Meeting between Pins and Highways England on 6 July 2016
Please see attached meeting note

Highways England - anon.

I understand that the last date for registration of interested parties in respect of this scheme was 12th March. I have just been instructed by clients to act on their behalf in connection with the compulsory purchase of part of their land for widening of the A14.
Thank you for your enquiry. You are correct that the final date for making relevant representations was 12 March 2015, and unfortunately we are unable to extend this.

However, if your clients are listed in the Book of Reference then they will be considered as interested parties to the examination. The Book of Reference is on our website at [attachment 1]; the associated land plans which show the listed plots are at [attachment 2];stage=app&filter=Drawings ? type the document reference ?2.03? in the filter box.

If your clients? plot is not on the land plans, it is not required for the development. If your clients are not listed in the Book of Reference, but have an interest in land, they can register to become an interested party with this form [attachment 3].

If your clients are listed in the Book of Reference then we will invite them to the Preliminary Meeting; this letter will be issued in the coming month, and will be published on the page [attachment 4]. At the commencement of the examination they will be asked to provide a written representation. There will be further opportunities throughout the examination to provide comment in writing or at hearings into compulsory acquisition.

Pocock & Shaw - John Pocock

Mr Anderson wrote to the Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 29 January 2015 about the application for a Development Control Order for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme.

'Part of the plans feature a 10 lane stretch of industrial highway within 800m of the village of Brampton and its primary school. The traffic using the existing A14 probably carries the highest density of heavy diesel lorries in the country due to its primary function of conveying freight from Felixstowe to the M1.

There have been plenty of warnings concerning the effect on the health of populations living close to diesel emitting vehicles. Indeed the Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) has reports concerning the 29,000 premature deaths that occur in the UK as a result of diesel traffic. The Highways Agency (HA) seem to be totally unaffected by these warnings. Perhaps not surprising given their poor track record in planning other road projects in this area in recent years whereby they have totally misjudged projected traffic flows. Conservative estimates quote traffic flows for the new highway at 150,000 vehicles per day.

I recently attended a public meeting specifically concerned with the proposal to construct 10 lanes of heavy industrial traffic next to the village and the school and I pointed out the environmental issues highlighted by Joan Walley's committee. The school is currently undergoing substantial redevelopment to increase its size; it will virtually become a new school located within 800m of this planning disaster of a 10 lane highway. Some families predominately with young families are even closer to the planned highway.

The existing air pollution monitoring devices are located in the wrong position in relation to the proposed 10 lane route. The traffic flow measuring is apparently carried out by monitoring emissions from mobile phones carried in passing vehicles; this does not identify the exceptionally high percentage of heavy diesel vehicles - a large percentage of which are foreign. When questioned about the work of the EAC, the HA seemed to have little knowledge - just a wry smirk on their faces. The local government position is that the adverse impact on Brampton is a price worth paying for the 'bigger picture' whereby other communities will benefit...it is totally unacceptable that the health and wellbeing of the Brampton community should be put at risk...

Mr Anderson asks for the Secretary of State for Local Communities and Government to intervene in the planning of this 'potential environmental disaster'.
The application about which you raise concerns was submitted by the Highways Agency to the Planning Inspectorate on 31 December 2014. The application is for a development control order for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme under the Planning Act 2008, as amended by the Localism Act 2011, and it was accepted for examination on 27 January 2015.
An examining inspector or a panel of inspectors from the Planning Inspectorate will be appointed to oversee the examination of this application. The inspector or the panel will be known as the ?examining authority? during the examination. When the examination has closed, the examining authority will prepare a report on the scheme with a recommendation for the Secretary of State for Transport who will make the final decision on whether the order should be approved.

If you wish to have your views taken into account by the examining authority with respect to the proposed scheme, you should register to become an interested party during the examination. More information on how to register to become an interested party can be found at the following link:

[attachment 1]

The registration of interested parties for the examination began on 2 February and will close on 12 March 2015.

An advice note on how to register and become an interested party can also be found at: [attachment 2]

K L Anderson

Advice given following acceptance decision
attached

Highways Agency - Martin Clarke

I am writing as chairman of Madingley Parish Council which has land beside the proposed road improvement works. I would like to put my Councils thoughts to the Inspector at an appropriate time of your choosing and am happy to do this in person if the hearing is in this area or in writing if the hearing will be based some distance away.
Thank you for your interest in this application, your offer to participate is most welcome.

The Highways Agency have submitted an application to the Planning Inspectorate for a development consent order to authorise their project. My colleagues and I are in the process of testing this application, to determine whether it is fit for examination. We will make our decision about whether to accept the application on behalf of the Secretary of State before 28 January 2015.

If the application is accepted for examination, the Highways Agency will publicise a period during which parties are able to submit ?relevant representations?. This will be via the project page at [attachment 1], and will be open for at least four weeks. As a parish council which would host the proposed project, your clerk will be notified of this by the applicant. This will be the opportunity for you, on behalf of Madingley Parish Council, to put your views to the Examining Inspector(s) and register to participate in the examination. Once registered, there will be further opportunity to address the examination, including at hearings which will be in the vicinity of the proposal.

Further information about participating in our process is online at [attachment 2]; this includes a pdf advice note and an explanatory video. Please do share this with anyone you think will benefit.

Madingley Parish Council - Edward Byam-Cook

Request information about timetable for publication of application documents, start of examination and production of Local Impact Report.
My team and I are working through the application documents this week and next to check their suitability for publishing (personal information or sensitive environmental documents may need redaction). I expect that the full set will be published towards the end of next week.

Information about examination timescales is available on our website at [attachment 1]. Following this timescale, and taking into account the election period, our preliminary meeting could be in mid-May, with the six month examination proceeding through to November. This is, of course, subject to the application being accepted, and timescales are at the discretion of a future examining authority who has not yet been appointed.

