Back to list A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme

Representation by Royal London UK Real Estate Fund (Royal London UK Real Estate Fund)

Date submitted
4 November 2022
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Introduction 1.1. This relevant representation is submitted by Pinsent Masons LLP on behalf of its client the Royal London UK Real Estate Fund (“Royal London”). 1.2. Royal London owns land interests within the Order Limits which are directly impacted by National Highway’s A12 Chelmsford to A120 Widening Scheme (the Proposed Development). In particular, land which would be subject to powers of compulsory acquisition of rights and imposition of restrictive covenants (article 30 of the draft development consent order [AS-020]) and temporary possession powers (article 40). Royal London is also the landlord of Edmundson Electrical, the current tenant and occupier of plot numbers 1/10f and 1/10g. 1.3. Royal London objects to various parts of the Proposed Development for the reasons set out in this representation but reserves the right to raise at a later stage any issues beyond those considered below. While there has been some initial engagement from National Highways in relation to the impact of the Proposed Development on Royal London’s land interests, the parties have not been able to reach any agreement on the principal issues. Royal London is ready willing and able to continue to engage with National Highways in respect of the Proposed Development but will maintain its objection until those issues have been satisfactorily resolved. 2. Consultation 2.1. Royal London received an email from National Highways on 21 July 2022 which contained a plan and the suggestion of a meeting between National Highways and Royal London. Further information was sought by Royal London in terms of the scope of the Proposed Development but it did not become fully aware of the proposals and the extent of the potential impact on its land interests until after an initial meeting with National Highways’ advisors on 7 September 2022 in which National Highways introduced the Proposed Development and parts of the land interests affected. Royal London has now also received the required section 56 notice from National Highways and letter dated 20 September 2022 following acceptance of the application by the Secretary of State under the Planning Act 2008 (the 2008 Act). 2.2. Under section 42 of the 2008 Act, an applicant is required to consult with landowners about a proposed application (by virtue of section 42(1)(d) and section 44(1)). Table 1.1 of the Consultation Report [APP-045] summarises the ‘consultation activities’ undertaken by National Highways, to include statutory, non-statutory and supplementary consultation. Annex B of the Statement of Reasons [APP-042] indicates that Royal London has been provided with consultation materials in addition to correspondence regarding proposed negotiations over its land interests. This is not correct. 2.3. Royal London has not received any materials or correspondence beyond the email, letter and notice identified above. It has not been given adequate opportunity to provide its views during the scheme development process. 3. Alternatives 3.1. Currently Royal London is not satisfied that National Highways has given sufficient consideration to alternatives for those parts of the Proposed Development which affect Royal London’s interests (i.e. plot numbers 1/10a, 1/10b, 1/10c, 1/10f, 1/10g and 1/16a) and which could reduce the extent of the impact to its land and interests. Royal London requests that National Highways explains in detail what alternatives have been considered in respect of how the construction of, including access to, Work Nos. 1(a), U2 and U2A will be undertaken. 3.2. Royal London wants to be sure that robust optioneering and scheme development has taken place such that there are no unnecessary impacts or effects on its land, which could otherwise have been avoided. 4. Order Limits / geographic extent of land powers 4.1. Notwithstanding the above concerns, it also appears to Royal London that National Highways are seeking land powers under article 30 and article 40 of the draft development consent order over Royal London’s interests which go beyond the extent necessary for the implementation of the Proposed Development. 4.2. Royal London therefore seeks a detailed explanation from National Highways in response to this representation as to why National Highways requires land powers over the full geographic extent of each of Royal London’s plots within the Order Limits. This should include consideration of whether the size of the plots affected could be reduced. 5. Construction Traffic 5.1. The extent and frequency of construction vehicle traffic across local roads and private accesses is not currently clear and needs to be assessed in further detail. One concern relates to the proposed access works off Sheepcotes and Winsford Way related to the temporary possession of this land under Works Nos. U2 and U2A. 5.2. Sheepcotes and Winsford Way are not shown as falling within any of the categories of routes affected on the plans in the Appendix B in the Outline Construction Traffic Management Plan [APP-272]. That plan also states that a key objective of traffic management planning during construction is for HGVs to avoid “local roads as much as is reasonably practicable” (paragraph 1.1.6). Section 7 of that document explains the proposal for three types of routes: permitted, permitted with restrictions and excluded, as illustrated on Appendix B [APP-275]. 5.3. For the purpose of accessing and undertaking utility diversion works National Highways has explained that HGVs and construction traffic will be required to travel on Sheepcotes and Winsford Way. However, as referred to above there is no indication as to whether that possession will need to be exclusive, permitted with restrictions or permitted or how it is intended that occupiers of buildings using those accesses will be able to continue unaffected? There is also no indication of how long any temporary possession will be or impacts arising as a result of using those accesses for the Proposed Development. 5.4. Royal London requests that National Highways clarifies the position and gives an indication of the level of HGVs and construction traffic that can be expected on these roads. This needs to be provided in the context of paragraph 6.4.4 and Table 6.2 of the Transport Assessment [APP-253] which indicate that A12 Junction 19 is “heavily congested even before construction traffic is added”, with Boreham Interchange (South), which connects to Winsford Way, being over-capacity or approaching capacity in the weekday peak hours. 5.5. In addition, Royal London considers that the Proposed Development could have a significant impact on the ability of its tenant, Edmundson Electrical, to function effectively. This is particularly the case given they operate a distribution service and trade counter from that site with high levels of customer footfall which will be severely impacted by the access proposals as this is the only vehicular route in and out of the premises and any impact on access to and from the site will, therefore, have implications for their ability to trade. 5.6. Royal London is naturally concerned about the safety of the local roads in the context of increased numbers of HGVs and construction traffic and the ability of its tenants to access their properties during the works period. 6. Great Crested Newt (GCN) 6.1. A significant amount of ecological works has been undertaken at, and in the vicinity of, plot number 1/10b as shown on the Land Plans [AS-009]. We understand that a GCN licence may be in place at this location. Royal London wants to ensure that this species is protected appropriately in the context of the Proposed Development. It is noted that the Biodiversity chapter [APP-076] of the Environmental Statement indicates that there is a “slight beneficial” effect during the construction phase on GCNs (Table 9.29), and a “neutral” effect during the operation phase but it is not evident as to whether the licence restrictions and requirements have been taken into account or how the conclusion for a “slight beneficial” effect has been reached, for example, what protections are required during the works period. 6.2. Royal London therefore seeks confirmation from National Highways that the ecological works and GCN licence on and in the vicinity of Royal London’s land interests has formed part of the environmental impact assessment and will not be impacted by the Proposed Development. 7. Conclusion 7.1. Royal London objects to various parts of the Proposed Development for the reasons set out in this representation and reserves the right to raise at a later stage any issues beyond those considered in this representation. 7.2. Royal London and its advisers remain willing and able to engage with National Highways in respect of the Proposed Development and the Scheme. However, significant further detail and discussion is required in order to ensure that all alternatives have been properly considered, that only those interests and the extent of any temporary interests that are necessary remain included within the Proposed Development. It is also important that the extent of any access routes proposed to be affected are clearly indicated together with appropriate resolution of how any impact on existing occupiers is to be resolved.