Representations received regarding A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Louise Taylor-Kenyon
"There are differences between the final consultation documents given in March 2022 and shown on the A66 Northern Trans Pennine route website in the Map Book, and the plans sent to the Planning Inspectorate in June. This is not acceptable to anyone who is affected by these plans. Despite the Planning Inspectorate agreeing that the application meets the legal threshold for statutory consultation there are a number of issues that have been flagged up which need further examination; I note that this has been commented on in the procedural letter and that a full statement of principle areas of disagreement will be made and taken note of. I do not currently live in the area affected but my elderly parents do; from the start of the project our family home has been shown as an isolated island almost entirely surrounded by land that will be permanently acquired for the scheme. ([Redacted]) . The plans for this section are some of those that are different in the application from the consultation documents. My family have lived here since 1952, and it is hard to see how our home is going to remain habitable, and how 2 people in their 90s can be expected to live through this level of disruption. I have a duty to object to this; like many others on the southern side of the A66, I do not understand why the southern route has been preferred to a northern route. We were told at consultation that this was not possible as it would encroach on the Northern Pennines AONB. A cursory look at the AONB website shows that the strip of land to the north of the A66 at this point is merely a buffer zone for the main part of the AONB, and has no outstanding features in it. I question whether National Highways has actually discussed this issue in any depth with the AONB partnership. From an engineering and cost point of view a northern route would be preferable, and would not encroach on the Unesco Geopark, but NH has decided on a route that will be more expensive, that involves complex engineering to ensure that that inhabitants of the numerous settlements to the south of the A66 have local access routes and access to the new road, and which has a significant negative impact on their lives. The argument that MOD/Crown land would need to be acquired seems spurious given the amount that is already needed for the current scheme. Dualling of the A66 is necessary, and this situation has arisen partly because the 'difficult' sections have been left until last, but the number of people and homes affected, and whose lives will be disrupted does not justify the refusal to consider a Northern route, let alone the clumsy way in which local people's homes and needs appear to be ignored."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Elaine Waddington
"Our home is adjacent to the A66 and will be affected by the proposed road improvement both during the carrying out of the work and also afterwards. I an worried that some of the land being used for this project will take our property nearer to the road. Our property is Grade 2 listed and we understand dates from the 16th century."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raymond Waddington
"I am concerned about the construction work to upgrade Kemplay roundabout and underpass and how it may affect us in the construction. I am led to believe that the construction period is 4 years and this is going to be a major inconvenience as we live in the [Redacted] adjacent to the roundabout."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jill Collins
"I am concerned that route chosen at Rokeby will lead to increased traffic on the Sills, due to a 1.5 mile detour for Westbound traffic to Barnard Castle. This road is narrow and winding, with narrow pavements; two wagons can barely pass on it and the pavement is a popular route for pedestrians, who need to use the road in order to pass one another. The chosen route has no provision for walkers and cyclists wishing to cross the A66 at Rokeby, forcing them to use a 1.5 mile diversion to the junction. This will lead to cyclists using the A66 Eastbound and turning right at the Greta Bridge turn to avoid this diversion. This is a popular cycle route - [Redacted] The blue route leaves the junction where it is and avoids both these issues."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The British Horse Society
"The BHS would currently object to the DCO application submitted by National Highways on the grounds that equestrians are being marginalised in the scheme with walkers and cyclists being favoured. Throughout this scheme equestrians are excluded, the arguments for inclusivity of walkers and cyclists can be extended to equestrians using the mechanism of the Equality Duty. This is a form of discrimination, and the Equality Act 2010 created a Public Sector Equality Duty for organisations such as National Highways to provide equal opportunities for all, which means that an organisation needs a cogent reason for excluding equestrians."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Hammersley
"I am involved as a volunteer and funder of the community farm being established at Dyke Nook near Sandford. The plans as I understand them have not taken into account the views of local people that are also objectively true that the route with the least environmental impact lies further to the North, this route would also have the least negative impact on community life including on the community farm. It also seems to me that if the route persists greater focus is needed on mitigating actions on noise and redressing loss of woodland habitat. I am a stakeholder in the Dyke Nook Community Farm. The planned route will take sufficient of the community farm's land to seriously compromise its viability,. The is a route further North that would be significantly less intrusive to local people including the farm. I do not think that local people's representations have been appropriately considered. Specifically, the land to the north may be designated ANOB, but it is only the path of the road that created that boundary where it is."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alexandra Thomson
"I wish to object to the current plans to dual a section of the A66 between Rokeby and Cross Lanes and in the way it will send more traffic along the Sills into Barnard Castle. As a resident of [Redacted] I believe the turning into the Sills will become even more dangerous. Also the restricted footpath for residents to walk into town."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr C Midcalf
"I strongly object to your current proposals. I am still in favor of your original Blue route option.Your current proposal will not keep the current balance of traffic into Barnard Castle. Your proposals will increase traffic along the sills, which has a very narrow road and extremely narrow pedestrian footpath used by walkers and families living in the area who have to use it to gain access to their properties, and the town. The old County Bridge users would also be at risk, mothers and old people who have to cross an already very busy road, going through the sills,to access the bridge for daily schools and shopping. At present, parents with prams or pushchairs and/or accompanied by very young children holding their hand, have to cross the road and bridge with a very narrow footpath only on one side of the bridge, it is difficult for them to pass others without stepping into the road putting their lives at risk. I think your plans need serious revision and for you to put pressure on Historic England who have rejected your Rokeby option. I'm sure that it would be more economical to stay with original proposal for Rokeby. I'm sure you could find an alternative route to get round Historic England objection, if you are prepared to try and find it. Please listen to the people who live and work in the area who would be greatly affected by your proposals, it will affect their lives for years to come. Currently accidents on the A66 cause diversion of traffic through Startforth and the sills and causes serious congestion and traffic tail back, on a an extremely busy road, not only with Startforth residents traffic but also access traffic to the young offenders institute, and to newly built housing. If Durham County Council objected to this on safety issues and closed this option there would be serious traffic issues in using your proposals. Thank You Dr C & Mrs S Midcalf"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen D. Roberts
"I have two matters to raise as follows. The plan received from you via post, shows three boxes. In the box 01 the red line surrounds a field running south and reaching down to the River Greta. May I draw your attention to several limestone blocks, set in to the ground to the southern end of the field and also and running along the path reaching down to the river. They are the only remains in the area of an Iron Age field system being proof of the first permanent human settlement close to Bowes should remain as such. Also, at the top of the hill on the eastern side of the field is a row of similar stones marking an Iron Age agricultural terrace system. Although the high position of these stones may mean that your proposed works would not have to disturb them, it would be appreciated if their prescence could be kept in mind. MY second point refers to road surfacing. Present road surface noise can be very intrusive within the village and extra traffic will no doubt increase this. May I add a further plea for the final road surfacing to be that which creates the least noise possibility."
Members of the Public/Businesses
British Horse Society North Yorkshire
"Comments Relate to Scheme 09 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor TR010062 Rights of Way and Access Plans - the comments are on behalf of the British Horse Society. The provision at Carkin Moor Farm as shown on Plan sheet 4 inset 2 is a difficult to interpret as it shows the bridleway north of the A66 stopped up but then with a flag to state new bridleway provision "N" , assuming all is correct with this depiction and a new bridleway is to be provided along the PMA to link to Warrener Lane then we accept the plans. The BHS supports the plans for the bridleway provisions as shown on this section (Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor) of the A66 upgrade project with the proviso stated above at Carkin Moor Farm. With regard to the Other sections of the proposed upgrade West of Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor representation will be made by other persons on behalf of the British Horse Society, but I support their objection on the basis that cycleway/pedestrian provision only is being provided. Such exclusive provision this is discriminatory and against the Equalities Act, any new provision should be public bridleway status because this is an all purpose provision which includes walkers and cyclists and horse riders. The guidance from DEFRA is that all new provision should include all vulnerable road users (i.e. those not in a motor vehicle) as this gives full inclusion and is best value for money for the public purse."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia Rogers
"I am concerned about land being taken from my property for farm access with the new revised plan. This was not on the previous plan! Also what screening and noise prevention measures will be put in place during this work. I also will like some assurances about the use of the current highway"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Taylor
"Concerns over layout of junction for Flitholme and Langrigg on initial draft."
Parish Councils
Warcop Parish Council
"I represent the Warcop Parish Council, which includes Warcop, Sandford, Bleatarn and part of Coupland Beck. We broadly welcome the plans to dual all remaining single carriageway sections of the A66, and in particular the very dangerous section between Appleby and Brough. It is imperative that the road is built as soon as possible, as we have seen a large number of fatalities and serious injuries in accidents on this section, as well as the ensuing traffic disruption to our narrow village roads. We have been pleased to influence the route alignment so that the new road is built further away from our residential buildings and businesses. Our campaign group lobbied for a more northerly route which 94% of consulted residents supported. However, we accept the need for pragmatism and the recognise the constraints of the MOD's operations and AONB restrictions. We are also pleased to see plans for the creation of an integrated cycle, horse-riding and non-vehicle pathway along the whole of our section. However, we would suggest that some minor adjustments can still be made to improve the route: 1. We feel that the new dual carriageway from Café 66 to Dyke Nook should be built completely to the north of the existing road, thereby avoiding the need to destroy about a mile's worth of existing trees. The new road would therefore be screened by the trees. It is not in the A.O.N.B. area. 2. In order to preserve the existing historic, cultural Brough Hill Fair site for the gypsy and traveller community, we believe the new road could go slightly further north from the east of Warcop to avoid this site, before joining on the agreed alignment. The proposed alternative site is too close to local houses and businesses. 3. As a community, we also feel that additional traffic generated by the new dualled A66 will impact on our village country lanes. A new footpath across the field to the primary school, church and Parish Hall would take cyclists, walkers, children, wheelchair user and prams etc off the dangerous road. 4. We believe that the junction at Langrigg is far too complex and too close to properties and an alternative design could be achieved. A new small link road seems to have appeared since the consultation documents which effectively surrounds a cottage. I look forward to hearing from you."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Robinson
"I object to this scheme TR010062 on the following grounds: • Greatly increased carbon emissions at a time when they should be radically reduced. No evidence is provided that the scheme is compatible with meeting net zero targets; • Increased traffic on average by 35% in 2029 the opening year, when the demand to travel and vehicle kilometres should be reduced; • Provides no value for money – with a BCR of 0.92 no benefit would be bought for every £1 of public money being spent; • Claim of economic benefit to Northern Powerhouse is unsubstantiated; • Adverse impacts on landscape and cultural heritage; • Loss of 140ha BMV agricultural land, crucial to long term food production and managing nature, and equal to 1% of the BMV lost in last 12 yrs. • More noise pollution. Alternative measures should be used to improve the safety of the route – the Applicant has barely scratched the surface of these. The vast sum allocated to the capital costs of the scheme (£694million) should be spent on safety improvements to the A66 and enabling freight by rail to reduce HGV trips."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eddie Peat
"This concerns the Cross Lanes to Rokeby section. The scheme should extend eastwards to include the Wycliffe junction at Thorpe Grange Farm. This is a junction off the existing dual carriageway which has no deceleration lane. My representation is that a deceleration lane should be provided as part of the scheme to enable the junction to meet the standards set out in the design considerations for the A66. The road improvements at Rokeby as well as the remainder of the A66 will result in more traffic going faster and will therefore make an eastbound exist of this junction even more hazardous when there is no deceleration lane. This junction is used by local communities, and since 2020 has been used to a greater extent because of the closure of Whorlton Bridge."
Parish Councils
Romaldkirk Parish Council
"Romaldkirk Parish Council objects to the proposals for the Rokeby junction of the A66 dualling project. Having been advised of the forecasted increase in traffic travelling to/from Barnard Castle via the B6277/The Sills in Startforth and the Barnard Castle County Bridge, the Parish Council believes that this level of traffic is totally inappropriate and unacceptable for three specific reasons: the increased risk to pedestrian safety, as pavements along The Sills are very narrow and passing heavy traffic leaves very little room for pedestrians; traffic queueing at the three-way traffic lights at the County Bridge already cause congestion and this will be exacerbated; and the impact of increased traffic crossing the historic and Listed County Bridge structure will be significant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Russ Thomas
"(i) That all cycleways/footpath are joined together for continuity of journey.(ie Penrith to Brough) and access along length not on/off back lanes etc as this area is very unsafe in back roads due to reckless car driving including tractor/trailer, articulated trucks, buses etc I came from Bristol 15 years ago and felt safer on those city roads than here. Please consult with a LOCAL cycling club/organization. (ii) That consideration of increased traffic/congestion at Penrith end of A66 is considered. At moment, with no dualling in place, truck, holiday traffic etc is causing heavy congestion and queues at Kempley roundabout. Also major house building in area is increasing load on local roads with no change to small local infrastructure existing. Can a ring road be considered around back of town (Beacon Edge) to spread traffic between J40 and J41 (M6) and if landowner objects, then compulsory purchase land needed as you would anywhere else."
Parish Councils
Startforth Parish Council
"Startforth Parish Council objects to the proposals laid out for the Rokeby junction of the A66 dualling project. The reasons for the Parish Council's objections are as follows: 1. The proposed route will add approximately 2 miles of extra travel to Barnard Castle via the Abbey Bridge. 2. The diversion towards Cross Lanes will encourage many drivers to proceed further westwards to Cross Lanes and then access Barnard Castle via the narrow Sills Road at Startforth, the County Bridge and The Bank in Barnard Castle – routes which are already congested and frequently grid-locked. Durham County Council modelling suggests that this route would at least DOUBLE the traffic on this route; other suggestions by critics of the scheme put it in the region of TREBLING the volume of traffic. Whichever is correct, it does not bode well for Startforth and Barnard Castle and their residents, thus presenting serious danger to atmospheric and noise pollution, congestion and inconvenience, particularly for Startforth residents. 3. Under National Highway' preferred option, there are no additional safety measures described in the consultation, as National Highways is only responsible for, and are only consulting on, the A66 proposals. Routes linking the A66 to and from Barnard Castle fall within the remit of Durham County Council (DCC). 4. National Highways' objection to the previously proposed 'blue' route hinged on its impact on a small strip of land which is part of the Rokeby Park and Gardens, between the existing junction and Rokeby Church. This is no longer contiguous with the grounds of Rokeby itself and most of the woodland was felled approximately three years ago. This small strip of land is of little agricultural or aesthetic value and is in effect little more than scrubland but is registered as an 18th century-designed parkland. The argument to keep this stretch of land is spurious and not a good enough reason to instead favour the route now proposed. The alternative 'blue' route would affect no more than two or three mature trees. 5. The proposed route would lead to many vehicles heading for Barnard Castle continuing along to the Cross Lanes Junction and then entering Barnard Castle by way of the B6277. The Sills section of this road at Startforth is an important and frequently used pedestrian route, including by primary school children. However, the footpath is narrow, and at times, virtually non-existent, thereby putting all pedestrians at significant risk of serious injury. 6. The proposed route would create more noise pollution, adversely affecting 195 homes and 8 non-residential buildings compared with only 16 homes and one non-residential building for the alternative 'blue' route (p.84 HE’s Statutory Consultation booklet). 7. The alternative 'blue' route would cause the loss of significantly less productive farmland than would the proposed 'black' route. This could be reduced even further by re-aligning the 'blue' route approach road from the North and giving the 'blue' approach from the South a similar layout to the existing Bowes Junction. This layout has worked very successfully for many years and is simply being added to under current proposals. 8. The Parish Council received a presentation from a local resident highlighting numerous parts of the B6277 where there are serious issues of Health & Safety which will be greatly exacerbated by the potential three-fold increase in traffic if the proposed route is adopted. We can provide several photos pin-pointing these issues. These photos visually show the potential risk to the public (pedestrians, cyclists, horses, and motorists). As mentioned above, there are no additional safety measures described in the proposed route consultation."
Local Authorities
Eden District Council
"Application by National Highways for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”) (also referred to as the A66 Trans-Pennine Dualling Project) Relevant Representation of Eden District Council This registration has been made by Eden District Council (EDC), and sets out the topics on which the Council wishes to make representations at the Examination into the A66 Northern Trans Pennine Project. EDC has been engaged with Highways England throughout the pre-application Development Consent Order process, including attendance at the stakeholder meetings organised by Highways England. The authority has also made a number of responses to consultations carried out by National Highways during that period. It should be noted that on March 31st 2023 Eden District Council will cease to exist and will be succeeded by a new unitary Authority which is currently in shadow form. This representation is, therefore, made not only on behalf of Eden District Council but also for its successor Westmorland and Furness Council which will take over the functions of both Eden District Council and Cumbria County Council on the 1st April 2023. This will include engagement in the examination process after that date. The council wish to make representations on a number of areas which we have summarised here. We feel there has been a lack of detailed information provided on the project up to submission. Many of the issues raised have not yet been responded to or resolved. As a result we expect to make representations in relation to these matters during the examination process. Summary of Matters to be Subject to Representation: 1. Land acquisition: The Council is open to entering informal without prejudice discussions with respect to the acquisition of land owned by the Council and this has been acknowledged by National Highways. However, this is in the very early stages and we are likely to require further information. 2. Non-Motorised transport: We seek to ensure that acceptable provision is made in relation to continuity of cycle routes, standard of route, effectiveness of crossing/connection points. Routes through major junctions. In addition, we need to make sure provision is made for horse drawn vehicles particularly as access routes to historic traveller festivals are affected by the proposals. 3. Air quality impacts and mitigation need to be understood at a number of locations along the route. 4. Noise Impacts and mitigation need to be understood at a number of locations along the route. 5. Landscape quality of the route corridor needs to be understood and commensurate with a route that provides access to and travels through or between the North Pennine AONB, Yorkshire dales National Park, the Westmorland Fells, the Eden Valley and the Lake District National Park which is a World Heritage Site. The way the area presents itself to the users of the route will be important to the long term economy of the area which is to a significant extent reliant on tourism driven by the landscape beauty of the area. 6. The design of structures on the routes needs to take into account the effect on the high quality landscape and historic environment. 7. Climate change and Carbon Offsetting. We need to be happy with the measures taken in view of national policy and EDC declaration of a climate emergency. A project of this scale, the largest affecting the area, needs to complement and not undermine other local and national efforts towards achieving net zero. 8. Impacts on Wetheriggs Country Park that is affected by land take by the project that impacts on sports facilities, an informal leisure facility, sensitive housing receptors, mature landscaping and biodiversity. A detailed masterplan for this area needs to be put in place to mitigate these impacts in the most effective way. 9. Worker Accommodation Strategy needs to be agreed to avoid negative impacts on a sparsely populated rural area that relies heavily on its accommodation stock to support its important tourism industry. 10. A local economic optimisation strategy needs to be agreed to impact positively on the local area particularly during the construction phase. 11. Impacts on watercourses need to clear and appropriate mitigation agreed. 12. Biodiversity mitigation and net gain in line with the requirements of the Environment Act 2021 need to be delivered. 13. All impacts on the historic environment are not yet understood. Mitigation needs to be agreed. 14. The potential for post construction use of compounds needs to be considered including permanent access and suitability for other end uses. 15. HGV and other services along the route have not been provided for. Proposals need to be agreed and assessed in terms of environmental impacts before the project is consented. 16. Diversion Route impacts and mitigation need to be clear discussed and agreed. 17. Construction Impacts and mitigation need to be clear, discussed and agreed. 18. Negotiations on the purchase of land owned by EDC is underway but there are a number of unresolved issues yet to be agreed which need to be the subject of discussion in the Examination. 19. Proposed route alignments requiring removal of mature trees and demolitions need to be avoided wherever possible. There are number of locations where agreement on this is required. 20. Water Quality: the potential for the scheme to increase surface water run-off, via additional carriageways and traffic, adding to the nutrient load in rivers and watercourses, which in turn will exacerbate the nutrient neutrality problems facing housing development in the Eden catchment."
Parish Councils
Hope and Scargill Parish Meeting
"The proposed positioning of the Greta Bridge junction is too near to the Cross Lanes junction which will result in increased traffic for the Cross Lanes junction and a consequent increase of traffic at Barnard Castle's Traffic Light controlled County Bridge which is already a bottleneck."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The Ramblers, Penrith Group
"This representation is made on behalf of The Ramblers for the Cumbrian section of the scheme. We have no comments on the principle of the scheme, or on the route selected, but have looked at all the rights of way affected, and seek one significant change. Scheme 03 rights of way and access plans sheet 1 & draft DCO page 85. We want access to the Countess Pillar for walkers from the B6262 road. The existing access to Countess Pillar is from the B6262 near its junction with the A66, a point easily reached from Penrith on foot or cycling. The proposed access can only be used by motorists who have driven to the site of the former Llama Kharma café. A length of new footpath from the south side of the Brougham Accomodation Bridge, east to the Countess Pillar is needed. Otherwise walkers will only be able to reach the Pillar by walking on the verge of the A66 from the B6262 junction. For all the other rights of way in Cumbria affected by the scheme, we have no objections to the proposed changes, subject to the comments below. For scheme 06 Appleby to Brough the routes of the new paths on the rights of way and access plans are hard to read, as the symbol for a new right of way seems to be missing in many cases, and there seem to errors in some of the descriptions. Draft DCO page 96. A*, new cycleway, should read “in a generally south-easterly direction”, and cycleway is not shown with new right of way symbol (as it is for scheme 03). Draft DCO page 97. Bridleway 372024 has new route with letter B*, but this is not shown with the right of way symbol on plan sheet 1 and inset 3. Draft DCO page 97. Footpath 372022. The descriptions of new paths D* & F do not seem to make sense, though they are clearly shown on the plans. Draft DCO page 98. Footpaths 372013 & 372014. The sections of new path (G* & H*) under the Cringle Beck viaduct are not shown with the symbol for a new right of way on the plans. Draft DCO pages 98-9. Footpath 372021. The description for the new path (J* & K*) does not fit what is shown on the plan, and again the symbol for the new route is not clear. Draft DCO pages 99-100. Footpath 372020. Should the symbol on the plan show right of way? Draft DCO page 102. Footpath 329001. The length to be closed should be reduced, as we need to retain the connection between the path and the new B1066 (existing A66). We assume this was intended, but is not mentioned in the draft DCO schedule or marked on the plan."
Parish Councils
Musgrave Parish Council
"SERIOUS CONCERNS OF THE A66 ROUTE NEAR LANGRIGG, IT HAS CHANGED AGAIN SINCE WE TOLD WHAT THE ROUTE WOULD BE, IT HAS NOT BEEN A CONSULTATION, HIGHWAYS ENGLAND SEEM TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT AND TAKE NO NOTICE OF LOCAL CONCERNS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Laura Blake
"The A66 Trans-Pennine project would increase carbon emissions by up to 4.4 million tonnes which is completely unacceptable, and not at all compliant with our country's legal commitment to Carbon Net Zero. The project would impact the River Eden and Tributaries and the Pennine Moors both of which are Special Areas of Conservation (SAC), with the first also being a SSSI, and later also being a Special Protection Area. This is meant to be the highest level of protection to habitats in the UK, so how can you even suggest impacting them in this way? It is wrong and cannot happen. It would also cause harm to the North Pennines AONB It would have serious consequences for wildlife, including some that are already under serious threat like red squirrels, bats, otters, water voles, roe deer, polecats, brown hare and hedgehogs. And birds such as lapwing, oystercatcher, curlew, redshank, snipe, pink footed geese, whooper swan, redwing, fieldfare, woodcock, kingfishers, redstarts, golden plover, and barn owl. I also have concerns on the negative impact the project would have on Brough Castle, Grade 2 listed Rokeby Park, and the Eden Valley Railway. There are historic and culturally important assets that deserve more respect than you are giving them. It would also have a huge impact on people and their health and well-being. Now more than ever we have realised the importance of our connection to nature and spending time in the great outdoors. To propose such a destructive project is totally unacceptable and it needs to be stopped now. Priority needs to be given to nature and to active travel, not roads. This project would negatively impact walking and cycling at a time when we need to be doing more walking and cycling both for leisure and commuting and generally getting about. The cost to people's health and well-being having such a destructive and polluting project is again totally unacceptable. Electric vehicles are not the panacea that many like to believe and suggest, and still emit deadly PM2.5."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anne Blake
"Cross Lanes to Rokeby I have concerns about the proposed 'black' route that is being put forward on the grounds of safety to the public. As a local resident I often walk along the Sills in Startforth with my husband. Most times we end up walking on the road as the pavement is too narrow for the both of us. Due to the popularity of this walk it is not unusual for us to have to walk on the road more than once to allow dog walkers, families with pushchairs or with young children to keep on the pavement which is only on one side of the road. This is not so bad with traffic passing in one direction but should traffic pass in both directions it is dangerous as the road is not wide enough for 2 cars to pass safely. Larger vehicles such as motor homes, tractors & HGV vehicles are even more of a problem. Pedestrians on the narrow pavement, along with any extra traffic, would only increase the risk of serious injury and accidents. This is additional to increased problems & congestion that would be caused by extra traffic trying to cross the grade 1 listed County bridge & negotiating The Bank up into the town itself. According to information provided at the consultation in the town, it would seem that National Highwaygs England are aware of these issues & concerns as this is also mentioned on p87 of their document. I am not aware of any popular footpath or walkway, like The Sills, being available through the parkland at Rokeby, on the land that would be required for development, which makes me wonder why the Western Junction is being proposed to the detriment of families, walkers & dog owners. The area is private & separated from the main Rokeby park by the main HGV route to Barnard Castle. I would ask you to reconsider the decision to develop the Western junction at Rokeby for the above reasons and re instate the Eastern (blue) option I would like to know if Historic England have actually seen the site that they wish to be protected which I understand has endured tree felling in the past so that only a few trees would be lost in the blue scheme. From the information provided at the consultation day and subsequently, this seems to be the only reason why the blue route has been rejected. It states on p87 of the consultation document at least 6 positives for the Eastern junction, and 3 specific negatives for the Western junction. One negative involving land ownership, where it is stated that the owner prefers the Eastern junction. One involving the need for a diversion for walkers, though I would suggest the Eastern option would be a small price to pay for increased safety to both walkers and cyclists , not only at the junction but also in relation to Barnard Castle town itself. There is also a mention of noise pollution , which again according to your information on p87, would be of overall increased benefit to residents "from reduced traffic disturbance" should the Eastern junction be developed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Bryan Hall
"The continued use of the old A66 through Crackenthorpe to access the new junction is detrimental to the safety of all residents in the parish."
Parish Councils
Crackenthorpe Parish Meeting
"The Parish meeting is strongly opposed to changes made in February 2022, without consultation in Appleby, removing the westbound A66 access road from the largest settlement in the Eden Valley, Appleby pop approx 3,800, and creating a full movement junction, in open countryside, three miles away. These changes take place in our parish, Crackenthorpe, where the number of fatal collisions is well above the national average. The original plans for the de-trunked A66, very much welcomed, were for it to be made suitable for walking, cycling and horse riding. It would also benefit the large amount of farm traffic, which at the moment causes disruption. The last minute change of plan seriously detracts from this, and with National Highways own predictions, safety of drivers and residents remains unacceptable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cumbria and Lakes Joint Local Access Forum
"The representation I will make on behalf of the Cumbria & Lakes Joint Local Access Forum will address matters relating to the alternative provisions to be made for pedestrians, horse riders and pedal cyclists (that is none motorised users) along the length of the A66 North Pennines project corridor and for all users of public rights of way that are impacted by the project works."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lesley Kelly
"The change of plan in February 2022 was inadequately consulted on or advertised locally. Is not in keeping with National Highways purpose regarding safety of local and transient road users. Disregards local wildlife and the importance of the countryside."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Howard Charlesworth
"I am concerned about the Rokeby Junction on the upgrading of the A66. No one I know agrees with the Highways England option of the "Black" route which moves the junction well to the West of the present route. The consequences of this are: 1 Increased traffic down the road (B6277) into Startforth. This road has very narrow footpaths close to the river in Startforth, a real hazard to pedestrians. 2 Increased traffic for the "County Bridge" to cross the Tees which must lead to more wear and tear on this historic bridge dating from the 14th Century which is a grade 1 listed building. 3 Longer queues at the three way traffic lights to cross the bridge which will then affect the speed of traffic going up the narrow "Bank" into town as traffic parks on both sides hence more congestion. More traffic will use this route coming from the East as it will be the shortest distance into the town centre and the Sat Nav rules. 4 HGV traffic from the East will have to travel back towards the present Rokeby junction to access the present road so they can cross the Abbey Bridge which is the only legal crossing point of the Tees for them. This will take them close to Rokeby Church increasing the wear and tear on that historic building. 5 No bike or footpath access to cross the A66 ( which exists at the moment at the junction) to link with bridleways and footpaths exist in the plan which means walking or riding further on the Black route compared with the Blue route on a section of road which all the HGV's will travel on, giving extra safety concerns. The Blue route has so many advantages compared with the Black, in fact when I talked to Highways England representatives in the Witham Hall they preferred it. It is Historic England which is the problem. They want to preserve the "Park" which is a load of Tosh. There is a narrow strip of new planted trees next to the present road which is what they want to preserve, the rest of the Park is farm land (crops). It beats me how that strip can be called "Historic". It was all changed years ago (1978) from the plans that Historic England seem to be working from. There is no evidence of their justification on the ground. I asked them if they had actually inspected at the site but got no reply. Historic England's preferred route will put a lot more pressure on truly Historic buildings and traffic flow through Barnard Castle, increasing congestion, and consequently pollution."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Celia Chapple
"The plan to route traffic through The Sills into Barnard Castle (from A66) is not the best route of the routes on offer. It is a road used by pedestrians as part of the town landscape and has inadequate space to cope with traffic. I do not support the compulsory purchase of land from the Rokeby estate and the dismissal of the Rokeby church as unimportant."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Daniel Thwaites PLC
"This representation should be read in conduction with the feedback already submitted to Highways England on 4th November 2021 as part of the initial consolation. Whilst we recognise the benefits the proposals would have on improving traffic congestion in the immediate area we have serious considerations about the detrimental impact on the ongoing level of trade and profitably at the North Lakes Hotel. Despite meetings with representatives of Highways England to express our concerns the proposals would see the loss of a mature landscaped buffer between the hotel and road beyond. At present this line of trees and established vegetation not only provides a valuable visual barrier to the road and industrial estate beyond but also supresses noise pollution from the adjoining highway. Its removal would have a significant impact on the bedroom selling strategy of half of the rooms in the hotel and give the property less of a Lake District Leisure break experience and more a budget road side motel. Furthermore the grounds of the hotel are currently used as break out areas for the numerous weddings, alfresco dinning and marquee functions which provide a significant income stream to the business. The loss of an established buffer beyond the wildflower meadow would make the experience less appealing. In addition the proposal would see an impact on the hotels signage and banner displays which currently provide valuable direct sales for the hotels drinks events, weddings and promotions. We would be grateful if the inspectorate would take these comments and these made in previous representations to Highways England into account in this process"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iain Waite
"The proposed route of the new dual carriageway will pass about 300 metres from our cottage. There will be parts in cut and parts on embankment in our vicinity so we are concerned about the impact of noise and light pollution, also vibration may become an issue. We would like to be reassured that all methods to minimise noise and light pollution will be employed during construction viz special noise reducing road surfacing and screens to blank out the vehicle lights. I understand street lighting will not be an issue."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Walton Goodland Ltd on behalf of Dr. Antony Richard Leeming
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT [Redacted] ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF Dr ANTHONY LEEMING AND LADY ELIZABETH LEEMING ______________________________ 1. Dr Anthony Leeming and Lady Elizabeth Leeming (“the Representors”) are the registered proprietors under title No.CU33471, and are the owners of other unregistered land, at [Redacted] and the surrounding Park, small parts of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 1, the Land Plans at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation map 1, the following plot numbers are being sought to be acquired permanently. Plots nos.0102-01-06, 1020-01-07 and 0102-01-50 for the purposes of visual screening, landscape integration and an attenuation pond and drainage therefrom (“Area 1”). Plots nos.0102-01-14, 0102-01-17 and 0102-01-22 for highway works and landscape integration (“Area 2”). Plot no.0102-01-34 for nature conservation and biodiversity and an access route thereto. (Area 3) 3. The Representors say that there have been wholly inadequate pre-application consultations having regard to the special nature of their property as described below. The Project and the associated planting and other proposals do not appear to recognise the parkland landscape of the Skirsgill House and Park and do not appear to have had the benefit of any cultural or landscape expertise. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project or to the principle of locating the attenuation pond in Area 1, if such a pond is necessary. The Representators do make the following representations in respect of the three Areas identified above, and each of them. 5. Areas 1, 2 and 3: First, [Redacted] House (Grade II listed) and the surrounding grounds and parkland were developed as a single concept from the 18th century, and extensive tree and shrub planting in the 20th century has created a very special area of parkland containing many unusual arboretum species providing texture, colour and dendrological interest which will be seriously affected by the proposed land acquisitions. The acquisitions will seriously diminish and harm the parkland concept that surrounds a house of some historic and architectural interest. The proposed replacement and mitigation plantings recommended under the ES 3.2 will be wholly unsympathetic to the existing wooded areas that contain a mixture of both native and non-native species, deciduous and non-deciduous. 6. Second. to the extent that any part of these areas is proposed to be acquired only for the purpose of planting trees and shrubs, it is not necessary that the said parts of these areas should be compulsory acquired as the Representors are prepared to give rights in the form of restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant these areas in a manner sympathetic to the parkland concept mentioned above. 7. Third, that any plantings in the said areas should be sympathetic to the house and parkland concept and should not be constrained by planting native species only. The Representors suggest that the species to be planted should be agreed with National Highways. 8. Fourth, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the parkland concept noted above. 9. Area 1: First, the Representors point out that the existing and adjoining highway is drained through this Area and the adjoining parkland to the River to the south through a 24” pipe authorised by an easement for the benefit of the Highway Authority. The Representors say that this 24” pipe should be used to drain the proposed improved highway to the River Eamont alternatively it should be used to drain the proposed attenuation pond. This would avoid any need to acquire plot no. 0102-01-06, and certainly plot nos.0102-01-07 and 0102-01-50 10. Second, if an attenuation pond is necessary, it is wholly unnecessary to acquire land in plot nos.0102-01-07 and 0102-01-55. Any requirement for rights to lay and drain through these plots can be granted by easement rights and permanent acquisition is unnecessary. Further, it is unnecessary to acquire the whole width of the wider part of plot no.0102-01-07 at its north-western end, and if it is proposed for planting, this is unacceptable as it will be inconsistent with the parkland concept described above. 11. Third, to the extent that any part of the land in Area 1 is required for visual screening or access, it is unnecessary to permanently acquire such land as the Representors can give rights in the form of restrictive and positive covenants to achieve the same. 12. There does not appear to have been any consideration given to the proposed drain crossing a Registered County Wildlife Site and a SAC/SSSI riverbank, which is inconsistent with those classifications. 13. Area 2: Whilst the Representors do not object to the taking of such part of the plots in this area to the extent that such part is required for highway works, they do object to the taking of additional land for visual screening (tree and shrub planting) for the following reasons. 14. For the most part the existing and proposed improved planting adjoining highway is at a level below that of the Representors’ parkland and as the only purpose of any proposed visual screen planting can only be for the principal benefit of their property, and the attenuation of noise, it is wholly unnecessary to permanently acquire land for that purposed or to limit plantings to native species only when the Representors are prepared to enter into restrictive and positive covenants to achieve any necessary plantings, and especially as existing plantings are said to be retained. 15. Area 3: The Representors make the following points. 16. First, the Representors are prepared to offer other areas of equivalent size within their ownership in the surrounding area for the purpose of biodiversity and mitigation plantings, and accordingly the compulsory acquisition of Area 3 is unnecessary. In particular a triangular area to the northeast of Area 3 in the corner between the River Eamont and the M6, which will have the additional benefit of improving visual screening. 17. Second, any planting in Area 3 would seriously harm the parkland concept as described above, especially as an alternative area has been offered. 18. Third, any planting in Area 3 should not be restricted to native species only as such a limitation is wholly inconsistent with the parkland concept mentioned above. 19. Fourth, if the offers made above are not accepted, the Representors say that the mitigation plantings can be achieved by the taking of rights only over Area 3, alternatively rights only over the access route to the planting area, and that permanent acquisition is unnecessary as the Representors are prepared to offer alternative sites or alternatively to give restrictive and permanent covenants as to planting. 20. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 21. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which do not appear to have been considered. IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT [Redacted] ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF Dr ANTHONY LEEMING AND LADY ELIZABETH LEEMING ______________________________ WALTON GOODLAND CHARTERED SURVEYORS, [Redacted] REF A M Walton FRICS"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Robinson
"We live on the route chosen by Highways England for access to Barnard Castle from a new junction on the A66. This route involves traffic travelling through Startforth on a very narrow road with only one narrow footpath, we believe this will endanger pedestrians especially as the pavement will not allow for pushchairs etc. As I understand it, traffic entering the town from Scotch Corner will be directed along this route which will mean all traffic will have to cross the river and travel up The Bank in Barnard Castle, already a bottle neck owing to the parked cars both sides of the road. It would, in my opinion be better to keep the all direction junction at Rokeby for traffic to access the town along Westwick Road, the Blue Route in the original proposals."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alex Jakob-Whitworth
"I live locally and use the surrounding area between Penrith and Kirkby Stephen as part of my work. There will be a serious impact to our pace of life, to wildlife and habitats. There are issues with the junctions - that will impact safe access for local traffic. There will be significant impact regarding noise, light pollution, visual intrusion, and emissions. The current plans do not represent a good value for money, there is no provision for an alternative transport infrastructure and it will result in increased journey times and increased traffic - in a time when we are supposed to be working towards net zero. The new road infrastructure will cause significant damage to the landscape and setting of the North Pennines AONB; no alternatives for improving road safety have been investigated or explored; this current scheme will not do anything for sustainability. I will find it more difficult to get to the south side of the A66, as a resident I need to be able to travel safely and economically around the area. There will be a major negative impact on wildlife, habitats, people's lives and livelihoods and the environment."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jennifer White
"I believe that Highways England's decision to follow the Black route is significantly flawed and will cause substantial harm to the local area and community greatly outweighing harm that would be caused by use of the Blue route. HE at an early meeting with the local A66 liaison group assessed that there could be an increase of traffic on the B6277, if the Black route was used, of x3-4 fold. Understandably this cannot be quantified until the changes are made when it would be too late to reverse the potential damage. Increase in traffic down the B6277, along the Sills beside the river, at the traffic lights, over the County Bridge, along Bridgegate and up the Bank, has the potential of causing irreversible and substantial harm to local community, residents, visitors, many listed buildings, air pollution. The risk of accidents occurring is great- the road is significantly narrower than the route that uses the Abbey bridge and Newgate, there are several blind bends with hidden accesses, narrow or absent pedestrian walkways unsuitable for the disabled and young children in pushchairs who need to move onto the road itself at certain points- impossible to widen because of the proximity of the river. The Bank is in effect a single road due to the pinch points and cars parked of necessity outside houses on both sides. Queued cars produce significant amount of exhaust fumes in a narrow area which have health risks, and potential to increase damage to the listed buildings. I believe that any harm proposed by HE due to use of the Blue route is substantially insignificant in the long term compared to the potential harm that would be caused by the Black route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paula Carlington
"We live on the route chosen by Highways England for access to Barnard Castle from a new junction on the A66. This route involves traffic travelling through Startforth on a very narrow road with only one narrow footpath, this will no doubt endanger pedestrians especially as the pavement will not allow for pushchairs, wheelchair users etc. Traffic entering the town from Scotch Corner will be directed along this route which will mean all traffic will have to cross the river and travel up The Bank in Barnard Castle, already a bottle neck owing to the parked cars both sides of the road. It would, in my opinion be better to keep the all direction junction at Rokeby for traffic to access the town along Westwick Road, the Blue Route in the original proposals."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Transport Action Network
"Transport Action Network would like to register as an Interested Party for the A66 Examination. The proposed scheme would 1) increase traffic growth and carbon emissions by 2,190,452 tonnes over its lifetime; 2) increase emissions from its construction by at least an additional 518,562 tonnes, all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; 3) in total, increase emissions by 2,709,014 tonnes, taking us backwards on achieving net zero; 4) directly impact on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the habitats of many endangered species; 5) directly impact on the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting; 6) air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on humans, the AONB, SAC, SSSI and species, and the Yorkshire Dales National Park; 7) increase severance of local communities and the rights of way network; 8) impact on heritage assets. The huge environmental harm and economic cost of the scheme cannot be justified as the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report shows that the scheme has a Benefit Cost Ratio of under one, which is classed as “poor” value for money by the DfT’s Value for Money Framework. This shows the scheme would cost more than it would ever deliver in benefits. The calculated emissions from constructing the scheme have been significantly reduced since the statutory consultation (down from 1.4 million tonnes to 518,562 tonnes). The methodology that the Applicant has adopted to minimise the carbon footprint from the construction of this scheme needs to be thoroughly scrutinised. We are also concerned about the secretive consultations, with the consultation documents not publicised and inaccessible unless you had been given the web link. This made it very difficult to fully assess the impacts of the scheme, and to comment. For these reasons we believe that the DCO application is premature. Non-roadbuilding alternative options have not been properly assessed such as reducing speed limits and moving freight onto rail, or small-scale engineering solutions that increase safety."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Metcalfe
"At the initial stage 3 schemes were considered A66 A66 + A685 A69 The A685 (including Kirkby Stephen bypass option) was discarded on the basis of incorrect information 1) The scheme was priced at 88 £million when the cost would be less than half that probably around £20 to £25 £millon 2) Mileages used in scheme assessment ignored the effect on HGV mileages of the A685 weight restriction The A685 Kirkby Stephen bypass and a bypass of Warwick bridge should be included in the trans Pennine scheme because of their relative low cost and the effects of increased traffic on them as a result of A66 upgrade particularly during construction stages. The proposed route for the new A66 between Appleby and Penrith is not the best route and has many disadvantages particularly the fact that it does not alleviate Skirsgill roundabout issues and it is longer than present route from Appleby to M6 at Penrith. The route should be a new road from Crackenthorpe (just North of Appleby) to the M6 at Hackthorpe or thereabouts."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Barrie Cheetham
"I object to increasing traffic flow south of Penrith between Kemplay Roundabout on the A6 and junction M40 on the M6. An alternative route must be found for north to south and south to north traffic flow away from the south of Penrith."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Constance Blackett-Ord
"I would like to register as an interested party, as a local resident and outline my objections to the proposed A66 scheme. 1. Environmental- It has been calculated that the proposed scheme would increase traffic growth and carbon emissions by 2,190,452 tonnes over its lifetime and additionally increase emissions from its construction by at least an additional 518,562 tonnes. We need to be instead investing in rail for freight and rural public transport. 2. Impact on wildlife and nature. This huge development will negatively affect the local environmental through destruction of habitats, ecosystems and increased air pollution. 3. Safety – The A66 is indeed a dangerous road but instead of creating a faster route, and so increasing the severity of accidents there should be average speed cameras along the whole length. 4. Loss of archaeological and cultural landscapes. The proposed route runs mostly on top of or closely beside the existing ancient road. The developments would destroy many archaeological sites, historic buildings and fields which have sprung up along this important road. 5. Increased air, visual and sound pollution- This would be particularly acute where the new road is being planned between the access/existing road and the villages due to the numerous extra flyovers and tunnels. Many houses will become unliveable in due to their proximity to the roads. 6. Increased traffic during developments – Where will the traffic go during the works? Inevitably through the villages which will significantly impact road safety especially outside schools, where due to the lack of pavements many families feel forced to drive their children to school. 7. Flooding. The increased tarmac along the valley will increase the already high risk of flooding along the Eden Valley due to the loss of pasture. This is a time of Climate Emergency and more extreme weather. 8. Cost- At a time of huge economic uncertainly this is a gross miss use of public money. The money needs to be spent instead on schools, public transport, the NHS and social care. Furthermore, the Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report shows that the scheme has a Benefit Cost Ratio of under one and therefore which is classed as “poor” value for money by the DfT’s Value for Money Framework. This shows the scheme would cost more than it would ever deliver in benefits. In general, I disagree with the proposed road strongly, with the possible exceptions being for bypasses for villages such as Kirkby Thore. My particular interest lies along the Brough to Appleby stretch. Here if a road must be built it should be built to the north of the existing road over MoD land. Much of this is already concreted over or covered in a monoculture of conifers with no consideration for the ANOB status so why should the road be constrained by this? Some of the above issues would be lessened by the road being routed ½ a mile plus north."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Tristram
"I object to this scheme because it would increase traffic growth and carbon emissions, when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement. I object to it because it would directly impact on the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and its setting. I object to it because it would increase air pollution and noise pollution which will have direct and indirect impacts on the above areas and on people. I object to it because it would increase severance of local communities and the rights of way network. I object to it because of its direct impact on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the Pennine Moors SAC (which is also a Special Protection Area), and the habitats of many endangered species. To quote activist Steve Melia: 'Road building destroys the countryside and makes climate change worse'."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Russell
"I have been representing West Layton residents in the Community Liaison Group meetings convened by the Highways Project Team. The consultation inputs from various residents in the village have progressively influenced the planning process positively and equally have helped to identify, avoid or mitigate some potentially negative or damaging impacts in the plan. Most people in West Layton are now generally content with the plan as it stands and are desperately keen to see the project completed, because safety issues on our section of the A66 are steadily getting worse. A number of us are concerned that representations made by other Interested Parties during the current examinatioin could result in substantive changes to the plan. We would wish to be alerted if that happens, in order to have the opportunity to respond to any such changes."
