Dear Sir,
The National Grid Gas
plc (Tirley Pressure Reduction Installation) Compulsory Purchase Order 2009
Compulsory purchase
of land in Tirley, Gloucestershire
We understand that National Grid Gas plc (‘NG’) have, or
shortly will, ask you to confirm the above Order. We ask that you refuse to do
so for the reasons given below.
1. Introduction
1.1. We accept
that NG requires to transport gas from Milford Haven to Wormington in the quantities
intended and that to satisfy this requirement a Pressure Reduction Installation
(‘PRI’) must be constructed.
1.2. In March
2006, NG lodged an application with the Forest
of Dean District Council to build a
PRI on land within that authority’s area. More than 1,600 written objections to
that application were received by the Council which, in October 2006, refused
planning permission. NG appealed that decision. After a Public Inquiry held in
May 2007, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the
Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise
and Regulatory Reform (“the Secretaries of State”) dismissed the appeal in
December 2007.
1.3. In December
2008, NG lodged with Tewkesbury Borough Council an application to construct a
PRI on land to the east of Flat Farm, near Tirley. This application is in respect of land 400
metres from the appeal site. It is proving equally controversial. Tewkesbury
Borough Council, like the Forest of Dean
District Council before it, has received more
letters of objection to this application than it has to any other planning
application in its history.
At the time of writing, the Planning Officer dealing with this
latest application has not yet formulated his recommendation to the Council on
whether or not to grant planning permission, nor has a date been set for the
Planning Committee to meet to consider the application.
1.4 The Statement
of Reasons lodged by NG contains the following sentence at para 10.1:
“As part of the site selection process, there has been an extensive
discussion of the suitability of the order land for the PRI with … the local
campaign group CAPRI’.”
Please be aware that
a) NG chose the site without consulting
CAPRI;
b) whilst there has been very
limited discussion with CAPRI as to the suitability of 6.6 hectares of the
Order land, there has been no discussion with CAPRI of the remaining 9.4
hectares, and
c) CAPRI
remains strongly of the view that the Order land is an unsuitable location for
the construction of a PRI and has made representations to this effect to
Tewkesbury Borough Council. (We enclose copies of our letters to Tewkesbury
Borough Council dated 19th February and 4th September
2009.)
1.5 This planning application is contrary to
national and local policies designed to protect the countryside from
development. These include
PPS 7 Paragraph 1(iv) which states that new
development in the open countryside
"should be strictly controlled; the Government's overall aim is to protect
the countryside for the sake of its intrinsic character and beauty, the
diversity of its landscapes, heritage and wildlife"
Policy LND4 which states that "in
considering proposals for development in rural areas - regard will be given to
the need to protect the character and appearance of the rural landscape".
The
proposed development of the Site cannot possibly comply with those policies.
1.6 In
their letter of decision dated 20th December 2007 relating to the previous
appeal, the Secretaries of State
‘concluded that the harmful and intrusive impact that the appeal
proposal would have on the rural landscape is not outweighed by the important
and urgent national need. Overall, the Secretaries of State consider that the
proposal would not accord with development plan policy. They do not consider
that there are any material considerations, when considered whether jointly or
severally, to lead them to determine the proposal otherwise than in accordance
with the development plan’
We see little or no difference between that planning application and
the present planning application.
2. Human Rights
Considerations
2.1 Whilst it is
the case that NG wishes to acquire part of the Order land for the purpose of
constructing a PRI, planning permission so to do has not been granted. It
therefore follows that there is at present no ‘public interest’ which
could be served by confirming the Order and
in these circumstances if the Order were to be confirmed a breach would occur
of the human rights and fundamental freedoms which Article 1 of the First
Protocol of the Human Rights Act 1998 seeks to protect.
3. Speculation
3.1. Indeed, given
NG’s history of a previous failed planning application and subsequent failed
appeal and the proximity of this application to the site initially selected, it
must be the case that there is no certainty whatever that permission will be
granted for this planning application.
3.2. It follows
that NG has asked your confirmation of a Compulsory Purchase Order which it has
issued speculatively.
3.3 Such an Order
is unjust in that it bears oppressively on the owner of the land who may, if
the Order is confirmed but planning permission is refused, be legally deprived
of her land without justification and in circumstances where there would be no
improvement whatsoever to the transport of gas to the national transmission
system.
3.4 We submit that
the issue of this Order by NG constitutes an abuse of process and that its confirmation
by you would be improper.
4. Order Land excessive
4.1. The Statement of
Reasons submitted to you by NG states that
6.1 “the acquiring authority has submitted an application to construct
a PRI on the order Land”
8.1 “the land is required for the purpose of assisting in the transport
of gas from the gas importation terminals into the national transmission
system”
4.2. The above statements
state that a PRI is needed for the transport of gas and that the Order land is
needed for the PRI. We submit that in the event of planning consent being
granted, 9.4 hectares of the Order land are not required for assisting in the
transport of gas from the gas importation terminals into the national
transmission system.
4.3. The planning application submitted to
Tewkesbury Borough Council in December 2008 was for a PRI to be constructed on
a site which, with landscaping, would be approximately 239m x 187m, i.e. occupy
4.5 hectares.
4.4. Responding to
observations and comments made by Tewkesbury Borough Council, NG submitted in
July 2009 a revision to that application under which additional land would be taken
and used for landscaping; under this revision, the total land required for the
project would rise from 4.5 to 6.6 hectares.
4.5. The Order land is of an area of
approximately 16 hectares (being two fields, not one field as stated by NG in
their Statement of Reasons at para 3.2).
4.6. It is
therefore the case that the land which is the subject of this Order but which
is not intended to be occupied by either the PRI or its associated landscaping
is approximately 9.4 hectares, or one and half times that needed for the PRI
and associated landscaping. NG is therefore seeking to purchase compulsorily
nearly two and a half times the area of land needed to accommodate the
developments for which it has applied for planning permission.
4.7. NG has not
given in their Statement of Reasons the reason why they seek confirmation of an
Order which extends to nearly 10 hectares more than that required for the PRI
and associated landscaping.
4.8. In the
absence of the information in 4.7. above, we submit that the Order cannot
properly be confirmed and that the application for confirmation should be rejected.
5. Inadequate
Promulgation of Notice
5.1. The government
has advised the public on the procedures to be adopted in the matter of compulsory
purchase orders. The booklet ‘Compulsory Purchase and Compensation: Compulsory
Purchase Procedure’ issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (and
available today on the Communities and Local Government website)
states:
3.24 Before the
acquiring authority submits the CPO for
confirmation, a notice must be published for two successive weeks in one or
more local newspapers and must also be fixed on or near the land covered by the
order.
5.2. NG published notices in local papers on two dates: 25th
August and 1st September.
5.3 It therefore
follows that the above procedures have not been followed in that no advertisement
has been placed for two successive weeks in one or more local newspapers.
6. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in asking
that you reject the application made to you by NG to confirm the Compulsory Purchase
Order issued in respect of land to the east of Flat Farm.
If you choose not so to do, then we ask that you require
that notice of the application be published in accordance with the published
procedures.
Yours faithfully,
(by email)
J L Gabbott
Secretary