Representation by John Chilcott Lindsay
- Date submitted
- 30 October 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
To the Inspector, The Planning Inspectorate. Sir, [Redacted] Adjacent to the proposed new Junction 24 [Redacted] is a 250 year old period cottage located 100 metres SSE of Park Bridge and is clearly identified on the A12 DCO Submission, Volume 2, 2.15, Construction Phase Plans (Part 2), Sheet 14. It has been my wife’s family home for 85 years and is very dear to her and also to me. There have been a number of consultations, changes of plan and supplementary consultations since the A12 Widening Scheme was first announced in 2017, some of the early designs for Junction 24 even positioning a roundabout directly on top of our cottage. Extracting the relevant detail from National Highways’ regularly changing proposals, responding to the many consultations together with the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the final plan has already blighted our lives for several years and taken its toll on us even before any work has begun. The red line delineating “order limits” abuts our boundary on three sides. The widening of Park Bridge and the construction of the wholly new Inworth to Marks Tey section of 6 lane highway, together with a large “lay-down area”, borrow pits and associated haul roads are all in extremely close proximity to [Redacted]. We shall be totally surrounded by all this work for a period of at least 3 years, with all the attendant problems of noise, dust, light pollution and general disturbance, affecting our sleep at night and the enjoyment of our home and garden during the day. My wife and I are both 75 and we were looking forward to enjoying the remainder of our retirement. Instead, we are finding our situation very stressful indeed [Redacted]. National Highways representatives have told us that because our property is outside “order limits” there is no prospect of any compensation for blight caused by the construction phase nor for the depreciation in the value of our property should we decide to sell, although quite clearly no one would wish to buy the house at market value in the current circumstances. This is patently most unfair and is now a serious threat to our mental health and wellbeing. We have no wish to move at present and, should the A12 Widening Scheme not proceed for any reason, we shall look forward to remaining at [Redacted]. However, should the Scheme go ahead, we expect that circumstances will force us to move in order to preserve our health and sanity. With even less prospect of being able to sell the cottage at that time, I respectfully request that you instruct National Highways in those circumstances to offer us discretionary purchase. In addition to being very close (significantly less than 100 metres) to this major and lengthy road construction project, we have some specific concerns. Should you wish to understand them in greater detail, they are: HAUL ROADS November 2021 – Land Use Plan CH 30700 TO 32200, DRAWING 14, part of the November 2021 Supplementary Consultation, showed a single Haul Road crossing the B1023 Inworth Road midway between Columbyne Cottage and Park Bridge. Volume 7, 7.7 Outline Construction Management Plan, 9.20.4 states that this Haul Road will be used, amongst other things, to carry aggregate from Borrow Pit J, on the opposite side of the B1023 from Columbyne Cottage, to the works area to the East of Inworth Road. July 2022 – Volume 2, 2.7 Land Plans, Sheet 14, shows that land is to be permanently acquired for a Track running from the B1023 and behind Columbyne Cottage to the site of a proposed Attenuation Pond (14/3k refers). Volume 6, 6.2 Figure 14.4, Environmental Statement Existing Fluvial Flood Risk, Sheet 8, shows the proposed Attenuation Pond with a green line running along the aforementioned Track. The Legend shows that such a green line represents “Private means of access and pond access tracks”. August 2022 – Volume 2, 2.15, Construction Phase Plans (Part 2), Sheet 14, show that the Track mentioned above has suddenly, and without consultation, been upgraded into a second Haul Road running immediately behind Columbyne Cottage, thus meaning that the cottage now has Haul Roads on three sides. Furthermore, these same Construction Phase Plans fail to show that access to the start of this latest Haul Road can only be achieved by making use of the B1023 in either direction but logically starting at the crossing point close to Park Bridge and thus turning the B1023 itself into a Haul Road proceeding past the front of Columbyne Cottage, meaning that it is indeed now totally surrounded by Haul Roads on all sides. In addition, this creates a second Haul Road crossing of the B1023, a protracted crossing that involves heavy vehicles and plant driving along a significant length of a busy public road with the attendant hazards of noise, mud, dust and traffic congestion. With regard to the Noise nuisance from the Haul Roads running past and around Columbyne Cottage, Volume 6.1, Environmental Statement Chapter 12.9.34 states: “The noise from the use of haul roads has not been included within the construction calculations since it is considered to have negligible impact. This is because the haul roads are either located alongside the A12 where the noise level is already high, or they are located away from receptors”. Columbyne Cottage is not located alongside the A12 and most certainly is a receptor. Whilst this last-minute conversion of the Track into a Haul Road may be a useful convenience to National Highways, I respectfully request that you refuse its use in this way and that you insist the Track remains a Pond Access Track. The original Haul Road heads East from Park Bridge and it must be possible for National Highways to amend its route through land that is already destined for major upheaval and to spare the agricultural land immediately behind Columbyne Cottage from Haul Road traffic. In addition, such a refusal would remove the heavy vehicle disruption to general traffic on the already very busy B1023 and also make a very significant reduction to the noise, mud and dust nuisance to Columbyne Cottage throughout this lengthy Construction Phase. PARK BRIDGE LAYDOWN AREA This is to be a 4,400M2 area for equipment and materials with possibly some Portacabin accommodation. It is on higher ground than Columbyne Cottage, on a level with our bedroom windows and only 80m distant. The compound will be lit at night “for night-time works and for safety and security reasons”. Working hours are set out in Volume 6.1, Environmental Statement, Chapter 2, 2.6.70, to be “between 07:30 and 19:00 between Monday and Friday, and between 07:30 and 18:00 on Saturday. During the summer months, the working hours would