“We act for The Executors of the Late Sir David Watkin Williams-Wynn. Bt. & The Trustees of the Wynnstay 1967 Settlement (Trustees Richard Williams and Capt Timothy Bell) (“the Estate”). The Estate objects to the DCO application, and an overview of representations are: 1. No proper reasoning or justification has been provided for the selection of the sites and why the Estate’s site is considered more desirable when compared to neighbouring sites. This is despite numerous requests. 2. The extent of the land acquired is too large for the intended purposes as such it is inappropriate. Land subject to the DCO should only be what is reasonably necessary to carry out the scheme. 3. The land which is sought is high-quality agricultural land that is irreplaceable. The loss of land will adversely impact the Estate’s ability to be sustainable in terms of agriculture, as well as the amenity and visual impact this will have on the Estate and its well established tenants and community it supports. 4. The proposed access route, is inappropriate, there are other sensible alternatives. There is little need to dissect multiple fields especially since no justification for doing so has been given. By dissecting the fields, the Estate’s land will be sterilised, thus adversely impacting the Estate. 5. The potential impacts of the physical structure of the proposed substation and associated works, which include altering the watercourse, result in alterations to the natural subterranean water flows. This could result in poorer quality land surrounding the Estate’s land. Any mitigation has not been adequately addressed. 6. The impact of the additional substation is compounded due to existing infrastructure and further extensions to the grid’s infrastructure, making this a monolithic development which is taking land from the natural environment. Existing infrastructure on the Estate’s land is currently not visible from other areas, the extension of that substation and any additional infrastructure required will result in severe visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. 7. The nature of the interests to be acquired goes beyond what is necessary. Seeking a freehold interest for a substation and the access road is not standard. 8. The proposed environmental mitigation is not adequate and taking additional land to implement mitigation measures is not appropriate. There are suitable alternatives that can be carried out on existing habitats and reserves in close proximity. 9. The Estate has severe concerns about the potential impact of electro-magnetic fields, particularly in relation to fields #2 and #44. No correspondence has been received from the promoter regarding the affects the electro-magnetic fields may have and how any harm can be mitigated. 10. The substation is core and non-contiguous, thus further breaking up the Estate. As a result, this will reduce the Estate’s ability to keep the deer population in check which in turn will have an impact on the wider estate management. 11. The Estate has sought to engage constructively with Mona, but efforts have not been reciprocated. There has been a lack of consistency and transparency.”