A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling

Representations received regarding A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling

The list below includes all those who registered to put their case on A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling and their relevant representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jonathan Baker
"I fully support the A303 Sparkford to Illchester dualling. The dual carriageway will make safer journeys to the West Country from the South East. I agree with the two level junctions proposed. It seems to be designed as an expressway with layby fitted with emergency telephones. My only concern is a lack of a parallel road to the north side from the proposed Camel Hill link road to the Downhead overbridge for emergency purposes. The tree planting of banks and bunds will help filter noise and improve aesthetics to the local scattered properties. The dual carriageway is long overdue and needs building as soon as possible "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mark Wilson
"I support the dualling of this stretch of the A303 which will improve safety and road conditions for drivers and non-motorised users."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Griffiths
"Unacceptable road noise. Having read the project plan in detail and had various communications with HE, there does not appear to be a target for road noise (reduction) and the planned road noise is not significantly different from current levels. This is not consistent with the project aim to "optimise opportunities for enhancement" of the environment and avoid unacceptable impact on the surrounding environment. In fact the design does not try to reduce noise but for applying modern road surface materials and moving the new road a small distance north of the existing route. As an example, and consistent with other major road projects, "planted bunding" could be applied in critical locations using material removed from other road work locations on this project. Evidence exists that this would significantly reduce road noise for the local community. HE and my local MP are aware that I will be seeking registration as an interested party and are aware of my views. We must not forget that this road scheme will be built to serve not only the wider community but also the local community for a number of generations. It must enhance all aspects of life. For reflection, the aircraft industry, car industry, major airport developments and the like have these targets. I can see no reason why a 50% reduction in road noise should not be targeted for the local Sparkford community. In closing, please can I say that I and I would say the majority of the local community fully support this project including its timing. I am impressed with the application but I also maintain that a significant "road noise reduction" must be achieved in order to fulfil its obligations. I remain ready to discuss and review at any convenient time. kind regards, Paul Griffiths "
Members of the Public/Businesses
The Red Lion Inn
"My husband and I own the Red Lion Babcary located directly off the A303. We have looked at the submitted planning application for the A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling, and we are really concerned.... The village, let alone the Pub has been completely cut off from the south side of the A303 from the East direction in the application, and other than a huge diversion coming off at the Yeovilton turning, and going back on yourselves to go over the bridge, and then fork off to Steart Hill, we will lose the vast majority of trade for our business which makes up approximately £75,000.00 This plan will be Hugely detrimental to us and our business as we discussed in a meeting with the project managers at Sparkford Hall at the planning stage, and all the other public meetings. It seems that none of the practical solutions we suggested made any difference ? (Having a slip road connecting to the roundabout just past Howell Hill would have been a perfect solution ) have been ignored. Financially this will be devastating to our business, in which we employ 25 people Also all the signage, planning applications etc that we have paid out thousands for, and all the time it took to get it through, let alone all the information we have on our web site, customer reviews, review pages etc etc that says to visitors we are just off the A303 ? All that will become null and void. In 15 years of improving, and reinvesting in our rural business, we are now in the position that one of our main income streams will be denied to us with this planning application. Surely central Government has a duty to rural businesses, in particular the village pub, which is central to the local community. Kind regards Charles and Clare Garrard"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stagecoach UK Bus
"Stagecoach supports the scheme in principle, given the strategic importance and necessity of the dualling, as a key regional and national road link. The existing and the future road accommodates both some local and a greater number of longer-distance inter-urban coach services. Not only that, but there is a strong likelihood that the A303 as a whole should be seen as needing to cater for more such use, as buses and coaches represent a greatly more efficient use of road space, and the emissions per passenger km are a fraction of personal car use, at average load factors. It is therefore vital that the scheme design in the scope for both local bus and longer distance coach services, and in particular it should seek to take advantage of the potential to facilitate local interchange at strategic points. "Last-mile" modes are already many, including taxis, "stop and drop" with friends and relatives, and cycling. As a major user of the SRN, and a key passenger transport operator, there is a broader question of Highways England's standard processes for preparing and designing major highways schemes. We have not be approached to date on this or any other major scheme within RIS1 nor RIS2, with a view to seeking our input as to how existing and potential bus and coach services can facilitated. We will make observation as far as we are able on how the scheme could be amended to cost-effectively facilitate bus and coach services. It would obviously be preferable if we were to be approached much earlier in the design and consenting process, here and elsewhere."
Non-Statutory Organisations
The British Horse Society
"The British Horse Society is keen to see that all routes that are being provided so NMUs provide for horse riders as well as walkers and cyclists. If this is not to be the case we would want to understand the reasoning for this, and why it is considered necessary to remove walkers and cyclists away from vehicular traffic but it is considered safe to leave horse riders, the most vulnerable class of NMUs, in the carriageway, and what risk assessment has been carried out to justify such a proposal. The following representations are made on the understanding that they fall within the DCO scheme: Eastern end of Slate Lane The exit here from Slate Lane needs some furniture to warn users of the exit, one option would be to provide staggered post and rail fencing with signs on the road verge warning of horse riders and cyclists coming in from the side, or a large silhouette of a ridden horse and cyclist painted on the tarmac. Going eastwards from the eastern end of Slate Lane The provision of a bridleway here would be beneficial. There are horses at Camel Hill and it would give them instant access to Slate Lane and the safe off road riding routes being dedicated as part of the road improvement scheme. The provision of a bridleway would also be beneficial from the road at the eastern end of Slate Lane, along the construction access route joining onto the local road at Camel Hill. The Sparkford roundabout: Improvements are required to the crossing of the road to Queen Camel (A359) with cutting back of the vegetation to improve sight lines, and the cutting of a channel in the central reservation/pavement to help cyclists and buggies and remove what might be a trip step for horses. Also the provision of a Pegasus crossing if justified by the expected traffic flow. The NMU route in the verge needs to be two-way and 4 meters wide. Plowage Lane, southern side of carriageway It is understood that the northern end of Plowage Lane will be stopped up preventing access onto the new carriageways. There is a restricted byway (Y27/27) which joins Plowage Lane just to the south of this junction. Horse riders and cyclists will need to cross the old A303 carriageway to turn eastward to the new Steart Hill bridge. A Pegasus crossing would be required here if the predicted traffic rate supports this. "
Parish Councils
Queen Camel Parish Council
"The Council believes that the proposed development will be of great benefit to Queen Camel but it submits that there are three elements in the proposals which are detrimental to the local community and would cause unnecessary environmental damage in both the short and the long term: 1. The application fails to pay due regard to the environmental problems of very heavy traffic and congestion in the middle of Queen Camel when A303 traffic uses the A359 and West Camel Road to bypass slow moving traffic through the road works during the construction period. The applicant's bland assurances that traffic will be ‘managed’ through a TMP do not reassure. The Council will respectfully suggest that the DCO application include details of how the applicant will mitigate the adverse impact of self-diverting traffic. 2. The unorthodox design and layout of the proposed Hazlegrove junction will have a negative environmental impact on local communities. i. It will destroy far more of the (Listed) Hazlegrove parkland than necessary. ii. it will needlessly increase the length of journeys to and from Hazlegrove School. iii. It will needlessly increase the distance travelled by traffic joining the eastbound carriageway of the A303 from the A359 (south). iv. It will encourage such traffic to take a short cut through the middle of Sparkford village. The Council will respectfully suggest that the applicant be required to consider an alternative design which would be demonstrably more environmentally sustainable and cheaper to construct. 3. The application fails to give serious consideration to the advantages of retaining the carriageway of the existing A303 for the use of local traffic, alongside the new dual carriageway between Hazlegrove and Podimore . Such a ‘parallel road’ would: i. Greatly reduce congestion on local roads during the construction period. ii. Substantially reduce both the cost and the duration of construction. iii. Give the A303 added resilience and improve access for emergency vehicles in the event of road traffic accidents on the dual carriageway. iv. 'Future proof’ the local road network when the A303 becomes an Expressway from which slow moving (including agricultural) vehicles are excluded. The Council will respectfully submit that the applicant should be required to reconsider retaining the existing A303 carriageway alongside the new dual carriageway. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hazlegrove Preparatory School
