A1 in Northumberland – Morpeth to Ellingham

Representations received regarding A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Scott Clarehugh
"I welcome and support the applicants request to the secretary of state for a DCO to progress with the design and planning of the proposed highway improvements. The A1 in Northumberland greatly needs widening to accommodate the increasing volume of traffic using the road. The scheme will reduce travel time by use of slip roads and roundabouts giving better access to the highway. Road safety will also be greatly improved. The current road suffers from long delays and sadly there are still many RTA's causing loss of life. My property is directly affected by the road expansion as it is land adjoining the current highway. I am satisfied with the information provided and previous consultation work carried out by the developer. I fully support this DCO application. Scott Clarehugh"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Lloyd
"I am writing on behalf of around 10,000 coastal community residents of Amble, Warkworth, Hauxley, Hadston, Broomhill, Red Row and Widdrington, who all currently join the A1 southbound at Causey Bridge, which is by far the busiest junction between Morpeth and Felton. Frustratingly, Highways England (HE) propose to ignore this junction with their off-line A1, in favour of one at Fenrother, requiring us to use 2 miles of old A1 before getting access to only 2 miles of the new dual carriageway. Amble commuters to Tyneside and beyond already frustratingly have to give way at both Chevington junctions to LESS trafficked roads, and the proposed arrangement will just add THIRD and FOURTH examples along the old A1, which will clearly take far less traffic than that generated by our communities. It will mean more gear changes/pollution and probably MORE TIME - an appalling return for the millions about to be spent. To summarise, I propose a simple relocation of the proposed Fenrother junction 2 miles north at Causey Bridge, that would dramatically improve all these journey times at minimal cost difference, with obvious advantages as follows :- • time saved for all southbound residents from all our communities • less pollution/ noise from all southbound residents from all our communities (ie a quieter time for Tritlington First School) • more even spacing of junctions along the new A1 (5.5/4km instead of 2.5/7km from Highlaw to Felton) improving driver reaction times and diversion options/ network resilience • faster X15 bus timings, although Tritlington (which would need new bus stops anyway as the recently built laybys are south of the proposed junction) would need layby bus stops close to the Fenrother overbridge to keep its service I attended a consultation at Longhorsley, registered and wrote to Highways England to explain these issues, but have never received a satisfactory explanation of why Fenrother is preferred to Causey Bridge as the only junction between Highlaws and Felton. I suspect HE have only considered the needs of communities within a mile or two of the A1, which their choice of public consultation locations in 2018 bears out - - Tritlington, Felton and Longhorsley, whose combined populations we easily outnumber. I am writing as a retired civil engineer who just wants to see good logical design and an improvement to my still regular journeys to Newcastle, neither of which are achieved by the current proposed junction locations. I put the case to Amble Town Council, who were also persuaded enough to send a similar objection to HE July 2018, so I am NOT alone ! TCL 25 Sep 2020"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Andrew Kirkham
"I have cycled extensively throughout Northumberland - touring, fitness training, and commuting. I now live in []and cycle in the lanes to the north west and south west but I struggle to find a cycle friendly route east/west across the A1 that would link up to the coast and castles cycle route and all the facilities and attractions of the coast. I see a stream of cyclists come up from the Newcastle direction through Whalton and Netherwitton but there is no good route back to the coast across the A1 that would allow them to do a loop - and spread their coffee/cake/lunch money at more businesses - cyclists are good customers - usually very hungry and thirsty! There is the very good cycle track alongside the new by-pass to Ashington and you can work your way out to the coast that way - but essentially it is alongside a major road - good for commuting but maybe not for pleasure/fitness/family cycling. Back in Summer 2018 I queried cycling provision in the new A1 Morpeth to Felton scheme - see attached emails. The plans showed no obvious provisions for cyclists to cross the A1. At the showing of the plans the answer I got was ‘cyclists can use the pavements on the new roundabouts and bridges’. The written reply amounts to pointing out that there will be a bridge at Causey Park. I wonder if - as the plans have developed - there are specific cycle access and routes now planned? One of the best east/west routes I think is from Longhorsley through Causey Park/Chevington Moor and pass the Seddon’s caravan park to Widdrington roundabout then to Druridge. There is a new cycle cafe at Cresswell or the visitors centre at Druridge Bay to spur you on! Please see the photo attached - for this route to be cycle friendly there are two issues with the section from Causey Park Bridge to Chevington Moor - marked in green on the map. 1 The crossing of the A1 at Causey Park Bridge and the safe linking to the road to Chevington Moor. Do you think it needs more thought than just saying there will be a bridge? 2 Most of the road from Causey Park Bridge to Chevington Moor is a ’new’ road made wide, straight, and fast with wide verges on both sides. Quite a bit of traffic uses this road as a ‘rat run’. At the time the road was ‘improved’ it is unlikely that they would have been thinking that provision of a cycle lane on one of the wide verges was a priority. I think with the work on the A1 underway this might be a great time to remedy this omission and put in a cycle lane using one or both of the wide verges - this would have to filter into the 0.5 miles of original lane at the Chevington Moor end unless the cycle lane could run alongside the road in the fields similar to the Warkworth to Alnmouth route. I can provide a map if needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gareth Moor
"My concerns with the scheme are mainly associated with the proposed works within West View Morpeth and the detrimental impact they will have. These proposals introduce extensive works within West View and introduce dangers within a residential area during the construction phase of the works but more importantly will introduce dangers not presently within the street and within the hospital grounds access roads, when the proposed works are completed. These dangers will be permanent feature thereafter. The proposals do not adhere to the Construction Design and Management Regulations. If the regulations had been followed then this design would not have been put forward. I find it concerning that a scheme presented on behalf of a government agency, appears not to confirm with government regulations. There will be an increased risk of flooding. Natural sound reducing landscaping will be removed introducing more noise within the street. This will also introduce more light pollution There are safer alternative routes which are shorter and eliminate the danger from West View and can be constructed with very limited. Risk to the public The street will no longer be a cul-de-Sac reducing the streets ability to meet government safer by design standards. The street will no longer be a safe area for children to play. The design brings more traffic in to the street but also significant large agricultural vehicles will use the street for access to fields North of West View at currently they have never had access to the fields from West View. The Design will require the relocation of gas houses (not required with other designs)"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Moor
"My concerns with the scheme are mainly associated with the proposed works within West View Morpeth and the detrimental impact they will have. These proposals introduce extensive works within West View and introduce dangers within a residential area during the construction phase of the works but more importantly will introduce dangers not presently within the street and within the hospital grounds access roads, when the proposed works are completed. These dangers will be permanent feature thereafter. The proposals do not adhere to the Construction Design and Management Regulations. If the regulations had been followed then this design would not have been put forward. I find it concerning that a scheme presented on behalf of a government agency, appears not to confirm with government regulations. There will be an increased risk of flooding. Natural sound reducing landscaping will be removed introducing more noise within the street. This will also introduce more light pollution There are safer alternative routes which are shorter and eliminate the danger from West View and can be constructed with very limited. Risk to the public The street will no longer be a cul-de-Sac reducing the streets ability to meet government safer by design standards. The street will no longer be a safe area for children to play. The current layout of the street has no footpaths, and the majority of the houses drives are merely gaps in fences. In short if you leave your driveway you are on the road, The design brings more traffic in to the street but also significant large agricultural vehicles will use the street for access to fields North of West View at currently they have never had access to the fields from West View. The Design will require the relocation of gas houses (not required with other designs)"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Transport Action Network
"I am very concerned that this road will significantly increase carbon emissions and undermine our efforts to reach net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (Climate Change Act 2008). The ES states that the scheme will increase emissions by 1,855,000 additional tonnes of carbon due to increased traffic, and 34,750 tonnes due to construction. This isn't 'not significant' as the ES claims. At current trajectories the UK is unlikely to reach net zero by 2050, with road transport emissions playing a significant role in that failure. It is vital we *reduce* emissions much faster than we are doing now, and not increase them. This scheme takes us backwards on tackling climate change."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Jameson Bwanali on behalf of Northern Gas Networks
"Our Ref: [] Your Ref: TR010059 23-10-2020 Dear Sir/Madam We object to your planning application Thank you for sending your notice dated 14-09-2020. We enclose a plan showing our plant in the area of Morpeth To Ellingham A1 Northumberland. We object to the planning application on the grounds that the protection given to our plant may be diminished by the works you intend to carry out. There are specific building proximity distances for individual pipelines, which are dependent on pre-defined risk levels and the type of development. If your proposal includes the construction of buildings, it is essential you contact Donald Gilbank pipeline manager for the area in question on [email protected] Please refer to email & attachments sent on 23/10/2020 with above reference Yours faithfully, Jameson Bwanali"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Mark Green
"I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed Charlton Mires Junction. I am a keen cyclist living in []. The existing route between Rock and South Charlton represents an important gateway for cyclists, enabling us to travel from the coastline into the Cheviot hills and vice versa, without having to travel through any towns and encounter associated motor traffic. Unfortunately the existing route involves a staggered section on the A1 which is difficult and dangerous even for experienced cyclists. The proposed junction has the potential to make the route safe and open it to less experienced and junior cyclists as well as encouraging cycle tourism. This is, however, subject to the following points: 1. The inclusion of an over bridge is essential. 2. Clearly marked cycle lanes must be included on the entrance to the junction from each side of the B6347 and on the junction itself. Ideally these lanes would be on a different level to the road, such as on a mixed use pavement. 3. Signage warming motorists that cyclists are using the junction must be included to raise awareness and safety."
