Representation by Belinda Nott
- Date submitted
- 18 July 2023
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Representation in respect of the Bramford to Twinstead Reinforcement Project Submitted by Belinda Nott Dear Inspector, I am the daughter of Mr. G V S Nott whose farm National Grid (NG) are proposing a permanent right of access over for a haul road. My father only became aware of plans for an extensive haul road across his land when receiving land referencing from WSP in September 2022. There had been no previous contact from NG or their agents. The landowners and local residents did not receive sufficient detail or information prior to the deadline to send comments to the 2022 consultation. I have not received feedback from my comments, nor have they been addressed. (A copy of these are attached below) I have attended meetings with NG and their project team but still they have ignored all other route options that we have suggested or shown any meaningful engagement with our concerns for damaged field drains, environmental harm and why the haul road if absolutely necessary, cannot use the field edges to enable large farm machinery to access the majority of the land. We had no explanation why some of the existing road network could not be used by construction traffic and did not receive the requested road surveys which were promised in October 2022. There is no report detailing highways objections to the use of the roads among the documents on the Planning Inspectorate website and my District Councillor contacted the Highways team at County who were also unable to provide a report on the local roads. It has since come to light from our last meeting with NG on 10.07.23 that the current route was determined by NGs Highways Consultants, following an internal review of the options and constraints. Essex County Council Highways Consultants have not commented as they have not been asked to, as the route now shown was NGs considered best option. I believe the surveys they have completed only related to the crossing of the highway for the haul road. In NGs report they are stating that the haul road now proposed has evolved from feedback concerning the use of the local roads from construction traffic. I am questioning if some of this feedback came from their initial 2013 proposal for a short haul road with the use of the roads at the east side of the village. I would like to ask if the comment objections NG have stated come from this prior proposal? The decision to build a haul road seems to be partly due to complaints of traffic passing close to a few properties at Cripple Corner, Pebmarsh . This could be alleviated by a short haul road from the top of Lorkins Lane. Collins Farm and the following three properties on the road frontage in Pebmarsh are all opposed to the haul road and have concerns of misuse and security. In the published Bramford to Twinstead Reinforcement Consultation Report NG have responded to concerns of HGVs passing Lamarsh Church and heavy construction vehicles using Henny Road by saying it is already being used by HGVs including farm machinery. They also stated that construction-phase effects such as views and increased traffic on local roads, are anticipated to be localised and short in duration. We Question why our wider roads with the same use are not appropriate? The construction of the proposed haul road from the A131 is approximately 1.5 miles in length with a width of up to 30 meters wide. This construction will add a huge amount of workers vehicles and heavy plant machinery compounding the argument on carbon emissions and resources. If NG require the route again in the future the whole process will have to be completed again not to mention the unnecessary cost which will inevitably end up on electricity bills. The landowners affected have received draft HOT without a confirmed haul road route or clarity of the width or construction methods. No surveys have been undertaken on the land to identify habitats, archaeology, environmental issues, field drainage or how farming operations will be affected. NG have demonstrated a total lack of commitment to working with landowners to reduce impacts on their land and to limit the loss of food production. The uncertainty in the time the initial haul road will be in place and then if, and when it may be reinstated leaves them in a difficult position. Is it fair for NG to acquire a permanent right of access? At this date the landowners are still not sure of the route, whether it will just be temporary or if NG are proposing the right to use the route again in the future as this requirement was changed part way through the process. If the plan of the land they are seeking to acquire rights over differs from that submitted to yourselves there appears to be no clarity of how any agreed changes to the plans can be substituted to meet the requirements of the DCO. I ask you to examine why this route has been chosen over the other options available and suggested to NG? With our local knowledge (rather than NGs desktop studies) I feel that a “hybrid” approach of the use of the some of local road network with a haul road only where necessary should be carefully considered. The landowners have offered junction widening and passing places where required which would cause less damage and loss of arable land and hedgerows. Comments in response to the proposed Bramford to Twinstead haul road from the A131 through Pebmarsh. October 2022 Consultation has followed a prescribed process which has failed to respect the socio- economic and environmental values of the parishioners and landowners living within areas of the proposed haul road. The landowners and properties most affected by the route should have