Representation by Hammonds Estates LLP (Hammonds Estates LLP)
- Date submitted
- 3 November 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
A12 CHELMSFORD TO A120 WIDENING SCHEME DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER REPRESENTATIONS AND OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF DAVID AND STEPHEN BOLTON, GEARSTON LIMITED AND HAMMONDS ESTATES LLP These representations are on behalf of David and Stephen Bolton in respect of land owned at Boreham and Gearston Limited which has an option over that land and Hammonds Estates LLP, the owner of adjacent land at Hammonds Farm. The land of all three, which lies to the north and south of Junction 19 of the A12, is significant adversely affected by the proposals and the extent of land take. The proposal takes large areas of land in title and rights which are not necessary to deliver the scheme. Alternatives involving reduced or alternative land take and rights have not been fully considered or adopted by National Highways. The parties object to the acquisition and/or grant of rights in respect of plots 1/11a, 1/11c, 1/11d, 1//11e, 1/11f, 1/11g, 1/15a, 2/6a, 2/9a, 2/12a, 2/12b, 2/12c, 2/12d, 2/12f, 2/12g, 2/12h, 2/12i, 2/12j, 2/12l, 2/19a and 2/20a. These objections are to each and every individual plot, but also to the cumulative impact of these plots. The acquisitions are unnecessary and there is no compelling case for them. 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 David and Stephen Bolton own agricultural land to the east of the A12 just south of Boreham. As well as farming, other activities are carried out upon the land including: • A 300+ pitch car boot sale between March and November which has been operating for 27 years every Sunday and Bank Holiday Monday. • A game shoot for between 26 and 30 days per year. • Fishing lakes. • Agricultural buildings used for grain storage and drying and agricultural vehicle storage. • A weigh bridge. • 5000 sqft of commercial buildings used for B2 and B8 purposes. • Lorry repairs and MOTs. • Car repairs. • Car storage. • Catering unit. 1.2 All of these activities are directly accessed off the existing Junction 19 of the A12 and the proposals will directly impact upon the ability to carry out the activities and the access to them due to the configuration of the proposals, the extent of land taken by the proposals and the inadequate access proposals. 1.3 Hammonds Estates LLP owns and operates the land at Hammonds Farm to the immediate south and Gearston Limited (in the same controlling ownership as Hammonds Estates LLP) has an option to acquire. Hammonds Farm and the wider land area as a whole is under consideration in the August 2022 Chelmsford Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation document as a sustainable new large settlement/garden community for circa 4000 homes. It is therefore essential that the proposed alterations to the A12 provide not only for the current uses of the land but also for potential future development of the land as a sustainable urban extension to Chelmsford. To fail to do so would be to unreasonably neglect to future proof the proposals. 2. PROPOSED LAND TAKE 2.1 Significant areas of land are proposed to be taken impacting upon the operations of David and Stephen Bolton, Gearston Limited and Hammonds Estates LLP. 2.2 Plot 1/11a is proposed to be taken in title. It is an irregularly shaped large piece of land running parallel to the A12 for some considerable distance from south to north before turning eastwards to take a significant area of land within the farm holding. This land is all taken in title and the west east extent of the area proposed to be permanently taken within the farm for ecological mitigation and the access to that will permanently sever north south linkages across the farm. There is no justified reason why the link between the A12 corridor and the proposed land take for ecological mitigation should be taken in title as opposed to be a right of way. There is no compelling justification for the extent of the area of ecological mitigation proposed to be taken nor justification for the location chosen. 2.3 Plot 1/11e is proposed to be used temporarily. There is a north south link between it and Plot 1/11a which results in the severance during the construction period of a broadly rectangular shaped block of land to the immediate east of the A12. The purpose of the acquisition is unclear. Notwithstanding that, the north south linkage between Plot 1/11a and that area of land is wholly unjustified resulting as it does in the severance and prevention of access to adjacent land during the construction period. The activities identified at 1.1 above will be unable to be carried out during the construction phase. There is no reason or justification why, even if the acquisition of 1/11e was justified, which is not accepted, access to it cannot be gained within the corridor of land being compulsorily acquired along the A12. 2.4 To the immediate north of the southernmost roundabout on junction 19 of the A12, an irregularly shaped parcel of land is being severed by the proposals. There is no explanation or justification as to why that area of land should be severed in title. Land take to the north of the roundabout impacts upon the Generals Farm offices and the fibre optic boosting station. 3. OBJECTION TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND 3.1 It is for the Acquiring Authority to demonstrate that it has a compelling case for the compulsory acquisition of land. That compelling case must show that the acquisition of land is in the public interest and that the purposes of the acquisition justify interfering with the human rights of those whose land is affected. Whilst the scheme as a whole may be justified, it is equally necessary to justify each individual proposed parcel of acquisition. That involves, in amongst other matters, demonstrating how the land is proposed to be used, and if the acquisition is proposed to be permanent why that is necessary. 