Representation by Dr. Antony Richard Leeming (Dr. Antony Richard Leeming )
- Date submitted
- 19 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT [Redacted] ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF Dr ANTHONY LEEMING AND LADY ELIZABETH LEEMING ______________________________ 1. Dr Anthony Leeming and Lady Elizabeth Leeming (“the Representors”) are the registered proprietors under title No.CU33471, and are the owners of other unregistered land, at [Redacted] and the surrounding Park, small parts of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 1, the Land Plans at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation map 1, the following plot numbers are being sought to be acquired permanently. Plots nos.0102-01-06, 1020-01-07 and 0102-01-50 for the purposes of visual screening, landscape integration and an attenuation pond and drainage therefrom (“Area 1”). Plots nos.0102-01-14, 0102-01-17 and 0102-01-22 for highway works and landscape integration (“Area 2”). Plot no.0102-01-34 for nature conservation and biodiversity and an access route thereto. (Area 3) 3. The Representors say that there have been wholly inadequate pre-application consultations having regard to the special nature of their property as described below. The Project and the associated planting and other proposals do not appear to recognise the parkland landscape of the Skirsgill House and Park and do not appear to have had the benefit of any cultural or landscape expertise. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project or to the principle of locating the attenuation pond in Area 1, if such a pond is necessary. The Representators do make the following representations in respect of the three Areas identified above, and each of them. 5. Areas 1, 2 and 3: First, [Redacted] House (Grade II listed) and the surrounding grounds and parkland were developed as a single concept from the 18th century, and extensive tree and shrub planting in the 20th century has created a very special area of parkland containing many unusual arboretum species providing texture, colour and dendrological interest which will be seriously affected by the proposed land acquisitions. The acquisitions will seriously diminish and harm the parkland concept that surrounds a house of some historic and architectural interest. The proposed replacement and mitigation plantings recommended under the ES 3.2 will be wholly unsympathetic to the existing wooded areas that contain a mixture of both native and non-native species, deciduous and non-deciduous. 6. Second. to the extent that any part of these areas is proposed to be acquired only for the purpose of planting trees and shrubs, it is not necessary that the said parts of these areas should be compulsory acquired as the Representors are prepared to give rights in the form of restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant these areas in a manner sympathetic to the parkland concept mentioned above. 7. Third, that any plantings in the said areas should be sympathetic to the house and parkland concept and should not be constrained by planting native species only. The Representors suggest that the species to be planted should be agreed with National Highways. 8. Fourth, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the parkland concept noted above. 9. Area 1: First, the Representors point out that the existing and adjoining highway is drained through this Area and the adjoining parkland to the River to the south through a 24” pipe authorised by an easement for the benefit of the Highway Authority. The Representors say that this 24” pipe should be used to drain the proposed improved highway to the River Eamont alternatively it should be used to drain the proposed attenuation pond. This would avoid any need to acquire plot no. 0102-01-06, and certainly plot nos.0102-01-07 and 0102-01-50 10. Second, if an attenuation pond is necessary, it is wholly unnecessary to acquire land in plot nos.0102-01-07 and 0102-01-55. Any requirement for rights to lay and drain through these plots can be granted by easement rights and permanent acquisition is unnecessary. Further, it is unnecessary to acquire the whole width of the wider part of plot no.0102-01-07 at its north-western end, and if it is proposed for planting, this is unacceptable as it will be inconsistent with the parkland concept described above. 11. Third, to the extent that any part of the land in Area 1 is required for visual screening or access, it is unnecessary to permanently acquire such land as the Representors can give rights in the form of restrictive and positive covenants to achieve the same. 12. There does not appear to have been any consideration given to the proposed drain crossing a Registered County Wildlife Site and a SAC/SSSI riverbank, which is inconsistent with those classifications. 13. Area 2: Whilst the Representors do not object to the taking of such part of the plots in this area to the extent that such part is required for highway works, they do object to the taking of additional land for visual screening (tree and shrub planting) for the following reasons. 14. For the most part the existing and proposed improved planting adjoining highway is at a level below that of the Representors’ parkland and as the only purpose of any proposed visual screen planting can only be for the principal benefit of their property, and the attenuation of noise, it is wholly unnecessary to permanently acquire land for that purposed or to limit plantings to native species only when the Representors are prepared to enter into restrictive and positive covenants to achieve any necessary plantings, and especially as existing plantings are said to be retained. 15. Area 3: The Representors make the following points. 16. First, the Representors are prepared to offer other areas of equivalent size within their ownership in the surrounding area for the purpose of biodiversity and mitigation plantings, and accordingly the compulsory acquisition of Area 3 is unnecessary. In particular a triangular area to the northeast of Area 3 in the corner between the River Eamont and the M6, which will have the additional benefit of improving visual screening. 17. Second, any planting in Area 3 would seriously harm the parkland concept as described above, especially as an alternative area has been offered. 18. Third, any planting in Area 3 should not be restricted to native species only as such a limitation is wholly inconsistent with the parkland concept mentioned above. 19. Fourth, if the offers made above are not accepted, the Representors say that the mitigation plantings can be achieved by the taking of rights only over Area 3, alternatively rights only over the access route to the planting area, and that permanent acquisition is unnecessary as the Representors are prepared to offer alternative sites or alternatively to give restrictive and permanent covenants as to planting. 20. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 21. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which do not appear to have been considered. IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT [Redacted] ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF Dr ANTHONY LEEMING AND LADY ELIZABETH LEEMING ______________________________ WALTON GOODLAND CHARTERED SURVEYORS, [Redacted] REF A M Walton FRICS