this community by changing the chosen route of F1c and submit a new planned route to the authorities without first giving us the local residents and councillors a chance to discuss this first. Therefore I want to register to be kept up todate on any other actions or changes Esso may deam to make without proper consultation first. Yours sincerely, Robert Shelton"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Ellis
"I object to the planning application Ref - EN070005, Southampton to London Pipeline Project, Turf Hill Site. ESSO has arbitrarily chosen a route for their pipeline with very little consultation with the public, no effective consultation at all with residents for the chosen altered route and very little, if any, consultation with the local councils and the appropriate representatives of Nature England that monitor the Turf Hill SSSI. When questioned, ESSO have been unwilling to give adequate reasons why the current pipeline route is not being considered given that: - the new altered route is far more complicated to build and maintain from an engineering perspective and would involve more unsightly above ground apparatus. - would be far more damaging to the environment with the removal of an unknown quantity trees, some over 200 years old, that are so important for reducing noise and air pollution, maintaining groundwater levels and inhibiting soil erosion thus reducing flood risk and not least would destroy the habitats of bats and other wildlife. If trees are removed this would be in direct opposition to Surrey County Council's latest statement on the importance of trees for the environment. In addition, the proposed new route (F1A and F1B combined) would still create the traffic upheaval and chaos which is the reason why ESSO did not choose F1B in the first place. If that is the case why not go back to F1B or F1C routes and leave the highly sensitive and established ecological environment of F1A alone? As far as I am aware, details of the pipeline were only published in the Ashford newspaper hence no public announcement was made in the area that the pipeline actually affects therefore I was unaware of the chosen route until March of this year. As it turns out, the local councils were also unaware that ESSO had changed their proposed route and were still under the illusion that an agreement had been reached to follow the original pipeline course. What is more worrying still is that all but one of the Surrey County Councillors had not been been informed of the change. This bring into doubt that the true democratic process has been followed by Surrey Council Council. Thus, the impact of ESSO's decision to the local residents, flora, fauna and flood management was not thoroughly and properly researched or assessed prior to Surrey Planning Inspectorate accepting Esso's application for development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sheona McMahon
"We any many other local residents walk this area regularly, the works will make this impossible for an extended period of time. The area is prone to flooding and removal of the trees will increase that risk. It is home to a huge amount of wildlife including rarer birds and it would be disgusting to cause damage or destroy this. We are strongly opposed to these works and also feel frustrated that as local residents we have not been consulted by Esso, the council or any officials and believe many residents are unaware of the proposed works meaning it is unfair to make this decision without proper public consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Eaver
"As a resident in Lightwater, I walk in Turfhill Park every day. It would be a travesty to cut down the trees, some of which are 200 years old. As well as being beautiful, good for the environment, they also help control rain water. I live in a road which was flooded a few years ago, and removing trees whose roots help retain water, could mean our homes are more prone to flooding in the future. The park is home to so much wildlife which should not be disturbed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Brooks
"I am most effected being at one of the houses backing onto the proposed site and having privately owned 200 year old trees that will be effected by roots being dug up leaving me very concerned! Other reasons : Walk this beautiful route regularly - loss of well used public amenity for the size plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vince Roan
"My family & myself (as well as many others) walk this relatively tranquil & pleasant route regularly, so the loss of which for at least the six months construction time is not great. Add to that the importance of the trees on the route, which not only protect Lightwater from noise, clean the air, act as flood defence, as well as providing a wildlife haven for adders as well as badgers , bats, deer, etc. So the removal of any the established (and in some cases centuries old) trees would not only damage the environment but also increase any flood risk of the surrounding area."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Butler
"We are the farmers on the land that the pipeline work will cross over. We are currently cropping the area for next years harvest and the work carried out will cause significant disruption to our plans. It could also cause significant economic harm to our business as the access to the land is our only route in and out of both our farm and bed and breakfast operation. We therefore need to know the full extent of the works. The area that will be effected and the length of time the works will take to complete."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Funnell
"I have a concern about the route being taken for the pipe around the Turf Hill Area of Lightwater for the following reasons: We walk this beautiful route regularly - loss of well used public amenity for the six plus months construction time Importance of the trees on the route - protect Lightwater from noise, clean our air and act as flood defence Removal of established trees many 200 years old Effects on bat habitat, adders and other wildlife Flood Risk : Colville Gardens and Herons Court are both deemed high flood risks already! Riverside flooded 12 years ago after water pouring down from Turf Hill Lack of effective consultation Esso then entered in a "non consulted" alternative route Esso's Failure to communicate and engage with local Councillors - at Parish, Borough and County levels Major concerns at lack of democratic process by Surrey County Council SCC this week declaring a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". Better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Debbie Jackson
"Esso have not made good consideration to an alternative route across the road from Turf Hill Lightwater and aim to take down large mature trees which are valuable to our clean air and protect some houses from flooding. The alternative route would cause less damage and disruption in the village. Lack of consultation with local families from Esso."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geraint Thomas
"As a householder whose home backs onto the proposed pipeline route, there is a significant impact to my interest and I object to the current proposed route. Adjacent to our property boundary we have a 6x4m home office. We are concerned that the activity to dig the trench to lay the pipe will disturb the foundations of this building. More critically we suspect that the trees in our property boundary will be affected and may have to be removed for safety reason due to disturbance to their root system by the proposed pipeline. These trees include two very mature and tall Scots Pine and three Silver Birch several mature trees immediately at the boundary of our property (within a metre). We also understand these trees are within a tree protection area specified by Surrey Heath Council. Together with the potential impact of similar tree removals in our neighbour gardens and those in and around the pathway of Turf Hill were the proposed pipeline will lay, the whole aesthetic character of the natural environment will be destroyed. The question of how long the trees in this area will take to re-establish themselves or if the area will ever be permitted to return to its current glory due to the restriction of the pipeline placement has not been addressed in any of the consultations on the Esso on the pipeline. The loss of these trees would also remove the shielding they provide against the noise and disturbances arising from volume of traffic along the Red Road, decreasing our quality of life. There is a clear better alternative to the proposed route on Turf Hill, that would run in parallel to the Red Road that is also a current pathway used by the community but does not have any close by tall mature trees. This would also remove the need for a nearly 90-degree turn in the pipeline, to follow the route up to the Turf Hill."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Joyce Harvey - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Julie Evans
"Loss of age old trees Loss of habitat for wildlife - bats, birds and adders Walk my dogs there frequently"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Notcutts Limited
"Notcutts Limited are freeholder owners of land which is proposed to be crossed by the pipeline. We are concerned that the pipeline will have a detrimental impact on our land, particularly when considering the cumulative effect alongside other statutory easements also already crossing our land and which will remain. We propose to make representations regarding the potential adverse impact this project will have on our property with a view to seeking solutions to mitigate this. In addition to the obvious concerns surrounding land sterilization we have concerns surrounding the extent of future access requirements ( both during and after construction of the pipeline) and we would also seek clarity that security concerns will be a high priority for the project, alongside quality of land reinstatement. We wish to note that we see our land as potential development land and envisage a planning application being submitted over the coming months. We are therefore likely to wish to make representations to seek due consideration of how the pipeline project can be managed to mitigate the effects of both the project construction works and also the easement required over our property taking account of our own proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Beard
"My family and I have real concerns about the revised path of the pipeline and the consultation process to date. We were not sufficiently informed about the changed routing of the pipeline (there was no consultation on the revised route). We have two very large beech trees on our boundary. We estimate that the roots from these trees will spread 30 metres from the trunk at a minimum (based upon horticultural advice). These will definitely be impacted by the work / digging channel recently shared by Esso at the meeting in Lightwater All Saints Church hall. If these roots are damaged this will increase the risk of these trees falling. If they were to fall in the direction of our house, there is no doubt they would cause significant damage to our house and could threaten life (a neighbour has already suffered this horrible circumstance and were lucky nobody was seriously injured). Also, should the trees be removed (which no one is happy about in a time when climate change is becoming more and more of a problem), it is highly likely to cause significant damage to our rear garden fencing and garden on which we have spent quite some time and money. I really do not understand why the route of the existing pipe cannot be used (which most had anticipated based upon Esso's shared routing plans). The digging can take place around the timing concerns with animals (which could also be relocated across the road - same habitat) and birds, although this really seems to be more of a time / money issue for Esso rather than an environmental concern. This is really unacceptable, Esso need to be more accommodating. What about our human rights compared to animal rights? It would also appear that Esso have pressed ahead with the plans that suit them (again, especially in terms of timing / cost), have not consulted appropriately, changing their plans at will. It feels that we have been delivered a fait accompli, a totally unacceptable position. I would strongly urge that Esso's current routing plans for Lightwater / Turfhill are dismissed."
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for notifying us that the above application had been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. We replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence. Request for Scoping Opinion 22nd August 2018 Public Consultation (Section 42) 17th October 2018 We can confirm that with regard to the above application we do not intend to register an interest with the Planning Inspectorate."
Local Authorities
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Spelthorne Borough Council
"Please find below outline of the principal submissions in relation to the proposed Southampton to London Pipeline Replacement project being promoted by Esso. Please note Carter Jonas are instructed by Spelthorne Borough Council known hereafter as "the Council": • The project is referred to as a “Replacement Pipeline” however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land; • Inadequate consultation with the Council on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the Council's land; • Some of the affected land owned by the Council is Open Space being laid out as public parks and areas for public recreation. The Statement of Reasons at para 10.5.4 confirms that following the completion of construction the land will be available to the owners and users as before. However it is not agreed that once burdened with the rights under the DCO the land will be no less advantageous. The DCO rights enable Esso to take entry to the land for the purposes of maintaining, repairing, replacing the pipeline etc in perpetuity which may involve the opening up of the land and excluding the users for a undermined period of time without notice. The Council's view is that the open space will be severely constrained by the exercise of the DCO rights and the tests of Section 132 have not been give due consideration by Esso; • The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of “permanent rights” over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; • The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the management of the Council's estate; • General concerns on security and interface with existing users of the open space and the general public; • Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed; • Impact on peaceful enjoyment and use of the Council's land let to third parties which will be adversely affected by the scheme. Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and on behalf of Spelthorne Borough Council"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Mercer
"Interest in upheaval and permanent damage and disturbance to our land, including access, removal of established trees and hedges. Disturbance to wildlife. General inconvenience. Disturbance of permanent, established pasture land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of The Telling Family - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached . We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The land is used for equestrian paddocks and a gallops and the impact of the pipeline is likely to be significant and detrimental. We intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential impact the pipeline will have on our property and ways to mitigate it (if any)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Savills on behalf of Ark Data Centre Ltd
"Please see supporting cover letter submitted via email: [email protected]"
Parish Councils
Church Crookham Parish Council
"On behalf of Church Crookham Parish Council (CCPC) the Representation will reflect a review of the planning documentation in reference to the sites specific to CCPC as a landowner and in reference to other areas within the parish that will be impacted by the project. It will comment on the accuracy of the documentation in reference to the specific sites and areas where CCPC seek clarification on rectification issues post works and about CCPCs willingness to continue to work closely with the project team to bring about a successful conclusion to the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Councillor Jarmila Halovsky-Yu
"As one of the local Parish Councillors for Lightwater, I am writing to personally express my serious concern with the proposed route running alongside Colville Gardens & Herons Court on Turf Hill Lightwater Surrey Heath. Based on dialogue with my Lightwater residents, fellow Parish/Borough/County Councillors and meetings with the Esso Project Team. My concerns relate to what appears to have been an inadequate consultation with the local community resulting in the less than optimal land selection for this portion of the pipeline. It appears the land selected, whilst adhering to a Natural England directional report, simply swaps one environmental concern for another and disregards the local community. The current proposed land runs through ancient woodland and represents a potentially vast loss of trees/habitat and root disruption that could have far reaching consequences on the environment and the safety of approximately 30 residents homes. Not least flood risk in an already flood prone area, ground movement, noise pollution and disturbance to bat dwellings. Quite understandably my residents are extremely concerned, as am I. I understand Natural England provided their report in good faith, consistent with their standard viewpoints as an aid to Esso and their pipeline land location decision making process. It would appear that due to inadequate consultation with the local community the opportunity was not given to question the land selection in plan refinement stage taking place outside of any consultation with us. The preferred route running alongside the existing route was avoided due to the NA Report. However consideration of the 2 key points listed below might have changed the outcome: • Land on the right hand side of the existing pipeline only became designated a special area years after the installation of the existing pipeline and is currently a protected area for ground nesting birds during certain months of the year ONLY. So works could be done at other times. • Land on the left hand side of the existing pipeline only became notable with a sand lizard release program a few years ago. Since then sand lizards have migrated across the whole heath and are not restricted to the release area. In addition, the immediate space adjacent to the existing pipeline has become compacted for dog walking and is not ideal sand lizard habitat but does offer ample space for the pipeline works well away from trees and the residents homes. I would therefore kindly request that the Planning Inspectorate team pay very careful attention to all the communications submitted in relation to this project by the various community groups including our MP, the Parish Council, the local area Tree Wardens and the residents in considering your decision. Additionally, and where practicable, I would encourage the process include a visit to the area in question with representatives from the Parish/Borough/County Council as well as residents, the Esso project team and representatives of Natural England, thereby allowing for an appropriate final review. Thank you for your consideration about this extremely important matter. Yours faithfully Cllr Jarmila Halovsky-Yu"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs J Fletcher
"With reference to land at Lightwater ,rear of Sundew Close. I am taking legal advice as not agreeing to this pipe line & valve unit to go straight through the middle of my land where there is another alternative at the top end of land where there is existing pipeline & valve unit housing. This will blight future planning for development on this land."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sarah Gooding
"The UK Government has declared a climate emergency and has committed to legally binding targets to reduce carbon emissions. This project is at odds with both of these. Oil is responsible for about 27 per cent of the CO2 we release into the atmosphere. We know burning fossil fuels is the main cause of our climate crisis. Yet Esso - which has known for decades about the damage it is causing to the environment - continues to invest, with the UK Government's blessing - in damaging projects such as this. This financing continues despite international agreements to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels to avoid a climate crisis. This project is not appropriate for a carbon zero future. Investments should be made into clean energy. Declaration of climate emergency not compatible with continuing to support the growth of aviation."
