Norman Green
"I am concerned that insufficient attention has been given to the safety aspects of the western roundabout, with particular regard to egress from the Old North Road / Thackers Close onto the A1/A47 slip road. The Assistant Project Manager has said: "As this element of the scheme was removed and is no longer within the scheme boundary it was not included when undertaking the Road Safety Audit as we are not altering or changing the road in this area. Although there are no plans to alter the existing condition of the exit from Thackers Close onto the A47 western roundabout as part of the A47 Wansford to Sutton dualling scheme, discussions have taken place with the Parish Council regarding the A47/A1 junction at Wansford, and we have committed to raising the concerns regarding the existing issues at the A47 / A1 junction to our Operations Department for consideration within future roads periods." It is a matter of significant concern that strong apprehensions expressed during consultations were dealt with by the removal of the relevant part of the scheme, meaning that the Safety Audit, which residents were assured would take a holistic approach, did not in practice cover this serious issue. It is firmly believed that the Road Safety audit needs to be extended to include egress from Thackers Close/the Old North Road onto the A1/A47 slip road, including the advisability of substituting traffic signals in lieu of the western roundabout."

Upton Community Council
"- Poor consultation on plans to suddenly close access to Upton Rd. - No consideration for the additional traffic which will be travelling through the village. - Residents views and concerns not being listened to. - Ignored safety concerns about the route Upton Residents will have to follow to get to the A47 - Upton being ignored because of its size."

Fight4Upton
"Objection to A47 dualling Sutton to Wansford Scheme. We object to this application on three grounds: 1. Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. 2. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road 3. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth Detailed explanation: 1. Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. In 2017 Highways England issued a preferred route document [] It listed three options and a preferred route. Non of the routes identified involved the moving of the Sutton roundabout or the severing of Uptons access road. For this reason Upton village and farms did not actively participate in the statuary consultation process. In fact the brochure (here) for this consultation had a comprehensive design that did not materially impact Upton. Then in July 2020 the village heard a rumour of the Upton road being severed. We contacted Highways England who told a village meeting of this plan (when would we have been told if we hadn’t asked?). The meeting was only open to residents (one per household) of the village and did not include the tenant farmers or Milton Estate, the main land owner. In the meeting a google map was projected on a screen and [ ] pointed at the proposed new route. We had no plan, no papers. We were then asked to vote on the following: 1. The proposal to close Upton road and have one access along Langley Bush Road (LBR) and The Drift. 2. To divert all traffic from Sutton Heath Road (SHR) and LBR through Upton and to the current roundabout location on the A47. With no written plans, no time to consider the implications we were pressed in to a vote. The village voted for option 1. On reflection the village realised that this was a sham vote for the following reasons: 1. Not all landowners, tenants and resident’s were allowed to attend the meeting or had notice of the meeting. 2. No notice of the plans in advance and time to consider the implications. 3. Voting for option 1 was on the assurance from Highways England that LBR and The Drift would be improved to two way roads (this is now being denied) 4. The options presented were not the only options available and in fact we believe option 2 above was never on the table. 2. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road Currently the majority of traffic to and from the village and farms is along Upton Road. The local traffic avoids The Drift and LBR because it is narrow and has blind bends caused by hedgerows and over-grown verges. The road is used by cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders as well as cars, lorries and agricultural vehicles. Forcing all traffic to use The Drift and LBR will lead to congestion at peak times and there is no safe separation for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. Langley Bush Road is very dangerous for these users. (Currently separation on Upton Road is achieved through wide verges) No account has been taken in traffic modelling for the extra traffic from North of Peterborough that will use this route to the A47 after the project. Human nature is that people will be attracted to this route as the dangerous SHR junction has gone. We believe traffic volume will be substantially higher than estimated. Many residents in Upton have had accidents over the years along these roads. The roads are too narrow for modern agricultural vehicles and lorries to pass. 3. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth The five parishes (Upton, Sutton, Castor, Ailsworth, Marholm) have had historical links as communities together with Milton since the 16th century (as evidenced by the book published by the CAMUS project in 2000) This project nearly doubles the distance for cycling/walking from Upton to Sutton, an additional 1.62km (from 1.92km to 3.54km). LBR is Dangerous for pedestrians, horses and cyclists as there is no separation, no escape route if two large lorries or agricultural vehicles pass. Moreover there are no plans currently for a bridge or underpass and so pedestrians and cyclists will have to negotiate across a busy dual carriageway / roundabout. The reality is that this won’t be safe or palatable to many people and so the community links will be severed."

Jackson Hurst
"support for the A47 Wansford to Sutton scheme"

Martyn Handley
"I am very concerned that The western roundabout at the junction of the A47 /A1 is being ignored in the scheme. It is already a difficult junction and dangerous to exit from the main village Old North Road , in the rush hour and Highways England own calculations predict a significant increase in traffic over the years. Currently the traffic Lights on the Eastern Roundabout allow a respite and allow Wansford traffic to leave the village. The removal of the Eastern roundabout Traffic lights without any corresponding improvement in the Western roundabout is going to cause havoc. Improvements to the Western Roundabout are essential"

Graham Garner
"Problems with western roundabout."

Lorraine Turnell
"I object to this application because :- Lack of consultation with residents of Upton Village and surrounding rural area. The three options in statutory consultation did not mention anything about Upton Main Road being closed. The plans are unsafe for Upton drift and Langley Bush Road. Closing Upton Main road severs safe and easy access to Castor, Ailsworth and Sutton for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. I feel residents of Upton are being pushed aside without our thoughts and concerns being considered. Upton drift, even with passing places is too narrow for the type of vehicles and amount of traffic. Langley Bush Road will have an increase of traffic joining the new dual carriageway making this without improvements completely unsafe for cyclists, pedestrians and horse-riders. The amount of money this is costing is extortionate and a waste for such a short stretch of road. The upset and devastation to wildlife unforgivable. Concerned resident Lorraine Turnell"

Jenna Baker
"My views are these : Objection to A47 dualling Sutton to Wansford Scheme. We object to this application on three grounds: 1. Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. 2. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road 3. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth Detailed explanation: 1. Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. In 2017 Highways England issued a preferred route document [] It listed three options and a preferred route. Non of the routes identified involved the moving of the Sutton roundabout or the severing of Uptons access road. For this reason Upton village and farms did not actively participate in the statuary consultation process. In fact the brochure [] for this consultation had a comprehensive design that did not materially impact Upton. Then in July 2020 the village heard a rumour of the Upton road being severed. We contacted Highways England who told a village meeting of this plan (when would we have been told if we hadn’t asked?). The meeting was only open to residents (one per household) of the village and did not include the tenant farmers or Milton Estate, the main land owner. In the meeting a google map was projected on a screen and Highways England, [] and [] pointed at the proposed new route. We had no plan, no papers. We were then asked to vote on the following: The proposal to close Upton road and have one access along Langley Bush Road (LBR) and The Drift. To divert all traffic from Sutton Heath Road (SHR) and LBR through Upton and to the current roundabout location on the A47. With no written plans, no time to consider the implications we were pressed in to a vote. The village voted for option 1. On reflection the village realised that this was a sham vote for the following reasons: Not all landowners, tenants and resident’s were allowed to attend the meeting or had notice of the meeting. No notice of the plans in advance and time to consider the implications. Voting for option 1 was on the assurance from Highways England that LBR and The Drift would be improved to two way roads (this is now being denied) The options presented were not the only options available and in fact we believe option 2 above was never on the table. 2. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road Currently the majority of traffic to and from the village and farms is along Upton Road. The local traffic avoids The Drift and LBR because it is narrow and has blind bends caused by hedgerows and over-grown verges. The road is used by cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders as well as cars, lorries and agricultural vehicles. Forcing all traffic to use The Drift and LBR will lead to congestion at peak times and there is no safe separation for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. Langley Bush Road is very dangerous for these users. (Currently separation on Upton Road is achieved through wide verges) No account has been taken in traffic modelling for the extra traffic from North of Peterborough that will use this route to the A47 after the project. Human nature is that people will be attracted to this route as the dangerous SHR junction has gone. We believe traffic volume will be substantially higher than estimated. Many residents in Upton have had accidents over the years along these roads. The roads are too narrow for modern agricultural vehicles and lorries to pass. 3. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth The five parishes (Upton, Sutton, Castor, Ailsworth, Marholm) have had historical links as communities together with Milton since the 16th century. This project nearly doubles the distance for cycling/walking from Upton to Sutton, an additional 1.62km (from 1.92km to 3.54km). LBR is Dangerous for pedestrians, horses and cyclists as there is no separation, no escape route if two large lorries or agricultural vehicles pass. Moreover there are no plans currently for a bridge or underpass and so pedestrians and cyclists will have to negotiate across a busy dual carriageway / roundabout. The reality is that this won’t be safe or palatable to many people and so the community links will be severed."

