Representation by Richard Hawker
- Date submitted
- 16 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Please can the following topics be explored in the examination. 1) Procedural - initial consultation was late and poor. Early offer to co-operate was declined. Only four options for the route. Difficulty of finding out information from Highways England. Not told of SoCC. Very little notice was given of statutory consultation. No time to publicise and obtain local opinion. Plans are difficulty to see on screen, and almost no chance of getting full-sized paper copies, especially during lockdown, yet project timetable hardly extended. Arrangement of hundreds of DCO documents difficult to understand. No time to read and digest properly before registration. 2) Cumulative effects. 4 large road schemes, very close together (an even more just a little further away), launched over almost the same period, prevents adequate consideration and scrutiny, particularly over cumulative effects. 3) Accuracy of information given. Preferred route announcement was headlined as Option 2, yet the actual route decided-upon was nearer the River Tud than the actual Option 2. This is misleading. 4) Need for the scheme. This has not been fully addressed in the DCO, especially bearing in mind government policy on modal shift and the need for carbon emissions. 5) Alternatives, both in routes and lower-cost road schemes, some offered by the public were not adequately assessed. 6) Access and PROW. Several are to be severed or massively diverted. Certain roads providing local contact are to be severed. Cycling routes very badly compromised 7) Landscape. Local tranquil areas devastated. Tud Valley landscape altered massively. 8) Environment. Huge threat to River Tud from run-off, and disturbance of habitat and earth during construction. 9) Public transport. So many roundabouts puts buses on potential routes through villages at a serious disadvantage compared with private car. 10) Impact on local road system not properly addressed; temporary traffic orders should not be relied upon to alleviate what could be a permanent problem. Nor can other, separate planned road schemes, whether or not considered ’near certain’ be relied upon to alleviate problem caused by the design of this road. 11) Lighting. Very little information. A serious issue for people in country areas who value the night sky. 12) Noise. Very little information, especially regarding impact on Hockering village residents, to show HOW their noise type may be affected (even if absolute values may be lower )– we are not told. 13) Costs. These have risen considerably since the start of the project. Some attempt should be made to assess realistically what a maximum final cost could be.