Representation by Residents of Northgate Farm (Residents of Northgate Farm)
- Date submitted
- 30 October 2020
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
As the homeowner of [], I am writing to highlight the detrimental impact that the A1 scheme will have on my family home and the local environment that we have enjoyed for over 25 years. As our family home sits adjacent to the A1 at the [] of the scheme, the plans directly impact upon the household in a number of different ways which includes compulsory procurement, loss of access rights, loss of key benefits and damage to the local environment. Although we are realistic in recognising that a project of this scale is inevitably going to have some negative impact, we have been disappointed by the scale and the detrimental nature of the planned changes. Our main frustrations stem from knowing that there are good cost-effective alternatives that do not have such a negative impact but still fulfil the end objectives of the scheme. Having been actively involved in the consultation process from day one, we were optimistic that our early engagement would help shape the plans to mitigate the worse of the impact. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in this endeavour and in responding to this Examination stage there is a sense of frustration that the plans have been imposed upon us rather than with us. This frustration is further fuelled by our not understanding the reason behind some of the planning decisions. At the time of writing we are waiting on feedback to the PIER consultation submission in May 2020 and the Land Take submission made in July 2020. Both raised key concerns and highlighted specific shortcomings with the plans documented at the time. Although we have a number of specific concerns, too numerous to detail here, I thought it useful to share a couple of the simpler examples as illustration. In our last meeting with WSP on the 2nd August 2019 we were informed that the latest plans had been revised to include the provision for an operational depot and soil dump to be established directly west of the property. In addition to our concerns on dust, light and noise of a depot the plans included the construction of additional access roads, removal of a pathway and the felling of a large number of deciduous trees in a pleasant wooded area. When we asked why the depot was being placed near a cluster of houses and not further up the road at one of the over passes in the scheme there was no explanation available. Similarly, in June 2020 we received our first indication of the compulsory Land Take required to complete the works which prompted us to highlight 24 different concerns in writing. If our interpretation is correct then the scale of the compulsory purchase and the level of incursion is far greater than we were led to believe in previous consultations and will undoubtedly have a further negative impact on the property and its integrity. Other planning decisions which we do not understand but which have a better alternative, include: 1. The placement of a layby close to the property. 2. The plans include unnecessary public purse spend to construct a tarmac road to the local woods when only farm access is required. 3. The position of the new entrance to our property is less than optimal and creates a number of problems and constraints. 4. The plans have an unnecessary negative impact on the local woodland when other options are available. 5. The decision to build two separate access roads to serve a cluster of houses. 6. The plans only include provision for a short sound barrier leaving large parts of the property exposed to the new dual carriageway. 7. Removal of the pathway running alongside the A1. In summary, we believe that there are specific elements of the current plans that are not optimum and that there are cost effective alternatives available which would mitigate the impact upon the property and the environment while still meeting the scheme objectives.