3.2 The test which the Acquiring Authority has to satisfy is a high one, whether it is necessary to compulsorily require land in the public interest. Lord Denning MR said the following in Prest -v- The Secretary of State for Wales [1982] 81LGR193. “It is clear that no minister or public authority can acquire any land compulsorily except the power to do so be given by Parliament: and Parliament only grants it or should only grant it where it is necessary in the public interest. In any case, therefore, where the scales are evenly balanced – for or against compulsorily acquisition – the decision – by whomsoever it is made – should come down against compulsory acquisition. I regard it as a principle of our constitutional law that no citizen is to be deprived of his land by any public authority against his will unless it is expressly authorised by Parliament and the public interest decisively so demands. If there is any reasonable doubt on the matter the balance must be resolved in favour of the citizen”. 3.3 The gravity of the position was further emphasised by Lord Justice Slade in R -v- The Secretary of State for Transport Ex Parte de Rothschild [1989] 1 RE933 where he gave “a warning that, in cases where a compulsory purchase order is under challenge, the draconian nature of the order will itself render it more vulnerable to successful challenge”. 3.4 Those high bars are not met in relation to the proposed compulsorily acquisition of Plot 1/11a and Plot 1/11e. The evidence does not justify the acquisition in those terms. 3.5 It is our clients’ case that the: • Need for the extent of the land take for drainage, ecological and landscape mitigation is not proved. • It is not proven that there are no other alternatives which would have less impact on the existing land uses. • The design fails to take account of the impacts of the proposals upon the existing land uses. • The proposals fail to make provision for adequate access now and in the future to the land from Junction 19 of the A12. 3.6 The proposals as drawn have the following direct effects. • The access to the various activities on the land holdings is inadequate adversely impacting upon their ability to continue to trade, both during the construction and/or operational phases of the scheme. • The extent of land lost and/or severed has a significant impact upon the accessibility of and utilisation of the farmland. • The proposed land take directly adversely impacts upon the car boot sale by taking a significant part of the land which is utilised for that purpose. During the construction phase the car boot sale will be unable to operate. • The extent of temporary land take and construction activities will have severe impacts upon the amenity of occupiers and users of the land holdings and the trading of existing activities over the 4 year construction period. • The layout and land take proposed should take account of the need to allow a direct connection for the Hammonds LLP land to the south of Junction 19 to that Junction. 3.7 In particular, there are deficiencies in relation to highways and transportation, evidence and ecological evidence. 4. ECOLOGY 4.1 The mitigation is not for local effects around junction 19, but for much wider impacts across the scheme as a whole. The level of biodiversity net gain proposed is not required by statute policy or regulation and consequently the need for acquiring so much land to deliver that level of gain is not compelling. There is no evidence to show that there are not other areas within the scheme that could accommodate ecological mitigation land without the same adverse effects on owners at the present location. A summary technical note by Stantec is provided. 5. TRANSPORTATION 5.1 It is not proven that the Junction 19 roundabout is capable of operating safely for the existing uses during the construction period or for existing and proposed uses during the operational period of the scheme. The lack of information and modelling means that the compelling case for acquisition is not justified. A summary technical note by Stantec is provided. 6. CONCLUSION 6.1 Our clients’ representations are summarised and illustrated in the attached two drawings prepared by Stantec. Appended to this are technical statements prepared by Stantec in respect of ecology and highways and transportation. In all of the circumstances the compelling case for compulsory acquisition is not made out and the CPO should not be confirmed in respect of the plots of land owned by David and Stephen Bolton, Gearston Limited and Hammonds Estates LLP. Andrew Piatt Partner/Unit Head Gateley Legal 3 November 2022 ------------------------------------------------------ Job Name: Bolton Family land, Chelmsford Job No: 332210660 Date: October 2022 Prepared By: K Stannard / R Henry – Stantec UK Ltd Subject: A12 to A120 Widening – Transport Representations 1. Introduction and Background 2. In August 2021, representations were prepared by Stantec UK Ltd (Stantec) on behalf of Hammonds Estates LLP and the Bolton Family in response to the Phase 2 Consultation for the A12 to A120 Widening Scheme. Both parties own land to the east of the A12 between Junctions 18 and 19. 3. The A12 Chelmsford to A120 widening scheme is identified within the Government’s 2015-2020 Road Investment Strategy (RIS1) and Road Investment Strategy 2 that Highways England (HE) are currently working to deliver. 4. This Note provides an updated representation, on our clients’ behalf, to the improvements proposed at junction 19 and the potential impact on our clients’ land. 5. Engagement has been ongoing since 2019 with Highways England (now National Highways) with a focus on how the proposals impact access to and from our clients land. 6. Access and Capacity at Junction 19 7. Previously, over the course of this previous engagement with National Highways, on behalf of the clients, Stantec requested clarity over how their land will be affected in terms of access and how it will continue to operate. 