Parish Councils
Barningham Parish Meeting
"As the village of Barningham does not have a Parish Council the Parish Meeting is the represntative body for its residents. On 4 November 2021 I submitted an objection to National Highways on behalf of the Meeting and this was ratified by a meeting of residents on 24 November. The gist of the objection is as follows. As Barnard Castle is the nearest centre to Barningham for shopping, services, employment and education the journey between the two is that made most frequently by residents. The form of the improvements to the A66 will therefore have a direct and significant impact on them in terms of journey time, length and convenience. The need for traffic to divert to the proposed Rokeby West Juntion would add approximately 2 miles to any journey ito the town, with adverse effects in terms of distance, time, inconvenience and additional emissions. The substantive objection by National Highways to the Rokeby East Junction, proposed earlier in the consultation (the Blue Route), appears to be that it would cause unnacceptable harm to the Rokeby Park Registered Park and Garden (RPG). However, very substtantial damage was done to that designated area some years ago when improvements to the A66 severed part of the Park and an access drive from the rest. The limited area of the RPG on which the Blue Route would impinge is of very modest importance in historical and landscape terms and would not be substantial in terms of National Networks Policy Statement 2014. The benefits of the Blue Route would significantly outweigh any harm caused in terms of the same Statement."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Campaign for National Parks
"We object to TRO10062 for the following reasons: The proposal fails to take account of the additional protections that apply in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) and the duty that all public bodies have to take account of the potential effect of their decisions and activities on the statutory purposes for these areas, including activities undertaken outside their boundaries which may affect land within them. The construction of bridges, embankments and other infrastructure would damage the landscape and setting of the North Pennines AONB. Creating extra capacity on the A66 to the east of the M6 would also lead to increased pressure to dual or widen non-dualled sections of the route to the west of the M6, within the Lake District National Park. The proposal is, therefore, incompatible with the long-established presumption against significant road widening or the building of new roads in National Parks and AONBs “unless it can be shown there are compelling reasons for the new or enhanced capacity and with any benefits outweighing the costs very significantly. Planning of the Strategic Road Network should encourage routes that avoid National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.” (paragraph 5.152, the National Policy Statement for National Networks). It is also incompatible with the general presumption against major development in National Parks and AONBs and the additional protection for the settings of these areas set out in the National Planning Policy Framework. National Highways own assessment makes it clear that the proposal represents extremely poor value for money with a benefit-cost ratio of less than 1 even before the current increased level of inflation is taken into account. This makes the scheme completely inappropriate during a time of constrained public resources and a cost-of-living crisis. The benefits clearly do not outweigh the costs very significantly as national policy requires for roadbuilding to even be considered in such a sensitive location. The scheme is also completely incompatible with the urgent need to tackle the climate emergency and the UK’s international and national commitments to reduce carbon emissions including the Paris agreement, the 2008 Climate Change Act, the legally binding target of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, the UK Sixth Carbon Budget, and a National Planning Policy Framework which calls for ‘radical reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’. National Highways’ own figures show that the project will generate over two million extra tonnes of carbon over the 60 year appraisal period (Table 7.23, Environmental Statement Chapter 7). National Highways has failed to give adequate consideration to smaller scale solutions and has instead focused entirely on dualling. Far more attention should have been given to identifying options which do not require extensive additional roadbuilding. We recognise that there are safety issues that need to be addressed at particular locations along the A66 Trans-Pennine corridor but we believe that National Highways should be developing alternative ways of addressing these issues such as reduced speed limits, junction improvements and the use of underpasses for farm crossings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Center Parcs
"As an organisation Center Parcs fully support this project as it will benefit our staff of 1450 from a travel perspective, our guests of approximately 10,000 per week and it will most definitely save lives. As a business the dualing of the A66 will also prevent a significant number of serious traffic jams for all users, which in turn reduces accidents. From a Cumbria perspective this project can only improve connectivity for all business and visitors"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Cross Lanes to Rokeby Community Liaison Group
"That the proposed junction and route at the East end of the Cross Lanes to Rokeby section of the upgrade, the 'Black Route' does not recognise the harms it will impose on Startforth and the lower parts of Barnard Castle by increased traffic flow. Additionally the 'harms' to the historic assets of St Mary's Church, Rokeby Park and Garden by adopting the Blue Route' have been accepted without apparent question by National Highways. The lack of balancing these different harms has led to the liaison group wishing to presenting their view to the examination."
Parish Councils
Phillip Gate on behalf of East Layton Parish
"The majority of residents of East Layton do not want a junction on Moor Lane in the new A66 projewct. Moor Lane will attract an increased daily flow of vehicles which will all come through the village of EAST Layton causing danger to walkers, cyclists,joggers and horse riders. We have hardly any foot paths in the village making it a danderous place. The new intersection should be much nearer to the Ravesworth junction making the existing Moor Lane junction LEFT TURN ONLY to the East"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Bill Lloyd on behalf of Mr Billy Welch
"The proposed route of the development passes through the site of Brough Hill Fair. In 1330 the town of Brough was granted a charter for, inter alia, an annual four day fair which remains as Brough Hill Romany Fair held at the end of September. The status of the annual fair is protected not only by the charter but by an entry on the title at Land Registry. Details of the Highways England consultation and proposals for provision of an alternative site can be found at [Redacted] Highways England noted objections to their first proposal in 2021, and suggested an alternative site. In the opinion of Billy Welch, who is a spokesman for the Gypsy community, neither alternative site is suitable as a replacement, for various reasons which he can explain in detail. He considers that a different route to the north would be more suitable."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Transport for the North
"Transport for the North (TfN) is a Sub-national Transport Body (STB) with a statutory power to advise UK Government on the transport priorities for the North of England. Our advice reflects the views of our Members, bringing the region’s political and business leaders together to consider transport solutions which connect the economic assets across the North, both internally to create an economic mass, and also externally as part of a global marketplace. In February 2019 the published Strategic Transport Plan (STP) and Investment Programme. The STP is a vision-led, evidence-based statutory plan that has been subject to public consultation. It sets out TfN’s vision of: “A thriving North of England, where world class transport supports sustainable economic growth, excellent quality of life and improved opportunities for all.” Our Investment Programme identifies completion of the A66 dualling between junction 53 of the A1(M) at Scotch Corner and junction 40 of the M6 at Penrith as a scheme which we ‘consider is needed and should start on delivery before 2027.’ TfN supported the A66 dualling in our statutory advice to DfT on the RIS2 programme. Dualling the A66 will deliver improved strategic connectivity between Cumbria, Durham, North Yorkshire and the Tees Valley thereby supporting further economic growth across this part of the North. It will also provide a critical upgrade that will improve the reliability and resilience of long-distance freight movements. TfN therefore strongly supports plans to progress the A66 dualling and through ‘Project Speed’ bringing forward the planned completion of the scheme to 2029. In so doing it urges that the design of the improvement maximises provision for Active Travel modes throughout the project and that provision is made for the inclusion of the infrastructure supporting use of zero emission electric and hydrogen vehicles. It is critical that in taking forward the scheme into delivery the Department for Transport and National Highways continue to work with TfN and Local Transport Authorities so as to ensure a holistic view of the role of the Strategic Road Network in supporting an effective and integrated transport system, one that encompasses all travel modes using strategic and local networks. Such an approach is essential in order to ensure that the scheme makes a positive contribution towards providing better outcomes for transport users, the economy and the environment. TfN supports National Highways in its approach to engaging with stakeholders on the design of the A66 dualling and will leave detailed feedback on the local impact of the scheme proposals to local stakeholders, including the local authorities representing communities along the route. Aligned to the published statutory Strategic Transport Plan, key outcomes TfN expects to see from the A66 scheme are: • Improved safety, reliability and resilience of the A66 Scotch Corner to Penrith for all road users • Reliability and resilience benefits for traffic on the wider network, for example long distance freight movements. • Improved customer experience • Promoting and supporting Active Travel • Environmental mitigation and enhancements, and an exemplar approach to mitigation of potential detrimental environmental impacts. • Enhancements to the built environment, including historic buildings and monuments along the A66 corridor. • Opportunities for Socioeconomic Benefits TfN supports plans to complete the A66 dualling by 2029 and acknowledges the work National Highways is undertaking to be ready to deliver a 5-year construction programme. It is important that the Department for Transport (DfT) maintains support for the accelerated build programme, and that the DfT works with the three local authorities on the route to help ensure they have sufficient resource to meet the requirements of the Project Speed timetable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Climate Emergency Planning and Policy
"Dr Andrew Boswell, Climate Emergency Planning and Policy I am an independent environmental consultant specialising in climate science, policy, and law, and I object to the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project: (1) The Environmental Statement (ES) does not comply with the Infrastructure Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (“the 2017 Regulations”). (2) Chapter 7 of the ES presents estimates of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for assessment of significance of the scheme against the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets. Only “scheme-only” estimates are given and assessed (eg the bottom line of Table 7-23, and the “net CO2” data in Table 7-24). (3) One of the requirements of the 2017 Regulations is that the applicant must provide an environmental statement (“ES”) including the cumulative impacts of the project and other existing and/or approved projects on climate change. The requirement can only be discharged by providing a separate cumulative assessment in the ES. (4) The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) “Assessing greenhouse gas emissions and evaluating their significance” guidance (February 2022) states that best EIA practice for GHGs uses multiple sources of evidence, and contextualises GHG assessment against local and regional carbon budgets. The IEMA guidance says comparison against national budgets is only of “limited value”. The ES does not follow this guidance, and instead makes a sole assessment of significance against the entire UK economy carbon budget. (5) The very large construction stage emissions of 518,562 tCO2e [Table 7-21] have been omitted from the cost side of the BCR calculations (3.8 Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report, page 148). These would amount to over £130,000,000 at the 2025 government carbon valuation increasing the cost side to at least £880m. The value of cumulative carbon emissions from the scheme has not been used in the benefit side of the BCR calculations, because no cumulative assessment has been done. (6) The existing adjusted BCR of 0.92 is an investment hard to justify. It should be recalculated for the issues above, which would reduce it further. (7) We are in a climate emergency, and recent record-breaking global heating and drought in the UK, Europe and around the world demonstrate that it is a crisis of ever-increasing dimensions. The scheme increases carbon emissions, and cannot be justified even within the scope of UK climate legislation, especially when properly contextualised by EIA best practice. No scheme increasing carbon emissions on this scale, and at such a poor BCR, can be justified within the planning balance. (8) However, as a scientist in the good company of many others including Professor Sir David King , former UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor (see his commentary on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 6th Assessment report “The final warning bell” at www.ccag.earth), I go further and call out the Government targets, policies including the out-of-date NPSNN as being wholly insufficient to the scale of the crisis. The scheme cannot be justified given the very clear moral grounds of its impacts on future beings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Newton
"With regard to the consultation process of the upgrade to the A66 I wish to add my voice in support for the Blue option at the Cross Lanes and Rokeby junctions. The Black route at Rokeby is a very bad design that adds extra motoring time to anyone travelling from the east to Barnard Castle. Locals, and anybody in the know and probably those using satellite navigation systems will use the Cross Lanes junction instead. Almost half the route to Barnard Castle via Cross Lanes will be on the 70mph new dual carriageway and would clearly be the preferred route for most journeys that can use the County Bridge. This will result in extra traffic – I have read of estimates of 2 to 3 times extra traffic - on an already dangerous road. The road, (The Sills) in Startforth does not look to be capable of being widened for the extra traffic, but more importantly cannot be made safe with proper pavements for pedestrians. The section of the document “A66NTP Preliminary Design Consultation Sept 2021 Route Development Report Volume 1”, where it discusses the reasons for selecting the Black route in preference to the Blue route, makes its choice solely on the designation of a tiny piece of land deemed to be part of an historical landscape. Reading that document without that piece of information would lead one to presume that the Blue route would be preferable by nearly all the other criteria and certainly on balance would be the chosen design. The public need to be informed why this piece of historically designated land needs protecting rather than protecting pedestrians in Startforth. This land looks like any other field bounded on one side with a hedge with some trees within the hedge. The adjacent land was separated from the historical parkland when the existing road was upgraded in 1978, the damage to the park has already happened over 40 years ago."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lake District National Park Authority
"Lake District National Park Authority would like to register as an interested party in the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project Examination for the following reasons: a) The need for improved sustainable transport, particularly active travel connections along the route into the Lake District, and possible severance of routes from Penrith into the Lake District. b) Generation of increased traffic as a result of the scheme impacting on the Lake District, where there are already visitor traffic and parking issues, and leading to further development pressure within the National Park and World Heritage Site. In view of the development being within the setting of the Lake District World Heritage Site consideration could be made of whether a Heritage Impact Assessment for the infrastructure at the Western end of the route should be produced."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Bernard Case
"I wish to make the case for the Blue Route at Rokeby. The reason for this being that I accept the potential for increased traffic flows from Cross Lanes junction down the B6277 to County Bridge will impact negatively on Startforth, especially on the historic County Bridge. The argument to preserve the landscape at Rokeby is dubious when it has already been disturbed when the present junction with the A66 was installed. It is paramount to have a safe A66 dulling, it is also paramount to have a safe environment for all road users and pedestrians in Startforth. Public Safety must come first."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Maureen Case
"I think that the Blue Route at Rokeby is the necessary route that should be chosen. The reason for this being that I accept the potential for increased traffic flows from Cross Lanes junction down the B6277 to County Bridge will impact negatively at Startforth especially for the pedestrians on The Sill, which is hazardous now. The historic County Bridge should be protected. English Heritage's argument to preserve the landscape at Rokeby is dubious when it has already been disturbed when the present junction with the A66 was installed. It is very important to have a safe environment for all road users of the A66 but also equally important for road users and pedestrians in Startforth. Public Safety must be a priority."
Other Statutory Consultees
National Grid
"Representation by National Grid Electricity Transmission Plc (“NGET”) in respect of the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (the “Project”) - This relevant representation is submitted on behalf of NGET in respect of the Project, and in particular with regard to NGET’s infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits. NGET will require appropriate protection for retained apparatus including compliance with relevant standards for works proposed within close proximity of its apparatus. NGET’s rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus must also be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. Further, where National Highways (the “Promoter”) intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s interests in land or NGET’s apparatus, NGET will require appropriate protection and further discussion is required on the impact to its apparatus and rights. Further detail is set out below. NGET infrastructure within/in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits - NGET owns or operates the following infrastructure within or in close proximity to the proposed Order Limits for the Project: high voltage 400kV electricity overhead transmission line Harker to Hutton 1 and 2, including tower and span number ZX117R. The overhead line, including tower number ZX117R, forms an essential part of the electricity transmission network in England and Wales. NGET is working with the Promoter with regards to concerns about the close proximity of tower number ZX117R to the new shared cycle track and private means of access (Work No. 03-7A) and highway boundary to be constructed as part of the Project. NGET is also working with the Promoter to further understand the clearance associated with the embankments to be located beneath the overhead line. NGET wishes to explore with the Promoter the access arrangements to tower number ZX117R both during and after construction of the Project and the securing of all necessary new land and access rights in this regard. Protection of NGET Assets - As a responsible statutory undertaker, NGET’s primary concern is to meet its statutory obligations and ensure that any development does not impact in any adverse way upon those statutory obligations. As such, NGET has a duty to protect its position in relation to infrastructure and land which is within or in close proximity to the Order Limits of the proposed Project. As noted, NGET’s rights to retain its apparatus in situ and rights of access to inspect, maintain, renew and repair such apparatus located within or in close proximity to the Order limits should be maintained at all times and access to inspect and maintain such apparatus must not be restricted. NGET will require protective provisions to be included within the draft Development Consent Order for the Project to ensure that its interests are adequately protected and to ensure compliance with relevant safety standards. NGET is liaising with the Promoter in relation to such protective provisions, along with any supplementary agreements which may be required. NGET requests that the Promoter continues to engage with it to provide explanation and reassurances as to how the Promoter’s works pursuant to the Order (if made) will ensure protection for those NGET assets which will remain in situ, along with facilitating all future access and other rights as are necessary to allow NGET to properly discharge its statutory obligations. NGET will continue to liaise with the Promoter in this regard with a view to concluding matters as soon as possible during the DCO Examination and will keep the Examining Authority updated in relation to these discussions. Compulsory Acquisition Powers in respect of the Project - As noted, where the Promoter intends to acquire land or rights, or interfere with any of NGET’s interests in land, NGET will require further discussion with the Promoter. Further representations - NGET reserves the right to make further representations as part of the Examination process but in the meantime will continue to liaise with the Promoter with a view to reaching a satisfactory agreement"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Cleasby
"I am registering as we have farmland that the construction phase of this may affect our ability to connect to it"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rosalind Evans
"I live in (Redacted), and my submission concentrates on the Cross Lanes to Rokeby section; here there are very significant problems with the ‘Black Route’ design for Rokeby Junction proposed by Highways England (HE) and I strongly oppose this route being approved. Rokeby Junction Black Route plan: 1. The design means that vehicles using the Rokeby junction to and from the southern carriageway will have to double back on the de-trunked road. It is counter to the natural and historic lines of the current roads and junctions, and will have a profound harmful and permanent effect on the lives of local residents in Teesdale 2. For the environment it means more tarmac laid, more carbon emissions from vehicles and more noise. 3. Non motorised road users: the provision of the Black Route for anyone not in a motorised vehicle requires a long detour - all due to the overall design concept of moving the junction so unnecessarily out of alignment with our historic network of roads and paths. 4. Implications for our local road network: The Black Route will have a severe and permanent effect on our local road system, which will cause significant harm to lives in Teesdale far beyond the corridor of the A66 route. These negative and harmful effects will be on traffic levels on local roads, the safety of residents and visitors, our historic and natural environment and the local economy. Overall the harm of the Black Route junction at Rokeby to the fabric of our lives in Teesdale would be immense and irreversible. Before the consultation, Highways England had also designed the ‘Blue Route’. The only reason I have been given that the Blue Route should not be pursued is that it would affect a narrow band of woodland at Church Plantation, which is part of a designated parkland. This has resulted in Heritage England objecting to the Blue Route. Heritage England have taken a very narrow and partial view of the historic impact. They have taken no account of the many important historic buildings which would be affected with the increased traffic across County Bridge; there are many listed buildings and historic monuments, which Historic England should be protecting here. Historic England have taken no account of the wider significance of how the parkland was designed to sit in the Teesdale landscape, and the historic significance of the ancient road and path networks. Equally, HE have said that the Blue Route could be tweaked to provide more mitigation against harm to Rokeby Park – however this has not been pursued at all."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of AWSM Farming Ltd (Adam Metcalfe) (AWSM Farming Ltd (Adam Metcalfe) )
"I am writing on behalf of AWSM Farming Ltd (Adam Metcalfe) to provide his comments on the Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor proposal. AWSM Farming Ltd is a farming, machinery hire and agricultural contracting service based at (Redacted), Hutton Magna. As part of their business, they undertake agricultural operations on land to the south of the A66, in-between Newsham and Dalton. Due to narrow lanes and bridges, access to these fields with large agricultural machinery is only possible off the A66 through Browson Bank. The current plans show that access to Browson Bank will only be available from the east. Therefore, in order to access Browson Bank, agricultural machinery from Lanehead Farm will need to travel from the junction at Smallways along the A66 east to the new junction at Mainsgill and then come back along the new service road. This will be a distance of approximately 5.92 miles. In addition, when returning to Lanehead Farm, machinery will need to travel east to Mainsgill then back along the A66 to Smallways. There will be significant additional fuel and time costs associated with this extra travel time. The presence of agricultural machinery on the road will also cause congestion issues for the new road. Mr Metcalf’s preference is for a new additional access road to be created to connect the Browson Bank service road to the A66 junction at Smallways to the west. This will allow all traffic from the Browson Bank service road to travel west and join the A66 at Smallways and mean that all agricultural machinery does not need to go on the A66. By linking the Browson Bank service road with the Smallways junction, it would benefit the residential properties at Browson Bank as well as any traffic heading west from Dick Scot Lane, Old Dunsa Bank, Waitlands Lane and West Layton. This is because, traffic from all these areas would not need to travel east back to Mainsgill in order to travel westwards. An alternative option would be to create a new slip road at Browson Bank onto the A66 to allow traffic to travel to the west. This will at least cut the return journey to (Redacted) by not requiring travel back to Mainsgill. It would also benefit the residential properties as outlined above."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cycling UK
"Cycling UK continues to have concerns over the provision of safe cycling infrastructure as part of the proposed route, in accordance with the submitted walking, cycling and horse riding proposals. i) We express concern over the widespread continued use of "Shared cycle/footway" provision (mainly along detrunked sections of the existing A66) rather than properly segregated infrastructure as recommended in LTN1/20. We also express concern that clear proposals for speed limit and traffic calming measures on these detrunked sections remain missing. ii) We express concern over the continued reluctance to secure full east-west connectivity for vulnerable road users. In particular, we express frustration that the scope of the scheme appears to have artificially limited itself to the provision of connectivity along those stretches of the route that are being dialled, without securing similar east-west connectivity along stretches of the route that have *already* been dualled. Retrofitting existing sections with safe provision must be seen as a vital part of the overall scheme in order to deliver the proposed goals - otherwise provision of cycle infrastructure only within the bounds of the new scheme is futile. We believe a *full* assessment of cycle provision covering the overall dualling scheme (including existing dualled sections rather than only new dualling proposals) is vital. iii) Particular attention is drawn to the gap in east-west walking/cycling/horseriding provision across Bowes Moor. This offers a significant gap in safe provision over an exposed area with no nearby alternative routes. We believe that the disused railway track across Bowes moor should be brought within the scheme as a restricted byway, in order to deliver a safe, traffic free alternative route for the full length of the overall scheme. We note in particular that the creation of a restricted byway here would allow horse drawn traffic to safely cross the moors on their way to the Appleby horse fair without need to access the dualled sections of the A66 as at present - which has resulted in fatal road traffic collisions in the past. We also express concern that although this proposal has been raised as part of the consultation, it has not been put forward for designated funding consideration (chapter 5) despite assurances that this would be considered. iv) We express further concern that no clear proposal has been identified for the location or design of a safe crossing of the A66 where it meets with the authorised proposals for the Pennine Bridleway National Trail Northern Extension (in the area of Coupland Beck). We believe that much greater thought, and engagement with natural England and other interested parties, needs to go into the development of this crossing point. Comparison is drawn with the extensive design and remediation works for the 'green bridge' proposed for the existing Cotswold Way National Trail, where it crosses the A417 as part of the 'air balloon' missing link works identified under Highways England project TR010056. See: https://infrastructure.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/wp-content/ipc/uploads/projects/TR010056/TR010056-000604-7.11CotswoldWayNationalTrailDiversionReport.pdf"
Non-Statutory Organisations
Friends of the Lake District
"Friends of the Lake District (FLD) is the only membership organisation dedicated to protecting and enhancing Lake District and Cumbrian landscapes FLD objects to this proposed project. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) for the whole road is 0.92. This puts the A66 upgrade in the bottom 1% of value for money of all transport infrastructure projects assessed by the DfT 2015-2019. This is a questionable project to be brought forward and paid for by the public purse during a cost of living crisis, high interest rates and recession when it does not break even on overall benefits. It is difficult to square the climate emergency with these proposals which will emit 518,562 tonnes of CO2 during construction and 2,190,452 tonnes over its lifetime. The value of cumulative carbon emissions from the scheme has not been used in the BCR calculations because no cumulative assessment has been done. This will make reaching the UK’s legally binding 68% carbon reductions by 2030 and reaching net zero even harder. As the Benefits to Cost ratio is under 1, then harm to landscape, tranquillity, wildlife, heritage and local residents’ quality of life will not be outweighed by the benefits of the road and cannot be justified. The NNNPS states “There is a strong presumption against any significant road widening …in… Areas of Outstanding Natural beauty, unless it can be shown there are compelling reasons for the new or enhanced capacity and with any benefits outweighing the costs very significantly.” Research demonstrates that upgraded roads induce traffic, increase demand and cause more CO2 emissions. FLD has consistently pointed out that road safety could be improved significantly on single carriageway sections of the A66 without needing to dual through and adjacent to an AONB in open countryside. These measures include better junctions, underpasses and bridges for local traffic, and speed limits. As this upgrade is for freight, a 70mph speed limit is unnecessary as freight is limited to 60mph. Bringing the speed limit down would reduce accidents less destructively and more cheaply than building a dual carriageway as well as saving millions of tonnes of CO2. There will be a loss of tranquillity due to increased traffic and faster vehicles and significant visual intrusion of major road infrastructure into open countryside. The long term damage to tranquillity and negative visual impact on the landscape of the North Pennines AONB and its setting is acknowledged in the ES, but cannot be adequately mitigated meaning that this project will leave a legacy of landscape harm. The scheme would directly impact on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), many hedgerows, mature trees and the habitats of endangered species. FLD had no contact from National Highways/Highways England between 2018 and 2021 despite having previously been part of the stakeholder group. Minutes in Environmental Statement 3.4 Appendix 1.1 show that there were no non-statutory organisations involved in pre DCO consultation. It is concerning that the consultation process appears to have broken down."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Mrs J Astwood
"I am writing on behalf of Judith Astwood to provide her comments on the Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor proposal. Mrs Astwood owns (Reacted) which is currently rented out. The bungalow currently has direct access on to the A66 which will be significantly changed if the proposed works proceed. The current plans show that the new access route to Browson Bank will be from the east. To access the new A66, Mrs Astwood will need to travel east to the new junction at Mainsgill. This will be a distance of approximately 2.24 miles. Therefore, when travelling westwards she will have to travel approximately 4.5 miles further than she does currently. There will be additional fuel and time costs associated with this extra travel time. Mrs Astwood’s preference is for a new additional access road to be created onto the A66 from Browson Bank to travel west. From her perspective, there would be two options to facilitate this. The first of these, which is her preference, would be for a slip road to be created after the entrance to Browson Bank which allows traffic to access the A66 to travel west. Alternatively, a route could be made to join the access road to Browson Bank with the road at Smallways to the west so that that junction could be used. This new access onto the A66 would benefit Browson Bank Bungalow as well as any traffic heading west from the other properties at Browson Bank, Dick Scot Lane, Old Dunsa Bank, Waitlands Lane and West Layton. This is because, traffic from all these areas would not need to travel east back to Mainsgill in order to travel westwards. A further reason for an accessway to be created to travel west from Browson Bank Bungalow is that as currently designed, the access road will be a dead end. This will result in issues including: 1. The dead end is likely to attract unsociable behaviour at particular times of the year e.g. Appleby Fair and fly tipping during the year 2. The responsibility for ownership and therefore maintenance of the access road 3. There would need to be a suitable area for HGV’s to be able to turn around should they take a wrong turn 4. It may attract traffic trying to travel through Browson Bank southwards through the farm track. Which does happen when the A66 has delays"
Other Statutory Consultees
Network Rail Infrastructure Limited
"I refer to the A66 Northern Trans Pennine Project Development Consent Order and I write to formerly object to the Order on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited of 1 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN, on the grounds that operational railway land is adversely affected. Whilst Network Rail does not object to the principle of the Order, it does object to the compulsory acquisition of operational railway land and the compulsory acquisition of permanent and temporary rights over operational railway land where that would compromise Network Rail's ability to perform its statutory undertaking. Network Rail has interests in several of the Plots identified in the Book of Reference which affect sections of the Settle to Carlisle Railway. There are a number of Plots showing Network Rail having occupational interests with apparatus, occupational interests in respect of access, Category 2 interests in respect of a restrictive covenant and in particular there are two Plots, numbered 0405-07-66 and 0405-07-78, which are stated as being permanent acquisition of bridge structures and railway land. Network Rail objects to the seeking of powers to carry out works on/over/under the operational railway without first securing appropriate protections for Network Rail's statutory undertaking and it is noted that Network Rail’s standard Protective Provisions have not been appended to Schedule 9 of the Order. The safe and efficient operation of the railway has not been adequately addressed within the application documents and there is insufficient explanation or justification for the extent and nature of the land and rights being sought. It should be noted that prior to the release of any land and rights as detailed within the Book of Reference, such land and rights will require submission for approval through Network Rail’s Land Clearance consultation portal and if such approval is not granted then this may give rise to further grounds of objection to the Order. Network Rail is unable to release any land and rights for disposal without Clearance approval having first been obtained. Before Network Rail can consider withdrawing its objection it requires: a) Detailed information as to the precise nature of all works proposed on/over/under the operational railway. b) Clarity on the land and various rights being acquired on/over/under the operational railway. c) Agreement from the applicant that the acquisition of operational land is on terms to be agreed with Network Rail for the protection of its statutory undertaking and an undertaking that compulsory powers will not be exercised in relation to such land and rights. d) That sufficient protections for Network Rail's statutory undertaking are put in place for the carrying out of works on/over/under the operational railway. Without further details being provided and adequate protections put in place, Network Rail considers the Order would cause serious detriment to Network Rail's statutory undertaking and therefore the Order should not be made. Until such time as Network Rail is given the adequate protection and assurances requested as detailed in this objection, Network Rail's objection to the Order will not be withdrawn."
Parish Councils
Jonathan Wallis Charetered Surveyor on behalf of Bowes Parish Council
"Dear Sir/Madam, I act as agent for Bowes Parish Council who own lad that is proposed to be used for the development of the A66 NTP Project. The proposal is to acquire some of my clients land to develop as an access road to a drainage pond. Whilst we have not been provided with full details of the proposed land take, despite asking for this on several occasions, we believe the land is unsuitable as it is not level and has rocky outcrops. The virtual film on your website shows the land as being flat which is not the case. It's disappointing not to have been provided with the details we have requested on many occasions and hope the above can be taken into account. Yours faithfully, Jonathan Wallis"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Colin Bunn
"I am a local resident and know the area around Barnard Castle and the A66 well. The proposed route and junction at the Cross Lanes turnoff to Barnard castle [often referred to as the "Black Route"] would be inappropriate as it would send additional heavy goods traffic to Barnard Castle along the "Sills" [B6277] which is already a over used and very narrow road leading to the Old County Bridge. The Sills Road in Startforth in particular is dangerous for pedestrians - I know this from personal experience. The Pedestrian path is less than half a meter wide in places. I oppose the Black Route. [Cross Lanes junction] I support Durham County Council and Barnard Castle Town Council and support the "Blue" route at Rokerby. The "Blue Route" for the A66 junction to Barnard castle would be better placed at the Rokerby turnoff towards the Abbey Bridge. This would direct traffic away from the conjested "Sills, County Bridge and the Lower Bank" area of Barnard Castle."
Members of the Public/Businesses
HGV Action Group
"The HGV Action Group are a local pressure group, who have campaigned over many years to try to ensure the safety of residents, the fabric of our ancient buildings and bridges, and our environment; all of which are endangered daily by traffic through Barnard Castle. We are well acquainted with the issues of our small local roads, and the interface with the major regional roads, such as the A66 and the A68. Our bridges in Teesdale are ancient, mostly single track and some with weight restrictions. The first modern bridge across the River Tees from its source is on the A1(M) just west of Darlington – the A66 runs south of the River Tees, and our major towns, cities and the A68 are to the north. The ancient market town of Barnard Castle is in a very vulnerable position for damage from traffic. Over the years, the HGV Action Group has engaged with the community, parish and County councils, hauliers and other groups such as cyclists – and now the A66 Liaison Group, convened by Highways England. We are extremely concerned about the decision of Highways England to opt for the ‘Black Route’ for the Rokeby Junction. The Black Route design will have a severe and permanent effect on our local road system. This proposed route will cause significant harm to lives in Teesdale and far beyond the corridor of the A66 route. One specific harm of particular concern to the HGV Action Group is that it will cause a change in traffic flow patterns, putting more vehicles along the unsuitable B6277, along a narrow section of country road which is used as a footpath, across the ancient, listed, single track County Bridge and up the steep, narrow Bank, passing numerous listed historic buildings and disturbing the environment of the river banks at Startforth. The Highways England decision to put forward the Black Route is against the advice and views of the majority of local people, including the A66 Liaison Group. The ‘Blue Route’ was discussed, and preferred by the community – but withdrawn even before the consultation. This is because of a single objecting voice from Heritage England concerning a very narrow section of land at Rokeby Park. Heritage England have not engaged with the community on this issue, nor have they taken a wider view of harms to the historic environment, which are demonstrable. Their stance of harm to the Rokeby designated park is outweighed by the harm to the residents of Startforth and Barnard Castle; the harm to the park is marginal but the harm to Barnard Castle and Startforth is severe. Highways England withdrew the Blue Route, despite there being further opportunities for mitigation against harms at Rokeby Park."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Baxter
"increasing capacity on the A66 will result in an increase in long-distance commuting, and will lead to bottlenecks on nearby roads. In addition, we cannot this project at this time."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Carter
"I believe you need to find another route, than directingdual carridgeway traffic down the Sills road in barnard castle. The sills is a very minor road with already unsafe pedestrian access. further more you would add as addmitted in the evidence, 534% more traffic, of which a considerable number will be heavy goods vehicles, a right turn onto the county bridge for such is immposible with risking the lives of all pedestrians and the enhabitants of the white-sawn flats. further more the market cross already sees a vast amount of damage each year from such traffic. by going ahead with the plan as it is, respsonbility for pedestrian life endangerment and grade 2 listed buildings and property would have to be taken into account and safety needed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin Thompson
"My parents live at (REDACTED) where the Langrigg road meets the A66: their house will now be entirely surrounded by roads, hard standing and ponds, and their views will be removed by the planting in the fields. But this is not just a NIMBY plea: building a road south of the current one will wreck a beautiful farmed landscape of fields and becks, when there is a very unattractive landscape of scrubland directly to the north of the current road. Ironically, of course, this is part of the AONB: but anyone actually looking at the two areas will immediately see that the area to the north does not have ‘beauty’ (let alone ‘outstanding’) whereas the area to the south emphatically does. It seems completely obvious that the road should go north. The consultation process has been confusing and inadequate, especially for my elderly parents, but also for we, their children, trying to help them. The final version of the plan in fact includes an entirely new feature right next to their house, a hugely wide spur from the sliproad (almost as wide at its mouth as a dual carriageway), which was not on previous plans (e.g. those from March 2022). Where has this come from? We had no warning about this. Earlier in the process, my parents were not offered adequate information (e.g. the first meeting, when the plans were only produced right at the end), and in our meetings it was clear that no consideration would be given to alternative routes. On procedural grounds alone this should be rejected."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Corinne Cooke
"I am in favour of dualling the remaining single carriageways of the A66 from Scotch Corner to Penrith, but the objections and concerns in this document relate to the junctions for Barnard Castle at Rokeby and Cross Lanes. I fully support the position documented by the Barnard Castle Town Clerk, Martin Clark, in his submission (BCTC Rokeby Response.pdf). Issue 1: MAJOR CONCERN. Pedestrian Safety and Concealed Entrances in Startforth Highways England have produced projected figures which show that the chosen Black Route will cause a significant increase in traffic volumes for Church Bank and The Sills in Startforth, whereas an alternative option (Blue Route), left traffic volumes much the same, increasing only at the normal annual rate.      Church Bank and The Sills, Startforth: this is a winding stretch of narrow road which is not designed for large traffic volumes or heavy vehicles. It has a number of concealed entrances (affecting a large number of properties) and is crossed by busy public rights of way. A significant increase in traffic volumes would render this road unsafe for the increasing number of pedestrians (locals and tourists, many with small children).      The considerable increase in traffic on this road would result in the requirement for more frequent repair work on a difficult to maintain road, and an increase in tailbacks at the at the bridge traffic lights (a problematic junction) causing further disruption and air pollution. The problems affecting village B-roads need to be included and addressed as part of the scope of the project, with acceptable solutions offered during the planning stage. Issue 2: Historic Value It is acknowledged by Highways England (Statutory Consultation Autumn 2021, Page 87) that Historic England's preference for the chosen route is totally at odds with local public opinion.       Fragmentation of Rokeby Estate: The site has already been fragmented.       Historic Lodge Views: These are currently compromised by mature trees. ?     Consideration of all affected local Historic Sites Issue3: Disruption during the A66 Construction The Highways England figures, (Statutory Consultation Autumn 2021, Page 84) showing the number of households which would suffer disruption during the construction process, is significantly greater for the chosen Black route than the discarded Blue route. The net benefit, however, is much the same as it would be if the Blue route had been chosen. Issue 4: Environment: With regard to the whole of the project, it is accepted by all, that if we wish the A66 to be a safer, less congested road, then it will be at the expense of the environment. Highways can mitigate as much as it is able, but environmental recovery takes many years. I hope that it is within the remit of this inspectorate to seek out and reduce any unnecessary destruction of the environment. Issue 5: Cost It would seem that the comment on cost mentioned in the Statutory Consultation Autumn 2021, Page 87 comparison, is not inclusive of consequential local work."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Durham County Council
"Please see attached document. In terms of email contact details please also add [email protected] to your records."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Burges Salmon LLP on behalf of Ministry of Defence
"We represent the Ministry of Defence, owners of 9,700ha hectares of land to the north and south of the A66 in Cumbria, forming part of the Warcop training area. It is a site that is in regular, active use and forms an important part of the defence training estate being extensively used for infantry training and for other regular and territorial army units. National Highways is pursuing various land requirements in its DCO where it seeks powers of compulsory acquisition over parcels of land owned and occupied by MOD. Discussions over the use of Crown land for these purposes have taken place pre-submission of the DCO but did not result in terms being agreed. MOD has made clear to National Highways the difference between the tactical land to the north of the existing A66, of greatest concern, where present and future use of land containing facilities such as training areas, stores, accommodation and roadways would be affected, as distinct from non-tactical land to the south of the present A66, which is of far lesser concern. MOD is aware of Section 135 Planning Act 2008 and the restrictions it imposes on seeking powers of compulsory acquisition over Crown land in a DCO. In submitting this relevant representation MOD is in no way waiving the effect of that provision. MOD does however believe that its engagement with the examination process should be beneficial to all parties. Without intending this as a definitive list at this point, MOD has continuing concerns over; • the justification for the powers being sought over its land, • the ability of the land to meet the required purpose described in the DCO, • the potentially adverse effect on MOD’s ongoing use of its estate for the nationally important purposes described above and • the tenure by which National Highways seeks to acquire interests in MOD land. MOD’s position at the point of submitting this relevant representation is that it has concerns over the acquisition of its land as detailed in the DCO provisions on compulsory acquisition but remains willing to engage in dialogue with National Highways to seek agreement, if possible, on terms by which its consent can be given to this proposal."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs M F Chrisp
"Submission TR10062 MFC 30.8.2022 Regarding the dualling of the A66 from A! to M6. I must exceed the recommended 500 words, but I am commenting on 3 junctions. The existing A66 road is very dangerous, especially in the stretches of single carriageway; so I am in favour of the general proposal to provide dual carriageway for the full length of this road and to create overpasses which will avoid the need to cross carriageways at junctions. There have been too many serious collisions, deaths and injuries, so the improvements are essential. However, I am concerned about the proposed position of the new junctions at Rokeby/C165, and the signage at the new Cross Lanes /B6277 and Bowes/A67 junctions. These are the junctions nearest to my home, which I use and have person experience of as a driver and pedestrian. I am concerned that National Highways has not had sufficient regard to the impact of the proposed junctions on the existing road network. There are two bridges crossing the River Tees at Barnard Castle, The County Bridge on the A67, and Egglestone Abbey Bridge on the C165. Both are old, single width and served by 3-way traffic lights. The County Bridge has a 7.5 tonne HGV restriction, and neither bridge has adequate approach roads. I have examined the large volume of maps and information on display at Barnard Castle Library. I am dismayed, that National Highways has chosen the previously labelled “Black Route” for the Junction at Rokeby/C165. My own opinion and the vast amount of local opinion is in favour of the previously labelled “Blue Route” which is closer to the existing C165 turning. I am concerned that if the two new JUNCTIONS for C165 and B6277 ARE WILL BE CLOSE TOGETHER, and too much of the traffic which currently uses the Rokeby C165 route into Barnard Castle will be inclined to use the Cross Lanes B6277 route into Barnard Castle. Highways England has acknowledged this possibility previously. I know that HGVs will still be obliged to follow the C165. However, there are already too many HGVs which "make the mistake" of traveling over The County Bridge on the A67 at Barnard Castle, (and then seem to get away without prosecution, even when they cause all sorts of delays and blockages, and even physical damage to the Bridge and to buildings including the listed Buttermarket at the top of the narrow steep road The Bank). If there is a great increase in traffic using the B6277 from Cross Lanes, they will be travelling along unsuitable roads through Startforth and adding to the numbers of local vehicles waiting to pass through the 3-way traffic lights on The County Bridge and up The Bank, into the town. The Bank is the A67 but it is narrow and steep and is entirely unsuitable for large vehicles and the HGVs which are prohibited. The footpath on the B6277 at The Sills in Startforth opposite Gill Lane is very narrow even for a single pedestrian – and often pedestrians are caught in the danger zone between the stone parapet to the river and passing traffic, which often exceeds the 30 MPH limit. If the two junctions are close together, as in the Black Route, human nature may lead west bound drivers to believe that as they have gone so far beyond the old C165 turning, then they may as well approach Barnard Castle by the B6277. From a road map, strangers might reasonably assume the B6277, a B road, is preferable to the C165, a C road. The vagaries of modern Satnavs are likely add to the problems when they promote the B6277 route, rather than the C165. So I believe the best option is the previously labelled Blue Route. Regarding HERITAGE, I acknowledge that the Blue Route cuts through a small area of woodland. That woodland is well separated from the Registered Grade II* Park and Garden, Rokeby Park, by a very high stone wall and by the C165 road, so the impact on the amenity of the house and grounds will be deminimus. There will be ample land taken in the road scheme to enable the addition of appropriate new planting to extend the remaining woodland and make up for any loss. Much of the traffic approaching the C165 is coming from the east. This includes a significant amount of local traffic from the villages of Barningham, Newsham, Hutton Magna and others. If the Blue eastern most route is chosen, rather than the Black western most route, then every vehicle will cover less distance, use less fuel and cause less POLLUTION. I believe this is a significant point in favour of the Blue route, and will well outweigh the question of woodland amenity. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND OPINION is greatly in favour of the Blue route and even Rokeby Estates, which owns Rokeby Park and much of the land affected by either proposal at this junction, is in favour of the Blue route. Please National Highways take heed of the strong local opinion and knowledge, that the previously labelled Blue Route is best. I am in favour of the proposals for Junction at Cross Lanes/B6277. However it will be essential that new signage makes clear the HGV restrictions for the County Bridge, and also discourages LGVs and cars towing large caravans. I am in favour of the proposals for Junction at Bowes/A67. However It is likely that the improved junction at Bowes may lull drivers into the belief that the A67 from Bowes to Barnard Castle, and routes onward on the A67 to Darlington, and on the A67 & A688 to Bishop Auckland can take HGVs, LGVs and cars towing large caravans - but it will still not be able to because of the weight restriction on the County Bridge, and the steep narrow road, The Bank, into Barnard Castle. It will be very important to ensure that the NEW SIGNAGE AT ALL THE JUNCTIONS, and to/from all directions makes the weight limitations of The County Bridge clear, and encourages the majority of users to choose the Rokeby Junction."