Local Impact Reports are considered very important by Examining Authorities, and are generally requested early in the process. Most examination timetables require these at the first deadline, within a month of the preliminary meeting. More information about the production of Local Impact Reports is at [attachment 2].

Remember that the Local Authorities may submit relevant representations corporately, in addition to their more restricted role as a local planning authority. Cambridgeshire County Council members may also chose to provide relevant representations individually, or in political groups, to become involved in our examination.

I look forward to working with you and your colleagues over the coming months and am happy to provide further advice by phone and email to you or your members.

Cambridgeshire County Council - Andrew Munro

My list of questions is as follows:

1. Electronic file index (ref Advice Note 6 ? Annex, also as attached sent by you on 13/11) ? some electronic files (approx. five) from the ES appendices fall into two document types from the drop-down list, for example the EIA scoping opinion is as appended to the ES so this would come under the following two document types from the list:
a. ?Technical Appendices (part 14a)? and
b. ?Scoping Opinion/Direction (Part 14b)?
Should we list these files twice with each document type ? That is how we are proceeding at present.

2. Upload of application documents ? discussed this with Ken last week, he said that you would be writing to us to request permission to do this on receipt of application, when do you think you?ll be sending this, presumably an e-mail to be imminently ? Note the HA are aware and are okay with this, I just need to get the PM to confirm by return e-mail. Note also Ken explained that your IT people were being lined up to start the upload at 1400 on 31/12, I plan to courier the documents so you receive them after 1700 on 30/12, ie so you register receipt as 31/12.

3. Local authorities ? contact re adequacy of consultation ? when would you be contacting the LA?s on this ? I assume you?ll be writing to them imminently to alert them to the application dues on 31/12 so will you be actually writing to them on 31/12 as well ?

I also wanted to explain two issues re how we are dealing with two issues in the ES appendices re:
- confidential information not to made available to the public (eg badger and barn owl locations), and
- appendices with a large amount of data that is too big to print (I think this is all related to archaeological survey data)
These are both things we have discussed with yourselves at meetings earlier this year so I?m pulling some information together on this tomorrow morning and I?ll forward that tomorrow and give you a call later on tomorrow pm.
Thank you for your email. In response to the points you have raised I can confirm the following;

1: If the files are listed twice they will be published twice on the website, although this wouldn?t be an enormous problem it would be unnecessary duplication. In which case if you consider the scoping documents part of the ES I suggest you categorise them in that way. Ultimately we will review the index on submission and alter any document types in circumstances where we feel that they may not be properly displayed on the website.

2: On further consideration, it would be helpful to have your consent to upload the documents prior to submission so that we can get the documents uploaded as quickly as possible. In which case please consider this email a formal request for your consent to publish the application documents upon submission.
I note that you intend to submit the documents late on 30/12, this would be very helpful. If the documents were to arrive later than midday on 31/12 our IT staff may find it difficult to upload the documents within a reasonable time and in any event, 14:00 would be the absolute latest.

3: We have already written to local authorities to alert them to the submission date of 31/12, so they will hopefully have put resources in place. We will be writing to them again on 31/12 to formally request their comments on the adequacy of consultation giving them 14 calendar days to respond, meaning a deadline of 14 January. You may wish to consider sending your consultation report directly to them, some authorities may find it helpful to receive the report prior to submission.

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Martin Clarke

Draft Documents meeting - See attached meeting note

Highways Agency Highways Agency

Dear Sirs

Proposed new A14 from Cambridge to Huntingdon

In view of the strength of feeling here in Hilton to the new road scheme, Hilton Parish Council has taken the lead and in a series of public meetings has collected the views of our parishioners. With a clear mandate we are now campaigning for a better deal for Hilton.
We believe that Hilton will be significantly, and adversely, affected by the construction and operation of this proposed new road.
We are writing following the close of the initial consultation period to express our concerns over the handling of the consultation process which, we believe, has not been carried out in accordance with the ?Planning Act 2008 ? Guidance on the pre-application process?. It is certainly the case that neither the Highways Agency, nor Jacobs as their agent, were able to answer any substantive questions, nor were they able to provide important data which would be necessary to enable an informed view to be reached by interested parties.
The choice of route
In our view, there has been no serious consultation on the choice of route. The presentations we have seen are deficient in the following areas:
? They make no reference to consideration of whether rail has a part to play, particularly to alleviate the freight transport issue
? Although six road ?options? were presented, all bar one are essentially the same route so it seems clear to us that the route had been pre-determined and there was to be no serious consultation on it, unlike the previous CHUMS scheme consultation where a variety of routes were considered.
? If the proposed route must be south of Huntingdon, no reasons have been provided as to why the route is quite so close to Hilton. We believe that the road could be constructed further to the north, without affecting adversely, other communities.
We believe that you should challenge the basis for selecting the proposed route as follows:
? A route to the north of the existing A14 has been proposed in the past (and, we believe, has the support of local communities such as Houghton and Wyton): HA should be required to explain why this did not even feature as an option during this latest consultation process, as over the intervening years much has changed in Cambridgeshire.
? Option 6, utilising the A428, seems to us to be the least disruptive option, yet the reasons for rejecting this option are unconvincing.
? The road could be constructed further to the north of Hilton and HA should be required to explain why they are not proposing this.
We also believe that HA should be required to disclose their assessment of why rail improvements do not form part of the overall considerations.
Mitigation measures
If the proposed route were to go ahead, the principal concerns of the Hilton community include the certainty of significant traffic intrusion and all forms of pollution; visual, noise, air quality and night time light. When we questioned Jacobs, they were unable to provide any data at all which would help us to reach a conclusion on the adequacy of measures to mitigate these issues before the consultation process ended. Since then we have received some drawings which confirmed our fears that the road will be elevated as it passes close to Hilton. In addition there are no effective mitigation measures shown, in particular bunding; essential to reduce noise or light pollution.
The ?Planning Act 2008 ? Guidance on the pre-application process? sets out a number of important criteria for an appropriate consultation process:
? ?Consultees will need sufficient information on a project? together with ?sufficient time to be allowed to consider detailed technical input, especially regarding impacts?. Jacobs have admitted that the technical inputs are still being compiled so it is clear that this guidance has not been followed.
? ?Local people are particularly well placed to comment on what the impact of proposals on their local community might be, or what mitigating measures might be appropriate; people should have as much influence as is realistic and possible?, yet we were told by an HA representative that only the minimum mitigating measures would be put in place, (now confirmed by the latest drawings). HA has demonstrated that it has made its decisions and we can only conclude that it has no intention of acting on the consultation.
Therefore, we believe that HA should be required to:
? produce appropriate data to enable a considered review of their proposals and
? consult further with local communities and other interested parties once the latter have had a proper opportunity to consider the data.
Next steps
As we understand it, HA has not submitted its application, and does not plan to until around October, although it could do so before then. We would wish to register as an interested party in order to continue to contribute to future consultations and would be grateful if you would note this.
Given the number of questions still unanswered for Hilton villagers, we hope you will consider our concerns over the consultation process which, in our view, has not been carried out in accordance with Government guidelines and lacks clarity. We are keen to enter into a dialogue and continue the consultation process in the spirit in which the planning Act guidance originally intended. We look forward to your response to this letter.
Yours Faithfully,

