Representation by Simon Morris
- Date submitted
- 29 July 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
1 Challenge to the selection of the alignment of the A38 in the current application. The selection of the present alignment dates back to a public consultation exercise by the Highways Agency in autumn 2003 in which respondents where were invited to vote for one of three possible alignments—Options 1 and 2 located north-west of the present junction and Option 3 to the south-east (approximately the same as the alignment currently proposed). In their report on the consultation exercise in January 2004 (ref DOKHXCC/PM009/41) the Highways Agency’s consultants concluded that Option 3 was by far the most popular option, being supported by 296 out of a total of 434 respondents. There were, however, two huge flaws with this analysis • Many residents of Breadsall expressed their opinion through a petition organised by the Parish Council which gained 329 signatures, yet remarkably this petition was counted by the Highways Agency’s consultants as a single vote by the Parish Council. • At the same all other votes were given full weight, including some anonymous votes and numerous votes from residents in locations which would suffer no detriment from any version of the scheme (eg most areas of Allestree) The conclusions of the 2004 report were therefore hugely distorted but from that time onwards the Highways Agency and Highways England have never seriously entertained any alternative options although the Highways Agency’s original proposals from the early 2000s had been equivalent to Options 1 and 2 which were clearly superior in technical highway terms. Options 1 and 2 did involve more complicated land acquisitions but these could have been resolved if addressed early on. Highways England has now created a situation where only one scheme is on offer and the consultation on the DCO application is essentially bogus, being limited to technical details of the proposed scheme. I challenge the selection of Option 3 and ask the Planning Inspectorate to examine the process by which the proposed alignment was selected and to require a reconsideration of other options. If Option 3 is to be pursued I think that it could be based on a tighter radius for the A38 with a 50mph limit, similar to the limit at the other two junctions. This would keep the carriageway further away from Breadsall and mitigate its effects. 2 Detailed comments on the current application 1 The woodland/tree belt on the eastern side of the A38 and the slip road will be important in providing visual screening from the Breadsall direction. I think the following points need considering further: • The section of woodland alongside the ponds at the southern end of the slip road and the adjoining section of the A61 is much narrower than the woodland further north and is quite inadequate. The ponds should be moved further east to create a woodland strip at least 20 metres wide. • The woodland should principally comprise robust evergreen species to ensure reliable year-round screening. This is a higher priority for this section of woodland than the use of native species and other ecological factors. • There must be a guaranteed permanent regime for maintenance of the woodland and replacement of dead or dying species. 2 The 2.5m high noise barrier is critical in mitigating noise levels in the Breadsall direction. This must be retained and must be constructed of durable materials and coloured green to give the most harmonious visual impact. I wish to be consulted about the construction specification. As with the woodland the noise barrier must be subject to a reliable permanent maintenance regime. 3 The absence of overhead lighting and signage on the A38 is important in protecting Breadsall from light pollution and must be retained in the final design. Lighting must be confined to the roundabout and the adjoining sections of the slip roads.