John Hodder
"I object to the proposal to close the current main road access to Upton. This closure was not part of the statutory consultation and there has been inadequate consideration of access to and from Upton, which has long standing, historical and ongoing links with the neighbouring villages of Ailsworth, Castor and Sutton. The need is for road users of all kinds: motor vehicles, cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. The plans for the Drift and Langley Bush Road are inadequate."

Lyn Bell
"Our access to Castor and Ailsworth,School, only convenient small shop, Church, friendship club, cafe all compromised by the closure of a road that has stood the test of time since my Father was a boy in Upton"

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (Health and Safety Executive (HSE))
"HSE wishes to raise a representation regarding the following issue: HSE's response to the Section 42 submission included: Will the proposed development fall within any of HSE's consultation distances? 'HSE has reviewed the updated scheme and one major accident hazard pipeline remains within the 'Proposed DCO redline boundary with permanent and temporary land take': HSE ref 7470; 9 feeder Peterborough comp/Huntingdon operated by National Grid. On receipt of your section 56 submission HSE note that we have not received any proposals regarding this issue."

Helen Facer
"As a resident of Sutton village I and my property will be impacted by the proposed redevelopment of the A47 between Wansford and Sutton. My primary concern has been around the proposed route, how it impacts access to and from Sutton village, noise and light pollution that the new road may cause as well as negative impact on the flood plain and habitat along the riverbank. Keeping the proposed new dual carriageway to the North of the current A47 has always been the preferred option by the majority of villagers and minimising adverse impact on the village is my interest."

Andy Tonkin
"Concern around access from Wansford onto the A47 with increase traffic flow and the removal of all traffic lights. Concern around additional noise from the projected increase in traffic volumes. Safety concern for traffic joining the A1 northbound from the A47, already a dangerous junction that will likely be made worse by projected additional traffic volumes"

Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
"Dr Andrew Boswell, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy As an independent environmental consultant specialising in science, policy, and law, I object to the A47 Wansford to Sutton (A47WANS) scheme: A. In regional combination with the Norwich Western link (NWL) road, three other A47 RIS2 schemes (A47 North Tuddenham to Easton, A47 Blofield to North Burlingham, and A47 - A11 Thickthorn Junction), and other schemes, the A47WANS scheme would increase capacity and traffic growth contrary to national policies for climate change, air quality and modal shift towards walking, cycling and public transport. B. Data, assumptions and projections in the traffic and economic modelling do not take account of the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic on travel patterns and road capacity need. C. The Environmental Statement does not comply with the EIA Regulations as no cumulative assessment of carbon emissions has been made with other existing and/or approved projects. This compliance failure is across all types of emissions including construction/embedded, operation and maintenance, and operation road -user emissions. D. In-combination, and cumulative impacts, for biodiversity, ecology, and air quality have not been assessed with other road infrastructure schemes locally and in the region. The recent judgement of Pearce v Secretary of State BEIS [2021] demonstrates that the Courts accept the importance of cumulative environmental impact assessment. E. Guidance on assessing carbon emissions under the EIA Regs strongly recommends cumulative assessment locally, regionally (ie: including in-combination effects with other A47, RIS2 and local schemes above), and nationally (ie: with up to 100 other schemes planned by Government, including under RIS2. This has not been done. F. Carbon emissions should be tested against the UK obligations under the Paris agreement including the UK’s Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), the legally binding target under the Climate Change Act 2008 to meet net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget (6CB), science-based carbon budgets from the UK Tyndall Centre, the NPPF 148 planning requirement to “radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions”, the statutory duty on Highways England under the Infrastructure Act 2015 section 5(2) to have regard for the environment, and the NCC Environmental Policy. G. The NPS requires that the scheme is assessed against national carbon reduction targets and the UK's international commitments in place at the time when a DCO application is determined."

Brian Dickinson
"My main concern is that the existing access from the A47 to the village should not be closed. The proposed access along Upton Drift is not adequate even with the proposed new passing places and limited widening. There are 3 farms all with tractors and heavy machinery that will need to use this road as well as delivery lorries. It is a single track road and is therefore totally unsuitable. In the winter the bottom floods and snow drifts across usually making it impassable. The dip is also on a bend and it is impossible to see around it. This is already a dangerous road and personally I’ve had 2 accidents on this bend. With the increase in traffic as well as farm traffic due to the other road being closed, this road will become even more dangerous."

Steve Woods
"My main concern is that we will be unable to exit the village of Wansford at the Roundabout at the top of Old North Road This is already incredibly difficult to exit without the prioress duelling. All the current scheme appears to provide is a further bottleneck at this small roundabout where two of the regions largest roads intersect (A1/A47) Surely the whole scheme should incorporate a review of the impact to the Wansford roundabout which is not built to cope with the volume of traffic Ideally the A1/A47 junction should be reviewed as one"