Local Authorities
Savills on behalf of Spelthorne Borough Council
"We are acting on behalf of Spelthorne Borough Council, which makes this representation as a host authority for the pipeline. Below we provide an outline of the key concerns of the Council in relation to the SLP project. Late changes to the proposed pipeline route across Spelthorne gave rise to significant local concerns at a relatively advanced stage in the pre-application phase of Esso’s project. Given these late changes, the Council have identified a number of concerns in regard to one particular section of the route, specifically the Ashford Road area. These can be described as follows: 1. The decision-making process behind the choice of the option to pursue the route down Ashford Road over other previously consulted upon options. The Council does not feel that the Environmental Statement fully considers the reasons to exclude the previously considered options (H1a and H1b) particularly the engineering rationale behind eliminating the existing pipe route, or adequately sets out the reasons to select the preferred Ashford Road option, which was introduced late in the process, given that no update to the PEI was published at the design refinements stage. 2. The unacceptable effects on Ashford Road in terms of residential amenity and road traffic during the construction process. Including issues related to traffic, air quality and noise and the limited detail provided on the construction approach to be adopted, including timescales. The Environmental Statement does not identify any significant effects from this route. 3. Concern regarding the value of the trees located along Ashford Road including their potential as Ancient Woodland and the consideration of these in route selection which has not been clearly set out. There is considered to be a lack of information provided regarding the likely effects of the construction process upon the trees and how these and their root protection zones will be protected. 4. Selection of the access point into Fordbridge Park for the working area for a trenchless crossing, and the resulting unacceptable effects of this upon the residents of Celia Crescent. Including clear consideration of the likely effects to the residents of Celia Crescent during the construction period and the inadequate mitigation currently proposed for this area of Fordbridge Park and the residents of Celia Crescent. 5. Restricted access to and from the Council’s White House Depot at the eastern end of Ashford Road, the main operational base for all its neighbourhood services. Whilst the Council does not object to the development of the pipeline in principle, it feels that the effects have not been adequately assessed and mitigation not appropriately identified to address the impacts that will result from the development, particularly in this section. As such, the Council will present evidence in their written representation and Local Impact Report further detailing these concerns for consideration in the DCO process, which we look forward to submitting in due course. The Council might wish to comment on other matters in the light of other third party evidence that comes forward during the course of the examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Shylan
"Home owner"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Anne Jeanette Collins - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bourne Education Trust
"I would like to register as an interested party as the proposed pipeline route either passes though or near two schools within the Bourne Education Trust."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Savills on behalf of Brett’s Aggregates Ltd (Bretts) (Brett’s Aggregates Ltd (Bretts))
"Brett’s Aggregates Ltd (Brett) & Esso London to Southampton Pipeline Representation 1 – Brett Planning Permission to Extract Sand & Gravel from Manor Farm and Convey beneath Ashford Road into Queen Mary Quarry, Ashford Road, Staines • On 23 October 2015, Planning Permission was granted by Surrey County Council, ref SP/01132.to extract 1.5 million tonnes of sand and gravel from Manor Farm • This Planning Permission allowed for the extracted sand and gravel to be transported to the Queen Mary Quarry site for processing and distribution to the construction market, as well as it being utilised in a purpose built on site ready-mix concrete batching plant and a bagging operation. • The transportation of the sand and gravel is strictly restricted to a conveyor belt only, via a tunnel beneath the B377 Ashford Road. • Brett has implemented Planning Permission SP/01132 by commencing the installation of the new ready-mix on its Queen Mary Quarry site, but with sand and gravel reserves still remaining to be extracted from Queen Mary Reservoir, Brett is some 3 to 4 years away from needing to enter Manor Farm to commence sand and gravel extraction from this site • This conveyor belt tunnel is yet to be installed due to the existing reserves in Queen Mary Reservoir but Brett has acquired the legal rights to construct the tunnel via a Section 278 Agreement, entered into with the land-owner, Surrey County Council Highways. • The general arrangement of the proposed tunnel will run directly beneath the proposed Esso fuel pipeline. • There is no apparent provision made by Esso for the installation of the conveyor belt tunnel once the proposed fuel pipeline has been put in place along this section of the B377 Ashford Road. • The installation of the new conveyor belt tunnel is not planned until extraction from Manor Farm commences. It is understood that Esso require to install their new fuel pipeline in the next 2 years. It is essential that the Esso pipeline does not hamper Brett when they come to install their conveyor tunnel. Their DCO application does not demonstrate how this will be achieved. • Given that Brett have secured all the legal rights to install its proposed conveyor tunnel, prior to Esso’s fuel pipeline being proposed, we require Esso to make provision for the installation of the Brett tunnel by entering into a legal agreement, ensuring Brett’s rights are fully maintained in the future. • Until Brett and Esso enter into such a legal agreement, Brett must maintain its objection to the Esso fuel pipeline proposal and therefore, we request that written confirmation is received that upholds this objection. Representation 2 – Shepperton Quarry • Mineral extraction from what is now Shepperton Quarry commenced some time before WW2 and various planning permissions were subsequently granted but the planning permission that was being followed when Brett acquired the site was STA789/6, granted in 1955. • Planning permission STA789/6 was not time limited and in accordance with Schedule 13 of the Environment Act 1995 the ROMP application sought a condition to be imposed requiring cessation of workings by 21 February 2042. • The ROMP permission was not granted until 2012. It included a condition that the site should be fully restored by 21 February 2020. Brett are in the process of agreeing a revised restoration scheme with Surrey County Council. See the attached plan XX showing the latest proposals. • The ESSO proposed pipeline is traversing through the middle of the restoration scheme and will require removing recently planted trees. At the southern end of the quarry, the present DCO application is a very wide band which is unnecessary. We require Esso to be more precise with their pipeline route to enable sensible restoration work to be completed. • ESSO has shown on their DCO application the use of recently restored land for a logistic hub. This is unnecessary when there is an industrial estate adjacent that may have space available for a logistics hub. Following restoration, the entrance to the site will be restored to an agricultural entrance that will be restrictive on the lorry movements expected and cause a traffic hazard on the Littleton Lane road. We object to ESSO using the land they have proposed for a logistics hub. Representation 4 - Laleham Farm • Laleham Farm is a former quarry and an inert landfill site, which has been restored to agriculture. The land has been let to a tenant farmer to grow raspberries. The site has a current Environmental Permit, no RP3233LJ/V003. The ESSO DCO application does not make it clear how the inert landfill will be protected during the pipeline installation and protected afterward. Until this is satisfactorily addressed and agreed with the Environment Agency we object to the pipeline being put into the cap of the former landfill. Summary Brett are objecting to the proposed ESSO pipeline application on the following grounds: • Potential sterilization of mineral at Manor Farm until ESSO confirms they will grant Brett permission to install the gravel conveyor under the Ashford Road and their proposed pipeline. • Destruction of a restoration work of the former Shepperton Quarry. • The width of land in their application for the pipeline route at Shepperton Quarry. • The use of recently restored land at Shepperton Quarry for a logistics depot. • The construction of the pipeline in the cap of the landfill site at Laleham Farm."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charlotte Gill
"I disagree with the proposed plan. I do not believe some of the woodland in the Queen Elizabeth Park should be cut down. Woodland vegetation is important to protecting wildlife and the environment and I believe it should be protected. I understand that new trees will be planted but I do not think this is adequate as it will take a long time to regrow and land home to many species will be lost for s long time. Many people visit and live by the park because it is a beautiful, scenic part of the country. The people living there should not have their choice to live amongst woodland destroyed because of the pipeline. The area will not return to the state it is in now within our lifetime and given the current climate crisis, caused in part by crude oil used to produce the fuel, this woodland should be protected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Christopher John Butler
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Victoria Wheeler
"Suitability of route in relation to environmental imoact"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of D.J. Squire Property and Investment Company Limited - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. • We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. • The land in question is pasture, but it lies adjacent to and shares an access with land we rent to D.J. Squire & Co Limited (an associate company) as a commercial garden centre (Squires) at Holloway Hill, Chertsey. The access which Esso is seeking from us runs through the garden centre car park (with obvious operational and health and safety implications). • The impact of the pipeline is going to be significant and we intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential effect it will have on our property and businesses and ways to mitigate it (if any). • The draft DCO and application do not contain sufficient protections for the land owner/occupiers on issues such as (but not limited to): - Interference with use of existing accesses during the construction works or future maintenance works, due to lack of clarity on whether the nature of the access would interfere with/cause health and safety issues for other users - Pollution arising from installation and use of the pipeline - Commitment to ongoing maintenance during operation and to proper decommissioning on abandonment. • The draft documentation submitted to date by Esso for acquisition of the development rights also does not contain these protections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Elizabeth Ann Butler
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Froyle Wildlife
"This representation is about environmental protection of Great Crested Newts (GCN) and their habitat in Upper Froyle. The proposed Esso pipeline is close to a wildlife pond in Upper Froyle, near Gid Lane that has a breeding population of GCN. The pond is proposed as a receptor site and is listed as land subject to temporary possession. The pond and surrounding wildflower meadow area is managed by ‘Froyle Wildlife’ a Charitable Incorporated Organisation under an access licence with the land owner ‘Froyle Park Limited’. The area is shown in Land Plans, Volume 2, sheet 24 and outlined as number 692 coloured yellow. The area 692 is in Book of Reference 4.3, page 720, class 4 right to be acquired. The area is in Volume 6, Environmental Statement (Volume D), Appendix 7.15, page 43, described as pond 57a. The area is in Environmental Statement Appendix 7.10, Great Crested Newt factual Report, page 9, paragraph 3.3.8. Representation comments on behalf of Froyle Wildlife: The proposed pipeline route in Upper Froyle follows the existing route and there is potential to harm nearby Great Crested Newts. Unless all work in this area is completed in winter months when GCN are hibernating, it will be necessary to exclude GCN from the working areas. The required EPS licence will need details of how this will be done -such as newt fencing. The pond 57a in area 692 is proposed as a receptor area in the Environmental Statement. However there is no information about where any amphibians may be translocated from. Care has been taken in establishing this relatively new pond by allowing natural colonisation only i.e. without introducing any aquatic species or pond plants, see http://froylewildlife.co.uk/parish/wildlife-pond/. It is essential that no amphibians are translocated here from distant areas. Only amphibians within 500m of the pond 57a are to be translocated to area 692. A few corrections are needed to errors in the Esso Pipeline documents:- The SU grid references in the table on page 10, Chapter 16 of Environmental Management and Mitigation are wrong for refs D42, D44, D45 and D46. For example D45 South of Gid Lane has grid ref SU7703044164 but is the grid ref for D46 Coldrey Farm. The Book of Reference 4.3, page 720 for area 692 should have ‘Froyle Wildlife’ as an additional Category 1 occupier. Some information is incorrect on page 43 of Volume 6, Environmental Statement (Volume D), Appendix 7.15. Pond 57a was not a mitigation pond as part of licence 2016-20026-EPS-MIT, only pond 55 created in 2015 was a mitigation pond. Pond 55 has now deteriorated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heathrow Airport Limited
"I write on behalf of Heathrow Airport Limited (“Heathrow”), the owner and operator of Heathrow Airport, to register as an interested party. Heathrow is currently undertaking statutory consultation on the proposed expansion of Heathrow Airport (the “Expansion Project”), with its own Development Consent Order application to authorise the Expansion Project due to be submitted in Summer 2020. For the avoidance of doubt, Heathrow endorses the statement made in the Planning Statement submitted as part of the Esso Project’s DCO application that “The pipeline is not linked to, or necessary for the proposed expansion of Heathrow through the construction of a third runway.” Heathrow is aware of an area of overlap between the Esso Project’s order limits and the red-line currently subject to consultation for the Expansion Project. Heathrow and Esso are in discussions regarding this area of interface. Heathrow wishes to reserve the right to make representations on any matters arising during the course of the examination which may impact upon the current or future operation of Heathrow Airport."