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"A1 Morpeth to Ellingham Scheme Section 56: Registration of Interest by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England (Historic England) Introduction Historic England (HE) is the Government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment. It is our duty under the National Heritage Act 1983 to secure the preservation and enhancement of the historic environment. Our objective is to ensure that the historic environment generally and, in particular, designated heritage assets, are fully taken into account in the determination of this DCO. The proposal is to upgrade the A1 between Morpeth and Ellingham, with two main sections of work: • Morpeth to Felton (Part A) • Alnwick to Ellingham (Part B) The scheme will run in very close proximity to a number of scheduled monuments, including: • North Charlton medieval village and open field system • Camp at West Linkhall We have had pre-application with Highways England on this project and in principle support the scheme. However, there note some issues which do not appear to be fully addressed within the DCO documents: the need for absolute clarity that the DCO boundary abuts these scheduled monuments and does not take in any land within them. 1) Nationally important designated archaeology: North Charlton medieval village and open field system Scheduled Monument The remains of the medieval township of North Charlton and its associated field system survive in good condition on both sides of the modern A1. The earthworks of the houses, farms and fields survive both as visible earthworks and as buried archaeological remains, with great potential to provide understanding settlement in Northumberland when this part of the world was at the front line of conflict between England and Scotland. The camp at West Linkhall is perhaps less well understood. It is likely to date to the Roman period, and to have been used as a temporary camp, perhaps to house troops in transit through the area, or as a fortlet, a more permanent defended installation. The proposed works to the A1 will, we are assured, abut the edge of these monuments, but will not intrude into them. This is welcomed, as are the measures outlined in the outline CEMP to protect these sites from accidental damage as part of the construction process. Our only concern at this stage is that we cannot find a plan within the supporting documents which shows the DCO boundary and the scheduled monuments at a scale sufficient to be clear that they abut but do not coincide. Although we accept, and welcome, the general approach discussed verbally in the CEMP, we would still seek clarity on this matter through an additional plan before we can be completely satisfied that this exclusion of the scheduled sites from the DCO area will be accomplished. 2) Grade II Listed milepost (NHL 1153544) This listed building may have to be removed as part of the work and replaced as close as possible to its current location after the works are complete. Historic England has no objection to this suggestion. However, in the CEMP for this structure it suggests a written, drawn, and photographic record of the milepost will be compiled in consultation with Historic England. We believe that this needs to be amended so that this consultation takes place with the conservation specialists at Northumberland County Council. Conclusion In view of the above comments, Historic England wish to ensure that the Examining Authority are aware of our position and have the necessary information in order to inform its decision on this application. For these reasons, Historic England wishes to register as an interested party for the DCO Examination. We would, of course, be happy to discuss this matter further with a view to addressing our concerns. 27th October 2020"
Members of the Public/Businesses
M E Beal & Sons
"We write with reference to the letter sent to myself & my parents regarding the DCO, A1 in Northumberland, Morpeth to Ellingham, Ref Number TR010059, this letter is asking for our thoughts & opinions on the proposed development. Our first contact with HE with regards this section of the A1 was in 2014 when we were informed that the dualing of the A1 was going ahead & my farm was going to be majorly affected. Ever since then we have had countless meetings, emails, phone calls, on site visits, surveys (some all through the night with no notice, which resulted in my elderly parents thinking we were being burgled!) trail pits dug on my land, made to move farm stock & horses, remove fences, remove gates, padlocked gates cut off by A1 workmen, meetings cancelled by HE with no notice, meetings with miss-information presented by HE & had to be rescheduled & untold hours of work in relation to this scheme, not to even mention the huge impact all this is having on my [] year old parents & mine & my partners health. At the initial contact with HE my parents & I were obviously devastated that our farmhouse, steading, a third of our land including our caravan storage business, the airfield & 116 years of our family history was to be wiped out. However the DV reassured & promised us, in front of our agent GFW, that they would offer us a full "lift & shift" for my entire farmhouse & steading to a new plot on the [] side of the remaining land. This was questioned by us, our agent & solicitor several times & we were reassured by the DV that this would happen, quote "We've done it before, we can do it again" at which point the other members of the team all nodded & agreed. Further to this, we have 2 emails from the DV to our agent GFW, confirming that they agree to the cost basis of relocating the farmhouse & steading exactly as they stand to a new site on the remaining land. On this basis, we were also advised to engage the services of a chartered surveyor, at my expense, to provide measured drawings & costings for the redevelopment of Charlton Mires Farmhouse & steading. Since then the DV has reneged on this & has even refused to pay for the pre-planning application to allow us to relocate to try & rebuild our lives. We did request from HE to please keep their land take on the west side of the A1 to an absolute minimum & after countless reassurances from them they would, even going so far as to provide us with a revised set of plans showing a slightly reduced curve onto the flyover to try & fulfill this request. However upon receipt of the blight notice they have earmarked 2 large blocks of land over & above what is needed for the actual road but HE have consistently refused to provide any details as to why they require this extra land take. We currently have an underpass which is just usable due to being very narrow & very low. HE's suggestion to simply extend it in its current form but to now pass under 8 lanes of traffic as opposed to the present 2 lanes & onto land either side that we will no longer own, is completely impracticable & simply would not work as it will be impossible to force livestock through such a long, narrow dark tunnel, as we have told HE numerous times. Quite clearly the loss of a usable underpass will drastically reduce the value & efficiency of my farm. HE & the DV are refusing to even discuss this with us or find a solution to this major problem. We were also promised by the DV that on acceptance of the blight notice & submission of the DCO that we would be entitled to claim 90% of the DV's estimated valuation. Now they are insisting that a contract must be signed with staged payments etc & a considerable amount of the compensation to be withheld until completion of the scheme. Even though we were promised (again!) by the DV that all compensations would be paid up front apart from the disturbance element. This year the DV & HE are refusing to pay our expenses, including agents fees, solicitors costs & the £10,000 accommodation works promised by the DV to go some way towards paying for new stables after having to relocate the horses because of HE conducting surveys & trail pits, even though this was in front of our agent GFW & our solicitor, []. I have been forced by HE to pay for the release of the mortgages & the DV is refusing to reimburse me for this as well. Until that is, I agree & sign to a wholly undervalued offer from the DV which he threatened that if I did NOT accept by the 15th August 2020, he was going to reduce it. [] has an email from the DV confirming this. We then, in April 2020 along with the general public in North Northumberland, received a substantial booklet entitled "Preliminary Environmental Information Report" which stated that ALL compensation had been agreed as part of the scheme with the occupiers of [] This is quite clearly false & more misleading information to the general public & a great surprise to us!! We are going to be left with no farmhouse, no steading, no airfield, no usable underpass, no income from our caravan storage business, a significantly devalued & unsustainable farm business. Our cottage at West Mires will also be significantly devalued due to the fact the line of trees that presently screen the A1 is to be completely removed despite the fact that after numerous meetings, site visits & emails confirming that the trees would be left in place, we discovered that this is completely untrue & they are all to be removed. My elderly parents & I have been manipulated, misled & are being pressurized, bullied & intimidated by the [] into accepting less than market value for our property & all our losses. On this basis & for the above reasons we, Martin E Beal, George G Beal & Gladys A Beal wish to OBJECT to this DCO. 14th October 2020"
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid Gas plc
"Dear Sir/Madam REPRESENTATION BY NATIONAL GRID GAS PLC (“NGG”) TO THE A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham (“THE PROJECT”) NGG wishes to make a relevant representation to the Project DCO in order to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or near the proposed Order limits. NGG’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or near the Order limits should always be maintained and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. The documentation and plans submitted for the above proposed scheme are being reviewed in relation to impacts on NGG’s existing apparatus and land interests located within this area, and NGG may 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. The NGG project team are liaising with the Promoter in this regard and have been throughout the whole process thus far. NGG assets which have been identified as being within or within close proximity to the proposed Order limits are: HIGH PRESSURE GAS PIPELINE: High Pressure Gas Pipeline (Feeder 13) near Causey Park NGG will continue to review the application documents in liaison with the applicant to adequately protect NGG’s retained apparatus and to ensure that NGG will be able to deliver the infrastructure associated with the DCO appropriately, in accordance with the applicant’s proposed delivery programme. NGG will advise the Examining Authority of any issues in this regard as the examination progresses. I hope the above information is useful. If you require any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Spencer Jefferies Development Liaison Officer, Land and Acquisitions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Robert John Fenwick Thorp