Parish Councils
Staindrop Parish Council
"Staindrop Parish Council reiterates its disappointment that at consultation events, and in consultation materials, no information is provided, or could be provided on request, detailing any modelling about the impact of the proposed changes on the A688 and Staindrop village; because of this lack of information, the Parish Council is unable to offer a view. The lack of modelling of traffic flow and volumes in the wider area is a flaw and should be addressed. Any signage associated with the dualling upgrade should clearly indicate the use of the A66 as the preferred route for Goods Vehicles (eg. by the use of black background signage). The Parish Council also comments that the 'charge of £10,344' for paper copies of the application documents is by no means 'reasonable'."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Thompson
"Significant Alternative Route (Northern Route) Never Offered to the Public The reason given for the Northern route not being offered is that it passes through an AONB. However anyone familiar with the landscapes would appreciate that the land to the North of the existing road is vastly inferior to that to the South. This is the problem with designs made by people not from the area. Initially a majority of local people were for the Northern route (survey by Warcop and Musgrave parish councils Dec 2020), an opinion which has been manipulated by 1) landowners being bought off and 2) promulgation of of one-sided climate and safety data (see later). This has not primarily been a ‘consultation’ but rather a promotion of a pre-determined general plan with widespread tweaks offered to this one plan. Cost of the Route Design to Taxpayer Poor value for money. The current Appleby-Brough and Temple Sowerby sections entail extensive slip roads and underpasses, which a Northern Route would obviate. These sections account for 50% of the costs of the whole route. The Benefit Cost Ratio is under the accepted limit for viability (0.92). Impact on Individuals and Properties My parents live (REDACTED) , Langrigg. Under the current design, their house currently surrounded by fields, would be entirely encircled by sink ponds, access roads to the ponds, slip roads, hard standing and a large unexplained road in an ‘estuary’ shape. Poor Justification of the Scheme The scheme has been justified on grounds of safety and need for increased road capacity. One-sided research has been used to promote these views to the public. (Friends of the Lake District report ignored). Poor Quality of Consultation Poor quality of interaction offered by NH staff in visit to Low Broomrigg March 2021: design of scheme only shown at end of meeting. Estuary shape spur to NW of Low Broomrigg appeared for first time on final design with no previous warning or consultation. NH staff only willing to listen to opinions on topics of their choice. I wouldn’t call it a consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Carole Le Duc
"(REDACTED) looks directly south across the A66. The proposed works to the A66 will have a significant visual, noise and vibration impact due to the increase in height and width and increased usage and speeds on the A66. The environmental works planned will not mitigate the visual and noise impact due to the topography of the land as it falls steeply south to the A66. The proposed new bridleway underpass to the north of Warrener Lane will have a visual impact on the surrounding and the cost of this is significant. It would be preferable to divert the existing route to tie in with other bridleways serving the area. There are also safety concerns of a lifted-up section of road due to high winds and adverse weather conditions to an exposed section of the A66. It is understood that part of the reasoning behind the road being lifted, rather than going into a cutting is due to the Scheduled Monument. Discussions have been had on site in respect of at what stage does preserving a monument that cannot be seen outweigh the significant impact on the present design as listed above for the future. It is understood that further archaeological work is required to fully understand the exact location and extent of the monument and what it consists of in order to make a fully informed decision as to the design for this section of the scheme."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ritchie Land Agents Ltd on behalf of Jane Irving
"Our client owns land lying to the north and south of the A66, immediately adjacent to Kemplay roundabout. Despite requests from ourselves we have yet to receive detailed Land Interest Plans giving full details of how much land will be taken either on a permanent or temporary basis, or what future management restrictions may be attached to the land. We understand that much of the land is to be used for wildlife areas and that its current access is to be closed off. The land is suitable for future development but will be landlocked by the scheme. We need to have a new access provided but so far we have not had this confirmed. As a consequence we wish to object to the scheme until such time that an acceptable solution is put forward and agreed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Walton Goodland Ltd on behalf of John Arthur Heath
"IN THE MATTER OF NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT BEACON FARM KEMPLAY BANK EAMONT BRIDGE PENRITH 1. Mr John and Mrs Virgilia Heath (the Representors) are the registered proprietors of (REDACTED) Penrith, Cumbria (Title Nos CU1922589, CU157787 and CU223895, part of which is proposed to be acquired under a Draft Development Consent Order (‘DCO’) being sought for the National Highways Northern Trans-Pennine Project (‘The Project’). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference Volume 1, The Land plans at 5.13, and the Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigations. The following plot numbers are being sought to be acquired permanently. Plot No. 0102-02-24 Plot No. 0102-02-25 Stated to be for highway works and landscape integration. 3. The Representors say that there have been wholly inadequate application consultations having regard to the planning history and the nature of the property described below. 4. The Representors do not object to the principal of the project but make the following representations in respect of their land affected by the scheme. 5. By reference 2.4 General Arrangements, Sheet 2, S0102-DR-CH-100001 the plot numbers 0102-02-24 and 0102-02-25 are required for the purposes of a “site compound”. It is assumed, therefore, that once construction of the road is complete, this land will not need to be permanently retained by National Highways. 6. If permanent acquisition of Plots 0102-02-24 and 0102-02-25 would not therefore be required, a temporary licence only should be taken with the land returned to the owners following completion of the project works. 7. The acquisition site together with adjoining land has previously had the benefit of outline planning permission No. 11/0446 (Eden District Council) for 22 affordable dwellings. The consent has lapsed but the land is to be subject to a further application and is currently subject to consultation with the Local Planning Authority (Eden District Council)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Mr JP Bainbridge
"Mr and Mrs Bainbridge reside in (REACTED) and manage the property as a commercial farm, as well as let residential properties and a holiday lettings business. Plus let the buildings at the property for business use. Mr and Mrs Bainbridge had concerns about the proposed new access route to Browson Bank to the east which would have resulted in extended travel times when they were travelling west. We understand the proposed plans have now changed and a slip road will be created onto the A66 from Browson Bank to travel west, this is the preferable option for Mrs and Mrs Bainbridge. With this access, it is important to consider that any access route to Browson Bank will need to be at least 4 metres wide to accommodate large farm machinery and HGV’s. In relation to the balance ponds, we propose that these are not located on Mr Bainbridge’s land but on the northern side of the road so that the water drains to the Tees rather than the Swale which is prone to flooding. If the ponds must be located on the southern side of the road, it is our preference that they should be located on the more southerly proposed point to prevent using commercial arable farmland, visually impacting Browson Farmhouse, and cottages and to limit the ground works required. If the balancing ponds were at the more southerly point, there will also need to be arrangements made regarding the access route. The proposal suggests the track will be raised up above the ground level but, in our opinion, it does not need to be and can follow the current gradient of the land, reducing construction costs and the visual impact. There must also be a retained right of access to Mr Bainbridge’s retained land to the west. The plans show there is a wetland habitat planned to be created around the location of the drainage ponds. The majority is to be located in the Black Woodland Plantation, with a proportion extending out of this to the southeast. Our opinion is that this should not go ahead. Most of the land is planned to be restocked as woodland and is obligated to be replanted under a Forestry Commission grant scheme. Mr and Mrs Bainbridge are strongly opposed to creating a wetland habitat because, the area is not suitable for that use, it will affect good quality arable land and also impact the main access route through the farm. Generally, the proposals will have significant landscape and visual impacts on the local area which will need to be considered. The woodland planting area located to the west of the Browson Bank access road is agreed to in principle as it will minimise the visual and noise impact from the road. However, careful planning is needed to allow access through the plantation to retained land to the west and how it is used to protect views to the north due to the steep incline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Mr S Bainbridge
"Mr and Mrs Bainbridge live at (REDACTD) with their two children. Mr Bainbridge also uses the buildings at (REDACTED) to operate a kitchen fitting business which currently employs four workers who require daily access to the buildings along with a range of delivery vehicles. Mr and Mrs Bainbridge had concerns about the proposed new access route to Browson Bank to the east which would have resulted in extended travel times when they were travelling west. We understand the proposed plans have now changed and a slip road will be created onto the A66 from Browson Bank to travel west, this is the preferable option for Mrs and Mrs Bainbridge. With this access, it is important to consider that any access route to Browson Banks will need to be at least 4 metres wide to accommodate large farm machinery and HGV’s. Generally, the proposals will have significant landscape and visual impacts on the local area which will need to be considered. The woodland planting area located to the west of the Browson Bank access road is agreed to in principle as it will minimise the visual and noise impact from the road. However, careful planning is needed to allow access through the plantation to retained land to the west and how it is used to protect views to the north due to the steep incline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Thompson on behalf of Sister Mary Taylor odc
"Registering as an Interested Party A66NTP There would seem to be a number of reasons which would call for a strong appeal against the whole A66NTP scheme, not just the Warcop section. In particular. Above all, I am seriously concerned by the vast carbon emissions that would be caused by first building the extra road and then using it,, and this in violation of our legally binding international commitment to the Paris Agreement. We , the UK, need to play our part seriously and generously in the international effort to check climate change. If we fail to check it, our planet will soon become unfit to support human life. Not only would this lack of co-operation be a shameful disgrace on the part of our country; but it would also render the plan for the dual carriageway useless, since there would soon be no-one left to appreciate the supposed benefits –they would prove an empty daydream. Secondly, the cost to the taxpayer, at this time of acute crisis in the cost of living, would seem unwarranted. There are also a number of other serious reasons, such as the negative impact on the Eden valley as a Special Area of Conservation, Site of Scientific Interest, habitat of endangered species, etc, and the North Pennine Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Not least is the very negative impact on local residents e.g.in ////kirkby Thore and Sandford, and especially on the dearly loved home at Low Broomrigg, near the current Langrigg turning. I would\strongly recommend seriously considering possible solutions to the present problems that do NOT require road-building,, such as sending goods by rail rather than road, reducing the speed limit, and possible engineering projects, I would also support the points raised by Dr Mary Clare Martin, as well as by Mrs Joy Thompson."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Susan Ward
"The Ward family run their businesses from Carkin Moor Farm which looks directly south across the A66. Located at Carkin Moor are various let residential properties, the farm office and hub of the farming business, holiday cottage accommodation and poultry sheds. The proposed works to the A66 will have a significant visual, noise and vibration impact due to the increase in height and width and increased usage and speeds on the A66. The environmental works planned will not mitigate the visual and noise impact due to the topography of the land as it falls steeply south to the A66. The scheme will impact the future plans for the farming business and the planning permission that has been granted for a new poultry shed. The loss of land to the scheme and the land being severed by the bridleway underpass will jeopardise this due to the area of land that is required to support the poultry shed. There also safety concerns of a lifted section of road due to high winds and adverse weather conditions to an exposed section of the A66. It is understood that part of the reasoning behind the road being lifted, rather than going into a cutting, is due to the Scheduled Monument. Discussions have been had on site in respect of at what stage does preserving a monument that cannot be seen outweigh the significant impact on the present design as listed above for the future. It is understood that further archaeological work is required to fully understand the exact location and extent of the monument and what it consists of in order to make a fully informed decision as to the design for this section of the scheme. The proposed new bridleway underpass to the north of Warrener Lane will have a visual impact on the surroundings and the cost of this is significant. It would be preferable to divert the existing route to tie in with other bridleways serving the area. We had been told that the underpass is now 5m wide and 3.7m high and considerably wider and higher than the previous design. We question the dimensions of the underpass and are disappointed that no meeting has been held with my client, or with us as agents to discuss this in detail when it has such an effect on my client’s property. Due to the increase in size, this underpass becomes more of a road than a bridleway, we therefore have concerns and feel the revised design is excessive. The proposal will cause a security issue from the southern and northern access points, security measures would need to be implemented, e.g., locked gates, which are suitable for horse access to prevent cars and motorbikes from using this route. As discussed at various site meetings with Highways England the Ward family and their Tenants have learned to live with the A66 over the years and accept an upgrade is required from an infrastructure and safety perspective. However, the impacts listed above will have a significant impact on both their views, quality of life, future for the businesses and the value of their properties."
Members of the Public/Businesses
GSC Grays on behalf of Tess Coleman
"(REDACTED) looks directly south across the A66. The proposed works to the A66 will have a significant visual, noise and vibration impact due to the increase in height and width and increased usage and speeds on the A66. The environmental works planned will not mitigate the visual and noise impact due to the topography of the land as it falls steeply south to the A66. The proposed new bridleway underpass to the north of Warrener Lane will have a visual impact on the surroundings and the cost of this is significant. It would be preferable to divert the existing route to tie in with other bridleways serving the area. There also safety concerns of a lifted-up section of road due to high winds and adverse weather conditions to an exposed section of the A66. It is understood that part of the reasoning behind the road being lifted, rather than going into a cutting, is due to the Scheduled Monument. Discussions have been had on site in respect of at what stage does preserving a monument that cannot be seen outweigh the significant impact on present design as listed above for the future. It is understood that further archaeological work is required to fully understand the exact location and extent of the monument and what it consists of in order to make a fully informed decision as to the design for this section of the scheme."
Other Statutory Consultees
UK Health Security Agency
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. The UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. Please note that we request views from the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities (OHID) and the response provided is sent on behalf of both UKHSA and OHID. We can confirm that: Environmental Public Health This section of the response outlines matters raised pertaining to environmental public health impacts that may arise from the scheme. We are satisfied that the promoter will discuss all requirements for air quality and dust monitoring with the local authority and that a dust management plan will be prepared in due course. We would be grateful for clarification on the following point: • We note that no justifications were offered as to why adjustment factors applied to the predicted road NOx concentrations were also applied to the predicted road PM10 concentrations. Human Health and Wellbeing This section of OHIDs response, identifies the wider determinants of health and wellbeing we expect the Environmental Statement (ES) to address, to demonstrate whether they are likely to give rise to significant effects. Public Health England (a predecessor agency of the UKHSA) has focused its approach on scoping determinants of health and wellbeing under four themes, which have been derived from an analysis of the wider determinants of health mentioned in the National Policy Statements. The four themes are: • Access • Traffic and Transport • Socioeconomic • Land Use Having considered the submitted ES, OHID wish to make the following specific comments and recommendations. Methodology - Determination of significant effects The structure of Chapter 13 Population and human Health prevents a clear understanding of the findings of the assessment. The Chapter follows the EIA assessment process, rather than considering each of the 8 duelling schemes in turn supported by a route wide assessment. This leads to excessive repetition and prevents the assessment methodology to be followed easily and clearly for each community. It is noted that Chapter 13 is drafted with reference to LA112 and as such no assessment of significance is provided for human health. This does not conform to the requirements of the EIA Regulations and as such an assessment of significance will be required to form part of the ES. This follows recent PINS consideration of this aspect within the Secretary of State’s (SoS) Scoping opinion for the National Highways M60/M62/M66 Simister Island scheme. Regulation 18 4(b) requires an ES to 'include the information reasonably required for reaching a reasoned conclusion on the significant effects of the development on the environment, taking into account current knowledge and methods of assessment’. In addition, Schedule 4 (5) requires a description of the likely significant effects of the development on the environment resulting from, inter alia: (d)the risks to human health, cultural heritage or the environment (for example due to accidents or disasters); The ES reports multiple conclusions of negative health effects, but no conclusion of their level of significance. This prevents an assessment of the adequacy of the proposed mitigation, particularly in relation to vulnerable populations, and does not aid decision making. Recommendation The ES must provide an assessment of significance for those health determinants scoped into the population and human health chapter. The population and human health assessment should draw upon the findings from other relevant chapters, including air quality and noise. As there is not a defined approach to the assessment of significance for population and human health, it is strongly advised that any proposed approach is agreed with OHID/UKHSA and the local Directors of Public Health. The guidance issued by the International Association of Impact Assessment (IAIA) could be used as a basis for the assessment of significance. Temple Sowerby to Appleby Paragraph 13.10.50 reports that Kirkby Thore Primary School sports pitch will be temporarily required to facilitate the diversion of a utility and will be returned to its existing use upon completion of the diversion works. The temporary land take equates to approximately 0.15ha which is approximately 35% of the outdoor space available to the School. This represents a major adverse temporary impact on the very high sensitivity receptor, which will be a very large adverse significant effect. The population and human health chapter does not report any proposed mitigation, however, the EqIA reports that: ‘No alternative provisions will be provided during construction of the utility diversion. Works will be planned to be outwith the school opening hours. The playing field will be reinstated to its existing condition upon completion of the works. The replacement lines will be higher than the current provision, thus increasing the vertical clearance above the school playing field.’ Recommendation The ES should assess the option to complete works outside of term time to minimise disruption to the school activities and use of the outdoor space. If this is not possible this should be justified and the ES should report on whether the outside space can be utilised during school opening times. 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."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of Alan Moore Bowe - Trustee of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE WINDERWATH ESTATE, PENRITH, CUMBRIA ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN RICHARD LANE, JAMES HARE, ALAN MOORE BOWE AND SARAH CRANE AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE WINDERWATH 1989 SETTLEMENT TRUST ______________________________ 1. John Richard Lane, James Hare, Alan Moore Bowe and Sarah Crane are the Trustees of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement Trust (“the Representors”) and the owners of land extending to some 2,750 acres of agricultural and woodland in the Eden Valley on either side of the A66 located between Penrith and Temple Sowerby (“the Estate”) and are the registered proprietors under title No CU205235 and unregistered owners, approximately 146 acres of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 2, the Land Plans 2, 3 and 4 at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation maps, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently. Further, the Representors have the benefit of sporting rights over the category 2 plot numbers also listed in Annex 1. 3. The parts of the Estate to be permanently acquired include agricultural land, and a residential property known as High Barns and an associate range of buildings. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project, but the Representors make the following representations on its effect on their ownership. 5. Lack of proper pre-application consultation: The Representors say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress was made in the November 2021 and March 2022 statutory consultations. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the Representors have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as boundary treatments, junction designs, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the Estate for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 03-02-01, 03-02-18, 03-03-06, 03-03-32, 03-03-33, 03-04-03, 03-04-04, 03-04-12 and 03-04-14. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 7. Second, if contrary to the above if some land of the Estate is required for mitigation, the 18 acres of “Adrian’s Wood” (located at grid ref NY58422884 and mainly east and northeast of plot 03-04-06), which was planted recently as a shelter to adjoining property from the A66, should be used for the purpose. The Representors understand that the biodiversity net gain calculations ignore the newly planted woodland which under more recent biodiversity net gain matrix (3.1) should be accounted for. The Representors believe this would remove the need for any of the proposed environmental mitigation elsewhere on the Estate and particularly the blocks of mitigation planting and management proposed to the southeast on Whinfell House Farm (plots 03-04-04, 13-04-12 and 03-04-14). The Representors maintain that the most up to date matrix should be used and National Highways should not rely on an older version. The Representors understand that changes in the biodiversity net gain calculation matrix would now allow for the newly planted woodland to be considered. Further, the Representors are able to demonstrate that the Estate planted the new woodland in order to directly mitigate against the impact of the Scheme albeit not necessarily directly for biodiversity net gain purposes, but more particularly for screening but the wood was planted in direct anticipation of the scheme and the Representors can provide evidence to show this. 8. Third, in the further alternative to “Adrian’s Wood”, mitigation woodland planting should take place along the north side and adjacent to the Project, which would have the dual purpose in providing additional screening to the Estate properties to the north, as well as providing the required environmental mitigation. 9. Fourth, in the further alternative mitigation planting should take place on the less productive areas of the Estate as identified on the plan submitted as part of the First Consultation and entitled “Winderwath Settled Estate – Proposed Woodland Creation Areas”. 10. Fifth, the current proposals for mitigation planting would have severe negative impacts on the estates shoot management, which would be avoided by the alternatives put forward above. 11. Sixth, permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation is unnecessary as the Representors will offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant and manage these areas in an agreed manner. Without prejudice to that general point, there is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of the access route to the said mitigation area as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 12. Seventh, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the uses of the adjoining land of the Estate. 13. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (“PROWs”): First, The Representors fundamentally object to the imposition of additional public access on their Estate by PROWs or otherwise. Additional public access is not justified by the Project itself and/or its objectives. 14. Second, if PROWs are to be imposed the Representors are particularly against the joint use of private farm/estate access tracks where the public are walking or cycling. The combining of private and public access has an inherent risk and the Trustees maintain that segregation of public and private access should take place. Suggestions on how this could be achieved were contained in Consultation Response 2, with sketch plans. 15. Third, the Representors also object to the route of the proposed private and public access tracks which are routed around balancing ponds (with 90-degree bends) rather than logically adjacent to the highway, to avoid the acquisition of valuable agricultural land and make daily use of tracks easier with large agricultural machinery. Generally, where possible routes should as straight as possible and be adjacent to field boundaries. Further, tracks should be at least 4m wide and have adequate passing places. 16. Fourth, the Representors require detail on the third-party rights of access that will be granted along the access tracks, so that it is clear in respect of Estate land which third parties (e.g. National Highways, Utilities, local councils, neighbours etc) are to be granted rights of access over their land and in respect of neighbouring land, where the Estate will be granted rights of access to reach either public highways or other land in their ownership. To date National Highways has provided no detail on this. 17. Fifth, the Representors also have issues in regard to clarification on future maintenance of both private and public access particularly if they are mixed and also the issues on public liability insurance and liability on the Estate for any public accidents if tracks and access are shared. The Representors maintain that if additional public access is required that segregation of private and public use is an absolute necessity. 18. Sixth, the Representors object to any proposal to create any bridleways across their retained land. Although the plans now available are unclear on this point, seeking powers to impose public bridleway rights over their land where no rights either exist or will be interfered with under the Project cannot satisfy the requirement of a compelling case to take rights compulsorily. 19. Land form: The Representors believe that the level of the road particularly around the Centre Parcs Junction could be better engineered to lower the levels of the road in this area and to consequently produce a less obvious structure in the landscape, whilst also reducing the amount of land and reforming of adjacent agricultural land as a consequence: see Consultation Response 2. 20. Balancing and/or attenuation ponds: First, there are numerous number of balancing ponds shown on the Project plans (plots pt 03-02-06, pt 03-02-24, pt 03-03-06, pt 03-03-08pt 03-04-11) located on the Estate. The Representors believe that these balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. A number of the locations show two ponds, which is not acceptable and does not mitigate land take. The size of ponds has also been questioned but as yet without any satisfactory response: see Consultations Reponses 1 and 2. 21. Second, there is extensive car parking shown for each of the balancing ponds which is deemed unnecessary and will take up valuable agricultural land. In any event, taking land for car parking is not with the powers of the proposed DCO. 22. Third, there is no apparent management plan for these ponds and the associated ditches. In particular work to existing ditches, drains and culverts would appear necessary, but is not detailed or agreed. 23. Fourth, the private means of access numbered 18, 22, 27 and 33 on sheets 2, 3 and 4 of document 5.19 Rights of Way and Access Plans are neither understood nor seen as necessary, and valuable agricultural land should not be permanently acquired for the purpose. 24. Fifth, in relation to the proposed ponds on the plots firstly at nos. pt 03-02-01, and secondly, nos. pt 03-02-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 30 34 and 35, the ponds appear to drain to the river via corridors of land to be permanently acquired. There is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of these corridors as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 25. Layby locations: The Representors object to the proposed location of laybys being inappropriately located relative to nearby Estate residential property potentially causing nuisance and excessive injurious affection. The lay-bys could be located in more secluded and less obvious locations along the route. National Highways response to this representation to date has been that this would be a matter for detail designers. This is not acceptable: see Consultation Reponses 1 and 2. 26. Land acquisition: The Representors have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired but the Representors now know that some areas are only required for temporary purposes. The Representors object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum. Details need to be provided by National Highways. 27. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features; boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the Representors’ land, and management plans for years 1 to 15 must be agreed. 28. Second, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the Representors’ and neighbouring land. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 29. Third, the requested rationalisation of parking at St Ninian’s Church has not been addressed so that the Representors’ land will be unnecessarily adversely affected. 30. Fourth, the land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily, they should not be acquired permanently. 31. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 32. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land 03-02-01 03-02-06 03-02-07 03-02-12 03-02-15 03-02-17 03-02-18 03-02-23 03-02-24 03-02-25 03-02-27 03-02-29 03-02-33 03-02-34 03-03-01 03-03-02 03-03-06 03-03-07 03-03-08 03-03-32 03-03-33 03-03-34 03-03-37 03-03-38 03-03-39 03-03-40 03-03-41 03-03-42 03-04-01 03-04-03 03-04-04 03-04-05 03-04-06 03-04-08 03-04-10 03-04-11 03-04-12 03-04-13 03-04-14 03-04-16 03-04-17 03-04-19 03-04-20 03-04-21 03-04-24 03-04-26 Category 2 land - Sporting rights 03-02-08 03-02-09 03-02-11 03-02-14 03-02-20 03-02-21 03-02-22 03-02-32 03-03-04 03-03-05 03-03-09 03-03-10 03-03-12 03-03-13 03-03-14 03-03-15 03-03-17 03-03-19 03-03-20 03-03-21 03-03-31"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Alison Elaine Noble
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected property is the residential property and equestrian facility at(REDACTED) . The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: A Blight Notice was submitted on the advice of National Highways 16/03/22. The blight notice was refused by National Highways on the 12/05/22. Following rejection of the Blight Notice, National Highways then advised us to submit a Discretional Purchase application to purchase all of the land and property known as The Coach House, Skirsgill Lane, Eamont Bridge, Penrith, CA10 2BQ which was done on the 03/08/2022. For background, the At present, the facilities on offer at Happy Hooves are very unique with a state-of-the-art horse simulator, open stable block, classroom, vaulting barrels and fully equipped arena. Happy Hooves is also a fully certified British Horse Society (BHS) centre and Riding for the Disabled Association (RDA) approved facility. The facility has also recently been approved by the Cumbria County Council as an alternative provision for Cumbria Schools. The other businesses which run from the property which belong to the parties are Alison Noble Dog grooming services (A long established business based at site for over 30yrs with a loyal customer base) and Eamont Competition horses (A business offering livery, equine breaking and schooling services). Another business which runs from the property is Molly Finney Hairdressing (currently Molly operates out of Coach House with a fully equipped salon in which Alison was instrumental in its feasibility as moly is part of her family). The riding/horsemanship sessions generally take place around the stable block, arena and fields directly adjacent to the existing A66. The proposed A66 improvements have identified the fields directly above the arena and stable block as a construction compound which will be used for storage of materials, spoil & gravels with heavy machinery operating daily. It is proposed that the construction phase will be up to 5 years and with disruption expected for the full duration. The ongoing use of the compound sites and access road to the proposed permanent balancing pond will create disturbance in perpetuity through the use of the works, long after the construction phase. The horses are very used to the constant background noise of the existing road, however they are not equipped for new or increased stimuli. Horses are a flight animal and with the location immediately adjacent to the large construction compounds and access to a permanent balancing pond, this will result in large machinery and heavy equipment creating extensive stimuli such as noise, visual, vibrations, smells and dust. Therefore, it is our opinion that due to the impending A66 project that the property will be unable to function as an equestrian facility on animal welfare grounds and safety grounds for 3rd parties who are attending the sessions on offer at The Coach House. The facility currently has a very wide customer profile with clients coming from different organisations and schools as well as private individuals. All of the programmes and sessions are tailored to the individual needs of the clients with the frequency of visits varying from 2-3 days per week, weekly, fortnightly or for a one-off block of time. The associates who benefit from these programmes are vast, however they include members of the Riding for the Disabled Association, Multiple Sclerosis Society, Mencap, Eden Carers, West Cumbria Learning centre, Carleton House and several youth groups and schools. Over many years my client has worked hard to develop a team of trained horses with all the qualities required for a wide range of activities. They have also trained and up-skilled staff as well as gained certificates and qualifications to provide so much more than just somewhere to ride a horse. The programmes offered at Happy Hooves provide stimulation and wellbeing for disadvantaged or disabled members of society. For some, the services provided at happy hooves are life changing and if they were no longer available at The Coach House, there is no other facility like this in the local area resulting in serious adverse effects. The current project proposals include several large construction compounds being located immediately adjacent to the property on Council owned land. In addition to this a permanent balancing pond with an access road will be located immediately adjacent to the Northwest corner of the property. Construction on the project is expected to start in January 2024 and due to the Coach House’ location at one of the main junctions of the scheme (Kempley Bank Roundabout), disruption and continuous disturbance is likely to affect the property for the whole construction period and in perpetuity through the use of the proposed works. The proposed road scheme will mean that my client is unable to continue with the operating of several businesses from this location, they will therefore be put into serious hardship as they will no longer be able to generate an income for them and their family. Mt client is unable to retire and does not wish to retire, they want to continue running their successful businesses going forward. We feel that the project threatens my client with significant financial hardship on several fronts as the road scheme will force them to cease the business operations. For the reasons detailed, we request that National Highways purchases the property and land which will enable my client to relocate the business to an alternative property in the local area. The whole process is causing my client to be quite unwell, we require to be updated on the Discretional Purchase application and urge National Highways for a swift acceptance and confirmation. For more details please refer to the Discretional Purchase Application."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of Andrew Michael Addison (as owner and occupier of Spittals Farm) (Andrew Michael Addison (as owner and occupier of Spittals Farm))
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE SPITTALS FARM, TEMPLE SOWERBY, PENRITH, CUMBRIA CA10 1 XQ ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN MICHAEL ADDISON, SYLVIA MARY ADDISON AND ANDREW MICHAEL ADDISON (OWNERS) AND MESSRS J M & S M ADDISON (OCCUPIERS) ______________________________ 1. John Michael Addison, Sylvia Mary Addison and Andrew Michael Addison are owners in varying ownerships of a number of plots of land forming part of Spittals Farm, Temple Sowerby. The farm in total extends to around 343 acres at Spittals with a further 90 acres of land owned around Kings Meaburn and 5 acres of land rented locally. The business revolves around an intensive dairy herd of around 300 cows and all followers together with arable cropping supporting the dairy herd. Spittals Farm which is affected by the scheme is located either side of the A66 to the east of the village of Temple Sowerby (farm steading is at grid reference NY62192631). Approximately 24 acres are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 3 (0405) and the Land Plans 1 & 2 at 5.13, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently or temporarily. 3. The parts of the farm to be permanently acquired include agricultural land but also shows farm buildings and accesses. 4. The owners or occupiers do not object to the principle of the Project but make the following representations on its effect on their ownership and occupation. 5. Lack of proper pre-application Consultation: The owners and occupiers say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress has really been made since the November 2021 statutory consultation. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the owners and occupiers have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as underpass design and details of boundary treatments, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Relevance of Agriculture: None of the consultation documentation provided any specific detail on how the impact of the proposals has been considered and then mitigated in terms of the effect on agriculture and the agricultural operations and businesses of many of those parties affect by the scheme. There is focus on the environment, ecology, archaeology, landscape, flooding, air quality etc but not one focus on the agricultural impact. This needs to be addressed in terms of detailed discussions at farm level about the impact of the proposals through construction and on completion. 7. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the farm for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 0405-01-87, 0405-01-68, 0405-01-67, 0405-01-75, 0405-01-80, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-120, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-106 and 0405-02-03. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 8. The environmental mitigation proposals overall have until now been presented without any overarching explanation as to how the areas identified for mitigation measures have been calculated and how the specific areas that have been allocated for mitigation works on the farm have been determined. We require more detailed information from National Highways on how the overall environmental mitigation has been calculated and explanation about what each measure means on the ground for the owners and occupiers. In order for an affected landowner to make a judgment about what they may or may not be willing to accept as environmental mitigation detailed management prescriptions and the type of management agreements that are envisaged need to be provided by National Highways. To date no such details have been produced. 9. A number of new and existing hedgerows are identified to be acquired. There needs to be detailed prescriptions provided for the management of these hedges, which need not be acquired and could be managed under management agreements. Details need to be provided on the specific management arrangements and agreements required by National Highways. 10. To date National Highways have not provided confirmation of how their proposed environmental management regime will affect owners own future environmental schemes, where use of land or planting hedges or managing existing hedges may be an option to secure participation or may be capable in future of being utilised for on farm carbon mitigation. This need to be understood. 11. The owners are prepared to consider offering other land as wetland area (south of plot 0405-01-88) if this were to reduce mitigation elsewhere on their holding. 12. We therefore at this stage object to all the environmental mitigation measures proposed on Spittals Farm until detailed management prescriptions and arrangements are provided and a sensible, practical discussion can be had as to the impact and changes that may be required to the current proposals to mitigate the impact on Messrs Addison’s business. 13. Land acquisition: The owners and occupiers have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired. The owners and occupiers object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum specifically the following areas are relevant. 14. First, substantial areas including yard area, existing farm buildings, a farm access track leading to an underpass and a large slurry lagoon as well as banks adjacent to those features are shown as being acquired (Plots 0405-01-85 and pt 0405-01-76 (west end). This is un-necessary and will cause significant impact on the current dairy operation when much of these areas can be occupied temporarily. Acquisition permanently will severely restrict the ability for future building expansion and use. 15. If, as desired, these areas are occupied temporarily then as cows access the areas twice daily during the summer and the buildings continuously all year and there is continuous machinery activity there will need to be arrangements for managed access throughout the works. To date no details have been provided. 16. Second, plot 0405-01-74 covers a main access into the farm and comprises part of the old A66 carriageway. There is no need to acquire this area or if it is rights of access need to be reserved for the owners and occupiers for all purposes at all times. No details have been provided to date by National Highways on any possible reserved rights of access anywhere on the scheme. 17. Third, compound and potential ecological mitigation (plot 0405-01-87) is located on dairy cow pasture where cows will graze in rotation all through the summer on a daily basis. A temporary access track would be needed to access the remainder of the field. It is considered more sensible to locate compound and any ecological features on the severed/uneconomic/misshaped area remaining in two land ownerships to the east of this plot. The land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily. They should not be acquired permanently. 18. Underpass Design: A fundamental requirement for ongoing use of the farm as an intensive dairy/livestock unit is provision of an underpass extension both north and south of the existing underpass under the widened carriageway and the newly constricted side road to the south. This is provided for in the initial design but to date no detailed designs for the underpass have been provided to ensure it is sufficient size and suitable constructions for modern farm machinery and matches at least the existing underpass. Detailed design must be supplied quickly. 19. Layby Locations: The owners and occupiers object to the proposed location of a layby immediately south of plot 0405-01-87 and consider in view of existing layby provision on the A66 to the west that this layby could be located in a less obvious raised position, for example adjacent to the proposed balancing pond to the east where screening can be provided more easily. 20. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features: boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the owners and occupier’s land. 21. Second, there is located immediately northwest of plot 0405-1-84 on retained land a substantial earth banked slurry store. Assurances are required that none of the proposed works will affect the structural integrity of this slurry store, as the acquisition boundary appears to incorporate the southern banking of the store. The area acquired should be minimised in this area. More details are required. The southern boundary also removes one of two vehicle accesses to the store and thus a second replacement access will be required. 22. Third, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the owners and occupiers neighbouring land. Specifically, where are the discharges from the balance ponds to the east of the owners and occupiers land? If these are towards Birk Syke (plots 0405-02-03, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-83 and 0405-01-75) this is unacceptable if it will result in flooding of these plots and adjoining land. No details have been provided to date. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 23. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 24. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land SHEET 1 0405-01-23 0405-01-50 0405-01-59 0405-01-61 0405-01-63 0405-01-64 0405-01-65 0405-01-67 0405-01-68 0405-01-69 0405-01-70 0405-01-71 0405-01-72 0405-01-74 0405-01-75 0405-01-76 0405-01-77 0405-01-80 0405-01-81 0405-01-82 0405-01-83 0405-01-85 0405-01-87 0405-01-88 0405-01-89 0405-01-90 0405-01-92 0405-01-93 0405-01-105 0405-01-106 0405-01-117 0405-01-120 0405-01-130 0405-01-131 0405-01-139 0405-01-141 SHEET 2 0405-02-03 0405-02-04 0405-02-05 0405-02-06 Category 2 land – Right of Access SHEET 1 0405-01-58 0405-01-60"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Barbara Lynn Ivinson
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East of Powis House and Roman Vale. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is also a concern as to how any balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage into the River Eden as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Further access points are required off the proposed new Long Marton Road, these are at points NY 65968 23936 and NY 66058 23919. These accesses are required to allow for the normal running of the farming business. If PROWs are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Christine Margaret Cowin
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The current proposals are to demolish the property known as Green Barn at Kirkby Thore and the agricultural land immediately adjacent is also affected. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The proposals currently require that Green Barn is to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. A further issue is that due to the red line boundary there is very limited agricultural land owned by Messrs Cowin where any replacement building could be relocated. Discussions with adjacent landowners have currently been unsuccessful. At present the current designs will cause severe hardship on the farming business. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards British Gypsum. During heavy rainfall this culvert floods out onto my clients land and is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) An additional private access must be provided at the Grid Reference NY 64782 25917 to allow for sheep to be moved safely out of the land and to the North. This access is essential for both the safety of the general public and the livestock."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Christopher Bell
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Far Broom, Long Marton and land at Crackenthorpe. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore the my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plan located at grid reference NY 66579 22747. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards Far Broom. We object to this proposal. During heavy rainfall this culvert has the potential to flood Farm Broom farm steading and it is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. The suggestion would be to drain the land from the pond to the South towards grid reference NY 66501 22195, this will reduce the potential flooding of agricultural property. At grid reference NY 66015 24009, is this an open ditch or a culvert? 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) The current design of the A66 means that the current field access along the very Northern part of the three agricultural fields at Crackenthorpe is removed (Grid reference: NY 66842 22581). The access to the South of the fields from Crackenthorpe village is still required. Following on from the November consultation feedback and February consultation feedback this has not happened, and we still propose a new access track from the village to all three fields between the grid references NY 66169 22253 and NY 66590 22203. The design will require the removal of a disused brick-built railway bridge. This is required to facilitate full agricultural access to the land. If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to the land at Crackenthorpe at grid reference NY 66862 22581. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be privacy and security issues to Far Broom with the lay-by located at grid reference NY 66512 22894 which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher Redfern
"Concerns over increased risk of flooding, no discussion how temporary use of land will be put right and if culvert created how this will be bridged so we can have access to our remaining land. No discussion regarding additional land ie garden required as shown on some maps."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Claire Patterson
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East and South of the Café Sixty Six. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There is a private water main which runs from the Taylor and Braithwaite yard through a culvert under the A66 at point NY 73564 16995 and to the land on the North side of the A66. If this service is severed during construction this will seriously hamper the normal farming business as there will be no water for grazing animals. There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Satisfied that the PROW is now to the North of the proposed A66 near to the Café Sixty Six location. Any PROWS could have serious detrimental impacts to the current extensive free range egg laying unit. There could be serious detrimental impacts to the current enterprise including biosecurity and welfare standards. Further access points are required o the North side of the proposed A66 to access agricultural land, these are at points NY 72323 17758, NY 72565 17649 and NY 72808 17523. These accesses are required to allow for the continuous running of the farming business. Satisfied with the replacement of the sheep handling pens, however, they need to be relocated into a more practical location. This requires further consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Colin Thomas Dent
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Kirkby Thore and land close to Powis House. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. Object to the proposed design as the road is now immediately adjacent to Powis House farm steading and very close proximity to the residential property which will devalue the farm and will create significant noise pollution. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation Object to the large attenuation/balancing ponds which sits immediately to the East of Powis House, there is great concern that in periods of heavy rainfall that this could flood the farm steading. The balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Objection to any joint private access tracks and PROWS which are identified together, any joint access routes must be segregated and kept separate by fencing and hedgerows. The combining of private access predominantly for the use of agriculture and public access could have serious consequences and pose a serious risk to the safety of both users. Objection to additional land take adjacent to the old A66 for use as a cycleway. This is not an efficient use of good quality agricultural land and causes additional land take to landowners already heavily affected by the scheme. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to Powis House farm steading which includes a residential property. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be security issues to Powis House farm steading which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Eden Rivers Trust
"Eden Rivers Trust (ERT) is the only conservation charity standing up for Eden’s rivers; changing the way they are protected, enhanced and used so that people and nature can thrive. We have been working directly with landowners, agencies and private companies to improve the management of the land and water in the Eden Catchment for over 25 years. ERT believes it is imperative that the route chosen for the A66 dualling should have no adverse impacts on the River Eden SAC/SSSI (the river, its geomorphology, associated habitat and wildlife); biodiversity net gain should be achieved and there should be an overall benefit to the river Eden included reduced flood risk to local communities through natural measures. We are concerned this is not currently the case, though it is difficult to discern due to the lack of detailed and specificity in some areas of the documents that still appear to be ‘draft’ and open to change despite design principles being agreed. We are particularly concerned about the route around Kirkby Thore where it crosses the Troutbeck catchment, we have been working on river related habitat improvement here for over 25 years. The northern route around Kirkby Thore chosen (from several early options) will be the most damaging for the river as it has the greatest impact on the Trout Beck floodplain which is an important catchment where ERT have worked on habitat improvements over the last 25 years. A river restoration project planned along this route by ERT with the landowners, has been ‘adopted’ as a mitigation measure, however the chosen route is longer and needs more materials for construction, more fuel will be used in cars, there will be more long term costs relating to maintenance, more lay down areas/compounds, overall impact will be huge e.g. loss of farmland bird habitat during construction phase. The proposed new river crossing is acknowledged as having the potential to adversely impact water quality in the River Eden SAC/SSSI, which is not acceptable. The discarded southern (orange) route option would have utilised the existing Trout Beck crossing so be less of an impact and provide further opportunities for improving biodiversity. In addition, impacts to Thacka Beck (NY 527292), the proposed new discharges to the River Eamont water quality, are also of concern. Creating (off route) floodplain meadow at Ormside Hall (NY707176) to offset biodiversity loss and provide additional flood storage should be considered. The scheme provides the ideal opportunity to reduce flood risk in Warcop using natural flood measures (to improve biodiversity) as well as the hard engineering solutions offered by HE so far. ERT, CCC, the EA and local landowners are already working on a scheme but interest from HE is low."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Geoffrey Bell