Other Statutory Consultees
Highways England
"Highways England wishes to register as an interested party in respect of the application by Esso Petroleum Company Ltd (Esso) for a Development Consent order to replace 90km of aviation fuel pipeline that runs from Fawley refinery near Southampton to Esso's West London Terminal Storage Facility in Hounslow. 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 A30 Trunk Road, the M3 and M25 Motorways. 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 it's 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 2/13. Highways England and it's contractor Connect Plus Services has been actively engaged in discussion with the applicant and its project team throughout 2018 and up to the present time with a view to ensuring that the proposed Southampton to London Pipeline will not have a severe and detrimental impact on the SRN. Discussions are ongoing and meetings will be arranged with the applicant as necessary. Currently agreement has not been reached between Highways England and the Applicant. 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 currently objects to the making of the draft Order. 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. Regards, Janice Burgess Highways England 25 July 2019"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of James Foot
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jan Houlberg
"It seems like the tactic of Esso has been to inform that the existing and non-contentious route was the preferred and chosen route, with two alternatives there for show, and then without informing anyone chose the most contentious of the alternative routes. This does not seem to be a proper consultation process. The decision seems to be based on some newly introduced sand-lizards rather than the effect on humans living in the area and using the park. If sand-lizards has been able to establish themselves within a few years, surely they can do that again, if at all they would be disturbed. Trees of considerable age will not re-establish themselves within a few years. I would appreciate the opportunity to understand, the consultation process, the decision process and the priorities of the affected species including humans."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Janet Gaze
"Esso are proposing to make an extensive diversion away from the existing pipeline route starting at a point adjacent to Green Barn Farm on the Selborne Road and finishing on Caker Lane by Worldham Golf Course which will subsequently cross many important habitat sites and areas of restored biodiversity including my own land. Looking at the Ecological reports I believe the existing route will have less impact on the environment's wildlife and habitat than taking this very long alternative route. With regard to my own land on which the pipeline currently just clips a corner, the new route will transverse the land across the middle not only impacting on my business but also spoiling land which I have restored as grassland habitat and regenerated long established hedgerows both rich in endangered bird life species. It will also destroy an established apiary on the site. There has been total reluctance to work alongside myself and to take consideration on lessening the impact of the works by careful planning of the route to take into account these wildlife sensitive areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Joan Lamise Denton-Thompson - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Julie Anne Appleton - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Lady Janet Diones Glover -WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Merrick Hugh Denton-Thompson - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations. The proposed development is taking place within the South Downs National Park, the majority of the development is taking place below ground and will only impact the Park during the construction phase. However there is a tendency for this development to generate above ground features like way markers and fenced valves amongst other paraphernalia which detract from the National Park and its outstanding natural beauty. My representation will object to unnecessary way marking and fencing, requesting that Esso find less intrusive methods of meeting its objectives."
Other Statutory Consultees
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Ministry of Defence (MOD) (Ministry of Defence (MOD) )
"• The project is referred to as a “Replacement Pipeline” however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline; • Inadequate consultation with the MOD on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid MOD land; • Protective Provisions will need to be included in the Draft DCO to sufficiently protect the interests and use of the MOD estate including any unforeseen events which may happen during the construction and use of the scheme; • The construction of the pipeline and the exercise of the CPO rights may interfere with the existing Byways which traverse across the MOD estate; • Article 24 of the Order –“The Extinguishment of Private rights over land” may adversely interfere with the enjoyment and use of the MOD estate. It could also prejudice the statutory status of the MOD estate in terms of its role as part of the UK’s Defence Strategy; • The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of “permanent rights” over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; • The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the operation and running of the MOD estate. The area over which the applicant is seeking access over for ongoing purposes is too vast and disproportionate to the actual pipeline corridor; • The applicant is seeking to install boreholes and other monitoring points across the MOD estate. Until such time that the main agreement is in place for the pipeline corridor it is premature for the MOD to enter into any such borehole or temporary licence; • Concern as to how the appointed contractor will reinstate the land including dealing with unexploded ordnance; • Subject to reviewing the Applicant’s proposed construction methodology in detail an open trench system may be inappropriate and conflict with existing uses across the MOD estate. There may be areas where mole ploughing/directional drilling is more appropriate to minimise access restrictions, disturbance and Health & Safety issues; • General concerns on security and interface with existing users of the MOD estate including health and safety concerns in relation to military activities which will be occurring on the land adjacent to the proposed DCO area; • Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and at odds with the MOD use of their land and therefore cannot be considered in its current state; • As MOD estate is defined as Crown Land which has special protection from DCO/CPO powers. In order to use this land for the purposes of the project consent will be required from the Crown (including the MOD) before any of the DCO powers can be exercised over this land in accordance with Section 135 of the Planning Act 2008. To date no such consent has been sought by the applicant; • Impact on peaceful enjoyment and use of MOD land let to third parties which will be adversely affected by the scheme; • Discrepancies and potential errors have been identified in the Land Plans and Book of Reference submitted by the Applicant. These queries will need to be clarified and resolved. Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and On Behalf of MOD"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Mr C Butler
"- The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land; Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land; The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of permanent rights over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the use of land which is set out and used for the purposes of growing flowers for wholesale markets and local florists; General concerns on security and interface with the farming business both during construction and maintainance including the crossing of the only access to the farm and residential buildings used by the owners, visitors and for business purposes; Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed; Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and on behalf of Mr Butler,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mr D Greengrass - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn . See Attached. I am a freehold landowner, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. My solicitor is currently in discussions with ESSO but we have not yet reached an agreement which addresses our various concerns. I would like to reserve the right to make a representation during examination regarding the potential effect the pipeline will have on our property and ways to mitigate it (if any) should these discussions with ESSO fail to adequately address our concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr D Jennings
"My representation concerns the access for emergency vehicles specifically, but also the residents, for 40 plus houses which will have restricted access for vehicular traffic while the pipeline in STAKE LANE is installed. The current pipeline is at the foot of a railway embankment which borders one side of Stake Lane. I understand from previous presentations that the pipeline has to be a minimum of 3 metres from the existing route. This therefore mean either the new pipeline being in the road or the only pavement which is opposite the embankment. This road has Gas and Water piping in the road and I am informed would have to be laid using the trench method. Stake Lane is the ONLY vehicular access to the 40 residences in Brewers Close and I am concerned that access for Emergency Vehicles in particular will be available at all timed during installation works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mr M D Barnard
"I am a freehold landowner, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The pipeline is going to cross through equestrian paddocks in close proximity to my house and is going to have a significant impact on my property. My solicitor is currently in discussions with ESSO but we are concerned that the legal agreements as currently drafted do not offer adequate protection for landowners. Furthermore, I do not consider that I have been sufficiently consulted on the final route of the pipeline through my property. I would like to reserve the right to make a representation during examination should these discussions with ESSO fail to adequately address our concerns."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Mr T Glynn
"The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land; Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land; The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of permanent rights over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the use and enjoyment of retained land; General concerns on security and interface with the existing users of the land and loss of roadside secure boundaries; Restrictions on the ability to cross the pipeline corridor during construction and operation which may interfere with the owner's use of their adjoining land; Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed; Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and on behalf of Mr Terry Glynn,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Ms L Swift
"- The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land; - Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land; - the selection of the pipeline corridor has been predicated on ecology and environmental grounds which we do not consider are true. For example the Applicant refers to a number of parkland trees in the vicinity of the proposed corridor which have been avoided in the final route selection - we are not aware of any such trees on our client's land or adjacent land. The proposed corridor has been selected to avoid an area most at risk of flooding. Again we find this to be misleading as the land slopes towards the preferred pipeline corridor. Also the preferred pipeline corridor avoids an existing water main, however it would seem most sensible to keep all utilties within the same corridor in order to avoid sterilising a great extent of land. - The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of permanent rights over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; - The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the use of land which used for horses and equestrian related activities; - General concerns on security and interface with the use of the land both during construction and maintenance including the crossing of the pipeline area in order not to sever parts of the land; - Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed; Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and On Behalf of Ms L Swift,"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Patricia Ann Coggins
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Paul Due Andersen - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Philip Collins - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Pearson
"Major disappointment that Esso and SHBC ijnored Heronscourt residents by not notifying them of the route change that now takes the pipeline up to the boundary of their properties. The ecological disaster that this will now unveil way exceeds that of the original planned route. All the technical details are the same as the Heronscourt Residents submission."
Other Statutory Consultees
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail Group Limited
"Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. Royal Mail has identified fifteen operational properties within approximately 5 miles the pipeline route. It is likely that there will also be post boxes within or adjacent to the pipeline route. Royal Mail is working with Esso’s referencing agents on mapping to clarify potential impacts. The Southampton to London Pipeline may present risk of construction phase impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use all of the main roads that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of this pipeline. Any periods of road disruption/closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail is concerned that its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivery service to the public in accordance with its statutory obligations may be adversely affected by the construction of this proposed new pipeline. Royal Mail requests that: 1. The DCO application includes a requirement that Royal Mail is pre-consulted by Esso Petroleum Ltd or its contractors on any proposed road closures/ diversions/ alternative access arrangements, hours of working and the content of the final CTMP. 2. The final CTMP includes provision for a mechanism to inform major road users about works affecting the local network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities close to the DCO application boundary)."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Runnymede Borough Council
"A copy of the Council's representation has been sent to [email protected]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Simon Barker
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Stephen William Coggins
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Susan Foot
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Suzanne Pamela Andersen
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of The Money Family - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The land in question is two pasture fields next to our house. The impact of the pipeline is going to be significant and we intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential effect it will have on our property and ways to mitigate it (if any)."