had an initial consultation, and surveying should have taken place before the public consultation so that NG could ascertain if the route was deliverable, and with what environmental impacts. Due to the delay and severe negligence of not making sure everybody was informed of your plans, there is no time left for people to make a case and put evidence forward so a balanced comparison of all options can take place before the end of the consultation. As a parish councillor and the daughter of one of the landowners I have attended three meetings with NG representatives. Half way through our first meeting it came to light that you had surveyed the wrong highway route. My father took you out, and showed you the shortest road route from the A131 which can accommodate combines during harvest. The meeting was left in agreement this alternative highway was very suitable and my father believing he would no longer have the haul road crossing his land. The survey of the new route has still not been completed, so it is impossible for all to see the benefits/ detriments, as there has not been an assessment of this and other routing options. My elderly fathers health and well being has deteriorated since this meeting due to the worry and stress you are putting him under. Surely it would have been in NGs best interest to get the community and landowners to shape the new route with their personal knowledge of the land and wildlife in the area. As these areas have not been looked into properly I feel the consultation has been inadequate. The proposed haul road route would devastate two small farms in the village leaving most of their land unable to be cultivated, this is due to the large machinery being unable to access small fields and destruction of land drains. This land is at present prime arable, mainly for the growing of wheat and barley a necessity for food production and security in this country. The haul road even though temporary, will leave long term damage of compaction, lack of drainage, topsoil mixed with subsoil and the inevitable aggregates/ construction materials which will be left behind. During construction, use and removal of the haul road there will be a devastating effect on biota and risk of pollution. There are many species in this quiet rural area with its ancient oaks, wide grassed margins and a stream. In addition to this there are springs on the hall road route which feed into this watercourse which flows through the village and onto Preston’s lake. At our meeting on 13th October Bob Jones admitted that he had merely sat in an office and drawn the haul road route on a map, at this point and since, there has been no ecology report or a direct inspection of the site and surrounding area carried out in conjunction with a desk top study. On the 14th October it was requested that Jacobs could have access to do an environmental walkover. This is just three working days before the end of the consultation period, surely this should have been carried out previously, especially if they specialise in strategic assessment, site and route selection, alternatives evaluation, environment impact assessment, community engagement, permitting and design. Without the information from these reports, which would hopefully include the exact construction and width of the haul road and travel and access plans, it is impossible for landowners and the local community to understand the whole impact of the project. Pebmarsh Parish Council, the farmers concerned and the houses near the route are all in favour of compromising and working with National Grid by discussing the use of the highway and alternative haul road routes as to not have such a devastating impact. Originally the route had been planned to use the highway from the village to Cripple corner with a short haul road from there. I am aware that a few residents at Cripple corner objected to this. After speaking with the residents along the highway past Collins Farm and Magnolia House they are all in agreement that they would prefer the additional traffic rather than the haul road running across the field due to the impacts mentioned above, also security issues. I understand that it may be necessary to run a haul road adjacent to Lorkins lane if a more suitable route cannot be found. In addition to this the construction of such a long haul road would in itself add a huge amount of unnecessary traffic. My father and family have worked hard to try and find alternative routes , the map below clearly shows the amount of arable land lost to the haul road compared to other alternatives. These would also be much more cost effective when considering that the huge cost of a haul road will be passed onto consumers through the standing charge on their electricity bills.The landowners would be happy to accommodate passing places and junction widening, which although small loss of verges, would be far less damaging than going across fields and hedgerows. Additionally we are lucky that our village is encircled by a ring road, it could be be possible to use the Collins road route just for infrastructure, kings farm and resident access traffic and send additional traffic the other way round the village, or use a traffic light system at some points. This option would only be short term unlike the long term devastation of the proposed haul road. Please take all of my comments into consideration, my family have farmed and nurtured this land for generations, it would be heartbreaking for my children not to have the opportunity to continue in their steps. Yours sincerely Belinda Nott [redacted] Map: Red - alternative routes to site. Yellow- where the highway could be used. Green- loss of prime arable land. Blue- current proposed haul route.