"1. The traffic pattern for movements to and from Hazlegrove School is extremely uneven with the vast majority of vehicles dropping pupils off over a very short period of time in the morning, and the reverse in the evening. The School has met with consultants on a number of occasions and asked for confirmation that traffic modelling has taken place underpinned by traffic counts taken at peak times. The current layout requires traffic to negotiate a T-Junction and there is a risk that traffic will back up, possibly as far as the roundabout. There has been no reassurance from consultants that the design can deal with peak flows. 2. Hazlegrove School currently has its own branded signage on the A303 roundabout seen by every car heading East. This is a major source of visibility for the school. With the entrance drive to Hazlegrove moved off the A303, this marketing tool will be lost. This significant loss has been raised with the consultants, but no mitigation has been offered."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Hawk House Ltd
"It is felt that a more ‘On-Line’ approach should be utilised to achieve the project objectives of dualling the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester. Delays on the existing road are invariably caused by two lanes merging into one or accidents further east or west of Camel Cross; usually at roundabouts! Widening of the existing road route to create a dual carriageway would undoubtedly be a far more cost effective and less damaging option than the current complex proposals. Widening would create relatively simple opportunities to further straighten the existing road, at and to the east of Camel Cross, without ‘diverting’ from the existing route. This approach would also have far less environmental impact than the current proposals. Good access to local businesses and, importantly, RNAS Yeovilton would not only be maintained, but improved by such a strategy. The vast majority of traffic leaving or joining the A303 at the junction with the B3151 is undisputedly going to, or coming from, RNAS Yeovilton. Access to RNAS Yeovilton and indeed, our business, would be vastly improved by grade separated reconfiguration of the junction with B3151 to give safe access both east and westbound. It is also felt that having the east and westbound access directly at the junction with the B3151 would remove any need to have major junctions near Orchard Park or West Camel village and further decrease ‘Rat running’ through ALL local villages. "
Other Statutory Consultees
The Coal Authority
"I have checked the proposed development area for the A303 dualling between Sparkford and Ilchester against the information held by the Coal Authority and can confirm that the proposed development site is located outside of the defined coalfield. Accordingly, I can confirm that the Coal Authority has no comments or observations to make on this proposal. In the spirit of efficiency of resources and proportionality, it will not be necessary for you to consult the Coal Authority at any future stages of the Project. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Alan Walton on behalf of Alan and Pamela Walton t/a Long Hazel Park
"Long Hazel Park consists of a licensed holiday touring park and a holiday lodge park most of which is approved for residential lodges (mobile homes) for which it holds a full permanent residential licence E/90 from SSDC. This development is progressing. The Park, our home and existing tourism business plus the new development suffers from excessive and intrusive traffic noise pollution from the A303. We have put in place at our own expense some measures to comply with traffic noise pollution in part as a condition of planning. The proposed A303 improvement scheme makes no provision to mitigate this noise at present and it is mooted to increase which will negate the benefit of our measures. We have six lodge plots ready for siting and one holiday lodge all nearest to the A303 with all infrastructure in place. These sites are adversely effected by traffic noise which noise is said by Highways England to increase. This will further thwart our business development and cause heavy financial loss for which compensation will be sought if adequate traffic noise mitigation is not addressed. We have an Expert who is in communication with Highways England to obtain more information so as to enable him to put together a Report. We ask that we are allowed to address the Learned Inspector about these issues and with such Report to invite him or her to incorporate sufficient traffic noise reduction measures along our boundary with the A303 so we can develop these plots. We suggest a sound barrier/screening and quiet surfacing along the route within the area of Sparkford and towards Chapel Cross as well if possible. We ask that any elevated road section near to Sparkford are also screened to mitigate traffic noise. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Forestry Commission
"Our points will be in relation to protecting, improving and expanding woodland within or near the location of the proposed development. I work for the Forestry Commission within the Forest Services Area Team and my comments will relate to our work with woodlands and the forestry sector in the South West. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Symonds & Sampson on behalf of Mr John Plested
"Dear Sir, Please see my comments below on behalf of John Plested of [redacted]. Horse Ménage - With the proposed improvements to the A303 moving the road north and therefore closer to the farm buildings, my client is anxious that the ménage may be unusable. Until the construction commences unfortunately nobody will be able to ascertain the potential impacts on the school and as such if at this time it is unable to be used for its intended purpose we would expect Highways England to relocate the school to a more suitable location. Sound Proofing - Due to the proximity of the road being adjacent to the stables and residential dwelling, we would ask if Buffalo fencing can be installed on top of the proposed bunds at a height of 3m. Fence - The existing fence located to the south bordering the current position of the A303 is constructed from concrete posts with high tensile stock fencing and barbed wire above. We would ask that the same type of fence is installed on the new boundary. Water Troughs - There are 2 water troughs which require relocation from the southern boundary to the land being retained. Turning Area – If possible we would like a concrete panel of railway sleeper wall to surround this area and the addition of a bin as the existing area contains a significant amount of rubbish in the hedge and ditch. Proposed Track – In order to reduce speed and vehicular movements we would like to see the maintenance and access track constructed from a stone/gravel type surface rather than concrete. If you would like to discuss any of the above, please feel free to contact me. Yours faithfully, Greg Ridout"
Parish Councils
response has attachments
Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel Parish Councils (Joint Submission) (Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel Parish Councils (Joint Submission))
"JOINT REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF QUEEN CAMEL, SPARKFORD AND WEST CAMEL PARISH COUNCILS. The three neighbouring parish councils of Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel jointly agree that the proposed development will be of great benefit to all three communities but jointly submits that there are three elements in the proposals which are detrimental to both general A303 users and local communities, fail to represent ‘value for money’ to the UK taxpayer and would cause unnecessary environmental damage in both the short and the long term: 1 Hazelgrove (Sparkford) Junction). The unorthodox design and layout of the proposed Hazlegrove junction (unique we believe in the UK) will have a negative environmental impact on local communities. i. It will destroy far more of the (Listed) Hazlegrove parkland than necessary. ii. it will needlessly increase the length of journeys to and from Hazlegrove School. iii. It will needlessly increase the distance travelled by traffic joining the eastbound carriageway of the A303 from the A359 (south). iv. It will encourage such traffic to take a short cut through the middle of Sparkford village. v. It will encourage traffic to avoid this junction and use the east bound junction above West Camel (Downhead Junction). The Joint Councils have engaged ‘Fairhurst’, consulting and civil engineers to review and agree its alternative design (which is almost identical to that originally shown in the route selection phase), which, we believe, will be cheaper to construct, uses less of the listed Hazelgrove parkland, reduces the journey distance for parents and children to and from Hazelgrove school, reduces (and therefore, makes more practicable) access to the east bound A303 and will reduce ‘rat-running’ through Sparkford and West Camel villages. ‘Fairhurst’ have indicated that taking verification of our alternative design beyond the production of a professional standard CAD drawing would cost the Joint Councils well in excess of £10 - £15K and would in any case replicate much of the design work already undertaken by Mott-MacDonald on behalf of HE. Detailed costings and design information has been repeatedly requested during the pre-DCO phase and has either been withheld or supplied at too high a level. The Joint Councils respectfully suggest that the applicant be required to consider our alternative design and produce detailed engineering arguments and costings that prove beyond reasonable doubt that our alternative design would not be demonstrably more environmentally sustainable and cheaper to construct. 