"My client is concerned about the signage of the scheme to his property and the holiday business. At present there is a sign to the property, and given this access will be blocked up, we are concerned that the new service road will be badly signed. My client is concerned about the service road, the width and the future maintenance. It is unclear if the entire service road is to be a maintainable road at the Highways expense or at the Councils or to the users. We are also concerned about the width of the road given the huge amount of traffic. My client is concerned about the reduced access provisions from his property which currently are directly to the [] near his drive. My client is concerned with the plans to erect permanent habitat mitigation on his property and the impacts those will have over the management of the woodland in particularly. My client is concerned about the increase noise, dust and vibration to his property as the [] gets closer to the highway and would like to ensure that suitable mitigation is installed to reduce this impact. they would like to ensure that the current tree plantation is protected. My clients are concerned about the water pollution of the stream running through their property and under the A1. There are no details about water protection included."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Natural England
"Dear Sir/ Madam NSIP Reference Name / Code: A1 in Northumberland – Morpeth to Ellingham; TR010059 User Code: Click here to enter text. Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 19 October 2020 which was received by Natural England on the same day. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Relevant Representation PART I: Summary of Natural England’s advice – Natural England is generally satisfied that there are no fundamental reasons in principle why the development should not proceed. PART II: Natural England’s detailed advice 1.1. Natural England’s advice in these relevant representations is based on information submitted by Highways England in support of its application for a Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) in relation to A1 in Northumberland – Morpeth to Ellingham (the project). 1.2. Natural England has been working closely with Highways England and their consultants to provide advice and guidance since 2017. This has included detailed discussions regarding the compensatory planting requirements for the ancient woodland losses within the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands Site of Special Scieintifc Interest (SSSI), and suitable mitigation measures to minimise impacts on the SSSI from the construction of the southern pier. Discussions have also taken place regarding proetced species impacts, and the information required to enable Letters of No Impediment to be issued. Progress has been made on a Statement of Common Ground for Part A of the project. Further work is required to agree a Statement of Common Ground for Part B. 1.3. These relevant representations contain a summary of what Natural England considers the main nature conservation issues to be in relation to the DCO application, and indicate the principal submissions that it wishes to make at this point. Natural England will develop these points further as appropriate during the examination process. It may have further or additional points to make, particularly if further information about the project becomes available. 1.4. Part I of these representations provides an overview of the issues and a summary of Natural England’s advice. Section 2 identifies the natural features relevant to this application. Section 3 summarises Natural England’s overall view of the application and the main issues which it considers need to be addressed by the Secretary of State. 1.5. Part II of these representations sets out all the significant issues which remain outstanding, and which Natural England advises should be addressed by Highways England and the Examining Authority as part of the examination process in order to ensure that the project can properly be consented. These are primarily issues on which further information would be required in order to allow the Examining Authority properly to undertake its task or where further work is required to agree on the potential impacts of the development on designated sites and to provide a sufficient degree of confidence as to their efficacy. 1.6. Natural England will continue discussions with Highways England to seek to resolve these concerns and agree outstanding matters in a statement of common ground. Failing satisfactory agreement, Natural England advises that the matters set out in sections 4 to 7 will require consideration by the Examining Authority as part of the examination process. 1.7. The Examining Authority may wish to ensure that the matters set out in these relevant representations are addressed as part of the Examining Authority’s first set of questions to ensure the provision of information early in the examination process. 2. The natural features potentially affected by this application 2.1. The designated sites relevant to this application are: 2.1.1. the River Coquet and Coquert Valley Woodlands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). 2.2. The following European and Nationally protected species may be affected by the proposed project: 2.2.1. Bats – Common pipistrelle; Soprano pipistrelle, Noctule and Natterer’s; 2.2.2. Great Crested Newts; 2.2.3. Badgers. 2.3. The following areas of non-designated but valuable and sensitive habitat are affected: 2.3.1. Ancient semi- natural woodland; 2.3.2. Lowland meadows; 2.3.3. Ponds; 2.3.4. Lowland mixed deciduous woodland; 2.3.5. Hedgerows; 2.3.6. Rivers, and 2.3.7. Arable field margins, all of which are habitats of principle importance. 2.4. The main issues raised by this application are: 2.4.1. The proposal will result in the loss of SSSI habitat from the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands SSSI as a result of the new bridge to be constructed – these impacts will be both temporary during construction, and permanent from the presence of new infrasturture, and increased shadowing of vegetation. This will include the loss of irreplaceable ancient semi-natural woodland from within the SSSI; 2.4.2. The proposal will result in the permanent loss of Habitats of Principal Importance including lowland mixed deciduous woodland, lowland meadows, hedgerows, ponds, rivers and arable field margins; 2.4.3. The proposals will directly and indirectly impacts habitats and structures that support European and nationally protected species. ? Part II: NATURAL ENGLAND’S RELEVANT REPRESENTATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – MORPETH TO ELLINGHAM 3. Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010059 3.1. Natural England’s advice is that in relation to identified nature conservation issues within its remit there is no fundamental reason of principle why the project should not be permitted but further discussions with Highways England and their consultants in relation to the air quality impact assessment on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands SSSI are required. 3.2. Natural England’s headline points are that on the basis of the information submitted: 3.2.1. Natural England is satisfied that the proposal will not be likely to have a significant effect on European designated sites, as we have confirmed directly with the applicants and their consultants previously, and included as Appendices C and F of the submitted Habitats Regulations Assessment. 3.2.2. Natural England is satisfied that while the proposals will directly impact on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands Site of Special Scientific Interest both permanently and temporarily, acceptable compensation for the loss of irreplaceable habitats has been identified and will be delivered through the scheme. 3.2.3. Natural England is also satisfied that impacts on protected species have been identified, and sufficient information which has enabled Letters of No Impediment to be issued. 3.2.4. Natural England and Highways England do not agree on the approach to air quality assessment detailed in the updated DMRB, and so will continue discussions to reach agreement on the air quality impacts on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands SSSI. 3.2.5. Natural England advises that, if approved, the project must be subject to all necessary and appropriate requirements which ensure that unacceptable environemtnal impacts either do not occur or are significantly mitigated. 3.3. Natural England’s advice is that the potential impacts on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands SSSI from air quality as a result of increased traffic movement require further discussion during the Examination process with Highways England and their consultants. This impacts require agreement before development consent can be granted. However, Natural England’s advice is that this matter is capable of being overcome. 3.4. Natural England is satisfied that all other environmental impacts arising from the proposal have been adequately identified and suitable mitigation and compendation identified to minimise these impacts as far as possible. ? PART II: OUTSTANDING MATTERS REQUIRING ATTENTION 4. Further details about the project in order to enable assessment 4.1. Natural England intends to continue discussions with Highways England to reach agreement on the approach to air quality im[pacts on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands SSSI, and to agree a Statement of Common Ground for Part B of the Scheme. 5. Matters that must be secured by requirements in the DCO 5.1. The DCO must ensure that a detailed CEMP, which includes all necessary mitigation and compensation measures is completed and agreed prior to works starting. 6. Comments on the draft DCO. 6.1. Schedule 2 of the DCO references the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 – these have been superseded by the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). The DCO should therefore be amended to reference the correct Regulations, and the paragraph references should also be amended to reflect the correct sections of the latest Regulations. 6.2. Natural England is satisfied that the requirements of the draft DCO will ensure that habitats and species are given due consideration during works, and that appropriate measures are in place to ensure no harm or damage to protected sites and species occurs. Natural England 28 October 2020"
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Northumberland County Council
"Content to be sent separately by email due to the length of the representation"
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project and makes the following comments relevant to the assessment process and development itself: 1. The proposed Construction Environmental Action Plan is important to minimise public health impacts from the development; PHE requests that the plan is enacted and reviewed throughout the build. 2. The ES reflects a narrow approach to human health and continues to focus primarily on health protection issues, eg, air quality, noise and vibration, and flood risk. As such the ES presents limited information on local health priorities and effect of the scheme on these priorities, including on mental health and health inequalities. 3. The application does not appear to contain an Equality Statement, or to provide a specific definition of vulnerable groups within the general population that were included in the assessment. There is limited understanding of the differential effects of the scheme on these groups. 4. The ongoing monitoring of population and human health relates exclusively to health protection factors, that is, air quality, noise and vibration and flood risk. Ideally some level of monitoring to understand the effect of the development on the wider determinants of health for the local population would be valuable for local stakeholders. 5. We would expect that the PRoW Management Plan would have been submitted with the DCO application, however it was not included and instead the ES states it will be produced by the main contractor after the DCO is granted. We question whether this is appropriate. 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."
