Representation by Louise Taylor-Kenyon
- Date submitted
- 2 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
There are differences between the final consultation documents given in March 2022 and shown on the A66 Northern Trans Pennine route website in the Map Book, and the plans sent to the Planning Inspectorate in June. This is not acceptable to anyone who is affected by these plans. Despite the Planning Inspectorate agreeing that the application meets the legal threshold for statutory consultation there are a number of issues that have been flagged up which need further examination; I note that this has been commented on in the procedural letter and that a full statement of principle areas of disagreement will be made and taken note of. I do not currently live in the area affected but my elderly parents do; from the start of the project our family home has been shown as an isolated island almost entirely surrounded by land that will be permanently acquired for the scheme. ([Redacted]) . The plans for this section are some of those that are different in the application from the consultation documents. My family have lived here since 1952, and it is hard to see how our home is going to remain habitable, and how 2 people in their 90s can be expected to live through this level of disruption. I have a duty to object to this; like many others on the southern side of the A66, I do not understand why the southern route has been preferred to a northern route. We were told at consultation that this was not possible as it would encroach on the Northern Pennines AONB. A cursory look at the AONB website shows that the strip of land to the north of the A66 at this point is merely a buffer zone for the main part of the AONB, and has no outstanding features in it. I question whether National Highways has actually discussed this issue in any depth with the AONB partnership. From an engineering and cost point of view a northern route would be preferable, and would not encroach on the Unesco Geopark, but NH has decided on a route that will be more expensive, that involves complex engineering to ensure that that inhabitants of the numerous settlements to the south of the A66 have local access routes and access to the new road, and which has a significant negative impact on their lives. The argument that MOD/Crown land would need to be acquired seems spurious given the amount that is already needed for the current scheme. Dualling of the A66 is necessary, and this situation has arisen partly because the 'difficult' sections have been left until last, but the number of people and homes affected, and whose lives will be disrupted does not justify the refusal to consider a Northern route, let alone the clumsy way in which local people's homes and needs appear to be ignored.