Representation by Christopher Bell (Christopher Bell)
- 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 near to Far Broom, Long Marton and land at Crackenthorpe. 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 the 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 plan located at grid reference NY 66579 22747. 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. 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 Far Broom. We object to this proposal. During heavy rainfall this culvert has the potential to flood Farm Broom farm steading and it 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. The suggestion would be to drain the land from the pond to the South towards grid reference NY 66501 22195, this will reduce the potential flooding of agricultural property. At grid reference NY 66015 24009, is this an open ditch or a culvert? 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) The current design of the A66 means that the current field access along the very Northern part of the three agricultural fields at Crackenthorpe is removed (Grid reference: NY 66842 22581). The access to the South of the fields from Crackenthorpe village is still required. Following on from the November consultation feedback and February consultation feedback this has not happened, and we still propose a new access track from the village to all three fields between the grid references NY 66169 22253 and NY 66590 22203. The design will require the removal of a disused brick-built railway bridge. This is required to facilitate full agricultural access to the land. If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways 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 the land at Crackenthorpe at grid reference NY 66862 22581. 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 Far Broom with the lay-by located at grid reference NY 66512 22894 which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route.