2. Retention of the old A303 as a ‘local road’ – Despite appeals from all three parish councils during the consultation period, the application fails to give serious consideration to the advantages of retaining the carriageway of the existing A303 for the use of local traffic, alongside the new dual carriageway between Hazlegrove and Podimore . This is wholly inconsistent with similar HE schemes in the South West (A30 at Bodmin) where retention of the old road is seen as a priority. Such a ‘parallel road’ would: i. Substantially reduce both the cost and the duration of construction. ii. Improve traffic flow on the A303 during construction. iii. Greatly reduce congestion on local roads during the construction period. iv. Give the A303 added resilience and improve access for emergency vehicles in the event of road traffic accidents on the dual carriageway. iv. 'Future proof’ the local road network when the A303 becomes an Expressway from which slow moving (including agricultural) vehicles are excluded. The Joint Councils have engaged ‘Fairhurst’ Consulting and Civil Engineers to verify that previous proposals to dual this section of the A303 that included a local road, remain practicable and respectfully submit that the applicant should be required to reconsider retaining the existing A303 carriageway alongside the new dual carriageway. As in point 1 above, detailed design works by ‘Fairhust’ would be prohibitively expensive for three small parish councils to consider and would in essence replicate much of the work already undertaken by Mott-MacDonald. 3. Proposed diversion via A359 - The applicant’s proposed diversion of A303 traffic through Queen Camel, Marston Magna and Mudford villages into Yeovil to return via the A37 to the A303 at Ilchester are totally and utterly unacceptable to these local communities. The applicant's bland assurances that traffic will be ‘managed’ through a TMP do not reassure communities that suffer congestion ‘rat-running’ through unclassified local road each and every summer and whenever the A303 becomes congested, in either direction. Drivers will follow their SatNav devises along unclassified roads in an attempt to find a shorter diversionary route which will endanger the lives of people living in local communities. Pre-provision of a retained ‘local road’ linking up sections of the retained (de-trunked) A303 would alleviate the need to close the A303 to traffic during construction of the proposed dual carriageway. The Joint Councils respectfully suggest that the DCO application include details of how the applicant will mitigate the adverse impact of self-diverting traffic and further investigation be undertaken in to the provision of AMPR cameras on junctions accessing routes where HGV traffic is banned. We also ask that the applicant be required to mitigate traffic along A359 through High St Sparkford, Queen Camel and on the unclassified roads through West Camel. Les Stevens Clerk to West Camel Parish Council On behalf of Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel Parish Councils. "
Parish Councils
West Camel Parish Council
"REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF WEST CAMEL PARISH COUNCIL. West Camel Parish Council considers itself to be the most affected by Highways England’s proposals to dual this section of the A303. Council remain broadly supportive the proposed development which, if designed and constructed in a more cost effective and people centric manner could be of great benefit to our and neighbouring communities. West Camel PC believes that there are three elements in the proposals which are detrimental to both general A303 users and local communities, fail to represent ‘value for money’ to the UK taxpayer and would cause unnecessary environmental damage in both the short and the long term: 1. Traffic Forecast for West Camel – the proposed scheme shows a great reduction in traffic flows along the B3151 through Yeovilton and the A359 through Queen Camel as a direct result of traffic being able to freely access the dualled section of the A303 at or near Camel Cross. The only two areas of increased traffic volumes are Sparkford village on the A359 and through the village of West Camel on unclassified roads. To encourage traffic to ‘rat-run’ through the unclassified roads of West Camel Village is totally unacceptable to our community and will ultimately result in serious injury or death! West Camel Parish Council have consistently lobbied HE to this effect and have largely been ignored. A tenuous promise of a HE funded, Somerset County Highways provided Traffic Calming scheme, has no legal or contractual standing and has deliberately been omitted from the applicant’s DCO submission. West Camel PC ask that the Applicant be required to work sensitively and responsively with them to ensure that ‘destination detail’ (currently not available) on signs erected around the Camel Cross (West) and Downhead (East) junctions do not exacerbate existing ‘rat-running’ problems and direct ‘through traffic’ to the classified (A & B) local road network. The provision of AMPR cameras at these junction ‘off ramps’ would help to mitigate the abuse by HGVs of the existing 7.5 tonne weight limit in force on the unclassified roads through West Camel village. West Camel PC ask the Inspector to make the mitigation of increased traffic flows through West Camel Village an enforceable condition of any planning permission in order to safeguard the lives, wellbeing and safety of our community. 2. Retention of the old A303 as a ‘local road’ – West Camel PC have consistently lobbied for the retention of the old A303 as a ‘local road’ between Hazelgrove and Podimore and have strenuously pointed out during the consultation period, that in the last two incarnations of a dualling scheme, the then Consulting Engineers (the last of whom were also Mott-MacDonald) designed a scheme with a retained local road! The application fails to give serious consideration to the advantages of retaining the carriageway of the existing A303 for the use of local traffic, alongside the new dual carriageway. This is wholly inconsistent with similar HE schemes in the South West (A30 at Bodmin) where retention of the old road is seen as a priority. Such a ‘parallel road’ would: i. Substantially reduce both the cost and the duration of construction. ii. Improve traffic flow on the A303 during construction. iii. Greatly reduce congestion on local roads during the construction period. iv. Give the A303 added resilience and improve access for emergency vehicles in the event of road traffic accidents on the dual carriageway. v. 'Future proof’ the local road network when the A303 becomes an Expressway from which slow moving (including agricultural) vehicles are excluded. vi. Help mitigate the ‘rat-running’ traffic through West Camel West Camel PC respectfully submit that the Planning Inspector require the applicant to reconsider retaining the existing A303 carriageway alongside the new dual carriageway. 3 Hazelgrove (Sparkford) Junction). The unorthodox design and layout of the proposed Hazlegrove junction (unique we believe in the UK) will have a negative environmental impact on local communities. i. It will destroy far more of the (Listed) Hazlegrove parkland than necessary. ii. it will needlessly increase the length of journeys to and from Hazlegrove School. iii. It will needlessly increase the distance travelled by traffic joining the eastbound carriageway of the A303 from the A359 (south). iv. It will encourage such traffic to take a short cut through the middle of Sparkford village. v. It will encourage traffic to avoid this junction and use the east bound junction above West Camel (Downhead Junction). West Camel PC believe that the alternative design which is seen practicable by Fairhust Civil and Consulting Engineers, will be cheaper to construct, uses less of the listed Hazelgrove parkland, reduces the journey distance for parents and children to and from Hazelgrove school, reduces (and therefore, makes more practicable) access to the east bound A303 and will reduce ‘rat-running’ through Sparkford and West Camel villages. West Camel Parish Council respectfully suggest that the applicant be required to consider the alternative design being put forward by the three joint parish councils, which would be demonstrably more environmentally sustainable and cheaper to construct. 4. Proposed diversion via A359 - The applicant’s proposed diversion of A303 traffic through Queen Camel, Marston Magna and Mudford villages into Yeovil to return via the A37 to the A303 at Ilchester are totally and utterly unacceptable to these local communities. The applicant's bland assurances that traffic will be ‘managed’ through a TMP do not reassure communities that suffer congestion ‘rat-running’ through unclassified local road each and every summer and whenever the A303 becomes congested, in either direction. Drivers will follow their SatNav devises along unclassified roads in an attempt to find a shorter diversionary route which will endanger the lives of people living in local communities. Pre-provision of a retained ‘local road’ linking up sections of the retained (de-trunked) A303 would alleviate the need to close the A303 to traffic during construction of the proposed dual carriageway. West Camel PC can provide the Planning Inspectorate with recent (2018) video evidence captured by residents of increased traffic flows through our unclassified roads when the existing A303 is heavily congested. This is very likely to become the ‘norm’ during the 30 month construction period. West Camel Parish Council respectfully suggest that the DCO application include details of how the applicant will mitigate the adverse impact of self-diverting traffic. Les Stevens Clerk to West Camel Parish Council "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul dance Ltd on behalf of Andrea Mattia Alfresco Ltd
"my clients own and operate the Andrea Mattia Alfresco Diner adjoining the petrol filling station on Camel Hill which is located on the Ilchester side of Sparkford. I object on behalf of my clients as their business will be left in a cul de sac as a result of the road duelling and as such will lose all passing trade. My clients therefore reserve the right to seek compensation should the plan be approved."