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Far Broom, Long Marton and land at Crackenthorpe. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore the my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plan located at grid reference NY 66579 22747. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards Far Broom. We object to this proposal. During heavy rainfall this culvert has the potential to flood Farm Broom farm steading and it is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. The suggestion would be to drain the land from the pond to the South towards grid reference NY 66501 22195, this will reduce the potential flooding of agricultural property. At grid reference NY 66015 24009, is this an open ditch or a culvert? 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) The current design of the A66 means that the current field access along the very Northern part of the three agricultural fields at Crackenthorpe is removed (Grid reference: NY 66842 22581). The access to the South of the fields from Crackenthorpe village is still required. Following on from the November consultation feedback and February consultation feedback this has not happened, and we still propose a new access track from the village to all three fields between the grid references NY 66169 22253 and NY 66590 22203. The design will require the removal of a disused brick-built railway bridge. This is required to facilitate full agricultural access to the land. If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to the land at Crackenthorpe at grid reference NY 66862 22581. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be privacy and security issues to Far Broom with the lay-by located at grid reference NY 66512 22894 which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of James Hare
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE WINDERWATH ESTATE, PENRITH, CUMBRIA ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN RICHARD LANE, JAMES HARE, ALAN MOORE BOWE AND SARAH CRANE AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE WINDERWATH 1989 SETTLEMENT TRUST ______________________________ 1. John Richard Lane, James Hare, Alan Moore Bowe and Sarah Crane are the Trustees of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement Trust (“the Representors”) and the owners of land extending to some 2,750 acres of agricultural and woodland in the Eden Valley on either side of the A66 located between Penrith and Temple Sowerby (“the Estate”) and are the registered proprietors under title No CU205235 and unregistered owners, approximately 146 acres of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 2, the Land Plans 2, 3 and 4 at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation maps, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently. Further, the Representors have the benefit of sporting rights over the category 2 plot numbers also listed in Annex 1. 3. The parts of the Estate to be permanently acquired include agricultural land, and a residential property known as High Barns and an associate range of buildings. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project, but the Representators make the following representations on its effect on their ownership. 5. Lack of proper pre-application consultation: The Representors say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress was made in the November 2021 and March 2022 statutory consultations. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the Representors have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as boundary treatments, junction designs, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the Estate for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 03-02-01, 03-02-18, 03-03-06, 03-03-32, 03-03-33, 03-04-03, 03-04-04, 03-04-12 and 03-04-14. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 7. Second, if contrary to the above if some land of the Estate is required for mitigation, the 18 acres of “Adrian’s Wood” (located at grid ref NY58422884 and mainly east and northeast of plot 03-04-06), which was planted recently as a shelter to adjoining property from the A66, should be used for the purpose. The Representors understand that the biodiversity net gain calculations ignore the newly planted woodland which under more recent biodiversity net gain matrix (3.1) should be accounted for. The Representors believe this would remove the need for any of the proposed environmental mitigation elsewhere on the Estate and particularly the blocks of mitigation planting and management proposed to the southeast on Whinfell House Farm (plots 03-04-04, 13-04-12 and 03-04-14). The Representors maintain that the most up to date matrix should be used and National Highways should not rely on an older version. The Representors understand that changes in the biodiversity net gain calculation matrix would now allow for the newly planted woodland to be considered. Further, the Representors are able to demonstrate that the Estate planted the new woodland in order to directly mitigate against the impact of the Scheme albeit not necessarily directly for biodiversity net gain purposes, but more particularly for screening but the wood was planted in direct anticipation of the scheme and the Representors can provide evidence to show this. 8. Third, in the further alternative to “Adrian’s Wood”, mitigation woodland planting should take place along the north side and adjacent to the Project, which would have the dual purpose in providing additional screening to the Estate properties to the north, as well as providing the required environmental mitigation. 9. Fourth, in the further alternative mitigation planting should take place on the less productive areas of the Estate as identified on the plan submitted as part of the First Consultation and entitled “Winderwath Settled Estate – Proposed Woodland Creation Areas”. 10. Fifth, the current proposals for mitigation planting would have severe negative impacts on the estates shoot management, which would be avoided by the alternatives put forward above. 11. Sixth, permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation is unnecessary as the Representors will offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant and manage these areas in an agreed manner. Without prejudice to that general point, there is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of the access route to the said mitigation area as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 12. Seventh, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the uses of the adjoining land of the Estate. 13. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (“PROWs”): First, The Representors fundamentally object to the imposition of additional public access on their Estate by PROWs or otherwise. Additional public access is not justified by the Project itself and/or its objectives. 14. Second, if PROWs are to be imposed the Representors are particularly against the joint use of private farm/estate access tracks where the public are walking or cycling. The combining of private and public access has an inherent risk and the Trustees maintain that segregation of public and private access should take place. Suggestions on how this could be achieved were contained in Consultation Response 2, with sketch plans. 15. Third, the Representors also object to the route of the proposed private and public access tracks which are routed around balancing ponds (with 90-degree bends) rather than logically adjacent to the highway, to avoid the acquisition of valuable agricultural land and make daily use of tracks easier with large agricultural machinery. Generally, where possible routes should as straight as possible and be adjacent to field boundaries. Further, tracks should be at least 4m wide and have adequate passing places. 16. Fourth, the Representors require detail on the third-party rights of access that will be granted along the access tracks, so that it is clear in respect of Estate land which third parties (e.g. National Highways, Utilities, local councils, neighbours etc) are to be granted rights of access over their land and in respect of neighbouring land, where the Estate will be granted rights of access to reach either public highways or other land in their ownership. To date National Highways has provided no detail on this. 17. Fifth, the Representors also have issues in regard to clarification on future maintenance of both private and public access particularly if they are mixed and also the issues on public liability insurance and liability on the Estate for any public accidents if tracks and access are shared. The Representors maintain that if additional public access is required that segregation of private and public use is an absolute necessity. 18. Sixth, the Representors object to any proposal to create any bridleways across their retained land. Although the plans now available are unclear on this point, seeking powers to impose public bridleway rights over their land where no rights either exist or will be interfered with under the Project cannot satisfy the requirement of a compelling case to take rights compulsorily. 19. Land form: The Representors believe that the level of the road particularly around the Centre Parcs Junction could be better engineered to lower the levels of the road in this area and to consequently produce a less obvious structure in the landscape, whilst also reducing the amount of land and reforming of adjacent agricultural land as a consequence: see Consultation Response 2. 20. Balancing and/or attenuation ponds: First, there are numerous number of balancing ponds shown on the Project plans (plots pt 03-02-06, pt 03-02-24, pt 03-03-06, pt 03-03-08pt 03-04-11) located on the Estate. The Representors believe that these balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. A number of the locations show two ponds, which is not acceptable and does not mitigate land take. The size of ponds has also been questioned but as yet without any satisfactory response: see Consultations Reponses 1 and 2. 21. Second, there is extensive car parking shown for each of the balancing ponds which is deemed unnecessary and will take up valuable agricultural land. In any event, taking land for car parking is not with the powers of the proposed DCO. 22. Third, there is no apparent management plan for these ponds and the associated ditches. In particular work to existing ditches, drains and culverts would appear necessary, but is not detailed or agreed. 23. Fourth, the private means of access numbered 18, 22, 27 and 33 on sheets 2, 3 and 4 of document 5.19 Rights of Way and Access Plans are neither understood nor seen as necessary, and valuable agricultural land should not be permanently acquired for the purpose. 24. Fifth, in relation to the proposed ponds on the plots firstly at nos. pt 03-02-01, and secondly, nos. pt 03-02-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 30 34 and 35, the ponds appear to drain to the river via corridors of land to be permanently acquired. There is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of these corridors as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 25. Layby locations: The Representors object to the proposed location of laybys being inappropriately located relative to nearby Estate residential property potentially causing nuisance and excessive injurious affection. The lay-bys could be located in more secluded and less obvious locations along the route. National Highways response to this representation to date has been that this would be a matter for detail designers. This is not acceptable: see Consultation Reponses 1 and 2. 26. Land acquisition: The Representors have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired but the Representors now know that some areas are only required for temporary purposes. The Representors object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum. Details need to be provided by National Highways. 27. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features; boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the Representors’ land, and management plans for years 1 to 15 must be agreed. 28. Second, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the Representors’ and neighbouring land. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 29. Third, the requested rationalisation of parking at St Ninian’s Church has not been addressed so that the Representors’ land will be unnecessarily adversely affected. 30. Fourth, the land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily, they should not be acquired permanently. 31. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 32. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land 03-02-01 03-02-06 03-02-07 03-02-12 03-02-15 03-02-17 03-02-18 03-02-23 03-02-24 03-02-25 03-02-27 03-02-29 03-02-33 03-02-34 03-03-01 03-03-02 03-03-06 03-03-07 03-03-08 03-03-32 03-03-33 03-03-34 03-03-37 03-03-38 03-03-39 03-03-40 03-03-41 03-03-42 03-04-01 03-04-03 03-04-04 03-04-05 03-04-06 03-04-08 03-04-10 03-04-11 03-04-12 03-04-13 03-04-14 03-04-16 03-04-17 03-04-19 03-04-20 03-04-21 03-04-24 03-04-26 Category 2 land - Sporting rights 03-02-08 03-02-09 03-02-11 03-02-14 03-02-20 03-02-21 03-02-22 03-02-32 03-03-04 03-03-05 03-03-09 03-03-10 03-03-12 03-03-13 03-03-14 03-03-15 03-03-17 03-03-19 03-03-20 03-03-21 03-03-31"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Janet Elizabeth Bell
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Far Broom, Long Marton and land at Crackenthorpe. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore the my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plan located at grid reference NY 66579 22747. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards Far Broom. We object to this proposal. During heavy rainfall this culvert has the potential to flood Farm Broom farm steading and it is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. The suggestion would be to drain the land from the pond to the South towards grid reference NY 66501 22195, this will reduce the potential flooding of agricultural property. At grid reference NY 66015 24009, is this an open ditch or a culvert? 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) The current design of the A66 means that the current field access along the very Northern part of the three agricultural fields at Crackenthorpe is removed (Grid reference: NY 66842 22581). The access to the South of the fields from Crackenthorpe village is still required. Following on from the November consultation feedback and February consultation feedback this has not happened, and we still propose a new access track from the village to all three fields between the grid references NY 66169 22253 and NY 66590 22203. The design will require the removal of a disused brick-built railway bridge. This is required to facilitate full agricultural access to the land. If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to the land at Crackenthorpe at grid reference NY 66862 22581. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be privacy and security issues to Far Broom with the lay-by located at grid reference NY 66512 22894 which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of John Gordon Slee
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land on the North and South side of the proposed A66 between Temple Sowerby and Kirkby Thore. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There are numerous dual balancing ponds along the project. These balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. The proposed design of any joint access tracks was submitted within the second consultation window and submitted before the February 2022 deadline."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of John Harvey Slack
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East of Brougham Castle. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation There has been no stone wall specifications and maintenance obligations provided for the future of any new or relocated stone walls as part of the consultation. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation Object to the proposed drainage treatment area, in heavy rainfall and winter months, excess water travels South and reaches a storm culvert adjacent to Dinglefield. This coupled with the excess water from the highway will waterlog the intermediate field and cause significant agricultural losses. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There are numerous dual balancing ponds shown on the project. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Object to the private means of access which connects the Llama Karma café and the bridge crossing adjacent to The Countess’s Pillar between Grid Reference NY 54452 28958 and NY 54726 28951. There is no requirement for a tarmacked vehicular access road between these two points. This is using up vital agricultural land which is unnecessary and serves no purpose. Access to The Scheduled Ancient Monument (The Countess’s Pillar) can be taken on foot from the proposed Llama Karma Car Park along the proposed public footpath and also along the existing footpath from the West which will join in to the ‘Overpass footpath’ (detailed on the plan). No other landowners in the area have a requirement for this access track as all of the land is owned by our client. The other landowners can take direct access to their fields from the proposed Llama Karma car park. If PROWs are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. The proposed design of any joint access tracks was submitted within the second consultation window and submitted before the February 2022 deadline. 6. Other Matters During the construction, the road leading from the A66 past Brougham Castle Farm towards Clifton Dykes must be closed to the general public, this road can become dangerous at present when Kempley Bank roundabout is busy with drivers trying to find alternative routes. With the added pressure of construction, there will need to be a well-researched traffic management plan in place to account for the safety of all road users and pedestrians trying to access Brougham Castle."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of John Michael Addison as owner and occupier of Spittals Farm
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE SPITTALS FARM, TEMPLE SOWERBY, PENRITH, CUMBRIA CA10 1 XQ ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN MICHAEL ADDISON, SYLVIA MARY ADDISON AND ANDREW MICHAEL ADDISON (OWNERS) AND MESSRS J M & S M ADDISON (OCCUPIERS) ______________________________ 1. John Michael Addison, Sylvia Mary Addison and Andrew Michael Addison are owners in varying ownerships of a number of plots of land forming part of Spittals Farm, Temple Sowerby. The farm in total extends to around 343 acres at Spittals with a further 90 acres of land owned around Kings Meaburn and 5 acres of land rented locally. The business revolves around an intensive dairy herd of around 300 cows and all followers together with arable cropping supporting the dairy herd. Spittals Farm which is affected by the scheme is located either side of the A66 to the east of the village of Temple Sowerby (farm steading is at grid reference NY62192631). Approximately 24 acres are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 3 (0405) and the Land Plans 1 & 2 at 5.13, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently or temporarily. 3. The parts of the farm to be permanently acquired include agricultural land but also shows farm buildings and accesses. 4. The owners or occupiers do not object to the principle of the Project but make the following representations on its effect on their ownership and occupation. 5. Lack of proper pre-application Consultation: The owners and occupiers say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress has really been made since the November 2021 statutory consultation. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the owners and occupiers have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as underpass design and details of boundary treatments, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Relevance of Agriculture: None of the consultation documentation provided any specific detail on how the impact of the proposals has been considered and then mitigated in terms of the effect on agriculture and the agricultural operations and businesses of many of those parties affect by the scheme. There is focus on the environment, ecology, archaeology, landscape, flooding, air quality etc but not one focus on the agricultural impact. This needs to be addressed in terms of detailed discussions at farm level about the impact of the proposals through construction and on completion. 7. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the farm for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 0405-01-87, 0405-01-68, 0405-01-67, 0405-01-75, 0405-01-80, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-120, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-106 and 0405-02-03. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 8. The environmental mitigation proposals overall have until now been presented without any overarching explanation as to how the areas identified for mitigation measures have been calculated and how the specific areas that have been allocated for mitigation works on the farm have been determined. We require more detailed information from National Highways on how the overall environmental mitigation has been calculated and explanation about what each measure means on the ground for the owners and occupiers. In order for an affected landowner to make a judgment about what they may or may not be willing to accept as environmental mitigation detailed management prescriptions and the type of management agreements that are envisaged need to be provided by National Highways. To date no such details have been produced. 9. A number of new and existing hedgerows are identified to be acquired. There needs to be detailed prescriptions provided for the management of these hedges, which need not be acquired and could be managed under management agreements. Details need to be provided on the specific management arrangements and agreements required by National Highways. 10. To date National Highways have not provided confirmation of how their proposed environmental management regime will affect owners own future environmental schemes, where use of land or planting hedges or managing existing hedges may be an option to secure participation or may be capable in future of being utilised for on farm carbon mitigation. This need to be understood. 11. The owners are prepared to consider offering other land as wetland area (south of plot 0405-01-88) if this were to reduce mitigation elsewhere on their holding. 12. We therefore at this stage object to all the environmental mitigation measures proposed on Spittals Farm until detailed management prescriptions and arrangements are provided and a sensible, practical discussion can be had as to the impact and changes that may be required to the current proposals to mitigate the impact on Messrs Addison’s business. 13. Land acquisition: The owners and occupiers have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired. The owners and occupiers object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum specifically the following areas are relevant. 14. First, substantial areas including yard area, existing farm buildings, a farm access track leading to an underpass and a large slurry lagoon as well as banks adjacent to those features are shown as being acquired (Plots 0405-01-85 and pt 0405-01-76 (west end). This is un-necessary and will cause significant impact on the current dairy operation when much of these areas can be occupied temporarily. Acquisition permanently will severely restrict the ability for future building expansion and use. 15. If, as desired, these areas are occupied temporarily then as cows access the areas twice daily during the summer and the buildings continuously all year and there is continuous machinery activity there will need to be arrangements for managed access throughout the works. To date no details have been provided. 16. Second, plot 0405-01-74 covers a main access into the farm and comprises part of the old A66 carriageway. There is no need to acquire this area or if it is rights of access need to be reserved for the owners and occupiers for all purposes at all times. No details have been provided to date by National Highways on any possible reserved rights of access anywhere on the scheme. 17. Third, compound and potential ecological mitigation (plot 0405-01-87) is located on dairy cow pasture where cows will graze in rotation all through the summer on a daily basis. A temporary access track would be needed to access the remainder of the field. It is considered more sensible to locate compound and any ecological features on the severed/uneconomic/misshaped area remaining in two land ownerships to the east of this plot. The land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily. They should not be acquired permanently. 18. Underpass Design: A fundamental requirement for ongoing use of the farm as an intensive dairy/livestock unit is provision of an underpass extension both north and south of the existing underpass under the widened carriageway and the newly constricted side road to the south. This is provided for in the initial design but to date no detailed designs for the underpass have been provided to ensure it is sufficient size and suitable constructions for modern farm machinery and matches at least the existing underpass. Detailed design must be supplied quickly. 19. Layby Locations: The owners and occupiers object to the proposed location of a layby immediately south of plot 0405-01-87 and consider in view of existing layby provision on the A66 to the west that this layby could be located in a less obvious raised position, for example adjacent to the proposed balancing pond to the east where screening can be provided more easily. 20. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features: boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the owners and occupier’s land. 21. Second, there is located immediately northwest of plot 0405-1-84 on retained land a substantial earth banked slurry store. Assurances are required that none of the proposed works will affect the structural integrity of this slurry store, as the acquisition boundary appears to incorporate the southern banking of the store. The area acquired should be minimised in this area. More details are required. The southern boundary also removes one of two vehicle accesses to the store and thus a second replacement access will be required. 22. Third, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the owners and occupiers neighbouring land. Specifically, where are the discharges from the balance ponds to the east of the owners and occupiers land? If these are towards Birk Syke (plots 0405-02-03, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-83 and 0405-01-75) this is unacceptable if it will result in flooding of these plots and adjoining land. No details have been provided to date. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 23. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 24. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land SHEET 1 0405-01-23 0405-01-50 0405-01-59 0405-01-61 0405-01-63 0405-01-64 0405-01-65 0405-01-67 0405-01-68 0405-01-69 0405-01-70 0405-01-71 0405-01-72 0405-01-74 0405-01-75 0405-01-76 0405-01-77 0405-01-80 0405-01-81 0405-01-82 0405-01-83 0405-01-85 0405-01-87 0405-01-88 0405-01-89 0405-01-90 0405-01-92 0405-01-93 0405-01-105 0405-01-106 0405-01-117 0405-01-120 0405-01-130 0405-01-131 0405-01-139 0405-01-141 SHEET 2 0405-02-03 0405-02-04 0405-02-05 0405-02-06 Category 2 land – Right of Access SHEET 1 0405-01-58 0405-01-60"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of John Richard Lane - Trustee of The Winderwath 1989 Settlement
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE WINDERWATH ESTATE, PENRITH, CUMBRIA ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN RICHARD LANE, JAMES HARE, ALAN MOORE BOWE AND SARAH CRANE AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE WINDERWATH 1989 SETTLEMENT TRUST ______________________________ 1. John Richard Lane, James Hare, Alan Moore Bowe and Sarah Crane are the Trustees of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement Trust (“the Representors”) and the owners of land extending to some 2,750 acres of agricultural and woodland in the Eden Valley on either side of the A66 located between Penrith and Temple Sowerby (“the Estate”) and are the registered proprietors under title No CU205235 and unregistered owners, approximately 146 acres of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 2, the Land Plans 2, 3 and 4 at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation maps, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently. Further, the Representors have the benefit of sporting rights over the category 2 plot numbers also listed in Annex 1. 3. The parts of the Estate to be permanently acquired include agricultural land, and a residential property known as High Barns and an associate range of buildings. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project, but the Representators make the following representations on its effect on their ownership. 5. Lack of proper pre-application consultation: The Representors say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress was made in the November 2021 and March 2022 statutory consultations. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the Representors have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as boundary treatments, junction designs, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the Estate for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 03-02-01, 03-02-18, 03-03-06, 03-03-32, 03-03-33, 03-04-03, 03-04-04, 03-04-12 and 03-04-14. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 7. Second, if contrary to the above if some land of the Estate is required for mitigation, the 18 acres of “Adrian’s Wood” (located at grid ref NY58422884 and mainly east and northeast of plot 03-04-06), which was planted recently as a shelter to adjoining property from the A66, should be used for the purpose. The Representors understand that the biodiversity net gain calculations ignore the newly planted woodland which under more recent biodiversity net gain matrix (3.1) should be accounted for. The Representors believe this would remove the need for any of the proposed environmental mitigation elsewhere on the Estate and particularly the blocks of mitigation planting and management proposed to the southeast on Whinfell House Farm (plots 03-04-04, 13-04-12 and 03-04-14). The Representors maintain that the most up to date matrix should be used and National Highways should not rely on an older version. The Representors understand that changes in the biodiversity net gain calculation matrix would now allow for the newly planted woodland to be considered. Further, the Representors are able to demonstrate that the Estate planted the new woodland in order to directly mitigate against the impact of the Scheme albeit not necessarily directly for biodiversity net gain purposes, but more particularly for screening but the wood was planted in direct anticipation of the scheme and the Representors can provide evidence to show this. 8. Third, in the further alternative to “Adrian’s Wood”, mitigation woodland planting should take place along the north side and adjacent to the Project, which would have the dual purpose in providing additional screening to the Estate properties to the north, as well as providing the required environmental mitigation. 9. Fourth, in the further alternative mitigation planting should take place on the less productive areas of the Estate as identified on the plan submitted as part of the First Consultation and entitled “Winderwath Settled Estate – Proposed Woodland Creation Areas”. 10. Fifth, the current proposals for mitigation planting would have severe negative impacts on the estates shoot management, which would be avoided by the alternatives put forward above. 11. Sixth, permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation is unnecessary as the Representors will offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant and manage these areas in an agreed manner. Without prejudice to that general point, there is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of the access route to the said mitigation area as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 12. Seventh, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the uses of the adjoining land of the Estate. 13. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (“PROWs”): First, The Representors fundamentally object to the imposition of additional public access on their Estate by PROWs or otherwise. Additional public access is not justified by the Project itself and/or its objectives. 14. Second, if PROWs are to be imposed the Representors are particularly against the joint use of private farm/estate access tracks where the public are walking or cycling. The combining of private and public access has an inherent risk and the Trustees maintain that segregation of public and private access should take place. Suggestions on how this could be achieved were contained in Consultation Response 2, with sketch plans. 15. Third, the Representors also object to the route of the proposed private and public access tracks which are routed around balancing ponds (with 90-degree bends) rather than logically adjacent to the highway, to avoid the acquisition of valuable agricultural land and make daily use of tracks easier with large agricultural machinery. Generally, where possible routes should as straight as possible and be adjacent to field boundaries. Further, tracks should be at least 4m wide and have adequate passing places. 16. Fourth, the Representors require detail on the third-party rights of access that will be granted along the access tracks, so that it is clear in respect of Estate land which third parties (e.g. National Highways, Utilities, local councils, neighbours etc) are to be granted rights of access over their land and in respect of neighbouring land, where the Estate will be granted rights of access to reach either public highways or other land in their ownership. To date National Highways has provided no detail on this. 17. Fifth, the Representors also have issues in regard to clarification on future maintenance of both private and public access particularly if they are mixed and also the issues on public liability insurance and liability on the Estate for any public accidents if tracks and access are shared. The Representors maintain that if additional public access is required that segregation of private and public use is an absolute necessity. 18. Sixth, the Representors object to any proposal to create any bridleways across their retained land. Although the plans now available are unclear on this point, seeking powers to impose public bridleway rights over their land where no rights either exist or will be interfered with under the Project cannot satisfy the requirement of a compelling case to take rights compulsorily. 19. Land form: The Representors believe that the level of the road particularly around the Centre Parcs Junction could be better engineered to lower the levels of the road in this area and to consequently produce a less obvious structure in the landscape, whilst also reducing the amount of land and reforming of adjacent agricultural land as a consequence: see Consultation Response 2. 20. Balancing and/or attenuation ponds: First, there are numerous number of balancing ponds shown on the Project plans (plots pt 03-02-06, pt 03-02-24, pt 03-03-06, pt 03-03-08pt 03-04-11) located on the Estate. The Representors believe that these balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. A number of the locations show two ponds, which is not acceptable and does not mitigate land take. The size of ponds has also been questioned but as yet without any satisfactory response: see Consultations Reponses 1 and 2. 21. Second, there is extensive car parking shown for each of the balancing ponds which is deemed unnecessary and will take up valuable agricultural land. In any event, taking land for car parking is not with the powers of the proposed DCO. 22. Third, there is no apparent management plan for these ponds and the associated ditches. In particular work to existing ditches, drains and culverts would appear necessary, but is not detailed or agreed. 23. Fourth, the private means of access numbered 18, 22, 27 and 33 on sheets 2, 3 and 4 of document 5.19 Rights of Way and Access Plans are neither understood nor seen as necessary, and valuable agricultural land should not be permanently acquired for the purpose. 24. Fifth, in relation to the proposed ponds on the plots firstly at nos. pt 03-02-01, and secondly, nos. pt 03-02-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 30 34 and 35, the ponds appear to drain to the river via corridors of land to be permanently acquired. There is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of these corridors as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 25. Layby locations: The Representors object to the proposed location of laybys being inappropriately located relative to nearby Estate residential property potentially causing nuisance and excessive injurious affection. The lay-bys could be located in more secluded and less obvious locations along the route. National Highways response to this representation to date has been that this would be a matter for detail designers. This is not acceptable: see Consultation Reponses 1 and 2. 26. Land acquisition: The Representors have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired but the Representors now know that some areas are only required for temporary purposes. The Representors object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum. Details need to be provided by National Highways. 27. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features; boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the Representors’ land, and management plans for years 1 to 15 must be agreed. 28. Second, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the Representors’ and neighbouring land. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 29. Third, the requested rationalisation of parking at St Ninian’s Church has not been addressed so that the Representors’ land will be unnecessarily adversely affected. 30. Fourth, the land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily, they should not be acquired permanently. 31. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 32. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land 03-02-01 03-02-06 03-02-07 03-02-12 03-02-15 03-02-17 03-02-18 03-02-23 03-02-24 03-02-25 03-02-27 03-02-29 03-02-33 03-02-34 03-03-01 03-03-02 03-03-06 03-03-07 03-03-08 03-03-32 03-03-33 03-03-34 03-03-37 03-03-38 03-03-39 03-03-40 03-03-41 03-03-42 03-04-01 03-04-03 03-04-04 03-04-05 03-04-06 03-04-08 03-04-10 03-04-11 03-04-12 03-04-13 03-04-14 03-04-16 03-04-17 03-04-19 03-04-20 03-04-21 03-04-24 03-04-26 Category 2 land - Sporting rights 03-02-08 03-02-09 03-02-11 03-02-14 03-02-20 03-02-21 03-02-22 03-02-32 03-03-04 03-03-05 03-03-09 03-03-10 03-03-12 03-03-13 03-03-14 03-03-15 03-03-17 03-03-19 03-03-20 03-03-21 03-03-31"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of John Steadman Dodd
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is approximately 6.84 hectares of agricultural land and an 60ft x 60ft new build agricultural building, yard and pens which is to be demolished as part of the road design. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation Following the construction period, the land is currently designated as ‘EFD’ which is a bird mitigation area – Golden Plover. Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The main farming business is a sheep enterprise which relies upon all year-round grazing. The compound site is approximately 17 acres which equates to 7% of their total land and therefore this could continue to cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing ponds shown on the project plans located on my client’s land. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Accommodation Works and Other Matters The proposed compound affects approximately 17 acres of land which includes an agricultural building to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. A proposed design and layout for the alternative building location has been submitted to National Highways to mitigate any business losses, this is currently awaiting a response. During construction, the farming business requires an extended area to the North and East of the compound site for storage of farm machinery, crop, bales, dog pens and portacabins for chemicals and spray. The access to the new building is required to tie into the proposed new access which National Highways have designed on to the compound site. An access track is also required to the surrounding field parcels. The security of the compound is a major concern during the construction period. Once the agricultural building is relocated, the security could be compromised due to the construction compound being immediately adjacent and the theft issues which may arise as a result. 24 hour security, cctv and security lights will be required not only on the compound but at the agricultural buildings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Judith Olive Dodd
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is approximately 6.84 hectares of agricultural land and an 60ft x 60ft new build agricultural building, yard and pens which is to be demolished as part of the road design. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation Following the construction period, the land is currently designated as ‘EFD’ which is a bird mitigation area – Golden Plover. Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The main farming business is a sheep enterprise which relies upon all year-round grazing. The compound site is approximately 17 acres which equates to 7% of their total land and therefore this could continue to cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing ponds shown on the project plans located on my client’s land. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Accommodation Works and Other Matters The proposed compound affects approximately 17 acres of land which includes an agricultural building to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. A proposed design and layout for the alternative building location has been submitted to National Highways to mitigate any business losses, this is currently awaiting a response. During construction, the farming business requires an extended area to the North and East of the compound site for storage of farm machinery, crop, bales, dog pens and portacabins for chemicals and spray. The access to the new building is required to tie into the proposed new access which National Highways have designed on to the compound site. An access track is also required to the surrounding field parcels. The security of the compound is a major concern during the construction period. Once the agricultural building is relocated, the security could be compromised due to the construction compound being immediately adjacent and the theft issues which may arise as a result. 24 hour security, cctv and security lights will be required not only on the compound but at the agricultural buildings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Blackett-Ord
"The scheme, Brough to Appleby The present A66 is the southern boundary of the North Pennines AONB and runs about one km north of the four villages of Sandford, Warcop, Flitholme and Langrigg. So the scheme as first proposed was on or just south of the old road, to mitigate pollution in the four villages, but without incursion into the AONB. Only a closer look at the site shows what damage is caused if it is not put further north, although admittedly into the edge of the AONB: (1) The present A66 is on the turnpike road on the site of the Roman road from York to Hadrian’s Wall and the north. The road had itself been positioned by the Romans to avoid damage to a neolithic stone circle (which later gave “Warcop” its name) and three bronze age burial barrows just west of where Sandford lane joins the road. The largest of these will now be destroyed, with all the unknowable Roman archaeology along the old road edge (2) Facing unnecessary destruction are the cricket field, the largest level space in the parish, irreplaceable in this hilly country, and the fairground where the Travellers and Gipsies meet, at the September fair dating from the fourteenth century called “Brough Hill”. (3) Around the Crooks Beck at the centre of Warcop the houses often get flooded by two becks (streams) which meet: the Low Beck, coming from the direction of Brough, and the Hayber Beck or the Moor Beck, draining from the Pennine edge. The tarmac on the dual carriageway would add run-off into these becks, and global warming is increasing the severity of rainstorms. NH propose settling ponds, but they only take out debris and effluent from the water-flow, and would have little effect on stopping a sudden flood to the village. If the road were further north the road water could flow out westwards to join the Eden below Warcop. (4) There are many privately owned residential properties, many of them Georgian, south of the road and along and near the proposed dual carriageway. There are none on the land to the north, which is used exclusively for army training. (5) Each of the four villages to the south of the present road has a lane up to it. It would be sensible to keep the old road as a by-road giving access to these lanes. But to build the dual-carriageway immediately south of the A66 road means that it cuts off those lanes from it and requires bridges under it or fly-overs over it. They will be an eyesores on the AONB edge. (6) The North Pennines AONB extends to 770 square miles, and the choice of its southern edge here on the A66 was arbitrary. The mess from military training means that little actual “Natural Beauty” is preserved on it north of the road, and its ancient and traditional buildings are all demolished. South of the road is still pleasing ancient pastureland and traditional buildings."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Martyn George Farrell
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land between Temple Sowerby and Kirkby Thore. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plans located on my clients land. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Objection to the current design of the private means of access which connects the old A66 to Priest Lane. The access road uses up excessive agricultural land which is already vital to the sustainability of our client’s farming enterprise. The design should be amended so that the route from the old A66 is moved across one field boundary to the East so that it borders two sperate landowners and thus leaves farmable sized blocks of land post construction and a natural ownership border. The grid references for the proposed access relocation will run from NY 62785 25880 to NY 63009 26175. This will also avoid any conflict with the Intermediate Pressure Cadent Gas main which is to be laid directly upon the current proposals. If PROWs are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to New Bungalow. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be privacy and security issues to Newlands Bungalow which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route. 7. Business Concerns and Other Matters We object to the landform proposals and suggest that the proposed A66 is lowered to avoid the requirement to build the road up. The current proposals will reduce the quality of the remaining agricultural land. Serious concern about the noise, light and vibration impact of the proposed design on the caravan site business. The business currently has permission for 50 sites between permanent sites and temporary touring caravan sites. The current single carriageway road runs parallel to New Bungalow and the caravan site and as such the noise and light continues on that trajectory. With the upgrade to a dual carriageway and with the curvature of the proposed route, the noise, light and vibration impact will be significantly increased as the trajectory intersects across the caravan site. The proposed A66 design will have a negative impact on the Low Moor Caravan site business as it will not be visible or directly available from the A66 as it is now, this will reduce the custom from passers-by."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Amy Crossland-Browne
"Noise and light pollution given proximity of proposed route to my property, both during construction and after completion. Devaluation of my property given proximity to a new major dual carriageway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Elizabeth Redfern
"Concerns over increased risk of flooding. Boundary of land required not clear, a piece of property appears to be needed on general maps but not discussed with me"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Nigel Teasdale
"Interested Party and Affected Occupier and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the land occupied under an Agricultural Tenancy to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the North of Cross Street Bridge, Kirkby Thore. Grid Reference NY 63391 26498. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation Following the construction period, some of the land is designated as ‘EFD’ which is a bird mitigation area – Lapwing. Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The farming businesses comprise cattle and sheep enterprises which relies upon all year-round grazing. The loss of grazing could cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. In addition, the amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and occupier requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There are numerous dual balancing ponds shown on the project plans located on the occupiers land. These balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Norman Cowin
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The current proposals are to demolish the property known as Green Barn at Kirkby Thore and the agricultural land immediately adjacent is also affected. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The proposals currently require that Green Barn is to be demolished. Due to the nature of the business and an all-year-round requirement for housing sheep, lambing and crop storage, the building cannot be dismantled and relocated. A further issue is that due to the red line boundary there is very limited agricultural land owned by Messrs Cowin where any replacement building could be relocated. Discussions with adjacent landowners have currently been unsuccessful. At present the current designs will cause severe hardship on the farming business. There are no other agricultural buildings on this site and therefore National Highways must erect a new agricultural building to replace the existing one before any construction commences. The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation The proposed drainage shows a red line boundary which follows an existing drainage culvert, however there is no construction or drainage drawn within this corridor. It is assumed that National Highways are proposing to connect the attenuation pond / balancing pond to the existing drainage culvert which heads towards British Gypsum. During heavy rainfall this culvert floods out onto my clients land and is already at maximum capacity. Adding an extension will only increase the load and have a detrimental impact on the farming business. There has been no consultation as to the drainage routes and how additional load is going to be mitigated. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) An additional private access must be provided at the Grid Reference NY 64782 25917 to allow for sheep to be moved safely out of the land and to the North. This access is essential for both the safety of the general public and the livestock."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Pennine National Trails Partnership
"I am making a representation on behalf of the Pennine National Trails Partnership whose remit is to maintain and promote the Pennine Way and Pennine Bridleway National Trails. National Trails are long distance walks and rides through some of the very best landscapes the UK has to offer. They are special – they have been designated by the Government and are managed to a set of Quality Standards that set them above other routes. The Pennine Way crosses the A66 in two places at Bowes, and the Pennine Bridleway Northern Extension is also proposed to cross between Appleby and Warcop. The Pennine Way has been acknowledged in document 2.4 Walking, Cycling and Horse-riding Proposals, and sufficient provision has been made for the route to be retained after dualling is complete. There is no mention of the Pennine Bridleway Northern Extension in the aforementioned document, nor it's need to cross the A66. The Northern Extension was approved by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, but has not yet been implemented. As the route will carry pedestrians, cyclists and horse riders, a suitable grade-separated crossing is required, along with potential to link to existing or newly created bridleways/byways or minor roads to the north and south. The approved route of the Northern Extension did not consider the dualling of the A66, and utilised the only grade-separated crossing which was available at the time (at Coupland). This route is not ideal for a number of reasons, including the need for a substantial new bridge over the river Eden at Great Ormside. The dualling of the A66 provides an opportunity for the Northern Extension to utilise the existing river bridge at Sandford, and the proposed accommodation underpass near to Café 66 or the grade separated junction west of Warcop. Both of these grade separated crossings link to the east-west shared cycleway/footway on the north side of the carriageway. However: • The east-west shared cycleway/footway does not extend all the way to the Coupland Beck underpass. Extending this to connect with the underpass would provide greater opportunity for connectivity of walking, cycling and horse riding routes. Especially, the opportunity for the Pennine Bridleway Northern Extension to use the Sandford bridge over the River Eden, and a new grade-separated crossing of the A66, and then connect up with the approved route northwards at Coupland. • The east-west shared cycleway/footway makes no mention of horse riders or mobility devices such as trampers. These user groups are just as valid, especially with the potential of a National Trail using the route in future. The east-west route should be designed as a truly multi-user corridor. • The design of the grade-separated crossing at Warcop only refers to pedestrians. With the future potential of carrying the Pennine Bridleway National Trail, this junction should be designed with horse riders and cyclists in mind. The junction will provide connectivity for these users from a minor road to the east-west shared cycleway/footway regardless of the future presence of the Pennine Bridleway."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Peter Harrison Ivinson
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East of Powis House and Roman Vale. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is also a concern as to how any balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage into the River Eden as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Further access points are required off the proposed new Long Marton Road, these are at points NY 65968 23936 and NY 66058 23919. These accesses are required to allow for the normal running of the farming business. If PROWs are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Richard Mackey
