Representation by Helen Hosier (Helen Hosier)
- Date submitted
- 11 January 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Since marrying my husband in 1963 I have devoted my life to supporting him with the farm and fostering a sense of responsibility and guardianship within my children, ensuring they are well placed to take over their role of custodians of the landscape. The farm is the most important thing to my husband, a staunch countryman, so protection to wildlife and archaeology, as well as the condition of the land is important to us. The position of the western portal and deep cutting within our farm and World Heritage Site threatens our business, my childrens’ inheritance, security of RSPB Reserve and the setting of the key scheduled monuments under our guardianship, and therefore, I cannot support the scheme presented.
My concerns
Scheme overview Doubtful return on capital Scheme timetable taking priority over meaningful stakeholder engagement and quality of surveys. Misinterpretation of Outstanding Universal Value leading to work not up to World Heritage Site standard.
Consultation Lack of choice between a surface route or tunnel. Consultation material misleading to public, erroneously implying open access over the WHS including private land. Scheme going to DCO without decisions on soil protection during construction, monitoring and land management around the portal approach. Inappropriate use of S172 powers, replacing active engagement with stakeholders
Farming operations Reducing area available for environmental and pig enterprises, with impact on farm rotation, profit and viability. Substituting a superfluous and expensive land acquisition for the western portal approach in place of a management agreement for legacy brief. Soil protection concerns relating to topsoil and subsoil for weeds and contamination during construction. Unresolved questions relating to scheme monitoring and contamination of soil stockpiles during construction
Groundwater Lacking proper stakeholder engagement relating to provision of reports, monitoring and hydrogeology discussion to assess impact on borehole supply. Concern that groundwater will be compromised for quality and quantity during tunnel construction and on completion, with implications on farm viability and value. Unwillingness to discuss provision of alternative supply should boreholes be compromised.
GREEN BRIDGE 4 Questionable siting to provide best visual interplay between monuments and deliver high quality biodiversity benefits. Proposed location complicates land management due to small irregular land parcels. New byway places another hitherto undamaged scheduled monument in danger of erosion, adds pressure on animal welfare with potential dog attacks, increase biosecurity risks for pig enterprise and pressure of trespass into woodland and farm. Negative impact on countryside pursuits.
RSPB Reserve Promotion of byways within the literature has endangered the Reserve, putting wildlife and Stone Curlews at risk instead of building on the existing rich biodiverse landscape that protects WHS its setting and the archaeology. Cultural Heritage Uncertainty over World Heritage Site status if the scheme goes ahead, with economic and tourism implications. Improved stakeholder engagement and timetable flexibility may have prevented damage to property, scheduled monument and disturbance of breeding birds during surveys. Byways Promotion of new and existing byways within the scheme adding disturbance to the Reserve. Increasing antisocial problems, eg illegal camping, fly-tipping, property damage to all users.