Parish Councils
Amble Town Council
"Please see below the objection from Amble Town Council regarding dualling the A1. It has been noted that Highways England have now merged the Morpeth-Felton proposals with the Alnwick-Ellingham proposals into one Development Consent Order. However, the issues outlined in the Councils first objection do not appear to have been addressed and therefore Members would like the following objection lodged. "Please consider where virtually all southbound traffic from not just Amble but also Warkworth, Hadston, Broomhill, Hauxley, Acklington and Widdrington gets access to the A1. It is presently Causey Bridge, the busiest junction between Morpeth and Felton, where the right turn lane often fills completely with traffic waiting to return, regularly threatening to block all A1 northbound traffic. This same junction is being ignored by the proposed new A1, in favour of one at Fenrother, requiring Amble commuters to use 2 miles of old A1 before getting access to the new dual carriageway. The ONLY community that benefits from the junction at Fenrother is the tiny hamlet of Tritlington, whose commuters can still get southbound access via Cockle Park at Highlaws junction. Amble commuters already frustratingly have to give way at both Chevington junctions to less trafficked roads, and the proposed arrangement will just add a third example, more gear changes/pollution and probably no time saved - an appalling return for the millions being spent. Part of the reason for the A1 upgrade is to improve road safety on a stretch of road which has a record of serious and fatal accidents. By making all traffic to the coastal strip use the old A1 there will continue to be serious accidents. When this part of the old road is "detrunked" it is likely the road will not be a priority for gritting and general maintenance thereby increasing risk. Much of the area now relies on tourist trade and amenities where good access is vital to success. The town of Amble and its near neighbours have high local unemployment rates and a good southbound road access would be a major factor in attracting desperately needed employers to this area. A simple relocation of the proposed Fenrother junction 2 miles north at Causey Bridge would dramatically improve all these journey times at minimal cost difference. Alternatively if the Fenrother junction cannot be relocated the plan shows there is to be a new bridge over the A1 near Causey Bridge, this could be upgraded and slip roads to the A1 added to serve the coastal towns and villages""
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"We have reviewed the Development Consent Order (DCO) application, Environmental Statement (ES) and supporting documents and have a number of concerns regarding the proposed development and matters within our remit. We therefore make representations in relation to the following areas: 1) Net loss of biodiversity 2) Habitats of Principle Importance 3) Otter and water voles 4) Detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) 5) Fish 6) Geomorphology Assessment 7) Discharge of Treated Water and Outfall Construction 8) Water Framework Directive Assessment 9) Surface Water Drainage 10) Drainage Network Water Quality Assessment (DNWQA) 11) Flood Risk Assessment 12) Groundwater 13) Historic Landfill Sites"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Matthew Thomas Gray
"Mr Gray is the owner of No[] & No []. they are accessed directly from the A1 at[]. We are concerned about the new access arrangements to the property. It is unclear if this road is to be maintainable at the public expense, is wide enough to allow traffic to safely pass and ensuring that we are able to maintain our services to the properties. Access to the properties if one is heading north will also be impeded and increase travel time for Mr Gray. We are also concerned that the current screening of the road will be reduced and removed as part of the works and we would like to understand further the mitigation that HE plan to include. We are also concerned about the increased noise, dust and vibration from the new highways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Max Squires
"I am concerned that the project will be further delayed or fragmented and intend to make representation about the need for urgent completion of this project. I am a regular user of the A1 between Ellingham and Newcastle for my business purposes and am concerned that continued delays to the upgrade of this important highway will have an increasingly detrimental impact on the economy and quality of life in North Northumberland."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Paul Gray trading as D G Gray & Son
"I submit this representation as agent on behalf of Paul Gray trading as D G Gray & Son who is the agricultural tenant holding an Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 tenancy on []. The farm is either side of the [] currently and accessed directly from the A1. We are concerned about access being maintained to both sides of the farm. We understand a new access road for the land to the east will be installed, but require this to be maintainable at the public expense and suitable for agricultural traffic. We are also concerned about the access to the fields to the [] which is directly off the A1, a new access from the farm entrance will be needed and suitable for agricultural traffic. We are concerned about access to West Linkhall. again we understand that a new accessway is to be created from Charlton Mires, this needs to be suitable for modern agricultural traffice and maintainable at the public expenses. My client will be loosing farmable land and also the sheep pens. WE require suitable alternative pens to be installed and suitable field drainage and fencing. Roadside fencing will need to be maintainable by the Highways authority. We are also loosing valuable hedgerows which provide screening and shelter for the stock grazing in the fields on the east side of the A1 and we are concerned about the loss of this. Lastly, our client is concerned about journey times in accessing the land, it will take longer and be more problematic than the current access arrangements, which will impact on the farming methods on the farm."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Ann Riley
"We represent the owners of No []. Our current access to the property is directly from the A1 at the []. We understand that the proposals are to block up this access road and provide a new access from the North through Rock Estate. We are concerned about the new road and require this to be fully adopted and maintained at the public expenses. We will object if this is to be a private road. The road needs to be sufficient to allow traffic to pass safely and not have to pull onto soft verges. We require confirmation that the bin service will continue to Rock South Farm and all other serves will continue as normal. We are concerned that people and delivery drivers may not know how to access the road and will need clear directions to []. We are concerned that our travel journeys to the south will increase significantly as a result of these proposals. We require the new access to Rock South to be installed before the current access is stopped up during construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of C J Bosanquet Childrens Trust
"This representation is made on behalf of Rock Settled Estate, C J Bosanquet Children’s Trust and Rock Farms Ltd and referred to collectively as Rock Estates. The address for all is Estate Office,[] Whilst we have engaged with Highways England over the course of the last year, the plans submitted with the DCO application have not previously been shared with the Estate and therefore we need to consider and review these further in order to assess the full impact of the DCO. We are aware at this stage that there are some interests which do not appear to have been acknowledged. On the basis that we have not yet been able to ascertain the full impact of the proposals on the land/interests of Rock Estates , we object to the DCO application insofar as it affects the land/interests of Rock Estates. There are a number of specific concerns which we have shared with Highways England prior to the submission of the DCO application which remain relevant as follows:- 1) There is an electricity cable which connects to a wind farm and is currently located within the highways verge. Our position is that the electricity cable should continue to be located in the highways verge (albeit in the new location of the verge) and it is not necessary for further land to be acquired for the re-location of the electricity cable. We require further clarity from Highways England in relation to their proposals in respect of this. 2) We have previously raised concerns with Highways England regarding the impact which the DCO proposals will have on the drainage of the arable fields through which the works will be completed. We require a full survey to be done of existing drainage and then install a new system. The land either side of the A1 here is prone to waterlogging and the drainage is extremely sensitive. We are concerned that suitable mitigation will not be provided. 3) WE are concerned that the current access under the A1 near Rock South junction will be lost. We have had initial discussions with HE over this culvert and we require further clarification over the access rights that are required to be maintained at this point under the A1. 4) We are concerned with the land take to the West of the A1 and it is unclear as to how much land is going to be acquired. We are not certain if all the land is necessary but are also concerned about future access to this land, which is current from the A1 which is due to be shut off. We require further clarification and discussion over the land take and whether this is all necessary and what rights will be acquired. The estate require rights of access to any land retained and it is unclear as to where this will occur. 5) The estate is concerned about the impact on the estate to the new access road to Rock South. We are concerned with the lack of information as to whether this will be a public adopted road as the estate cannot be held liable for maintenance in the future due to other users of this road. We also require this road to be wide enough for traffic to pass without causing damage to the verges. 6) We note that the current access to Rock South will be shut off. We require the road to be returned to the ownership of the Estate to prevent this being used for flytipping and illegal uses. 7) The estate need to maintain a farm road to Rock South so as to avoid making unnecessary damage to the new road. It is unclear if this is included in the proposed works. 8) The estate object to the current access from the new road to Rock South joining the current highway at Rock Midstead. We require this to be a roundabout access. This is a dangerous junction and there are many car accidents here. With the amount of traffic, the current arrangements we believe are not sufficient and wish to object to the current proposals. 9) We require further clarity from Highways England on the proposals regarding the fencing, landscaping and ongoing maintenance (including the management of ragwort/other weeds) of the land acquired by Highways England that will be in close proximity to Rock Estates' land. 10) We are concerned to ensure that the extent of land take from the agricultural fields is limited to the minimum that is required. We require further engagement by Highways England regarding the proposed field boundary re-alignments and clarification and confirmation that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the land retained by Rock Estates is of a size/shape which allows for continued beneficial use and accessibility with modern commercial machinery. 11) The extent and location of proposed woodland planting needs to be fully considered in the context of Rock Estates' sporting rights. Notwithstanding the guidance on the scope of representations, we reserve Rock Estates' position in respect of any further points that may need to be identified following further consultation of the documentation/plans now available. It is not readily apparent what the various impacts of the proposed DCO will be as it would appear to contradict some of the assurances that Highways England have given throughout our discussions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Craig McLaren
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS MCLAREN LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption to the property as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 16 show a temporary possession and use of land on the northern side of the property. My clients do not know what this is for. - The plans also show land take up to the front of their property. There is concern of the intended purpose of this land take. - There are concerns over the ingress of weeds from HE contractors and from the highway verge. Currently the verge is infested with Ragwort and is never dealt with by HE. - There is concern over noise, dust and light pollution caused as a result of the works - There is concern over the visual impact of the scheme from the residential property"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Dallas Allen
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS ALLEN LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption of the business as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on pages 13 & 14 show a permanent acquisition of rights over land on a farm access tracks to an attenuation pond. There is concern over this as it is used heavily as a farm access track. Additional use will damage the track and lack of access during construction will cause practical issues in dealing with livestock. There is also concern over the future maintenance of the track post works - There is concern over the amount of land take which will impact on the running and profitability of the farm. - There is concern over the loss of agricultural land for the planting of trees and woodland - Drainage schemes have not been made available to demonstrate impacts and plans/procedures to make good the existing schemes post works. - Stock fencing and hedges adjacent to the existing A1 will be removed. The farm is currently heavily stocked with cattle and sheep. There are concerns over the quality of new fencing and the interim period during works where boundaries will be removed. There are also convers over the future maintenance of these boundaries. - The diversion of public footpaths through the farm is a concern – there has been very little information or consultation from HE with the Allen family to discuss or agree matters - Generally there has been very little to no interaction with the Allen family over the impact or proposed scheme throughout the initial planning stages - There are concerns over the ingress of weeds from HE contractors and from the highway verge. Currently the verge is infested with Ragwort and is never dealt with by HE."