extend to 07:00 to 21:00 to make use of the longer daylight hours. In addition, there would be an hour before and after these times for site set up and close down”. Meeting Notes following a site meeting at Columbyne Cottage 24 August 2022 state the above hours but add “with summer extensions and exceptions where 24hr working necessitates, plus night-time working where required to support bridge works. Some activities such as security and pump maintenance will be 24/7”. During the summer months, Columbyne Cottage is faced therefore with likely disturbance from 06:00 to 22:00 with additional 24/7 activities and 24hr working when necessary. I respectfully request that you instruct National Highways to move this Laydown area 200m further West and position it in, or close to, the Temporary Materials Storage Area in that location which is still convenient for the Haul Road. Not only would this remove the various and considerable disturbance issues further away from Columbyne Cottage but also it would benefit the elderly resident of Park Farm House and the associated offices and businesses located nearby. BOUNDARY LINE WITH THE B1023 Volume 2, 2.7 Land Plans, Sheet 14, dated July 2022, shows the “order limits” red line running along Columbyne Cottage’s front boundary with the B1023. Aware of National Highways’ plans to improve the B1023 to accommodate the expected increase in traffic by widening the road in certain places, my wife sought early assurance from National Highways that our boundary hedge would not be disturbed. On 9 June 2022, she received an email from National Highways that included the statement, “When it comes to your further enquiry about impact of the A12 scheme on your property, we can reconfirm that there is no direct impact on your property (National Highways’ bold text)”. On 29 June 2022, in other correspondence National Highways added, “As long as the hedge is within the boundary of your land and not on the highway, it won’t be disturbed”. Following a site meeting 24 August 2022 with two representatives of National Highways (Costain), their Meeting Notes stated, “…… from an engineering perspective, it would be very unlikely that the hedge would need to be disturbed, however at this stage it could not be guaranteed 100%, whilst noting that the Order Limits would not allow works beyond the registered property boundary”. During an earlier site meeting, another Costain representative had set out the boundary line between [Redacted] and the highway as being, “in accordance with Land Registry data”. Whilst Land Registry data clearly identifies the ownership of pieces of land in general terms supported by small scale plans, these plans lack any surveyor quality detail or any measurements that could be used to define an exact boundary. My wife’s parents bought [Redacted] in 1938 and we have all the title deeds dating back to 1924 that show [Redacted] abutting the highway. Almost certainly, the hedge pre-dates WW2 because my wife can remember it from her childhood. Almost certainly also, the hedge was planted by earlier occupants of [Redacted] and they will have planted it on their land and not on the highway. Had the hedge been planted by those responsible for the highway, it would extend either side beyond [Redacted] frontage which it does not. All the above is intended to show that the hedge was planted on land belonging to [Redacted] and not on the highway. Thus, the centreline of the hedge is not the boundary line. Very likely, the boundary lies along the highway kerb that was installed within the last 20 years to prevent ongoing erosion of the verge caused by increasing traffic levels. We have a series of aerial photographs dating back many years that show this erosion of the verge over time. Furthermore, the Land Registry also states: “The boundary of land abutting a public highway or a private right of way extends to the centre of the public right of way, subject to the rights of the highways authority who will usually have adopted the surface. However, the owner of the land will own the subsoil, theoretically to the centre of the earth, and the space above. Where the highways authority have adopted the surface they are liable for the upkeep of it. This presumption is subject to contrary agreement, which would normally be evidenced in the Land Registry documents”. There is no such evidence in our Land Registry documents. One significant final point, the Meeting Notes from the site meeting 24 August included the following Action, “Consider inclusion of the hedge retention in an agreed ‘Position Statement’.” Once again, I respectfully request that you instruct National Highways to note these facts regarding our boundary line and to respect the Order Limits, better still to include hedge retention in an agreed Position Statement. NOISE The Meeting Notes of 24 August explain that the widening of Park Bridge will involve sheet piling, with the piling rig on the A12 carriageway above and therefore the work very likely carried out at night. Additionally, night-time closures of the B1023 may be required to install new bridge beams using cranes. Although the Notes state that advanced notice will be given of the works with details of what to expect, duration and mitigation measures, it is difficult to see what can be done to mitigate the noise nuisance at night. Volume 6.1, Environmental Statement, Chapter 12.9.15, Tables 12.17 and 12.18 show the predicted Construction Noise Levels during the day and at night. In Work Area G, which includes Kelvedon Bypass Widening and Junction 24, noise levels are predicted to be above the Significant Observed Adverse Effect Level (SOAEL) as a result of Road Surfacing during the day and both De-Vegetation and Road Surfacing at night. Again, it is difficult to see what can be done to mitigate these noise nuisances. Of much greater importance, with regard to post-Construction Noise the same Meeting Notes state that, in order to reduce noise, “the current concrete surfacing on the Kelvedon Bypass will be replaced by modern bituminous surfacing reducing the associated noise levels”. However, contrary to the above assurances, Volume 6.2, Figure 12.4, Additional Noise Mitigation, Sheet 4 shows no red line representing “Low Noise Surface with enhanced noise reducing properties”, along this particular length of the A12, different from all other Sheets 1, 2, 3 and 5 all of which show long lengths of Low Noise Surface. I respectfully request that you instruct National Highways to ensure that the A12 in the area of Junction 24, together with this section of the new Kelvedon Bypass, are also constructed with the “Low Noise Surface with enhanced noise reducing properties” and that Sheet 4 is redrawn to show this. Thank you for your patience reading all of the above.