Representation by Anthony Meynell (Anthony Meynell)
- Date submitted
- 17 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
INTRODUCTION 1. This relevant representation is made on behalf of Mr Anthony Meynell (‘the Owner’), in respect of the application made by Highways England (‘the Applicant’) for development consent for the dualling of the A47 North Tuddenham to Easton (‘the DCO’). 2. The Owner is the registered freehold owner of land known as [redacted], Honingham, Norfolk (‘the Estate’). The Estate has been in the Owner’s family since 1948. 3. The Estate comprises some 125 acres/50.5 ha of land in use as a small agricultural and forestry estate. It is situated to the west of the village of Honingham and approximately 8 miles west of Norwich. The northern boundary of the greater part of the Estate is the existing A47, to which the Estate benefits from a private right of way (to be stopped up without substitute); at its eastern end the Estate abuts a section of the former A47 known as Dereham Road. 4. The whole of the Estate is designated by the Treasury as being of outstanding scenic or historic or scientific interest, pursuant to s.31(1)(b) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 (‘ITA 1984’). The designation confers upon the Estate conditional exemption from certain taxes e.g. inheritance tax and capital gains tax, on death or in the event of certain authorised disposals (eg to a member of the family or to a heritage body such as the National Trust). The purpose of the designation, however, is to ensure the continued management and maintenance of qualifying property in private hands, and continuing public access to the assets, so that they may be secured and conserved for the benefit of the public as part of the nation’s cultural heritage. Consequently, although a private benefit accrues as a result of the existence of the designation, the designation is made for public interest reasons, in the public interest. 5. There are fewer than 350 such designated national heritage properties or estates in the whole of the UK. Other well-known examples include Blenheim Palace, Chatsworth House, Bamburgh Castle, the Holkham and Houghton Estates in Norfolk, and the Syon Park Estate in west London (the last being the only designated asset in London). These examples will give the Examining Authority an indication as to the quality required of qualifying property. As a condition of this statutory designation as a national heritage asset, which was made in 2003, the Estate was at the same time made subject to a bespoke Heritage Management Plan (‘HMP’), which has been funded by the Owner placing cash and assets into an irrevocable settlement (the ‘Maintenance Settlement’) approved by the Treasury and designed to secure the Estate’s improvement and preservation. The Owner’s stewardship of the Estate since its designation, and the management of the Maintenance Settlement, each in fulfilment of and compliance with the HMP, is subject to periodic monitoring by Natural England (‘NE’). As noted above, as well as complying with the HMP, the Owner is required to provide opportunities for public access to the Estate, and disposals are subject to restriction to ensure the continued maintenance of the Estate in its designated condition. 6. The principal residence on the Estate, [redacted], is, additionally, Grade II Listed (List entry No. 1306730). A further structure on the estate, a C18 icehouse, is the subject of another, independent Grade II listing (List entry No. 1077350) (This is a separate listing and not part of a group with Berry Hall, as appears to be suggested in Doc 6.1 Environmental Statement – Chapter 6 Cultural Heritage at [6.7.24].). Other properties within the Estate boundary are used as tenanted dwellings and one for holiday letting, and the income from these supports the maintenance of the Estate. 7. Within the Estate is [redacted], built in the 1950s as the Estate’s second residence. This property is now let to a charity, Childhood First, as a residential children’s home which cares for severely traumatised children. Its freehold ownership (subject to the tenancy to Childood First) has been transferred by the Owner to the Maintenance Settlement. The property now forms the principal asset of that settlement and the income derived from the letting to the charity is devoted to the maintenance of the Estate. It is understood that the Charity Trustees and Childhood First’s Managers are in separate discussions with the Applicant concerning the effect of the proposals on Merrywood House and the children living there. 8. The Estate falls within the Order Limits of the DCO. It principally comprises Plots 9/1a, 9/1b, 9/1c, 9/1d, 9/1f, 9/1g, 9/1h, 9/1i, 9/1j, 9/1l, 9/1m, and 9/2a. Some of these plots are required permanently, whilst others are required only temporarily, or temporarily subject to the later acquisition of permanent rights. 9. The Owner has participated in two prior rounds of consultation: the non-statutory consultation undertaken by the Applicant in April 2020, and statutory consultation undertaken in January 2021. The Applicant’s response to the points raised in the statutory consultation are addressed at pp.27-30 of Annex O to the Consultation Report (‘Annex O’), to which further reference is made below. SUMMARY OF THE OWNER’S CASE 10. Although the Owner is supportive of the principle of the DCO, and the aims it seeks to achieve, he objects to the application in its current form. 11. The application fails to take into account the heritage significance of the Estate, consistent with its designation by the Treasury as described above. There is no acknowledgement in any of the application materials of the status the Estate enjoys, and/or any consideration of the implications of the DCO for that status, and the features that have led to its designation. The effect of this potential loss is not principally complained of because of the impact upon a private beneficial tax arrangement (though that disbenefit does fall to be taken into account), but because the public interest in preserving and maintaining the Estate in its outstanding present form and in the condition envisaged by the HMP, as reflected by the designation, would be compromised. 