Other Statutory Consultees
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"DIO re: 10049481 I can confirm the MOD has no safeguarding concerns with this proposal. However, we request details of any future designs for lighting columns which may be proposed for the two bridges (Heckley Fence Overbridge and Charlton Mires Junction) in order to perform the necessary safeguarding assessments. These areas pass through the 15.2m Statutory Technical Safeguarding Zone associated with RRH Brizlee Wood. Yours sincerely DIO Safeguarding Team (MOD)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Felicity Hester
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS HESTER LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - The proposal is that the entire property is compulsorily purchased. This includes the residential property and adjoining land - A purchase price has not yet been formally agreed with HE - This processes is massively distressing to the whole family which includes young children and an elderly mother - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 15 show a permanent land take from the property. The land take is significant and constitutes the entire property - The agricultural land being taken is used for the grazing of livestock – it is the only field. There is concern about the housing of this stock within the grazing window and throughout the rest of the year – it will be very difficult to relocate these animals at a location with like for like facilities (menage/stables etc) - There is concern over the loss of the family home and the issues surrounding finding another like for like rural property with land. Properties have been sought for a number of years now and it has been extremely difficult. This has been made more so by the spike in residential prices as a result of the corona virus - There is concern over the loss of the businesses being run from the property which include a livery stud business and a fabrication business constructing shepherds huts - There is concern over the timing of the scheme and the uncertainty of the movement of the family prior to works starting"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of House of Haggerston Ltd trading as Carnabys
"We have planning consent for a road sign advertising our shop and cafe at []. the sign is located on the []side of the A1 on land forming part of []. We are extremely concerned that the movement of the carriageways to the east will mean that our sign is redundant which will have a major impact on our business. We have planning consent for this sign and yet no provision has been made to ensure that our sign is not lost and the consequential impact on our trading business as a result of this application. We are also concerned about the extent of the works traffic and ensuring that our business is not impacted by the construction works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of J E G Grahamslaw & Sons
"The property is owned by the partnership J E G Grahamslaw & Sons, who are George Gary Grahamslaw, Nigel Thomas Grahamslaw and Terry Grahamslaw. This representation is made on behalf of all the partners. [] will be affected by the proposals. Current access is directly from the A1 to the farm which also holds an operating licence for HGV's from the farm. We are concerned that access to the farm will be constrained and restricted by the proposed developments. We require the new service road to be adopted by the local authority and to be maintainable at the public expense. we will object if the proposals are that we are to maintain the road. The road needs to be suitable for traffic to pass including passing for HGV's. We are concerned about the signage to the property and ensuring that services continue as normal. We have concerns about the land take and the impact on the farming business. We are concerned about field drainage and the reinstatement of the field boundaries. these need to take into account modern farming methods and machinery. We are concerned as well about the fences and hedgerow replacement and who will be responsible for ongoing maintenance. We are also concerned about the impact on the residential properties with increase noise, dust and vibration. Lastly, we understand that additional land is proposed to be acquired to accommodate the wind farm electric cable which is currently in the highway verge. we do not consider this to be necessary as it can be relocated in the highway verge. We wish to object on the basis of additional land take which is not necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of James Douglas
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS DOUGLAS LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption to the property and business as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 15 show a temporary possession and use of land on the only road way leading to and from the farm. - The farm includes livestock, mechanical works and the direct sale of fruit vegetables and eggs from the roadside. To restrict the adjacent access will create significant business loss for the [] - There are concerns over the ingress of weeds from HE contractors and from the highway verge. Currently the verge is infested with Ragwort and is never dealt with by HE. - There is concern over noise, dust and light pollution caused as a result of the works - There is concern over the visual impact of the over bridge from the residential property - The diversion of public footpaths through the farm is a concern – there has been very little information from HE in this respect - There is concern over the reduction in value of the residual property as a result of the loss of amenity value - There is concern over the speed of traffic moving in front of the property on the adjacent highway having just left the newly constructed off ramp"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of James Robson
"CLIENT: MESSRS ROBSON LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the business disruption caused by the scheme. - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 11 a temporary possession and use of land which is not deemed necessary for the scheme and will create additional damage to cropped land - The nature of the permanent acquisition of land particularly within 11/1i makes the arable cropping of land extremely difficult particularly within the northern part of the parcel - There is concern over the additional flood risk and subsequent damage to arable crops and livestock as a result of the large body of water stored on land - There is concern over the dirty nature of the water being stored on the farm in the retention pond and that dirty road water being released in to the waterway which is used as a water source for livestock - There is concern and confusion over the nature of the permanent acquisition of rights over land 11/4f and the adjacent temporary land take. There has been no discussion or explanation as to the purpose of this - There is concern and confusion over the nature of the temporary possession and use of land at 11/4d and 11/1b. There has been no discussion or explanation as to the purpose of this - There is concern over the nature of the new access way to the retention pond being used as a fly tipping or access point for poachers or other trespassers. Sufficient security measures are required and confirmation of this point has not been made clear. - There is concern over significant land damage being caused on the farm from work taking place in areas which are known to regularly flood - Drainage schemes have not been made available to demonstrate impacts and plans/procedures to make good the existing schemes post works. - Stock fencing and hedges adjacent to the existing A1 will be removed. The farm is currently heavily stocked. There are concerns over the quality of new fencing and the interim period during works where boundaries will be removed. - There is concern over likely damage to soil structure and land as a result of temporary land take for working areas such as 11/1k"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Jill Mary Gray
"Mrs Gray is the owner of No[]. Access is currently directly from the A1 at[]. We are concerned about the new access arrangements to the property. It is unclear if this road is to be maintainable at the public expense, is wide enough to allow traffic to safely pass and ensuring that we are able to maintain our services to the properties. Access to the properties if one is heading north will also be impeded and increase travel time for Mrs Gray. We are also concerned that the current screening of the road will be reduced and removed as part of the works and we would like to understand further the mitigation that HE plan to include. We are also concerned about the increased noise, dust and vibration from the new highways."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Mick Holland
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS HOLLAND LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption to the property as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 12 show a permanent acquisition of rights over land on a farm access tracks to the new bridge at Heckley Fence. There is concern over this as it is used heavily as a farm and residential access track. Additional use will damage the track and lack of access during construction will cause practical issues in dealing with livestock. There is also concern over the future maintenance of the track post works. - There is concern over the amount of land take which will impact on the running and profitability of the farm business. - There is concern over the visual impact of the bridge from the residential property - There is concern over noise, dust and light pollution caused as a result of the works - There are concerns over the ingress of weeds from HE contractors and from the highway verge. Currently the verge is infested with Ragwort and is never dealt with by HE. - The diversion of public footpaths through the farm is a concern – there has been very little information from HE in this respect"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Mr & MRs A Kelly
"We represent the owners of No []. Our current access to the property is directly from the A1 at the[]. We understand that the proposals are to block up this access road and provide a new access from the North through Rock Estate. We are concerned about the new road and require this to be fully adopted and maintained at the public expenses. We will object if this is to be a private road. The road needs to be sufficient to allow traffic to pass safely and not have to pull onto soft verges. We require confirmation that the bin service will continue to[] and all other serves will continue as normal. We are concerned that people and delivery drivers may not know how to access the road and will need clear directions to []. We are concerned that our travel journeys to the south will increase significantly as a result of these proposals. We require the new access to Rock South to be installed before the current access is stopped up during construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Neil & Elizabeth Elder
"We are the owners of No [] and no []. We live in No[] and we use o [] as a holiday cottage. Our current access to the property is directly from the A1 at the []. We understand that the proposals are to block up this access road and provide a new access from the North through Rock Estate. We are concerned about the new road and require this to be fully adopted and maintained at the public expenses. We will object if this is to be a private road. The road needs to be sufficient to allow traffic to pass safely and not have to pull onto soft verges. We require confirmation that the bin service will continue to[]and all other serves will continue as normal. We are concerned that people and delivery drivers may not know how to access the road and will need clear directions to[]. We are concerned that our travel journeys to the south will increase significantly as a result of these proposals. We require the new access to Rock South to be installed before the current access is stopped up during construction. We are concerned about direction and how our guest to the holiday cottage will find the new access road. WE require confirmation that satellite navigation systems will be changed and appropriate signage put in place."
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
Northumberland Estates
