Representation by Thomas Chappelhow (Thomas Chappelhow)
- 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 Northwest of Appleby-in-Westmorland at central point grid reference NY 67290 21964. 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 Following the construction period, some of the land is currently designated as ‘EFD’ which is a Reptile translocation receptor site Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The main farming business is a dairy enterprise and this land is used for grazing young cattle and therefore this could continue to cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. 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. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) A private means of access is required from the my clients to connect in to both the North and South sides of the proposed Roger Head Farm Bridge at approximate grid reference NY 67270 22101. The dimensions of this bridge must be sufficient to accommodate large farm machinery. Cattle handling pens must also be provided on the North and South side of the proposed overpass to facilitate the handling of cattle. Cattle are notoriously difficult to handle and these will be required from a welfare and safety perspective. The pens and fencing must be cattle proof as this will allow for farming activities to continue. If PROWs are to be imposed on the access tracks alongside any private means of access 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. Accommodation Works and Other Matters The cattle handling pens at approximate grid reference NY 67107 21764 appear to be affected by the environmental mitigation and will need to be relocated with an access over the ‘proposed ditch’ from the access track to the balancing / attenuation pound to allow for normal field access.