Parish Councils
Windlesham Parish Council
"ESSO representation – Windlesham Parish Council Our submissions all relate to the proposed route running alongside Colville Gardens and Herons Court on Turf Hill Lightwater. Inadequate consultation – following two consultations in 2018, where three sub-options were offered (F1 Red Road) - the preferred option being putting the replacement pipeline into the area immediately next to where the existing pipeline is - Esso then announced they had selected the least preferred option, with a deviation. This alternative route was never the subject of consultation, despite the fact it would substantially affect residents who live along this route. Although classed as a “minor deviation” Esso should have included this in their third consultation in early 2019 and afforded Lightwater residents the opportunity to make comments on this route as it will have significant impact for local residents. Lack of communication and engagement – Esso failed to inform anyone – Lightwater Councillors or residents – about the variation to the route. At the very least Councillors should have been given the opportunity to discuss the proposed variation with Esso so a mutually acceptable alternative could have been found. Having been told by Esso that a report from Natural England had effectively nullified any local consultation feedback, it would have been favourable to have had a discussion with Natural England, using local knowledge and facts provided by the residents of the area to seek a better outcome. The disregard shown for the local community is entirely unacceptable. Loss of trees/habitat – the newly identified route encompasses a parcel of land at Turf Hill which is densely wooded and immediately backs onto residential properties. This area contains a large number of well-established/ancient trees and Esso can give no idea of the amount of trees that would need to be removed to facilitate the pipeline. The removal of trees is of great concern not only to the residents who live in close proximity to the area but to all those locally who regularly use the route for walking and recreation. The huge environmental impact of the loss of trees at this site will include: • increased noise and air pollution • risk of flooding • displacement of bats as there are many living in the trees in the densely wooded area As well as the obvious environmental impacts, those residents who live along the now proposed route are very concerned that the works and tree removals will cause instabilities to surrounding trees and ground which could impact their homes by trees falling on their properties. This will in turn impact home insurances and the value/future sale of their property. The Parish Council and local residents do support the pipeline replacement project, as the alternative option of road use would cause an undesirable increase in traffic on already heavily congested routes. However we cannot support this section of the pipeline and feel better alternative routes available have not been adequately investigated by Esso."
Other Statutory Consultees
Affinity Water Limited
"Affinity Water Ltd (" AWL") are the potable water supply company for approx 3.6 million people and we serve part of the area through which the new Esso pipe line is intended to run in Surrey and West London. There are 2 principal aspects to AWL's concerns. :- 1.CROSSINGS OF MAINS AND OTHER PHYSICAL AWL APPARATUS • The new oil pipeline will have to cross around 55 AWL water mains, 9 of which are classified a trunk mains (300mm dia / 12” and larger). Maps and schedules are available upon request . • Approx. 10 of AWL's water mains are either PE or PVC, so will have no protection against any petrochemical leakage. The remainder are cast, spun or ductile iron. Hydrocarbons can permeate PVC water pipes posing a significant contamination risk in the event of a leak/spill. AWL would like to highlight the importance of it being notified at the earliest possible stage in the event of an incident as that will be critical in maintaining a safe drinking water supply. • AWL water mains are expected to be located at a depth of between 800mm and 1,500mm, so very close to Esso’s 1,200mm target • Guidance to working near AWL apparatus (link on AWL website ) will require Esso to install their pipeline below our water network with a minimum 300mm clearance; this rises to 600mm clearance for water mains 300mm dia and larger. Esso consequently need to be prepared to install their pipeline below 2,000mm on these occasions. • Excavating near AWL water network must be approved in advance with RAMS and other method statements and backed up with internal review and guidance from our Hydraulic Modelling team. Sign-off would need to be approved by Control Ops, local Ops and WQ areas within AWL. • AWL have concerns that Esso’s 6.3m easement strip adversely affects our rights to access, repair and improve the AWL water network • AWL have concerns that Esso’s plan to install cathodic protection on their pipeline could adversely affect AWL's cast iron and spun iron water mains situated in close proximity 2. WATER RESOURCE ISSUES • Turbidity generated in the gravel aquifer during construction, mobilisation of existing pollutants potentially present in the closed landfills and hydrocarbon leakage from the pipeline are the major concerns for us with regards to our abstraction in Chertsey 4th Wellfield. • Monitoring (baseline and long term) at the appropriate frequency needs to be in place for water levels and water quality (incl. turbidity) in the lakes near our Chertsey 4th Wellfield and the proposed pipeline route. Existing observation boreholes may also need to be monitored with dataloggers or new ones drilled where there is lack of data. This is to inform AWL's risk assessment and ensure that through the continuous monitoring the risk remains low and our pumping can be altered should any leakage be detected. • AWL will need to have visibility of the monitoring data collected, ideally through online monitoring and face to face meetings with Esso to discuss the results before, during and after the installation of the pipeline. Also early warning triggers may need to be installed to notify AWL of water quality changes. • If any dewatering is proposed to take place we need early notification to ensure that the appropriate controls are in place. The same applies if contaminated groundwater is encountered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Freeths LLP on behalf of Aldi Stores Limited
"1. Aldi Stores Limited (“Aldi”) has a development agreement for lease dated 21 August 2018 for part of a proposed business park (proposed Unit 1) at the former Vertu site, Beacon Hill Road, Church Crookham, Hampshire, GU52 8BY. The location of the business park is shown here: https://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/online-applications/files/1EE57AC85D3C59AEDBC5ECBE59E0B387/pdf/18_00694_OUT-5._15361-100_LOCATION_PLAN__A3_-1302983.pdf 2. Aldi is expecting to open the new store next year, with a decision currently pending on the planning application for the overall site including the Aldi unit. A link to the planning application is here: https://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=P68LY1HZI7100 3. Objection is lodged to the proposed Development Consent Order because the Order Limits and compulsory acquisition of permanent rights and associated works crosses the access to the proposed business park on which the Aldi store is to be located and proposed car parking spaces serving the proposed store. Without an appropriate agreement and careful management, this could significantly detrimentally impact upon the access, car parking and operation in respect of the store, particularly during construction. 4. As the proprietor of a development agreement for lease that includes the grant of rights to use the access and car parking, Aldi is a person “interested in the land to which compulsory acquisition relates” and as a result an “affected person” under S59 of the Planning Act 2008. 5. It is hoped through further discussions with Esso Petroleum Company Limited (“Esso”), Aldi’s concerns over the impact on access, car parking and store operation, particularly during construction, can be allayed with any necessary agreement put in place and the objection withdrawn. Until that point, an objection is lodged and maintained. 6. However, even if at a later date the objection is withdrawn, Aldi will still maintain its representation in order to participate in the subsequent examination should Esso’s plans change in a manner that significantly adversely impacts on Aldi’s proposed store. 7. Aldi reserves the right to make additional representations should additional concerns or issues be identified or arise."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Alexander Fraser Holdings Limited
"• Alexander Fraser Holdings Limited are freehold landowners whose property is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. • The property, Foxhills, is a prestigious golf and country club run by our tenant Windsor Holdings Limited, which is a 100% owned subsidiary of Alexander Fraser Holdings Limited. • Foxhills is a family run business and a significant local employer. • The pipeline is crossing our two 18-hole golf courses, one of which is hosting the PGA Cup in 2021. • We have major concerns regarding the impact the construction works will have on the business, particularly in terms of disruption to the golf course, reputational damage and loss of membership due to disturbance caused by the works and the subsequent impact on associated income streams. • We are in discussions with Esso and their agents with a view to mitigating the impact as much as possible but reserve the right to make a representation during examination should these discussions fail to adequately address our concerns. • It is intended that our submission would contain points relating to issues such as (but not limited to): - Timing and methods of construction - Reinstatement - Measures to mitigate and reduce impact on the business in general including compensation for losses as a consequence of the works. - Specific measures to prevent any interference with the PGA Cup in 2021."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Alexander McLeod Morton
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Antony Porter - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the inquiry with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement for the acquisition of rights over land presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk to landowners and the general public. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment passing through land not in their ownership. This presents a significant risk to landowners and the general public. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Farrer & Co on behalf of Archaylen Property Limited
"1. The interest being sought in relation to the Archaylen site does not require powers of compulsory purchase and we are willing to enter into a voluntary agreement with ESSO. 2. Powers of compulsory purchase should only be granted as a power of last resort and ESSO have not so far negotiated adequately to justify the granting of such powers. 3. ESSO have failed to make the case that pipeline requires the acquisition of rights over our Site. 4. ESSO have failed to show that the pipeline and rights cannot be accommodated within the existing highway. 5. Notwithstanding the above, ESSO are seeking powers over an unnecessarily large portion of our site and for unreasonably excessive powers over the Site. 6. There is insufficient mitigation against the impact of The Works on the operation and development of our Site."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Berkeley St Edward
"St Edward Homes (SEH) are the landowners and developer of Hartland Village, a consented large-scale residential development. The site has been identified as a temporary construction compound and laydown area within the draft Development Consent Order (DCO) plot reference 972. SEH are also a ‘Category 2’ consultee with rights over plots 961 and 968. The consent will deliver 1,500 homes, a village centre, a primary school, a 70-acre country park, and numerous other benefits for the wider area through financial contributions and improvements. The first phase of this multi-phased development is under construction. First occupations are due in early 2020, with the whole development expected to complete in 2033. The site constitutes a significant proportion (18%) of housing delivery for Hart District Council and is crucial to meeting their housing need within their recently soon to be Local Plan. We are supportive of national infrastructure that enables development alongside the delivery of housing. However, given the risk to housing delivery at this site, the Examining Authority needs to be satisfied that the need for this site has been robustly evidenced. SEH's initial review has identified numerous issues that pose significant risk to the overall delivery of the site, including but not limited to: • Size, location, and duration of proposals and the vehicular access to them; • Absence of protective provisions for SEH in the DCO • Reliance on SEH’s consent to address biodiversity impacts • Concerns over robustness of cumulative impact assessment with our development, particularly in respect of traffic. Limited commercial negotiations have occurred between the applicant and SEH. No agreement has been reached, nor have satisfactory details been presented by the applicant concerning the issues raised above. The limited communication and detail provided to date cannot be considered sufficient to enable any agreement to be reached, or to have been reached to date (noting that the site was determined to be necessary from, at the latest, the January 2019 supplementary consultation), without the need to include compulsory powers of land take in the DCO. Indeed SEH would question whether it can truly be said that applying for compulsory powers of this land has been considered as a last resort by the applicant. Discussions with the applicant have only reached a preliminary stage. Detailed studies are required to assess the impact of the proposed compound. Furthermore the applicant has indicated that they are still considering which compounds are required. This, combined with the cursory consideration given to alternatives in relation to logistic hubs at paragraphs 4.8.2 and 4.8.3 of the ES, means that SHE would suggest that the Examining Authority should consider whether alternatives have been robustly assessed in both EIA and land terms. As the extent of the land sought for TP, and the related powers, appear incompatible with the SEH consented scheme, we are reviewing the application in full. The proposed compound area has the potential to sterilise an important section of the site, which would have a detrimental impact on the delivery of future phases. The compound area affects five future phases, which will accommodate 745 homes, nearly half of the total consent. In addition, the primary school will be impacted by the compound. It is anticipated that the school site construction will conclude in 2023 prior to its opening, which coincides with the required use of the land by the applicant. SEH would like to express our serious concerns over the potential grant of compulsory powers over a critical section of the site. Any such powers are considered to be excessively onerous and would restrict or even halt the delivery of the SEH scheme. This is a key matter for the Examining Authority to consider. We request that a compulsory acquisition hearing be held, and reserve the right to raise additional matters to those raised in this representation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Blanchard Properties Limited - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Terence O'Rourke Ltd on behalf of Bloor Homes Limited
"Bloor Homes Ltd. (Bloors) wish to register as an Interested Party in the Southampton to London Pipeline Project, as they have a land interest that is directly affected by the proposals. They wish to reserve their right to participate in the examination in order to be kept fully informed of the process and any updates, as well as ensuring their interest at Maddoxford Lane, Eastleigh is preserved. Bloors is looking to develop the site for residential use, and to date has liaised with Esso Petroleum Company Limited in respect to this site and ensuring both interests are safeguarded. As such, Bloors consider they have a legitimate justification to be involved in the forthcoming examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Bridget Batten - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Christopher Holmes - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Claire Watters
"I wish to make representation that the SLP CONSULTATION did NOT consult on any proposed route. The decision had been made on Ashford Road, having de-selected H1a and H1b. The “consultation meeting” leaflets and letters received would suggest that you are invited to ‘consult’ on the ‘proposed route”. This was not the case in relation to Ashford Road. We were informed that there is no other possible route for the pipeline and that this was the final route. We believe there to be an alternative available on the QMR, alongside the existing route, that SLP have refused and dismissed out of hand without good reason or cause. I have also suggested an alternative viable route in the other side of QMR. Why has this not been considered?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Redman