8. The previous requests to date have been for the provision of the following detail: • Detailed traffic modelling and capacity analysis of the roundabout junctions with the A12 which makes an allowance for future development at Hammonds Farm and considers the safety of the junction in light of the use of the site as a car boot sale. • Detailed geometric design of the access into the clients’ land including tracking. • Details of how construction phases may impact the land. 9. The full DCO Application and associated documents for the Scheme have now been submitted to PINS (ref: TRO10060). 10. The submitted information includes a number of documents relevant to transport including: • Transport Assessment (Ref TRO10060-000366) and supporting appendices; • Design and Access Statement (Ref TRO10060-000385); • Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report (Ref TRO10060-000374); and • Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan (Ref TRO10060-000391). 11. These documents and the General Arrangement Map Books (TRO10060-000470) provide further information about the traffic capacity assessments of Junction 19, the future layouts and the construction management plans. 12. Sheets 1 and 2 of the General Arrangement Map Book show the proposed layout at Junction 19. The plans now take account of the access into the site and Appendix A of the Design and Access Statement identifies the new access as “new and improved private means of access” as shown on an excerpt of the appendix plan below. It is assumed that vehicles travelling in and out of the Bolton Family land will continue to give way rather than a signal being introduced. 13. With regards to capacity, the Transport Assessment provides a summary of the junction modelling undertaken to test the capacity of the Junction 19 scheme proposals in 2027 (assumed year of opening) and 2042 (15 years post scheme opening). Appendix F provides the detailed outputs from the Vissim model of Junction 19. The Vissim model includes all three roundabouts within a single micro-simulation model. The “without scheme” tests include for the improvements at Junction 19 currently under construction as part of the Beaulieu Park commitments. There are “with scheme” assessments as well as assessments during the construction phases (2025). 14. However, whilst an access is shown into the Bolton Family land on the drawings, the transport modelling does not include the access arm within the micro-simulation model. There is no assessment of the performance of the access into the clients site in any of the future scenarios mentioned above. 15. In 2042 with the scheme, all three roundabouts are expected to operate with a level of service “C” defined as “stable flow condition, with moderate congestion” in Table F-18 of Appendix F. Plates F 1-10 and F1-11 show there is no queuing anticipated across the access to the Bolton Family land in the future year. 16. With regards to construction, queues and delays are anticipated to be higher than post-completion, although this is due to background increases in traffic over this time, rather than a significant amount of construction traffic routing via Junction 19. During the construction phase, part of the site adjacent the A12 (indicated by black hatchings) is proposed for temporary material storage (See Figure 2.1), as is a small part of the site north of the B1137 Main Road (See Figure 2.2). A small part of land north of the B1137 Main Road is also proposed to be used as a recovery bay (indicated by light green area). Figure 2.1 | Temporary Material Storage Areas adjacent A12 (Source: Construction Works Plan 1 Ref:TRO10060-000360) Figure 2.2 | Temporary Material Storage Area and Recovery Bay north of B1137 Main Road (Source: Construction Phase plan 2 Ref:TRO100600-000360) 17. During construction, narrowing of the Boreham Bridge will be required, footway access will be retained as far a possible throughout with lane narrowing implemented. Ring management (variable lane closures) will also be introduced at the Generals Farm Roundabout (i.e. the roundabout providing access to the Bolton Family land). 18. Request for justification from National Highways 19. The following requests remain based on the review of the updated information: • Request for details of capacity performance and safety at the Bolton Family land access, both as its current use and in the future with development, during construction and after completion of the Junction 19 improvements. • It is vital that the access into the site is designed properly at this stage, including demonstrating access is achievable for HGVs and the level of traffic at any given time for any of the existing given uses for the site (e.g. car boot). Safety for users arriving and leaving site must be demonstrated to be acceptable, as well as safety during the construction phases when haulage roads are running concurrently with site operations. It is not clear how the clients should continue to service their site during the construction period. • In our letter of 15 April 2020 we mentioned that we had previously discussed and agreed that National Highways would make allowance for future development at the Bolton Family land. The traffic model, although it includes a number of residential, employment and mixed-use developments, does not include the potential for future development of our clients’ land. Furthermore, neither does the traffic model include operational assessments of junction 19 in current and future years which we also requested, including for the access arm for the site. • The impact of construction traffic at the access to the Bolton Family land is unclear as this demand has not been modelled or quantified. How safe access will be provided during construction to and from the site, and whether existing operations are expected to continue or cease is not clear which is of great significance