Parish Councils
Sparkford Parish Clerk
"PLANNING INSPECTORATE SUBMISSION The proposed construction of the dual carriageway between Sparkford and Podimore will have benefits for the Parish of Sparkford but there are areas of concern with the proposal. 1. Statements made by the applicant state that during construction and after completion traffic through Sparkford high Street will increase. There are already problems with speeding traffic and rat running through the high Street at peak times, including weekends and holiday periods. Highways England have made no attempt to mitigate this by providing a traffic calming scheme for Sparkford High Street. 2. The design of the Hazelgrove Junction is not designed in accordance with the design manual for roads and bridges, there are no examples of this design and layout on the strategic roads network. The design will increase the distance travelled to access the east bound carriageway of the A303 and the A359 at Sparkford and will encourage traffic to travel through Sparkford high Street instead, increasing the environmental impact on our community. It is intended to raise the new road up on an embankment across Hazelgrove Park, this will increase noise levels around our village and in the vicinity of Hazelgrove School. It will unnecessarily take up more land within Hazelgrove park which is listed parkland and will increase the distance travelled by pupils attending Hazelgrove School which sits in the parkland. 3. The applicant also refuses to accept the need to retain the old A303 as a parallel road alongside the new dual carriageway which would give greater resilience to the A303 and improve access for local traffic. 4. The public rights of way will also be affected and protracted by the door design of the Hazelgrove junction with walkers and horse riders forced to walk or ride along access roads to join rights of way within Hazelgrove park."
Other Statutory Consultees
Historic England
"Historic England's interest in this scheme is focused upon designated heritage assets either directly or indirectly impacted by the proposal. We have a particular focus on the Grade II Registered Park and Garden (RPG) at Hazlegrove House, which will be directly impacted, and on the Scheduled Monuments No. 1020936 Romano-British Settlement Immediately South West of Camel Hill Farm and No. 1021260 Medieval settlement remains 100m and 250m north of Downhead Manor Farm. Whilst not directly impacted by the scheme proposal these two monuments lie in proximity to the Red Line Boundary and we are concerned to ensure that their significance is not harmed through impacts upon their settings. Hazlegrove RPG - whilst we accept that the scheme will have an unavoidable direct impact upon this asset, we are concerned to ensure that the adverse impact is minimised and that robust mitigation is secured to satisfactorily offset the harm the scheme would cause. We are currently in discussion with the applicant on the exact extent of landscape mitigation proposals: including whether the height of screening bunds could be increased to screen the full height of a HGV when viewed from key viewpoints within the RPG, rather than offering partial screening as set out in the application, which is particularly relevant to ensuring appropriate mitigation of winter views towards the new road; the nature and extent of tree planting as part of landscape mitigation; and the need for the applicant to commit to a Conservation Management Plan for the unaffected parts of the RPG and this to be secured through the DCO. Camel Hill Romano-British Settlement - the proposed road will use the same highway boundary adjacent to the monument as the present road. Given the more substantial presence of the new road compared to the existing we are concerned to understand the impact this will have upon setting. We have asked the applicant to provide further information on the comparative levels of the existing and proposed road to understand how the scheme would be perceived from the monument. We are concerned to understand the impact of the scheme on any archaeology associated with the monument but located beyond its boundary. We understand that archaeological fieldwork is currently in progress near the monument and wish to see its results considered as part of the Environmental Statement, and appropriate mitigation proposed where necessary. Downhead Medieval Settlement - we are concerned to understand the visual impact of the scheme (if any) upon this monument and how that impacts upon its setting. We understand that a habitat mitigation area is to be located in proximity to the monument and wish to understand how this feature might impact upon the monument and its setting. General observations - we are presently unable to agree a Statement of Common Ground with the applicant until the completion of their archaeological assessment and evaluation work; the completion of the Environmental Statement and particularly the cultural heritage chapter; and clarity on the extent to which the impact upon the RPG might be minimised and optimal, appropriate mitigation secured."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr Bryan G Norman
"See attached representation"
Other Statutory Consultees
NATS LTD
"Dear Sirs, I refer to the letter received by the NATS CEO dated 11th September 2018, notifying NATS of the acceptance of the DCO. NATS anticipates no impact from the proposal and accordingly has no comments to make. Please note our contact details below, and the preference to receive future consultations and documentation electronically. NATS LTD Safeguarding Office 4000 Parkway Whiteley Fareham Hampshire PO15 7FL T 01489 444 687 E [email protected] Regards S. Rossi NATS Safeguarding Office "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christopher David Cree
"I work at Camel Hill Farm and have specific interest on the changes to be made to the area under the current proposal. Having recently planted a mix of softwood and hardwood whips to start some form of screening, I would like to know if this was misjudged. In addition, I have concerns over the size and complexity of the new Hazelwood intersection as well as the proposed service road running through Camel Hill Farm and resultant viability of the farm during construction of the new road."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Cliff Baker
"I strongly oppose the plans to the A303 duelling Safety of the villagers.....everyday I have to walk along Howell Hill with my wife and dog and everyday there seems to be cars, tractors and vans speeding through and getting very close to us as pedestrians. The reports say that our local council won’t do anything as our accident rate isn’t high enough......this surely is the wrong way round.......unless something major happens we are left to fend for ourselves, so rather than being proactive yet again we find ourselves in a reactive environment and this is basic safety of people. Increased 'rat run' through the village. Traffic whizzing through our village is awful......from about 8am to 9.30am and then again from 4pm to 6.30pm ON NORMAL DAYS - these times change, on Fridays especially, during summer months. Mott McDonald was seen in our village just the other day (Oct 2018) and when asked what they were doing they were 'viewing traffic' we pointed out that 3pm at the very top of Howell Hill where it meets the A303is the wrong position to stand when doing such an exercise. If they walked a mile in our shoes and truly understood the traffic and when and where it is at its worst things may be different.....I'm being positive here but doubt it will change anything! Huge waste of money in the current climate Seems that it will only improve journey times to around 3-4 mins at certain times during the year The parameters of the scheme are laughable as this focuses on a stretch of a couple of miles to increase speed and flow of traffic only for everything to come to a halt at the traffic lights at Podimore as that part of the road network isn’t coming under this project! At every village meeting we have attended it is noticeable that our MP has been very quiet and has only met with our parish council at a 'closed' meeting so as not to hear the views of the villagers. An appalling approach. I actually received an email from him and he stated they are going to propose a traffic calming scheme and to potentially make the village a 20mph limit zone - THERE HAVE BEEN NO TRAFFIC CALMING PROPOSALS SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THESE LOOK LIKE OR WHERE THEY WILL BE AND ALSO THE CURRENT 30MPH LIMIT DOES NOT GET ADHERED TO SO HOW A 20MPH LIMIT IS GOING TO IMRPOVE THINGS IS REALLY PIE IN THE SKY THINKING.....UNLESS IT IS PROPERLY POLICED IT IS POINTLESS. FINAL POINT ON SPPED LIMITS, LOTS OF THE SIGNAGE AROUND THE VILLAGE IS IN ODD PLACES AND IS OFTEN COVERED IN HEDGEROWS! We as villagers and our Parish Council have only been listened to as part of a box ticking process through Highways England and nothing has been changed based on all our thoughts and concerns. There seems to have been no local weighting in what the improvements and where they are during the decision process.....people far and wide have voted in fact some international comments and they don’t have to suffer the outcomes - let alone the upheaval during proposed works. Nothing has explained why they suggest this is good for business in our local area? It seems the whole project has been decided even before proposals were presented to us locals.....it also seems that things have to decided very quickly as otherwise the pot of money made available may not then be there. This is against what is best for the local area and the country's economy."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Phil Gamble
"I will be arguing that: 1. the proposals do not address major issues of safety on the route or resilience. 2. if/when upgraded to Expressway the proposal leaves local communities isolated 3. the retention of a local link road between Sparkford and Podimore roundabouts would allow local businesses to continue trading 4. the proposed construction programme will cause unnecessary disruption over a significant period to local communities "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Allan Keith Tingey
