Representation by Honingham Aktieselskab (Honingham Aktieselskab)
- Date submitted
- 14 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
We have received limited feedback on requests although 12 months or so ago, there were numerous meetings to discuss the scheme. The Farm is large and private and the owners would like it to remain so. If the scheme is to proceed, they accept the broad alignment, but would have preferred the route to be further to the edge of the farm as it introduces noise and visual and land use intrusion further into the farm than is ideal. We have made it clear that we are keen to work with HE to agree how to mitigate the impact, but with less success than we might have expected. We are advised that there is an embankment between Wood Lane and [redacted] but not between Taverham Road and Easton roundabout, at Lower Easton. We have not been able to discuss proactively whether the embankment design is suitable and would have liked to ensure that the mitigation is as good as possible. We are advised the bank is 2m in height and HE provided some drawings, but which few people have been able to interpret. To assist, we have employed consultants to prepare visualisations to assess whether 2m height is sufficient or more or less than is required. In most places the height is too low and increasing the bank to 3m or in some places to 4m would make a significant improvement in the future reduction in noise and increase in privacy and limit the reduction in value. Some places benefit from more height to a greater extent. We have requested discussions about the design of the embankment and will still be pleased to discuss it. There are two principle areas along the route where there will be no visual screening, so we have requested 3m high fences at carriageway level to minimise the impact of high sided vehicles. We would benefit from screening with fencing between Taverham Road and Easton Roundabout to enable the tree planting to become established. There are gaps in the embankment at the [redacted] entrance and south east of [redacted] where we suggest the banks should be extended. There is a local roads closure order proposed, which will impact upon the farm traffic gaining access to owned land north of the river as the farm access is along Honingham Lane. The farm needs a private right or for the road to remain open to enable access, but this has not been discussed. The [redacted] entrance was discussed around 12 months ago or more. We advised that the underpass needs to be a minimum of 5m in height and wide enough to provide a public right of way separate from farm traffic. We have not had confirmation that this is agreed, although we have provided evidence that 5m is necessary for articulated lorries. We have had no discussion about the specification for the modified farm access but it should be no less good than the existing roadway. Other accesses are not available for articulated lorries without building a new road across the farm, at vast expense. We have requested discussions about gates, hedges and fences but not agreement. The water supply to [redacted] will be cut off and we have not received confirmation that the meter will be moved to the north of the scheme works. Access to the fields north of the Lower Easton stretch of road needs to be provided, but is not yet allowed for as far as we are aware. We remain keen to deal with as many of these issues as we can outside of the Inquiry, but do need more co-operation.