Peter Balicki,
Chairman, Hilton Parish Council
Dear Mr Balicki,

Thank you for your attached letter regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case officer, to respond.

This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage and the consultation period closed on 15 June 2014. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.

As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.

I note that you have requested to become an Interested Party. If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.

Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes which can be found on our website at the following link:

[attachment 1]

If you have any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Hilton Parish Council - Peter Balicki

A14 Consultation ? Spring 2014
We are writing to object to the proposed routing and also to express our concerns over the impact the new A 14 route would have on Hilton. In our view the consultation process can only be described as lip service. The booklet produced this spring to accompany the recent exhibitions did reveal a number of interesting matters.
There was no mention of Hilton or the impact of the road on our village, whether noise or air or flood risk nor does it consider the impact of traffic that will use our village as a rat run as a result of the proposed road layout.
The representatives at the exhibitions, Jacobs, did admit that "Hilton is one of the big losers" and stated that "there was no realistic chance of the route being changed at this late stage". The consultation will not give any serious consideration to the points raised by our community.
The proposed A 14 will be much nearer to Hilton than the existing one. We believe it could have been designed to be further to the North without affecting adversely other communities. We have been made to understand that the proposed bunds will be principally for visual effect. We need proper noise barriers, as used extensively in Europe. We also need the data in order to reach proper conclusions and we are told that such data is not yet available. We do not understand how the proposed route can be so advanced without these data being available.
In addition, under the current proposals, we will lose our westbound access to the existing A 14 at the 81040. There seems no persuasive reason as to why this should be the case, a situation that will only add to the traffic flow through the village.
Hilton is a small village which already suffers intolerable levels of heavy goods traffic. When so much is up in the air it is puzzling why this project is being pushed forward, before noise and pollution surveys and flood risk assessments have been completed. It seems that all the decisions have already been taken and we can only assume all the surveys will be made to fit the plan.
What is clear, however, is that Hilton has been sacrificed for the benefit of other parts of the constituency. We believe that there are several practical measures that could be taken, at relatively modest cost, to ameliorate the damage which will otherwise be done to our beautiful village and weurge you to implement them, in the event that the design of the scheme is not reconsidered.
We ask the Highways Agency to explain clearly, its decision to route the road so close to Hilton when it is open to them to move it further north and also for them to reconsider Option 6. We also ask the Highways Agency to complete their various surveys and assessments and consult again - in an honest and transparent way this time. And finally urge/insist that a permanent 24 hour HGV ban throughout Hilton is established prior to the commencement of any construction.
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period was 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Peter and Pauline Lee

Update meeting to discuss progress of the project
View meeting note- attachment

Highways Agency

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement scheme Statutory pre-application consultation

Iam writing to you as a resident of Hilton village which four miles south of St lves and approximately 1.5 miles south of the existing A 14. It is a village noted for its history and very old properties. It is also a village that has been noted in the A14 Improvement Scheme documentat ion as one of "the losers" (my words) in the Scheme due to the adverse and detrimental effects of the proposed route of the new A 14.The village and surrounding area is totally flat , the road will have a huge visual impact on the area and noise andenvironmental pollution will travel further distance than in towns and built up areas.

I have attended two local Highways Agency exhibitions where Iwas disappointed to find that the representatives from HA gave conflicting information to the public, each answer depended on the person you spoke to. In order to try and find out the actual facts I attended the consultation meeting offered by Hilton Parish Council on 8 May 2014 which was attended by a representative from Jacobs who also, unfortunately, was unable to answer many of the questions asked by local residents. The Jacobs representative did give a commitment to go away, search out, and provide, the information and cross sections we requested . To date it appears that this was an empty promise as I understand that the information has apparently not yet been provided. I can, however, understand the difficulty he must have encountered in gathering and providing this information because,as he so proudly told us, Jacobs are responding to the concerns raised during consultat ion and are "parallel planning" ,working in parallel, in order to achieve the tight deadlnes.The result of this is that there is still no definitive plan and the goalposts are constantly moving.

Despite the lack of precise Information forming the consultation process and the lack of commitment to giving accurate information, Iam expected to make my own comments on the proposals. Ifind this very difficult...... what are the definitive proposals? They move with the wind!!