to the clients. • The established site of the Chelmsford Car Boot Sale, which is accessed off the southern arm, is a sizable operation. The traffic leaving the site would be a concern in respect of volume and the storage space available within the proposed signal scheme at Junction 19. There is also a safety issue around the signal operation and the traffic leaving the Car Boot Sale as this would be limited to the gaps generated in the inter-green periods between the circulatory signal stage and the stage for traffic entering from the B1137 Main Road. • Traffic generation is not obvious as there are several different operators that gain access via the southern arm, all of which are in addition to the agricultural use. Articulated lorries accessing the land which would be leaving loaded and may have difficulty in pulling onto the roundabout. When vehicles exit the site, travelling to the west of the A12, they need to cross 2 lanes to be in the correct lane and effectively 3 lanes to travel east on the B1137 Main Road. • Clarification is required on the width and users for the pedestrian / cycle routes east towards Boreham and the Paynes Lane Bridge. The route is interchangeably referred to as both a shared use footway / cycleway and then also a cycle track within the Design and Access Statement. To achieve this there needs to be sufficient off-set of the route from the carriageway and islands and crossing points need to be of sufficient width to accommodate cycle storage. 20. Currently without the consideration of the access within the modelling, there are a number of safety and capacity concerns which remain. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Job Name: Bolton Family land, Chelmsford Job No: 332210660 Date: October 2022 Prepared By: E Richmond, Environmental Director, Stantec UK Ltd Subject: A12 Consultation Representations – Ecology 1. Overview 2. In August 2021, Representations were prepared by Stantec UK Ltd (Stantec) on behalf of Hammonds Farm and the Bolton Family in response to the Phase 2 Consultation for the A12 Junctions 19 – 25 Widening scheme. Both parties own land to the east of the A12 between Junctions 18 and 19. The full DCO Application and associated documents for the Scheme have now been submitted to PINS (ref TRO10060). 3. This Note provides an updated Representation, on our clients’ behalf, to the improvements proposed at junction 19 and the potential impact on our clients’ land, specifically in relation to land parcel 1/11a which is identified as being required for essential ecological mitigation associated with the Scheme. 4. Engagement has been ongoing with Highways England (now National Highways) since 2019, with a specific focus on understanding the rationale behind the scale of ecological mitigation and why the specific location of land parcel 1/11a has been chosen over others. 5. Land for ecological mitigation 6. The General Arrangements Map Books (TR010060-000470-2.9)) identify the use of extensive areas of land adjacent or within close proximity to the A12 widening Scheme for the delivery of compensation, mitigation and enhancement, with a total of 46ha. This land currently includes land parcel 1/11a within the Bolton Family land. 7. Having reviewed the information in relation to Biodiversity associated with the application (Chapter 9 of the Environmental Statement (TR010060-000179-6.1), and Figure 2.1 Environmental Masterplan (TRO10060/App/6.2: Sheet 1), it appears that the mitigation identified within the Bolton Family land forms part of the proposed scheme-wide ecological mitigation provision, rather than being directly linked to effects of the scheme in the local vicinity. The habitat creation proposed is fairly extensive, with a mix of grassland creation, tree and shrub planting, new ponds and reinforcement of the ditch network. There remains no justification within the ES that habitats to be created or enhanced must be positioned within a certain location; nor a justification for the extents and types of habitats proposed. 8. Chapter 3 of the ES: Assessment of Alternatives (TR010060-000137-6.1) confirms that following a meeting with the landowner, the size of the mitigation area was reduced. Whilst this is welcomed, the land take is still substantial and the rationale for the mitigation area to be located in the Bolton Family land, has still not been provided. 9. It is also important to note that there is no legal or policy requirement for Biodiversity Net Gain provision for the proposed Scheme. Nevertheless, the applicant has sought to maximise biodiversity delivery, as reported in Appendix 9.14 of the Environmental Statement (TRO10060/APP/6.3). This demonstrates that based on the design and Order limits from April 2022, the current biodiversity unit forecast for area based habitat is estimated to be 25.01% gain in units, as compared to the baseline. This is substantially greater than the provision for the anticipated mandatory requirement to provide a 10% BNG, associated with the recent Environment Act. The metric which supports this calculation has not been submitted with the DCO Application. 10. Request for justification from National Highways 11. The following requests from 2021 therefore still remain valid, in relation to including land parcel 1/11a within the Order Limits: • National Highways must provide detail as to why Hammond Farm has been selected, the rational behind the size of the area proposed, and whether consideration of alternative locations for biodiversity compensation, mitigation and enhancement has been made; • National Highways must provide detailed information to justify why other apparently suitable land has been discounted; and • National Highways must consider whether, if there is no suitable alternative land available within the vicinity of the A12, there is a strategic mitigation solution that could be utilised instead - i.e. financial contributions into a strategic landscape scale habitat creation scheme.