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land at approximate Grid Reference NY 51691 28815. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) At present the design severs the only access into the affected field parcel. An alternative access must be provided to allow for normal access during and post construction. The approximate grid reference for the current field access is NY 51764 28724."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of Sarah Crane - As Trustee of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION AND IN THE MATTER OF LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE WINDERWATH ESTATE, PENRITH, CUMBRIA ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN RICHARD LANE, JAMES HARE, ALAN MOORE BOWE AND SARAH CRANE AS THE TRUSTEES OF THE WINDERWATH 1989 SETTLEMENT TRUST ______________________________ 1. John Richard Lane, James Hare, Alan Moore Bowe and Sarah Crane are the Trustees of the Winderwath 1989 Settlement Trust (“the Representors”) and the owners of land extending to some 2,750 acres of agricultural and woodland in the Eden Valley on either side of the A66 located between Penrith and Temple Sowerby (“the Estate”) and are the registered proprietors under title No CU205235 and unregistered owners, approximately 146 acres of which are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 2, the Land Plans 2, 3 and 4 at 5.13, and Environmental Statement 2.8 mitigation maps, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently. Further, the Representors have the benefit of sporting rights over the category 2 plot numbers also listed in Annex 1. 3. The parts of the Estate to be permanently acquired include agricultural land, and a residential property known as High Barns and an associate range of buildings. 4. The Representors do not object to the principle of the Project, but the Representators make the following representations on its effect on their ownership. 5. Lack of proper pre-application consultation: The Representors say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress was made in the November 2021 and March 2022 statutory consultations. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the Representors have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as boundary treatments, junction designs, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the Estate for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 03-02-01, 03-02-18, 03-03-06, 03-03-32, 03-03-33, 03-04-03, 03-04-04, 03-04-12 and 03-04-14. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 7. Second, if contrary to the above if some land of the Estate is required for mitigation, the 18 acres of “Adrian’s Wood” (located at grid ref NY58422884 and mainly east and northeast of plot 03-04-06), which was planted recently as a shelter to adjoining property from the A66, should be used for the purpose. The Representors understand that the biodiversity net gain calculations ignore the newly planted woodland which under more recent biodiversity net gain matrix (3.1) should be accounted for. The Representors believe this would remove the need for any of the proposed environmental mitigation elsewhere on the Estate and particularly the blocks of mitigation planting and management proposed to the southeast on Whinfell House Farm (plots 03-04-04, 13-04-12 and 03-04-14). The Representors maintain that the most up to date matrix should be used and National Highways should not rely on an older version. The Representors understand that changes in the biodiversity net gain calculation matrix would now allow for the newly planted woodland to be considered. Further, the Representors are able to demonstrate that the Estate planted the new woodland in order to directly mitigate against the impact of the Scheme albeit not necessarily directly for biodiversity net gain purposes, but more particularly for screening but the wood was planted in direct anticipation of the scheme and the Representors can provide evidence to show this. 8. Third, in the further alternative to “Adrian’s Wood”, mitigation woodland planting should take place along the north side and adjacent to the Project, which would have the dual purpose in providing additional screening to the Estate properties to the north, as well as providing the required environmental mitigation. 9. Fourth, in the further alternative mitigation planting should take place on the less productive areas of the Estate as identified on the plan submitted as part of the First Consultation and entitled “Winderwath Settled Estate – Proposed Woodland Creation Areas”. 10. Fifth, the current proposals for mitigation planting would have severe negative impacts on the estates shoot management, which would be avoided by the alternatives put forward above. 11. Sixth, permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation is unnecessary as the Representors will offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to plant and manage these areas in an agreed manner. Without prejudice to that general point, there is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of the access route to the said mitigation area as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 12. Seventh, without prejudice to the above, and further representations below, the Representors object to the taking of any land where there is no coherent years 1 to 15 management plan that is consistent with the uses of the adjoining land of the Estate. 13. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (“PROWs”): First, The Representors fundamentally object to the imposition of additional public access on their Estate by PROWs or otherwise. Additional public access is not justified by the Project itself and/or its objectives. 14. Second, if PROWs are to be imposed the Representors are particularly against the joint use of private farm/estate access tracks where the public are walking or cycling. The combining of private and public access has an inherent risk and the Trustees maintain that segregation of public and private access should take place. Suggestions on how this could be achieved were contained in Consultation Response 2, with sketch plans. 15. Third, the Representors also object to the route of the proposed private and public access tracks which are routed around balancing ponds (with 90-degree bends) rather than logically adjacent to the highway, to avoid the acquisition of valuable agricultural land and make daily use of tracks easier with large agricultural machinery. Generally, where possible routes should as straight as possible and be adjacent to field boundaries. Further, tracks should be at least 4m wide and have adequate passing places. 16. Fourth, the Representors require detail on the third-party rights of access that will be granted along the access tracks, so that it is clear in respect of Estate land which third parties (e.g. National Highways, Utilities, local councils, neighbours etc) are to be granted rights of access over their land and in respect of neighbouring land, where the Estate will be granted rights of access to reach either public highways or other land in their ownership. To date National Highways has provided no detail on this. 17. Fifth, the Representors also have issues in regard to clarification on future maintenance of both private and public access particularly if they are mixed and also the issues on public liability insurance and liability on the Estate for any public accidents if tracks and access are shared. The Representors maintain that if additional public access is required that segregation of private and public use is an absolute necessity. 18. Sixth, the Representors object to any proposal to create any bridleways across their retained land. Although the plans now available are unclear on this point, seeking powers to impose public bridleway rights over their land where no rights either exist or will be interfered with under the Project cannot satisfy the requirement of a compelling case to take rights compulsorily. 19. Land form: The Representors believe that the level of the road particularly around the Centre Parcs Junction could be better engineered to lower the levels of the road in this area and to consequently produce a less obvious structure in the landscape, whilst also reducing the amount of land and reforming of adjacent agricultural land as a consequence: see Consultation Response 2. 20. Balancing and/or attenuation ponds: First, there are numerous number of balancing ponds shown on the Project plans (plots pt 03-02-06, pt 03-02-24, pt 03-03-06, pt 03-03-08pt 03-04-11) located on the Estate. The Representors believe that these balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. A number of the locations show two ponds, which is not acceptable and does not mitigate land take. The size of ponds has also been questioned but as yet without any satisfactory response: see Consultations Reponses 1 and 2. 21. Second, there is extensive car parking shown for each of the balancing ponds which is deemed unnecessary and will take up valuable agricultural land. In any event, taking land for car parking is not with the powers of the proposed DCO. 22. Third, there is no apparent management plan for these ponds and the associated ditches. In particular work to existing ditches, drains and culverts would appear necessary, but is not detailed or agreed. 23. Fourth, the private means of access numbered 18, 22, 27 and 33 on sheets 2, 3 and 4 of document 5.19 Rights of Way and Access Plans are neither understood nor seen as necessary, and valuable agricultural land should not be permanently acquired for the purpose. 24. Fifth, in relation to the proposed ponds on the plots firstly at nos. pt 03-02-01, and secondly, nos. pt 03-02-26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 30 34 and 35, the ponds appear to drain to the river via corridors of land to be permanently acquired. There is no compelling case for the permanent acquisition of these corridors as the acquisition of rights only for the purpose will suffice. 25. Layby locations: The Representors object to the proposed location of laybys being inappropriately located relative to nearby Estate residential property potentially causing nuisance and excessive injurious affection. The lay-bys could be located in more secluded and less obvious locations along the route. National Highways response to this representation to date has been that this would be a matter for detail designers. This is not acceptable: see Consultation Reponses 1 and 2. 26. Land acquisition: The Representors have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired but the Representors now know that some areas are only required for temporary purposes. The Representors object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum. Details need to be provided by National Highways. 27. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features; boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the Representors’ land, and management plans for years 1 to 15 must be agreed. 28. Second, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the Representors’ and neighbouring land. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 29. Third, the requested rationalisation of parking at St Ninian’s Church has not been addressed so that the Representors’ land will be unnecessarily adversely affected. 30. Fourth, the land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily, they should not be acquired permanently. 31. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 32. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land 03-02-01 03-02-06 03-02-07 03-02-12 03-02-15 03-02-17 03-02-18 03-02-23 03-02-24 03-02-25 03-02-27 03-02-29 03-02-33 03-02-34 03-03-01 03-03-02 03-03-06 03-03-07 03-03-08 03-03-32 03-03-33 03-03-34 03-03-37 03-03-38 03-03-39 03-03-40 03-03-41 03-03-42 03-04-01 03-04-03 03-04-04 03-04-05 03-04-06 03-04-08 03-04-10 03-04-11 03-04-12 03-04-13 03-04-14 03-04-16 03-04-17 03-04-19 03-04-20 03-04-21 03-04-24 03-04-26 Category 2 land - Sporting rights 03-02-08 03-02-09 03-02-11 03-02-14 03-02-20 03-02-21 03-02-22 03-02-32 03-03-04 03-03-05 03-03-09 03-03-10 03-03-12 03-03-13 03-03-14 03-03-15 03-03-17 03-03-19 03-03-20 03-03-21 03-03-31"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sport England
"Summary: Sport England OBJECTS to the land take, temporary and permanent from playing field sites including: Ullswater Community College, Penrith. Loss of part of playing field to facilitate a slip road to the new Kemplay Bank Roundabout. It’s not certain if the red edged site includes permanent or temporary loss of playing field land. This site affects a rugby pitch and it’s not clear if ball stop fencing is proposed to prevent balls landing on the A66. Paragraph 13.7.12 refers to “Playing Field (Ullswater Playing Field): approximately 0.44ha of the field is located within the Order Limits, which is approximately 18.7% of the field”. From the scale of the project it is not clear precisely what the impacts will be permanent or temporary. Its not clear if the land within the Order limits will be planted with trees or if acces is needed for access during construction. If trees are planted on the playing field, playing field land will be lost without mitigation for loss Wetheriggs Country Park, Penrith. Paragraph 13.7.12 advises that “approximately 0.74 ha of this greenspace is located within the Order Limits, which is approximately 14.7% of the Park”. This part of the proposal involves loss of part of the playing field, where it is not clear what impact this would have on pitch drainage, pitch markings or pitch safety margins; nor is it clear what scale of tree planting is proposed along the A^^ boundary. Kirkby Thore Primary School. The documents refer to “Temporary land take of approximately 0.15ha, or 35%, of the schools outdoor playing field to facilitate a utility diversion. No alternative provisions will be provided during construction. The playing field will be reinstated to existing condition upon completion of the works.” Sport England is concerned about the scale of works, uncertain time period over which the playing field would be out of use with no mitigation for loss and is also concerned about the quality of reinstatement of the playing field. MOD Playing Field at Warcop. Paragraph 13.9.18 advises of “loss of the Ministry of Defence playing field and helipad. Relocation of them will be provided to the south of the scheme, located off Castlehill Road. This site is likely to include a parking area, pavilion and storage shed; however, the details are still to be confirmed with the Ministry of Defence. The replacement facilities will be fully operational before the closure of the existing provisions due to the potential use as an emergency services helipad.” Sport England made detailed comments and explained a likely objection about the replacement playing field and ancillary facilities and welcomes further consultation when the details are available. Any replacement would need to comply with the NPPF paragraph 99."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land & Estates Ltd on behalf of Sylvia Mary Addison as owner and occupier of Spittals Farm
"IN THE MATTER OF THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS A66 NORTHERN TRANS-PENNINE PROJECT DEVEVELOPMENT CONSENT ORDER APPLICATION LAND TO BE ACQUIRED PERMANENTLY AT THE SPITTALS FARM, TEMPLE SOWERBY, PENRITH, CUMBRIA CA10 1 XQ ______________________________ REPRESENTATIONS OF JOHN MICHAEL ADDISON, SYLVIA MARY ADDISON AND ANDREW MICHAEL ADDISON (OWNERS) AND MESSRS J M & S M ADDISON (OCCUPIERS) ______________________________ 1. John Michael Addison, Sylvia Mary Addison and Andrew Michael Addison are owners in varying ownerships of a number of plots of land forming part of Spittals Farm, Temple Sowerby. The farm in total extends to around 343 acres at Spittals with a further 90 acres of land owned around Kings Meaburn and 5 acres of land rented locally. The business revolves around an intensive dairy herd of around 300 cows and all followers together with arable cropping supporting the dairy herd. Spittals Farm which is affected by the scheme is located either side of the A66 to the east of the village of Temple Sowerby (farm steading is at grid reference NY62192631). Approximately 24 acres are proposed to be acquired under a draft development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). 2. By reference to the Book of Reference vol 3 (0405) and the Land Plans 1 & 2 at 5.13, the plot numbers listed at Annex 1 hereto are being sought to be acquired permanently or temporarily. 3. The parts of the farm to be permanently acquired include agricultural land but also shows farm buildings and accesses. 4. The owners or occupiers do not object to the principle of the Project but make the following representations on its effect on their ownership and occupation. 5. Lack of proper pre-application Consultation: The owners and occupiers say that the pre-application consultations resulted in little progress as National Highways provided very little detailed information. In particular, no progress has really been made since the November 2021 statutory consultation. The actual contractors and detailed designers were only appointed on the 1 July 2022. This means that to date the owners and occupiers have had no details to consider on design and the specifics on which they have been making enquiries consistently regarding issues such as underpass design and details of boundary treatments, drainage, services etc. This is in addition to a lack of fundamental responses from National Highways on core principles, being the matters set out herein. 6. Relevance of Agriculture: None of the consultation documentation provided any specific detail on how the impact of the proposals has been considered and then mitigated in terms of the effect on agriculture and the agricultural operations and businesses of many of those parties affect by the scheme. There is focus on the environment, ecology, archaeology, landscape, flooding, air quality etc but not one focus on the agricultural impact. This needs to be addressed in terms of detailed discussions at farm level about the impact of the proposals through construction and on completion. 7. Environmental Mitigation: First, land proposed to be acquired is excessive in area and should not be taken from the farm for environmental mitigation as the land so identified is grade 2/3 agricultural land and being highly productive its loss for the production of agricultural products and livestock is an extremely relevant consideration that must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration. This is particularly (but not exclusively) the case concerning plots 0405-01-87, 0405-01-68, 0405-01-67, 0405-01-75, 0405-01-80, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-120, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-106 and 0405-02-03. It is also considered that land taken for environmental mitigation areas should be proportional to the land area being acquired from any particular landowner rather than some landowners having larger areas of mitigation and some having relatively little. 8. The environmental mitigation proposals overall have until now been presented without any overarching explanation as to how the areas identified for mitigation measures have been calculated and how the specific areas that have been allocated for mitigation works on the farm have been determined. We require more detailed information from National Highways on how the overall environmental mitigation has been calculated and explanation about what each measure means on the ground for the owners and occupiers. In order for an affected landowner to make a judgment about what they may or may not be willing to accept as environmental mitigation detailed management prescriptions and the type of management agreements that are envisaged need to be provided by National Highways. To date no such details have been produced. 9. A number of new and existing hedgerows are identified to be acquired. There needs to be detailed prescriptions provided for the management of these hedges, which need not be acquired and could be managed under management agreements. Details need to be provided on the specific management arrangements and agreements required by National Highways. 10. To date National Highways have not provided confirmation of how their proposed environmental management regime will affect owners own future environmental schemes, where use of land or planting hedges or managing existing hedges may be an option to secure participation or may be capable in future of being utilised for on farm carbon mitigation. This need to be understood. 11. The owners are prepared to consider offering other land as wetland area (south of plot 0405-01-88) if this were to reduce mitigation elsewhere on their holding. 12. We therefore at this stage object to all the environmental mitigation measures proposed on Spittals Farm until detailed management prescriptions and arrangements are provided and a sensible, practical discussion can be had as to the impact and changes that may be required to the current proposals to mitigate the impact on Messrs Addison’s business. 13. Land acquisition: The owners and occupiers have maintained that the extent of the red line boundary and the areas over which National Highways seek to take permanently and by temporary occupation is excessive. Despite asking on numerous occasions, the DCO documentation still shows the majority of land being permanently acquired. The owners and occupiers object to the extent of the proposed permanent acquisition and maintains that permanent land acquisition should be reduced to a minimum specifically the following areas are relevant. 14. First, substantial areas including yard area, existing farm buildings, a farm access track leading to an underpass and a large slurry lagoon as well as banks adjacent to those features are shown as being acquired (Plots 0405-01-85 and pt 0405-01-76 (west end). This is un-necessary and will cause significant impact on the current dairy operation when much of these areas can be occupied temporarily. Acquisition permanently will severely restrict the ability for future building expansion and use. 15. If, as desired, these areas are occupied temporarily then as cows access the areas twice daily during the summer and the buildings continuously all year and there is continuous machinery activity there will need to be arrangements for managed access throughout the works. To date no details have been provided. 16. Second, plot 0405-01-74 covers a main access into the farm and comprises part of the old A66 carriageway. There is no need to acquire this area or if it is rights of access need to be reserved for the owners and occupiers for all purposes at all times. No details have been provided to date by National Highways on any possible reserved rights of access anywhere on the scheme. 17. Third, compound and potential ecological mitigation (plot 0405-01-87) is located on dairy cow pasture where cows will graze in rotation all through the summer on a daily basis. A temporary access track would be needed to access the remainder of the field. It is considered more sensible to locate compound and any ecological features on the severed/uneconomic/misshaped area remaining in two land ownerships to the east of this plot. The land required for contractors’ compounds is excessive and should be reduced. If required only temporarily. They should not be acquired permanently. 18. Underpass Design: A fundamental requirement for ongoing use of the farm as an intensive dairy/livestock unit is provision of an underpass extension both north and south of the existing underpass under the widened carriageway and the newly constricted side road to the south. This is provided for in the initial design but to date no detailed designs for the underpass have been provided to ensure it is sufficient size and suitable constructions for modern farm machinery and matches at least the existing underpass. Detailed design must be supplied quickly. 19. Layby Locations: The owners and occupiers object to the proposed location of a layby immediately south of plot 0405-01-87 and consider in view of existing layby provision on the A66 to the west that this layby could be located in a less obvious raised position, for example adjacent to the proposed balancing pond to the east where screening can be provided more easily. 20. Miscellaneous design and related matters: first, there is no agreement on the following features: boundary treatment, specification and location of proposed walls, fences, hedges, gates, cattle grids, surface treatment of access tracks and service supplies. These are important matters to mitigate damage to the owners and occupier’s land. 21. Second, there is located immediately northwest of plot 0405-1-84 on retained land a substantial earth banked slurry store. Assurances are required that none of the proposed works will affect the structural integrity of this slurry store, as the acquisition boundary appears to incorporate the southern banking of the store. The area acquired should be minimised in this area. More details are required. The southern boundary also removes one of two vehicle accesses to the store and thus a second replacement access will be required. 22. Third, no detail has been provided on drainage schemes and the impact of additional drainage on the owners and occupiers neighbouring land. Specifically, where are the discharges from the balance ponds to the east of the owners and occupiers land? If these are towards Birk Syke (plots 0405-02-03, 0405-01-131, 0405-01-88, 0405-01-83, 0405-01-83 and 0405-01-75) this is unacceptable if it will result in flooding of these plots and adjoining land. No details have been provided to date. This is a crucial aspect as inadequate drainage arrangements can seriously affect the use and viability of agricultural land. 23. Compulsory acquisition restraints: In support of the points made above against the use of permanent acquisition, the Representors will rely on the guidance in Compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules (updated July 2019), particularly at paras 12 (there must be a compelling case in the public interest) and 13. In relation to the offers made above by the Representors to enter into rights for the benefit of National Highways, and to provide other land for mitigation plantings, and otherwise, there cannot be a compelling case in the public interest to acquire land in such circumstances. 24. In the cases mentioned above where rights can be granted in place of permanent acquisition, there are powers in the Planning Act 2008 for National Highways to seek rights, in place of permanent acquisitions, which power does not appear to have been considered. Annex 1 Category 1 land SHEET 1 0405-01-23 0405-01-50 0405-01-59 0405-01-61 0405-01-63 0405-01-64 0405-01-65 0405-01-67 0405-01-68 0405-01-69 0405-01-70 0405-01-71 0405-01-72 0405-01-74 0405-01-75 0405-01-76 0405-01-77 0405-01-80 0405-01-81 0405-01-82 0405-01-83 0405-01-85 0405-01-87 0405-01-88 0405-01-89 0405-01-90 0405-01-92 0405-01-93 0405-01-105 0405-01-106 0405-01-117 0405-01-120 0405-01-130 0405-01-131 0405-01-139 0405-01-141 SHEET 2 0405-02-03 0405-02-04 0405-02-05 0405-02-06 Category 2 land – Right of Access SHEET 1 0405-01-58 0405-01-60"
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Taylor & Braithwaite Ltd
"Concerns over initial draft land take on temporary and proposed permanent basis at company premises along with revision required to mitigation plan Interested Party and Affected Landowner We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Taylor & Braithwaite Ltd, Dyke Nook, Sandford, Appleby CA16 6NS. Grid Reference NY 73474 16853. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation Object to the red line boundary which is located at Grid Reference NY 73708 16763. There appears to be no construction design drawn on the DCO application plans. The red line boundary intersects a yard which is currently used by Taylor & Braithwaite Drilling. The loss of this yard and the encroachment onto the business premises could have significant impacts on the business. There could significant business losses and it is suggested the red line boundary is refined in this area to avoid this conflict. The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. There is an attenuation / balancing pond shown on the project plan located at grid reference NY 73447 16873 and on adjacent land at grid reference NY 73491 16946. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks and outfall drainage as no consultation has been undertaken. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) If PROWs, cycle ways or bridleways are to be imposed on the land alongside any private access tracks then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Thomas Chappelhow
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the Northwest of Appleby-in-Westmorland at central point grid reference NY 67290 21964. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations? Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation Following the construction period, some of the land is currently designated as ‘EFD’ which is a Reptile translocation receptor site Under the document “2.7 Environmental Management Plan Annex B1 Outline Landscape and Ecological Management Plan”, the management prescriptions state that between the months of January to July, there will be no grazing by livestock. The main farming business is a dairy enterprise and this land is used for grazing young cattle and therefore this could continue to cause a significant loss of business income moving forward. The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) A private means of access is required from the my clients to connect in to both the North and South sides of the proposed Roger Head Farm Bridge at approximate grid reference NY 67270 22101. The dimensions of this bridge must be sufficient to accommodate large farm machinery. Cattle handling pens must also be provided on the North and South side of the proposed overpass to facilitate the handling of cattle. Cattle are notoriously difficult to handle and these will be required from a welfare and safety perspective. The pens and fencing must be cattle proof as this will allow for farming activities to continue. If PROWs are to be imposed on the access tracks alongside any private means of access then there must be a segregated design whereby any joint use is kept separate with appropriate fences and hedges. The combining of private and public access could have serious consequences and poses a significant risk to the safety of both users. 6. Accommodation Works and Other Matters The cattle handling pens at approximate grid reference NY 67107 21764 appear to be affected by the environmental mitigation and will need to be relocated with an access over the ‘proposed ditch’ from the access track to the balancing / attenuation pound to allow for normal field access."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of William Edward Patterson
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East and South of the Café Sixty Six. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There is a private water main which runs from the Taylor and Braithwaite yard through a culvert under the A66 at point NY 73564 16995 and to the land on the North side of the A66. If this service is severed during construction this will seriously hamper the normal farming business as there will be no water for grazing animals. There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Satisfied that the PROW is now to the North of the proposed A66 near to the Café Sixty Six location. Any PROWS could have serious detrimental impacts to the current extensive free range egg laying unit. There could be serious detrimental impacts to the current enterprise including biosecurity and welfare standards. Further access points are required o the North side of the proposed A66 to access agricultural land, these are at points NY 72323 17758, NY 72565 17649 and NY 72808 17523. These accesses are required to allow for the continuous running of the farming business. Satisfied with the replacement of the sheep handling pens, however, they need to be relocated into a more practical location. This requires further consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of William Patterson
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land to the East and South of the Café Sixty Six. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There is a private water main which runs from the Taylor and Braithwaite yard through a culvert under the A66 at point NY 73564 16995 and to the land on the North side of the A66. If this service is severed during construction this will seriously hamper the normal farming business as there will be no water for grazing animals. There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Satisfied that the PROW is now to the North of the proposed A66 near to the Café Sixty Six location. Any PROWS could have serious detrimental impacts to the current extensive free range egg laying unit. There could be serious detrimental impacts to the current enterprise including biosecurity and welfare standards. Further access points are required o the North side of the proposed A66 to access agricultural land, these are at points NY 72323 17758, NY 72565 17649 and NY 72808 17523. These accesses are required to allow for the continuous running of the farming business. Satisfied with the replacement of the sheep handling pens, however, they need to be relocated into a more practical location. This requires further consultation."
Members of the Public/Businesses
H&H Land and Estates on behalf of Yvonne Julie Dent
"Interested Party and Affected Landowner and Farmer We set out below our representations, objections and observations in regard to the freehold land to be acquired as part of the development consent order (“the DCO”) being sought for the National Highways A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”). No individual land plans have been provided to show the schedule and areas of land to be acquired. The affected land is agricultural land near to Kirkby Thore and land close to Powis House. The parties do not object to the A66 NTP Project in principle however we make the following representations: 1. Permanent Acquisition and Temporary Land occupation The current red line boundary which National Highways have identified in the design drawings are excessive. Suggestion to refine the red line boundary and reduce the land take. From these plans it is not understood whether the entirety of the red line boundary is to be permanently acquired or rights are to be sought on a temporary basis. If land is to be acquired on temporary basis, what are the agreements and reservations. Further clarity must be provided by National Highways on this point. Object to the proposed design as the road is now immediately adjacent to Powis House farm steading and very close proximity to the residential property which will devalue the farm and will create significant noise pollution. 2. Environmental Mitigation The amended environmental mitigation requirements have not been published for consultation, nor have the management prescriptions been disclosed until following the DCO application. The proposed Environmental Mitigation land is excessive and does not take into consideration or rationalise any comparison to the future losses to agricultural business. The losses to the agricultural business must outweigh any environmental mitigation consideration and therefore my clients fundamentally object to the proposals. The majority of the designated Environmental Mitigation land is on highly productive agricultural land. If appropriate consultation had occurred, then alternative mitigation areas could have been identified by my clients on the less productive areas. The habitat types and conditions referred to in the environmental mitigation design has been based on the Biodiversity Metric 2.0, the most up to date Biodiversity metric is the Biodiversity Metric 3.1, therefore the most informed and technical data has not been used on this project to identify and mitigate any environmental loss. Without prejudice, the permanent acquisition of land for the environmental mitigation may be unnecessary as my clients may wish to offer rights and enter into restrictive and enforceable positive covenants to manage these areas in an agreed manner. Detailed or draft Habitat Management commitment agreements have not been provided for review to facilitate the environmental mitigation land, as such the future impacts and landowner requirements are not yet known. 3. Private Utility connections There has been no consultation on the private utility supplies on the land affected by the scheme. There are several private water mains, electricity and fibre connections which are apparently severed by the design and there has been no consideration as to how these will be mitigated. Most private utility pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. If these are severed and damaged during construction, this could have serious negative impacts on not only domestic beneficiaries but also agricultural purposes. 4. Drainage Consultation Object to the large attenuation/balancing ponds which sits immediately to the East of Powis House, there is great concern that in periods of heavy rainfall that this could flood the farm steading. The balancing ponds should be rationalised into the least number of ponds necessary thus reducing access and potential issues with outfall drainage. There is a concern as to how these balancing/attenuation ponds are going to connect into existing drainage networks as no consultation has been undertaken. There has been no consultation on the impact on drainage nor any management plan for the work which will be required to existing ditches drains and culverts. This is a major oversight as most of the land affected by the scheme is highly productive agricultural land. Most drainage pathways are not delineated on plans and are merely known by my clients who have occupied the land for many years. Any severance and damage to these drains could have a serious impact on the use of the land and therefore the farming businesses. Drainage can also be a major problem many years post construction and no assurance has been provided to detail how this will be managed. 5. Access and additional Public Rights of Way (PROWS) Objection to any joint private access tracks and PROWS which are identified together, any joint access routes must be segregated and kept separate by fencing and hedgerows. The combining of private access predominantly for the use of agriculture and public access could have serious consequences and pose a serious risk to the safety of both users. Objection to additional land take adjacent to the old A66 for use as a cycleway. This is not an efficient use of good quality agricultural land and causes additional land take to landowners already heavily affected by the scheme. 6. Layby Locations Objection to the proposed location of the lay-by located immediately adjacent to Powis House farm steading which includes a residential property. The location of this lay-by will result in additional nuisance and excessive injurious affection. Litter will be deposited in the lay-bys and blow into the nearby fields which could cause health and safety concerns for grazing animals. There could also be security issues to Powis House farm steading which is located very close to the lay-by. The lay-bys should be located in more secluded and favourable locations along the route."
Members of the Public/Businesses
A.W. Jenkinson
"1. I, Allan Jenkinson am the owner occupier of Whinfell Park Farm, Penrith, a substantial arable and livestock farm. 2. I hold a tenancy on the eastward adjoining holding, Whinfell House, owned by Winderwath Settled Estate. 3. The two holdings are farmed as one and support a pedigree Limousin herd and substantial ewe flock. 4. The livestock enterprise utilises modern buildings at Whinfell Park Farm, surrounded by Grades 2 and 3 agricultural land. 5. The farm is located east of Penrith, occupying land north and south of the A66. 6. The proposed dualling scheme follows closely the A66 and requires land acquisition north and south of the existing highway. 7. Since commencement of negotiations in 2019 I have cooperated with Winderwath Estate regarding work affecting the tenanted holding. 8. Mitigation proposals affect both holdings. We have successfully negotiated mitigation on my own land but 14 acres of tenanted land at Whinfell House are designated as woodland. This will adversely affect my business. 9. The SRG proposed on my land should run only from roadside to field boundary wall, avoiding interference with livestock operations. 10. My landlord has planted c18 acres of woodland close to the highway for the specific purpose of mitigation of environmental impact. I strongly support their submission that this should be considered when assessing further mitigation requirements. 11. The scheme proposes creation of a public access north of the completed road for pedestrians and cyclists, also to be used by farm staff for livestock and farm machinery. This is clearly a safety concern and should be reconsidered. 12. I understand the existing public footpath running up the side of Barn/Schoolhouse field is being rerouted. To avoid serious Health, Safety and security risks to both my employees and the public, I suggest rerouting to run alongside the Centre Parcs access road. We are happy with our Position Statement – negotiated in meetings with the HA team. Accommodation works remain to be clarified at detailed design stage – the fundamental outstanding issues being: • The safety of the access road proposed to double as a public right of way. • The doubling of the number of balancing ponds because of separate local authority and Highways requirements. • Future maintenance responsibilities for the proposed public access route. • If new woodland is required on Winderwath Estate, future maintenance liabilities including livestock fencing, must be addressed. The proposed woodland planting on part of the tenanted land at Whinfell House will adversely affect my agricultural operation and my landlord considers that it is unnecessary because of the extensive adjoining planting completed at their expense specifically for mitigation purposes. • The current design suggests that the access road is diverted around the balancing ponds. This is inappropriate for large agricultural machinery and the designers should consider siting the access road immediately parallel to the A66."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anthony Rae
"In 2000-2001 I participated as a representative of Friends of the Earth on the reference group for the Highways Agency safety study A66 Penrith to Scotch Corner. Thereafter I made representations to the Yorkshire & Humberside regional assembly concerning development proposals emerging from that study. Subsequently I have also contributed to the processes organised by Transport for the North in their review of potential highway investments, including for this corridor, and to some extent in the current National Highways process leading up to the current project. I also co-ordinated the work by which environmental campaigners successfully proposed to Transport for the North that their strategic transport plan should include a commitment to reduce transport carbon emissions in line with the requirements of the Climate Change Act, resulting in their decarbonisation strategy published in 2021. My involvement in all these processes over two decades has allowed me to understand and recognise the significance of the proposed development even though I live outside the A66 corridor. (But please note I would be participating as an individual and not as a representative of FOE). My submissions will concern four principal issues: whether the need for the scheme has been adequately demonstrated; what will be the consequences for the volume of road traffic on the A66 corridor immediately but also beyond; the carbon emissions which will be generated as a result of the scheme; and the consequences of the scheme for the natural environment and landscape along the length of its corridor."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Bowes and Romaldkirk Charities Estate
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour vi) On-going responsibility for accesses, infrastructure and landforms created - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Brogden Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cumbria Constabulary
"OUR REF: CUMBRIA CONSTABULARY AND POLICE AND CRIME COMMISSIONER FOR CUMBRIA YOUR REF TR010062. A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project PLANNING ACT 2008 SECTION 56: NOTIFYING PERSONS OF ACCEPTED APPLICATION THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (APPLICATIONS: PRESCRIBED FORMS AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 2009: REGULATION 8 THE INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2017: REGULATION 16 We write in response to the above proposed development and your letter of 27th July 2022. We object to your proposal around the development consent order (DCO) and compulsory purchase order (CPO) effecting the police headquarters site at Carleton Hall, Penrith , Cumbria, CA10 2AU. We are opposed to both extent of the DCO and any compulsory purchase of the Police and Crime Commissioners land to the east of the headquarters complex. We object on the grounds that the proposal will impact on operational policing undertaken from the site. The subject land is held for future development, recognising the sites strategic importance within the police estate. Given the importance of the site and inevitable growth we are strongly opposed to loosing this area and believe it could have a significant impact on how we effectively deliver our services to the people of Cumbria. Throughout the design stage we have actively engaged with members of the NTP design team and provided you with an overview of the functions provided from this site. We do not consider the current proposals adequately address the concerns we have raised. The latest proposal has the potential to close the door to any growth of the headquarters site and limit our ability to adapt to meet future operational needs. In the wider context it has the potential to impact on the viability of the current site. There remains a lack of clarity around the impact and buildability of the road. We have repeatedly asked for detail so we can assess the impact of this on our site. We have had little to no detail on the construction phase including the buildability, the impact to our day-to-day operations, maintenance of critical services and how traffic flows will be maintained. We remain committed to work with the design team to find solutions for all parties. Our response should be read in conjunction with that of our partners at Cumbria County Council and Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service."
Local Authorities
response has attachments
Cumbria County Council
"Application by National Highways for an Order Granting Development Consent for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project (“the Project”) (also referred to as the A66 Trans-Pennine Dualling Project) Relevant Representation of Cumbria County Council This representation is made by Cumbria County Council (“the Council”) to explain in summary the matters that it wishes to raise and have considered during the Examination. The Council has been working closely with Eden District Council during the pre-application stage of the Project supported by a Planning Performance Agreement (“PPA”) with National Highways and currently intends to submit a joint Local Impact Report (“LIR”) at the appropriate stage of the Examination process. A draft LIR has been prepared, which identifies the impacts which officers consider to be the most significant. However, the LIR will need to be formally approved by each local authority and consequently there may be additional matters which are raised. Until the submission of the application for the Project the Council was adequately resourced through the PPA to respond to the consultations and engagement with National Highways. Since then, there has been minimal support and the Council has lacked the resources to carry out a review of the application documents. It is not clear therefore, if the Project as submitted has addressed the Council’s concerns which were raised in consultation responses. The Council has been left with no alternative but to raise these issues in this representation and set them out in more detail within the accompanying Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statement (“PADSS”). There is a need to resolve this resourcing issue to enable the Council to engage effectively with National Highways, engage in the application process and contribute to the detailed design of the Project to support its delivery under Project Speed. On 1 April 2023 local government in Cumbria will change. The current six district councils, along with county council, will be replaced by two new ‘unitary’ councils. For the area of the County in which the Project is located, the new Westmorland and Furness Council will be created. It will inherit the roles and functions of, and replace, Cumbria County Council and Eden District Council. From this date Westmorland and Furness Council will be responsible for providing all the services currently delivered in those areas by the three district and borough councils and Cumbria County Council. A Joint Engagement Statement is submitted alongside this representation and sets out how the existing and replacement authorities will engage in the Pre-examination and Examination stages of the Application process. This representation relates only to the matters of most concern to the Council. Support for the Project 1. The Council supports the principle of dualling the remaining single carriageway sections of the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner, as well as improvements to junctions along the route. A suitably designed scheme will improve connectivity within and beyond Cumbria, improve resilience, road safety and journey time reliability, and help to support future economic growth and investment. 2. The Council acknowledges that the Applicant has engaged in a statutory and non-statutory consultation process. It is however concerned that the inclusion of the Scheme within Project Speed has resulted in an application that has been submitted against extremely tight deadlines and there are some negative impacts of the Scheme that could have been further mitigated with time for more consultation and engagement and the provision of more detail. These matters will need addressing during the Examination. Key Tests 3. In response to the A66 Section 42 consultation, the Council identified a number of areas where mitigation was required to minimise negative local impacts and ensure the benefits of the Project are realised. These were identified as the Council’s ‘key tests’ for the Project and represent the issues of greatest importance to the Council. The key tests are: • Connectivity - Improving Connections to Local Communities, Maintaining North-South Connectivity and Minimising Severance • Key Junction Improvements • De-Trunking of the Existing A66 • Active Travel • Network Resilience • Improved Facilities for HGVs • Maximising Socio-Economic Benefits • Construction impacts (including Diversion Routes) • Environmental Mitigation, including drainage Each of these issues is summarised below and is set out in more detail within the accompanying PADSS. Improving Connections to Local Communities, Maintaining North-South Connectivity and Minimising Severance 4. The Project should result in clear and effective junction strategies across the A66 and greater junction safety and legibility, supporting both east and west bound journeys. There should be no loss of north-south connectivity or loss of connectivity for communities and key destinations across the route. The main areas that will suffer an impact on connectivity are around Penrith (M6 Junction 40, Kemplay Bank and Skirsgill) and at a number of locations along the route where right turn movements will be removed or where the new road severs an existing route. Key Junction Improvements 5. The Project should develop effective junction solutions that are able to support forecast traffic flows and alleviate any congestion issues (such as those experienced on a Friday at M6 J40) and at Kemplay Bank. Junctions that are critical to diversion routes should be enhanced to address capacity and resilience concerns. Junction capacity needs to be informed by a clear approach to traffic modelling and forecasts. De-Trunking of the Existing A66 6. The Project needs a clear strategy for the sections of the A66 that will be de-trunked, so that assets adopted by the Council are at an acceptable and agreed standard and appropriate commuted sums are provided to support future upkeep. The transferred assets should be subject to enhancements where necessary to reflect their new role as part of the local road network. There is no agreed approach to de-trunking and the Council needs to have a full understanding of the liabilities that may arise. There are specific concerns regarding the transfer of structures as these carry particular risks. Active Travel 7. The Project should support the delivery of an east-west corridor suitable for walking, cycling and horse riding. The design details need to be agreed and must comply with recognised standards, including LTN 1/20 and Active Travel England guidance. Clarity is needed regarding maintenance responsibilities. The design for walking and cycling. The scheme should also address the needs of travellers to Appleby Horse Fair and incorporate meaningful improvements for horse drawn traffic. Network Resilience 8. To increase the resilience of the route once operational, the scheme should incorporate the use of more and smarter technology, for example variable message signs. Consideration should be given to enhancing the existing strategic diversion routes, specifically the A6 and A685. The impact of the Project on permanent diversion routes needs to be considered and mitigated during the planning and construction phases. Improved Facilities for HGVs 9. Consideration of the adverse impacts arising from substantial increase in HGV traffic is required. The Project should act as a catalyst to the provision of high quality and dedicated HGV parking and service provision across the A66 corridor. To support the logistics sector NH need to provide clarity on provision of parking and services to accommodate increased usage by HGVs and parking and services demands. Maximising Socio-Economic Benefits 10. The Project should maximise the economic benefits resulting from the scheme, deriving social value and legacy benefits. This should include support for skills development to enable local take-up up of employment opportunities from the Project, as well as support for the local supply chain to position local businesses to win work. The impacts of accommodating the construction workforce are unclear and may have an adverse impact on the visitor economy, local housing and communities through use of existing accommodation or poor siting of the accommodation. Opportunities should be taken to generate lasting benefits from the provision of accommodation. Construction impacts (including Diversion Routes) 11. There should be a clear construction traffic management plan and the establishment of suitable diversion routes to support the construction of the new upgraded sections of the A66. Potential diversion routes are not suitable without mitigation and fall outside the DCO boundary. Environmental Mitigation 12. The scheme should provide environmental mitigation to minimize harm and boost benefits. There should be opportunities for carbon offsetting across the scheme. Biodiversity net gain is also an issue of importance. 13. The Council has concerns about the drainage proposals for the Project and the potential impact on the water environment. There are matters that need resolving in terms of drainage design principles and details, which have impacts on the extent of land needed for drainage systems, particularly with regard to flood risk and future maintenance liabilities. Other Matters 14. From a property and land perspective, the Council has significant concerns about the land National Highways is planning to acquire on a permanent basis at Skirsgill and Kemplay Bank due to the serious detrimental effect this will have on the Council’s ability to provide essential services."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dominic Furniss
"This scheme is completely out of step with our country and planet being in a climate emergency. The project would increase traffic growth and carbon emissions by 2,190,452 tonnes over its lifetime; increase emissions from its construction by at least an additional 518,562 tonnes, all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement; in total, increase emissions by 2,709,014 tonnes, which is completely unacceptable in a climate emergency Furthermore, there is a direct threat to nature: it will directly impact on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and the Pennine Moors SAC (which is also a Special Protection Area), and the habitats of many endangered species (including red squirrels, otters, bats, water voles, polecat, brown hare, hedgehog and roe deer, and internationally important bird species such as lapwing, curlew, oystercatcher, snipe, redshank, pinkfooted goose, whooper swan, woodcock, redwing, fieldfare, black redstart, kingfisher, golden plover, and barn owl. The scheme should be scrapped immediately."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"The Environment Agency Relevant Representations have been submitted by e-mail to [email protected] in correspondence dated 2 September 2022, referenced NO/2022/114689/01-L01. Our submission includes a Principal Areas of Disagreement Summary Statement and our Relevant Representations which include a number of comments and queries regarding the DCO application documentation. Our comments relate to matters that are relevant to our remit, including flood risk management, the protection of aquatic habitats, flood risk permitting, the management of groundwater and contaminated land and waste management."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Hammond Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Henshaw Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way Accommodation Works Drainage Impact on retained land How the design will minimise additional security works and potential for anti-social behaviour The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Historic England
"NSIP: National Significant Infrastructure Project (DCO) A66 Northern Transpennine Project [Our Ref. PL00586663 and PL00756505; Your Reference: TR010062] Please find attached the Relevant Representations for Historic England as well as the Principle Areas of Disagreement Statement as requested"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Holly Martin
"My grandparents live at (REDACTED) where the Langrigg road meets the A66: I have been going there all my life and have been taking my own child since she was born two years ago. In this special landscape I learnt a great deal about rivers, farm animals, woods, becks and wildlife. My grandmother’s own garden had a huge influence on my career path as a gardener and teacher of outdoor studies and biodiversity in schools. Under the current plans their house will now be entirely surrounded by roads, hard standing and ponds, and their views will be removed by the planting in the fields. It means my daughter will not grow up to cherish such a precious example of countryside life and our family home and garden that now goes back five generations will be ruined. I feel increasingly alarmed and concerned that the future generations are not being considered in these plans. The increased air pollution, noise pollution, destruction of attractive landscape around my family home and the wider emissions caused by increased traffic will both negatively impact the local environment and the health of our planet for many decades to come. The road will increase emissions from its construction by at least an additional 518,562 tonnes, all within the critical fourth carbon budget when we need to achieve 68% reductions in UK carbon emissions by 2030 under our legally binding commitments under the Paris Agreement. I am also appalled by the way in which the consultation process has been managed. It has been both confusing and distressing for my elderly grandparents, for example plans were only produced right at the end of the first meeting. Moreover, the final version of the plan includes an entirely new feature right next to their house, a hugely wide spur from the sliproad (almost as wide at its mouth as a dual carriageway), which was not on previous plans (e.g. those from March 2022). Many of the consultation documents were not publicised and inaccessible unless you had been given the web link. This made it very difficult to fully assess the impacts of the scheme, and to comment. For such a huge road building scheme that will interfere with so many people's lives I am shocked that procedures have been of such poor standard."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Malcolm Margolis
"I am registering my objection to the A66 Northern Trans Pennine scheme which will encourage more traffic when we urgently need it to reduce, as recognised by the UK government, and cause unacceptable environmental harm. This scheme would result in millions of tonnes of extra CO2 emissions, completely at odds with the commitment to net zero by 2050."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Maple Bridge Corporation Ltd
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) Accommodation Works ii) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour iii) How the design will minimise any adverse effects on existing businesses - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; particularly with regard to the effect on existing businesses - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Maria Day
"No alternatives to improve safety have been explored There will be a considerable loss of tranquillity in places due to increased traffic and faster vehicles There will be significant visual intrusion of major road infrastructure into open countryside The development of the road and the extra milage around Kirby Thore and Warcop will cause a considerable loss of mature hedgerows, trees and other habitats. These habitats support wildlife such as bats, badgers and rare and threatened bird species. The upgraded road will induce extra traffic meaning that more and longer journeys will be taken, increasing carbon emissions The principle of construction of a major road upgrade during a time of climate crisis when carbon reduction should be the primary consideration of government makes no sense at all. Carbon emissions from both construction and from increased traffic numbers and speeds will all add to the total of carbon emitted taking us further from net zero rather than bringing us towards the target."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of McSkimming Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way Accommodation Works Drainage Impact on retained land How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement The requirement and suitability and land taken which does not appear to be required for the scheme The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Blacklidge
"Freeholder affected by compulsory land acquisition. Accept the pressing need for the Stephen Bank - Carkin Moor section and support the project. Keen to ensure that Moor Lane remains fully open to all traffic. Despite some criticism the underpass north of Dick Scott Lane is vital to our and other farms north of the A66 and must be retained, as should the west bound slip road onto the new dual carriageway. Would like to see the drainage issues on Collier Lane outside West Layton Manor fully investigated and upgraded to tie in with the new overbridge on Collier Lane."