"I wish to make representation that the SLP CONSULTATION did NOT consult on any proposed route. The decision had been made on Ashford Road, having de-selected H1a and H1b. The “consultation meeting” leaflets and letters received would suggest that you are invited to ‘consult’ on the ‘proposed route”. This was not the case in relation to Ashford Road. We were informed that there is no other possible route for the pipeline and that this was the final route. We believe there to be an alternative available on the QMR, alongside the existing route, that SLP have refused and dismissed out of hand without good reason or cause. I have also suggested an alternative viable route in the other side of QMR. Why has this not been considered?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Deborah Ann Bonney - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Other Statutory Consultees
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"Defence Infrastructure Organisation manages pipeline projects on this part of the MOD Estate working with external agents where required. To outline our principal submissions: • The project is referred to as a “Replacement Pipeline” however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline; • Inadequate consultation with the MOD on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid MOD land; • Protective Provisions will need to be included in the Draft DCO to sufficiently protect the interests and use of the MOD estate including any unforeseen events which may happen during the construction and use of the scheme; • The construction of the pipeline and the exercise of the CPO rights may interfere with the existing Byways which traverse across the MOD estate; • Article 24 of the Order –“The Extinguishment of Private rights over land” may adversely interfere with the enjoyment and use of the MOD estate. It could also prejudice the statutory status of the MOD estate in terms of its role as part of the UK’s Defence Strategy; • The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of “permanent rights” over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; • The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the operation and running of the MOD estate. The area over which the applicant is seeking access over for ongoing purposes is too vast and disproportionate to the actual pipeline corridor; • The applicant is seeking to install boreholes and other monitoring points across the MOD estate. Until such time that the main agreement is in place for the pipeline corridor it is premature for the MOD to enter into any such borehole or temporary licence; • Concern as to how the appointed contractor will reinstate the land including dealing with unexploded ordnance; • Subject to reviewing the Applicant’s proposed construction methodology in detail an open trench system may be inappropriate and conflict with existing uses across the MOD estate. There may be areas where mole ploughing/directional drilling is more appropriate to minimise access restrictions, disturbance and Health & Safety issues; • General concerns on security and interface with existing users of the MOD estate including health and safety concerns in relation to military activities which will be occurring on the land adjacent to the proposed DCO area; • Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and at odds with the MOD use of their land and therefore cannot be considered in its current state; • As MOD estate is defined as Crown Land which has special protection from DCO/CPO powers. In order to use this land for the purposes of the project consent will be required from the Crown (including the MOD) before any of the DCO powers can be exercised over this land in accordance with Section 135 of the Planning Act 2008. To date no such consent has been sought by the applicant; • Impact on peaceful enjoyment and use of MOD land let to third parties which will be adversely affected by the scheme; • Discrepancies and potential errors have been identified in the Land Plans and Book of Reference submitted by the Applicant. These queries will need to be clarified and resolved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Dennis Anthony Vear - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Diana Vear - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Dulce Wightman
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Local Authorities
Eastleigh Borough Council
"Eastleigh Borough Council is the Local Planning Authority for the part of the pipeline that runs through the village of Boorley Green in the parish of Botley. There are numerous development proposals (some with planning permission and some at the application stage) within the immediate vicinity of the proposed route of the pipeline and it will be necessary to consider the impact of the pipeline and any associated infrastructure, e.g. pigging stations, on these proposals as well as the existing settlement, surrounding natural features and other local constraints."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Elizabeth Porter - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"We have today (26 July 2019) e-mailed our representation to the project e-mail address: [email protected]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Eric John Newbury
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Froyle Land Limited - WITHDRAWN
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. Submission Withdrawn. See attached There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Giles Porter - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Harold William Gerald Wyeth - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"Rebecca Lambert, Historic England London and SE Office Consultation response dated 26th July 2019 Our Ref: PL00468700 SOUTHAMPTON TO LONDON PIPELINE (NSIP) Thank you for contacting us on 25th June 2019 regarding our consultation in relation to the above development. On the basis of the latest information about the proposals, as submitted by the applicant, we offer the following advice. Advice The proposed application is for the replacement of a substantial part of the existing aviation fuel pipeline that runs from Fawley Refinery near Southampton, to the existing Esso West London Terminal in Hounslow. Development on this route has the potential to impact upon both designated and undesignated heritage assets and their settings. In line with the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), we would expect the Environmental Statement to contain a thorough assessment of the likely effects which the proposed development of this area might have upon those elements which contribute to the significance of these assets. General comments We have undertaken pre-application consultation with the applicant, which has given the opportunity to provide detailed feedback on the proposals and content of the ES in relation to our remit of designated heritage assets. We have reviewed the relevant sections of the documents submitted to support the scheme, and as expected, the ES is broken into chapters relating to different environmental elements that may be affected by the proposed development. Chapter 9 considers the Historic Environment and Chapter 10 Landscape and visual impacts, both of which are relevant and contain content relating to designated heritage assets. Generally we think the scope and detail of the supporting information in the ES is robust. We are supportive of the methodology and study area used within the HEDBS to establish baseline data, and the use of targeted geophysics to further inform the Historic Environment baseline. It is helpful that non-designated heritage assets have been considered alongside designated assets, and the impacts to both given careful consideration. The relevant national policies and legislation have also been included demonstrating an awareness of the statutory obligations regarding the historic environment. Our review of the mapping data for designated heritage assets indicates that all highly graded designated assets (scheduled monuments, Grade I and II* listed buildings, and Registered Parks and Gardens) appear to have been accounted for and included in the baseline data. The chosen route and infrastructure has been designed so as to avoid known high value designated heritage assets, and in this respect, physical impacts to designated heritage assets have been avoided. We note that impacts in relation to setting of designated heritage assets have been identified, but can see that in the majority of cases the impacts will be temporary and in relation to construction activities, rather than longer term operational ones. In some cases changes in landscape have been identified as having an impact on designated assets (for example Farnborough Hill; Grade I and conservation area, see Appendix 9.4), but one that would be able to be mitigated through re-planting and landscape reinstatement. Specific comments: aspects requiring attention Geophysical survey has been undertaken ahead of completion of the ES, however no archaeological evaluation has yet taken place. It is possible therefore that further excavation and field work could reveal significant and well preserved archaeological deposits along areas of the route that display enhanced archaeological potential. If any deposits were identified that would be deemed of equal significance to those which are designated (scheduled), then it would be difficult at this later stage to implement mitigation measures by design. In relation to the Roman site at Stephens Castle Down (Asset no 94, Fig A9.1.1 sheet 2), we have concerns that the construction compound and drive/receiving pit may physically impact on Roman remains that may relate to a villa site. Romano-British villas were extensive rural estates, with buildings constructed throughout the period of Roman occupation, from the first to the fourth centuries AD. They are usually complex structures occupied over several hundred years with the least elaborate villas serving as simple farmhouses whilst, for the most complex, the term 'palace' is not inappropriate. Roman villa buildings are found throughout lowland Britain and between 400 and 1000 examples have been recorded in England. Of these less than 10 are rare examples of 'major' villas. All major villas will be identified as nationally important, but others may also fall into this category, dependant on the range of features present and the quality of preservation. It will therefore be important to identify whether this example may be classed as of national importance. We also flag concern that the WWII crash sites identified (see Appendix 9.4 ‘impacts on the historic environment’) have been given a low risk priority. Should evidence for these aircraft remains, these would be classified as of high significance, so we think their significance might therefore need to be presented at a higher level. The geophysics survey may help to identify the possibility of survival of wreck remains in the areas in question, but we think that further assessment in relation to this aspect may be required to draw a conclusion on significance. Recommendation We think that a more detailed understanding of archaeological potential in relation to national significance is required. We anticipate further discussion with the applicant on this matter, but anticipate that a Statement of Common Ground will be prepared between the applicant and Historic England in due course. We also note that consultation regarding undesignated heritage assets for Surrey and Hampshire should be undertaken in conjunction with the local and regional heritage advisors. We recommend that further assessment of heritage impacts should continue in accordance with national and local policy guidance. If you have any queries about any of the above, or would like to discuss anything further, please contact our London and SE Planning Team for further advice. Yours sincerely, Rebecca Lambert Inspector of Ancient Monuments [email protected]"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Ian John Neville Robertson - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. General concerns on security and interface both during construction, maintenance and survey investigations. This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
James Harris
"I don’t believe this route is not the most suitable one, given the impact it will have on neighbouring houses and on the environment. I believe the route should follow the existing route or follow the track north of Red Road running East of Lightwater Road. I have further concerns about: Loss of trees and habitat for indigenous species Flooding risk to neighbouring properties already identified as at risk Disturbing roots of ancient trees within the property boundaries or just outside, posing risk of trees falling on the properties effected. Insufficient consultation - Esso failed to engage with residents after it chose the least preferred option and made amendments to the proposed route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Jane Clancy
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Jeanette Louise Mercer
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Jennifer Ruby Wyeth - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Joanne Baines
"Contining maintenance of pipeline.-potential distruption on regular basis. Safety."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Johnathan Paul Wiggins
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katharine Bonathan
"The Pipeline Project consultation was inadequate, and consisted of three options, of which the final route selected by Esso was the least preferred route and features a deviation which was not included in the consultation. This deviation affects residents and the environment in a more substantial way than the routes that were actually consulted on. The change to the route was not communicated to Lightwater Councillors or the residents. The change to the route now includes an area of land at Turf Hill which features a woodland with a large number of mature trees which back onto residential properties and will likely need to be removed. The environmental consequences of removal would include increased risk of flooding, destruction of habitats and loss of wildlife habitat and the amenity to people who visit Turf Hill. This is a beautiful area in which I walk regularly and I am at a loss to understand why the least preferred route, particularly with the substantial impacts of the route deviation have not been appropriately included in the consultation process and properly communicated to those who are interested parties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Katia Malcaus Cooper
"As a local councillor and resident of Lightwater I have grave concerns about the proposed route along the Turf Hill area of Lightwater. Having walked the route with residents I am concerned about the following: Poor consultation – two consultations were held in 2018, where three sub-options were offered (F1 Red Road) with the preferred option being putting the replacement pipeline into the area immediately next to where the existing pipeline is. A third consultation then took place and although Esso had selected the least preferred option, with a deviation, residents and councillors were never offered the ability to input into this, despite the fact it would substantially affect residents who live along this route. Lack of communication and engagement – Esso failed to inform anyone – Lightwater Councillors or residents – about the variation to the route despite stating that impact to communities would be of primary importance. Loss of trees/habitat – the newly identified route encompasses a parcel of land at Turf Hill which is densely wooded and immediately backs onto residential properties. This area contains a large number of well-established/ancient trees and there is no idea of the amount of trees that would need to be removed to facilitate the pipeline. The huge environmental impact of the loss of trees at this site will include: • increased noise and air pollution • risk of flooding • displacement of bats as there are many living in the trees in the densely wooded area. A far preferable route can be identified a few hundred yards from the proposed route. This route is situated on the north side of Red Road about 300 east of Lightwater Road running parallel to Rec Road. This route presents many benefits including being straight and the trees in the locality being much younger self seeded specimens."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Keith John Taylor
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations. Our client is a landowner whose property is affected by the proposed pipeline. The principal concerns are in relation to the impact the proposed pipeline will have on the retained land, businesses and home during and post construction. There are concerns with the siting of the pipeline, being in the centre of the field parcel and the extent of area of land required by Esso to undertake the construction. There are further concerns with regards to the rights Esso are trying to compulsorily obtain, in particular on the extent of these rights across the retained land, the impact on the ability to farm/manage the land, the pipelines future use, the lands future use and its development potential. The current draft deeds are unclear about Esso’s future responsibility, liabilities and the indemnities given to landowners, particularly regarding pollution, the environment and decommissioning of the pipeline. There is a lack of clarity provided by Esso in relation to compensation for damages caused by the scheme in construction and in the future and with the methods of working and extent of temporary land use. The landowners are most concerned that there has been a general lack of communication between Landowners and the acquiring authority and would like the opportunity to be kept informed and make representations through the planning/DCO process."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Kate Brooks
