Back to list A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project

Representation by Cllr Graham Simpkins

Date submitted
3 September 2022
Submitted by
Members of the public/businesses
  1. Unnecessary impact on individuals, properties, communities, and the local agricultural and tourism businesses through unnecessary and uneconomic land use. The impact on individuals and agricultural businesses will affect livelihoods and quality of life. A local couple in their 90s will lose their rural idyll and have it replaced with a dual carriageway, a new junction (Langrigg Appleby Brough section), an access road, sink ponds and an additional road directly to the north-west. 2) Negative impact on both landscape and environment, with negative impact on air quality, greater noise, increased light pollution and a multiplication of carbon emissions. The numerous access and egress points along this section will increase emissions, reduce safety and increase accidents. 3) There has been failure to consult adequately, to acknowledge or implement local preferences, and to consult key stakeholders. The limited consultation was merely information giving. I attended a number of these meetings where sensible comments and proposals were made; these were never included in the minutes, investigated or acted upon. 4) Weak rationale, poor value for money, economic benefits low, improvements to safety are questionable on the Brough Appleby section and if previous ‘upgrades’ are anything to go by are negative. The cost of the southern route design and delivery (Brough - Appleby) involves numerous junctions, slip and access roads (safety risks, increased emissions), and sink ponds. The route south was justified on the grounds that the north is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), but the minutes (PINS sec 51, Advice library, 17/03/2022) admit the initial boundary was arbitrary. 5) Inappropriate, some would say negligent, use of limited resources in a climate emergency. A significant alternative route proposal (northern route) has not been consulted upon despite local preference for this route. The fact this route could be delivered for a fraction of the cost (as no junctions would be required between Brough and Appleby) has not been considered. A reduction in junctions aids flow, reduces accidents and emissions - all considerations that should be considered in a project of this magnitude. (A survey by Warcop and Musgrave parish councils, Dec 2020: change.org petition generated 914 signatures showing a preference for the northern route). Recommendations in 2019 from the key stakeholder, Friends of the Lake District (FOLD), opposing the dualling and pointing to research that challenged the view that safety was better on dual rather than single carriageways, was ignored and FOLD was not consulted. 6) Potential flooding and undoubtedly vehicular congestion in villages and towns during and beyond construction. Significant land will be lost to impermeable surfaces exacerbating flood risk in an area that already suffers from regular flooding. 7) Poor justification for the scheme: Not justified in terms of safety, despite public perceptions (Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report), the main beneficiary being the transport and logistics industry along with their clients. This proposal if delivered will impose considerable cost on the local community which is based on agriculture and tourism. Poor value for money: economic benefits to the local economy virtually non-existent. Certainly not a Levelling Up initiative as the reverse is the likely outcome.