Representation by Cathy Harrison
- Date submitted
- 4 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
I am a local resident and use the A66 Monday to Friday as I work in Appleby. I object to the A66 proposal for a number of reasons. 1. The proposed route at Kirkby Thore is longer than the existing route. This is inevitable more expensive to build and will increase my daily fuel costs. Given the rising cost of fuel increasing journey time is unacceptable for road users. 2.The case to a longer route appears to centre on reuniting the village of Kirkby Thore. I drive this road daily. There are at most 10 houses built along the A66. Set against the no of properties in the village this They are outside the village and separated from the village by the existing A66. AS the existing A66 will remain and these houses will remain as currently situated the suggestion that we should spend what appears to be 500 million on this section of road to improve the integration of 10 houses. This must be a very small percentage when compared to households within the village and cannot genuinely justify the spending. I understand the proposed southern route would have run to the south of these house and achieved the same result so this justification is hard to understand particularly given the he cost. 3. The Kirkby Thore section creates the highest CArbon emission. On construction alone the GHC emission assessment is 602,166 tonnes. When compared to the direct alternative where carbon emission were 177,268. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. Why are we spending more money to cause more global warning. 4. As a user of the A66 access to the BP filling station is vital. As I do not travel through Penrith it is an invaluable resource to local residents. It will inevitably close or I would have to cut through the village of Kirkby Thore to get to it. How can this loss of a local business be justified especially given the cost of going north