Members of the Public/Businesses
WHT Salvin MRICS on behalf of Mortham Estates
"Submission on behalf of Mortham Estates Ltd & Womble bond Dickinson Trust Corp Ltd as Trustees of the RA Morritt 1962 Marriage Settlement and Trustees of the Rokeby 1991 Settlement We support the overall objective to upgrade and improve the A66 Single Carriageway known as Scheme 08 We support the proposed junction west of Cross Lanes but would like to see:- The B6277 pass east of Smithy and Ivy Cottages and to then turn south west towards the proposed overbridge to the Stang road south of the A66 The southbound turn off to Brignall for westbound traffic at Cross Lanes be maintained Cross Lanes Farmhouse repurposed by dismantling and rebuilding as existing at the far end of the paddock to the North of the existing location and accessed via the PMA opposite the Smithy and Ivy Cottages The retention of the existing east bound carriageway of the A66 as a PMA to enable agricultural traffic to enter opposite Smithy and Ivy Cottages and to run parallel with the proposed dual carriageway to connect Cross Lanes to Streetside and Rokeby Grange Farms, Rokeby Church (inc School Room and School House) and proposed Blue II interchange at Rokeby Park. We do not support the proposed junction west of Rokeby Church for the following reasons:- It will be intrusive and damaging to the setting and character of St Mary's Church (Grade II*) and harmful to the character and setting of Church Belt (part of the Rokeby RPG Grade II*) for the following reasons: 1. Rokeby Church is set on a mound at the highest and most westerly point of the RPG to act as a classical gateway to the designed landscape and the break point between this and the historic estate landscape beyond. The principal characteristic being the tightly defined route of the A66 along the east west grain with the land falling away to either side to the woodland belts running parallel beyond 2. The Black Route perpetuates HGV access passed St Mary's Church to C165 and requires traffic travelling from the East to access C165 by doubling back from the proposed junction location west of St Marys inevitably creating a tendency to continue to Cross Lanes to access the Town via Startforth and the narrow Sills and County Bridge/The Bank. This additional traffic will also impact upon other Estate property at Smithy & Ivy Cottages, Castle Farm (Grade II listed) and Thorsgill Farm. 3.The Black Route provides limited opportunity to alleviate noise and air pollution for the residents and users of St Marys Church, School House and School Room. 4. No proposal has been made to repurpose the Old Rectory - a building of low to medium historic interest (Arup's Report of 20/7/21) with the consequent risk of abandonment and dereliction (cf Grade II Crossroads Farmhouse at Bramham on the A64/A1 Junction) 5.The proposed southern (Local Access Road) LAR approach to the underpass west of St Mary's church is within close proximity to the Ancient Semi Natural Woodland (ANSW) known as Jack Wood 6.The Private Means of Access to Ewebank and Tutta Beck Farms are shown along the southern edge of the proposed dual carriageway whereas to facilitate less land take and more effective connectivity between the farms the PMA should be located along the northern fringe of Jack Wood (where there is an existing route) 7.No Farm Impact Assessments have been undertaken by National Highways. Notwithstanding the impact of the preferred Black route will be considerable as a consequence of land take for both the carriageways, balancing ponds and environmental mitigation rendering these two units uneconomic through the loss of critical mass, access, character and connectivity with the adjacent farms on the Estate. 8.The Balancing Ponds have been located without thought on appearance, landscape, access, discharge, management or impact upon the farm businesses involved. 9. The proposed location of the Rokeby junction west of St Mary's will be very visible from views towards the Church - most obviously for east bound A66 traffic but also users of the Westwick and A167 Darlington roads as well as from Brignall village and from the Public Rights of Way (particularly FP No 5&6 (Rokeby Parish) leading to FP No 3 (Brignall Parish) which connects the two communities) 1. The majority of planned discharge from the proposed balancing ponds is to be into Tutta Beck - with known Flood Risk Management issues at Tutta Bridge Cottages at Greta Bridge. (evidenced by recent alleviation works undertaken by Durham County Council with Environment Agency Local Levy funding) 2. The scheme does not address safety issue beyond the section limits - such as the PMA to the 150 acres of land north of Greta Bridge in the Estates ownership. 3. The Junction west of St Mary's Church will have an adverse visual and environmental impact upon Rokeby Grange and Cottage 4. The intended snatched and glimpsed views of Rokeby Hall and Park will be lost to road users with the accompanying loss of understanding and interpretation of the historic landscape both within the park and beyond. We will promote our Blue II proposal at DCO stage as we and our advisors believe that this will address the principal grounds of objection to National Highways preferred Black Route and the intended junction location west of St Mary's church "The Blue II Option will bring about less than substantial residual harm on the RPG and will provide more advantages and fewer negative aspects when compared with the other options under consideration" (Southern Green Report Nov 21) 5. We object to the proposed cycle track to pass south of Rokeby Grove and the Tack Room Cottage 6. We reserve the right to add to, change and amend these objections WHTS 2/9/22"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Moss Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The requirement for, and suitability of proposed pond locations on the subject property, and how they will integrate with existing watercourses - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr A Hobson
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Protection of existing services iv) How access and services to the retained land will be maintained during and after the construction period v) Drainage vi) Impact on retained land vii) The rationale for the design of the junction with the A67 - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The requirement for and location of site compounds - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The design of the junction with the A67, particularly in regard to safety concerns - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr C Tipping
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Protection of existing culverts iv) Drainage v) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The requirement for, and location of ponds on or close to the subject property - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr D Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr F Hayllar
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Protection measures in relation to an existing spring water supply v) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The need for and location of bunds and other landscaping proposed to at the expense of productive agricultural land - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr G S Harrison
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) Protection of existing service connections vi) How access to retained property will be achieved vii) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The requirement for and suitability of location for proposed ponds - The suitability of the proposed location for soil storage - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr I Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr J heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr J Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr J Manners
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The requirement for, and location of the proposed bridge adjacent to their property - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr J Richardson, W Austen Richardson Ltd
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr J Richmond
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The requirement for, and safety implications in relation to the proposed slip road onto the A66 at Brownson Back - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr M Carruthers
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the Applicant will mitigate adverse effects on existing businesses during the construction period, and afterwards vi) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour vii) On-going responsibility for accesses, infrastructure and landforms created - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - The suitability of the proposed entry and exit routes from the A66 around the A66 café. - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr P Tavener
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way Accommodation Works Drainage Impact on retained land The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to accesses. The suitability of the design of service roads and impact on emergency services, and the surrounding areas and businesses The requirement for, and safety implications in relation to the proposed slip road onto the A66 The proposed signage designs The safety of the proposed designs on farmers and business along the A66 Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr P White
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Protection of existing spring water supplies iv) Drainage - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The requirement for and location of site compounds - The requirement for and location of ponds - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr S Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr S W Harrison
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) Protection of existing service connections vi) How access to retained property will be achieved vii) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour viii) On-going responsibility for infrastructure and landforms created - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Whether the proposed design will integrate sufficiently with the service road in order to minimise agricultural traffic on the A66 - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mr T Foster
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required ii) Accommodation Works iii) Protection of existing spring water supplies iv) How access to retained land will be maintained during and after the construction period v) Drainage vi) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The requirement for and location of a soil storage compound on my Client’s land - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Thompson LLP on behalf of Mr Wilson
"DCO A66 Trans-Pennine September 2022 Objection – Mr. Wilson Further to our previous letter of objections to the November and February consultation. Please find below further objections following the submission of the DCO for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project. The proposals will have a significant impact upon the farming business. The land which will be affected is used to grown crops on and due to its size is heavily relied upon, the loss of this area will have a big impact upon the farming business. The option to reduce livestock numbers is not a real option, the business has built up the livestock numbers to the level they are today after years of breeding. In addition reducing the cows numbers would automatically see the farming business at a disadvantage, not only would they receive a penalty from there milk buyer but they would be disadvantaged when buying feedstuffs and consumables. • The council have included a SUDS Pond, we have requested in several meetings that this is relocated as set out on the attached drawings, the pond is on the top of the hill and a more suitable location will be at the bottom of the hill, as shown. • The access to the field will also be significantly altered with all vehicles having to drive past the end of the field to then come back on themselves this will cause a significant disturbance to the farming business and also cause a significant increase cost to the business. • The plans also show the remainder of the field which isn’t being be taken for the road being taken for Wetland Habitat, this field is a very dry sandy field and we wish to strongly object to this field being created into a wetland habitat there is a lot of other land which will be more suitable to be created into this which will not have a large impact upon the farming business. • There will be significant dust issues during the construction phase, which will have a large impact upon the steading and agricultural land and the ability to make good quality silage or have good quality grazing land for the dairy cattle. We would request that it be a condition that Highways England employ an Agricultural Liaison Officer for the duration of the build period to monitor this and have direct contact with the Landowners/Agents/Contractor. In addition, a specific condition should be put in place that a dust management plan should be submitted and adhered to prior to the construction works commencing. • The details submitted to date in respect of soil management is limited and further in-depth details are needed in respect of top soil and sub soil stripping, storage methods and measures but in place to ensure that soil is not mixed between landowners when areas are taken on a temporarily basis are returned. These details will need to be submitted prior to the commencement on site and we would request that this is done by way of a condition. We would like the opportunity to review and provide comments on these documents. • The details submitted does not cover the bio security issues in depth and we would request that a condition be placed upon the planning decision (if approved) to cover the method statement to prevent this becoming an issue. We would like the opportunity to review and provide comments on these documents. • The construction and operation of the road will cause significant disturbance to the farming activity not only during the construction phase but during the operational phase of the road. There are serious concerns over the possibility of trespassing and litter problems which will come as a result of the scheme. • The plans do not show any drainage proposals, there are a number of springs in the field which drain the field but also provide a water supply to the field and these will need looked into further. • 10 – Small Parcels of Land Excluded from the Red Line Objection of the location of the red line. The location of the red line across land parcels excludes small parts of field parcels which leaves the farmer with unviable pieces of land which will be unsuitable for agricultural use. The areas are not large enough to consider even grazing stock on. • 8 – Inappropriate use of Compulsory Purchase Powers As the full detailed design has not been carried out yet and the design keeps changing , the DCO includes large areas of additional land required which may be temporary and may be permanent, some of which it is clear that it is not required for the scheme. We ask that this is looked into. • 9 – Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers for Environmental Mitigation National Highways has included large areas of farmland for use as environmental mitigation. There is no reason why the landowners should not be able to retain ownership of such land in such circumstances if the farmer is content to take on the burden of maintenance, subject to reasonable terms being agreed to ensure the mitigation is maintained. • 10 – Maintenance of Farmland – Weed Control Measures On other schemes where large areas of land has been taken, via compulsory purchase land has then been left to lie unused for long period of time. What then happens is then weeds are allowed to grow and the condition of the land deteriorates. National Highways should be made to ensure that all land is maintained correctly. • 11 – Hedgerows Where fields are severed, by such a long linear scheme it will result in some fields being left awkward shapes. A common element for severance is the cost of removing hedges and fences in order to reshape fields into a sensible layout. Since the introduction of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the removal of any hedge which is more than 20 meters in length requires consent of the Local Planning Authority. This adds time, costs and uncertainty to farmers and in some instances planning authorities do not approval the removal of the hedgerows which further impacts the overall farming system of the affected party. • 12 – Interruption of Water Supplies The impact on water supplies, should be considered. National Highways should produce a management plan of how they will ensure water supplies are not impacted during the construction and operational phase of the scheme. • 13 – Land Drainage It is likely that the construction of this scheme will have a big impact upon land drainage. We would ask that it a condition of the approval that a full scheme of drainage is designed by a third party expert and then implemented."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mrs C Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mrs D Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mrs M Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Mrs M Heron
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including proposed public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The availability of more suitable routes to the north of the proposed scheme - The suitability of proposed locations for drainage ponds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location of site compounds on my Client’s land - The suitability of the proposed location and arrangements for the Brough Hill Fair replacement site - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
National Grid Gas Plc
"Please see attached."
Non-Statutory Organisations
NFU North West
"In am writing on behalf of the NFU in the North West of England and would like to use this opportunity to highlight the main issues that have been raised by our members who have been impacted by the project. Impact on business viability – some farms are losing a substantial part of their farm and this could lead to their farming businesses not being viable after the A66 project takes their land. The development needs to make every effort to make sure that farm businesses remain viable after the development has taken place. Impact on business operations while construction is taking place – Many farms will be severely impacted during the construction phase of the A66 upgrade. It is vital that suitable arrangements are put in place to make sure that the businesses can continue to operate effectively during this phase. Loss of productive land when food security is climbing up the political agenda – concern has been expresses that the development could see a substantial loss of productive agricultural land at a time when food security is becoming increasingly important. The UK is currently around 60% self-sufficient in food and the importance of reducing our reliance on imparted food has been demonstrated by the recent events in the Ukraine. Action needs to be taken to keep loss of good quality agricultural land to a minimum. A balance also needs to be struck between the loss of good agricultural land particularly when looking at environmental offset."
Local Authorities
North Yorkshire County Council & Richmondshire District Council
"Relevant Representation of North Yorkshire County Council and Richmondshire District Council The following representation is made on behalf of North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) and Richmondshire Discitct Council (RDC) only. It is likely that further submissions and in particular the Local Impact Report and Statement of Common Ground will be prepared jointly between NYCC and RDC. The Authority has no strategic concern and is supportive of the project in principle. The consultation with the Authorities has been good and importantly, it is felt that the Applicant has taken on board comments from officers from earlier rounds of consultation. It is understood that design work is ongoing and we expect the dialogue to continue. It is understood the applicant is keen to submit an early draft of the Statement of Common Ground. Whilst there are still areas of discussion we are confident any issues will be worked through in an effective way. The following represent the current position from key service areas. Highway Design Improvements made between the Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor section have the potential to deliver significant benefits to journey times that will free up the existing A66 to support all local users and journeys. The Council expects that clear and effective junction configurations should be developed, not just on the newly dualled section but also the existing junctions on the route. We consider that the scheme should see greater junction safety and legibility. The Council requires a clear strategy for the establishment of alternative/diversion routes. It is therefore important that detailed consideration is given to official diversion and “rat-run” routes to support both the construction and operational period of the route and that, where necessary, upgrades are delivered on the local road network to support this. Currently within the DCO submission there are no traffic management details included for the scheme. A clear and detailed strategy is required for the section of the A66 that is to be “de-trunked”. It is assumed that any “de-trunked” sections of the existing A66 do not include a maintenance backlog, and that commuted sums will be provided by National Highways to support future up keep. We also consider that transferred sections of the route should be subject to enhancements where these are considered to best reflect their new role, for example improved junction arrangements or the introduction of improved facilities for non-motorised users. The scheme should seek to improve north-south connectivity where the existing PRoW network has been severed by the A66 in the past. The Council supports an offline route strategy for walking and cycling between M6 and A1(M) as an important endeavour for this scheme, that will bring a meaningful benefit for local communities and other road users. In particular we consider that the scheme should seek to support delivery of a Scotch Corner to Penrith “off A66” route suitable for walking and cycling. This would include enhancements along the de-trunked section of the A66. A drainage review should consider the combining of drainage ponds to reduce costs / land take, along with rationalising of the maintenance of the drainage ponds to be owned by the Council. The current drainage strategy submitted as part of the DCO, gives concern to NYCC, over the existing flooding of the A66 which is to be de-trunked and therefore the responsibility of the Council. This issue remains unresolved. Landscape and Visual Improvements made between the Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor section have the potential to deliver significant benefits to journey times that will free up the existing A66 to support all local users and journeys. The Council expects that clear and effective junction configurations should be developed, not just on the newly dualled section but also the existing junctions on the route. We consider that the scheme should see greater junction safety and legibility. The Council requires a clear strategy for the establishment of alternative/diversion routes. It is therefore important that detailed consideration is given to official diversion and “rat-run” routes to support both the construction and operational period of the route and that, where necessary, upgrades are delivered on the local road network to support this. Currently within the DCO submission there are no traffic management details included for the scheme. A clear and detailed strategy is required for the section of the A66 that is to be “de-trunked”. It is assumed that any “de-trunked” sections of the existing A66 do not include a maintenance backlog, and that commuted sums will be provided by National Highways to support future up keep. We also consider that transferred sections of the route should be subject to enhancements where these are considered to best reflect their new role, for example improved junction arrangements or the introduction of improved facilities for non-motorised users. The scheme should seek to improve north-south connectivity where the existing PRoW network has been severed by the A66 in the past. The Council supports an offline route strategy for walking and cycling between M6 and A1(M) as an important endeavour for this scheme, that will bring a meaningful benefit for local communities and other road users. In particular we consider that the scheme should seek to support delivery of a Scotch Corner to Penrith “off A66” route suitable for walking and cycling. This would include enhancements along the de-trunked section of the A66. A drainage review should consider the combining of drainage ponds to reduce costs / land take, along with rationalising of the maintenance of the drainage ponds to be owned by the Council. The current drainage strategy submitted as part of the DCO, gives concern to NYCC, over the existing flooding of the A66 which is to be de-trunked and therefore the responsibility of the Council. This issue remains unresolved. Ecology The DCO application includes an ecological impact assessment, with associated figures and appendices. The authority has not yet had the chance to review all of these technical documents in detail and will provide comments through the Local Impact Report. The ES identifies that a residual adverse effect remains in relation to barn owl during the operational phase of the development. The authority wishes to work with the applicant to identify appropriate mitigation to minimise the residual effect as far as possible. In relation to Biodiversity Net Gain, the authority welcomes the use of the metric and whilst it is not yet mandatory we would advocate for 10% net gain across area based, linear and river habitats. Cultural Heritage The Environmental Statement includes a Cultural Heritage chapter that is supported by a number of specialist assessments. These include a desk based assessment (Appendix 8.1), a geoarchaeological assessment (Appedix 8.3) and an assessment of aerial photographs and LIDAR data (Appendix 8.4). The desk based work is supplemented by the results of archaeological field evaluation in the form of geophysical survey (Appendix 8.5) and trial trenching (Appendix 8.6). Overall these assessments provide a comprehensive review of the significance of the archaeological resource and the impact of the scheme upon it. I am pleased to see that a Historic Environment Research Statement (Appendix 8.9) has also been produced to guide the assessments and any future mitigation. The part of the scheme in North Yorkshire between Stephen Bank and Carkin Moor will have a direct impact on the Scheduled Monument of Carkin Moor Roman fort and native settlement. The various assessments, particularly the field evaluations, have demonstrated that significant archaeological remains are likely to extend beyond the Scheduled area in the form of a Roman vicus with industrial areas. Various measures have been taken to limit the impact of the proposal on the Scheduled Monument at Carkin Moor by restricting the width of the easement and limiting the amount groundwork. The Cultural Heritage chapter states that a Historic Environment Mitigation Strategy will be produced within the EMP. This strategy will set out the methodology for recording both known and unknown heritage assets of archaeological interest. I have not seen this document as yet but would be happy to continue working with the design team and other partners in agreeing a suitable strategy. Planning Authority Work is ongoing to understand the scope and timing of additional Town and County Planning Act application to run alongside the DCO application. The Authority welcomes these discussions. More work is needed to understand the role of the Authority within the discharge of requirements, Should the role of the Authority become burdensome it is expected that appropriate resources are put in place to support the Authority. Environmental Health The assessment of noise and vibration levels in the relevant chapter of the ES can be broadly agreed with. It is important that all aspects of the scheme are considered fully. Further assessment of the adequacy of dealing with these effects will form part of the Local Impact Report. I wish to highlight some drafting errors on the Draft Development Consent Order with regards to Scheme 09. Scheme 09 sheet 3 Footpath 20.23/8/1 change northwards to southwards Scheme 09 sheet 4 Reference M change 46 to 82 metres Scheme 09 sheet 4 Reference M – junction is BW 20.33/17/1 and Warrener Lane (not A66) Scheme 09 sheet 4 Bridleway 20.30/8/1 Carking Moor Farm replace with Warrener House and change south-east to south Scheme 09 sheet 4 Reference N – junction is BW 20.33/17/1 and Warrener Lane (not A66) Scheme 09 sheet 4 Reference N change 180 metres to 222 metres, replace easterly with westerly We would like a footway alongside the south of the local access road from Mainsgill Farm road to the diverted Public Bridleway 20.55/6/1 to preserve the amenity of the existing bridleway for the residents of Ravensworth."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Weightmans LLP on behalf of Northern Powergrid Yorkshire PLC
"The following representations are submitted on behalf of Northern Powergrid (Yorkshire) PLC as an electricity undertaker for the area within which the A66 Northern Trans Pennine Project project is located: Northern Powergrid is in principle supportive of the above project but has concerns regarding the impacts the proposed project will have on existing assets and their pending improvement works. Areas shown within the proposed development boundary have a direct impact on Northern Powergrid’s existing critical national infrastructure which serve significant numbers of customers in the local and wider area, and the rights for these assets are essential in maintaining an uninterrupted power supply to the customers which Northern Powergrid serves. The proposed development seeks to interfere with Northern Powergrid’s existing 132kV primary substation, pylons, overhead cables, underground cables and access and servicing rights. Each of these are vital for Northern Powergrid’s existing operations. The accompanying compulsory purchase order for the development seeks to acquire land and interests which, if acquired, would adversely affect Northern Powergrid’s ability to use, access and maintain it's substation. It is not necessary to acquire these interests where an agreement between the parties would be more appropriate. In addition to the technical impacts of the proposed development, Northern Powergrid has concerns over the proposed protective provisions contained within the draft Development Consent Order ('DCO') as they do not take into account site specific issues and do not accord with Northern Powergrid’s standard protective provision requirements. Northern Powergrid is keen to engage with the applicant’s legal representative to agree appropriate amendments to the protective provisions currently contained in the draft DCO."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Town Centre Regeneration Ltd on behalf of Penrith Properties Ltd. c/o Finsbury Trust and Corp. Services
"Penrith Properties Limited (PPL) are the freeholder of land to the north east of junction 40 of the M6 at its junction with the A66 (CU138344), identified as plot 0102-01-20. The relevant papers were not received by PPL. There is no information in 5.17 Engineering Section Drawings (Plan and Profile) demonstrating the proposed changes to levels demonstrating why Plot 0102-01-20 needs to be acquired. There is no information in 5.18 Engineering Section Drawings (Cross Section) showing the cross section through the relevant land demonstrating why Plot 0102-01-20 needs to be acquired. if works are proposed there is no reason for the permanent acquisition of the identified in Plot 0102-01-20."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Stead Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Future liability for new landforms and infrastructure iv) Drainage v) Impact on retained land - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The requirement for, extent, and location of ponds - The location and extend of soil storage areas - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs - The justification and requirement for additional public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Taylor Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land - The validity and effectiveness of consultations carried out to date - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The location of the proposed junction with Long Marton Road - The requirement for and location of site compounds - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of The Kenneth Thompson Discretionary Will Trust
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the design will minimise additional security works and potential for anti-social behaviour The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Morbaine Limited on behalf of Trustees of Morbaine Ltd Directors Pension Scheme
"My client has no objection to the scheme in principle, but they are concerned with a small element of the proposed ‘Environmental Mitigation’ which will impact on their current landholding and, more importantly, the future business operation of their tenants. My client currently owns the existing B&M Homestore and former KFC drive-thru unit which are accessed off the Kemplay Bank roundabout and the A6 (Bridge Lane) in Penrith. The location of the former KFC unit (which has recently been re-let to Tim Hortons for a coffee drive thru unit), seeks to take advantage of passing trade using the Kemplay Bank roundabout and Bridge Lane (A6). Whilst the unit’s visibility on to Bridge Lane will be largely unaffected by the proposed scheme, it would appear that environmental mitigation measures that are planned on part of my client’s land will involve the creation of a small woodland area fronting the roundabout. The planting of additional trees in this location would create a significant screen which would obscure any view of the new Tim Horton’s drive-thru unit from the roundabout - thereby impacting on the ability to attract passing trade. Once the scheme is implemented, there will have already been a major impact created by removing an element of passing trade - as cars heading east will now go under the Kemplay Bank roundabout rather than going around it. This appears to have been one of the reasons that influenced KFC not to renew their lease at my client’s unit in Penrith. Notwithstanding that, my client would not like to see this impact compounded by the fact that the new occupiers of the former KFC (Tim Hortons) would be obscured from the existing junction by the planting of new trees or woodland. We understand the need to provide additional planting to help create a bio-diversity net gain. However, we believe that there are more suitable locations that could be selected for the planting of additional trees which would have less of an impact on new and existing businesses. My client has no issue with their identified land being used for low level planting including grassland and shrubs so long as there is no impact on the visibility of the Tim Horton’s unit. This issue was discussed with National Highways on the 14th of June 2022. From the minutes that were recorded, National Highways agreed to take this up with the Environmental Team dealing with the proposal. As of yet, we have had no feedback from our meeting on the 14th of June. Furthermore, my client is also unclear as to why the bus stop on Bridge Lane is included within the red line (and the proposed compulsory purchase). It is not clear if it is the intention to remove the existing bus stop on Bridge Lane (as part of the scheme) which again would be a major issue impacting on the accessibility of the Home Bargain’s unit. This was also raised with National Highways but we have yet to receive a response."
Members of the Public/Businesses
United Utilities
"United Utilities wishes to submit the following to summarise the position to date as we confirm our registration as an interested party for the A66 Northern Trans Pennine Project. The representation is also shared by email to the National Highways email address for the project, [email protected] National Highways have been part of ongoing discussions with United Utilities so will be aware that we have various water and wastewater assets within the boundary of the project, including the access to Penrith Wastewater Treatment Works. United Utilities seeks to continue the partnership with National Highways and associated stakeholders to ensure the safe and sustainable delivery of this project. United Utilities wish to continue the coordinated approach to delivering the scheme to date. We request further correspondence to identify any potential issues and find the appropriate resolutions. The discussions as part of the examination should include: • Statement of Common Ground; • Protective Provisions; and • Any formal Side Agreement (if required) to protect United Utilities assets. United Utilities seeks to support the delivery of the scheme but we are also keen to ensure that our customers are not detrimentally impacted by the development. The services that we provide to our customers and the water quality and environmental standards that we have to achieve must be considered as part of any continuing discussions with National Highways and any associated stakeholders. We trust the above comments are useful in explaining United Utilities’ current position in relation to the scheme to date. If you wish to discuss the contents of this representation in further detail, please do not hesitate to contact the team by email at [email protected] Yours faithfully Planning, Landscape and Ecology United Utilities Water Limited"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
George F White on behalf of Watson Family
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) How the Applicant will minimise disturbance vulnerable residents at West Layton Manor both in respect of construction and the final design vi) How the design will mitigate additional risks in respect of security and anti-social behaviour vii) On-going responsibility for accesses, infrastructure and landforms created - The extent of any negotiations, or attempts by the Applicant to acquire land and rights by agreement - The design of the A66 junctions for West Layton - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cllr Graham Simpkins
"1) Unnecessary impact on individuals, properties, communities, and the local agricultural and tourism businesses through unnecessary and uneconomic land use. The impact on individuals and agricultural businesses will affect livelihoods and quality of life. A local couple in their 90s will lose their rural idyll and have it replaced with a dual carriageway, a new junction (Langrigg Appleby Brough section), an access road, sink ponds and an additional road directly to the north-west. 2) Negative impact on both landscape and environment, with negative impact on air quality, greater noise, increased light pollution and a multiplication of carbon emissions. The numerous access and egress points along this section will increase emissions, reduce safety and increase accidents. 3) There has been failure to consult adequately, to acknowledge or implement local preferences, and to consult key stakeholders. The limited consultation was merely information giving. I attended a number of these meetings where sensible comments and proposals were made; these were never included in the minutes, investigated or acted upon. 4) Weak rationale, poor value for money, economic benefits low, improvements to safety are questionable on the Brough Appleby section and if previous ‘upgrades’ are anything to go by are negative. The cost of the southern route design and delivery (Brough - Appleby) involves numerous junctions, slip and access roads (safety risks, increased emissions), and sink ponds. The route south was justified on the grounds that the north is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), but the minutes (PINS sec 51, Advice library, 17/03/2022) admit the initial boundary was arbitrary. 5) Inappropriate, some would say negligent, use of limited resources in a climate emergency. A significant alternative route proposal (northern route) has not been consulted upon despite local preference for this route. The fact this route could be delivered for a fraction of the cost (as no junctions would be required between Brough and Appleby) has not been considered. A reduction in junctions aids flow, reduces accidents and emissions - all considerations that should be considered in a project of this magnitude. (A survey by Warcop and Musgrave parish councils, Dec 2020: change.org petition generated 914 signatures showing a preference for the northern route). Recommendations in 2019 from the key stakeholder, Friends of the Lake District (FOLD), opposing the dualling and pointing to research that challenged the view that safety was better on dual rather than single carriageways, was ignored and FOLD was not consulted. 6) Potential flooding and undoubtedly vehicular congestion in villages and towns during and beyond construction. Significant land will be lost to impermeable surfaces exacerbating flood risk in an area that already suffers from regular flooding. 7) Poor justification for the scheme: Not justified in terms of safety, despite public perceptions (Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report), the main beneficiary being the transport and logistics industry along with their clients. This proposal if delivered will impose considerable cost on the local community which is based on agriculture and tourism. Poor value for money: economic benefits to the local economy virtually non-existent. Certainly not a Levelling Up initiative as the reverse is the likely outcome."
Members of the Public/Businesses
David Sparrow
"This relates to the proposals about the Greta Bridge junction and the diversion through Startforth. As you can see I live in Startforth and often use the route that will be affected. An organisation has objected to allowing a full junction at Greta Bridge on the basis that some parkland will be affected. The fact that it is parkland and not a natural environment means that it it is an artificial man-made environment. In other words a brownfield site and not a greenfield site. Apart from that many of the trees in the area have already been removed. History (at least in part) is the study of how and why things change. Conservation is about preventing change. The two things are diametrically opposed to each other. Part of the interest in looking at mediaeval churches and monasteries is to see the different styles over the centuries in different parts. Eggleston Abbey is not far away. One of the most interesting things there is that the church part was repeatedly altered and there are about 5 different styles of window. That adds to the interest. The proposed route through Startforth includes taking a lot of extra traffic along The Sills with its narrow footpath where if two pedestrians approach each other then one has to step into the road. It will also add a lot of extra traffic to the bottleneck which is The Bank in Barnard Castle. To increase dangers and increase problems at a bottleneck based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what history is makes no sense."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Diane Thomas
"I am particularly concerned about the effect this proposed route will have on Dyke Nook Farm. The planned route will in my opinion, greatly compromise the farm, by taking a section of it's land and consequently will have a negative impact on the community there. The Northern Route would have much less impact on the community, including Dyke Nook Farm, the local people and the environment generally. Dyke Nook Farm is a place where vulnerable people can find help and support; building a dual carriageway in such close proximity to it will be absolutely detrimental to the work being done there. Dyke Nook Farm is only one part of this local community of people who have expressed strongly their wishes for the Northern Route to go ahead. Please reconsider your plans. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr Piers Taylor
"I am an architect and an expert in terms of landscape impact. In my professional opinion, this proposal will be highly detrimental to the nature and character of this unspoiled part of the Eden Valley and should not be permitted to proceed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Francis Nicholson
"I object to the A66 Project. I own a property in Kirkby Thore. Due to the siting of the junction at the north of the village, Kirkby Thore will become a rat run for traffic seeking to divert to the old A66. Kirkby Thore already suffers from A66 streaming through the village. Whenever there is an accident traffic will spill into the village. Currently they come along back roads and it is predominantly cars as HGVs recognise they would get stuck. However siting a junction at the north of the village within eyeline of what would become the old A66 means HGV will will also be able to divert through the village whenever there is an accident. NH have been asked to consider this but state there really isn’t a solution. Their lead designer has recognised the problem but cannot give a solution. It is clear that in the event of accidents traffic will be diverted through Kirkby Thore which will become a regular event. The suggestion that accidents will be reduced by the building of a dual carriageway is not backed up by the statistics. Several of the A66 accidents happen on the sections already dialled. There are no current plan to upgrade the existing dialled sections which are amongst the most dangerous due to the number of access points straight unto a 70mph road. The southern option around Kirkby Thore would not have turned Kirkby Thore village into a rat-run. NH have been aware of this problem for 2 years but have not acknowledged it in any of the information produced and have not shared this risk with householders in the village. Kirkby Thore is one of only two villages impacted by this project yet no public meeting has been held to allow villagers to share concerns. NH has purposefully avoided holding a meeting despite requests from the Parish Council to control information. The introduction of a rat run through the village has not been assessed in terms of how it will increase residents exposure to air and noise pollution. NH acknowledge that more than 200 properties will be adversely impacted by noise, light and air pollution but have not included within any assessment the impact of pollution to properties on Main Street. These home, several of which are occupied by elderly people will now be exposed to pollution generated by extra traffic cutting through the village and the risk presented by HGV’s and diverting traffic. NH should be required to re-do it traffic assessment and share this information with the village ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Guy Johnson
"I'm writing to object to this project, which will commit £2 billion pounds of public money to the building of roads which will cause great harm to important wildlife habitats, and which will cause a significant increase in climate -damaging CO2 emissions, to the tune of 2.7 million tonnes of CO2, when construction emissions are included.This conflicts with our legal obligations under the Paris Climate agreement. It will have a direct impact on the River Eden Special Area of conservation, and the Pennine Moors SAC, and the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The habitats of many endangered species of mammal and bird will be damaged, including red squirrel otter, bats, water voles and hedgehogs, and lapwing, curlew, snipe, woodcock, redwing , fieldfare, kingfisher and barn owl, which are all internationally important species. The project will cause an increase in noise and air pollution, affecting people, as well as the species, and many others, mentioned above. Local communities will be cut off from each other, and the rights of way network will be disrupted. This is a very damaging and unnecessary proposal. Yours sincerely, Guy Johnson"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Judith Heelis
"As a smallholder living and working near the proposed route I am saddened and Surprised that no one. has arranged to visit this location. The meetings in the Village Hall have been useful however from the maps I have seen of course it is appropriate where the route goes however it is important for me to know exactly as this will effect business and amenity standards. It is now acknowledged that the boundary of the AONB is not the current A66 therefore would it not be possible to make use of this very unattractive area and avoid bringing sadness to those of us living on this section of the route Will it be necessary to lose so many trees. Thank you for your time and attention."
Parish Councils
Kirkby Thore Parish Council
"Kirkby Thore Parish Council [KTPC] made detailed submissions about potential impacts of the road design during both A66 consultations. Some were acknowledged, but others have been dismissed, and others are not mentioned in the consultation report. We understood National Highways had accepted some other suggestions, but these do not appear on the current detailed design. Anecdotally we understand this was due to landowner objections, which throughout the consultations appear to have been given greater weight than the acknowledged adverse effects the design will have on the village. We are particularly concerned about the 70 households on Sanderson’s Croft where many vulnerable and disadvantaged families live. Briefly, main points: 1) Incomplete PEIR and other documentation during the formal consultations, so the effects of the different route options and designs on our local community and the environment could not be adequately considered or informed comment made. We were not included in the separate consultation on walking, cycling, landform and compounds. 2) KTPCs repeated offers to work on the detailed proposals for road design visual impact, environmental, and recreation impacts were not accepted. In particular, KTPC’s proposals in areas which are in closest proximity to the village were not taken on board. 3) The new road alignment means the village will be closely surrounded on three sides by a dual carriageway that carries very significant HGV traffic (27%). Whilst the current design is an improvement, there remain significant adverse impacts on a large part of the population and the environment which are not adequately mitigated. 4) In particular, the design of the southern part of the main northern village junction immediately adjacent to Sanderson’s Croft could be changed to a motorway style junction without tightly curving slip roads. This junction is extremely close to a significant proportion of the population and a change could reduce impacts. The current compact junction and overbridge design will require rapid deceleration from 120kmh to 30kmh plus equal acceleration by the very large number of HGVs accessing the Gypsum works, with associated increased noise, pollution and headlight sweep. 5) KTPCs suggestions to provide additional woodland/scrub planting and other mitigation instead of hedges and reversion to agricultural use, would reduce the impacts of the road and associated infrastructure on residents; particularly in the vicinity of the school, Dunfell View, Sanderson’s Croft, and where the road crosses open fields below Sleastonhowe across high, open valley slopes facing the east side of the village (where the side of the road facing the village is at grade). The slip roads and overbridge immediately adjacent to Sanderson’s Croft are also at grade and the proposed mitigation is not considered sufficient.. 6) North-west of the village at Whinthorn where the road turns towards the south, it runs along the crest of a drumlin and is in significant cut. If the line were to be moved slightly north-east, the lower natural ground level would reduce the need for a cut and sit far more comformably within the landscape topography thus saving embedded carbon. 7) The many severed footpaths all have current proposals for crossing the new road and a continuous cycle way is provided East West past Kirkby Thore. This is good, but woodland planting along the edge of the A66 would make these footpaths pleasanter to use."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lauren Ferson
"I object to the A66 dualling project principally due to the level of Carbon generated. This road is the 3rd highest carbon producer of all road projects. NH cannot suggest the justification for proceeding to build this road is economic benefit, as even on its own costings, NH have confirmed the BCR of this project is minus one . Ordinarily the project would not proceed as there is no cost benefit to the tax-payer. I particularly object to the Temple-Sowerby -Appleby Section. Why are NH being allowed to roll 9 different road project each with different characteristics into one application. This is nothing other than an attempt to push through schemes that would never proceed on their own merits by combining them with others. Each of the 9 sections should be judged on its own merit. The Section at Kirkby Thore is the most expensive both is cost and carbon production. NH have consistently refused to release costings for this section saying they do not exist. The public should know this information and it should have been available at the route selection stage. As this cost of this project is now moving towards two billion (even before inflation is factored in) the section at Kirkby Thore (which accounts for 27 %) is presumably going to cost 500 million approx. How can it be possible that the taxpayer is being asked to pay 500 million to increase flooding risk and pollution in the Eden river, increase Carbon emissions. dig up farmland and expose a village to noise, air, light and tyre pollution. The TS- Appleby section should not be rolled up the other sections. It is in the setting of an AONB, a Special Area of Conservation and a SSI. The village of Kirkby Thore, where I spend significant amount of time, will become an island trapped between two roads. I ask the Planning Inspectorate to consider each section on its own merits and not fall into the trap laid by NH of trying to bulldoze through development in unique areas of the countryside by linking them with others. The main improvement to the A66 will be gained by resolving the build up of traffic at the M6 and Carleton roundabouts. That stage represents the most effective improvement to the A66 and should be built first."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lorna Baker
"My interest in the A66 is mainly about the length going past Kirkby Thore. I have two concerns: 1- The chosen route round Kirkby Thore is acknowledged to require a large amount of mitigation of the adverse effects on the population and this can and should be improved. 2- the project is progressing with a high input money, effort and carbon alternative because the team believes themselves to be locked in to an earlier decision. In 3.2, chapter 3 Assessment of Alternatives it says “Option E (Kirkby Thore Northern Bypass): Was considered to have a greater impact than Option F (Kirkby Thore Southern Bypass) in Cultural Heritage and in Population and Human Health. However, Historic England’s preference was to accept a greater impact to the setting of heritage assets to avoid direct impact to archaeology. The Population impacts were considered mitigatable.” For 1 – An effort has been made to mitigate the effects on the village population of being enclosed on three sides in close proximity by a dual carriageway. The noise mitigation relies almost entirely on the road being in cut and ‘false cut’. However, the eastern approach has a long length with no ‘cut’ between the road and the village and even crosses a long viaduct so the noise can travel across the low-lying Trout Beck flood plain to the eastern village. Acoustic fencing could help. Similarly at the north junction the slip roads rise to grade and the overbridge is at grade and only hedgerows have been provided as impact protection with as much as possible of the land being returned to agricultural use. This main access to the village and the Gypsum works will be heavily used and all traffic is very close to Sanderson’s Croft. Additional measures such as acoustic fencing and woodland are required to shield the Croft. To the south-west the length of the A66 passing the school has a minimal embankment and this could be increased or woodland provided For 2 - The calculation for the embedded carbon has been revised to give a much lower figure for the Kirkby Thore length than the previous documentation gave as it is stated a mistake was made in the original calculation. Exact comparison with the previously rejected Option F is difficult but presumably the much longer length of Option E and with the massive amounts of earthworks for both alignment and noise protection reasons must till be much more carbon heavy and more expensive. The northern route is additionally more than half a kilometre longer than the southern, which must add to the cost and carbon impact. If the southern route had moved slightly more towards the Eden the route would have missed the vicus of the Kirkby Thore Roman fort, the crossing of which was apparently the main reason for choosing the northern route. The northern junction is in deep cut on a curve and thus has very poor sightlines at a position where slow moving HGVs are joining the road. For safety, cost and crbon reasons is it worth reconsidering?"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lynn Tumilty
"I object to the A66 project. I specifically object to the Temple Sowerby to Crackenthorpe Section. Air pollution is an increasing concerns as respiratory conditions increase. We are just exiting a Pandemic where those with respiratory condition were most impacted. Children are extremely vulnerable to air pollution and coroners courts are now attributing child death to pollution. No choice of road on the Temple Sowerby to Crackenthorpe section take the road approx 800 metres closer to Kirkby Thore school. Whilst the impact is not yet understood by local residents as the increase in air pollution has not been explained, this is a risk to children at the school and residents of the village as a whole. No should have included this information in consultation documents but have purposefully failed to do so. This has the potential to make the school less attractive to people in the area. Several local children already attend other primary schools. Schools Kirkby Thore School numbers fall due to the impact of the road during construction it would be devastating for the village. Several families attending the school do not have access to cars and walk so they could not send their children elsewhere if the school declined or numbers dwindled. The impact of increased air pollution on the school does not appear to have been assessed by NH . Air pollution is an increasingly recognised concern. The WHO limits are quoted in various property supplements. For instance the Times newspaper property supplement gives each property air pollution performance as against the WHO standard. What will Kirkby Thores air pollution levels be if this road goes north. Will they fall below WHO levels. This information should be disclosed to thePlanning Inspectorate as part of its decision making process. Other areas are already reducing speed limits eg Wrexham to control air pollution. What should Kirkby Thore be exposed to increased air pollution. Why is the tax payer being asked to fund increased air pollution in proximity to a school and a village when there are alternatives which do not bring the problem closer to the village . Other objections I would like to raise are more general and include 1) This section accounts for 27% of the project cost which is approx 500 million 2) GHG emmissions for this section are the highest of any section and could be reduced by simply upgrading the existing road by an extension of the average speed camera which would also limit pollution and emissions. As NH main argument has been the prevalence of HGV on this route they cannot minimise this problem by arguing that the increased nos of Electic vehicles reduces emissions. It will be a long time before HGV which are the major source of air pollution can become electric. PIns are asked to insist that NH provide air pollution information to the village of Kirkby Thore and redo the consultation with this information available."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Clare H Martin
"Concerns and objections:1) Impact on individuals, properties and communities 2) Impact on landscape and environment, air quality, increased noise and light pollution, carbon emissions. 3) Failure to consult adequately, to implement local preferences, and to consult key stakeholders. 4) Weak rationale, poor value for money, economic benefits low, improved safety not guaranteed. 5) Inappropriate use of resources in a climate emergency. 6) Potential flooding and congestion in villages during road-building 7) Potential infringement of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. 8) Problematic first iteration of Project Speed. National Highways apparently infringing their licence. Impact on individuals and properties, affecting livelihoods and quality of life (e.g. Kirkby Thore, Sandford). My ninety year old parents (REDACTED) , in a beautiful field which will be destroyed by a new dual carriageway, a new junction (Langrigg), an access road, sink ponds and an additional road north-west of the house. (Sec 5 of 6, MapsDCO-000490-2.5 General Arrangement Drawings Scheme 06 Appleby to Brough.pdf ). Increased noise pollution, due to construction works, possibly at night, increased speed limit, more and faster traffic. Reduced air quality/increased light pollution . A total change from Spring 2020 preferred route, never properly explained, endangering the living conditions of elderly and vulnerable people. Cost of route design to taxpayer: running south of current A66, involves additional junctions, slip and access roads (and safety risks), and sink ponds . Route south was justified because the north is an AONB, but the minutes (PINS sec 51, 17 March 2022) admit the initial AONB boundary was arbitrary. The Appleby-Brough and Temple Sowerby sections account for 50% of the costs of the route. The BCR is unacceptably low (0.92). Poor quality of consultation and information: significant alternatives (northern route, Appleby-Brough: upgrades to single carriageway) never offered to public, despite support of elected representatives and local people for the northern route (survey, Warcop/Musgrave parish councils, Nov-Dec 2020: change.org petition (914 signatures). Friends of the Lake District recommended upgrade to single carriageway and challenged arguments that dualling is safer but not consulted. Secretive additional supplementary consultations Jan-March 2022: targeting specific residents when compounds (for example) are a general issue. Unclear information, March 2021 (home visit); Feb/March 2022, told schedule of commitment to look at Langrigg Junction but outcomes worse than in March. Unclear dates for appointment April 2022. Poor justification: Improved safety not assured, despite public perceptions (Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report). Mainly justified by greater connectivity for business (national not local). Economic benefits minuscule. Ugly roadworks will erode attractiveness as a tourist destination. Climate emergency and environment: destruction of beautiful landscapes (eg Langrigg). Unacceptable carbon emissions. Limited photomontages to show theoretical impact on landscape. Scheme contradicts government policy prioritising rail and river. Infringement of Equality Act 2010/Human Rights Act . Discrimination against elderly non-computer literate couple, unable to access information (eg DCO documents). Not informed of route change after consultation ended, problems accessing paper copies to register for examination, minimal information sent. Unable to enjoy property in peace."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin on behalf of Mrs Joy Thompson
"The enlarged A66 should be built to the NORTH of the present road in the area opposite the lane to Great Musgrave. There is plenty of land available there for a large dual carriageway, and the road could leave the army premises untouched. Such a road would avoid disrupting present houses and roads, and would be a simple way to avoid spoiling the good growing areas to the south of the present A66. A northern route would be very attractive to visitors driving along it, given its views of the lovely fells; at present this land in unavailable and wasted. It would also mean that access to Great Musgrave would remain unaffected and the fields on that side could continue their harvests, grazing, etc – so valuable to local people. There are many people to support this plan and we hope that you take it seriously."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural England
"Natural England welcomes the opportunity to make Relevant Representations for the A66 NTP Dualling Project. Attached to this email are Natural England’s Relevant Representations, the Statement of Common Ground and the Principal Areas of Disagreement table"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Crooks
"I object to the Temple Sowerby- Appleby section for a number of reasons as follow This section of the road travels through the Eden river SAC/SSI and is within the setting of the North Pennines AONB. The obvious solution is to upgrade the existing road and extend the existing 40 MPH speed limit. This option has never been offered for consultation even though minutes of NH meeting recognise that this would be the option most attractive to the villagers of Kirkby Thore and also the least damaging from an environmental point of view. Obscure justifications have been given for the decision to build a northern route costing an undisclosed figure, such as the road impacting on the milk quality of dairy cows. This is absurd. The existing road already travels past the farm in question and there has never been any suggestion that air pollution has impacted on milk quality. This justification by NH (apparently raised within another schemes but not supported by evidence) completely ignore the fact that farm on the southern route operates a No Graze/Total Confinement system which inevitably minimises exposure to pollution as its cows are indoors. It is ironic that NH do not extend the same concern to other farms whose both beef and dairy will now be in close proximity to the road. What is more alarming is that there appears to be more concerns about cows exposure to pollution than humans. More residents of Kirkby Thore will now be exposed to air/ noise pollution than currently but there is no reference to WHO air pollution targets. The selection of the northern route means that 1) opportunity to remove a major source of agricultural run off into the river Eden will be lost and 2) reduce residents exposure to air pollution via ammonia will be lost. What have these concerns not featured in consideration of route selection given the rising concern about agricultures impact on river health . Eden Rivers Trust objections have been ignored. The southern route provided an opportunity to reduce pollution to the river Eden by removing the agricultural run off which has led to several interventions front the Environment Agency. The southern route also represented the cheaper option produced less GHC in the construction and operation phase. Why are human health , river health and carbon concerns being ignored? The Environment Agency have been notoriously weak at enforcing river /air pollution. Eden and Borders former MP Rory Stewart has admitted cuts have led to underfunding in Eden. The Environment Agency must be asked to detail the pollution impact of a Super Farm within a floodplain and why protecting the confined cows is seen as a priority given studies confirm the No Graze system has grater GHG emissions. The GHG emmissions of the Kirkby Thore section are the highest for the entire scheme. These are for construction only. Have wider Carbon and pollution considerations been included in assessing the choice of route"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin on behalf of Prof Lucien Taylor
"The road in the section between Appleby and Brough, and especially around Flitholme and the Great Musgrave turning, section should ALL be built to the north of the current road. Here, the land to the north is unattractive scrubland and uninhabited, whereas the landscape it is planned to carve up south of the current road is attractive farmland and very inhabited. It's an irony that north of the road is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, but it turns out that the boundary for this was drawn arbitrarily in the mid-C20 and doesn't signify anything: the land is in fact much less beautiful than the farmed landscape to the south (until you get to the actual fells, of course)."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rachel Pinniger
"Registering as an individual to be greatly affected by the upgraded road. Concerns and objections:1) Impact on individuals, properties and communities 2) Impact on landscape and environment, air quality, increased noise and light pollution, carbon emissions, dust, tyre and road particles on edible crops. 3) Failure to consult adequately, to implement local preferences, and to consult key stakeholders. 4) Economic benefits reduced for some, improved safety not guaranteed. 5)Inappropriate use of resources in a climate emergency. 6) Potential flooding and congestion in villages during road-building 7) Potential infringement of the Equality Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act. 8) Problematic first iteration of Project Speed: National Highways apparently infringing their licence. Impacts: I live at (REDACTED )in my own small dwelling as my only home and also partner in Dyke Nook Community Farm. The road will come uncomfortably close, with a sink pond, new access junction, road to a road-construction site, widening of verges and drains , will reduce the farm property by at least ? and enclose us in roads, particularly during construction. My home will certainly lose value. The purposes of, and benefits from, the community farm will be curtailed, and potentially be dangerous for children and vulnerable beneficiaries. Increased noise pollution (up to hearing impairment levels when working outside as demonstrated by a noise-reduction demonstration during an NH consultation), and due to construction works, increased speed limit, more, faster traffic. Reduced air quality impacting respiratory problems and safety to eat of edible farm produce, increased light pollution affected sleep levels and those with mental health problems. Purposes of and benefits from community farm curtailed; potentially dangerous for children and vulnerable beneficiaries. Cost of route design to taxpayer: route south of current A66, involves additional junctions, slip and access roads, justified because north is AONB, but minutes (PINS sec 51, 17 March 2022) admit initial AONB boundary was arbitrary. The Appleby-Brough and Temple Sowerby sections account for 50% of costs of the route. Benefit Cost Ratio is 0.92, thus unacceptably low. Poor quality of consultation and information: significant alternatives (northern route, Appleby-Brough, or upgrade to single carriageway) never offered to public, despite the support of elected representatives and local people for the northern route (survey, Warcop and Musgrave parish councils, Dec 2020: change.org petition (914 signatures). Recommendations from stakeholder, Friends of the Lake District recommending upgrade to single carriageway and challenging arguments that dualling is safer ignored. FOLD not consulted. Secretive additional supplementary consultations Jan-March 2022 and others-targeting specific residents when compounds (for example) are a general issue. Poor justification: Improved safety not assured, despite public perceptions (Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report), Mainly justified by greater connectivity for business (national not local). Economic benefits minuscule. Ugly roadworks erode attractiveness as a tourist destination. Local delivery and farming traffic will negatively impacted. Climate emergency and environment: destruction of beautiful landscapes, alternative routes could open stunning landscapes to travellers. Infringement of Equality Act 2010/Human Rights Act: benefits targeted more to big business rather than smaller property owners."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Benjamin on behalf of Right Reverend Hewlett Thompson
"A66 Transpennine project, Warcop to Brough section, TR010062 1 I support points made by others making representations as interested parties from the Warcop to Brough section, that the road should go to the NORTH of the current road, not to the south. 2 Our communications from National Highways contain no record of discussion with the Ministry of Defence about the possibility of taking the route of this section to the north of the present A66. 3 In the 1980s a similar choice occurred for the A30 Okehampton bypass between farmland and land in military use: the latter was chosen after a debate in parliament."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Sam Martin
"My grandparents live at (REDACTED) where the Langrigg road meets the A66. I am appalled by the way in which the consultation process has been managed. It has been both confusing and distressing for my elderly grandparents, for example plans were only produced right at the end of the first meeting. Moreover, the final version of the plan includes an entirely new feature right next to their house, a hugely wide spur from the sliproad (almost as wide at its mouth as a dual carriageway), which was not on previous plans (e.g. those from March 2022). It is still unclear what this feature even is. This feels like my grandparents’ historic home in the area is being erased by diktat. For such a huge road building scheme that will interfere with so many people's lives I am shocked that procedures have been of such poor standard."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hipkiss
"Huge increase of carbon emissions both in the construction of said road and in usage - resulting in increase in Global warming. Destruction of protected landscapes and habitats."
