Representation by Constance Blackett-Ord
- Date submitted
- 22 August 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I would like to register as an interested party, as a local resident and outline my objections to the proposed A66 scheme. 1. Environmental- It has been calculated that the proposed scheme would increase traffic growth and carbon emissions by 2,190,452 tonnes over its lifetime and additionally increase emissions from its construction by at least an additional 518,562 tonnes. We need to be instead investing in rail for freight and rural public transport. 2. Impact on wildlife and nature. This huge development will negatively affect the local environmental through destruction of habitats, ecosystems and increased air pollution. 3. Safety – The A66 is indeed a dangerous road but instead of creating a faster route, and so increasing the severity of accidents there should be average speed cameras along the whole length. 4. Loss of archaeological and cultural landscapes. The proposed route runs mostly on top of or closely beside the existing ancient road. The developments would destroy many archaeological sites, historic buildings and fields which have sprung up along this important road. 5. Increased air, visual and sound pollution- This would be particularly acute where the new road is being planned between the access/existing road and the villages due to the numerous extra flyovers and tunnels. Many houses will become unliveable in due to their proximity to the roads. 6. Increased traffic during developments – Where will the traffic go during the works? Inevitably through the villages which will significantly impact road safety especially outside schools, where due to the lack of pavements many families feel forced to drive their children to school. 7. Flooding. The increased tarmac along the valley will increase the already high risk of flooding along the Eden Valley due to the loss of pasture. This is a time of Climate Emergency and more extreme weather. 8. Cost- At a time of huge economic uncertainly this is a gross miss use of public money. The money needs to be spent instead on schools, public transport, the NHS and social care. Furthermore, the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report shows that the scheme has a Benefit Cost Ratio of under one and therefore which is classed as “poor” value for money by the DfT’s Value for Money Framework. This shows the scheme would cost more than it would ever deliver in benefits. In general, I disagree with the proposed road strongly, with the possible exceptions being for bypasses for villages such as Kirkby Thore. My particular interest lies along the Brough to Appleby stretch. Here if a road must be built it should be built to the north of the existing road over MoD land. Much of this is already concreted over or covered in a monoculture of conifers with no consideration for the ANOB status so why should the road be constrained by this? Some of the above issues would be lessened by the road being routed ½ a mile plus north.