"We confirm that this representation is submitted on behalf of Northumberland Estates which is the organisation responsible for land registered in the name of a number of trusts and/or individuals which form part of Northumberland Estates (including but not limited to The Honourable George Dominic Percy, The Most Noble Ralph George Algernon Twelfth Duke of Northumberland, The Most Noble Richard Walter John Tenth Duke of Buccleuch, the Twelfth Duke of Queensberry, Viscount Matthew White Ridley, The Honourable James William Eustace Percy, The Honourable Richard Charles Percy and Percy Farms). We note that the proposed Development Consent Order ("DCO") affects a wide range of land and interests of Northumberland Estates although we are not able at this stage to confirm with certainty the precise extent of interests affected. Whilst we have engaged with Highways England over the course of the last year, the plans submitted with the DCO application have not previously been shared with the Estate and therefore we need to consider and review these further in order to assess the full impact of the DCO. We are aware at this stage that there are some interests which do not appear to have been acknowledged. In particular, Northumberland Estates own mineral rights south of the A1 near Felton. We require further clarification from Highways England of how the DCO proposes to deal with mineral interests. On the basis that we have not yet been able to ascertain the full impact of the proposals on the land/interests of Northumberland Estates, we object to the DCO application insofar as it affects the land/interests of Northumberland Estates and in addition to our comments below we expressly incorporate into our objection those outstanding issues in our letter to Highways England dated 2 May 2019. There are a number of specific concerns which we have shared with Highways England prior to the submission of the DCO application which remain relevant as follows:- 1) There is an electricity cable which connects to a wind farm and is currently located within the highways verge. Our position is that the electricity cable should continue to be located in the highways verge (albeit in the new location of the verge) and it is not necessary for further land to be acquired for the re-location of the electricity cable. We require further clarity from Highways England in relation to their proposals in respect of this. 2) In relation to the northern part of the area which is identified as a site compound on Land Plan 19, we made Highways England aware of the intention to develop this land in a number of meetings held earlier this year. Planning permission was granted for the construction of a 1,700 sqm B2/B8 general industrial shed and storage yards on 22 September 2020. We have instructed contractors to commence the development of this land and works will start imminently. Notwithstanding that we have previously suggested to Highways England that an alternative area of land could be made available and used as the site compound, disappointingly such proposals have not been developed by Highways England nor included in the DCO. 3) In addition to the point made above in respect of the site compound area, we have also notified Highways England that significant infrastructure (at a cost of £1.2 million) has been constructed in order to facilitate the development identified above. Whilst we expressly reserve our position as regards compensation, we are concerned that the approach envisaged in the DCO will to a greater or lesser extent undo or compromise the infrastructure works, and invariably add costs and delays to and adversely affect our proposed development. Furthermore, the DCO in this respect does not appear to have properly considered alternatives. We require further clarity in respect of this. 4) We have been engaging with Highways England in respect of the impact which the proposals will have on public rights of way. In particular, we have agreed (in principle) the routes of a number of diversions. The DCO application documents appear to still identify land/rights being acquired over the routes of existing rights of way that are proposed to be stopped up. We require further clarity in respect of this as we do not consider such acquisition to be necessary. 5) We have previously raised concerns with Highways England regarding the impact which the DCO proposals will have on the drainage of the arable fields through which the works will be completed. We consider that a drainage survey should be conducted in advance of the works commencing in order to document the existing drainage arrangements. Following the completion of the survey, a drainage strategy could be developed and agreed to ensure that any impact on the arable fields is mitigated against. 6) We require further clarity from Highways England on the proposals regarding the fencing, landscaping and ongoing maintenance (including the management of ragwort/other weeds) of the land acquired by Highways England that will be in close proximity to Northumberland Estates' land. 7) We are concerned to ensure that the extent of land take from the agricultural fields is limited to the minimum that is required. We require further engagement by Highways England regarding the proposed field boundary re-alignments and clarification and confirmation that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the land retained by Northumberland Estates is of a size/shape which allows for continued beneficial use and accessibility with modern commercial machinery. 8) Access arrangements and/or the quality of access routes requires further consideration particularly in relation to the access routes to Broxfield Farm, Rennington Moor and Goldenmoor Farm. 9) The extent and location of proposed woodland planting needs to be fully considered in the context of Northumberland Estates' sporting rights. 10) We require further clarity on the accessibility of the field parcel on Goldenmoor Farm bordering the A1 in relation to the permanent acquisition of land. As has been highlighted in previous meetings, farm access needs to be maintained to the parcel west of Denwick Burn that borders the A1. 11) We are concerned about the loss of access to the telecoms mast for which the Estate receives a rent and are concerned that the tenants will lose access and terminate the agreement. We understand that access will be taken by re-opening the old access from Heiferlaw Bank. This is a farm internal estate road and is not sufficient for other traffic. We are concerned that this new right will cause an impact on the farming of this land and lead to trespass. We are concerned about who will be maintaining this new access. We also understand that this will be used to access a retention pond, leading to further use of this small track. Further details are required to alleviate our concerns. 12) We are concerned about the dust, noise and vibrations affecting neighbouring properties and interests. Notwithstanding the guidance on the scope of representations, we reserve Northumberland Estates' position in respect of any further points that may need to be identified following further consultation of the documentation/plans now available. It is not readily apparent what the various impacts of the proposed DCO will be as it would appear to contradict some of the assurances that Highways England have given throughout our discussions (for example, in relation to the public rights of way proposals and the site compound)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Paul Dawson
"There is concern over over business interruption from the construction of an upgraded access way adjacent to the property boundary. There is concern over the impact on the holiday cottage business being run from the property as a result of the construction. There is concern over increased numbers of personnel walking and driving past the property leading to issues such as theft and fly tipping. There is concern over livestock being let out of fields or not being properly secured by contractors and members of the public during and after construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Hawes on behalf of Residents of Northgate Farm
"As the homeowner of [], I am writing to highlight the detrimental impact that the A1 scheme will have on my family home and the local environment that we have enjoyed for over 25 years. As our family home sits adjacent to the A1 at the [] of the scheme, the plans directly impact upon the household in a number of different ways which includes compulsory procurement, loss of access rights, loss of key benefits and damage to the local environment. Although we are realistic in recognising that a project of this scale is inevitably going to have some negative impact, we have been disappointed by the scale and the detrimental nature of the planned changes. Our main frustrations stem from knowing that there are good cost-effective alternatives that do not have such a negative impact but still fulfil the end objectives of the scheme. Having been actively involved in the consultation process from day one, we were optimistic that our early engagement would help shape the plans to mitigate the worse of the impact. Unfortunately, we have not been successful in this endeavour and in responding to this Examination stage there is a sense of frustration that the plans have been imposed upon us rather than with us. This frustration is further fuelled by our not understanding the reason behind some of the planning decisions. At the time of writing we are waiting on feedback to the PIER consultation submission in May 2020 and the Land Take submission made in July 2020. Both raised key concerns and highlighted specific shortcomings with the plans documented at the time. Although we have a number of specific concerns, too numerous to detail here, I thought it useful to share a couple of the simpler examples as illustration. In our last meeting with WSP on the 2nd August 2019 we were informed that the latest plans had been revised to include the provision for an operational depot and soil dump to be established directly west of the property. In addition to our concerns on dust, light and noise of a depot the plans included the construction of additional access roads, removal of a pathway and the felling of a large number of deciduous trees in a pleasant wooded area. When we asked why the depot was being placed near a cluster of houses and not further up the road at one of the over passes in the scheme there was no explanation available. Similarly, in June 2020 we received our first indication of the compulsory Land Take required to complete the works which prompted us to highlight 24 different concerns in writing. If our interpretation is correct then the scale of the compulsory purchase and the level of incursion is far greater than we were led to believe in previous consultations and will undoubtedly have a further negative impact on the property and its integrity. Other planning decisions which we do not understand but which have a better alternative, include: 1. The placement of a layby close to the property. 2. The plans include unnecessary public purse spend to construct a tarmac road to the local woods when only farm access is required. 3. The position of the new entrance to our property is less than optimal and creates a number of problems and constraints. 4. The plans have an unnecessary negative impact on the local woodland when other options are available. 5. The decision to build two separate access roads to serve a cluster of houses. 6. The plans only include provision for a short sound barrier leaving large parts of the property exposed to the new dual carriageway. 7. Removal of the pathway running alongside the A1. In summary, we believe that there are specific elements of the current plans that are not optimum and that there are cost effective alternatives available which would mitigate the impact upon the property and the environment while still meeting the scheme objectives."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Robert John Fenwick Thorp & Nina Mickleborough
"This representation is made on behalf of Robert Thorp and Nina Mickleborough. Robert owns property adjacent to the A1 including []. Nina (Roberts daughter) is the proprietor of []n which is a glamping pod business located on []. Access is taken through the main drive from []. The proposals are to acquire permanent rights to install bat mitigation boxes. The proposals are vague and unclear and we require further information to be able to understand the impact and loss of amenity within the woodland. WE are concerned that the current access to the property and the holiday clamping pods will be lost as it is directly onto the A1. We require that any new road access is maintainable at the public expenses and adopted by the local authority. The road needs to be wide enough and have enough passing spaces to allow traffic to flow both ways. We are concerned that the current vegetation that provides screening and noise reduction to West Lodge will be lost and we require details of the proposed mitigation to reduce the impact of the new carriageway getting closer to West Lodge. We need to ensure that during construction access is maintained at all times to the glamping business to ensure that no disruption occurs to the business."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robert Thompson
"CLIENT: MESSRS THOMPSON LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption of the business as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on pages 18, 13, 12 & 11 a permanent acquisition of rights over land on farm access tracks. These are deemed unnecessary for the scheme. These seem to be in place to access a retention pond at Goldenmoor Farm which is now to be accessed via the adjacent highway making these rights of access unnecessary. - Drainage schemes have not been made available to demonstrate impacts and plans/procedures to make good the existing schemes post works. - Stock fencing and hedges adjacent to the existing A1 will be removed. The farm is currently heavily stocked with cattle. There are concerns over the quality of new fencing and the interim period during works where boundaries will be removed. - The condition of access tracks through the farm are likely to be damaged and rutted as a result of the access rights which are being taken through the farm. - Part of the permanent land take includes part of a farm building and the farm steading, which is in no way linked to the road scheme and deemed unnecessary. - Part of the permanent acquisition of rights over land, marked 12/3dd is in the middle of an arable field and will cause a significant ongoing crop loss issue going forward - Part of the permanent acquisition of rights over land, marked 11/1h is in the middle of an arable field and will cause a significant ongoing crop loss issue going forward - The parcel marked as 12/3w on plan 12 shows the permanent acquisition coming within meters of a stream running through the field, which all but severs the southern part of the parcel, particularly given that the field often lies wet meaning that that thin area of land will be poached and damaged significantly by livestock by more concentrated footfall. - There is concern over likely damage to soil structure and land as a result of temporary land take for working areas such as 13/1q - Broxfield Farm is organic and there is concern over contractors and HE vehicles bringing harmful injurious weeds and diseases to the farm which can not then be contained/killed with chemicals - An increased number of walkers and users of public rights of way will be able to move across the farm in a more concentrated manor as a result of the changes and diversions being made. There is concern over increased public liability risk being created as a result of walkers moving through cattle at an increased rate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Robin Tuer
"We are the owners of the []. our current access to the property is directly from the A1 at the []. We understand that the proposals are to block up this access road and provide a new access from the North through Rock Estate. We are concerned about the new road and require this to be fully adopted and maintained at the public expenses. We will object if this is to be a private road. The road needs to be sufficient to allow traffic to pass safely and not have to pull onto soft verges. We require confirmation that the bin service will continue to [] and all other serves will continue as normal. We are concerned that people and delivery drivers may not know how to access the road and will need clear directions to []. We are concerned that our travel journeys to the south will increase significantly as a result of these proposals. We require the new access to Rock South to be installed before the current access is stopped up during construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Rock Farms Ltd