Gavin Elsey
"Objection to A47 dualling Sutton to Wansford Scheme. I am the City Councillor for the whole area this scheme impacts and especially those residents of Upton. I object to this application on three grounds: 1. Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. 2. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road 3. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth Detailed explanation: Lack of consultation with Upton village and surrounding rural area. The 3 options in the statutory consultation did not involve severing Upton Main Road. In 2017 Highways England issued a preferred route document [] It listed three options and a preferred route. Non of the routes identified involved the moving of the Sutton roundabout or the severing of Uptons access road. For this reason Upton village and farms did not actively participate in the statuary consultation process. In fact the brochure [] for this consultation had a comprehensive design that did not materially impact Upton. Then in July 2020 the village heard a rumour of the Upton road being severed. They contacted Highways England who told a village meeting of this plan (when would they have been told if they hadn’t asked?). The meeting was only open to residents (one per household) of the village and did not include the tenant farmers or Milton Estate, the main land owner. In the meeting a google map was projected on a screen and Highways England, [] pointed at the proposed new route. They had no plan, no papers. They were then asked to vote on the following: The proposal to close Upton road and have one access along Langley Bush Road (LBR) and The Drift. To divert all traffic from Sutton Heath Road (SHR) and LBR through Upton and to the current roundabout location on the A47. With no written plans, no time to consider the implications they were pressed in to a vote. The village voted for option 1. On reflection the village realised that this was a sham vote for the following reasons: Not all landowners, tenants and resident’s were allowed to attend the meeting or had notice of the meeting. Nor were the city councillors. No notice of the plans in advance and time to consider the implications. Voting for option 1 was on the assurance from Highways England that LBR and The Drift would be improved to two way roads (this is now being denied) The options presented were not the only options available and in fact we believe option 2 above was never on the table. The plans are unsafe for Upton Drift and Langley Bush Road Currently the majority of traffic to and from the village and farms is along Upton Road. The local traffic avoids The Drift and LBR because it is narrow and has blind bends caused by hedgerows and over-grown verges. The road is used by cyclists, pedestrians and horse riders as well as cars, lorries and agricultural vehicles. Forcing all traffic to use The Drift and LBR will lead to congestion at peak times and there is no safe separation for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders. Langley Bush Road is very dangerous for these users. (Currently separation on Upton Road is achieved through wide verges) No account has been taken in traffic modelling for the extra traffic from North of Peterborough that will use this route to the A47 after the project. Human nature is that people will be attracted to this route as the dangerous SHR junction has gone. We believe traffic volume will be substantially higher than estimated. Many residents in Upton have had accidents over the years along these roads, but these aren't taken into consideration in the modelling as unless they are reported to the police there is no official record. The roads are too narrow for modern agricultural vehicles and lorries to pass. The plans sever historical links for pedestrians, cyclists and horse-riders with Sutton, Castor & Ailsworth The five parishes (Upton, Sutton, Castor, Ailsworth, Marholm) have had historical links as communities together with Milton since the 16th century (as evidenced by the book published by the CAMUS project This project nearly doubles the distance for cycling/walking from Upton to Sutton, an additional 1.62km (from 1.92km to 3.54km). LBR is Dangerous for pedestrians, horses and cyclists as there is no separation, no escape route if two large lorries or agricultural vehicles pass. Moreover there are no plans currently for a bridge or underpass and so pedestrians and cyclists will have to negotiate across a busy dual carriageway / roundabout. The reality is that this won’t be safe or palatable to many people and so the community links will be severed."

Natural England
"Please see attached."

Vivien Thorley
"The lack of inclusion by Galliford Try of improvements to the Western roundabout at Wansford which will completely negate the benefits of dualling due to the dual carriageway ending with a single vehicle pinch point at the roundabout"

Alice McNamara
"Where is the proper cycling infrastructure. A safe cycle path for everyone is needed to cross the A1 and A47. Any path that does not allow tricycles, hand bikes and tandems is disability discrimination. Our world is in climate crisis. Make sustainable transport feasible. Cycle paths create usable spaces for the whole community and bring in business as well as investing in health. Good cycling infrastructure does cost money, but it is incorrect to say it is a large amount in the scope of overall transport spending, or that it is a poor return on investment. Cycling infrastructure has been shown to pay back to society more than it costs – a 2014 UK government report cited returns of between 2:1 and 35:1. Other countries demonstrate returns of 10 times or higher, and London's transport authority reports ratios of 20:1 for cycling investment. Whilst many of the UK figures are for ‘general’ investment in cycling (i.e. including training, etc.) the higher cost of cycling infrastructure is still justified because of the additional numbers drawn to cycling by the provision of safe places to cycle."

Karl Grundy
"Safe access from either side of the A1 between wandsford to Stamford for cyclist with out the need to use the A47"

Malcolm Jacklin
"The need for a provision for cyclists either for commuting or recreational purposes seems to have been largely ignored. The proposed route doesn't offer practical options with a steep incline into Wansford that will not be rideable for many riders going up the incline, and those going down will probably also find it uncomfortably steep, and this will be compounded with a sharp ninety degree turn at the lower end of this where people could be approaching from the other direction. A road improvement scheme on this scale seems to have made little provision for making more suitable cycling, walking and horse riding options."

Martin Lewis
"The scheme does not provide adequate means to cross the A1 by bicycle. The existing crossing, running under the road and then up a steep slope, is not really fit for purpose, and would not be considered safe by most users on cycle or on foot. The scheme should provide a safe crossing over the road level, and not act as a major barrier between east and west of the A1 to anyone not in a car"

Neil Strenge
"That the design of the cycling infrastructure where it crosses (underneath) the A1 is not appropriate for the overall scheme, and fails to meet modern standards that might be considered essential for a scheme that will be used for both leisure and transport by cyclists. Furthermore, it is inaccessible to people with disabilities, not well considered or acceptable for vulnerable users, and may well be discriminatory in both these contexts."

Bletsoes on behalf of David Longfoot
"These representations are made without prejudice to making further representations for different reasons, or in order to amplify these representations. The current scheme design encompasses the majority of a 12 acre arable field, which Mr Longfoot occupies opposite []. We understand that Highways England (HE) intend to acquire the land. The loss of this land will impact negatively on Mr Longfoot’s farm business as he will be losing a secure lifetime tenancy over a productive area of arable land. HE’s proposals seek to stop up one of the main access routes from the A47 to Upton (Upton Road), which is the principal access for Mr Longfoot to reach the A47. Mr Longfoot uses Upton Road to travel from his main holding to land at Castor, which is where the majority of his farming business is based. The alternative route would cause an increased journey time and distance travelled, which will inevitably impact upon the profitability of the farm business, particularly during busy periods. Mr Longfoot believes that the alternative route would add approximately an additional 1.5 miles to each journey when taking machinery to his land at Castor. The stretch of road at ‘Upton Drift’ is extremely narrow and has a ditch on one side of the highway and a banked hedge on the other, making it difficult to get out of the road with any urgency. The poor visibility also makes this section dangerous. We understand that HE have consulted with County Highways and Milton Estate in order to consider potential improvements to ‘Upton Drift’. We understand that there are also plans to make improvements to the junction directly outside Model Farm to ensure vehicles can safely navigate the junction, which is likely to include widening, making signage improvements and vegetation management. The plans suggest there may be passing places along ‘Upton Drift’ as well as straightening to improve visibility, this will need to be of a sufficient width and length to accommodate agricultural machinery. The section of Langley Bush Road which road users would be required to follow once turning out of the ‘Upton Drift’ is both winding and narrow, with poor visibility. Much of the metalled road is bordered tightly by vegetation. There would be very little room for agricultural machinery to manoeuvre along this road. This stretch of road is also considered ‘fast’, and in icy conditions it is dangerous. Vegetation clearance will be required as well as the inclusion of a sufficient number of passing bays or widening of the road. The junction which leads on to Sutton Heath Road from Langley Bush Road has poor visibility and is potentially dangerous when agricultural machinery is manoeuvring out of the junction. Given the likely increase in the flow of traffic, improvements are required to improve safety. The addition of visible signage would be beneficial. Mr Longfoot has arranged for video footage and photographs to be taken whilst he takes agricultural machinery along the ‘Upton Drift’ and down to the A47 via Langley Bush Road and Sutton Heath Road, which we can forward to you for reference. There are concerns surrounding unauthorised access, fly tipping and travellers if the access road to the south of the village were to be stopped up. The provision of new signage would help to mitigate any negative impact. Mr Longfoot wishes to request that HE consider the option to leave the existing roundabout in situ to then construct additional lanes on the existing A47, opposed to constructing the new road and roundabout as proposed. This would prevent the need to stop up Upton Road access. Mr Longfoot wishes to seek reassurance and confirmation that there will be unimpeded access at all times throughout the construction period for him to travel to and from Upton village where his main farmstead is based. He will need to be informed of any restricted road use or closures in advance and kept fully informed during the construction phase."

Ian Hanby
"I believe there is no provision of a safe and accessible cycle route in this scheme. The suggested use of a totally inadequate use of an underpass will not meet the requirements of the National Highways scheme and will not meet the standards required by Peterborough City Council."