"Turf Hill is outside my back gate and we walk out dogs there twice a day, for the last 12 years! Inadequate consultation – two consultations were held in 2018, where three sub-options were offered (F1 Red Road) - the preferred option being putting the replacement pipeline into the area immediately next to where the existing pipeline is - Esso then announced they had selected the least preferred option, with a deviation. This alternative route was never the subject of consultation, despite the fact it would substantially affect residents who live along this route - we received no notification and there should have been a Design Refinement Consultation. Lack of communication and engagement – Esso failed to inform anyone – Lightwater Councillors or residents – about the variation to the route. Loss of trees/habitat – the newly identified route encompasses a parcel of land at Turf Hill which is densely wooded and immediately backs onto residential properties. This area contains a large number of well-established/ancient trees and there is no idea of the amount of trees that would need to be removed to facilitate the pipeline. The huge environmental impact of the loss of trees at this site will include: • increased noise and air pollution • risk of flooding • displacement of bats as there are many living in the trees in the densely wooded area"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Lynne Roberta Swift
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Mark Robert Gosney - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Mary Wood - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Matthew George Everly Morton
"Submission Withdrawn. See Attached"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gateley Hamer on behalf of MHA Fleet Limited
"This response is submitted on behalf of MHA Fleet Limited (MHA) who are an Affected Party pursuant to the Planning Act 2008 in respect of Esso’s application for a Development Consent Order (DCO) for the Southampton to London Pipeline Project (the Scheme). Our client owns a long leasehold interest in land at Beacon Hill Road, Fleet, (the ‘Property’) part of which has been included with the DCO Order Limits, where the Applicant is seeking “compulsory acquisition of permanent rights for the pipeline and associated works”. MHA have been actively engaging with the Applicant and as the consequence of such discussions the Applicant realigned part of their route, removing it from the only service road to the site, which went some way to mitigate the impacts which will be felt by our client. However, the proposed route still severs the entrance of this mixed-use retail and light industrial development site which will require 24-hour access, and the frontage to the site will be sterilised in perpetuity. The Applicant has not yet confirmed or agreed with MHA how this interface will be managed during the installation or operation of pipeline; it is absolutely critical that the access to the Property is not interrupted. The Property will have multiple occupiers and it is essential that our client can guarantee that businesses can continue to operate from the site during construction and once the pipeline is installed, given the Applicant is seeking to have permanent access rights. This is also an immediate concern as failure to provide those assurances will deter potential tenants and result in financial losses to our client. The site is already statutory blighted, and our client is working hard to mitigate the immediate effects of Esso’s proposals on the site. We also note that despite informing the Applicant that there is an Agreement for Lease for part of the site they have not listed this interest within the Book of Reference, which must be rectified. Progress since the realignment of the route has not been as swift or satisfactory as hoped resulting in MHA’s advisors chasing Esso’s representative’s multiple times for answers to queries and pursuing Esso’s advisors for meetings. There have not been any genuine efforts to acquire the land by negotiation. The terms issued were generic and did not reflect the nature of our client’s property or the value of the site. Instead, there were multiple references to agricultural land, and, whilst it is recognised that compensation is not a matter for the Examination, the commercial levels proposed were not appropriate or reflective of the compensation code or draft DCO articles. MHA, through its advisor, have gone to considerable efforts to respond to the terms and propose terms that reflect the nature and value of the site, but MHA are yet to get a substantial response from Esso. Further, the Applicant has sought to carve out the protective measures included in the draft DCO from the private treaty agreement, and it would be inappropriate for us to advise our client to accept the amendments, as they would be to the landowner’s detriment. As such MHA is left in the precarious position of being without an agreement which safeguards the operation and value of their site and has no option but to object to the compulsory acquisition powers being sought in the draft DCO and maintains that the compulsory acquisition tests, which the Applicant is required to meet, have not been satisfied and the compulsory acquisition powers included in the draft DCO shouldn’t be granted. MHA and their representatives will continue to engage with Esso with the intention of agreeing terms and overcome their concerns and objections but maintains its objection and will request to appear at the Compulsory Acquisition Hearings, where MHA will seek to demonstrate a failure to demonstrate the compulsory acquisition tests in respect of the site, unless a satisfactory agreement can be reached."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle Redman
"I wish to make representation that the SLP CONSULTATION did NOT consult on any proposed route. The decision had been made on Ashford Road, having de-selected H1a and H1b. The “consultation meeting” leaflets and letters received would suggest that you are invited to ‘consult’ on the ‘proposed route”. This was not the case in relation to Ashford Road. We were informed that there is no other possible route for the pipeline and that this was the final route. We believe there to be an alternative available on the QMR, alongside the existing route, that SLP have refused and dismissed out of hand without good reason or cause. I have also suggested an alternative viable route in the other side of QMR. Why has this not been considered?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr D Malins
"I disagree with the route chosen based on restricted property access, hours of project work activity, locally stored project vehicles (including sub-contractors) and general inconvenience within the neighbourhood for the duration of the project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Mr E J Watts - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Julian Pestell
"There has not been enough local consultation regarding the route through Turfhill Park in Lightwater. In addition this planned route would cause immense damage to a protected natural habitat both in terms of flora and fauna. Some of the mature trees are over 200 years old. We have protected areas for bird nesting, protected and rare lizards, adders, bats etc etc. It is a path I walk daily and feel the destruction a d devastation would be awful. And I think it would have a detrimental impact on the lives of the residents bordering the path both during construction and well into the future. Please re-think the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of Mr M Fisher - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn . See Attached. I am a freehold landowner, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The land in question comprises a fishery, which is the basis of my business. The impact of the pipeline could potentially be significant, and I intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential effects it will have on our property and business and ways to mitigate them (if any)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Carter Jonas LLP on behalf of Mr M J Mary
"The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land; The Draft DCO seeks to acquire the vast majority of the garden to the property for up to 5 years for construction purposes and remove all existing trees and shrubs in the garden. This is a massive intrusion in privacy and breaches the Human Rights of the property owners for their ability to peacefully enjoy their property; Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. Also inadequate consultation on why their garden is required as a construction compound and what alternatives have been explored ; The Draft DCO seeks the acquisition of permanent rights over the affected land. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life; The exercise of the maintenance rights will adversely affect the use of the garden and its enjoyment by the owners. Again this is disproportionate and breaches their Human Rights; Concerns on security and how the applicant intends to ensure the construction working areas are suitably secure during such times when contractors are not occupying the land. Secure boundary fences are being removed and no details of accommodation works has been provided; Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. In addition the applicant has not taken into account the diminution in value to the retained property; Simon Mole, Carter Jonas For and on Behalf of Mr Mary (Redacted)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Ralls on behalf of Mrs Judith Ralls
"The DCO route unnecessarily and adversely affects land on both side of Heath Lane and Redlands Lane at Crondall, Hampshire. These problems are fully avoidable, but the knock-on effect is detrimental to the environment and the amenity of local residents and landowners. We will wish to submit a more detailed explanation of the reasons, however: A summary of the points is below. • Unnecessary and avoidable Impacts on Priority habitats, when a non-impactful route exists a very short distance away • Easily avoidable Impacts on amenity of this and other landowners • Lack of proper justification for chosen route across Heath Lane, which poses unnecessary technical issues in itself • Lack of transparency and responsiveness of the Consultation Process, and its influence on the route. • Proposed route will adversely affect the landowner’s land, when simple avoiding and mitigating alternatives exist and have been tabled to Esso, but with no design response. • The DCO extent appears very excessive when no apparent design has been considered or shared with the landowner in this case."
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Farmers Union
"IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR A DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER AND IN THE MATTER OF THE SOUTHAMPTON TO LONDON PIPELINE (ESSO) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION ______________________________ OUTLINE REPRESENTATIONS ______________________________ 1 Introduction 1.1 These are the Outline Representations of the National Farmers Union (“NFU”) (acting for NFU members on this project) to the application for a Development Consent Order by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government identified as the Southampton to London Pipeline Project. 1.2 The objectives of the NFU are to champion farming in England and Wales and to provide professional representation and service to its members. 1.3 The matters raised in these Outline Representations are matters not only of concern to the farming owners of agricultural land affected by this DCO, but also of concern to, and raise points of principle that will affect, members of the NFU having farm holdings that may be affected by similar pipeline schemes. 2. Consultation and Engagement 2.1 There has been a lack of constructive consultation and proactive face to face meetings with Esso and their agents on the preferred route corridor and what alternatives have been looked at to avoid certain landowners land. 2.2 Some meetings have been held but the detail required by landowners has not been available. For example details on timings of construction to be able to understand the impact on the cropping rotation of the farm or the commercial shoot over the winter months. Therefore it has not been possible to discuss all aspects of the scheme. 2.3 Esso and their agents have been engaging with affected parties but the heads of terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore there has been no progression in direct voluntary negotiations. Significant amendments need to be agreed before any heads of terms could be signed. 3.0 Draft DCO – Permanent Rights 3.1 The draft DCO seeks the acquisition of permanent rights over the land to be affected by the new pipeleine. This is disproportionate as the pipeline will have a limited design life. 4.0 Construction Compound Sites 4.1 ESSO has identified some large areas of land to be taken for construction compound sites. The NFU would like to see the detail of use for each compound site being detailed in the DCO particularly within the relevant Schedule. 5.0 Private Water Supply 5.1 There is no information in the OCEMP as to how private water supplies will be treated if affected on a temporary or permanent basis. The main works contractors should have to provide an alternative supply if a private supply is contaminated or the supply is affected in anyway during the construction of the pipeline. 6.0 Field Drainage 6.1 Land drainage is always one of the main issues which landowners and tenants are concerned about when land is taken for construction purposes of a major pipeline. To date the only detail that has been provided by ESSO on how it will treat field drainage during construction and carry out reinstatement post construction is detailed in the voluntary draft deed of easement. This is particularly important were land will be returned to agricultural use. 6.2 No information has been found within the Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan (OCEMP) on how field drainage will be reinstated as part of the DCO application. Esso need to address this issue and agree to general terms of how field drainage should be treated. 7.0 Soils 7.1 As above the treatment and reinstatement of soil during and after construction is another main issue of concern. Limited detail has been provided to landowners and occupiers. It is stated in the OCEMP at Annex E that the main works contractor shall produce a detailed Soils Management Plan that will identify the types of soil that will be affected, specification of maximum storage periods, angles and heights of stockpiles, soils watching brief and specification of the role of a Suitably Experienced Person. Further that the DEFRA guidance will be followed. 7.2 There is no mention of the methods that will be employed for stripping soil and the restoration of agricultural land. Further information needs to be agreed with ESSO as to what measures will be put in place to bring the soil back to its condition and quality before the works take place. A soil statement will need to be set up of the soil condition pre construction for each farm. An aftercare plan should be included in the OCEMP. 8.0 Flood Issues 8.1 No details have been provided to landowners and occupiers on how any surface run off of water from the pipeline trench, the haul road or the construction compounds will be dealt with during construction. Therefore there is concern that retained land may flood during the construction works. 9.0 Dust/Irrigation 9.1 Further detail on how practical issues like dust will be controlled during construction and how can the effect on any irrigation be minimised? 10.0 Agricultural Liaison officer 10.1 Liaison with landowners, tenants and agents is essential but there is only mention of a Community Engagement Plan at Annex F of the OCEMP. This is not adequate and the NFU would like to see that the main works contractors will have to employ an agricultural liaison officer to carry out liaison with landowners. Details of the role should be set out in the COEMP. 11.0 Access to land and the Haul Road 11.1 Insufficient detail has been provided as to how landowners and tenants are to access land severed by the construction works and as to whether landowners will be able to access the haul road during construction. Again greater detail is required about liaison over the access required by landowners will take place. 12.0 Decommissioning of the Existing Pipeline 12.1 The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights will be affected twice over and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. 13.0 Request to Attend Hearings and make Representations 13.1 The NFU does intend to lodge a full Written Representation in due course and request to make oral representations at the issue specific, draft DCO and compulsory acquisition hearings which may be held. 13.2 The NFU if requested can provide a full list of names and addresses of members who are affected by the DCO. Louise Staples Senior Rural Surveyor NFU Agriculture House Stoneleigh Park Stoneleigh Warwickshire CV8 2TZ DATED 26th July 2019."
