Representation by John Harvey Slack (John Harvey Slack)
- Date submitted
- 1 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East of Brougham Castle. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation There has been no stone wall specifications and maintenance obligations provided for the future of any new or relocated stone walls as part of the consultation. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation Object to the proposed drainage treatment area, in heavy rainfall and winter months, excess water travels South and reaches a storm culvert adjacent to Dinglefield. This coupled with the excess water from the highway will waterlog the intermediate field and cause significant agricultural losses. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There are numerous dual balancing ponds shown on the project. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Object to the private means of access which connects the Llama Karma café and the bridge crossing adjacent to The Countess’s Pillar between Grid Reference NY 54452 28958 and NY 54726 28951. There is no requirement for a tarmacked vehicular access road between these two points. This is using up vital agricultural land which is unnecessary and serves no purpose. Access to The Scheduled Ancient Monument (The Countess’s Pillar) can be taken on foot from the proposed Llama Karma Car Park along the proposed public footpath and also along the existing footpath from the West which will join in to the ‘Overpass footpath’ (detailed on the plan). No other landowners in the area have a requirement for this access track as all of the land is owned by our client. The other landowners can take direct access to their fields from the proposed Llama Karma car park. If PROWs are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. The proposed design of any joint access tracks was submitted within the second consultation window and submitted before the February 2022 deadline. 6. Other Matters During the construction, the road leading from the A66 past Brougham Castle Farm towards Clifton Dykes must be closed to the general public, this road can become dangerous at present when Kempley Bank roundabout is busy with drivers trying to find alternative routes. With the added pressure of construction, there will need to be a well-researched traffic management plan in place to account for the safety of all road users and pedestrians trying to access Brougham Castle.