"Firstly I make it clear that the dualling of this section of the A303 is long overdue but there issues that I believe worthy of implementation. SOUTHERN LINK ROAD. Right from the outset I have advocated that there should be a continuous link of the existing A303 from the fuel station on Camel Hill through to join Howell Hill. During construction this will maintain two way traffic, after construction it will become a local road but also, significantly, it will have the advantage of providing a parallel route for traffic diverted from the dualled road when it has been closed for whatever reason. Great play has been made by Highways England on the A30, which is due to be constructed at the same time as this project, that the existing A30 (with modifications as necessary) will be retained as a parallel local road. Whilst this road represents extra cost for its construction, there are several areas of savings to be made. No Bailey bridge, no haul roads, no separate field access tracks, no compensation to existing trading outlets, substantially all of the construction work will take place on the north side of the existing trafficked A303, etc.. JUNCTIONS AT DOWNHEAD AND CAMEL CROSS These are not required for local traffic. Highways England declare that the A303 will be upgraded to an Expressway. Why, on a new construction only 5.5 Kilometres long would unwanted junctions be included when in the future they will be eliminated. The removal of these junctions can be overcome by my next suggestion. PODIMORE LINK I recognise that the title for this project is A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling but note that the dualling is purely connecting to existing dualled road at Sparkford and Podimore. (Why not Sparkford to Podimore?) There will inevitably be a link formed between Podimore roundabout and the B3151 adjacent to RNAS Yeovilton serving the base and the Fleet Air Arm Museum. This should be constructed now to additionally be a viable route from the A303, along the B3151 and joining the existing retained A303 and the Southern Link, described above, for traffic diverted from the dualled carriageway. (In 1994 at a similar Inspector appraisal, a proposal similar to the above, outside the remit of the scheme, was put forward and proved to be one of a limited number of issues promoted by the Inspector). HAZLEGROVE INTERCHANGE The proposed layout can be simplified to the benefit of all users by making the on/off slip roads more compact to the existing roundabout, saving on land take. It is not acceptable to have the NMU's using the same underpass as vehicles, including heavy goods vehicles. CONTRACTOR COMPOUNDS The DCO submission asserts that the A303 will be maintained operational for the construction of the dualled carriageways save for minor closures overnight, essentially. As the vast majority of the new construction is to take place on the north side of the A303 why are the principal compounds sited on the south side? Personnel, plant, material movements will have to traverse the still open two lane traffic on the existing A303, this does not appear sensible. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT The western end of the site is relatively straight forward to maintain traffic on the existing A303 whilst the new eastbound carriageway is constructed and then traffic will transfer to that. The eastern end near Camel Hill Farm is very problematic due to width and levels. It is not clear how, even with suggested temporary link roads that the maintenance of two way traffic flow can be maintained. The prescribed diversion routes are both lengthy and will inevitably cause traffic to seek out alternatives to the detriment of towns and villages over a wide area. The use of the Southern Link Road described above will circumvent these problems. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Public Health England
"Thank you for your consultation regarding the above development. Public Health England (PHE) welcomes the opportunity to comment on your proposals at this stage of the project. We have considered the documentation accompanying the application for development consent and can confirm the following:- We have previously commented on this application at the scoping stage of the project but can find no record that we were consulted during the public consultation stage. However, having reviewed the submitted Environmental Impact Assessment, we do not wish to register an interest in the application on this occasion. Should the Applicant or Planning Inspector require any further clarification or advice on any matters relating to public health, we will of course be pleased to assist. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
response has attachments
South Somerset Bridleways Association
"General A. NMU routes should be available to all vulnerable road users, walkers, cyclists and equestrians. Thus the definitive status of new public rights of way should be restricted byway. B. New routes should be ‘future proof’, built to accommodate the routes in the DMMO application process. C. Where possible, NMU routes are best positioned at a different level, preferably higher, than the level of the new carriageway. This reduces the noise and visibility of the vehicular traffic from the new public rights of way. D. Diversions where crossings have been closed should be of a reasonable length; a 5 kilometre diversion makes a 10 kilometre round trip, too long to be considered reasonable. E. If traffic levels demand it, install Pegasus crossings at two sites. F. Dedicate NMU routes as restricted byways as these offer best value for public funds. Tracks used as construction tracks make excellent NMU routes. G. Land remaining after construction, which is not required for agricultural use, could make valuable parking for recreational users. The new network of NMU routes will attract cyclists and horseriders who may need to park near these routes. Site specific: North of eastbound carriageway: 1. Southern end of Eastmead Lane: The provision for NMU route detours eastwards to the Steart Hill bridge and back along surface roads into Podimore. This is over 5 kilometres, a round trip of over 10 kilometres, and is considered too long. Although outside the area covered by the DCO scheme, could provision via bridleway (Y30/29) across the vehicular bridge into Podimore be considered. 2. Eastwards from Slate Lane. HE own, to be used as a construction route, a track from (ST 5777 2559) eastwards to Camel Hill. The proposed route for horseriders from the Camel Hill stables to Slate Lane is 3.5 kilometres on vehicular roads. The construction track is 1 kilometre off-road route. Please could bridleway or restricted byway rights be dedicated on this track. South of the westbound carriageway 3. The underpass for the local road northwest of the Hazelgrove roundabout should be designed with separation of NMU from the carriageway. 4. Hazelgrove roundabout. Please could the track on the verge be upgraded to include equestrians with a fence to separate verge from carriageway. 5. The crossing where the A359 joins the roundabout may benefit from a Pegasus crossing. 6. The local road from AO to AP (sheet 2 of 4) is straight and carries fast traffic, please could bridleway / restricted byway rights be dedicated along one of the verges. 7. Northern end of Plowage Lane (AT sheet 2 of 4). Suggest installing a Pegasus crossing for both users of the restricted byway to the south, and horseriders and cyclists using the old A303 to reach the Steart Hill bridge. 8. Camel Cross Link. Access track (tracks 4 and 9); After completion of the works, could NMU rights be dedicated, and extended to join the public road at ST 5526 2498, providing a safe off-road route into Podimore. Sarah Bucks SSBA "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr James March Smith on behalf of Sparkford Hall
"Sparkford Hall, owned by Mr James March Smith and Gillian Beddows, comprises 18 acres of land with gardens, a large detached country house, cottage and range of outbuildings that in recent years have been converted to offices and additional residential accommodation used for the running of a successful wedding venue and events business. The proposed scheme has implications to the running of the business, potential financial losses and a drop in property value. In brief, concerns are summarised as follows: • Co-operation and communication from Highways England has been very poor since the start of the proposed scheme and there is a significant lack of understanding or agreement to any mitigation works to help reduce losses to the business and running of the business pre, during and post the proposed works. • Due to this lack of cooperation and advice we have had to seek advice from Counsel and have instructed our Barrister Mr Barry Denyer-Green, Falcon Chambers, Falcon Court, London. • Numerous requests were made, however information regarding timings of works, diversions, access to the property during construction, temporary lighting, and noise and pollution has not been provided. This uncertainty is currently causing significant impact to potential future bookings of the business. Highways England and their representatives do not understand what implications the lack of information and assistance is causing to the business currently. • Post-work concerns include an increase in noise as a result of the new route, due to topography and change in road surface will potentially have a significant impact to the running and future of the business. Noise surveys have been undertaken by Highways England, but have not been provided to the business as previously promised. • The closure and loss of a public footpath which connects the property to the local village and public house, which customers use, will have an impact on the business. The mitigation of a new bridge would alleviate this concern. This has been suggested but not accepted by Highways England. • Mitigation and other suggestions to reduce impact to the business and running during and post works have been suggested by the surveyor and owners of the business, but they have again been ignored. These include suggested diversions, possible earth bund, sound barriers and clearer and more detailed information provided to the public now. It is understood that some of the above claims may be claimable under Section 10 or Part 1 to Highways England after works. It is, however, preferable to the owners that co-operation and discussion with Highways England is forthcoming now to help reduce these potential claims. "
Other Statutory Consultees
Health and Safety Executive
"We have searched the Planning Inspectorate Consultation documentation for this Project but have not found specific mention of HSE’s response under Section 42 of The Planning Act 2008. This has been updated below: With reference to the drawing (Drawing Number HE551507, Rev C01, 16/07/18) title RED LINE BOUNDARY PLAN REGULATION 5(2)(o) for Project A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling found in document A303_2.13_Red_Line_Boundary Plan: 1. There are currently no Major Hazard Installations in the vicinity of the proposed scheme. 2. There are currently no Major Accident Hazard Pipeline(s) (MAHP) in the vicinity of the proposed scheme. Although there are currently no Major Hazard Installations or Major Accident Hazard Pipeline(s) (MAHP) in the vicinity of the proposed scheme, should a Hazardous Substances Consent [The Planning (hazardous Substances) (England) 2015 Regulations (as amended)] be granted prior to the determination of the present application, and/or HSE receives a notification under the Pipeline Safety Regulations 1996 then the HSE reserves the right to revise its advice. "
Other Statutory Consultees
National Trust