Trevor McSparron
"There needs to be a safe route over or under the A1. I cannot see how a multi hundreds of a million pound scheme cannot provide such a basic need for local residents. There needs to be local benefits to a large regional scheme. The ramp is a nightmare if you have children, I have seen someone try and take a wheel chair down and give up. Going over the A1 is pretty much as dangerous as you can get. Given that Sacrewell Farm is a stones throw away it’s a joke that local residents cannot access it on their cycles or walking without being faced with a ski slope under the A1!"

Osborne Clarke on behalf of Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc (Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) Plc)
"Osborne Clarke LLP on behalf of Western Power Distribution We act for Western Power Distribution (East Midlands) plc (WPD) whose registered office is at Avonbank, Feeder road, Bristol, BS2 0TB. WPD is the licenced distribution network operator under Section 6 Electricity Act 1989 (EA1989) for the area in which the Order is proposed to have effect. Section 9 of the EA1989 places a duty on the electricity distributor to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution. The application includes land in which WPD has assets and the land is subject to rights of compulsory acquisition. Whilst WPD has had positive engagement with the Applicant in relation to diversion works connected with the project, WPD needs to ensure that the wider powers being sought in the Order will not have a detrimental impact on WPD's electricity network and its duties under the EA1989, including ensuring that the terms of the proposed protective provisions are acceptable. WPD is therefore making this representation as a holding objection to the application until asset protection arrangements have been agreed between the parties. No formal agreement has yet been concluded and accordingly we are lodging this representation to protect WPD's position pending conclusion of an appropriate agreement. Once WPD are satisfied that its network is protected we will notify the Planning Inspectorate promptly and withdraw the objection."

Peterborough Cycle Forum
"Peterborough Cycle Forum is pleased to note the scheme will deliver significant benefits for cycling, including an east-west segregated cycle route and a south-north grade separated crossing of the A47. However, the plans fail to provide a safe and fully accessible route for cycling between Wansford and all communities and destinations east of the A1. They do not meet the stated objective to ‘provide a safer route between communities for cycling’ and they fail to comply with the Equality Act 2010 and many national and local policies. Peterborough Cycle Forum requests the plans are not approved in their present form. At the Wansford end, the designated cycle route follows a 50 metre long concrete ramp on which the gradient averages 15% and in places reaches 20%. This greatly exceeds the National Highways standard of 4%. This section is a permissive footpath (ID574) on which cycling is not permitted. National Highways has confirmed that cyclists must dismount and walk up / down the ramp. This is inconvenient for the majority, but physically impossible for a minority who include riders of non-standard cycles such as cargo bikes or cycles with a child trailer, also older people, of whom an increasing number ride e-bikes which are heavy to push and only power assisted when pedalled. There are those who can neither push nor pedal their cycle up a 20% gradient and so changing the status of the path would not resolve the issue. In a recent test, someone who rides a recumbent tricycle as a mobility aid was unable to ascend the ramp when the ground was wet, due to lack of traction on the slippery surface. Her impairment meant she was unable to dismount and push her machine up the steep slope. East of the A1, a new designated funds route connects the former picnic site with the bottom of the ramp, replacing part of permissive path 574 which followed a steeper course over rough ground. National Highways claims it has provided a connection into pre-existing cycle routes. This is incorrect; the concrete ramp has never been part of a cycle route. The new route terminates underneath the A1, taking cyclists to the bottom of a ramp which some are then unable to climb. When the designated funds path was first proposed, Peterborough Cycle Forum (PCF) suggested designs which could have significantly reduced the gradient west of the A1, but the simplest, lowest cost option was taken and the gradient remained unchanged. Apart from the gradient, many people are unable to use the route due to concerns over personal safety and security. The route is not overlooked, is unlit, has a blind right-angled turn and is flanked by high vegetation. The area between the underpass and former picnic site has a history of anti-social behaviour and many will not walk the route alone, even during daylight hours. Under existing proposals, the only route fully accessible to all cyclists will be as follows: Westbound, from the filling station: follow the southern arm of the eastern roundabout, turn left at the roundabout, cross the bridge over the A1, turn left at the western roundabout into Old North Road. This route is hazardous. It involves riding on-carriageway in very heavy traffic between the eastern and western roundabouts, with the carriageway forming two narrow lanes before the western roundabout. Eastbound, from Old North Road: turn right at the western roundabout, cross the bridge over the A1, turn right at the eastern roundabout into the southern arm. This route is extremely hazardous. To join the roundabout from Old North Road, a cyclist must cross two lanes of very heavy traffic. Vehicles can approach at speed from the eastern arm and the road layout contributes to many vehicle movements being unpredictable. After turning right at the western roundabout the cyclist must ride on-carriageway and cross two lanes of heavy traffic in order to turn right at the eastern roundabout. The speed limit between the roundabouts is 60mph and both carriageways are used by a high number of HGVs. A very experienced and confident cyclist may be willing to follow this route, but a cycle route must be safe and fully accessible to all, aged 8 to 80, of any level of experience or ability. The suitability of any route should be judged at an individual, human level. Is this route safe, for example, for: 1. A young mother from Wansford towing a toddler in a trailer, to access child care in Castor 2. An 11 year old from Sutton, visiting a school friend in Wansford 3. A 75 year old from Wansford, riding an e-bike to visit family in Upton If a fully accessible cycle route, between Sutton and Wansford, cannot not be provided via the A1 underpass, then a safe route must be provided via the A47 over-bridge, linking the new southern arm of the eastern roundabout with Old North Road, Wansford. National Highways has confirmed that westbound traffic will continue to travel across the A1 bridge in a single lane. PCF believes there is sufficient width to create a bi-directional shared used path on the south side of the bridge, adjacent the westbound carriageway. Pedestrians currently cross the A1 via a 2.2 metre wide path between the parapet and crash barrier, despite the ground being very rough on either side of the bridge with no clearly defined path. The 1.3 metre high parapet meets pedestrian standards but is 10cms below the National Highways standard for cycle traffic. National Highways asserts it is not possible to adapt the parapet for cycle use due structural weaknesses. For the same reason, it has said it is not possible to make any other alteration on the bridge, for example, repositioning the open box barrier. The total width of the westbound corridor is 10.5 metres, from parapet to offside kerb, and PCF believes it must be possible to create a safe cycle route within this space. No tangible evidence has been provided to indicate the bridge cannot be adapted to accommodate cyclists and PCF would welcome an examination and report by an independent structural engineer. PCF questions whether the view expressed by National Highways to date is determined not by the ability to devise an engineering solution to what is surely not an insurmountable problem but rather by the cost of implementing a solution (which may include traffic management to facilitate work above the A1). Within a scheme costing £100 million or more, lack of funding is not an acceptable reason for failing to provide a safe cycle route. The focus of this submission is on the western end of the scheme, but Peterborough Cycle Forum also strongly recommends provision of a second grade separated crossing of the A47 to connect Upton Road with Peterborough Road. Opportunity could be taken to install an underpass during major work in the area of the existing roundabout. Without this link, the distance of a return journey by cycle, between Upton and destinations to the east, will be increased by more than 4km. This submission is only a summary view and there are further details which Peterborough Cycle Forum would like to put in front of the Inspector."

Anthony Whittle
"Permission should be granted for the cycle route as the alternative route along the A47 is too dangerous for cyclists. The reasons for refusal were lacking any planning merit and did not take into account planning policies which seek to encourage cycling. Reasons for refusal were purely subjective with no evidence or reasoning that would support the refusal. Local and Central government have a duty to protect the lives of cyclists and support sustainable transport."

