Representation by Rachel Pinniger
- Date submitted
- 3 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Registering as an individual to be greatly affected by the upgraded road. Concerns and objections:1) Impact on individuals, properties and communities 2) Impact on landscape and environment, air quality, increased noise and light pollution, carbon emissions, dust, tyre and road particles on edible crops. 3) Failure to consult adequately, to implement local preferences, and to consult key stakeholders. 4) Economic benefits reduced for some, improved safety not guaranteed. 5)Inappropriate use of resources in a climate emergency. 6) Potential flooding and congestion in villages during road-building 7) Potential infringement of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. 8) Problematic first iteration of Project Speed: National Highways apparently infringing their licence. Impacts: I live at (REDACTED )in my own small dwelling as my only home and also partner in Dyke Nook Community Farm. The road will come uncomfortably close, with a sink pond, new access junction, road to a road-construction site, widening of verges and drains , will reduce the farm property by at least ? and enclose us in roads, particularly during construction. My home will certainly lose value. The purposes of, and benefits from, the community farm will be curtailed, and potentially be dangerous for children and vulnerable beneficiaries. Increased noise pollution (up to hearing impairment levels when working outside as demonstrated by a noise-reduction demonstration during an NH consultation), and due to construction works, increased speed limit, more, faster traffic. Reduced air quality impacting respiratory problems and safety to eat of edible farm produce, increased light pollution affected sleep levels and those with mental health problems. Purposes of and benefits from community farm curtailed; potentially dangerous for children and vulnerable beneficiaries. Cost of route design to taxpayer: route south of current A66, involves additional junctions, slip and access roads, justified because north is AONB, but minutes (PINS sec 51, 17 March 2022) admit initial AONB boundary was arbitrary. The Appleby-Brough and Temple Sowerby sections account for 50% of costs of the route. Benefit Cost Ratio is 0.92, thus unacceptably low. Poor quality of consultation and information: significant alternatives (northern route, Appleby-Brough, or upgrade to single carriageway) never offered to public, despite the support of elected representatives and local people for the northern route (survey, Warcop and Musgrave parish councils, Dec 2020: change.org petition (914 signatures). Recommendations from stakeholder, Friends of the Lake District recommending upgrade to single carriageway and challenging arguments that dualling is safer ignored. FOLD not consulted. Secretive additional supplementary consultations Jan-March 2022 and others-targeting specific residents when compounds (for example) are a general issue. Poor justification: Improved safety not assured, despite public perceptions (Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report), Mainly justified by greater connectivity for business (national not local). Economic benefits minuscule. Ugly roadworks erode attractiveness as a tourist destination. Local delivery and farming traffic will negatively impacted. Climate emergency and environment: destruction of beautiful landscapes, alternative routes could open stunning landscapes to travellers. Infringement of Equality Act 2010/Human Rights Act: benefits targeted more to big business rather than smaller property owners.