Representation by Amesbury Property Company Limited & ClassMaxi Limted (Amesbury Property Company Limited & ClassMaxi Limted)
- Date submitted
- 9 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
This representation is made on behalf of The Amesbury Property Company Limited (APC) and Classmaxi Limited (CML) being owners of land which is to be acquired, or rights over which are to be acquired, as identified in the “Book of Reference” and comprising plot references 10-16, 10-17, 10-18, 10-19, 10-20, 10-21, 10-22, 10-23, 11-04-11-011, 11-23, 11-32, and 11-33 (to be checked).
APC/CML objects to the compulsory acquisition of these areas of land and/or the rights over these areas of land on the basis that, and for the reasons explained below, the areas are excessive, and the acquisitions cannot be justified.
For the avoidance of doubt, APC/CML does not object to the principle of the acquisition of land, or rights, sufficient to enable a highway diversion linking Allington Track to Equinox Drive to be provided across its land, nor does it object to any necessary byway works to divert Byway AMES1 to be provided, subject to
(i) the standard of the Allington Track diversion being no greater or different from the existing standard of the Allington Track which is approximately 5.0-5.2m wide with narrow verges and (where in cutting) has steep side slopes – accepting that passing places are to be provided as shown on the General Arrangement Drawings; and
(ii) the standard of the AMES1 Byway being no greater than is necessary - HE representatives have indicated a width of no more than about 4m.
- these standards having already been discussed with and accepted by HE.
(NB: Notwithstanding proviso (ii), and after further reflection, we question whether it is necessary to divert Byway AMES 1, as currently proposed, as an equally satisfactory, but significantly cheaper solution could be to continue AMES 1 as far as the then diverted Allington track, which it could join by way of a “T” junction, and we would therefore wish to explore this alternative further.
APC/CML recognise that the areas of land identified for acquisition in the draft Order have, of necessity, to be the maximum of areas required to deliver the final scheme and that these areas are based upon a preliminary design exercise.
APC/CML believe it reasonable to assume that, as the detailed design of the scheme progresses the actual areas of land required for the scheme may in fact be less than that presently indicated in the draft Order plans and indeed representatives of HE have confirmed in meetings that this is likely to be the case.
Furthermore APC/CML believes that, even following the detailed design, the identification of the exact boundaries of land necessary for the proposed scheme will need to err on the “generous” side so as to allow for any uncertainties and design modifications which may evolve during the construction of the scheme and/or allow for construction working space.
? Accordingly, APC/CML believe that the exact extent of land which will be required to be vested to HE can only be determined once construction of the works has been completed, and highway fences erected identifying the minimum area of land which is required to be permenately under the control of the Highway Authority. Furthermore, particularly in respect of Byway AMES1, APC/CML see no reason why HE has to acquire land for the diversion as APC/CML is willing to dedicate the required minimum area of land as public highway.
Accordingly, whilst it is accepted that, under the terms of the draft Order HE may require to take temporary possession of the entirety of the areas of land identified in the Order (and APC/CML have no objection to that) the General Vesting Declaration should not be determined until construction has been completed, and in particular does not need to include the land for the diversion of Byway 1 as APC/CML is willing to dedicate the required land as public highway.
APC/CML have however been advised that the General Vesting Declaration will be made during the detailed design of the scheme and that if, following construction, surplus land is identified which is not strictly required for the purposes of operating and maintaining the highway, some, but not all, surplus land may (but not will) be offered for sale back to APC/CML at “market” price under the Critchel Down rules. APC/CML are concerned that
(i) there will be no obligation on HE to return all surplus land to APC/CML upon completion of the works; and (ii) the surplus land returned to APC/CML may be returned at a higher price than that for which it was acquired thus financially disadvantaging APC/CML.
APC/CML wishes to work with HE to ensure that only the absolute minimum areas of land and/or rights sufficient to deliver the Allington Track Diversion and to secure an appropriate diversion of Byway AMES1 are permanently transferred to HE and will seek to agree a mechanism with HE whereby HE’s objectives for diverting the Allington Tack and Byway AMES1 can be delivered.
APC/CML will provide such a mechanism to the examining Inspectors which will demonstrate that the use of compulsory acquisition powers is neither necessary or justified and will continue to work with HE to agree such a mechanism. However, in order to protect its positon as an affected person requests that its objection be heard at a Compulsory Acquisition Hearing. A further written representation will be made following further discussions with HE.