Other Statutory Consultees
Addleshaw Goddard LLP on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"Network Rail Infrastructure Limited Application by Esso Petroleum Company Limited for an Order granting Development Consent for The Southampton to London Pipeline Project This is the section 56 representation of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (Network Rail) in respect of ESSO Petroleum Limited's (Applicant) application for a Development Consent Order (Order) for the Southampton to London Pipeline (Project). 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 59 plots (Plots) of land owned or in which Network Rail has a property interest in respect of which compulsory powers to acquire new rights and to override existing rights are sought, as well as other compulsory powers (Compulsory Powers). The Compulsory Powers are sought in relation to operational railway land and other railway property. Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Plots in the Order and to the acquisition of Compulsory Powers in respect of them. The Plots constitute land acquired by Network Rail for the purpose of its statutory undertaking and, accordingly, this representation is made under section 56 and sections 127 and 138 of the Planning Act 2008. Network Rail considers that there is no compelling case in the public interest for the acquisition of the Compulsory Powers and Network Rail considers that the Secretary of State, in applying section 127 of the Planning Act 2008, cannot conclude that new rights and restrictions over the railway land can be created without serious detriment to Network Rail's undertaking; no other land is available to Network Rail so that the detriment can be made good by them. The impacts of the Project on Network Rail's interests include pipeline being laid under operational railway in 6 locations and the construction of a temporary construction access over operational railway at Farnborough North. Network Rail will provide details of the impacts of the Project on its interests in its Written Representation and during the course of the Examination. Network Rail will work with the Applicant and seek to negotiate detailed agreements that will enable Network Rail to withdraw its objection. Network Rail notes and welcomes the fact that there are protective provisions for its benefit in the Order and will provide detailed comments on, and amendments to, the protective provisions when it submits its detailed Written Representation. In summary, to safeguard Network Rail's interests and the safety and integrity of the operational railway, Network Rail objects to the inclusion of the Compulsory Powers and any other powers affecting Network Rail in the Order. Network Rail requests that the Examining Authority treat Network Rail as an Interested Party for the purposes of the Examination. Network Rail will wish to take a full part in the examination including, if necessary, attending and making oral submissions at the relevant hearings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sonja Porter on behalf of Penn Croft Farms Ltd
"We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Other Statutory Consultees
Portsmouth Water
"Portsmouth Water is an interested party as the pipeline route runs through the Source Protection Zone 2 of one of our large, strategically important groundwater abstractions used for public water supply. We do not agree that SPZ2s should be classed to be of MEDIUM value. They should be classified as HIGH value, especially in the Chalk where groundwater flow is karstic in nature. We also do not agree that fuel leaks from the pipeline should be classed as having a negligible risk. Portsmouth Water would wish to be consulted on the detailed CEMP and also review method statements for any contractors working within SPZ2 of our abstraction. A detailed written response is ready to be submitted."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Richard James Bonney - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Richard Norman Smith
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Silvia Plascencia Posada
"I am writing to express my concern on the statements shown on your document 6.4 Environmental Statement, Appendix 10.3. Things like 'substatial tree loss'....'degrade the scenic quality'....'removal of woodland from southern side of the park'.....'emphasising views of the resudentail development at Quuen Victoria Court'..... All of these cause great concern as the woodland on this side (where our house face) will be basically distroyed. One thing we enjoy is having views of all the trees but now that is planned to drastically change, I wonder if there is a better way to minimise the impact on the woodland. Why is it necessary to remove such a big part if the woods? Isn't technology so asvance that you could find a more efective way of re-doing this pipeline? I am aware new trees will be replanted BUT hose trees will take decades to grow and replace current woodland. Hopefully this can be address as it is saddening knowing the woodland nearest to our home won't be there for much longer. Br S K Plascencia Posada"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Sonja Porter on behalf of Simon Porter - WITHDRAWN
"Submission withdrawn by email. See attached. We note that a successful DCO application by Esso will grant them compulsory purchase powers. Because of this we wish to raise a number of points to the Examination with the key headlines set out below: 1. As drafted the current option and deed of easement presented by Esso do not make them liable for all pollution incidents and the cost of remediation in respect of any such incidents arising from the presence and use of their pipeline. This presents a significant risk. 2. Esso have continually refused to provide reasonable indemnities for matters arising from their equipment on land in private ownership. 3. The working method statements included in the proposed Deed of Easement with landowners do not adequately protect landowners and occupiers in the exercise by Esso of their rights both during and after construction. We are disappointed that, despite our efforts, Esso have failed to engage with landowners to understand the concerns and provide adequate protection for issues arising as a result of this significant project."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Siobhan Romp
"As Esso already has an existing pipeline it would be easier to use that to lay the new pipeline. To cut down a vast number of well established trees, for no apparent reason, would devastate the area and the wildlife. We are constantly blighted with rat run traffic or new developments which is destroying our village, Many people walk your proposed route - dog walkers, families, walking groups, scouts - all trying to enjoy our beautiful countryside. We pride ourselves in the beauty our part of the county has and you want to destroy it. This is not OUR preferred route. Ironically, Surrey County Council recently declared a climate crisis and stating ""trees are invaluable in reducing pollution, noise levels and protecting land from flooding". We will do everything we can to save our countryside."
Other Statutory Consultees
Cripps Pemberton Greenish LLP on behalf of South East Water Limited
"Representation by South East Water Limited to the Southampton to London Pipeline DCO: South East Water Limited is a water company who supply drinking water to 2.2 million people across the south east of England, through a network of 9,000 miles of pipe. South East Water Limited draws water from more than 250 boreholes, six rivers and six reservoirs and treat this at one of their 83 treatment works. South East Water Limited wishes to make a relevant representation to the Southampton to London Pipeline DCO in order to protect its position in respect of apparatus, which is within or in close proximity to the proposed DCO boundary. South East Water Limited’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 such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme have been reviewed, in relation to their impact on South East Water Limited’s existing apparatus located within this area. South East Water Limited has identified that it will require adequate protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its apparatus and land interests are adequately protected and to include compliance with relevant safety standards. South East Water Limited has water mains, the largest of which is 450mm in diameter and made of Ductile Iron with a 16 bar pressure rating, as well as small diameter washout, valve or meter chambers up to 100mm, all located within the order limits and in close proximity which may be affected by works proposed. As a responsible undertaker, South East Water Limited’s primary concern is to meet its statutory and regulatory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those obligations. South East Water Limited is currently discussing the potential impacts on its network with the promoter and a form of Protective Provisions is being negotiated between parties. South East Water Limited therefore wishes to reserve the right to make further representations as part of the examination process whilst negotiations are ongoing, but in the meantime will continue liaising with the promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement shortly."
Other Statutory Consultees
South Eastern Power Networks plc
"Dear Sirs Re Application by Esso Petroleum Company Limited of Ermyn House, Ermyn Way, Leatherhead, Surrey, KT22 8UX for a Development Consent Order (“the Order”) for the Southampton to London Pipeline under Section 37 of the Planning Act 2008 ("the Application") The reference number for the Application is: EN070005 I am writing on behalf of South Eastern Power Networks plc. South Eastern Power Networks plc is the occupier of premises in the land to be used under the above Order. It is also entitled to the benefit of rights in, over, on or under such land and is the owner of Electric Lines and/or Electrical Plant (as those terms are defined in Section 64(1) of the Electricity Act 1989) in, on, over or under the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order. These premises, rights and apparatus have been acquired for and are used for the purposes of its statutory undertaking. South Eastern Power Networks plc objects to the making and confirmation of the Order unless at the cost of the acquiring authority there are first provided to it on no less favourable tenure suitable alternative sites and suitable alternative rights in, on, over or under land in substitution to those to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order and in, on over or under which there are first installed and commissioned Electric Lines and Electrical Plant in substitution for those in the land to be acquired and/or temporarily used under the above Order, before that land is acquired and/or temporarily used so that my client can carry out its statutory functions and contractual obligations no less efficiently than previously. Please treat this letter as an objection by South Eastern Power Networks plc to the relocation/extinguishment of rights and apparatus mentioned above because their relocation will be detrimental to the carrying on of its undertaking. No alternative land, rights and apparatus for those proposed to be acquired under the above Order are in place."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Stephen Kerry Mercer
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Steven Gregory - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Local Authorities
Surrey County Council
"This is a single representation from Surrey County Council (the Council) which summarises the diverse responsibilities and functions of the Authority. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation provides authority for the; “ Executive Director Highways, Transport, Environment and the Planning Group Manager to respond on behalf of the County Council as a statutory consultee pursuant to Schedule 1 of the Infrastructure Planning (Applications: Prescribed Forms and Procedure) Regulations 2009 with representations in respect of applications for Development Consent Orders to undertake NSIPs under the Planning Act 2008”. The response builds on the 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 may be subject to further discussion in the Local Impact Report. The position of the Council on specific issues will evolve over the course of the DCO; however, underpinning the response the Council wishes to maintain its overall support to the proposed route of the Southampton to London pipeline. 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 to date. However, the Council are seeking reassurance that the DCO will not disapply elements of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (NRSWA) and the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA). Or if they do disapply, then there is suitable wording within the DCO to replicate the requirements of these Acts. This will aid the Councils ability to manage and coordinate activities on the Highways, to ensure they are safely executed and the specification for the reinstatement of openings in Highways is complied with as required. Property – the Council are now satisfied with the approach that the Applicant have regarding land interests. The Applicant and the Council are in discussion regarding the interests of third parties who lease the land from the Council. Discussions between all parties are ongoing. LLFA – the Council are generally satisfied with the approach taken and the mitigation measures presented in the Flood Risk Report although there are a few specific locations and mitigations that the Council require further consideration to ensure that there is an agreeable mitigation strategy. Negotiations for protective provision for drainage to be included in the DCO are ongoing. Heritage – the Council are generally satisfied with the archaeological preliminary information gathering stages but are in ongoing consultation with the Applicant over an agreeable acceptable mitigation strategy. Emergency Planning – the Emergency Management team have had limited engagement with the Applicant and the Council would welcome greater engagement in the coming months to ensure that the multi-agency measures are in place to respond to pipeline incidents and to confirm the statutory responsibility for the Major Hazards Pipeline Plan. Planning Authority – the Council as the Minerals & Waste Planning Authority are satisfied with the general route of the proposed pipeline, as it has the lowest impact on mineral and waste resources in Surrey. Further work with the Council and especially site operators will be essential for minimising the impacts to sites and to prevent any aggregate resources from being sterilised and for any operational disruptiveness to be minimised when installing a pipeline. Surrey 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."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Thrings LLP on behalf of Susan Margaret Wiggins
"We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Other Statutory Consultees
Birketts LLP Solicitors on behalf of Thames Water Utilities Limited