David Johnson
"1 Highways England has ignored the views of local people in selecting a more southerly route than the Option selected by the people, at an anticipated additional cost of more than £6M 2 Highways England has not adequately managed to access from the Old North Road on to the Western round-a-bout. Several options have been proposed by local people, and all ignored. 3. Historic England has not proven that the area of the so-called 'scheduled monument' has any archaeological value at all. Not trenches dug, and no proper survey. Local farmers know that the area has been deep ploughed, land drains installed and not a shred of evidence has been unearthed."

Ian Aunger
"My interest is in the safe cycling access to Wansford part of the scheme. I believe that there will be an underpass from the lorry parking area, going underneath the A1 and emerging on the Wansford side. At one end there is a 20% gradient, which is difficult to cycle up and not suitable for bikes pulling children in trailers. Also the area will not have any surveillance and is quite remote. I would not feel safe using such a facility. Especially with rising incidence of bicycle theft. That plus the 20% gradient would mean that I would not use the facility and would elect to cycle along the dual carriageway. How about a cycle bridge with ramps? Best Regards, Ian Aunger."

Richard James Clarke
"I live in [] Wansford and I am a chartered engineer with more than 40 years experience of planning infrastructure projects. I have sat in many hours of A47 meetings and have been dismayed at how process rather than judgement has driven the proceedings. The project is much needed and the eastern section is sensible and well thought out. The two main difficulties have been the failure to include the Wansford western roundabout in the scheme and the complete lack of balance with respect to the Scheduled Monument at Sacrewell. These have resulted in an uneconomic design with considerable geotechnical risks. The key objectives of the Scheme are published as: • Supporting economic growth: The scheme will improve journey times and journey time reliability. This will help contribute to sustainable economic growth by providing benefits such as effectively bringing businesses closer together and encouraging more people to join the labour market as a result of reduced commuting costs. The failure to address the western roundabout will lead to delays which will negate most of the time savings from the project. • Making a safer network: Improving road safety for all road users by designing to modern highway standards appropriate for a major A road. The western roundabout is not appropriate for a major trunk road junction and it will become increasingly dangerous as traffic increases. The likely victims will be Wansford residents. • Providing a more free-flowing network: Increasing the resilience of the A1 / A47 junction to cope with incidents such as collisions, breakdowns, maintenance and extreme weather. The improved A47 section from Wansford to Sutton will be more reliable, reducing journey times and providing capacity for future traffic growth. Only half the junction has been addressed and the remaining half has no resilience and will incur increasing delays. • Creating an accessible and integrated network: Ensuring the proposals take into account the local communities access to the road network, and provide a safer route between communities for walking, cycling, horse riding and other road users. A network has not been created. The scheme improves the A47 corridor but the network fails because of the A1/A47 junction. Access to the A47 from Wansford will become increasingly difficult. The WCHR provision would have been much better with an alternative scheme. National Highways have failed to achieve any of the four key objectives. The Scheduled Monument has always been treated by the project team as if it were holy ground. In reality the southern half of the area is two ploughed out barrows or roundhouses but National Highways have said “It is not their role to challenge other government departments”. A route through the south of the monument would do no damage to identified features, removes most disruption during construction, allows much better WCHR provision using the old road and gets away from the unstable escarpment at the river Nene. The project team should look again at the western part of the scheme, including allowance for the future upgrading of the A1."

UK Health Security Agency
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) (formerly Public Health England) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. UKHSA notes that we have replied to earlier consultations as listed below and this response should be read in conjunction with that earlier correspondence: Scheme update and Supplementary Consultations 18 November 2020 We can confirm that we have assessed the submitted documentation and wish to make the following recommendations. Overall, better characterisation and assessment of impacts on human health from air quality from the construction and operational phases is required in the Environmental Statement (ES) and in the Population and Human Health chapter for the general population and vulnerable groups, in light of existing health statuses. There appears to be a number of gaps in the submitted documentation, relating to ground investigation information, the environmental management plan and limited information regarding impacts from any decommissioning. Air Quality • The air quality assessment only considers long-term impacts through changes in annual means. It is recommended that short-term impacts on air quality are considered for both construction and operational activities for all potential pollutants (PM10, PM2.5 and NOx), as there are no safe limits of exposure in relation to health risk. • Reducing public exposures to non-threshold pollutants (such as particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide) below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. We support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants, address inequalities (in exposure), and maximise co-benefits (such as physical exercise) and encourage their consideration during development design, environmental and health impact assessment, and development consent. • Clarity and justifications are required regarding the choice of study area and the zone of influence for the air quality assessment of the construction and operational phases; and the choice of community wards as detailed in Chapter 12, which is noted to not include Wansford village area. • Better consistency is required in the description of receptor selection when comparing section 5.4.3 and 5.4.23 of Chapter 5. We recommended that the assessment of receptors include those within 25m of a junction. • Further details are recommended regarding impacts on walking, cycling and horse riding users, including those because of increased route journey times from the design/changes. • Further clarifications and justifications as to why receptors have not been included in Figures 5.4A, C and E Construction Phase • Limited details have been provided regarding overall air emissions that would be expected from the construction phase, including the presence of any non-road mobile machinery and cumulative impacts from these. It is recommended that further details are provided, including those regarding monitoring and worst-case assessments. • Consideration should be given within the air quality assessment to the impact of any proposed road closures, traffic management, or further restrictions that may be encountered during the construction phase, both on the roads to be developed as part of the scheme and roads in the surrounding area, including the Affected Road Networks. • It is unclear why construction impacts have been screened out based on the construction phases lasting less than two years; potential air quality impacts on human health from this phase are acknowledged in Chapter 12 (section 12.8.7). • Further clarifications are required as to why residential properties have not been identified within 200m of the works at Upton Drift (see Figure 5.1). Operational Phase • It is recommended that short term and long-term modelling be undertaken for PM10 and PM2.5 for the Do-minimum and Do-something scenarios to define areas of deterioration of air quality where further mitigation could be required. • PM10 concentrations have been used to demonstrate the Proposed Scheme does not impact on the PM2.5 air quality objectives. Where scoping out is recommended by the applicant, the public health impact assessment should be supported with reliable data, including modelling and predictions. • There are several areas where clearer justifications are required: o The choice of opening year (2025) for worst-case assessment. It has not been demonstrated that this is the worst-case year when compared to other years, for example during the construction phase where there is the potential for several cumulative impacts. It is unclear why no reference has been made to the design year (2040), when this is included in the transport assessment. o Whether the choice of locations for the scheme specific monitoring is representative of worst-case scenario for sensitive receptors (for example, considering weather conditions). o The location of colocation sites 1-3 relative to the scheme monitoring, how findings (which show close to or an exceedance in AQS) inform the risk assessment. • The modelling for NO2 showed that 14 of the 22 receptors are expected to show a deterioration in air quality, which is of concern. o It is noted that for each triggered road link only one receptor representing the closest receptor was chosen, which may preclude the identification of a greater number of receptors with a deterioration in air quality. Section 12.7.1 advises that there are approximately 370 properties within the study area. It is recommended that details of results for individual receptors be included. o It is recommended that further details are provided regarding additional mitigation measures to be incorporated into the development to prevent this deterioration. This deterioration and the corresponding health impacts should also be acknowledged and assessed in Chapter 12 (Population and Human Health) for the general population and vulnerable groups, i.e. the impacts on respiratory diseases, hospital admissions and other chosen health indicators. Justification for the methodology should be provided and where necessary, monitoring should be recommended. Water, Geology and Soils • The Ground Investigation Report (Sweco 2020) does not appear to have been submitted with this application. This is referenced as being in Appendix 9.4, however, this relates to a Construction workers risk assessment only. • Limited details regarding source, sampling, ground gas monitoring locations and results findings have been included in Chapter 9, making it difficult to undertake a public health risk assessment. • Better consistency is required between Chapter 9 and Chapter 13 with regards to the location of groundwater and surface water abstractions and their number. The assessment regarding public health impacts should be updated, where necessary. • Further clarifications and better consistency are required regarding the significance assessment for construction impacts for off-site receptors. Table 9-12 identifies a slight adverse impact; however, it is also stated that ‘no risks have been identified to Human Health from soils or ground gas on the Proposed Scheme’. In addition, mitigation measures described in Table 9-12 are for dust; whilst section 9.10.3 identifies residual effects to human health from the disturbance and mobilisation of contamination in geology and soils. Electric and Magnetic Fields The current documentation makes no reference to EMF emissions from the development. We recommend that the proposer: 1. Identify if the proposed development has electricity generation and/or distribution infrastructure that may result in the emission of electric and/or magnetic fields such that there is the potential for an adverse impact on public health. Where electricity generation and/or distribution equipment is identified an assessment of potential EMF exposures should be included; 2. Should the proposer believe that EMF can be scoped out of the assessments they should clearly state their assumptions and rationale in the application for DCO submission. We can confirm that we have registered an interest on the Planning Inspectorate Website. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns."