Members of the Public/Businesses
William Ferson
"I object to the A66 being granted a DCO . NH have stated growing tourism, specifically the Lake District Park as one of the main justifications for dualling 9 sections. NH have failed to consult with the LDNP. The chief executive of LDNP has confirmed there has been no consultation and expressed surprise that tourism is being given as a justification for a road which completely ignores the UK carbon budget and undermines efforts to meet that target. Consultation should have taken place with the LDNP. The are trying to achieve exactly the opposite and rather than encourage people to travel to the LDNP by car they have developed a policy to reduce journey by car. The LDNP have developed a carbon budget for the park and recognise that the main contributor is travel to the park. It’s policy sets out to reduce car travel both to the park and when visitors arrive. NH have not only failed to consult with the LDNP but appear to be purposefully ignoring their policy and seek to funnel more traffic into the park by road despite the objections of local residents and concerns that this World Heritage Site is being overwhelmed by cars. See LDNP policy. https://www.lakedistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/143820/vision-v2.7-in-corporate-style-pdf. An increase in cars visiting the park is detrimental to the visitor experience causing congestion, pollution and litter. It is a fragile environment and already experiencing the effects of climate change due to reduced rainfall in summer months and deluges of rainfall in winter. The LDNP and Friends of the Lake District both recognises this and are trying to control car numbers as this is one of the major contributors to carbon. NH should not be allowed to simply ignore the wish to control the number of visitors arriving by car when that is in direct opposition to the objectives of the park and local residents. Restricting car journey also has an economic positive as people have to buy food locally benefitting local businesses. The second objection is that dualling the entire A66 reduces the possibility of the missing link between the Yorkshire Dales national Park, The North Pennines AONB and the Lake District ever gaining national Park status. This is surely a possibility given the recent increases to both park. Dualling the A66 reduces this possibility. The Government has set a target of reutuning 300,000 acres to nature. Land in national parks and upland areas are most suitable for achieving this. This project seems to be in direct opposition to the plan to restore nature as it intrudes into AONS, SAC, SSI and will reduces the UK’s agricultural land store. The route at Kirkby Thore which massive departs from the existing road is the worst example. This section is objected to by Friends of the Lake District, Natural England and Eden Rivers Trust due to impact on the floodplain."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Alice Ferson
"I object to the A66 proposal. This project is to benefit HGV traffic. Given the Government objective of shifting freight to rail as outlined in the National Infastructure Report - Better Delivery- the development of this road to assist freight is behind the curve and would seem to be in direct breach of other government policies and the Government Climate budget. As this upgrade is to benefit freight, a 70mph speed limit is unnecessary as freight is limited to 60mph. NH say there is no rail alternative on this route but that is clearly incorrect. The Settle- Carlisle has now received approved to transport commercial goods and is already used by companies such as British Gypsum. An upgrade to this line, which connects into both the East and West coast mainline is an alternative and has not been properly investigated in the rush to advance the argument for this road. Given the climate emergency companies are already ahead of Government in addressing their reliance in HGV’s and many companies such as British Gypsum has internal polices in which they mandate the reduction of reliance on road. The argument that safety will be improved by a dual carriageway should be analysed. Reducing the speed limit in accident hot spots or the introduction of average speed cameras would be more effective, cheaper and produce less GHG than the current plan and given the climate emergency and current state of the countries finances these options must be investigated. The best example of this is the Route to the north of Kirkby Thore which appears to account for a third of the cost for the entire route. Safety is given as a reason due to fatal accidents. No consideration is given to the fact these happened outside the average speed camera section. Requests for signage /extension of the average speed camera range and barriers have been ignored. Any of these would have improved safety and it beyond comprehension why these measures have not been improved or considered as alternatives. The main problem with the A66 is the build up at Penrith. Dualling the entire road is a sledgehammer to crack a nut and 2 billion and rising will be spent without the desired effect whilst ignoring the CO2 emmissions this route will contribute to the climate emergency and draining money from the taxpayer when it is already known the economic gain will never match the cost. More economic and less damaging solutions must be found."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ritchie Land Agents Ltd on behalf of Atkinson Family
"Our clients have been issued with land take plans but no details on whether this is temporary or permanent have been given. The area of land being taken includes the only access to their property from the public highway and will also create some land that will be severed from their remaining property. Detailed land interest plans have been requested but none have been made available. In addition the amount of land to be taken seems excessive. Our clients may be able to withdraw their objection if more detailed plans were issued to them. Additional information and more details on how new accesses will be created, why the land is to be taken and what it is to be used for are needed"
Local Authorities
Barnard Castle Town Council
"We believe that the Black route conflicts with the National Planning Policy Framework Revised 2021 [NPPF] under sections 6 (strong, competitive economy), 7 (the vitality of town centres), 8 (promoting healthy and safe communities), 9 (promoting sustainable transport), 15 (conserving and enhancing the natural environment), and 16 (conserving and enhancing the historic environment). We further believe it is not reflective of the requirements of the National Networks National Policy Statement 2014 [NPS] on linear infrastructure development in terms of heritage, the environment and safety. We also believe it is in breach of the NPS with regards to at least 5.127, 5.128 and 5.133. Historic England have stated their opinion that the Blue Route will cause “substantial harm” to two heritage assets. Given the opinion that “substantial harm” would be caused to heritage assets, National Highways have returned to the Black route at the Rokeby junction based on their obligation to avoid harm under NPS 5.133. The NPS allows consent to be granted - even when “substantial harm” might be expected to heritage assets – if “it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver substantial public benefits that outweigh that loss or harm [NPS 5.133]” (language that is mirrored in NPPF 201). This would allow the community-backed Blue junction route to be considered as an alternative, assuming it offered the necessary public benefits. We do not believe that adequate investigation has been undertaken by Highways England on the potential deleterious impact of the Black Route on the wider surroundings and population via the predicted increase in traffic from the Cross Lanes junction. We do not believe that Historic England’s assessment is accurate in its assessment of either the Black or Blue route. We further contend that our objections demonstrate the public benefits of not choosing the Black route outweigh the potential harm and, accordingly, we request the Black junction option at Rokeby be rejected in favour of the Blue eastern alternative junction. A full Local Impact Report has been prepared and we look forward to submitting it in due course."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cathy Harrison
"I am a local resident and use the A66 Monday to Friday as I work in Appleby. I object to the A66 proposal for a number of reasons. 1. The proposed route at Kirkby Thore is longer than the existing route. This is inevitable more expensive to build and will increase my daily fuel costs. Given the rising cost of fuel increasing journey time is unacceptable for road users. 2.The case to a longer route appears to centre on reuniting the village of Kirkby Thore. I drive this road daily. There are at most 10 houses built along the A66. Set against the no of properties in the village this They are outside the village and separated from the village by the existing A66. AS the existing A66 will remain and these houses will remain as currently situated the suggestion that we should spend what appears to be 500 million on this section of road to improve the integration of 10 houses. This must be a very small percentage when compared to households within the village and cannot genuinely justify the spending. I understand the proposed southern route would have run to the south of these house and achieved the same result so this justification is hard to understand particularly given the he cost. 3. The Kirkby Thore section creates the highest CArbon emission. On construction alone the GHC emission assessment is 602,166 tonnes. When compared to the direct alternative where carbon emission were 177,268. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. Why are we spending more money to cause more global warning. 4. As a user of the A66 access to the BP filling station is vital. As I do not travel through Penrith it is an invaluable resource to local residents. It will inevitably close or I would have to cut through the village of Kirkby Thore to get to it. How can this loss of a local business be justified especially given the cost of going north"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Charles McQueen
"As a conservation professional and having carried out bird surveys in the vicinity of Kirkby Thore over the last 20 years I strongly object to the proposed northern bypass of Kirkby Thore associated with the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project. The alternative southern route would appear to have a less damaging impact on: 1. Biodiversity 2. Climate change 3. Landscape aesthetics 4. Public purse 1. Biodiversity Impact Where the preferred A66 route passes north of Sleastonhow Lane it passes through a field, with a large low-lying area prone to flooding, that is a breeding and wintering wading-bird hot spot. Species utilising the site (see below) include those afforded special protections or flagged as being of conservation priority under Section 41, EU Birds Directive Annex 1, Schedule 1 species of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, and the UK Birds of Conservation Concern classification. The proposed development will result in permanent habitat loss in this valuable area and the disturbance of a high speed dual carriageway will likely result in the abandonment of the site by breeding and wintering species. Curlew (Section 41, BoCC Red list) Golden plover (Annex 1) Lapwing (Section 41, BoCC Red List) Oystercatcher (BoCC Amber List) Whooper swan (Annex 1, BoCC Amber) Furthermore, this field is likely to have a functional linkage to the North Pennine Moors SPA by virtue of it providing a food-rich staging point for golden plover, one of the SPA qualifying species, in the early spring prior to their arrival on upland breeding sites. In addition to these field-specific concerns the 'northern bypass' cuts through a large swathe of environmentally friendly farmland that holds further Section 41, Schedule 1, Annex 1 and amber/red listed species - including breeding skylark, tree sparrow, barn owl and linnet. Again these species will be negatively impacted by land-take, habitat fragmentation and traffic disturbance. 2. Climate impact Given current concerns in regard to the climate crisis and the UK governments stated desire to be at the forefront of combatting this existential crisis the preferred route chosen by the government owned National Highways is somewhat incongruous. Construction of the preferred northern bypass is estimated to produce 602,166 tCO2e GHG emissions whilst construction of the southern bypass is estimated to produce177,289tCO2e GHG. Given the marked disparity in emissions one would assume that there must be some compelling reason to opt for the northern bypass but this was not evident from any of the online documentation. 3. Landscape Impact The proposed preferred route will take the A66 closer to the North Pennines Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, negatively impacting upon the setting of this designated landscape. It will bring development and disturbance to countryside that is essentially acting as a greenbelt for the North Pennines AONB. The southern by-pass would appear to provide a far less damaging option, given that it largely follows the existing route of the A66 and does not geographically encroach towards the AONB 4. Public Purse The Appleby-Temple Sowerby component of the project comprises 27% of the total cost which has a major bearing on the project have a Cost-Benefit ration of less than 1. Given this ratio why has the cheaper southern bypass option not been proposed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
County Cllr Richard Bell
"Summary County Cllr Richard Bell, Member for the Barnard Castle West Division (ie. A local member) and Deputy Leader of Durham County Council, wishes to register his opinion that the proposed Black Route for the Cross Lanes to Rokeby section poses significant harms to our Communities and believe the Blue Route allows the aims of the dualling to be met without those harms. He contends that the decision by Highways England to prefer the Black route is flawed because it is based on a flawed analysis by Historic England of the landscape and conservation issues (see ‘’Other’’ section). He further contends that any damage to the Church Plantation at Rokeby, designated protected, is more than outweighed by the public benefits resulting from selection of the Blue route. Rokeby Junction As detailed in the ‘Other’ section, the Rokeby junction on the Black route although avoiding the listed Rokeby Park places the underpass and associated junction at 190m above sea level and requires at least 400m of break in the current road ‘tunnel’ that has developed over time with the hedging and treelines along the line of the A66. It also exposes St Mary’s Church to the West and South. This damage has not been adequately recognised. The Blue route junction although only 500m to the East is situated at 160m above sea level and its junction appears to only require 200m lead in to the South and 50m* to the North of the A66 (in the listed Church Plantation). *This could be mitigated further by reducing the width of cutting by building vertical sides with gabions. In fact, various improvements have been suggested to the Blue route to mitigate any small effects on this worthless piece of scrubland, and it is disappointing that Highways England have chosen to go to StatCon before these have been able to be fully worked up and assessed. Costs and funding The Black route junction at Rokeby requires the loss of more productive farmland and a more complex junction than the Blue alternate. The Blue route would also allow the line of the new dualling to return to the current line further to the East. Overall the landscape effect of the Black route is more damaging than the Blue. Engineering design Environment (including comments on the PEIR) Highways England’s own modelling shows a change in traffic flow into Barnard Castle in particular a marked increase (*3) in traffic from the A66 into Barnard Castle by the B6277 into Startforth, along the Sills, over the County Bridge, Bridgegate and The Bank to the Butter Market. An increase in traffic congestion in lower areas of Barnard Castle particularly The Bank and County Bridge will have economic and environmental impact. The environmental impact of increased traffic on the B6277 and the lower part of Barnard Castle have not been considered in the PEIR. In the week of COP21, it is astonishing that the 2 extra miles that the Black Rokeby Junction adds cf. the Blue, with the attendant pollution and emissions is not considered. The additional distance to residents of Barningham and Greta Bridge coming to Barnard Castle, their local market town, should not be discounted. The Black route would create more noise pollution, adversely affecting 195 homes and 8 non residential buildings compared with only 16 homes and one non-residential building for the Blue route (p.84 HE’s Statutory Consultation booklet). Traffic, transport and junctions Highways England’s own modelling shows a change in traffic flow into Barnard Castle in particular a marked increase (*3) in traffic from the A66 into Barnard Castle by the B6277 into Startforth, along the Sills, over the County Bridge, Bridgegate and The Bank to the Butter Market/Market Cross. This will have negative economic and environmental air quality harms on Startforth and lower Barnard Castle: “public health issues”. As well as Public Health, Public safety is a real issue along the Sills where the road is narrow, with narrow footpaths making it hazardous and unpleasant already when traffic is heavy. You cannot push a pushchair or a wheelchair along there without going into the road at some point. There is nothing that can be done to improve this road, as it is bounded by housing and the River Tees. Schoolchilden walking into town from Startforth (which has no school) have to cross the road and the County Bridge. Extra traffic will make this situation worse. The area is already congested at peak times and significant traffic jams are likely if the Black route goes ahead. Similarly, The Bank in Barnard Castle is steep and narrow and incapable of safely absorbing extra traffic. The Black route is longer than the current route into Barnard Castle via the C165 from Rokeby, and the Blue route.Emissions! Other (such as any additional important local knowledge relevant to the scheme) It is considered that the preference shown by Highways England for the Black route is based on a flawed Historic England assessment for the reasons detailed below: 1. Historic England has failed to take into account the damage resulting from the increased traffic flows over the Grade 1 listed County Bridge, the Bank with its listed buildings like Blagraves and the Market Cross. 2. Historic England has not fully assessed the alternative (blue) route. 3. In their assessment Historic England have focussed on the (redundant) St Mary’s Church, but their opinion that the black route is preferable is flawed in that: - The Black Route interchange and underpass will dominate the western approaches to the Grade II* Registered Park- because this will be built at the highest point of the route and hence very visible and noisy. - The Church’s location mimics the positioning of Mausoleums along the Appian Way and has acted as a focal point and Gateway on the westernmost part of Rokeby Park – an arcadian spectacle glimpsed through the decorative railings between the Pillars at the Abbey Bridge road junction. Thorpe Farm – also designed by Thomas Robinson (who self designed and built Rokeby Hall) acts in the same way as the easternmost Gateway. The Roman Road at both these points rises up and when approaching Rokeby, the eye is drawn along the tightly defined carriageway to the focal point of the Hall and its surrounding parkland - This concept was compromised by the construction of the Greta Bridge Bypass which reverted back to the route of the Roman Road and thus destroyed the views into the Park from the Carr of York bridge over the Greta – but the views approaching from the west remain (albeit the screen and pillars were moved back during the 1970’s works) -The complexity of the landscape design builds as you approach Rokeby culminating in the sight of the Palladian splendour of the Hall showing off the owners wealth & status but also their knowledge and appreciation of the classical world – not something encountered in the North of England at that time -It is considered that the Black Route will cause substantial harm as the interchange will spill over and away from the roman road’s ridge alignment – the A66 Corridor is framed by woodland belts running parallel to the road funnelling the views towards Galley bank and the wilderness of the upland grassland and moors beyond This is all supported by the 1770 survey completed just after the Morritts acquired the Estate from the Robinsons in 1769 and has been strengthened and preserved by subsequent generations. 4. In their assessment Historic England have focussed on the strip of trees comprising the protected woodland (Church Plantation). It is notable that this is not actual original forestry, having been felled recently (3 years ago?) , nor is there any physical connectivity by way of path or road between Hall and Church, nor is there a view between Hall and Church that would be ‘spoiled’ by the Blue route. It is contended that the Historic England assessment is based on a less than full understanding of the original design and layout. 5. While the Black route avoids incursion into the Church Plantation, siting the junction in this west location would have no ameliorating effect on Rokeby Park itself, as the C165 road would still follow its present route, channelling traffic alongside the boundary wall and separating the Plantation from the Park. 6. The Blue route that was previously promoted moved the Rokeby junction a little to the west of its current location with an underpass that pierced the Plantation at its narrowest point and then connected with the C165 several hundred meters to the north of the current junction. This would site the junction close to its lowest point, with all but the main carriageway below the current ground level and therefore not nearly as obvious as the main carriageway, thus reducing visibility and noise levels to a minimum. 7. Various improvements have been suggested to the Blue route to mitigate any small effects on this worthless piece of scrubland, and it is disappointing that Highways England have chosen to go to StatCon before these have been able to be fully worked up and assessed. The Highways England preference of the Black route is flawed in terms of process in that: Prompted by local scrutiny, agency realised some time ago that the Black route would alter the roughly balanced amounts of traffic using the Cross Lanes and Rokeby Junctions at present, to a situation where 3 to 4 times the amount of traffic will use Cross lanes. Highways England then developed alternative options, showing them to the public as recently as August 2021. It was and remains deeply disappointing that Highways England have chosen to consult on only the Black option, with the Blue not being mentioned unless you ask about it. This is a very unsatisfactory consultation process. The main harms from the proposed Black Route will be negative health effects in particular acute ones from the increased risk of accidents between vehicles and pedestrians in Startforth and lower Barnard Castle and more chronic health effects from reductions in air quality, noise and disturbance. These risks are not addressed in the PEIR. Above are the harms of the Black Route. I would however also like to challenge the alleged harm that the Blue route would pose to Rokeby Park. The proposed loss from the Blue Route junction would be a block 30-50m (East/West) by 15m (North/South) of the Church Plantation 150m West of the current C165 junction. None of the 35 listed structures within the listed extent of Rokeby Park or its environs would be directly affected by the Blue route proposal The C165 and its historic predecessors have always broken the visual connection between the walled Park and Church plantation. There is no public path between Rokeby Park and the Church Plantation, access to Rokeby Church and its environs is only from the current A66. I would contend that any harms to the broad character area and visual character around and of St Mary’s Church would be more significantly impacted by the Black Route junction. For these reasons and noting the County Council’s, Rokeby Estates, Local A66 Liaison Group’s opinions, and the opinions of the great majority of constituents who have contacted the local CCllrs about the junction, I would urge the Planning Inspectorate to mandate the Blue Route junction at Rokeby."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dehenna Davison MP
"As the local Member of Parliament, I write to outline my view of the proposed A66 improvement project. Overall, I welcome the project, which will create much needed improvements to this vital route. However, I do have reservations about the proposed works at the Rokeby Junction, having received widespread representations from local organisations and members of the local community. I firmly believe that, of the three proposed routes, the proposed blue junction has substantially greater merit than the black junction for two key reasons. Firstly, the blue route would cause less damage to the historic Rokeby Park. Secondly, because the blue route would mean lower traffic volumes through the Sills at Startforth, an issue which is of great concern to local residents on safety grounds. From communications I have had, this view is shared by the local council, by local Councillors, and by the vast majority of local residents who have contacted me."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edward Simpson
"The A66 is over-burdened road infrastructure. ‘Smart’ Satellite navigation systems often direct drivers to the A66 when travelling from London and the South East to Edinburgh and Glasgow – i.e. off the motorway network. As the A66 consultation documentation shows a high proportion of the traffic is freight. Keep long-distance freight traffic on the motorway network and many problems of the A66 are reduced. By dualling the A66 the amount of traffic will increase. I find this retrograde and to contradict the UK’s Net Zero ambition and the climate emergency declared by many of the councils the A66 passes through. In 2022, the UK should not be building twentieth century infrastructure (i.e roads) but looking at ways to reduce traffic and increase freight transport efficiencies. I have concerns about the amenity of the Eden Valley and the visual and audial impact on the AONB and adjacent National Park. I was not satisfied with the explanations provided by Highways England during the consultation exercise. I am Professor of Social Anthropology and have spent the last ten years studying the language, discourse and graphic methods road-builders in different parts of the world use to obfuscate meaningful discussion, to promote their work, and to manage public expectations. Behind the glossy A66 brochures is a High Volume road that perpetuates a mode of economy, logistics and distribution which is proven to be unsustainable. The future carbon costs of the A66 from increased traffic go against the stated commitments of the government to reducing carbon and moving towards Net Zero."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Emma Nicholson
"I object to NH DCO application to dual the Temple Sowerby to Appleby (west section) . I am impacted as landowner and homeowner. I submitted a 34 page written response to NH’s Statutory Consultation . This was neither acknowledged nor responded to. I submitted a second separate document hi-lighting inadequacies in NH consultation process at Kirkby Thore. Again this has been acknowledged nor responded to by NH. That is typical of the secretive way in which NH have operated throughout Project Speed. NH should be co-operating/consulting with interested parties seeking to narrow/resolve issues. That is not our experience. Whilst on each occasion apologies are offered for lack of consultation(to include by both Heads of Project) the failure to answer questions persists. NH originally maintained that they had chosen the northern route as that is what Kirkby Thore wanted. They stated the village considered the northern route the only way to remove HGV traffic. The efforts to accommodate British Gypsum by assisting it to remove HGV from Kirkby Thore could cost the British taxpayer 500 million pounds. That figure is rising. NH will not disclose it stating is commercially sensitive. This is taxpayers money. It must be questioned why the British tax payer should pay to resolve an access issue for a French Company (which due to dwindling mine reserves ) now imports the majority of its gypsum supplies from Europe. The problem of HGVs travelling through Kirkby Thore is real, but possibly time limited. It is acknowledged by Gypsum that at current rates of extraction the mine only remains viable for another 15 years approx. The likelihood that St Gobain (the French Parent Company) would continue with a factory once the gypsum supplies are exhausted is low. After 15 years the only other alternative for gypsum extraction at Kirkby Thore would be open casting to access deeper mines. Gypsum say that is too costly. That (combined with the unpopularity of open casting) is the reason Gypsum already importing from Europe to supplement mine supplies. Given the uncertain future why are we spending 500 million, incurring 600,000 tonnes of carbon, impacting on the Eden SAC/SSI, intruding into an AONB, exposing a village to air/light/noise and tyre pollution to remove HGV’s from a factory with a limited life span. It is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The problem of HGVs in Kirkby Thore could be resolved by enforcing planning restrictions. Gypsum were supposed to transport gypsum to the factory via rail and has its own railhead for this purpose. A lack of enforcement has allowed HGV’s to increase. British Gypsum Social charter states they are moving transport to rail to reduce transport emissions. The Kirkby Thore plant is considered one of the key places the company can make reductions. The Kirkby Thore plant sustainability manager confirms that Gypsum are seeking to establish a transport plan in line with its Social Charter. The Planning Inspectorate should consider whether the justification of removing HGV’s ( daily number not stated) from Kirkby Thore can possibly be justification in light of the limited lifespan the factory may have and the other available alternatives. Faced with mounting scrutiny of its choice of route and over-reliance on the benefit to British Gypsum, NH suddenly raised roman archeology as the sacred cow justifying the northern route. National Policy meant the road must go north to avoid the Roman Viccus. This is so farcical that even Historic England have given written confirmation that Cultural heritage is just one of the factors to be considered . This letter is already available to the Planning Inspectorate. If avoiding the Roman Viccus was the dominating factor, then presumably the southern route would never have been proposed. Seeking to rely on archeology over and above all other factors is an example of NH doubling down on its decision to go north and is evidence of its bias. NH even moved the southern route closer to the Roman Vicus in May 2021 when putting forward a revised version of the southern route. Again this indicates that either they were purposefully trying to create a route which they could not accept or that archeology is a issue which can be overcome with mitigation. It is not the absolute bar that NH have stated it to be River Restoration Project It remains unclear how much land NH will take from Sleastonhow Farm as part of the DCO. The frustration caused by NH’s lack of consultation on land take was then compounded by efforts to commandeer an existing river restoration project planned at Sleastonhow Farm. This project is not environmental mitigation advanced by NH. This is stealing an existing project which existed as an easy way to achieve mitigation. Losing land will impact of the future viability of Sleastonhow farm as a business. It makes Sleastonhow (which has farmed to benefit nature for generations) less able to devote land to this planned River Restoration project. NH acknowledge this River Restoration project as important. NH sifting matrix included the protection of this project as a priority. It is unclear why they have not included the actual landowners in any discussions. Eden Rivers Trust, Natural England and the Environment Agency should be consulted on the impact to the SAC should this project not proceed. I wish to be given the opportunity to attend the Examination in person. As a landowner and homeowner (which NH accept they have failed to consult) and as someone whose home and businesses will be irreparably impacted should this project proceed, I also wish to make representations on the following -Cost -Carbon - GHG emissions are x3 than the southern route -Landscape -Impact on the SAC -Loss of agricultural land -Increase in properties in Kirkby Thore exposed to noice and air pollution -Failure to consult on junction change/WCH/Compounds in the Statutory Consultation -Biodiversity loss at Sleastonhow Farm"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ewen Estill
"The current proposal for the A66 is dangerous when set against the UK climate budget to reduce carbon. I want to express my objection The DCO application ignores the Climate Change Committes advice the recent Friends of the Earth court victory which hi-lifted the government has apparently failed to factor in emissions from it road building schemes and also forthcoming Judicial review brought by Dr Andrew Boswell on the Cumulative Carbon of the NH road building project. The A66 is set to be the third highest emitting road in the current road building project. Given the time which will be gained by freight the cost to the climate cannot be justified. As the main objective is to improve the road for freight it is hard to understand why it is necessary to build a road designed to facitilitate 70 MPH traffic give the speed limit for HGVs on dual carriageways is 60 MPH. Given the increase in fuel cost is likely to be a feature of the future and fuel efficiency will be a priority for haulage companies the principal of buildings road to facilitate speeds which the main user cannot actually travel at seems against all logic. The infastructure of the UK’s roads is crumbling. Investment is required in EV charging stations. The existing dialled sections of the A66 are an example of roads needed upgrading to prevent traffic flowing unto a 70 MPH road. The proposed cost of the A66 project is absurd given we cannot even maintain our exisiting road and in the face of government policy emphasising a shift to river and rail. The section at Kirkby Thore is the most obvious example of national policy on carbon being ignored and business being preferred to nature. This short stretch of road is 1/3 of the entire budget for 9 sections. It destroys a regenerative farm which is home to Owls, bats, otters, hedgehogs, hares, lap wings, red squirrels and badgers in order to prioritise a Superfarm and Mining Company. Given the experience of the summer with record breaking temperatures and our failure to invest in renewables leaving us exposed to rocketing energy prices how can we possibly continue to pay taxpayers money to build roads that have a minus 0ne BCR and ignore our climate budgets"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Grant Rowley
"I have read teh Friends of the Lake District objection. i agree. The A66 dualling proposal is opposed. - Spending 2 billion of taxpayers money without considering alternatives to control traffic in a cost of living crisis is wrong - Lifetime Carbon emission of 2 million tonnes in a climate emergency is wrong - The loss of more irreplaceable agricultural land lessens UK food security and is wrong - Failing to protect nature when we know the proposed mitigation does not replace lost habitat is wrong. Bats, otters, lapwings, curlew , hares and badgers are all declining. They cannot lose more habitat"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Clare Martin on behalf of Humphrey Taylor
"My family moved to (REDACTED) in the 1950s and I have visited regularly since then. I am very concerned about the impact of the proposals for the Langrigg Junction on my sister and her husband, both in their 90s, and about which they were only informed in March 2021. Filling a field with roads and junctions which many local people consider not only unnecessary, but also a safety hazard, causing increased cost (the Appleby-Brough section , with that to Temple Sowerby, constitutes 50 per cent of the total cost of the scheme), seems quite inappropriate in a time of climate emergency and cost of living crisis. The Thompsons are both in their nineties, and their current peaceful environment will be destroyed by multiple roads and sink ponds and road works. The local landscape, one of the most beautiful in the country, will be destroyed. Increased noise, more and faster traffic near the house, and obstruction of light, and air pollution, are all likely to be detrimental to their health as well as to the value of the cottage. National Highways have not seriously considered the option of the route going north of the current road, despite the support of local people, parish councils and other councillors, and their MP. The advice of key stakeholder, Friends of the Lake District, to upgrade the single carriageway, was not considered. Increased safety is not promised in the DCO documents, and the benefit cost ratio is low, under one. This scheme has no guaranteed benefits and should be rejected and reconsidered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jane Schofield
"I am a supporter of the community farm at Dyke Nook, Sandford. The planned route would compromise the farm and disadvantage the development of the farm. A better route would be to the north of this section of the road. Leaving the current road as a parallel route would reduce the number of junctions and therefore save costs and minimise loss of farming land. It would mean alternative access for local traffic and in case of any blockage to, or repairs to the dual carriageway. It would also allow the retention of existing established trees. In discussion with those more local to the area, it appears that the views of the community have not been taken into account in the planning"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jo Shippam
"This series of schemes directly contravenes all government commitments at COP26 , less than a year ago , with regard to greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity . This 1960s obsessive road mindset is completely inappropriate for the 21st. century's climate emergency . It will also adversely affect local communities and rights of way . Finally land is our most precious resource and should not be squandered , particularly for such destructive ends ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karen Baxter
"From a community point of view: I live on the A66 very close to Sandford junction. I have lived in this area for nearly 40 years and traffic flow has increased exponentially. We do need a new section of road. However, I believe a slightly northern route of the whole of the present A66 – a complete new dual carriageway - between Appleby and Brough is the best option. It would avoid having to build many of the proposed junctions, roundabouts, slip roads, and bridges currently drawn into the plans. Additionally, and helpfully, the present A66 would become the local road. All cost effective. It will be MUCH safer – through traffic staying on the new dual carriageway & avoiding unnecessary entry/egress on this road nearly every mile. Helpfully, once again, local residents would not even have to access the A66 and this would benefit flow of traffic. The present design seems extensive. Fewer sink ponds would be needed for the reduced number of junctions etc and could be located in poorer agricultural land; which would help mitigate a very real likelihood of further flooding. Local people are CONSTANTLY affected, please hear us. Personally: I am a major stakeholder in the community farm being developed at Dyke Nook. The present A66 design would SERIOUSLY compromise our vision for continuing to develop facilities for people responding positively to ‘social prescribing.’ As stakeholders, we believe the community farm can play a vital role in society by helping the marginalised, vulnerable and those with learning difficulties. This can be gained through ‘hands on’ experiences in agriculture and horticulture within a therapeutic and quiet rural setting; some of which is already happening. Noise and pollution levels will rise whatever mitigation is used. I was clearly told that at the ‘sound’ booth during consultation meetings. And finally, but no less importantly, cutting down mature broadleaved trees to replant should be avoided wherever possible. Moving the route north would avoid this happening and the current established mature woodland would help act as both a visual and audio shield for local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kathryn Nicholson
"I own a property in Kirkby Thore. I am concerned that the village will now become a rat run for two reasons. 1. Traffic using the proposed junction to the north of Kirkby Thore to divert of the A66 and access local villages. A closed dual carriage way reduces the options to leave the road which currently exist and the consequence will be more traffic flows into the village. This increases pollution and presents safety issues for residents. 2 2. The location of the only filling station between Scotch Corner and Penrith is just to the South of Kirkby Thore. It is a very popular stop with both commercial and other drivers. Siting a junction at the north of the village risk traffic, including HGVs , flowing through the village to access the filling station. NH have not proposed a solution to this. Turning the village into a rat run impacts on house prices. There are several house now for sale as people try to move. The problem of HGV’s in the village due to British Gypsum could have been solved by the Southern Route but NH did not consider suggestions to include a designated road for Gypsum traffic from Priest lane directly to Gypsum which would have totally resolved the issue. This was suggested by numerous people in Consultation and meetings. NH have so far refused to produce details of suggestions made by villagers as to how the southern orange route could have been improved. These suggestions were made at public meetings and by landowners but despite written requests to disclose what consideration was given to these proposals NH have not responded to local residents on this issue. Given the cost of this section is now confirmed as approximately 1/3 of the total cost the northern route should not proceed."