"This representation is made on behalf of Rock Settled Estate, C J Bosanquet Children’s Trust and Rock Farms Ltd and referred to collectively as Rock Estates. The address for all is Estate Office, [] Whilst we have engaged with Highways England over the course of the last year, the plans submitted with the DCO application have not previously been shared with the Estate and therefore we need to consider and review these further in order to assess the full impact of the DCO. We are aware at this stage that there are some interests which do not appear to have been acknowledged. On the basis that we have not yet been able to ascertain the full impact of the proposals on the land/interests of Rock Estates , we object to the DCO application insofar as it affects the land/interests of Rock Estates. There are a number of specific concerns which we have shared with Highways England prior to the submission of the DCO application which remain relevant as follows:- 1) There is an electricity cable which connects to a wind farm and is currently located within the highways verge. Our position is that the electricity cable should continue to be located in the highways verge (albeit in the new location of the verge) and it is not necessary for further land to be acquired for the re-location of the electricity cable. We require further clarity from Highways England in relation to their proposals in respect of this. 2) We have previously raised concerns with Highways England regarding the impact which the DCO proposals will have on the drainage of the arable fields through which the works will be completed. We require a full survey to be done of existing drainage and then install a new system. The land either side of the A1 here is prone to waterlogging and the drainage is extremely sensitive. We are concerned that suitable mitigation will not be provided. 3) WE are concerned that the current access under the A1 near Rock South junction will be lost. We have had initial discussions with HE over this culvert and we require further clarification over the access rights that are required to be maintained at this point under the A1. 4) We are concerned with the land take to the West of the A1 and it is unclear as to how much land is going to be acquired. We are not certain if all the land is necessary but are also concerned about future access to this land, which is current from the A1 which is due to be shut off. We require further clarification and discussion over the land take and whether this is all necessary and what rights will be acquired. The estate require rights of access to any land retained and it is unclear as to where this will occur. 5) The estate is concerned about the impact on the estate to the new access road to Rock South. We are concerned with the lack of information as to whether this will be a public adopted road as the estate cannot be held liable for maintenance in the future due to other users of this road. We also require this road to be wide enough for traffic to pass without causing damage to the verges. 6) We note that the current access to Rock South will be shut off. We require the road to be returned to the ownership of the Estate to prevent this being used for flytipping and illegal uses. 7) The estate need to maintain a farm road to Rock South so as to avoid making unnecessary damage to the new road. It is unclear if this is included in the proposed works. 8) The estate object to the current access from the new road to Rock South joining the current highway at Rock Midstead. We require this to be a roundabout access. This is a dangerous junction and there are many car accidents here. With the amount of traffic, the current arrangements we believe are not sufficient and wish to object to the current proposals. 9) We require further clarity from Highways England on the proposals regarding the fencing, landscaping and ongoing maintenance (including the management of ragwort/other weeds) of the land acquired by Highways England that will be in close proximity to Rock Estates' land. 10) We are concerned to ensure that the extent of land take from the agricultural fields is limited to the minimum that is required. We require further engagement by Highways England regarding the proposed field boundary re-alignments and clarification and confirmation that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the land retained by Rock Estates is of a size/shape which allows for continued beneficial use and accessibility with modern commercial machinery. 11) The extent and location of proposed woodland planting needs to be fully considered in the context of Rock Estates' sporting rights. Notwithstanding the guidance on the scope of representations, we reserve Rock Estates' position in respect of any further points that may need to be identified following further consultation of the documentation/plans now available. It is not readily apparent what the various impacts of the proposed DCO will be as it would appear to contradict some of the assurances that Highways England have given throughout our discussions."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Rock Settled Estate
"This representation is made on behalf of Rock Settled Estate, C J Bosanquet Children’s Trust and Rock Farms Ltd and referred to collectively as Rock Estates. The address for all is Estate Office, [] Whilst we have engaged with Highways England over the course of the last year, the plans submitted with the DCO application have not previously been shared with the Estate and therefore we need to consider and review these further in order to assess the full impact of the DCO. We are aware at this stage that there are some interests which do not appear to have been acknowledged. On the basis that we have not yet been able to ascertain the full impact of the proposals on the land/interests of Rock Estates , we object to the DCO application insofar as it affects the land/interests of Rock Estates. There are a number of specific concerns which we have shared with Highways England prior to the submission of the DCO application which remain relevant as follows:- 1) There is an electricity cable which connects to a wind farm and is currently located within the highways verge. Our position is that the electricity cable should continue to be located in the highways verge (albeit in the new location of the verge) and it is not necessary for further land to be acquired for the re-location of the electricity cable. We require further clarity from Highways England in relation to their proposals in respect of this. 2) We have previously raised concerns with Highways England regarding the impact which the DCO proposals will have on the drainage of the arable fields through which the works will be completed. We require a full survey to be done of existing drainage and then install a new system. The land either side of the A1 here is prone to waterlogging and the drainage is extremely sensitive. We are concerned that suitable mitigation will not be provided. 3) WE are concerned that the current access under the A1 near Rock South junction will be lost. We have had initial discussions with HE over this culvert and we require further clarification over the access rights that are required to be maintained at this point under the A1. 4) We are concerned with the land take to the West of the A1 and it is unclear as to how much land is going to be acquired. We are not certain if all the land is necessary but are also concerned about future access to this land, which is current from the A1 which is due to be shut off. We require further clarification and discussion over the land take and whether this is all necessary and what rights will be acquired. The estate require rights of access to any land retained and it is unclear as to where this will occur. 5) The estate is concerned about the impact on the estate to the new access road to Rock South. We are concerned with the lack of information as to whether this will be a public adopted road as the estate cannot be held liable for maintenance in the future due to other users of this road. We also require this road to be wide enough for traffic to pass without causing damage to the verges. 6) We note that the current access to Rock South will be shut off. We require the road to be returned to the ownership of the Estate to prevent this being used for flytipping and illegal uses. 7) The estate need to maintain a farm road to Rock South so as to avoid making unnecessary damage to the new road. It is unclear if this is included in the proposed works. 8) The estate object to the current access from the new road to Rock South joining the current highway at Rock Midstead. We require this to be a roundabout access. This is a dangerous junction and there are many car accidents here. With the amount of traffic, the current arrangements we believe are not sufficient and wish to object to the current proposals. 9) We require further clarity from Highways England on the proposals regarding the fencing, landscaping and ongoing maintenance (including the management of ragwort/other weeds) of the land acquired by Highways England that will be in close proximity to Rock Estates' land. 10) We are concerned to ensure that the extent of land take from the agricultural fields is limited to the minimum that is required. We require further engagement by Highways England regarding the proposed field boundary re-alignments and clarification and confirmation that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that the land retained by Rock Estates is of a size/shape which allows for continued beneficial use and accessibility with modern commercial machinery. 11) The extent and location of proposed woodland planting needs to be fully considered in the context of Rock Estates' sporting rights. Notwithstanding the guidance on the scope of representations, we reserve Rock Estates' position in respect of any further points that may need to be identified following further consultation of the documentation/plans now available. It is not readily apparent what the various impacts of the proposed DCO will be as it would appear to contradict some of the assurances that Highways England have given throughout our discussions."
Other Statutory Consultees
BNP Paribas Real Estate on behalf of Royal Mail
"BNPPRE act on behalf of Royal Mail and whilst our clients do not have an in principle, objection to the proposed scheme we are seeking to secure mitigations to protect our operations within the location of the project. Under section 35 of the Postal Services Act 2011 (the “Act”), Royal Mail (RM) has been designated by Ofcom as a provider of the Universal Postal Service. Royal Mail is the only such provider in the United Kingdom. The Act provides that Ofcom’s primary regulatory duty is to secure the provision of the Universal Postal Service. Ofcom discharges this duty by imposing regulatory conditions on Royal Mail, requiring it to provide the Universal Postal Service. The Act includes a set of minimum standards for Universal Service Providers, which Ofcom must secure. The conditions imposed by Ofcom reflect those standards. Royal Mail is under some of the highest specification performance obligations for quality of service in Europe. Its performance of the Universal Service Provider obligations is in the public interest and should not be affected detrimentally by any statutorily authorised project. The Government imposes financial penalties on Royal Mail if its Universal Service Obligation service delivery targets are not met. These penalties relate to time targets for collections, clearance through plant and delivery. Royal Mail’s postal sorting and delivery operations rely heavily on road communications. Royal Mail’s ability to provide efficient mail collection, sorting and delivery to the public is sensitive to changes in the capacity of the highway network. Royal Mail is a major road user nationally. Disruption to the highway network and traffic delays can have direct consequences on Royal Mail’s operations, its ability to meet the Universal Service Obligation and comply with the regulatory regime for postal services thereby presenting a significant risk to Royal Mail’s business. There are three operational facilities within 12 miles of this proposal, Alnwick Delivery Office (“DO”), Morpeth DO and Ashington DO. The location, nature and scale of the proposed improvements could present risk of construction phase impact / delays to Royal Mail’s road based operations on the surrounding road network. The key concerns to RM’s operations will be the impact to collection mail coming from Alnwick DO and Berwick DO (30 miles north of the Scheme), en route to Tyneside Mail Centre for processing. As well as causing impacts to inward mail deliveries from Tyneside to Alnwick DO. Every day, in exercising its statutory duties Royal Mail vehicles use of the A1 and other subsequent main road that may potentially be affected by additional traffic arising from the construction of the proposed upgrades. Any periods of road disruption / closure, night or day, have the potential to impact operations. Royal Mail does not wish to stop or delay the improvements from coming forward for development. However, Royal Mail does wish to ensure the protection of its future ability to provide an efficient mail sorting and delivering service. In order to do this, Royal Mail requests that: 1. The DCO includes specific requirements that during the construction phase Royal Mail is consulted by Highways England or its contractors at least one month in advance on any proposed road closures / diversions / alternative access arrangements, hours of working, and the content of the final CTMP, and 2. The final CTMP includes a mechanism to inform major road users (including Royal Mail) about works affecting the local highways network (with particular regard to Royal Mail’s distribution facilities near the DCO application boundary as identified above). Royal Mail reserves its position to object to the DCO application if the above requests are not adequately addressed."