I do understand the need to address the existing problems of the present A 14. There are frequent accidents and resulting delays and hold up to traffic. This affects local people on a daily ?basis when they are trying to go about their daily work, it affects people travelling long distances for work and pleasure...it is a nightmare and something DOES need to be done. It must have a devastating cost to the economy. In fact I'm absolutely amazed that local initiatives, costing far less than the proposed new A14 Improvement Scheme, have not addressed the problem areas years ago. Linking the A428 directly to the M11 would have helped. Creating a "hard shoulder'' for much of the Huntingdon to Cambridge route where it runs through open agricultural land would have helped. Making dual carriageway for the A 14 east bound sweep away from the start of the M11 at Girton Interchange would have helped. Lengthening and making a safe two lane "run in" from Spittals Roundabout (Huntingdon) onto the A14 eastbound would have helped. Each of these improvements would have changed the way in which the A 14 flows....each would have been a sensible traffic improvement.

The centre of the proposed route of the new A14, the "Huntingdon bypass" will pass just BOOm from our village. Each direction will be three lanes wide and there is likely (yet to be confirmed ... again.....I) a hard shoulder (a fourth lane in effect) ...all this will be projecting further towards our village.The present road from Hilton to St lves will be crossed by the new A 14, there will be a bridge, the bridge needs to have a safe straight access ......however the existing road bends and therefore it will need to be straightened out and therefore access towards the flyover/bridge is likely to start at the very edge of our village. It may not...who knows? At the Parish meeting on the 8th May the representative from Jacobs committed to providing parishioners with a "cross section" of the proposed route/bridge/bund so that we can see for ourselves what is planned. Height, width, distance. This has not been provided and I am unable to comment on the proposed route. Therefore I believe that the contractors and the Highway agency are in breach oftheir own process and I would ask you to Investigate this.

It appears, from the lack of support and interest from our local councillor and local mp (deliberate lower case letters shows the disgust in which I hold them), that the proposed route will go ahead. There is absolutely no interest in the outcome of consultation process, we were told that the expectation is that work on the new A 14 will have started by the end of 2016. Therefore I need to accept that it's "a done deal" and list my views on what is needed for the amelioration of the effects of the A 14 as it passes a few hundred yards from my home.

I have written to the Highways Agency with a similar letter to this, but I have listed in more the detail the environmental issues that, I believe, need not only consideration but also are absolutely critical and crucial to the safe future of this historic small village. I believe that amelioration of the effects of pollution from emissions, from noise, from light at night and from visual pollution need to be considered of paramount importance and should be written in to the final contract. To date, despite commitment from Jacobs, the parishioners have no accurate information about plans for amelioration other than a 1 metre for aesthetic purposes. I'm sure that you would agree that this is totally unsatisfactory and is no protection from the pollution caused by very heavy traffic on the new A 14.

I would ask you therefore to investigate what amelioration is being written into this contract and to ensure that there is a commitment to deliver it as part of the contract and not treat it as an option if there is any money left over at the end of the construction phase. As a community we desperately need your interest and involvement to ensure that the potential pollutants are limited and confined to no less than European standards and that life in this historic small village continues, unpolluted, into the future.

I look forward to hearing from you with regards to either your own comments or with directions as to where I should direct these concerns within the Planning Inspectorate.
Dear Ms Clark
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period was 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Susan Clark

I am very concerned about the situation with regards to flooding in Girton.I hope you realise that this has occurred three times recently and has caused major damage to properties.I am not confident that the measures you plan will be sufficient to cope with run off rainwater and would make the situation worse for householder in the future and pose a greater risk of flooding in Girton.
I am also unhappy about the increase in noise pollution. Is it possible to use low noise tarmac and also increase measures to screen the noise.
The proposals have negative impact on our village as already outlined and in addition access on entering and leaving the A14 is also worse
Dear Mr Hunter

Thankyou for your email regarding the proposed A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon scheme.

This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. The Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.

As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.

If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.

.Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have attached links below to two advice notes which may be of particular interest:

?Advice Note 8.1: How the process works?
[attachment 1]

?Advice Note 8.2: Responding to the developers pre-application consultation?
[attachment 2]

If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Bruce Hunter

Proposed A141mprovement Scheme

Iam writing to express my disapproval of the route and design of the new A 14. The cost has escalated above that originally used to prioritise schemes, the current route adversely affects the village of Hilton, the design seems to be driven by priorities around Huntingdon (which were not the stated objectives for the primary scheme), and the design does not effectively mitigate affects on Hilton, particularly noise and visual intrusion.

I have major concerns over the design itself, which include the proximity, scale and height of the carriageway and bridges. The bridges (of which there are many) will be 9 metres high only 800 metres from the village, which will have horrendous visual, sound, pollution and traffic impacts.

The plans used for consultation lack detail and do not answer questions about why the current design was chosen above other routes (in particular following the existing A 14) which is even closer to the village than the original design and why the construction needs to be so much higher than the existing A 14 (other than 'for drainage reasons').

In addition to the massively negative impact of the road itself, the construction phase will cause huge problems for the village, including construction traffic, and include unsightly contractors compound as well as borrow pits for gravel extraction.

Mitigation measures must be carried out to offset the impact. This as a minimum should include noise attenuation such as minimising the height of the road, using low noise road surfaces and providing physical noise barriers (not just bunds). The visual intrusion should be addressed by extensive landscaping and planting, to disguise the road and naturally integrate it with the rural setting. Numbers of bridges and their heights should be minimised. Flooding issues should be avoided by creating equivalent area lagoons elsewhere or other offsetting measures.

During construction no construction traffic (or diverted traffic) should be allowed through the village and there should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.

