Representation by Alston Farms Ltd (Alston Farms Ltd)
- Date submitted
- 17 June 2021
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Respondant: James Alston Submission is made on behalf of James Alston as shareholder and director of Alston Farms Ltd, parent company of Ebony Holdings Ltd as owner of the property known as [redacted] (Hereafter referred to as the Estate) and partner in Honingham Thorpe Farms. The Estate extends to circa 421 ha (1040 acres) of what is primarily high quality agricultural land used to grow a wide variety of cereals and high value root crops. The farming business is carried on by Honingham Thorpe Farms (HTF) which is a farming partnership owned and operated by the Alston family. The shareholders of Alston Farms Ltd are partners in HTF, thus creating a synergy of interest and representation. HTF farming operations are based at Colton, some 5.7km by road to the south of the Estate. Access is simple being via Blind Lane, crossing the A47 and north up Taverham Road into the heart of Ringland. It is acknowledged that these roads are narrow, as is typical of most rural highways, but they have been suitable for use in the past and should remain so in the future. There is no record of an RTA involving HTF arm machinery using this route. An additional benefit of this route is that it does not pass through any residential areas and Ringland village itself can be circumnavigated used Estate tracks. The greatest weight of traffic is during harvest time, which for the Estate can span across a large period of the year as the different crops grown will come to harvest at different points through the year. The pressure is not just concentrated around the usual cereal harvest period of July and August. Field scale potatoes have an average yield of 48t/ha (varying year or year) and some main crop varieties can push towards 60t/ha. With a 1 in 5 rotation there will be an average area of 80ha of potatoes on the Estate. This gives a potential crop of 3840t to move back to HTF base and stores at Colton. An average trailer will hold 16t of produce, meaning 240 round trips (480 vehicle movements) per year between the Estate and HTF. This is in addition to any other root crops that might be grown on the Estate and the cereal crops. The proposed road layout will push this traffic onto Church lane, where it will interact with the FEP traffic, through to Easton Church junction, back along the spur road to the grade separated junction to pick up Taverham Road. A journey that will be 2.7kn longer, create conflict with traffic on Church Lane, increase large vehicle traffic through Easton, increase pressure at the Easton Church junction, cause added disturbance to the use of Easton Church and clash with the proposed residential development on the southwest side of Easton. It is inefficient, disruptive, and illogical. Consideration should be given to the working hours of a farm and how this will interact with the residential areas. The respondent believes that Blind Lane should remain available as a private means of access to join the southern Honingham spur off the grade separated junction, near where the potential future FEP access might be. The southern access to Blind Lane could be close to public traffic, a link created from the HTF roadway at Red Barn onto Blind Lane to preclude public access and then the Honingham spur could be joined at the most suitable point. There is potential interaction with the FEP and the potential access point and it is considered possible for the two uses to be combined. Nobody could rat run through the FEP and down Blind Lane as they would only end up in HTF yard, they could not join Church Lane. The farm access at the northern end, where it interacts with the FEP, could be separately gated and fob controlled to add further security. Highways England have stated that this is not possible, and that Blind Lane should be closed as it is not fit for purpose. They consider it is agreeable to push all the traffic onto Church Lane, through Easton and past the Church and on to joint the other local traffic at the grade separated junction. The respondent contests this and requests that their proposal is given consideration for the benefit of the respondent and the inhabitants of Easton