Non-Statutory Organisations
RWE Renewables UK (formerly Innogy Renewables UK Limited) (RWE Renewables UK (formerly Innogy Renewables UK Limited) )
"A1 in Northumberland - Morpeth to Ellingham Planning Inspectorate Reference: TR010059 RWE wish to register as an Interested Party to take part in the Examination of the above application for development consent and submit the following Relevant Representation; RWE owns a majority stake in, and is responsible for the day to day operation of Middlemoor Wind Farm to the west of the A1 at North Charlton. It is understood that Highways England’s proposed works to the A1 particularly the Alnwick to Ellingham (Part B) section will impact on both the access and grid connection to the wind farm. It is critical to RWE that access as well as connections to power, communications and water supply is maintained to the wind farm at all times. NORMAL OPERATIONAL ACCESS RWE understand from previous consultation with WSP on behalf of Highways England that the current route for day to day operational access to the wind farm at North Charlton is within the scheme extents. However it will not be affected by any works and this junction layout will not change. TR010059-000424-Consultation Report page 117 states that the Applicant agrees in principle that access will also be maintained during construction although traffic management measures could mean some delays. ABNORMAL INDIVISIBLE LOADS (AIL) ACCESS TR010059-000424-Consultation Report, Table 31: Summary of statutory consultation responses which have not changed the design - A1 in Northumberland: Morpeth to Ellingham, states that ‘a second access route to Middlemoor Wind Farm is not required’ and that no design change was made. This appears to contradict previous discussion with WSP who advised that the existing second AIL access route would be affected by the A1 widening works but would still remain in use with the addition of a central reserve crossing point. TR010059-000437-Consultation Report Appendix 13 in Table N.10: Statutory Consultation under section 42(1)(a) of the Planning Act 2008 with Prescribed Consultees states that ‘The Applicant confirms the consultees queries are for the detailed design and construction stages of the Scheme and will be addressed at that point’. It is not clear to RWE that our concerns regarding AIL access have been addressed and we reserve an objection in the meantime on this basis. RWE welcomes the statement in the TR010059-000747-Construction Traffic Management Plan that the main contractor will liaise with RWE in advance of the construction works. RWE would welcome more detail on the wind farm AIL route design and mechanism for agreeing a workable solution in the absence of any firm commitment in the CTMP at this stage. UTILITIES WSP previously advised that diversions for the extra high voltage 66kV cable serving the wind farm would be put in place whilst the existing cable remains in place, with only 1-2 days of downtime for connection. WSP also advised that the same applies for other utilities serving the wind farm (e.g. BT and Northumbrian Water). To reduce the impact on the operation of Middlemoor Wind Farm, RWE maintain a strong preference for outages to occur during the summer months. RWE would also welcome further discussion regarding compensation for any outage related losses. The diversion of the NPG circuit is referred to in paragraph 2.5.279. of TR010059-000439 Environmental Statement Chapter 2 - The Scheme. Paragraph 2.5.281 refers to Section 2.11 for further details but Section 2.11 Off-Site Works does not appear to reference utilities. RWE are unable to find any reference to the location of or impact upon communication links or water supplies. It is not clear to RWE that all our concerns regarding utilities have been addressed and we reserve an objection in the meantime on this basis."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of Shaun Robinson
"PLANNING REPRESENTATION SECTION 56 OBJECTION CLIENT: MESSRS ROBINSON LAND HOLDING: [] A1 IN NORTHUMBERLAND – ALNWICK TO ELLINGHAM The below provides a brief outline of the various concerns and objections relating to the above application for a Development Consent Order. - There is concern over the general disruption to the property and business as a result of the scheme - ‘2.2 Land Plans’ released show on page 15 show a permanent land take from the property. The land take is significant within the relative context of the property size - The land being taken is used for the grazing of livestock – it is the only field. There is concern about the housing of this stock within the grazing window - There is concern over the temporary land take of the balance of the grassland field at the property – as mentioned above this is required for livestock - Stock fencing and hedges adjacent to the existing A1 will be removed. The farm is currently heavily stocked with cattle and sheep. There are concerns over the quality of new fencing and the interim period during works where boundaries will be removed. There are also convers over the future maintenance of these boundaries. - Drainage schemes have not been made available to demonstrate impacts and plans/procedures to make good the existing schemes post works. - There are concerns over the ingress of weeds from HE contractors and from the highway verge. Currently the verge is infested with Ragwort and is never dealt with by HE. - There is concern over the disruption to the existing holiday cottage business being run from the property and loss of income as a result of the works - There is concern over noise, dust and light pollution caused as a result of the works - There is concern over the amount of land take which will impact on the running and profitability of the farm business. - There is concern over the visual impact of the over bridge from the residential property - The diversion of public footpaths through the farm is a concern – there has been very little information from HE in this respect - There is concern over the reduction in value of the residual property as a result of the loss of amenity ground - There has been no consultation over the temporary use of the balance of the agricultural grass field. This is causing significant concern. - There is concern over the exact extent of land take immediately in front of the residential property – there are old stone walls which look as if they may be taken – this has not been made clear by HE - There is concern over public rights of way being adjusted and moved - There is concern over the speed of traffic moving in front of the property on the adjacent highway having just left the newly constructed off ramp"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Brockthorpe Consultancy on behalf of William David Purvis
"Mr Purvis is the owner of [] on the [] of the A1. From the farm is also run [] owned by Mr Purvis and operates a large number of HGV’s from the site, including the site office and compound. The traffic movements from the farm are significant. We are concerned that the access to and from the property will be constrained and require confirmation that a suitable access to and from the public carriageway will be installed to enable safe passage for HGV’s. we are concerned about the speed of traffic coming along the old A1 from Alnwick if the road is straightened out and the conflict with HGV’s crossing over and taking access to []. We are concerned about the increase noise, dust and vibration from the additional carriageways and the busier road from Alnwick to South Charlton with the traffic taking a new access to the A1 at Charlton Mires. We are concerned about the loss of agricultural land from the farm business. We are concerned about the lack of details surrounding field drainage. The farmland is already low lying and we have real concerns that the new carriageway will mean the flooding of the farmland. We will require proper field drainage to be installed and the culvert under the A1 to be maintained by HE in the future to allow the passage of water to the east which is the natural flow. We are concerned about the lack of screening and loss of hedges that our client currently enjoys to protect the impact of the A1 on their property."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Woodland Trust
"The Woodland Trust is the UK's leading woodland conservation charity and we aim to protect native woods, trees and their wildlife for the future. We own over 1,000 sites across the UK, covering around 24,000 hectares (59,000 acres) and we have 500,000 members and supporters. We are concerned about the direct loss of 0.68 hectares of Dukes Bank Wood (grid reference: NZ175998), an area of ancient woodland that falls on both sides of the current A1. Dukes Bank Wood is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and a Local Wildlife Site (LWS). Ancient woodland is defined as an irreplaceable natural resource that has remained constantly wooded since 1600AD. Ancient woodland takes centuries to develop and evolve, creating vital links between plants, animals and soils – a habitat for many of the UK's most important and threatened fauna and flora species. Therefore it cannot be re-created and cannot afford to be lost. The National Planning Policy Framework, paragraph 175 states: “When determining planning applications, local planning authorities should apply the following principles: c) development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons58 and a suitable compensation strategy exists”. Paragraph 5.32 of the National Policy Statement for National Networks also contains wording related to the protection of ancient woodland and veteran trees, stating: “The Secretary of State should not grant development consent for any development that would result in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the national need for and benefits of the development, in that location, clearly outweigh the loss.” The proposed scheme will result in direct loss to SSSI-designated Dukes Bank Wood, with loss of habitat and compaction of the valuable ancient woodland soils. As well as direct impacts, indirect impacts from construction and operation of the scheme can also be expected in the form of habitat fragmentation, noise and light pollution, increased exposure, dust pollution and a potential increase in traffic emissions (leading to increased deposition of nitrates). We acknowledge that the applicant is proposing compensation planting at a ratio of 12:1. We believe that the level of compensation needs to be commensurate with the irreplaceable nature of the habitat lost and therefore ask that the applicant adopts a ratio of 30 hectares of new planting for every one hectare of ancient woodland lost. We are also concerned about the translocation of ancient woodland soils for new areas of planting as we understand that invasive species such as Himalayan Balsam are present in the area and any translocation process could aid the spread of such species. In summary, the Trust is opposed to the proposed scheme on the basis of loss, damage and deterioration to a SSSI-designated ancient woodland. On account of the impact to irreplaceable habitat, we consider that this scheme in its current form contravenes national planning policies."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Natural England
"Our response dated 16 April 2021 (NU00(AL)4/A1) outlined Natural England’s comments regarding the applicants Change Request (TR010059). The comments made in the above-mentioned response still apply with the main points outlined below. • The significance of the loss of natural bankside habitat and the deterioration in the form and function of a nationally important river resulting from the proposed changes. • The impact of the proposed bank protection and stabilisation works on sediment supply from the surrounding slopes. • Provision of compensation for the damage/loss of riverine habitats and the permanent alterations to the morphology of the reach. Additionally, it should be noted that with regard to the impacts of the proposed changes on the River Coquet and Coquet Valley Woodlands Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) discussions are ongoing between the applicant, Natural England and the Environment Agency relating to the need for and the scale of the compensation for the permanent damage/loss of riverine habitat for which the SSSI is designated."
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Woodland Trust
"Thank you for the opportunity to submit comment on the Material Changes Request by the applicant. The Woodland Trust has reviewed the proposed changes with respect to impacts to ancient woods and trees, and our position is as follows. Change 2 We note that the proposed stabilisation works are to be undertaken to correct potential stability issues with the existing A1 bridge crossing, as well as to ensure the safety of the new bridge. We are concerned about the loss of an additional 0.28 hectares of unmapped ancient woodland that these works will require. Whilst the Trust does not object to any proposed works that are necessary to address issues of health and safety, we ask that the applicant explores all potential options that would ensure the safety of the existing and new bridges while avoiding loss of ancient woodland. Change 3 We recognise that change 3 (Southern Access Works) will result in less vegetation clearance required from Dukes Bank Wood SSSI. We hope our comments are of use to you."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Northumberland County Council
"Please see attached."