12. The failure to have regard to this matter is in direct conflict with the requirements of the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017, the National Networks NPS (particularly Section 5) and the NPPF (particularly Section 16), as well as the freestanding requirement to take into account (Figure 2.1 (Doc 6.2 Environmental Statement Figures] identifies the Grade II listed buildings as environmental constraints, but is silent as to the designation of the wider Estate under the ITA 1984) all relevant material considerations. It further represents an environmental constraint not taken into account in the consideration of alternatives (to which we return below), and a matter not assessed in the Applicant’s consideration of the compelling case for temporary and permanent acquisition of the affected land. 13. This failure has arisen notwithstanding the matter having been raised with the Applicant in the previous rounds of consultation referred to above. The Applicant’s response to the issue of designation as set out in Annex O refers only to their having taken into account the separate Grade II listings of Berry Hall itself, and the Icehouse, suggesting a fundamental failure either to understand or grapple with the point raised. 14. The DCO will see the temporary loss within the Estate of 12ha of land (c.27%) and a permanent loss of 3 ha (c.7%) (Both figures taken from Doc 6.1 Environmental Statement – Chapter 12 Population and human health (where the Estate is identified as Holding 10), and have not yet been verified by the Owner.), with the works resulting in the loss of or substantial harm to its arboricultural and landscape interest and historic integrity – features for which it was designated. It seriously risks compromising the ability of the Owner to comply with the HMP. These unacceptable impacts expose the Estate to the loss of its designated status, and consequently conflict with the public interest in securing its preservation and enhancement for the benefit of the nation. 15. The Owner considers that an alternative option could see the route alignment in proximity to the Estate sited on less sensitive land, to the north of the existing A47, which would either avoid or reduce the impact upon the Estate, and consequently the adverse effects of the DCO generally, including as-yet unassessed heritage-related harm. 16. This option would also have the benefit of avoiding or reducing the unacceptable effects on the agricultural holding (identified as number 10 in the ES Chapter Population and Human Health), which even on the Applicant’s assessment are identified as being “large adverse” during the construction phase and “slight adverse” during operation – effects which the Owner considers are likely to underplay the significance of the impact upon the present agricultural tenants and the future viability of the working agricultural unit, which forms a vital part of the Estate and is integral to its character. The Applicant’s assessment will be challenged on that basis. 17. The need to accommodate a junction in the location of the Wood Lane/Berry’s Lane junction, and the impacts it might have, was not a matter that can have informed the selection of ‘Option 2’ as the preferred route alignment, no junction being proposed at the location at the time that the option selection was undertaken. 18. The prospect of the alternative option referred to above has previously been raised with the Applicant who has so far declined to consider it on the basis that it would require an alteration to the red-line boundary, which had been selected prior to the identification of the need for the Wood Lane junction as just described, and would therefore result in programme delay. This is not an acceptable response, and is evidence of an inadequate consultation procedure, with the Owner being denied an opportunity to influence the scheme design at a sufficiently formative stage. 19. The availability of an alternative which would have fewer adverse impacts is particularly significant in the context of the Applicant’s case for compulsory acquisition. In short, no compelling case can be made out where (as here) such a reasonable alternative exists. 20. Other material inadequacies in the Applicant’s claimed compelling case can be identified – most notably the failure to acknowledge, seek to mitigate and otherwise take into account the substantial public and private disbenefits flowing from the impact upon the designated Estate, and also the total absence of any attempt to acquire the land or rights required for the DCO by agreement, even by way of option (as is commonplace on other major linear schemes) or conditional sale. 21. The Owner will consequently contend that, in view of the above matters, no compelling case for acquisition of his land has been made out. 22. In light of and in a manner consistent with the above, the Owner intends to participate in the Examination and make representations in relation to the following topics: a. Cultural heritage; b. Ecology;. c. Population and human health; d. Alternatives;. e. Adequacy of environmental information; f. Adequacy of consultation; and g. The case for compulsory acquisition. 23. The above is based on the best information presently known to the Owner. In the short time available since the commencement of the consultation, it has not been possible for him to obtain all the professional input he may wish to secure. The Owner therefore reserves the right to amend or supplement these representations as appropriate during the course of the Examination. NEXT STEPS 24. In light of the above, the Owner considers that it is necessary for the Applicant to revisit its chosen route alignment. 25. The Owner would wish to be able to withdraw his objection to the DCO. This will however necessitate meaningful engagement by the Applicant so that changes to the scheme can be made that will enable the impacts upon the Estate to be avoided or, at the very least, reduced to an acceptable level, in view of its statutory designation. 26. The Owner and his representatives are willing to meet with the Applicant in order to discuss both the alternative proposals and/or what further mitigation/compensation may be possible. Appropriate fee undertakings will be sought for the professionals involved.