Representation by Martyn George Farrell (Martyn George Farrell)
- 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 between Temple Sowerby and Kirkby Thore. 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 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 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 is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plans located on my clients land. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Objection to the current design of the private means of access which connects the old A66 to Priest Lane. The access road uses up excessive agricultural land which is already vital to the sustainability of our client’s farming enterprise. The design should be amended so that the route from the old A66 is moved across one field boundary to the East so that it borders two sperate landowners and thus leaves farmable sized blocks of land post construction and a natural ownership border. The grid references for the proposed access relocation will run from NY 62785 25880 to NY 63009 26175. This will also avoid any conflict with the Intermediate Pressure Cadent Gas main which is to be laid directly upon the current proposals. 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. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to New Bungalow. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be privacy and security issues to Newlands Bungalow which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route. 7. Business Concerns and Other Matters We object to the landform proposals and suggest that the proposed A66 is lowered to avoid the requirement to build the road up. The current proposals will reduce the quality of the remaining agricultural land. Serious concern about the noise, light and vibration impact of the proposed design on the caravan site business. The business currently has permission for 50 sites between permanent sites and temporary touring caravan sites. The current single carriageway road runs parallel to New Bungalow and the caravan site and as such the noise and light continues on that trajectory. With the upgrade to a dual carriageway and with the curvature of the proposed route, the noise, light and vibration impact will be significantly increased as the trajectory intersects across the caravan site. The proposed A66 design will have a negative impact on the Low Moor Caravan site business as it will not be visible or directly available from the A66 as it is now, this will reduce the custom from passers-by.