Representation by Lorna Baker
- Date submitted
- 3 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
My interest in the A66 is mainly about the length going past Kirkby Thore. I have two concerns: 1- The chosen route round Kirkby Thore is acknowledged to require a large amount of mitigation of the adverse effects on the population and this can and should be improved. 2- the project is progressing with a high input money, effort and carbon alternative because the team believes themselves to be locked in to an earlier decision. In 3.2, chapter 3 Assessment of Alternatives it says “Option E (Kirkby Thore Northern Bypass): Was considered to have a greater impact than Option F (Kirkby Thore Southern Bypass) in Cultural Heritage and in Population and Human Health. However, Historic England’s preference was to accept a greater impact to the setting of heritage assets to avoid direct impact to archaeology. The Population impacts were considered mitigatable.” For 1 – An effort has been made to mitigate the effects on the village population of being enclosed on three sides in close proximity by a dual carriageway. The noise mitigation relies almost entirely on the road being in cut and ‘false cut’. However, the eastern approach has a long length with no ‘cut’ between the road and the village and even crosses a long viaduct so the noise can travel across the low-lying Trout Beck flood plain to the eastern village. Acoustic fencing could help. Similarly at the north junction the slip roads rise to grade and the overbridge is at grade and only hedgerows have been provided as impact protection with as much as possible of the land being returned to agricultural use. This main access to the village and the Gypsum works will be heavily used and all traffic is very close to Sanderson’s Croft. Additional measures such as acoustic fencing and woodland are required to shield the Croft. To the south-west the length of the A66 passing the school has a minimal embankment and this could be increased or woodland provided For 2 - The calculation for the embedded carbon has been revised to give a much lower figure for the Kirkby Thore length than the previous documentation gave as it is stated a mistake was made in the original calculation. Exact comparison with the previously rejected Option F is difficult but presumably the much longer length of Option E and with the massive amounts of earthworks for both alignment and noise protection reasons must till be much more carbon heavy and more expensive. The northern route is additionally more than half a kilometre longer than the southern, which must add to the cost and carbon impact. If the southern route had moved slightly more towards the Eden the route would have missed the vicus of the Kirkby Thore Roman fort, the crossing of which was apparently the main reason for choosing the northern route. The northern junction is in deep cut on a curve and thus has very poor sightlines at a position where slow moving HGVs are joining the road. For safety, cost and crbon reasons is it worth reconsidering?