Baseline data should be established prior to commencement of the scheme and adequate
contractual mitigation measures should be included as a required part of the tender process
- not an optional extra. Traffic modelling should take into account realistic movements informed by local knowledge and future proposals. Quite clearly current models do not address this affectively.

Design should be led by the priorities for the scheme not landfill errors from the past (such as that at Swavesey) or bridge shortcomings (such as Huntingdon) .

To date little notice has been taken of the significant concerns of villagers. With each iteration the design has progressed closer to Hilton and risen further from the ground making the visual and noise intrusion worse. This has not been explained and no attempt has been made to explore more sensitive designs that take account of the views expressed in previous consultations .

With no consistency in the designers (or even design companies) the design has progressed without continuity and failed to take account early input and considerations to the detriment of Hilton.

The current design I option is not acceptable and should be abandoned but as a minimum pay far greater attention to mitigating the affects on the village of Hilton.

Whilst Iaccept that improvement to the A14 is important for the Country I County it is unfair for the scheme to negatively impact even more dramatically on residents of Hilton than is absolutely necessary, and this will certainly be the case unless sufficient funds and measures are put in place. In every phase of the proposal Hilton villagers concerns have been ignored, clearly demonstrated by the fact that each new proposal makes things worse.
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Martin Coleman

I am writing to register my concern about the design of the new A14 and the inadequate mitigation measures proposed for the village of Hilton. My woll'ies are mainly concerning the scale of the scheme in the vicinity of the village -the road itself will be 3 metres above ground level and the bridges will be 9 metres- only 800m away.

I cannot understand why the design is so much higher than the existing road; the answer given that it's to do with drainage is inadequate- I have never known the current A14 to
flood . The latest design is also even closer to the village than the original design- why is this necessary?

The impact on the village goes beyond the visual- the road noise, pollution levels and extra traffic through the village during the construction phase and afterwards will be disproportionately negative unless serious measures are taken ti mitigate them.

The mitigation measures must be guaranteed by including them as part of the tender process and need to include low noise road smfaces, ensuring that the height of the carriageway and bridges is as low as possible, natural banking of adequate height (including generous tree planting) as well as sound barriers for the length of the village. No construction traffic should be allowed through the village and there should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.

It is really important that these concerns are taken seriously and that the inevitably negative impact on the village is no greater than absolutely necessary.
Dear Mr Coleman
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Alexander Coleman

Re A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Scheme

As residents of Hilton, we wish to write to you in the strongest terms about the proposals for the Al4.

We have been to various consultatons of the years about the proposals but the current scheme is closer to Hilton than other proposals we have seen. The current route is less than 1km from the village in some parts, and the resulting impact on the village in terms of noise and general pollution will be excessive. Even with the A14 in its current position, the noise and air pollution is considerable.

Living as we do on the Graveley side of the village, the fact that thre is to be a rasied carriageway is also a cause for concern. From discussions at the various roadshows, we understand that the new carrigeway will be 2-3m above existing ground level. The increased noise will clearly therefore be worse and will travel further, not to mention the issue of light pollution. We further believe that there are to be bridges to cross the new road which will be up to 9 metres above ground level. This will completely despoil the area as a whole, with the visual impact.

As if the impact of this were not sufficient, the B1040 is to be straightened , thus increasing traffic speed and noise through the village. The traffic at the moment travels far in excess of 30mph and the traffic calming measures do very little to
alleviate this in their current form. Traffic through Hilton will also inevitably increase, as the shortest route between the Godmanchester junction of the Scheme and the St Ives area will be through our village, not to mention the issue of"rat-running" through the village.

We have been informed that there are to be local gravel extraction pits in or very near to the village in order to extract large amounts of gravel and the impact of these both visually and in terms of noise and dust will harm the environment. We should point out however, that of most concern is the fact that there seems to be a lack of precise and detailed information regarding the scheme which makes it hard to make any proper assessment of the impact on our lives and to make any detailed response/suggestions for compromise.

We had mentioned during the roadshows several years ago that the scheme should include plans to build the carriageway at the minimum height possible. The existing road is not elevated so we do not understand why the current scheme requires the carriageway to be so high. Our objections even to the current route, might be less if the road were lower as this would greatly reduce noise and light and would make our own personal attempts at screening far easier.

We hope to see plans at the earliest opportunity regarding the proposed banking and planting schemes, sound barriers, proposals re road surfaces and reassurance that any gravel pits will cease to be used when the road has been completed and that no construction traffic will be permitted through the village. Please also confirm that mitigation measures will be included in the design specification for the Scheme and that they are included in the tender process and become a fixed part of the Scheme.

We await hearing from you
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Mr and Mrs Sheppard

A141mprovement Scheme Protest







I am writing to protest about the impact of the design of the new A 14 and inadequate
mitigation measures on the village of Hilton in Cambridgeshire.

I have many concerns over the design itself, which include the proximity , scale and height of the carriageway and bridges.The bridges will be 9 metres above ground only 800 metres from the village, which will have horrendous visual, sound, pollution and traffic impacts.

The plans used for consultat ion lack detail and do not answer questions about why the current design is even closer to the village than the original design and why the construction needs to be so much higher than the existing A14 (other than 'for drainage reasons').

In addition to the massively negative impact of the road itself, the construction phase will cause huge problems to the village including construct ion traffic and compound sites as well as extraction of gravel from local Borrow Pits.

The mitigation measures must include low noise road surfaces and ensure that the height of the carriageway and bridges is as low as possible, with natural banking of adequate height (certainly more than the 1metre currently suggested), and including trees as mature as possible as well as sound barriers for the length of the village.

During construction no construction traffic should be allowed through the village and there
should be assurances that the borrow pits will be closed after completion.

Footprint data should be established prior to commencement of the scheme and adequate contractual mitigation measures should be included as a required part of the tender process
- not an optionalextra.

