A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement

Enquiry received via email

A19 / A184 Testos Junction Improvement

08 May 2015
Highways Agency - Gary Frost


Section 51 advice giving feedback on the draft Consultation Report.

Advice given

Below are some observations on the A19 Testos Junction Draft Consultation Report dated February 2015.
? Given the timing of likely submission, it is assumed that the ?branding? of the document will change to Highways England and as such it might be useful to include a brief overview of the change from Highways Agency to Highways England.
? Page 2 Compliance Table ? could the table include a ?Location? column or similar for quick cross-referencing. S46 - could this refer to the
? Letter sent to PINS dated 10 October included in Appendix G, as ?Submission to Minister? could suggest a different document.
? Para 2.1.2 ? CLG Guidance on Pre-Application has now been updated (March 2015) and as such it is advisable to review the contents and approach of the Consultation Report in light of that up-dated guidance.
? Para 2.3.16 states that Appendix A Location Plan shows ?existing road arrangements? but the scale at which the Plan is reproduced means that this is not easily apparent, and that it includes ?the above key features? but only some are identified.
? Para 3.1.7 ? it is unclear whether a final Stage 1 Scheme Appraisal report was produced as only a draft version is referred to although para 3.1.10 does appear to suggest a final Stage 1 SAR. Furthermore, there is no indication as to whether that appraisal concluded on one of the two feasible options.
? Para 3.1.11 ? is unclear which of the preferred options was ?consulted? upon and how that option relates to the currently proposed scheme.
? Presentation of ?options? in 2009 public consultation ? PINS have previously made comments on this through email and meetings.
? Para 3.2.32 ? statement that this approach was approved by DfT Legal Service Teams, is there evidence of this in writing?
? Para 6.2.1 and Appendix I ? are the two lists identical (Appendix I and PINS? Reg 9(1)(a) list) and if not, is an explanation given as to why there might be differences (e.g. Civil Aviation Authority and Northumbria Water)?
? Para 6.4.5 ? statement that to comply with Data Protection principles a list of those consulted under s44 will not be included in the Consultation Report; we would like to understand more about this principle as we believe this has not been universally applied.
? Para 6.5.1 and Appendix J ? para 6.5.1 says Appendix J contains copies of feedback that were received and the responses issued in return; it is unclear what ?responses? means e.g. responses from consultees or the Applicant, and if it is the latter then no responses are included. The connection between the text for s42 consultation, Appendix J and Table 1 is not clear about why some responses have been included in Table 1 and others only included in Appendix J (e.g. British Horse Society and Church Commissioners) and under which section of the PA2008 they have been consulted.
? Page 2 Compliance Table Preparation of SoCC ? indicates a meeting took place as evidence of compliance but this is not mentioned in the text in Section 7.
? Section 7 ? with reference to PINS Advice Note 14, it would be helpful to provide a summary of the rationale behind the SoCC methodology. It would also be helpful to include copies of correspondence with Local Authorities about the draft SoCC, demonstrating the 28 day for responses and recording any responses made. The commentary on this evidence is included within the text, but the evidence is not included.
? Para 7.4 ? refers to a consultation leaflet and questionnaire but copies of these have not been included. A sketch map for distribution area is included but no summary of why this was considered a suitable area.
? Para 7.7.2 ? the commentary at this part of the report is stating how the consultation satisfied the SoCC. The report states that following discussion with NISSAN representatives it was decided to host a second exhibition at the manufacturing plant but this was already noted in SoCC?
? Section 7 ? does not contain any reference as to whether the offer of meetings outlined in the SoCC was taken up?
? Para 7.5.4 ? on a technical point, PA2008 doesn?t require material for s47 to be available for a specified/minimum amount of time. It is the provisions of s45 (in respect of s42 consultees) and s48 and the APFP Reg 4 that sets out a deadline for receipt of responses on the material rather than the availability of material.
? Appendix N ? contains the S48 notice but no copies of the relevant newspaper notices.
? Para 7.10.20 ? provides no explanation as to why 10 questionnaires ?required? a response and the others did not. The implications of the cases identified with italics is not clearly set out.
? Could Appendix P be separated out into questionnaire comments and Applicant?s response to certain comments. Can it be confirmed that the Tables of comments are complete. Is there an explanation as to why a task similar to Table 5 has not been carried out in respect of all comments?
? Section 7.14 ? if no further consultation is planned, is the Applicant satisfied that the modifications outlined in section 7.14 do not trigger the need for more proportionate/directed consultation and has it triggered the need to review the land interests?