"Introduction The National Trust is Europe’s largest conservation charity with over five million members. Established over 120 years ago, its primary purpose is to promote the preservation of special places for the benefit of the nation. The Trust is the custodian of several historic properties in South Somerset, including Lytes Cary Manor, a short distance to the west of the proposed road scheme (see applicant’s Environmental Constraints Plan). Further down the A303 are Tintinhull Garden, Montacute House and St Michael’s Hill, and Barrington Court. Together with a number of smaller NT properties, these form a notable component of South Somerset’s tourism and visitor economy. The Trust is aware of the longstanding challenges of highway access to the South West via the A303 route corridor, and the benefits for local communities, visitors and the wider economy that could arise from road improvements. We broadly support the upgrading of the A303 between Sparkford to Ilchester, subject to the following comments. Natural and historic environments The proposed dualling falls some way short of (and involves no changes to) the Podimore roundabout, adjacent to Lytes Cary estate. Therefore, there are unlikely to be significant impacts on the landscape, views and settings of Trust properties. However, the proposed dual carriageway would pass over Camel Hill and includes new junctions and cuttings, so it may be visible in the wider landscape, including from Lytes Cary estate and in long distance views from St Michael’s Hill. Any such impacts should be carefully considered, and ameliorated through detailed design and mitigation as appropriate (including new landscaping to provide screening, and minimising light pollution from any street lighting). In respect of ecology, surface water run-off from the new road is likely to enter the River Cary, which flows through the Lytes Cary estate downstream. Any potential water pollution should be carefully assessed and addressed through detailed design and mitigation; the same applies for other ecological impacts of the scheme. Ecological enhancements should be secured where possible. Business impacts during construction The National Trust properties in South Somerset received 381,000 visitors in 2017/18, and the numbers have been growing over recent years. According to our own analysis, a high proportion of these visitors travel via the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester. An estimated 79% of Trust members do so to access Lytes Cary (and 54% for Tintinhull, 43% for Montacute and 25% for Barrington). Given the above, we request that the Trust is identified as a stakeholder in the Traffic Management Plan, and that it is invited to be represented at the monthly traffic co-ordination meetings. In respect of traffic management, we would want advanced warning of road diversions and closures, in order to advise our visitors, and would ask for additional signage to reduce the impacts on our properties. Conclusion The Trust broadly supports the proposed road improvement between Sparkford and Ilchester and requests that the issues raised in this representation are given appropriate weight and attention through the DCO process, including through the use of Requirements where appropriate. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Greenslade Taylor Hunt on behalf of A W Hewlett & Son
"By letter from The Planning inspectorate dated 18th October 2018, we have been requested to refer you to the written representation made by email to The Planning Inspectorate on 17th October 2018 at 13:14 together with all attachments."
Non-Statutory Organisations
Strutt and Parker on behalf of Church Commissioners for England
"This representation is submitted by Strutt & Parker on behalf of the Church Commissioners for England (The Commissioners). The Commissioners are a registered Charity with land holdings across the country. The Commissioners’ Yeovil estate is predominantly divided into two farms, Higher Farm and Courtry & Speckington Farm. Both farms sit in close proximity to the current route of the A303 and access to parts of the two farms are heavily dependent upon it. The Commissioners, through their managing agents, have over the past year taken part in the consultation process for the Dualling of the Sparkford to Ilchester section of the A303, including attendance at several consultation events and through discussions with the project team at Highways England. The Commissioners and their farm tenants have also provided consent to enable preliminary survey works to be undertaken on the land owned by the Commissioners. This representation comments on specific features of the design for the A303 dualling scheme submitted by Highways England with the intended aim of ensuring that reasonable changes to the scheme are made to help mitigate our client’s losses. This representation is broken down into three parts for separate parcels of land affected. A - Land at Higher Farm. Title Numbers, WS46264, WS46259, WS46247 B - Land at Courtry & Speckington Farm (South of A303). Title Number WS46097 C - Land at Courtry & Speckington Farm (North of A303). Title Number WS46095 A - Land at Higher Farm. Title Numbers, WS46264, WS46259, WS46247 Our client welcomes the inclusion of an accommodation access running from Higher Farm lane to serve their land under title number WS46247. Are client disagrees that that the access provides them with a suitable alternative means of access. To ensure that the track is suitable for modern agricultural machinery, and provides a similar access provision, our client request the following; - That the access track is completed to at least 4.5 meters wide with cleared margins on either side of at least 1 meter. This is to allow the safe transition and manoeuvring of large machinery, such as a combine harvester. All gates should also be of an appropriate width accordingly. - That the access track is constructed with a suitable hard wearing surface which shall require minimal maintenance. A reinforced concrete surface would be advisable to ensure that the high load of agricultural machinery can be accommodated. - That a gate is installed along the boundary of the accommodation access and title WS46247 to ensure that access can be gained to the retained land. Our client is concerned by the suggested outfall from pond 1 (Plot reference 1/4a), which appears to lead to their land under title number WS46264. From our review of the proposed drawings, this could lead to 3.47 hectares of the Highway area draining onto our client’s land, which already low lying and suffering from poor drainage. This is significantly more than at present. We would contest that this is not a suitable place for such an outfall and it would be advisable to move the outfall to allow water to flow significantly further west along the highway in the direction of the Podimore roundabout. This could potentially connect to the existing culvert at the Higher Farm Lane overbridge, instead of the culvert running across my clients’ land. The proposals by Highways England do not appear to show any works to the existing watercourse (ditch) which this outfall will flow into, to ensure it is of a suitable capacity. The proposals as they stand will have an adverse impact on our clients’ land. Our client disagrees with the provision of drainage for the scheme. B - Land at Courtry & Speckington Farm (South of A303). Title Number WS46097 Our client is again pleased to see that there needs for access to the western section of the above title have been considered and that an accommodation access is proposed from the B3151 to the east. Our client would however suggest that an accommodation access may not be required if a section of the ditch running through this title could be piped and a small section of hedgerow removed. Thus providing a means of access to the parcel. This would enable our client to farm the entire area of land within this title as one block and reduce accordingly the area of land take required. This would mitigate losses to my clients and have a significant reduction in the cost of the scheme to Highways England. We would welcome the opportunity to review this further with the project team. If the accommodation access is to be provided as detailed, then my client would request that the specification is the same as noted in respect of accommodation access serving the land at Higher Farm (see above comments) In respect of land to be permanent acquired, the land take in respect of parcel 2/5c appears somewhat excessive (in the southern portion), perhaps by up to 0.2 hectares. It also provides the field with a more awkward shape to farm which will further reduce the area that can be cropped. Our client disagrees that the amount of land take is reasonable in this location. Our client is also significantly concerned that their current access from the B3151, on the most eastern tip of this land parcel, appears to be removed. This is a key access to the field for large machinery. My client does benefit from another access further west along the B3151 but this is not suitable for agricultural machinery in its current form. My client invites Highways England to consider options for suitable access provision to this parcel so that a wider parcel of land is not de-valued. Our client is also concerned that a significant portion of the new scheme is intended to be drained using the ditch that traverses their land under this title (and leads further west to my clients’ title under title number WS46228). This field is already particularly wet and no proposals are made by Highways England to improve this ditch to ensure that it has suitable capacity (together with the waterways which it leads to). In total, an area of 24.34 hectares (catchments 2 & 3) together with existing drained area will eventually drain into this ditch. My client has significant concerns as to whether the existing field drainage and ditching will be able to cope with additional run off. We would invite Highways England to submit modelling to our client to demonstrate that there will be no adverse impact from the drainage proposals onto our clients’ land. The documents submitted by Highways England do not appear to demonstrate that the impact on this ditch has been modelled. Our client disagrees with the provision of drainage for the scheme. The land parcel also includes a works and material storage compound under parcel 2/5b. This area is at least 4.8 hectares and seems rather excessive for the proposed use. The allocated area almost appears somewhat arbitrator. Our client would request justification to show why such a large area is required by the scheme for the purpose outlined. Our client would also request detail of proposed ground protection measures and detail of what temporary drainage provision will be provided on the site to protect our clients neighbouring land from run off. The land is low lying with a heavy soil. During winter months, ground conditions can be extremely challenging. My client would therefore questions whether this parcel of land is indeed suitable for a site compound. If the land is utilised, my client and their tenant farmer will require access to the retained land to the west through the works site. Our client disagrees that the amount of temporary land take is reasonable in this location. C - Land at Courtry & Speckington Farm (North of A303). Title Number WS46095 Again, our client welcomes the provision of an accommodation access that can serve their land, as the current entrance directly from the A303 will be closed. My client would request that the specification for this accommodation access as it leads from its most eastern extent to my clients’ land in the west, is the same as noted in respect of accommodation access serving the land at Higher Farm (see above comments). The field included within this title is currently subject to arable cropping. The reduction in size, to approximately 5.7 acres may render it unsuitable for arable production in the future, particularly as the works will render it more severed from the remaining holding land it already is. To help mitigate the loss in value of the land, my client would request that Highways England securely stock proof fence the perimeter of the land so that is may be utilised by livestock in the future. Fencing along all stretches of land should bordering my clients land where works are to be undertaken should be of stock proof fencing, with a specification of pig netting, two strands of barbed wire with tantalised round posts with a lifespan of at least 30 years. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Greenslade Taylor Hunt on behalf of D W Hewlett
"By letter from The Planning inspectorate dated 18th October 2018, we have been requested to refer you to the written representation made by email to The Planning Inspectorate on 17th October 2018 at 13:14 together with all attachments."