Wansford Parish Council
"Wansford Parish Council (WPC) supports the concept of dualling the A47 between Wansford and Sutton as the present road suffers from delays, lacks resilience and has a significant accident rate. There are however considerable problems with the scheme as proposed by Highways England (National Highways (NH)). At the very first presentation in December 2016, NH indicated that the Wansford western roundabout would not be included in the scheme. WPC pointed out that this compromised the whole scheme as traffic joining the A1 northbound at this roundabout already suffered delays in the evening peak. NH agreed to look at this and later showed schemes with changes to the roundabout, but these were based on incorrect traffic modelling. WPC suggested replacing the roundabout with intelligent traffic lights to address the imbalance of flows at different times of day. NH modelled fixed period traffic lights and stated that it made no difference to the capacity. They did not model the solution suggested by WPC. The modelling did show the roundabout causing severe delays later in the design period and this will reduce the journey time gains from the rest of the scheme. Exiting Old North Road both north and south of the A47 will become increasingly dangerous as traffic increases. At the beginning of the programme, AECOM suggested a solution to these problems but that option was not progressed by NH. NH have stated that the A47 bridge over the A1 is in poor condition and cannot be changed in any way, even returning it to its original configuration. They have failed to produce any evidence of this. By not improving the whole A1/A47 junction NH have effectively abandoned the Wansford community and breached all 4 of their key objectives for the scheme. In 2017, NH consulted on 3 alignments. The northern one received most support but was discarded by NH. Their report does not make this clear. This route went through the Scheduled Monument (SM) at Sacrewell Farm but it was almost completely off the existing alignment so that traffic management would be minimised and the existing road provides a good non-motorized traffic route. It also takes the road is away from the river escarpment which has a proven history of instability with its associated significant geotechnical risk. This route also avoids damage to the County Wildlife Site along the Nene. NH have estimated the cost of avoiding the SM at between £6 and £11 million. Historic England (HE) carried out a review of the SM but, when asked what analysis HE had done, the Regional Director stated they had done none and relied instead on the analysis by WPC. The northern section of the SM should clearly be preserved but there is a route through the southern section that does not disturb any identified features. East of the SM, the revised alignment is good subject to resolving issues at Upton. WPC has considerably more detail on these and other issues. We wish to present this information to the Planning Inspectorate."

Jane Reid
"Highways England's proposed plans for the dualling of the A47 between Wansford and Sutton has much to support and is a definite improvement on their original scheme as presented to the villagers of Wansford, Sutton and Upton. As a resident of Sutton and a joint landowner directly affected by this project I had many concerns over the proposal and it is good to see the mitigation measures that are planned to safeguard our land, the environment and wildlife and the village of Sutton. The provision of the new NUM route is a real asset with its link to the northern side of the road under the old railway bridge but it must be suitable for horse and rider to pass safely underneath. As land slippage is a problem for the road alongside the River Nene floodplain it would have been good to see the road along this section move a little further North. Unfortunately this has been prevented by the proximity of the Historic England's Scheduled Monument even though there appears to be very little of historic value at the southern end of this field. The plans for the roundabouts at Wansford do however concern me. The improvements to the A1/A47 junction at the eastern roundabout will greatly improve the traffic flow. However the increase in traffic that the new road will bring is going to put more pressure on the western roundabout, making it even more difficult for villagers to get out of Wansford, especially at peak times. At present the traffic lights on the eastern roundabout allow for welcome gaps in the traffic during the morning rush."

Strutt &Parker on behalf of Riverford Organic Farmers Ltd
"The access off the A1 to Sacrewell Lodge (OS Ref: 52.594551, -0.418874 near "Processors and Growers") is used by large commercial vehicles. It is advised that the deceleration and acceleration lanes off/onto the A1 should be improved in the interests of road safety. The proposed underpass of the A47 must be of sufficient size for current and future agricultural use."

The Campbell Household
"From its junction with the A1 at Wansford, the A47 eastwards to the Sutton (Nene Way) Roundabout is a dangerous and congested road. Unrealised plans for it to be improved date back to at least the 1970s. The announcement in early 2017 that plans were afoot to raise the A47 to dual carriageway standard was therefore welcome to us as local residents. However, the Preferred Route chosen by the Applicant later that year took an alignment to the south of the existing A47 despite a public consultation where this was the least popular of 3 options. In contrast, the most popular option, and favoured by us, was for an alignment to the north of the existing A47. This was because the Preferred Route entailed severe adverse impacts on the natural environment and local residents. After considerable work by local residents and organisations over a long period, the dualling scheme now presented here by the Applicant marks a considerable improvement over the Preferred Route, In particular, the proposed more northerly alignment of the new road in relation to the village of Sutton is welcome. We therefore broadly support this scheme but with certain caveats: 1. The section of the proposed new road due west of the Sutton Heath Road still impinges on the Nene Valley. Concerns remain about the effects of this on drainage (flooding), wildlife, and the stability of the new road itself (the existing A47 is prone to slippage). The proposed route here is apparently governed by the site of a Scheduled Monument. The simple way around this issue would be to excavate the Monument, which would allow a more route northerly alignment away from the River Nene. 2. The situation with the dumbbell roundabout layout at Wansford remains unsatisfactory. In particular, little or nothing is to change at the westernmost roundabout. Even now this roundabout is heavily congested. The turn out of Wansford (i.e. the southern exit of the roundabout) is particularly difficult and hazardous. The roundabout needs to be considerably expanded or a new arrangement devised. Failure to do this will undermine the scheme's objectives by creating a major unsafe bottleneck. 3. The scheme's 4 objectives are set out in para. 2.2.1 on page 3 of the Applicant's document "Volume 1: 1.3 Introduction to the Application." These objectives originally appeared in the Applicant's "Public Consultation" and "Preferred Route Announcement" documents in March and August 2017, respectively. However, both these documents listed 2 other objectives: improved environment and value for money. Why have these objectives been dropped; both are of vital importance. In the environmental context, we would wish to see the maximum amount of mitigation in terms of the new road's impact on Sutton, the Nene Valley, and generally; and the maximum provision for pedestrians, equestrians, and cyclists. In conclusion, we support the dualling scheme in principle, but room for improvements remain as outlined above."