"Thames Water Utilities Limited (“TWUL”) is appointed by the Water Industry Act 1991 (“WIA”) as water and sewerage undertaker for the Thames region, which includes the location of the Southampton to London Pipeline (“the Proposal”). TWUL does not in principle object to the Proposal. However, there are at least 84 locations with TWUL assets of concern, including strategic assets that will be affected by the Proposal. Other assets are also likely to be affected. TWUL also has easements and other rights in land which will be affected by the Proposal. TWUL wishes to register as an Interested Party to ensure adequate provisions are included in the Development Consent Order (“DCO”) to protect TWUL’s existing and future assets, and TWUL’s ability to comply with its statutory obligations. TWUL is in ongoing discussions with the Applicant in relation to its objections and therefore may be able to reach agreement with the Applicant in relation to some of the objections referred to below. An outline of TWUL’s principal objections are: 1. The deemed consent provision at Article 17(9) of the DCO needs to be removed. An application under this article is not an application for the approval of detail of the authorised development but an application at first instance for discharges to TWUL assets, and deemed approval is therefore inappropriate. Deemed approval is not contained in the Infrastructure Planning (Model Provisions) Order 2009 and although these have been withdrawn, Planning Advice Note 13 (v2 dated April 2012) says the model provisions aid consistency and ensure a lawful set of provisions are applied for. Deemed consent for the types of discharge proposed causes a significant operational risk to TWUL, which is why deemed consent must be removed. TWUL’s evidence on this risk has been well documented on TWUL’s objections to other orders, such as the Silvertown Tunnel, wherein the provision was removed as far as TWUL was concerned. TWUL will object to any inclusion within this order of a deemed consent provision as it applies to any assets (and in particular sewers and drains) owned and operated by TWUL. 2. TWUL seeks comfort in the DCO that Article 17 does not override the need for the Applicant to comply with sections 106 and 118 WIA, which prevent inappropriate connections/discharges being made to the public sewer system that could result in damage to the sewer network and environment. Article 17 gives the Applicant powers which are inconsistent with sections 106 and 118 WIA. 3. Article 33 – TWUL objects to the list of rights set out in Article 33, specifically those listed in (b), (c), (d) and (e) until sufficient protection is provided in the protective provisions as set out below. 4. Schedule 2 – Requirements - Paragraph 18 - TWUL’s comments in relation to deemed consent in respect of Article 17 also apply to discharges under the requirements to the DCO. 5. Schedule 9 - Protective Provisions: TWUL has a number of concerns about the protective provisions as currently drafted including but not limited to the following points: 6 – insufficient protection is provided in the draft DCO for TWUL against the activities listed in Article 33 and TWUL requires additional wording to be included in the Order which addresses this; 7(2) - Clarity is required in respect of the notice period on 7(2) if plans are not agreed in this time. 28 days is not sufficient to prepare to divert apparatus or to give statutory notice to landowners under the WIA; 7(3) – TWUL objects to this provision and requires its removal from the DCO as TWUL would expect the undertaker to have made full provision in the limits of deviation to include all land required for the purpose of constructing alternative apparatus so that TWUL is not required to use its own statutory powers to divert assets as part of the undertaker’s scheme; 7(6) – TWUL requires additional wording to be included in the DCO which prevents the execution of any works affecting or impacting upon TWUL apparatus without TWUL's prior consent and subject to such conditions as TWUL may require; 7(7) - a provision should be included which states that nothing in this paragraph authorises the execution, placing, installation, bedding, packing, removal, connection or disconnection of any apparatus or execution of any filling around the apparatus, where laid in a trench within 600 mm of the apparatus; 9(1), (3), (5) and (6) – the notice periods in these provisions are too short to consider plans and to determine whether alteration or protection of apparatus is required and if so, to consider TWUL's requirement for the same. This could be overcome by requiring the undertaker to consult and agree technical solutions with TWUL well in advance of serving notice. 10(1) – TWUL would expect that an indemnity is given in relation to all costs and expenses incurred in considering whether diversion or protection is required and in obtaining rights and facilities in land required for the same. 10(2) – TWUL requires this provision be removed – if TWUL if required to divert apparatus, it should be paid in full for the costs and expenses of having to divert the apparatus. 10(3) and (4) - TWUL requires clarity in the DCO as to what amounts to betterment. 11(1) – As above, TWUL requires an indemnity to cover any damage caused to and any costs and expenses associated with any apparatus or property or due to interruption in supply as a result of the authorised works or because of the use, maintenance of failure of authorised works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of The Foreman Family - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn . See Attached. We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The land in question is a grass field which we use as an extension of our garden and an area of woodland (which adjoins ancient woodland). The impact of the pipeline is going to be significant, both in terms of the disruption caused by construction and on our use of the land. We intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential impact the pipeline will have on our property and ways to mitigate it (if any)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Batcheller Monkhouse on behalf of The Goggin Family - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn . See Attached.We are freehold landowners, whose land is going to be crossed by the new pipeline. The land in question is a paddock next to our house. The impact of the pipeline is going to be significant and we intend to make a representation during examination regarding the potential effect it will have on our property and ways to mitigate it (if any)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Thrings LLP on behalf of Victoria Katharine Gladstone - WITHDRAWN
"Submission Withdrawn. See attached. We are acting on behalf of the land owner and we represent all of their interests and representations. There are some general representations which we outline below: Although the applicant has sought to engage with affected parties the terms issued and the legal documents are completely impractical and therefore cannot be considered until significant drafting is agreed. The project is referred to as a Replacement Pipeline however there are no proposals in the Draft DCO to remove the existing pipeline and release the rights over the land affected by the existing pipeline. Therefore landowners already subject to the existing pipeline rights and this represents an unnecessary and unjustified intrusion over their enjoyment of their land. Inadequate consultation on the preferred corridor and what alternatives have been explored to avoid the owner's land. General concerns on security and interface both during construction and maintenance This list is not limited to the above, nor exhaustive. We will be representing our clients interests and representations."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Woodland Trust
"The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to register a representation to the following project. We hold concerns with regards to the potential impact to several areas of woodland designated as ancient on Natural England’s Ancient Woodland Inventory, as well as to two trees recognised as veteran on the Ancient Tree Inventory. Whilst the Trust acknowledges that there will be no direct loss of ancient woodland to facilitate the proposed pipeline, we are concerned that the woodlands adjacent to the pipeline boundary will be subject to noise and dust pollution during construction. As such, the Woodland Trust recommends that a buffer zone of 20 metres is implemented to all areas of ancient woodland to mitigate for the above impacts during construction. This is in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice which states: “For ancient woodlands, you should have a buffer zone of at least 15 metres to avoid root damage. Where assessment shows other impacts are likely to extend beyond this distance, you’re likely to need a larger buffer zone.” Furthermore, two veteran trees are recorded within close proximity to the works boundary. The Trust asks that during construction these trees are adequately protected in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice which states: “A buffer zone around an ancient or veteran tree should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree’s diameter.” The Trust notes that the applicants have identified several areas of woodland that is potentially ancient. It is recommended that further discussions with Natural England occur to determine the ancient woodland status of these woodlands, as ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat. In summary, the Woodland Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of impact to ancient woodland. We hope our comments are of use to you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alan James Styles
"That the number of trees lost as a result of the installation of the pipeline through Queen Elizabeth Park is minimised so that the woodland character of the park and scenic quality of the view is maintained as far as is practical. Further more that the privacy of the householders in Queen Victoria Court should not be less than is currently afforded by the existing woodland vegetation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Amy Murphy
"There’s other, better routes which should be considered. The TPOs in this area should be taken seriously and more effort should be made to protect as many trees and surrounding views/wildlife as possible."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles Clark
"Introduction Esso stated at the 15th July residents meeting that the move of the preferred route F1b/F1c in Autumn 2018 consultations to route F1a did not warrant a 3rd consultation with the Heronscourt and Colville Gardens residents. This is totally unacceptable and is inconsistent with conventional corporate governance given that these resident associations are the primary stakeholders severely impacted by the decision to change route to F1a. Trees Impact Esso said that extensive surveys using current standards/guidelines would be made of the trees and their root systems in the F1a route and that if necessary trees would be brought down/removed or tunnelling routed around them if the survey showed it necessary to do so. If these trees are removed/damaged along F1a then; • Sound pollution from Red road will be increased due to the loss of screening . • Flood risk into gardens and houses below will be increased due to reduction of water no longer being absorbed by trees from future sustained rain events, especially given the projected effects of climate change. The area already has an extremely high water table. • Reduction in value of properties, as the aesthetic view of tree screening was one of the reasons why many residents were attracted to the area and hence also will have an impact on the potential sale price of properties. • Destruction of resident bats' habitat. • Contravene government directives on planting trees rather than removing them. Some of the trees on the route are very substantial beech trees on or close to residents properties. The inference was made that the tree surveys adherence to current standards and guidelines in the treatment of the trees would ensure that the subsequent risk of trees falling on properties would be reduced or removed. Although the subject matter is different, the tragic events at Grenfell Tower have proven that use of current standards and guidelines are no guarantee against subsequent failure of a tree, especially given the impacts of future climate change. It is inconceivable that a proposed 1.6m x 1m trench will not severely impact the integrity of the root system of the densely populated trees in the area. This is of great concern as one of the trees in the proposed area has already fallen on a house, narrowly missing a resident in bed, and there are many more substantial mature trees, some up to 200 years old. With the disruption the Esso pipeline implementation would have along this route, this risk will significantly increase with the associated risk of damage to gardens and houses and in worst case death of a resident. As with Grenfell Tower where landlords would not take responsibility citing adherence to current standards and guidelines, there were no assurances given by Esso that they would step up and underwrite potential subsequent damage to property and bodily injury in event of weakened trees falling on residents gardens and properties. Route Change The only real reason given for the change to route F1a was the existence of sand lizards and ground nesting birds (differently protected species) in sections of the F1b/F1c routes and the potential difficulty with scheduling due to their lifecycles. It should be noted that Sand Lizards are also present and recorded already in the F1a route. Esso have stated that the approximate length of time to implement the F1a route due to its complexity is up to 6 months. The route of F1b/F1c would be substantially easier to implement, hence less than 6 months and ultimately surely less costly to the taxpayer . The primary windows of protection for the birds and lizards are approximately 6 months each, however these largely occur at opposite times of the year. The project office within any large scale programme would easily be able to schedule the implementation activity in F1b/F1c so that there is minimal impact to the birds during their critical 6 month lifecycle and the lesser protected sand lizards if necessary are relocated as has been done before in the event that they don't already move away when work commences. Conclusion It is inconceivable that any responsibly conducted assessment model between these 2 routes could have concluded that Route F1b/F1c with a temporary impact on the birds and sand lizards takes precedence over Route F1a where the residents of Colville Gardens and Heronscourt would be permanently affected and subject to potential residential damage, bodily injury, and financial loss. Given the evident issues with F1a, I'm amazed that 2 obvious alternative routes close by have not been considered; 1. There is an existing path that loosely follows a parallel path between F1a and F1b, approximately 40-50 metres back from F1a. There are many tunnelling choices that could be mapped through this route with minimal impact to trees. 2. There is an existing wider path than the F1a route that runs parallel to Red road approximately 25 metres from its north side which is not boggy unlike the eastern end of F1a. The pipeline could then turn left after the end of the designated protected birds nesting area and return through the scarcely populated tree area to the existing proposed exit from the area across Guildford Road. Both of these alternative routes would reduce the impacts on the residents of Heronscourt and Colville Gardens and also have minimal impact on the birds breeding and lizards hibernating areas."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Craig E Stiles
"Re the proposed pipeline through Queen Elizabeth Park, Farnborough. I am very concerned about the clearance of a large part of the park and of the established woodland. This area provides a natural habitat for many different species, including owls and small mammals. It is also a popular destination for many local residents and their families for recreation. The proposed 15m corridor which will be cleared through the park will not only destroy the habitats and deny the use of a large portion of the park to local residents for some time but will also despoil the view from properties bordering the park. I hope that these views will be take into consideration and that a less destructive approach can be taken Yours faithfully, Dr Craig E Stiles MBBS MRCP PhD BA FHEA"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Jane Warner
"I am writing, in confirmation of my objection to the revised route of the oil pipeline now close behind Heronscourt and Colville Gardens, to point out the way in which Esso have dealt with us interested parties. Not only are we being ignored, for the sake of some non-indigenous lizards, but we have recently been told that the third consultation was considered irrelevant enough not to inform us in the early months of this year in regard to the change of position of the pipeline from near the original route, to right behind the dwellings and gardens of many houses. Not only this, but it would necessitate the removal of hundreds of trees, which at present provide us neighbours of the pathway along which Esso want the pipeline to run, an idyllic walk for the whole of this area, including people we meet from Windlesham and Chobham. If this plan goes ahead, this wonderful, bucolic, atmospheric place will be lost to us for ever. Even if replanting were done, and nothing has been suggested in this respect, it would take decades to regenerate this precious area. I would also point out that there are other creatures, whose homes will be destroyed, including the wonderful owls we know are living in seclusion along the route Esso want to destroy. Could not the money saved by going back to the original route be spent on moving the lizards? WE are the indigenous creatures who have settled here, to live in a harmonious, natural and beautiful location with, hopefully, the continuation of the existing backdrop and the cessation of the stress and fear being caused by wanton destruction by Esso. Please hear what I am saying. I am appalled at the destruction, noise and calamitous ruination this alternative route will cause. It was only changed lately in the plan and I hope someone out there will hear us all and reverse this decision that threatens the peace we now enjoy."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Rushmoor Borough Council
"Please see Rushmoor Borough Council's detailed written representation sent by e-mail to [email protected] today Saturday 27th July 2019 at 2:38 PM"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Steve Heath
"I am registering as an interested party in this matter because the current aviation fuel pipeline runs along the bottom of my garden, which was compulsorily purchased from my family for very little money when it originally went through 47 odd years ago. I want to make sure you aren't about to try and take any further land from me. Also should you deviate from the current pipeline and this land is therefore not being used I would like to be offered it for sale at the same low price you paid my parents for it!"