Please take my concerns for my village seriously. Whilst I accept that improvement to the
A 14 is important for the County it is unfair for the scheme to negatively impact even more dramatically on residents of Hilton than is absolutely necessary ,
Dear Ms Coleman
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Lesley Coleman

Re: Impact on Hilton with the proposed A14 improvement scheme

We live in a beautiful village with a Green which is acknowledged as one of the finest in the country. This area is quite rightly designated a conservation area to protect it from unsuitable developments- indeed we have to go through lengthy planning processes to change the design of our garden fence.

It is against this background that I find it baffling that we are in a situation where there is no public statement from our elected representatives on protecting this environment from a raised 6lane highway being constructed 800 metres away.

In addition the information we are being given as part of the 'consultation' process seems to have been of the 'back of a fag packet' variety.
Questions asked of Jacobs (appointed by the Highways Agency to design the scheme) at the recent village meeting:
How high will the carriageway be? Not sure
Why is the carriageway raised when the current road is not? Don't know Why is the road coming closer to the village than was proposed on previous consultations? Don't know
What pollution measures will be in place? Not sure...

We are being 'consulted' on a proposal that doesn't appear to have been completed. When the detail does appear I have a feeling that any attempt to influence will be met with the response that it is too late to make any changes. It appears that this scheme, for so long on the drawing board, seems to be being rushed through with some haste. Those paying the price for this haste will be the villagers of Hilton.

I would ask that you listen to the concerns of all of those living in this village and provide us with a voice at the decision making table to ensure that all of our concerns are addressed.
Dear Ms Lawton
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Rachel Lawton

Whilst Ifully agree that the current A14 cannot manage the existing level of traffic let alone the projected increases in volume I fundamentally disagree with the traditional solution of building new roads at the expense of the environment and the quality of life for residents living in the area.
I believe that constructing a single route to funnel traffic through the area is making the
same mistake as that made when the current A14 was planned and constructed and is merely providing a patch for the problem to overcome the A14 bottleneck between Huntingdon and Cambridge and not a solution to the problem.

Whilst the new highway will have an additional SO% capacity it being a single route through the area will do little for the locality in alleviating congestion when the inevitable incidents occur, resulting in a continuance of the existing rat-running through our towns and villages.

Drivers will be 'stuck' in congestion on the new highway between the very limited number of junctions and as we know only too well from the experience of the current A14 the whole area will come to a halt as drivers trying to avoid the congestion seek alternative routes.

living in Hilton the impact of the A14 on village life has for some years been considerable. The current road effects movement in and out of the village on a daily basis with commuter traffic and HGV's passing through the village, often exceeding speed limits, in an effort to avoid the A14. When the inevitable incidents occur on the A14 Hilton, along with other neighbouring villages, becomes totally deadlocked by diverting traffic as few alternatives are available when the A14 is closed.

The Highways Agency proposal accepts that the impact of this development on Hilton village will be considerable. Engineering difficulties to overcome the high level of the water table
on the chosen route will result in the proposed highway being 2 metres above the current road level. The proposed mitigation to limit this impact includes earthwork banking and woodland planting of trees and shrubs however the visual impact of the construction of the road and bridges will result in a significant scar on our rural landscape.

In addition to the visual impact it is accepted by the Highways Agency that in Hilton air pollution will deteriorate along with increases in noise pollution, light pollution and vibration along with the disruption to village life caused by an increase in traffic passing through the village.
Considerable work is planned in the scheme to realign existing water courses and to
introduce water containment measures but the works will ultimately run to the existing drainage system, this in an area where the flooding problems are already well documented.

It is accepted that the current through traffic includes a much higher than normal number of heavy goods vehicles travelling to from Felixstowe Container Terminal.
Has due consideration been given to the impact on routes caused by the london Gateway Container Terminal?
The new terminal at london Gateway will compete with Felixstowe Container Terminal for business and clearly some current shipping using Felixstowe will opt to use london Gateway.
HGV's travelling to and from london Gateway from most areas of the UK will opt to use the M2S to access the motorway network. The only london Gateway traffic opting to use the M11/A14 route from the M2S would have destinations in East Anglia/lincolnshire.
The net result of this movement of current shipping from Felixstowe to london Gateway will be to REDUCE the HGV traffic using the A14 Felixstowe to M1J19 route!

It is essential to an acceptable quality of life for villagers in Hilton that all vehicles associated with any construction work be banned from travelling through the village at all times 24/7. This ban must be in place before any construction commences, be applicable to all vehicles above the size of a transit van and be enforced using number plate recognition technology with penalties issued for offenders, reimbursement being available for offenders able to prove access to Hilton village for deliveries etc.
The 24/7 HGV ban must be retained after construction and further traffic calming measures will be required on the 81040 at both ends of the village and midway through the village. Similar traffic calming measures will be required on the Hilton Road from Fenstanton before traffic enters the village and the existing calming measures on Graveley Way be enhanced, this to ensure rat-running through Hilton is made as inconvenient as possible for all traffic.

As an alternative to the construction of another new highway better surely to avoid again building a single through-route to funnel traffic and to consider introducing a more sophisticated solution offering alternative routes through the area that allow traffic to be directed using 'smart' signage.
The A428 has the capability of providing an alternative route to the M1if the dualing between Caxton Gibbett and St Neots is completed and a St Neots bypass is introduced to incorporate the troublesome Black Cat roundabout on the A1, this to give easier access onto the already completed A421 dual carriageway to the M1J13.
The same route would offer a viable alternative from Cambridge to the Midlands via the A1
to the Ellington Junction.
Retaining and improving the current A14, with a remodeled junction at Spittals involving flyover access north of Huntingdon Racecourse to the Ellington Junction would therefore offer routes that allow traffic to be directed based on the destination rather than funneling and in cases of incidents provide improved resilience for the network that allows credible diversions to be set-up and rat-running reduced.