Parish Councils
Long Marton Parish Council
"The Parish Council wishes to make representation about the moving of the junction and the removal of the junction at Appleby. As the removal of the Appleby Junction has been totally removed we believe there a numer of knock on effects for the community of Long Marton that we have not been able to express due to the timing of the changes. Furthermore we have not been able to comment on mitigation measures as these were not completed at the stages we were able to comment on."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Clare Martin on behalf of Louis Martin
"As a campaigner for divestment from fossil fuels, I am horrified by the number of extra roads , junctions and other blots on the landscape involved in this scheme. My grandparents who are in their nineties live very near the proposed Langrigg Junction and I am very concerned about their health and wellbeing, both during and after the road works. The Junction is a total change from the preferred route of spring 2020, and local residents in the Langrigg area have never been given the choice of the northern route recommended by local parish councils and the MP, nor of upgrading the single carriageway. Consultation with my grandparents who are not computer literate has been very poor Indeed, an extra bit of road was added after consultation rather than improvements which had been asked for by the parish council chairs. On environmental grounds, the scheme will destroy beautiful landscape, increase carbon emissions and greatly increase air and noise pollution. There is no guarantee that safety will be improved and value for money is poor. There is little enough unspoiled landscape in the UK without ruining what is left. This cottage was being left to future generations of our family, yet the environment which makes it so special may be destroyed for no good reason. We are living in a climate emergency and this scheme is completely inappropriate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lucinda Rowley
"I operate a holiday business in the Eden Valley which has frontage unto the Eden River. I object to the A66 dualling proposal in particular the proposal for the Temple Sowerby- Appleby section. many of my guests book holiday in the Eden Valley to enjoy the landscape of the Eden Valley/north Pennine area whilst avoiding the crowds of the Lake District. Those who travel across from the east on the A66 describe enjoying the unique aspect of the road. It is part of the holiday. It is different. Money spent on the A66 should be spent upgrading the existing dualled sections to reduce access point straight unto a 70 MPH road. The proposals make the A66 the third highest emitter of all UK road projects. The prospect of Cumbria, which has suffered so badly with flooding, adding to climate change but receiving no benefit is upsetting. This road is not designed to benefit the local population. That was demonstrated by the fact the WCH consultation was an afterthought. For those in the hospitality industry whose guest access local walking/cycling routes it is hard to understand why this important issue was just tagged on .Nobody locally has been able to input. The flooding issue in Cumbria is enormous and we are just downstream of the Temple sowerby section. The plan for this section sees the road enter the Troutbeck SAC. That compromised the Eden River Trust floodplain restoration project. Pollution to the river will inevitably increase from tailpipe and tyre emission. Given the attention drawn to river pollution by the Surfers against Sewage campaign and Fergal Sparkeys campaign why is entry into the floodplain even a starter R"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Thompson LLP on behalf of Metcalf Family
"• The proposals will have a significant impact upon the farming business. The land which will be affected is used mainly to graze the dairy herd throughout the summer months, this land cannot just be replaced as it must be close to the farm in order for the cows to walk to the grazing so they can return twice a day to be milked. In addition, once grazed the land has an application of slurry to apply nutrients to get it growing again, the loss of the land will not only hit the grazing side of the business but will also result in the need to erect additional slurry storage facilities to increase storage capacity as they won’t be able to apply slurry to certain field parcels. The loss of the land will result in a large additional cost to the farming business having to purchase additional feed year-round for the dairy enterprise and the additional cost with managing the slurry on the farm. The current plans show that around 80 acres of owned land and a further 42 acres of land which is held on an agricultural holding act tenancy, this total land take totals 122 acres, this equates to 40% of the total land holding of 300 acres farmed. It is also usure as the exact areas which will be required during the construction phase which is likely to be much higher and this will have a further impact upon the farming business. As you can imagine this is of great concern to the Metcalfe Family and will destroy the hugely successful dairy business which has been built up over many years. Thee has been significant investment in the farm steading over recent years including the erection of several sheds, drainage works to fields, the construction of a number of cow tracks and the construction of a lagoon in the centre of the holding. All these will be impacted upon if the scheme goes ahead and many will not be able to be used to the full potential which will result in these being wasted investments. The option to reduce livestock numbers is not a real option, the business has built up the livestock numbers to the level they are today after years of breeding. In addition reducing the cows numbers would automatically see the farming business at a disadvantage, not only would they receive a penalty from there milk buyer but they would be disadvantaged when buying feedstuffs and consumables. • The council have included an accommodation bridge to access some severed land on the northern side of the proposed road, this bridge is welcomed but we would like confirmation as to the weight limit which will be placed upon it and then allowed to comment further. In addition, this bridge is also proposed to carry the diverted public footpath. The proposed diverted footpath running over this area bring significant concerns over the welfare and health and safety of the use of this bridge for walkers and farm traffic/livestock. This land is currently used to graze the dairy herd on with the cows milked and then left to walk to the field to graze and return when they wish. If there is no separation between the public and livestock/vehicles the cows and general public will be using the bridge which will brings serious welfare and safety concerns. We would request that the bridge is extended, and a separate “lane” installed for use by the users of the Public Footpath. • The documents submitted also refer to large area pond on the Metcalf land down next to the school. We enclose a plan showing the suggested alternative location for this pond which we wish to be considered, this area is naturally low lying. • The plans also show a large construction compound and environmental mitigation area, we have no objection to a temporary construction compound but we have enclosed a plan showing an alternative location for the environmental mitigation, if its left in this location it will have a significant impact upon the farming business. • There will be significant dust issues during the construction phase, which will have a large impact upon the steading and agricultural land and the ability to make good quality silage or have good quality grazing land for the dairy cattle. We would request that it be a condition that Highways England employ an Agricultural Liaison Officer for the duration of the build period to monitor this and have direct contact with the Landowners/Agents/Contractor. In addition, a specific condition should be put in place that a dust management plan should be submitted and adhered to prior to the construction works commencing. • The details submitted to date in respect of soil management is limited and further in-depth details are needed in respect of top soil and sub soil stripping, storage methods and measures but in place to ensure that soil is not mixed between landowners when areas are taken on a temporarily basis are returned. These details will need to be submitted prior to the commencement on site and we would request that this is done by way of a condition. We would like the opportunity to review and provide comments on these documents. • The details submitted does not cover the bio security issues in depth and we would request that a condition be placed upon the planning decision (if approved) to cover the method statement to prevent this becoming an issue. We would like the opportunity to review and provide comments on these documents. • The construction and operation of the road will cause significant disturbance to the farming activity not only during the construction phase but during the operational phase of the road. There are serious concerns over the possibility of trespassing and litter problems which will come as a result of the scheme. • The documents submitted makes no reference to the farm’s borehole water supply, the Metcalf Family are very concerned that due to the amount of deep cuttings which will be created nearby that this borehole supply could be impacted upon, in the event it is it will have a huge impact upon the farming business as they rely upon this supply to provide water to all the farm steading. The borehole was installed a number of years ago in an attempt to reduce costs on the farm. • The plans as proposed will see the current high pressure under ground slurry pipe severed which led to the slurry lagoon, this will need diverted over the bridge to ensure the lagoon can be filled up in the same way as before. • There are a number of public footpaths to be diverted we would ask that these are diverted within the highway boundary on not onto land being retained by the Metcalf family."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michael Philip Drew
"I am writing on behalf of myself and my wife, as I did to the Statutory Consultation. We live in a Grade 2 listed building on (REDACTED). is part of the A67. It is immediately after the Barnard Castle Bridge on one of the routes into town. Bridgegate is the first main road in Barnard Castle that is affected by the choice of junction at Rokeby, for the Cross Lanes to Rokeby section of the A66 dualling scheme. National Highways’ traffic modelling predicts that the Rokeby junction of their preferred route (the Black route) will significantly increase traffic down our road, owing to the extra distance to the Rokeby junction from Cross Lanes, and the extra-long u-turn that traffic will need to take to get back to town along the C165 Barnard Castle Road. We believe the alternative Blue junction is the better route for traffic balancing. I wish to register to put forward our concerns about the impact of the junction on our lives and the town. The unbalancing of traffic, which Highways believe will occur, will cause congestion, which increases air pollution; this pollution will affect our health, and our children’s, and that of our fellow residents. Congestion will cause delays and the combination of congestion and air pollution will affect the economy in town – we are heavily reliant on tourism and rural employment, both of which are affected by increased and congested traffic. The route from the B6277 into town is utterly unsuited for heavy traffic, with blind turns and sudden exits, and The Bank (which is the next road on from ours) is a steep hill, which will cause problems for ascending vehicles. The likelihood is, that the choice of junction will make our roads more dangerous. More importantly, I am concerned that the choice of Black route will lead to increased risk to dozens of heritage assets – including our own house. Air pollution has been cited by Historic England as a risk to St Mary’s Rokeby, part of their opposition to the Blue alternative route. We do not believe Highways have discharged their duty under the NPS to produce heritage assessments for the buildings in town. We also believe that their route will cause more damage than Historic England suggest. I also have concerns about the drainage of the Black route at the site of the build and believe that it is in opposition to the NPPF climate mitigation section. Thus, we believe that the choice of Rokeby junction is in opposition to national and local planning, and possibly breaches it, through failure to make the necessary impact studies for the environment, heritage assets, and public health through town. We believe that the alternative eastern Blue route (which Highways developed in conjunction with local stakeholders) is the superior option for the town and I will be making representation to this effect."
Members of the Public/Businesses
George F White LLP on behalf of Mr A Watson
"On behalf of my Clients, I intend to raise through written representations and replies, and if appropriate oral representations at a Hearing and Compulsory Acquisition Hearing concerns relating to the following points: - The adequacy of information provided by the Applicant, including but not limited to information relating to: i) The extent and location of land and rights required including public rights of way ii) Accommodation Works iii) Drainage iv) Impact on retained land v) Access to retained land - The availability of more suitable routes for the proposed scheme; and more efficient designs in regard to the land-take required - Ecological impact, the adequacy of mitigation measures, and also the suitability of the Applicant’s current proposed locations for mitigation measures - Justification for the permeant acquisition of land or rights over land, and temporary land occupation; and the extent of those needs including in relation to public rights of way - Impact of the design on drainage to retained land and surrounding land and properties - Demonstration of the availability of necessary funding We have not had sight of Position Statements prepared by the Applicant or any subsequent reply from the Planning Inspectorate, and reserve the right to raise further points relating to these if necessary."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ritchie Land Agents Ltd on behalf of Mr Keith Steadman
"Our client has a small land holding and the area of land to be taken seems to be excessive. Detailed information is needed on whether the land is to be taken permanently or temporarily and whether it is to be effected by any management prescriptions in the future. Concerns over potential flooding of the property due to the road scheme have been raised but no definitive designs on how flooding is to be avoided have been put forward. Concerns over access to the property from the public highway during and after construction have been raised but no definitive answers have been given. To summarise, lack of information is our clients main concern currently. If more information is forthcoming he may be able to withdraw any objection."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ritchie Land Agents Ltd on behalf of Mrs S Strong
"Mrs Strong is the owner/occupier of (REDACTED). The project will cut the farm into 2 sections which will be accessed via an underpass. The land take plans currently issued show excessive areas of land being taken (more than 10% of the farm). We have requested detailed plans showing what land is to be taken permanently and temporarily and also if there are to be any future management restrictions on land that is to be handed back. Information such as this is critical and has not been supplied in sufficient detail. The road scheme is to be built in a flood plain and has been designed to reduce the impact on the flood plain. However we are concerned that the outfall under the railway line to the south is not large enough to cope with additional drainage water. Current proposals for attenuation ponds etc do not fully satisfy Mrs Strong. Further measures to prevent flooding of her farmhouse need to be put in place. To summarise, potential flooding and excessive land take are the basis of objections. If we are given more information on both issues Mrs Strong may well be able to withdraw any objections."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicola Renison
"I wish to set out my objection to the A66 proposal. I am most concerned about the Temple Sowerby - Appleby section. I particularly object to the agricultural land take this road will result in at a time when maintaining the country’s ability to produce its own food is crucial. As a Farmer currently adopting regenerative principals, the role of land in carbon capture is only just becoming fully understood. Does the carbon analysis completed by NH fully account for the loss of soil in future carbon analysis. Regenerative farming and carbon neutral food is increasingly popular. I am a Partner in a farming enterprise called Carbon Calling. We focus on how soil can be used to reduce carbon in agriculture. Sleastonhow Farm is our host farm. It is severely impacted by the proposed Kirkby Thore northern route. The road would result in our host farm , Sleastonhow Farm, losing our demonstration fields which have been host to several educational days. Mature hedgerow, tree planting and flood management options will all be lost in addition to agricultural food production. Sleastonhow Farm is unique in the Kirkby Thore area as it is no longer a dairy farm and it has been managed to benefit nature. As Sleastonhow farm is within a European SAC that is a major benefit and it has been consistently working with other environmental agencies such as the EDen River Trust and Countryside Stewardship projects for several years . This is exactly the sort of land management we should be protecting. Allowing the road to run parcelled to the Troutbeck SAC is a concern for the Eden Rivers Trust who strongly opposed the selection of the NorthernRoute . N02 emmissions from HGVs is an increasing concern for air pollution and within the Troutbeck SAC there is the additional concern that when combined with rain it will create nitric acid which will run off into the the Troutbeck . What assessment of the impact of Nitric acid on the Troutbeck has been completed? In March 2022 Natural England issued a Nutrient Nutriality Notification to Eden District Council, as many parts of the Eden Area fall within European protection. This includes the Eden River which is severely polluted due to agricultural run off. Development in the area is paused which is having a major impact of householders who are trying to achieve planning permission on even small project such as an extension. Why is the same consideration of nut irritation of the Eden River not being given to the additional impact of additional vehicle use, siting compounds and the impact of run of in the Troutbeck SAC from the proposed A66 . The Planning Inspectorate must have more information on nutrification of the SAC. Electric vehicles are not going to be a solution as most emissions come from HGV. Currently traffic passes through the Kirkby Thore section of the A66 at 40 MPH. Rather than speed up the road and increase traffic in this SAC, the Status Quo should prevail and the speed restriction should be extended."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nina Caygill
"I am a local resident and object to the A66 dualling in particular the Temple Sowerby - Appleby section which I fear will have a detrimental impact on the North Pennine AONB. The physical boundary created by the Eden River means that between Penrith and Temple Sowerby there is no possibility for traffic from the A66 to filter unto local roads when there is an incident on the A66. This is increasingly an issue and causes real risk to users of the fellside roads in particular runners, cyclist and horse rider. The introduction of a further junction north of the existing A66 at Kirkby Thore will inevitable lead to traffic spilling unto these roads within the AONB which will change the character of the villages and interrupt the tranquility of these traditional village. The introduction of a major trunk road into the the setting of the AONB by the choice to bring the road out of its existing channel at Kirkby Thore is inexcusable. I understand that NH have consistently failed to consult with Friends of the Lake District who are the charity responsible for landscape. I seem that Natural England, who I understand are the Statutory body tasked with representing the public on landscape issues have nto given any response on this issue despite teh acknowledgement that there will be a severely adverse impact on landscape in the Kirkby Thore area. The approach seems utterly inconsistent with the approach taken by NH at Warcop where the AONB seems to be untouchable. Given that recreational use of the AONB is greater in the Kirkby Thore area due its accessibility for visitors to Centre Parcs and the presence of local communities, surely preserving the character and integrity of the landscape in this area is eqully important. It cannot be acceptable to ignore landscape in the setting of an AONB and the Lake District World Heritage Site in this way. Landscape issues need proper examination."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Parker Family
"We object to the proposed change in road infrastructure on the A66 at Kirkby Thore. This is due to the significant environmental impact of the project which we believe will do far more harm than benefit. Our Country is facing a climate and biodiversity crisis, Central and Local Government have declared a climate emergency and National Highways has put in place a Net Zero Highways Plan. The proposed changes to the A66 will increase carbon emissions during the construction phase through significant new infrastructure and once operational due to the increased speed of passing traffic. The proposed changes will also impact biodiversity and degrade the tranquility of the surrounding landscape. This project therefore runs counter to new Government policy and presents a significant increase in carbon emissions for minimal benefit to travel time. The climate and biodiversity crisis should be carefully analysed against the benefits of new developments and we believe that the significant environment impact of this proposal does not justify its development."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Caygill
"I object to the A66 application for a DCO. I am concerned about the impact of this project on the River Eden and share the view of the Eden River Trust that ther route selected in detrimental to the river Eden. The introduction of a major trunk road into the floodplain will inevitably cause harm and no level of mitigation can prevent this. The A66 already contribute to run off which pollutes the river and adds micro plastics mostly from tyre. How does Highways say they will mitigate this in high flood events such as those experienced by Cumbria. The river should not be exposed to more pollution. The Eden flow into the Solway and contributes to pollution in the Irish Sea. We are already the subject of criticism from our French neighbours for water pollution. We cannot risk the Eden River, an SAC , becoming more polluted. The amount of agricultural land that will be eradicated by this project removes the availability of agricultural land to act of flood storage. The more land that is taken to build over and sustain junctions/slip roads and mitigation the less is available for future mitigation. Eden Rivers Trust project to rewiggle a section of the Flood Plain is a example. Is land is taken from local farmers they are less likely to make land available for projects that benefit all of us in terms of river health and flood mitigation. Eden River Trusts objections should have been listened to. Natural England must be asked to comment on how the loss of land to this project could impact on river health and flood management."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Penrith and Eden Green Party
"A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project – concerns registered by Penrith and Eden Green Party The proposed dualling of the A66 between Penrith and Scotch Corner is a major road building operation that will result in massive increases in carbon emissions and loss of biodiversity at a time when we are facing catastrophic climate and ecological breakdown. This project is entirely inconsistent with the well-recognised need to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, to safeguard existing biodiversity, and to reinstate lost and damaged natural habitats both for carbon sequestration and to restore ecological integrity. We consider this to be a retrograde proposal that runs entirely counter to the need to create the infrastructure necessary a) to reduce the UK public’s reliance on private motor vehicles and b) to transfer freight off roads and on to low carbon means of transport. Both these objectives are clearly necessary to achieve sustainable transport policy; to meet the UK’s legally mandated carbon budgets, reduce road congestion, improve air quality, increase public health and wellbeing, and to safeguard and restore biodiversity. In addition, it is apparent from the proponent’s own evaluation that this project does not provide value for money to meet even its own stated objectives. And we can see no evidence that alternative measures have been explored to address the road safety issues that this proposal is supposed to address. Therefore, we strongly oppose the proposed project and ask the Examiner to reject it outright. Specific issues that we wish to include in our representations include inter alia that this proposed project will result in: • increased traffic, especially of HGVs, and faster driving speeds that will cause significantly greater transport related emissions of carbon, • considerable carbon emissions resulting from the construction process, • loss of important wildlife habitats such as mature hedgerows and trees that support a wide range of wildlife species including bats, badgers and rare and threatened bird species, and • damage to the landscape and tranquillity of the North Pennines AONB. And additionally, that • National Highways’ own evaluation of the project shows it is very poor value for money, costing more than the projected benefit – at a time of financial crisis, and • The Department for Transport appears only to have considered dualling the whole stretch of road from Penrith to Scotch Corner and no alternative options have been presented to increase safety at accident hotspots through junction improvements, changes to routing for farm and local traffic, and lower speed limits."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Raymond Bromby
"Due to the poor record Warcop has of houses being flooded due to high rainfall, I am very concerned about any increase in Highways drainage being taken to the main stream through Warcop, called Crooks Beck which was the subject of an Environment Agency report in 2016 following the flood in December 2015 which flooded 11 houses of the 197 total because there are a further 19 that are at risk of being flooded if the flow increases any more. Warcop is a village with virtually no footways and I am concerned following 2 accidents in the Village recently caused by diversions off the A66, that children will not be safe walking to or from School during the construction phase."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Rebecca Ferson
"I am a regular visitor to the Lake District and the Eden Valley. The landscape of this area is recognised in the awarding of World Heritage Status. The recent extension of both the LD and Yorkshire dales national park is also recognition of the unique character of this area. There has been a proliferation of ares seeking to become AONB’s which is in keeping with the government’s objective of increasing areas where nature can flourish, protecting rural landscapes and biodiversity. It is very hard to know which areas are within the parks and which are outside. That is the case with the Eden Valley. It is a unique landscape and could easily be an AONB and may become one in the future. I share the concerns expressed by Friends of the Lake District about the impact on landscape. This is most severe at Kirkby Thore which is within the setting of the North Pennine AONB. The landscape will suffer severe adverse effects. This is permanent and irreversible. Landscape has been given insufficient priority which is astonishing given the designation of World Heritage site to the Lake District was due to Landscape. Highways appear to have attached significance only to roman archeology and nothing else in this section which is troubled and inconsistent with the fact that Highways recently dug up the entire section of road at Kirkby Thore which they now say is untouchable."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Thompson LLP on behalf of Richardson Family
"DCO A66 Trans-Pennine September 2022 Objection – Richardson Further to our previous letter of objections to the November and February consultation. Please find below further objections following the submission of the DCO for the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project. • 1 - Access: The farms current access is only utilized by the Richardson’s and their subsequent business. However, the proposed farm access from the A66 will be available to a number of parties including the neighboring landowners and provides a potential access point to Café Sixty Six. Although it is understood that the café does in fact have its own access point. It is our belief that road users will still potentially use the Richardson’s access through miss understanding of the Cafés entrance, especially those travelling east to west. This also emphasises the point of safety on the road with potential movement of a number of vehicles including large agricultural machinery, livestock and pedestrians. Furthermore, neighboring landowners, access onto Richardson’s access way to provide access to their neighboring land and potentially there hen shed if a further access track was constructed. In addition it is unclear if the cycle track running north would be available to Mr Pattinson to gain entry to his fields further towards Warcop. As previously stated, the Richardson’s run a closed ‘High Health Herd’ which therefore means that contact with other stock, is not permitted. This status of High Health enables the Richardson’s to receive a premium payment. If this was no longer achievable through cross contamination with other stock from other holdings, this status would no longer be achieved, and the premium will be lost. It is therefore our concern that the neighboring landowner has effectively been provided with a ’thoroughfare’ from one side of the A66 to the other for movement of stock and vehicles, which is currently not the case. There is also a concern regarding this access with the potential for the neighboring landowner to use the track to move livestock, the muck left on the road by the livestock would case a risk to safety for all vehicles travelling on the road. • 2 – WCH Track: The WCH track which has been proposed has come as a great concern to the Richardson’s, regarding the potential for unwanted road users. This track will effectively be a haul road off the A66 which could see a number of vehicles accessing the track even though it is not proposed to be used for public vehicular access. As the track will be 3m in diameter this track will attract these users. The other issue will see a large number of travelers use this route running up to the Horse Fair week. • 3 – Impact on Farming Business The proposed route and environmental works will have significant impact upon the farming business and although the scheme is proposed to have minimal impact. The published arrangement drawings identify that that is not the case. The proposal takes no account that there is no alternative suitable land available to rent or buy in the immediate area to make up for the land lost to the scheme and environmental proposal on both a permanent and temporary basis result in a significant amount of additional land lost. The land which will be affected is currently utilised under strict management for the grazing of the dairy herd/youngstock and also used to make crop for the winter months. This land has taken many years to improve and establish to the necessary standards to aid the growth of a high-performance, high health dairy herd. Therefore, this land is not easily replaced. Any replacement land must also be suitably located so that it is in walking distance for livestock. In addition, the heavily managed grazing land requires applications of slurry post grazing to replace nutrients lost in the ground, to intensively grow the grass back. Therefore, the loss of the land to the scheme will not only adversely affect the grazing routine of the farming business but also require the erection of a new slurry storage facility to hold excess slurry which would normally be spread on the land taken but will now need to be retained. As the current accessible land will be lost to the scheme the farm will have to withstand housing their dairy cows over a longer period. Therefore, the prolonged housing of the herd will require significant more spending on feedstuffs all year round for the dairy enterprise and additional cost with managing the slurry on farm. The current plans identify that approximately 48 acres of the land owned by the Richardson family will be lost to the scheme, this is out of the 205 acres owned at New Hall or 23% of the land holding or 8.69% of the total land holding owned of 552 acres. As you can imagine, this is of great concern to the Richardson Family, and it will have detrimental impact on the farming business which has successfully been built up over many years. The Richardson Family have already had to suffer a reduction to their current herd, selling off youngstock at an earlier date than desired, to enable the archeological works to be undertaken. Therefore, it is not an option to consider reducing the milking herd to mitigate the loss of the land. The business has built up livestock numbers to the level today after years of successful breeding. In addition, reducing cow numbers would automatically see the farming business at a disadvantage, not only would they receive a penalty from their milk buyer, but they would be disadvantaged when buying feedstuff and consumables. • 4 - Access: The main farm access (and only access) leading to New Hall is also proposed to be altered as a result of the road scheme. During the whole process, it is requested that an access is provided at all times for New Hall for all vehicular access. There is also a certified site at New Hall for the caravan and motorhome club. Therefore, it is essential that access is available at all times so that visitors of the site are not restricted or prevented from accessing. If visitors are restricted from access this could see a reduction in visitor numbers and therefore revenue from the caravan site for the family. The new underpass bridge must also be of a sufficient size and height to accommodate large agricultural machinery which the Richardson Family use. The family also take three cuts of silage off the land which results in around 30 – 40 tractors and trailers per hour over three days per cut travelling in and out of New Hall. Following this is two days of slurry spreading which will see around 10 slurry tankers per hour to use the access after each cut. On top of this there is also all other various jobs that will be undertaken over the spring/summer months which require the access. Further information is also requested to understand the maintenance responsibility of the access track both during and post construction of the scheme. In addition the access road proposed to the balancing ponds sever a number of the field parcels up and will allow third party rights over parts of the farm which currently have no rights at present this is very concerning and also represents a bio security issue. • 5 – Heathland: The environmental plans also illustrate areas of Heathland to be planted on the access, neighboring field to the access track and a buffer strip around the field on the opposite side of the access track. We object to the amount of land taken for this heathland to be planted on. We are unsure on the management responsibility of the heathland as to who will be responsible for this or how we would expect this heathland to look. Would it be expected that the farmers take the responsibility for the management of the heathland back from Highways England. There is other suitable land on the scheme for heathland without using this good quality agricultural land for the environmental mitigation. The location of the farm is not regarded as a heathland area, and it is not sightly vegetation to have on the entrance to a dairy farm which prides themselves on well-maintained grassland. Therefore, the planting of the heathland is objected to on this basis. Further information is also required to understand the necessity of planting this heathland. • 6 – Species Rich Grassland Approximately 5.27 hectares of the farms best silage ground is also proposed to be lost to accommodate balance ponds and species rich grassland. It has not been identified as to what the species rich grassland will include and to what the maintenance requirements there will be. Or whether the responsibility will remain that of Highways England or whether the responsibility will be transferred onto the farmers. We also object to the area this species rich grassland will cover and how the red line shows the grassland extending over the access track and leaving the farmer with small unviable parts of the field on the southern and western edge. • 7– Balance Ponds Objection to the size of the balance ponds and the necessity for two. Further information required regarding the maintenance track which is to be installed for the balance tracks and who will have the right to access this track and maintain the condition of it. We have requested that these are relocated to be less intrusive and also if they are to be located in this location that access will be required around these for stock movements. • 8 – Extra Land Take To the north of A66 it is identified that a large area of land has been included within the DCO red line boundary. It is not understood as to why this land is essential for the construction of the scheme and why such a large area is required. With this land being lost, this furthers the reduction of viable grazing land for the dairy herd/youngstock. This land is also classed as the dry land of the holding which enables out-wintering of youngstock. With the loss of this land under the scheme, the Richardson’s will be required to house the youngstock which will require extra feedstuffs and bedding as well as suitable housing as the current housing on farm is at full capacity at present, meaning they are unable to consider housing any more stock without additional shed space. • 9 - Footpath Diversion Objection to the location of the new footpath diversion. At present the current footpath does not impact the farming business or interfere with the day-to-day working life on the holding. The proposed diversion of the footpath will see, public utilising the under-bridge. This access is used regularly by farm machinery and the dairy cows, especially during the spring and summer months. It is of great concern to the Richardson family that this access will now be shared with the public, with concerns over health and safety of the public with farm machinery and dairy cows. Also concerns over security of the farm through allowing greater access for the public, concerns relating to stock being let out and ease of access to the farms main access route. If the footpath is to be diverted under the bridge then there will need to be a dedicated pedestrian lane so prevent any possible conflict between the farm traffic and the public. • 10 – Small Parcels of Land Excluded from the Red Line Objection of the location of the red line. The location of the red line across land parcels excludes small parts of field parcels which leaves the farmer with unviable pieces of land which will be unsuitable for agricultural use. The areas are not large enough to consider even grazing stock on. • 8 – Inappropriate use of Compulsory Purchase Powers As the full detailed design has not been carried out yet and the design keeps changing , the DCO includes large areas of additional land required which may be temporary and may be permanent, some of which it is clear that it is not required for the scheme. We ask that this is looked into. • 9 – Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers for Environmental Mitigation National Highways has included large areas of farmland for use as environmental mitigation. There is no reason why the landowners should not be able to retain ownership of such land in such circumstances if the farmer is content to take on the burden of maintenance, subject to reasonable terms being agreed to ensure the mitigation is maintained. • 10 – Maintenance of Farmland – Weed Control Measures On other schemes where large areas of land has been taken, via compulsory purchase land has then been left to lie unused for long period of time. What then happens is then weeds are allowed to grow and the condition of the land deteriorates. National Highways should be made to ensure that all land is maintained correctly. • 11 – Hedgerows Where fields are severed, by such a long linear scheme it will result in some fields being left awkward shapes. A common element for severance is the cost of removing hedges and fences in order to reshape fields into a sensible layout. Since the introduction of the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, the removal of any hedge which is more than 20 meters in length requires consent of the Local Planning Authority. This adds time, costs and uncertainty to farmers and in some instances planning authorities do not approval the removal of the hedgerows which further impacts the overall farming system of the affected party. • 12 – Interruption of Water Supplies The impact on water supplies, should be considered. National Highways should produce a management plan of how they will ensure water supplies are not impacted during the construction and operational phase of the scheme. • 13 – Land Drainage It is likely that the construction of this scheme will have a big impact upon land drainage. We would ask that it a condition of the approval that a full scheme of drainage is designed by a third party expert and then implemented. • 14 – Meetings The Richardson’s have had several meetings with various people from National Highways, during these meetings it has been promised that things would be changed and that further meetings would be arranged, to date we have not been able to arrange these meetings."
Parish Councils
Rokeby, Brignall and Egglestone Abbey Parish Council
"The exposed and imposing Rokeby junction on the Black route, although avoiding the listed Rokeby Park, places the underpass and associated junction at 190m above sea level and will break the current road ‘corridor’ along the line of the A66 West of St Mary’s Church. The junction will change permanently the views of St Mary’s to and from the West and South. The Blue route junction although only 500m to the East of the Black is 30m lower and Its junction appears to require less land for the junction. We would contend that any harms to the broad visual character around St Mary’s Church would more significantly harmed by the Black route junction as this at a higher elevation would permanently impact on the views to and from the Church and its borrowed landscape. The Black route junction at Rokeby requires the loss of more productive farmland and a more complex junction than the Blue alternate. The Black route junction design simply imposes itself on the landscape and ignores topography and historic considerations. The Black route traffic projections show an increase in traffic in Startforth and the lower areas of Barnard Castle which will have economic and environmental impacts. Increased traffic on that route along the Sills, the County Bridge, Bridgegate and The Bank will result in traffic congestion at the County Bridge lights, and consequentially through the rest of Barnard Castle. This will adversely affect the economy of Barnard Castle directly and indirectly through disruption for people living in and travelling through Teesdale to and from Bowes and the villages higher up the Dale. Highways England’s own modelling shows a marked change in traffic flow into Barnard Castle from the Black route. In particular a large increase in traffic from the A66 into Barnard Castle using the B6277 into Startforth, along the Sills, over the County Bridge, Bridgegate and The Bank to the Butter Market. This will have negative economic and environmental air quality harms on Startforth and lower Barnard Castle. This route and therefore each vehicle journey will be 1.5miles longer than the current route into Barnard Castle via the C165 from Rokeby. The route for traffic continuing to use the Black route via the C165 to access Barnard Castle will be increased by 1.1 miles for each vehicle journey compared to the Blue route Walking, cycling and horse-riding The Black route will impose for NMUs an extra 1.1 miles to all journeys compared to the Blue route. The main harms from the proposed Black route will be negative physical and mental health effects, acute ones from the increased risk of accidents between vehicles and pedestrians in Startforth and lower Barnard Castle and more chronic health effects from reductions in air quality, noise and disturbance. We would also like to challenge the harm that the Blue route would pose to Rokeby Park. The proposed loss from the Blue route junction would be a block 30-50m (East/West) by 15m (North/South) of the Church Plantation 150m West of the current C165 junction. • None of the 35 listed structures within the listed extent of Rokeby Park or its environs would be directly affected by the Blue route proposal. • The Blue route junction will minimally impact the broader visual landscape in particular the tree line and tree canopy. The existing C165 doesn’t break the visual connection and tree canopy between the walled Park and Church plantation and the Blue Route junction is similarly unlikely to break this connection. • There is no public path between Rokeby Park and St Marys through the Church Plantation, access to St Marys and its environs is only from the current A66. We would contend that any harms to the broad visual character around St Mary’s Church would more significantly harmed by the Black route junction as this at a higher elevation would permanently impact on the views to and from the Church and its borrowed landscape. Both options present the same junction at Cross Lanes. We are in favour of the amended positioning of the link road between Moorhouse and Rutherford Lanes to the North of Cross Lanes Organics parallel to the existing A66 as it reduces the visual impact on Cross Lanes Organics and reduces the the loss of farmland, increases the preservation of the wildlife habitat along Tutta Beck and is a simpler and cheaper construction."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Edwin Thompson LLP on behalf of Stephen Reay
"DCO A66 Trans-Pennine September 2022 Objection – Stephen Ian Reay, (REDACTED) Land Held Under Title Number: CU148142 plus Unregistered Land. Please see below objection points to the above land being included within the DCO. • 1 – Communication There has been little/no communication over the inclusion in this area of land within the DCO and Mr. Reay would like to have an on-site meeting to discuss the impact of the inclusion of this land immediately. There was communication at the commencement of the project but nothing further since this time. • Access: The area of land is the only access to the Woodland on the banks of the River Eden, Mr. Reay has plans to slowly extract timber from this wood in due course for his firewood business. The unregistered area of land was to be used as his extraction route, if the DCO is approved there will be no legal route to gain entry to the woodland. Therefore this will significantly depreciate the value of the wood and also lead to the woodland not being able to be managed correctly. If a site meeting had been had during the consultation period this would have been picked up. • Footpath Although not confirmed it would appear from the plans that there is a proposal to install a footpath along this area, this raises various concerns over littering of the adjoining land holding. • Extra Land Take The majority of the land appears to have been included within the DCO is sown as grassland, this land is already grassland and therefore we are unsure as to why this area has been included at all. This land does not need to be included in order to facilitate the construction of the project. • Inappropriate use of Compulsory Purchase Powers As the full detailed design has not been carried out yet and the design keeps changing, the DCO includes large areas of additional land required which may be temporary and may be permanent, some of which it is clear that it is not required for the scheme. We ask that this is looked into. This point is also linked to the above comment. • Use of Compulsory Purchase Powers for Environmental Mitigation National Highways has included large areas of farmland for use as environmental mitigation. There is no reason why the landowners should not be able to retain ownership of such land in such circumstances if the farmer is content to take on the burden of maintenance, subject to reasonable terms being agreed to ensure the mitigation is maintained. • Maintenance of Farmland – Weed Control Measures On other schemes where large areas of land has been taken, via compulsory purchase land has then been left to lie unused for long period of time. What then happens is then weeds are allowed to grow and the condition of the land deteriorates. National Highways should be made to ensure that all land is maintained correctly."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Susan Hammersley
"Along with my husband and others I am a stakeholder in the Dyke Nook Community Farm. The farm will be compromised by the planned route change."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mary Clare Martin on behalf of Susanna Lucy martin
"I am very concerned about the destruction of the landscape and the beautiful views inherent in the whole scheme, and particularly the Langrigg Junction and associated new roads. Additional junctions increase the risk of accidents. Because the route has been planned south of the current A66 it is necessary to build additional roads and junctions. The number of additional roads and the increase in traffic will lead to an increase in noise and air pollution . There is no promise of improved safety Inthe DCO documents and value for money is poor. National Highways appear not to have considered the huge disruption to my grandparents, living at (REDACTED)in their nineties when constructing this scheme. It is not going to benefit future generations (including my own children) to have beautiful countryside turned into an industrial desert. It is time to plan for the future, as In the governments own policies, to more sustainable transport."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tim Nicholson
"In the text below "We" refers to the land owners Mrs Felicity Nicholson and Mr Timothy Nicholson who are partners in RK&GF Nicholson and Timothy Nicholson and Emma Nicholson who are directors of Cactus Tree Guards Ltd. I make no apologies for the length of this representation. There are so many issues to raise in our OBJECTION that it would be impossible to raise them all in 500 words. This is a reflection of the shear number of issues that we raised at StatCon that have still not been dealt with by NH. We demand the right to be heard. We OBJECT to the proposals for the A66 dualling specifically around Kirkby Thore village (Temple Sowerby to Appleby section) on the grounds of it being a poorly considered proposal which has not been properly consulted on. It represents poor value for public money with a Benefit:Cost ratio of less than 1 and the poor route selection SPECIFICALLY on this section will cost more than £80m more and emit more than 600,000 tonnes more CO2e than than the alternative ("orange" or "southern") route (NH own figures) in construction alone. On this basis alone the application should be rejected. Furthermore we wish to be heard specifically with regards to the proposals directly affecting Sleastonhow Farm the owner/occupiers RK&GF Nicholson farm partnership, Cactus Tree Guards LTD and the owner occupiers of Sleastonhow Farmhouse and Hare Cottage “The Bungalow”. We make the following observations on the application under examination: 1) Mitigation of noise, light and air pollution. The proposed mitigation is insufficient to mitigate the impact of noise and light on the occupiers, their houses and protect their amenity of the land. On the selected route there is no to insufficient provision for mitigation of noise, light and air pollution. These factors will all be far worse under this scheme for the entire village of Kirkby Thore other than those few houses on the alignment of the current road. NH demonstrate this in their own data. Kirkby Thore village school will be adversely affected bringing the road within 250m of the school with increased speeds and air pollution risks which are now well documented. We find this unacceptable for the local community. 2) We question the impact of increasing road speeds when it produces more pollution, increases C02e emissions and the risk of fatal accidents due to higher speeds. The issues in this scheme are the poor traffic management at both ends of the A66 on the A1 and M6 junctions. Increasing speeds to these junctions will only make the problems worse and encourage more traffic. This is wholly unsustainable when improved traffic management along the length would make the road safer, quieter, less polluting, have a lessened visual impact in the setting of the AONB and Yorkshire Dales NP. NH has consistently failed to upgrade the problem sections of this trunk road for over 40 years and now concludes the only solution is to dual the whole road and increase traffic numbers and speeds which they forecast will significantly increase within the project lifetime. This is unsustainable for this highly scenic area between 3 protected landscape area. They have failed to consider providing alternative routes and transport options. Surely this project is driven by outdated C20th thinking. 3) Impact of loss of land, soils and severance to farm business The selected route will have an unacceptable impact by severing the land across the best block of land on the farm. It dissects all the south facing sandy loam fields. The land take for construction compounds, the road with bridge, revised alignment of Sleastonhow Lane with the dual carriageway, access tracks and balancing ponds will be devastating to the farmed unit. This is an average sized family farm which is rare in that the farm buildings are in the middle of the whole block of land. Continued loss of high quality agricultural cropping land is socially and morally unacceptable. The farm is in transition to farming regeneratively with a focus on building soil health prior to growing heritage grains for human consumption. The selected route will completely destroy this business plan by leaving the farm with very little choice of arable cropping fields to do this on. By comparison, the southern (orange) route option would lead to far less loss of productive agricultural land, mostly sighted on existing concreted areas and the old railway sidings and being considerably narrower and shorter due to it's direct alignment. 4) Water supplies. The selected route will impact on our mains and private borehole supplies. We have provided details as to where these supply pipes and borehole are located at StatCon and NH has failed to address our concerns. The borehole is right next to the proposed bridge over the Trout Beck river so it is hard to see how it won't be damaged/polluted in construction. 5) Power supply and generation. The construction stage will inevitably interrupt the mains power supply to the farm. Any interruption of the 3 phase supply is business critical as we use 3 phase motors to run wood processing machines most days. It would also impact on our ability to feed power into the grid via the 54kwp of solar panels we have on the buildings. So far NH have not commented and were given details at StatCon. 6) Drainage and damage to soils. The construction phase will inevitably lead to very damaged soils and sub-soils due to the impact of heavy plant and storage of materials. The sloping ground that the selected route would carve through will be at very high risk of soil wash, inevitably polluting the SSSI/SAC rivers. In the event of intense rainfall and/or flooding it will be impossible to avoid soil wash into the river. The damage to the SSSI/SAC will be significant. Construction compounds will damage underlying soils and land drains. Soils rarely recover from this long term damage. 7) Re-alignment of Sleastonhow Lane. The re-alignment of Sleastonhow Lane seems excessive, destroying more good sandy loam soils and destroying an ancient trackway, ancient species rich hedgerows. A more ecological approach would be to cross the new highway with a longer span of bridge and keep the current alignment, biodiversity and character of Sleastonhow Lane as in tact as possible. It is important to note here that this bridge needs to have a load capacity in excess of 50 tonnes so that articulated grain wagons and wagon and drag timber wagons can access the farm buildings. We have not had confirmation from NH that a suitable bridge would be provided despite raising the issue at StatCon. 8) Loss of Species and habitats and habitat connectivity. The selected route does not take any consideration of the existing habitats and linear features. The plan shows excessive lengths of ancient hedgerow removal and the compounds and lay-down areas are shown to be right over new woodland, new hedgerows, ancient hedgerows etc. If these aren’t retained connectivity of habitats in the landscape will be severed. We have spent a lot of time, money over the last 25 years to manage the hedgerows to their best potential. The difference in quality between our hedgerows and those in the surrounding landscape is notable. NH have suggested that they would want us to enter a management agreement to manage habitats created for mitigation of biodiversity loss and we have asked for more details on numerous occasions but they have failed to provide any. The selected route risks threating a significant local wintering roost (400 +lapwings, 100 + golden plover) and summer breeding site for s41 species of wader (curlew, lapwing, snipe, red shank, golden plover) and they have not offered any mitigation. The selected route will cause unacceptable disturbance for these species with noise, vibration, light and air pollution. 9) Impacts on local landscape value, amenity and fine vistas. The blue and red routes carve their way through an ancient agricultural landscape with a complete lack of regard for the impact on the landform, fine rural vistas and well-being of the local residents who enjoy the views from Sleastonhow Lane, Priest Lane and Station Road. This important local amenity will be lost with the disruption of views and noise and light pollution from the proposed alignments. It has been stated that “the finest views in the whole of Westmorland" were to be seen from Sleastonhow Lane”. It is also the route of the increasingly popular “Lady Anne Way”. If it weren’t for the current A66 and British Gypsum works detracting from the landscape we believe that this is far superior landscape than most areas which are protected landscapes, affording fine views to Wild Boar Fell, The Howgills, The Lake District Fells (including the prominent Blencathra) and also the northern Pennine chain with its highest peak Cross Fell. 10) Loss of biodiversity We currently enjoy daily sightings of brown hare in the south facing fields and sparrow hawks and barn owls hunting along the lanes. We have seen and recorded otter along the river and floodplain and badger along the tracks. These species will surely be lost through disturbance and road deaths if this route goes ahead. The road will become an impenetrable barrier for many species. Butterflies, moths and birds will also be decimated by the loss of habitat and disturbance. We really value seeing these species in our daily lives. Our lives will be much poorer for this loss. 11) Shooting and fishing rights and general amenity. The selected route will both lead to a loss of our sporting rights on the farm. The location of the highway would also prevent any shooting rights from being exercised in the vicinity of the road. The light pollution from the selected route will lead to us not being able to see the constellations of the night sky. These routes will inevitably lead to a loss of wildlife in our surroundings. The first few years of construction and operation of the road will lead to a massacre of wildlife in this area. Roe deer will be a particular problem for the road users as they will continue to try and cross the impacted fields into their existing territories on both sides of the Trout beck. The Barn owls and bats that currently traverse these fields and hunt along the hedgerows will be killed by trucks, as will hares, badgers, hedgehogs and otters. This will lead to the unnecessary loss of s41 species when the Orange route could been built online, not severing another landscape. The existing corridor already serves as a barrier to wildlife, why create another far worse one? There is nothing that can mitigate this biodiversity loss. NH should be held accountable to delivering Biodiversity Net Gain in this project. 10) NH's failure to consult. The alternative routes have not been properly consulted on as "general arrangement drawings" were never provided for the alternative routes meaning that consultees could not sensibly assess the alternatives. It is also clear that the preferred route was selected in a rush due to pressures of "Project Speed" from the outset and then NH have worked to make their route selection fit at any cost in a faux-consultation process. This is not a logical process and you could not ever expect that approach to select the best option, or option of least over-all impact. We as local occupants, land and business owners have raised our concerns about the lack of transparency and consultation AT EVERY STAGE in this process and our concerns and questions have consistently not been answered. This demonstrates a failure to consult and we therefore believe this project section should be refused by the Planning Inspectorate."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Ritchie Land Agents Ltd on behalf of Tyson Family
"Our clients own (REDACTED) which is a small holding. A flyover to access West View farm is to be constructed. Plans showing land to be taken in general terms have been issued but detailed Land Interest Plans showing precise land take and what the land is to be used for have not been issued. The amount of land being taken by the scheme appears excessive and is more than 50% of the current land holding. The flyover will overshadow the property due to its proximity. We object to the scheme because the amount of land being taken is excessive, the flyover is too close to the residential property and no detailed plans showing either permanent or temporary land take have been issued. If the amount of land take was reduced and the flyover moved further away our clients would be minded to support the scheme."