Other Statutory Consultees
Defence Infrastructure Organisation
"The location for the proposed development occupies the any development aerodrome height, birdstrike and technical statutory safeguarding zones surrounding RNAS Yeovilton and the birdstrike statutory safeguarding zone surrounding Yeovil Airfield. In order for the appropriate assessments to be made to safeguard military radar and maintain air safety at the airbases, the MOD would require further information regarding the Above Ground Level (AGL) heights of machinery if piling is required for the proposed borehole drilling and also the details of any cranes or other tall pieces of equipment used during the construction of the road. The application site is within the birdstrike safeguarding zone, therefore any water bodies within this zone which could attract birds would be of concern to the MOD. The applicant should consider this when progressing the proposal and any water bodies should be designed in a way so they do not become an attractant to birds. There are plans for five ponds to contain permanent standing water along the route of the proposed dual carriageway. The MOD has concerns these open bodies of water would potentially increase the risk of birdstrike to military aircraft operating around RNAS Yeovilton and Yeovil Airfield. Therefore, we would require further information regarding the function and design of the ponds as this proposal progresses. In summary, with regards to the concerns identified above, please could DIO Safeguarding be consulted at any future planning / application stage of this development proposal. "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Environment Agency
"The Environment Agency's Representation has been forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate in the form of a pdf document, which, it has been agreed, will be attached to this form by the Inspectorate. "
Non-Statutory Organisations
Friends of the Earth
"The technical data presented for the examination of the A303 Sparkford – Ilchester scheme treat it as a standalone project. It clearly is not. Highways England’s own justification of “why we need this scheme” starts by stating: “The A303/A358 corridor is a vital connection between the south west, London and the south east. While much of the route is a dual carriageway, there are still over 35 miles of single carriageway” – and it is clear from much of their promotional material, and Ministerial statements, that the scheme is to be viewed as part of a wider strategy to create an A303 “expressway” of continuous dual carriageway standard between the south east and the south west. The scheme appraisal looks very much as though it discounts the cumulative effects of this strategy. Two other schemes in the same corridor, A303 Stonehenge and A358 Taunton to Southfields, are explicitly scoped out as having “no cumulative effects” (ref APP-051). The transport report (ref APP-150) predicts traffic increases of 15-20% over “do minimum” by 2038 – a maximum daily flow on A303 of 43600 with dualling as against 36300 in the “do minimum” case (and 23400 present day). This includes some local re-assignment away from other roads in the area. We request that the examining body seeks confirmation of this, but it looks very much as though these forecasts are based on dualling only the Sparkford – Ilchester section of A303, not the corridor as a whole. In other words, what is being appraised is not what is actually proposed. A Freedom of Information request to Highways England has so far failed to elicit forecasts for the traffic increases resulting from dualling of the A303/A358 corridor as a whole. It should be noted however that the 2002 SWARMMS study predicted daily flows of 55000 vehicles on this section of A303 if the corridor as a whole were dualled. This is 12% more than the flow that is used as the basis for modelling in the Environmental Statement, 50% more than “do minimum”, and 135% more than the present day. Many adverse impacts will be correspondingly greater. We appreciate that the examining body has to consider the scheme it is presented with, and cannot recommend on the project to dual the A303 as a whole. Nevertheless since that is the context within which the A303 Sparkford – Ilchester scheme so clearly sits, we believe that it is misleading to put it through examination as though the other elements of the overall strategy did not exist. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Iain Aird
"I have concerns regarding inaccurate and possibly misleading entries to the "book of reference". I am also concerned there is a danger to traffic regarding the siting of the temporary (haulage/non road legal vehicle) road on Camel Hill There needs to be some sort of pedestrian/cyclist access (underpass or light bridge) from Camel Hill to Gason Lane as the current proposal is neither helpful nor safe and appears VERY dangerous for a cyclist or pedestrian to access local amenities in the village "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mike Lewis
"As the elected Somerset County Councillor for Castle Cary Division which includes the villages of Babcary, Podimore, Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel which straddle the proposed dualling of the A303 I wish to strongly support the joint submission by Somerset County Council and South Somerset District Council plus the joint and individual submissions by Queen Camel, Sparkford and West Camel. One issue that impacts on all the local communities including Babcary and Podimore is FLOODING; exaggerated by the water run off from the A303 and impacting on the local and communities especially down stream on the river Cam. It is my contention that insufficient consideration has been given to flood alleviation and mitigation measures as the direct experience of the local communities does not match data provided by the Environment Agency. The HGV Management Plan for the A359 between Sparkford and Yeovil restricting such vehicles to 7!/2 tons both during and post construction will need to be rigidly enforced, as well as further speed reduction measures for Sparkford High Street and Howell Hill and Plowage Lane in West Camel. The elevated section of the proposed dualling will in my view have a significant impact on the 3 main communities to the south of the A303 and will need greater protection than currently envisaged. It is proposed by Highways England that Traits Lane and the Podimore slip road be blocked up post construction. It would be really helpful if this occurred prior to the commencement of construction, and during 2019. This has the support of the communities affected by these proposals. Comments on the Sparkford/ Hazlegrove junction has been commented on elsewhere. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Nicholas Aleksander
"I have homes both in Devon and in London, and regularly use the A303 to travel between them. The A303 is heavily used, and those parts that are single carriageway cannot cope with the level of traffic - and jams occur at the various transitions from dual to single. The proposal is essential to ensuring that there are good communication links between the South West of the UK and the rest of the country."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Roy Lawrenson
"Plan HE551507 [redacted] relief road Primary Concerns: 1. LOCATION The entrance to the road will be 4 metres from our door and bedrooms. Heavy vehicular traffic will be entering and exiting directly under our bedroom windows during the early hours of the morning and late at night. The noise, light and diesel pollution from stationary vehicles as gates are opened and closed will be unacceptable and a HEALTH ISSUE for our family. The entrance of the proposed road will be situated between two blind bends on a single track unclassified road. The exact PROPOSED LOCATION WAS DEEMED A SAFETY ISSUE by LOCAL PLANNERS when [redacted] applied for planning permission and a condition of planning was that ‘any vehicular entrance must be located 50 metres east’. The proposedg site access area is currently a matter of grave concern with 3 head on collisions in the last two years on this specific spot. The County Councillor (Mike Lewis), the Parish Council and the Hamlet of Wales residents are currently in talks with SSDC Highways and Highways England about the risks and dangers to vehicle users, pedestrians and horse riders on this very lane. The road would also require significant ancient hedging to be removed causing unnecessary environmental damage. 2. FLOODING We live in the highest risk ZONE 3 flood flood area. The proposed road comes off a 70m elavation slope and faces directly onto Blackwell Lane which floods each year as a direct result of run-off water from the hill. Any impaction of soil heightens the displacement of water and causes greater risk to near by properties. At the proposed exit of the road the River Cam runs directly along Blackwell Lane causing aqua planing of vehicles and risk of them entering the river. (Photo evidence available). When our house flooded in 2008 it came in from the road side breaching flood defences of over 70 cm, again as a direct result of run-off from the hill opposite. The environment agency confirmed in correspondence to the owner of [redacted] that the local flooding was as a direct result of heavy rain running off the hills. A flood assessment report and a groundsure report for [redacted] confirms that there is significant risk of flood from the North with water running down the hill onto the road and into the house. There are three key factors which heighten the risk of flooding to our house. The farmer has recently built a cow shed with a 50 x20 metre concrete base on the mid section of the hill causing hydro displacement, the A303 will be building directly on top of the hill and now a proposed access road would be built on the same ground. Each proposal viewed in isolation is significant in terms of hydro displacement but viewed together the risk is exponential. 3. NEED FOR ROAD EASEMENT The farm access from Blackwell Lane up Traits Lane will remain open during the A303 development and is marginal in distance difference from the proposed easement road. The corner between Blackwell Lane and Traits Lane is tight but could easily be modified at a fraction of the cost. Any modification would still be on the owner’s land because he owns all of the aforementioned corner. My understanding that the road would be temporary but I can not ascertain where the access will revert to."