The paranoia to remove the viaduct over the East Coast Mainline railway close to Huntingdon station is resulting in a farcical road construction as part of the proposal, taking traffic off the de-trunked A14, providing a route around the railway station and running, via a road to be constructed, between the Cambridgeshire Police headquarters and Hinchingbrooke Hospital, then returning onto the de-trunked A14.
The section of the de-trunked A14 to be removed either side of the viaduct is minimal and
the proposed route will cause considerable congestion at peak times, and in cases where incidents occur on the Huntingdon Southern Bypass will result in a bottleneck for traffic seeking an alternative route.

Better to retain the viaduct, replacing the bridge if deemed necessary and avoid building the Views Common Link.
The removal of the viaduct is strongly supported by Huntingdon District Council, could this be influenced by the fact that in de-trunking the existing A14 the financial responsibility for the upkeep of the bridge moves from the Highways Agency to the local authority and with the history of expenditure on the existing bridge this is a factor in the decision to remove?

Creating improvements to existing roads would provide viable routes to 'dilute' traffic rather than funneling in one direction and effectively passing the problem onto other geographical areas.

Finally when will we appreciate that the road network in the UK has exceeded its capacity and realise that the building of yet more roads does not address the long term problem. Freight should be moved by rail over all but local distances and whilst this would require Governmental support and investment in rail infrastructure private finance for this development would be available from rail franchisees if supported by legislation and extended franchise terms.
Dear Mr Shaw
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Jeff Shaw

A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon Improvement Schem e

Iam writing as a resident of Hilton for the past 17 years and consider the proposed above scheme will
have a very significant negative impact on the village in many ways.

I have attended various open meetings organised by the Parish Counc il and also attended v arious exhibitions of the plans for the above in the local village hall.

: wo,tld like to comment on a oumber of issues which I think should be more clearly explained in
respect of the proposals and these are as follows -

1. The existing A 14 in the area is not elevated and it has not been made clear why the proposed elevation is necessary or the likely height of suc_h elevation. This proposed elevation will obviously be more visual from a distance and also possibly the village - if more precise details we re available, it would be possible to conside the impact of this on the village.Ithink that further consideration should be given as to why this elevation will greatly improve the functionality of this improvement.

2. The proposed improvement to the A 14 w ill bring the road a lot closer to the village with increased level of noise , air pollution etc. Again , furthe r consideration should be given as to whether any alternatives are possible so as to minimise the impact on the village.

3. Following a review of the existing plans available for the route of the?improved' A 14 indicate that there will be considerably more traffic through the village as a quicker alternative to reach surrounding towns and villages ie. between Godmanchester and St lves.ln view of the proposed junctions for the improved road, again , a siginficant number of vehicles are likely to use the village as there will be changes to access to various villages and towns in the area.

4. If the improvement goes ahead, a number of restrictions should be placed on construction traffic and construction compounds so as to minimise the impact on the village.lf possible , no construction traffic being allowed t hrough the village for t he duration of the construction. The Scheme is a very significant development which will take years to complete and thts will clearly impact on our village for many years.

5 When I attended one of the exhibitions in the village hall , it became clear that insufficent thought had been given to any noise reduc tions plans for the scheme ie. natural banking , sound barners and it would be very helpful to know how t his will be addressed and how much has been provided in the scheme financing for this. In addition, very little information was available as to whether any pre scheme review of the possible noise impact etc on t he village was likely to be undertaken.

I appreciate lf)at the A 14 is a major route and requires an upgrade but Ido not think that sufficient thought has been given to the impact of the scheme on village life in Hilton. In line with other residents in the village , Iwould welcome a further consultation period to assess whether there are alternative routes possible and also to consider whether sufficient conside ration has been given to minimising the impact on the village from many aspects so as to protect the future of the village and its residents.

I look forward to receiving a response to this letter as soon as possible.
Dear Mr Platt
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Jon Platt

I am writing firstly to express my disappointment with the way in which the consultation is being conducted for the latest proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme.

The Highways Agency booklet discusses the aim to create a "Positive legacy", "working to ensure the area continues to be an attractive place where people want to live, work and visit, by protecting the local landscape character". As a resident of the village of Hilton, I consider this to be an absolute
joke. Within 800 metres of our "protected" ancient village green (from which we will have uninterrupted views), will be a six-lane (plus hard-shoulder?) motorway which will cut through hitherto unspoilt countryside, bringing with it untold noise, light and environmental pollution. The new road will be raised by 2-3 metres at best, rising to 9 metres over the bridges (the gradient for which must be forced to begin almost on our historical village green) which will have a devastating visual impact on our village. Our property prices will plummet and indeed several friends are already struggling to sell their properties with the threat of the road looming. Forgive me, therefore, if Ifeel you are failing in your aim to "protect" my "local landscape character".

I believe that the Highways Agency is rushing through the application for the DCO, to the extent where the public are being consulted without access to any of the relevant environmental studies. The lack of precise information on what Iconsider vital issues about the road- for example where the gradient for the road bridges will begin, what mitigating measures might be employed, how
plans to ensure flooding does not become an issue, to name but a few- makes it virtually impossible to provide any kind of detailed feedback to the consultation. Perhaps most notable is the fact that the proposed route is significantly closer to Hilton than the previous tolled route, yet on the relevant page in the booklet (Pg 24) absolutely no mention is made of the fact that the route has moved. I find it staggering, and frankly cannot believe that the process can be legal, that no mention is made of this fact. I understand that from its first conception it has been an incredibly lengthy, drawn out process to get to this stage. However, Icannot believe that this can excuse the rushing through of this consultation on this particular route which is different to that consulted upon last year, particularly when the Agency has chosen not to mention the fact that the route has moved closer to Hilton. In order for the DCO to be submitted in the time frame the Agency is dictating, the additional studies into the environmental issues of this new route cannot possibly be completed in time to be acted upon in any useful fashion -I suspect it is a "done deal" as they say (backed up by the brochure's reference on the proposed timeframe page to the "Acceptance" by the Planning Inspectorate in Autumn 2014; seems fairly confident to me).

