Representation by The Ramblers, Penrith Group (The Ramblers, Penrith Group)
- Date submitted
- 12 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Non-statutory organisations
This representation is made on behalf of The Ramblers for the Cumbrian section of the scheme. We have no comments on the principle of the scheme, or on the route selected, but have looked at all the rights of way affected, and seek one significant change. Scheme 03 rights of way and access plans sheet 1 & draft DCO page 85. We want access to the Countess Pillar for walkers from the B6262 road. The existing access to Countess Pillar is from the B6262 near its junction with the A66, a point easily reached from Penrith on foot or cycling. The proposed access can only be used by motorists who have driven to the site of the former Llama Kharma café. A length of new footpath from the south side of the Brougham Accomodation Bridge, east to the Countess Pillar is needed. Otherwise walkers will only be able to reach the Pillar by walking on the verge of the A66 from the B6262 junction. For all the other rights of way in Cumbria affected by the scheme, we have no objections to the proposed changes, subject to the comments below. For scheme 06 Appleby to Brough the routes of the new paths on the rights of way and access plans are hard to read, as the symbol for a new right of way seems to be missing in many cases, and there seem to errors in some of the descriptions. Draft DCO page 96. A*, new cycleway, should read “in a generally south-easterly direction”, and cycleway is not shown with new right of way symbol (as it is for scheme 03). Draft DCO page 97. Bridleway 372024 has new route with letter B*, but this is not shown with the right of way symbol on plan sheet 1 and inset 3. Draft DCO page 97. Footpath 372022. The descriptions of new paths D* & F do not seem to make sense, though they are clearly shown on the plans. Draft DCO page 98. Footpaths 372013 & 372014. The sections of new path (G* & H*) under the Cringle Beck viaduct are not shown with the symbol for a new right of way on the plans. Draft DCO pages 98-9. Footpath 372021. The description for the new path (J* & K*) does not fit what is shown on the plan, and again the symbol for the new route is not clear. Draft DCO pages 99-100. Footpath 372020. Should the symbol on the plan show right of way? Draft DCO page 102. Footpath 329001. The length to be closed should be reduced, as we need to retain the connection between the path and the new B1066 (existing A66). We assume this was intended, but is not mentioned in the draft DCO schedule or marked on the plan.