Representation by Norman Cowin (Norman Cowin)
- 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 current proposals are to demolish the property known as Green Barn at Kirkby Thore and the agricultural land immediately adjacent is also affected. 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 proposals currently require that Green Barn is to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. A further issue is that due to the red line boundary there is very limited agricultural land owned by Messrs Cowin where any replacement building could be relocated. Discussions with adjacent landowners have currently been unsuccessful. At present the current designs will cause severe hardship on the farming business. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. 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 The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards British Gypsum. During heavy rainfall this culvert floods out onto my clients land and is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. 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. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) An additional private access must be provided at the Grid Reference NY 64782 25917 to allow for sheep to be moved safely out of the land and to the North. This access is essential for both the safety of the general public and the livestock.