Helen Daly
"Please see attached"

Jane Hunt
"That the proposed provision for accessible cycleways is inadequate and does not provide for the community of Wansford to safely connect with the sustainable transport route (access under A1). That there is inadequate safe access across the top of the A1 for cycles. That the impact on traffic on the Old North Road and joining the proposed new A47 junction layout is unacceptable and will cause delay and danger. That the junction of Old Leicester Road and the A47 will need modification akin to that in the original proposed scheme."

John Stannage
"I am a long-standing resident of Wansford and use the A47 considerably to travel to Peterborough and Leicester. I agree the A47 urgently needs to be upgraded and in the main the scheme succeeds in its objectives bar two very important failings. 1. The Scheme has failed to include the Wansford western roundabout, which will negate any benefits to journey times and safety when travelling westwards, especially joining A1 North. It will also likely cause chaos at time to traffic attempting to access the A47 from Old North Rd. 2. The proposed route to the south of the Scheduled Monument field has major geotechnical failings with the unstable slope towards the River Nene and will cause untold damage to the Countyside Wildlife corridor within the Nene Valley."

Michael Grange
"I have been a resident of Sutton for almost 30 years and have regularly seen traffic disruption due to accidents along this dangerous stretch of the A47. I strongly support the dualling proposals from Sutton roundabout to Wansford east roundabout to prevent further deaths and serious injury to road users. As an active member of the community I have been engaged on this project since 2017. The early engagement with Highways England(HE) project team was less than fruitful as they constantly ignored the concerns of local residents. They lacked honesty with their answers to questions and were regularly corrected on their factual errors to justify their choice of preferred route alignment. The pre consultation was a sham and the engagement with Historic England was pitiful, only the tenacity of the Parish Councils and one land owner persuaded Historic England to shift from their intransigent position allowing the far better alignment within the current proposals. The Statutory Consultation documentation was totally biased towards HE’s preferred route with significant errors and omissions. A local action group ensured the public got a balanced view which reflected in the overwhelming rejection of HE’s initial proposals. Following the outcome of the Statutory Consultation a new HE project team was installed with a promise that they would listen. To date, the new project team have been far more engaged and responsive. Following a full review of HE’s preferred alignment was this finally rejected and that which the community firmly favoured has been adopted. However, the wasted time, effort and public funds needed to get this position is an extremely poor reflection on Highways England and Historic England alike. Whilst I support and fully accept HE have made major improvements within the scheme proposals submitted to the Inspector they are not without issues that seriously concern me like it does the wider community and local residents: The traffic flow advantages gained by the dualling will be seriously compromised by the failure to include upgrades to the western roundabout at Wansford. Safety issues will be exacerbated whilst exiting Wansford onto the western roundabout. Safety concerns from Upton residents needs careful consideration and fully addressing. If the current proposals are to proceed then careful monitoring of the safety issues with necessary improvements where appropriate will need enforcing. Solving the issues at this stage will be far more cost effective for the public purse. Ignoring the overall safety and connectivity concerns of the WCHR community must be resolved. There is solid evidence of the shortcomings and relatively simple solutions on which the Planning Inspector needs to be full briefed. I hope the Planning Inspectorate uses its powers to ensure the above issues are satisfactorily resolved minimising any delays in the commencement of this project."

Robert Reid
"Dear Planning Inspectorate Overall I am in favour of this scheme since the Statutory Consultation,the new team at Bedford has engaged and continued to have mini consultations in developing the scheme. We have a small farm in the middle of the project mainly all of the County Wildlife Site,and one of our main concerns has been how the environment and wildlife will be challenged by the scheme. The geography is challenging with the River Nene, floodplain and SSSI just north of Sutton station,this is a sensitive and important wildlife corridor. Homes England Agency were problematic early on in the scheme but Historic England waited until right at the end of this process to even assist in getting the road out of the Nene floodplain, but it still leaves the new road very close to the river, potential geophysical issues, little room for NUM routes, and mitigation from light air and noise pollution. Historic England should be challenged as to what is really in the southern edges of this Scheduled Monument. Please get in touch if you require further evidence/explanation. Support the new position of eastern junction, only concern is the closing of the old roads that these do not become anti-social problems and need careful consideration on how these are kept secure. The Upton road would make a good NUM route if it could be linked in to other paths and helps to keep Upton connected with surrounding villages. The lighting to the junction and construction compound should not be allowed to impinge on surrounding environmental sensitive areas. Proper consideration needs to be incorporated into NUM routes for horse riders on the disused rail bed as a safe way of crossing the new A47. The use of the old rail bridge makes great use of this Victorian feature and it is hoped the concrete underpass is sensitively blended into the surroundings. It is also hoped the station house with its pleasing architecture can be retained near to its present location. The only other area of concern is the western roundabout and access out of Wansford, will this need some form of smart traffic lights in the future? As this will never be really solved until there is a A1 upgrade, also is it not possible to extend the height of the balustrade on the east west bridge over the A1 with anti climb key clamp system. The present A47 is overdue an upgrade on the grounds of safety, especially the Southorpe road junction. It is more important than ever we protect the environment and place more emphasis on avoiding doing damage unlike Historic England protecting a burial barrow that does not exist. In conclusion the scheme gets an 8 out of 10 score, and would have been higher if other agencies had shown better engagement. Yours sincerely Robert Reid"

Sutton Parish Council
"Sutton Parish Council response to the A47 Wansford to Sutton Dualling proposals Sutton Parish Council supports the proposals submitted to Planning inspector by Highways England with the following comments and provisos. The initial predetermination of the route alignment by the original Highways England project team and its project sponsors was done without proper consultation, using only preliminary reports on geology, environment, and construction risks was simply wrong. It meant a preferred route was chosen which was totally rejected in the pre and Statutory Public Consultation stage. Highways England reacted by appointing a new project team who have responded positively to the majority of the community concerns however, time wasted by the original project team trying to justify their predetermined route wasted a considerable amount of public time and funds. Highways England failed to properly engage with Historic England who in turn failed to follow its own guidelines to allow investigation over part of the historic monument site causing an inferior initial route alignment close to the river and in a County Wildlife site. Historic England should be censured for wasting public time and money. If not for the intervention of local Parish Councils and an impacted local land owner the route would have had more construction risks and cost. Local interest forcing Historic and Highways England together has created a much more satisfactory alignment and saved an estimated £5-7million. Despite our support for the proposals we still believe Highways England will fall short of their core objectives with outstanding connectivity issues to be resolved: - Providing safe accessibility, for Upton residents along The Drift and Langley Bush road to the new roundabout. - Accessibility for a WCHR route from Upton to Sutton and Castor/Ailsworth. We have put forward proposals and simple affordable solutions which would maintain our close historic connectivity. - Highways England proposals provide major WCHR route improvements east to west however, final connectivity either crossing or going under the A1 to Wansford remains very unsatisfactory for most users. We have put forward solutions which to date have been rejected. - The initial failure to recognise the impact and not including any major improvements to the west roundabout at Wansford within the project objectives gives major concern for the whole community. The inevitable west bound queues at the roundabout will create tailbacks to and beyond the east roundabout and negatively impact free flow of traffic. - With the anticipated increase in traffic volumes, safe access from Wansford onto the west roundabout is, as it is now, going to become an increasingly dangerous manoeuvre. We fully support the need to dual this very dangerous section of road and understand Road Safety Assessments will be a continuing feature of this project and hope any shortcomings will be followed by the appropriate action."

