A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme

The views expressed in this page do not represent those of the Planning Inspectorate. This page consists of content submitted to the Planning Inspectorate by the public and other interested parties, giving their views of this proposal.

A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road Improvement scheme

Received 08 June 2021
From Bletsoes on behalf of Diane Sharman, Robert & Catherine Sharman & Rebecca Sharman

Representation

We represent the interests of Mrs Diane Sharman and the Partners of the farming partnership, H G Sharman & Son of [redacted], who are directly affected by the Scheme; the current partners are Diane Sharman, Robert Sharman, Catherine Sharman & Rebecca Sharman. Mrs Diane Sharman owns land directly affected by the Scheme, which is farmed by the partnership. In addition, the partnership are tenant of several parcels of land directly affected by the Scheme. On behalf of Mrs Sharman and the partnership, we are instructed to make outline representations. Representations are made without prejudice to making further objections/representations at a later stage for different reasons, or to amplify these representations. We have reviewed the plans included within the Developer’s application insofar as they relate to our clients’ and these representations are based upon the information contained therein. The plans do not provide sufficient detail to ascertain the full impact on my clients’ requisite interest. We would therefore like to formally record our principle concerns, based upon the information that is available. We do not wish to be put in a position whereby when it comes to the ‘detailed design stage’ we are told that design issues raised should have been dealt with earlier on in the scheme and it is too late. The Developer cannot say they will deal with matters in dispute at a later stage. These issues should either be dealt with during the application process or determined by the Planning Inspectorate. We submitted representations to the supplementary consultation held in July 2020. To date, we have not received a formal response. Our clients’ wish to make clear their principle concerns: Land East of Roxton Road and North of A421: The northern part of this parcel of land is owned by Mrs Sharman, and the southern part is rented by the partnership; both parts are currently farmed as one by the partnership. During previous consultation with the Developer, we requested detailed design information concerning the proposed accesses to assess whether access will be equally commodious. From the information available, it is not clear whether the existing access will be affected. We have had verbal assurance from the Developer’s representatives the existing access will not be affected, and my clients’ have relied upon that assurance. During previous consultation, we questioned the need for a proposed new ditch given the free draining nature of the soil in this location. If a ditch is considered necessary, we requested that the ditch be aligned closer to the Scheme to reduce the amount of land lost. Following recent discussions with the Developer, we are told the alignment is necessary to avoid an existing underground gas pipeline. The Developer confirmed they would seek confirmation as to whether the ditch is required. Our clients’ object to the provision of the ditch in this location and its proposed alignment. Land South-East of Roxton Garden Centre: The northern part of this parcel is rented by the partnership. The southern part is owned by Mrs Sharman and farmed by the partnership; both parts are currently farmed as one. During previous consultation, we highlighted the short-term development potential of this land. The land is being actively promoted for commercial development in conjunction with Roxton Garden Centre and other adjoining land. We understand that a Planning Application has been submitted in respect of this land. Therefore, the land has an increased value over and above its agricultural value, meaning the compensation will be vastly greater than for agricultural land without development potential and the cost to the taxpayer will be greater. The provision of a new access to Kelpie Marina and a flood storage area will require the permanent acquisition of the majority of my clients’ own land, and a significant amount of land they rent. During previous consultation, we requested the new access road to Kelpie Marina be aligned closer to the A1, and the flood storage area moved to land without development potential, to mitigate compensation. Neither of these requests have been accepted. In recent discussions with the Developer, we reiterated the development potential of this land and once again urged the Developer to reconsider their plans for the new access to Kelpie Marina and the flood storage area. The Developer confirmed they would investigate whether their plans could be changed. For the avoidance of doubt, our clients’ object to the current proposals and require the access road to be routed elsewhere or aligned closer to the A1, and the flood storage area to be moved to land without significant development potential. If the Scheme is consented in its current form, the Developer has confirmed that a separate legal access will be provided to my clients’ land distinct from the land they rent. My clients’ have relied upon this assurance. Land North of Chawston Lane, Chawston: This parcel of land is rented and farmed by the partnership. Our clients’ primary concern relates to the proposed layout of the new junctions onto Chawston Lane. The new junctions are offset from each other by approximately 50m, effectively creating a chicane for vehicles. This may present a problem for vehicles with restricted maneuverability, such as heavy goods vehicles and agricultural traffic. We understand the proposed side road will be the principal access to H E Payne (Transport) Ltd who operate a significant fleet of heavy goods vehicles. We once again urge the Developer to reconsider their proposals and align the junctions opposite each other or as close to that as possible. We understand local residents have expressed similar concerns. Accommodation Works: We have on numerous occasions reiterated the need for accommodation works. We require further details on the proposed accommodation works to ascertain the full impact on our clients’ requisite interest. As a minimum, our clients’ require commodious access, post scheme land drainage, and fencing and hedging of boundaries to mitigate the detrimental impact of this Scheme. East West Rail: We have also asked the Developer for further detail on how their Scheme will relate to the proposed East West Rail, as in some places it appears to use the same land.