Aside from my concerns about the environmental impact of the road itself, both during and after construction, Iam deeply concerned about the effect on traffic levels through our village. I understand that the B1040 is to be straightened which will lead to increased traffic speed and improved access to the village for through traffic increasing rat-running. As the shortest route for people wishing to get between Godmanchester and St lves, significantly increased traffic in Hilton is inevitable. I would urge the Highways Agency to take all of this into account when considering mitigation measures for the area.

If the DCO is submitted and approved (in spite of the appalling manner in which consultation has been implemented), I would implore that the Agency agrees to contractual mitigation measures for Hilton to be included in the design specification for the scheme. It is essential that these measures are an integral part of the tender process rather than an afterthought should there be any money left at the end of the building process. I understand that the current design proposal includes a bund of only one metre above the carriageway level. Substantial natural banking would be essential (not just a few saplings but semi-mature trees of a sufficient height and planting density to limit pollution) along with effective sound barriers and low noise road surfacing along the length of the scheme adjacent to Hilton. We would urge that no construction traffic be allowed through the village at any time of day with site access via the main trunk roads.

I am deeply saddened by the way in which the Highways Agency and those councillors and politicians meant to represent us, are riding rough shod over the residents of Hilton. Because we are relatively few in number compared to the might of Huntingdon and Godmanchester, it seems our views do not count for anything. I bought my house in this beautiful, unspoilt conservation area because this was the lifestyle Ichose. I have accepted that I have to adhere to village conservation rules which dictate I cannot put up a certain style of garden shed or fence in my garden which does not comply with the visual requirements of being located in a conservation area just off our ancient village green. Yet the Highways Agency is allowed to erect a six-lane highway within clear sight and earshot of that "protected" area of natural beauty?
Dear Ms Turner
Thank you for your letter addressed to Sir Michael Pitt regarding the proposed Cambridge to Huntingdon A14 improvement scheme. It has been passed to me, as the case manager, to respond.
This proposal is currently at the pre-application stage. As you are aware, the Highways Agency is currently consulting with local communities and prescribed consultees on their proposal in accordance with the duties which the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) places upon them. I am unsure as to whether you have responded directly to the Highways Agency with your comments, as the Highways Agency will be under a duty to take account of relevant responses. The closing date for this consultation period is 15 June 2014. It is at the developer?s discretion whether to accept any representations after that date.
As your letter raises concerns with the consultation being carried out you may also wish to send a copy of your correspondence to the relevant local authority for this area. When the application is submitted to The Planning Inspectorate, local authority consultees will be invited to provide their comments on the adequacy of the developer?s consultation detailing whether the developer complied with their consultation duties in accordance with the Planning Act 2008. Following the submission of the application, a decision will be made within 28 days as to whether the application can be accepted for examination. In deciding whether or not to accept an application the Planning Inspectorate must, amongst other matters, have regard to any adequacy of consultation representation received by it from a local authority consultee.
If the developer is deemed to have adequately carried out their pre-application duties and the application is accepted for examination, there will be the opportunity to register your views with The Planning Inspectorate and participate in the examination by completing a relevant representation form. Details about how and when to register will be publicised by the developer. Please note that you are unable to register as an interested party during the current (pre-application) stage of the process for this proposal.
Further information about how to participate in the application process can be found in our advice notes. I have enclosed two advice notes which may be of particular interest.
If you have any further queries, please don?t hesitate to contact us.

Joanne Turner

I have been asked to check whether the Highways Agency still need consent under Land Drainage Act Section 23 from the Councils Flood Team for all the culverts on the A14 bypass/improvements or whether the DCO order will supersede any requirement for it.
Item 32 in the schedule to the Miscellanous Prescribed Provisions Regulations 2010 identifies s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991 as being a consent which may be included in a DCO as a deemed consent, with the agreement of the consenting authority.

As such you should seek the Environment Agency's advice on their approach to s23 of the LD Act in the context of the draft A14 DCO.

Cambridgeshire County Council - Richard Pitt

Update meeting to discuss progress of the project.
View meeting note: attachment 1

Highways Agency

A scheme to widen part of the A14 is due to be promoted by the Highways Agency under the Planning Act 2008 in Autumn 2014. In the course of them obtaining a DCO various traffic orders will be required to implement various speed and weight limits. Traffic Regulation Orders (TRO's) will be required. My query is can the requirement for TROs be done as part of the DCO process i.e by the Highways Agency rather than Cambridgeshire as part of the local highways authority? If yes then do the County Council give up their discretion to modify the orders?
The Highways Agency (HA), as the applicant, will need to decide when preparing their application what to include in their draft DCO. Section 150 of the PA2008 allows the HA to include other consents and authorisations in their DCO, with the consent of the relevant body. Therefore, if there are Transport Regulation Orders to which you would otherwise be the consenting authority, that you are content to have included in the DCO, then you should discuss this directly with the HA and ensure that your written consent is included as part of the application documentation.

You might also want to look at the M1 Juntion 10a Luton DCO where proposed modifications to Orders were included within the DCO document. This application was made by Luton Borough Council.

Cambridgeshire County Council - Richard Pitt

A meeting between The Planning Inspectorate and the Highways Agency, to discuss the status of the scheme and provied guidance on the submission of their application
Please see attached meeting note

Highways Agency - Karl Brooks