The Woodland Trust
"The Woodland Trust welcomes the opportunity to register a representation to the following project. We hold significant concerns with regards to the removal of T20, a veteran oak tree outlined within the applicant’s Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) Report [APP-096]. The Trust asks that all trees displaying veteran characteristics are retained, and adequately protected during construction in line with Natural England’s Standing Advice which states: “A buffer zone around an ancient or veteran tree should be at least 15 times larger than the diameter of the tree. The buffer zone should be 5m from the edge of the tree’s canopy if that area is larger than 15 times the tree’s diameter.” In summary, the Woodland Trust objects to the proposed development on the grounds of direct loss of a veteran tree. We hope our comments are of use to you."

Savills (UK) Ltd (Savills (UK) Ltd) on behalf of William Scott Abbott Trust
"The design of the approach to Sacrewell Farm (owned by the William Scott Abbott Trust) is of paramount importance. The current design in the Environmental Masterplan (AS-021) is of insufficient detail, the draft Statement of Common Ground is unspecific in how exactly the entrance will be designed and this presents the Charity with the risk of little influence over the detailed design when it commences after the GVD is issued. Poor design could irreparably damage the Charity. The Charity’s core demographic is of young families, tourists and those on camping holidays and the entrance via the proposed underpass is the first impression visitors receive of the education and tourist offering beyond. A poorly designed underpass approach, inadequate landscaping and surplus land will facilitate the continuation of the illegal sex trade, drug & alcohol abuse and trespass issues which are prevalent in the area and specifically which emanates from Highways England’s freehold site directly opposite the entrance to Sacrewell Farm. Experience from the A14 road scheme (also via DCO) left many claimants with no ability to influence the detailed design because it was undertaken after the GVD was issued and the control had all passed to Highways England. The fallout from that lack of agreement on detailed design elements continues today, long after the A14 opened. Whilst the A47 have engaged constructively with the preparation of the Statement of Common Ground, the current draft includes warm words of future engagement on the detailed design but is light on specifics. The Charity needs specifics and seeks to highlight this problem to the Planning Inspectorate. The entrance to Sacrewell Farm is vital. The Charity are submitting representations on this element only and are doing so to highlight the proposals that Sacrewell have put forward that will mitigate the impact on their entrance and ensure the Charity continues to be viable. The Charity claim to have spent £30,000 per month in the last six months tackling the anti-social behavior (lewd acts, drug and alcohol abuse) which has been spilling over onto the Charity’s land from Highways England’s freehold land opposite its entrance. This is not sustainable. There is a significant risk that if the design of the new underpass is not sufficiently thought out then it will facilitate the continuation of these acts. If this should happen, there is scope for a claim by the Charity for loss of earnings if this behaviour should continue. The Charity request the use of fencing, lighting, CCTV, high gates and stone wing walls, double yellow lines and landscaping proposals which are designed to make the entrance to Sacrewell as attractive as possible to its customers whilst deterring loitering and barring access to the underpass for the extant anti-social behaviour. The Charity requests that Highways England are instructed to bring forward the designs of this entrance as a matter of urgency, and no later than 31/12/21, and to fully accommodate the Charity’s wishes in the design process."

Historic England
"Please see attached"

Milton (Peterborough) Estates Co (Milton (Peterborough) Estates Co)
"We wish to submit our considerations on your proposed Development Consent Order (DCO) On behalf of Milton (Peterborough) Estates Company and Sir Philip Naylor Leyland BT. As the application stands, we are minded that we would appeal the DCO decision pursuant to section 118 of the 2008 act, due to incorrect interpretation of policy and procedural fairness. We believe the process is flawed as the public consultation in 2017/2018 was on a scheme that started west of the Nene roundabout, whereas the DCO application is based on a completely different scheme which now starts east of that roundabout. Furthermore, the red line boundary during that consultation and the consequent results and preferred route announcement all incorporated the existing Upton Roundabout, therefore during and after the statutory process we were not given the opportunity to agree a statement of common ground. We are told the 2020 revision is based on the 766 responses from the 2017 consultation but no one had the opportunity to see the revised route to be able to objectively respond. The proposed scheme, as presented in 2017 clearly detailed that the scheme started west of the Nene roundabout (Upton - Castor & Ailsworth). This 2017 proposal showed the retention of this roundabout along with a safe local access to Upton. Accordingly, the businesses and residents of Upton made no significant representations on this proposal as there was no need to make an objection. The 2020 proposal has removed this access, and safe, suitable appropriate connection to A47 and the scheme starts east of this roundabout. It is our assertion that there has been no relevant consultation on the east of the scheme, and we strongly request you reconsider the loss of an access to the village of Upton as Highways England have not consulted appropriately on this new outline scheme design. From 12th November 2018 when the extended consultation period ended to the 19th October 2020 when the Project update was issued with a new route no attempt was made to consult key stakeholders or local residents. If Highways England had given additional time to consult and this had resulted in an amendment to the current SGAR 3 Prelim. Design, to retain this roundabout and retain the connection to the west of this roundabout to the existing LAR (Local Access Road), then this would; • Satisfy the primary concerns of the businesses and residents of Upton, with regards safe access and connectivity. • Ease congestion, and Operational Safety issues on your current new, eastern roundabout. • Provide scheme budget savings through; o design development savings o Scheme programme delays caused by Judicial Review o Construction cost savings ? Reducing the scheme length ? Avoiding the need to demolish and remove the existing, functional roundabout, which provides safe and appropriate local connectivity. Upton village is very much an Estate village with operating agricultural units and many residential tenants also. Policy -during the past year we have tried to establish the justification of the design of the new proposed roundabout versus the retention of the existing Nene Roundabout. We have been told this is an off line construction and down to cost and design standards, however the dualling of the A47 is on the line of the current Nene Roundabout which was built in 1990. Whilst consideration must be given to the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB) and consideration that some standards have been updated since, we would still need to be convinced this dramatic alteration is justified. It makes no sense to remove a roundabout that exists and replace with a new roundabout that removes a perfectly acceptable access. This is also a cost saving which should be considered in the context of the expense to date. We would like to see a reasoned and justified response to moving the present Nene roundabout to its new location including reference to the design manual and costs. Similarly reasons why a eastbound slip road has not been considered connecting to the Upton Road. Safety – As the current scheme stands, we believe the access road known as the Drift and the junctions onto Langley Bush Road and Sutton Heath Road are un safe with the increased usage following the closure of Upton Road and again do they comply with the DMRB. Consideration would be given to the Drift road being made into a dual road as Milton own the land on either side. Highways England have offered increased passing places and some straightening but these attract unwanted fly tipping and leisure parking/activities. On behalf of the Milton (Peterborough) Estates Company & Sir Philip Naylor Leyland BT, we are in support of the dualling of the A47 but will be minded to appeal against this application as it stands."

National Grid plc (WITHDRAWN) (National Grid plc (WITHDRAWN))
"Submission withdrawn - see attached. Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc & National Grid Gas Plc in relation to the A47 Wansford to Sutton Project (“the Project”) National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (“NGET”) & National Grid Gas Plc (“NGG”) wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure which is within and in close proximity to the proposed Order limits. NGET’s & NGG’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits must be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the Project have been reviewed in relation to impacts on NGET’s & NGG’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area. The following assets are within, or in close proximity to, the Order limits: Overhead Lines • 4VK (400kV) overhead line route - COTTAM - EATON SOCON - WYMONDLEY Towers 4VK256 & 4VK260 Gas Pipeline • Feeder 9 High Pressure Gas main NGET & NGG require protective provisions to be included within the DCO to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET & NGG are liaising with the Promoter in relation to the protective provisions for inclusion within the DCO, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. National Grid will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. National Grid’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. NGET & NGG reserves the right to make further representations as part of the examination process but in the meantime will negotiate with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement."

Peterborough City Council
"Please see attached"