Representation by Euro Garages (Euro Garages)
- Date submitted
- 6 September 2019
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Ref: M25 Junction 10/A3 Interchange Improvement Scheme (TR010030) Dears Sir Euro Garages Limited and Associated Companies – EG Cobham, Portsmouth Road, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1EL – M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange Improvement Scheme I confirm that I am instructed on behalf of Euro Garages Limited and associated companies, which hold the freehold interest in the former San Domenico site at Portsmouth Road, Cobham, Surrey, KT11 1EL. This property would be seriously adversely affected in the event that the proposed improvement of the M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange is implemented. I have previously made representations on the proposed scheme to Highways England by way of letter dated 23rd of March 2018. This letter expresses the same concerns. My client controls this strategic roadside service area site which enjoys direct access from the eastbound carriageway of the A3 trunk road. The site represents one of a very limited number of such strategic locations on the feeder roads to the M25 orbital motorway and comprises a Starbucks Coffee drive-thru unit which adequately provides rest and refreshment to passing traffic on the A3. The current access arrangements allow all passing traffic to readily and conveniently access the facilities with limited diversions. In the absence of the proposed scheme, the property would have further development potential to provide comprehensive facilities at this location for the motorists and HGV drivers at this location. It is understood that in the opinion of the promoting authority, the road proposals as presently formulated would require the closure of the existing direct vehicular access to the property from the A3 trunk road. In commercial terms, the loss of this access would not be mitigated by the provision of any alternative access created via the local road network. Consequently, as proposed the scheme would render the property unviable as a roadside location to provide motorists’ facilities. This would be the case even with the provision of advance warning signs on the trunk road as the route to access the facilities would require a significant detour and be inconvenient to prospective customers. I should be grateful if this letter could be accepted as a representation against the proposals on the basis that the justification for the scheme and the justification for the closure of my client’s access has not been demonstrated. My client reserves the right to submit further representations against the proposals. I would be grateful if you would kindly acknowledge receipt of these representations. Yours sincerely Tim Hancock