Local Authorities
Somerset County Council
"Somerset County Council and South Somerset District Council - Joint Council Relevant Representation – 19th October 2018 Planning Act 2008 – Section 102 A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling Scheme PINS Reference: - TR010036 The proposed dualling of the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester is within the administrative boundaries of South Somerset District Council and Somerset County Council and therefore the ‘Councils’ are host authorities and statutory consultees in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. This relevant representation reiterates the Councils’ support for the dualling scheme. However, the Councils wish to ensure that the development does not result in unacceptable impacts on the residents, businesses and environment of the affected local area. We have therefore taken the opportunity to highlight issues that should be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at the Examination. The Councils note that the scheme submitted is still only at preliminary design stage, and whilst advanced, is not finalised. On this basis, further localised impacts or issues may emerge and these will be presented to the Examining Authority as further information comes forward. There therefore continues to be a considerable volume of work that remains to be done and it is essential that the Councils have adequate resources provided to perform their functions. The Councils are disappointed that negotiations for a Planning Performance Agreement were unsuccessful which has limited their capacity and ability to fully assess the submitted DCO within the timeframes available. A detailed assessment of the scheme by the Councils is therefore ongoing. The Councils also have concerns in the context of having a fair chance to put their case and ensuring an adequate examination of the issues. The comments listed below are intended as a summary, which will be further developed and detailed within the emerging Written Representations, Local Impact Report and Statements of Common Ground. Impact on the Local Highway Network The Councils have previously advised the applicant during the pre-application stage that a Transport Assessment should be prepared to confirm that the proposed layout is appropriate in traffic terms. It is understood that this has not been prepared but the applicant has prepared and submitted a CoMMA Report and Transport Report which includes technical modelling data. Review of the modelling data has shown that the scheme is likely to increase traffic through the communities of West Camel and Sparkford. Whilst this is understood from review of the technical data, it is unclear why the impacts on these local areas, which could be more wide-ranging than just increased traffic and include for example impact on cultural heritage or ecology, are not described in detail within the Environmental Statement (ES) Chapters and we consider that there may be residual impacts which may need to be mitigated. We note that communities have raised concerns about increased traffic and we understand that the applicant is willing to make funds available to address this in West Camel; Sparkford is still being considered. Traffic calming measures and other mitigation measures should therefore be explored and considered through the DCO process with any additional impacts of this considered, and a mechanism established to secure this mitigation. The Local Impact Area does not appear to include the locations of West Camel, Queen Camel or Podimore Roundabout. We originally recommended to Highways England that a “wider sphere of influence may be required to capture the wider scheme impacts…..” it would appear that this hasn’t been taken into account and therefore it appears that a significant amount of scheme impact has not be included within the report. In addition, the CoMMA report includes operational traffic assessments of the proposed junctions but the assessment has shown potential issues around the junction of Sparkford High Street - The Avenue and Podimore Roundabout. In the absence of an explanation of these issues as part of the ES it is suggested that the applicant provides their view on the impacts and comment on whether the impact warrants appropriate mitigation. SCC as the Local Highway Authority (LHA) have been working with the applicant’s designer since January 2018, providing comments on technical submissions related to new local road provision; provision for non-motorised users; signage and road markings; structures; construction proposals; drainage; and street lighting. In addition, matters relating to maintenance provision and extents of responsibility; regulatory measures on local roads; and de-trunking works have also been discussed, but again are at an early stage of agreement. The technical elements do still require agreement through developed detailed design; however it is noted that the detailed designs are not yet programmed to be progressed until appointment of a further designer and potentially after conclusion of the examination. SCC considers that the outstanding issues are capable of being resolved, however, SCC will require provision within the wording of the DCO for the LHA to approve the remaining detailed design elements and agreement for the associated fees associated with this. At present it is considered that such a commitment is not yet contained within the DCO. For those sections which fall to the responsibility of the LHA under DCO de-trunking procedures, it is normal practice for the LHA to be compensated by Highways England for the additional maintenance burden the roads will present to the Council. The compensatory arrangements have not yet been agreed including the end uses of all redundant sections of the A303 route. Public Rights of Way The information in the various documents and Draft DCO where shown in detail, is generally an accurate portrayal of the recorded public rights of way. Some of the more schematic figures of the whole application area would appear to have minor errors, but not sufficient to be of concern. The LHA does have some concerns in relation to the methodology for assessing the usage of the network; by not covering full daylight hours, nor weekend days, the results of non-motorised user surveys is not considered entirely representative of the actual use. In general the analysis of the impact of the development is a fair portrayal with one particular exception in relation to public bridleway Y 30/28. The LHA has concerns in relation to the impact of the stopping up of the connection of Y30/28 with the A303. The current proposal from the applicant is provision of a route east to the nearest new vehicular overbridge. The applicant, in line with the National Policy Statement for National Networks, is expected to take appropriate mitigation measures to address adverse effects on public rights of way. The LHA considers that the proposed mitigation, whilst beneficial to the overall network is not the most appropriate. The length of the alternative route proposed by the applicant is c.5.2km for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. If instead the alternative was over Y 30/UN (now labelled Y 30/31), this length would be reduced to c.1.5km. This is a considerable difference in length and convenience. In addition to the recorded network of Public Rights of Way, there are potentially unrecorded rights that may exist which the development will interfere with. Given the potential impact of the scheme it is considered that the possible outcomes of current applications to modify the Definitive Map and Statement would necessitate a mechanism to be included within the DCO which safeguards the provision of such rights in the future if and when they are confirmed. Impact on Air Quality Having reviewed all the information provided with this application, we are satisfied that the baseline information and assessment methods used in respect of air quality modelling is satisfactory. Whilst there appears to be no significant changes to air quality from the proposed scheme itself and as such, no mitigation measures have been proposed, there are two areas of concern to the Council, West Camel and Sparkford High Street where it is predicted the scheme will result in significantly increased traffic movements which may have an adverse effect on air quality. Further investigation is needed to ensure these areas will not exceed air quality limits and to determine whether appropriate mitigation measures are necessary. Impact on Noise and Vibration Having reviewed the information provided, we are satisfied that the baseline information in respect of noise and vibration is satisfactory, the assessment methods used are appropriate and the presentation of the results clearly demonstrate the likely effects the proposed scheme will have during construction and when in operation. It is expected and understood that Best Practice Measures will be implemented during construction to mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration. Approval is to be obtained from the District Council through the Section 61 process which will ensure any mitigation identified will have no residual significant impacts. It is noted that there are 2 properties that will be significantly affected by operational noise once the scheme is open to traffic, however, the mitigation embedded in the scheme design and secondary double glazing for the 2 properties will be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the operational noise. We however have concerns about the proposed scheme causing significant increases in traffic on Sparkford High Street and West Camel and the subsequent increase in noise as a result of this. Impact on Cultural Heritage The scheme is within an area of high historic and cultural value and whilst the assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which is the accepted methodology for infrastructure projects, and sets out a logical sequence for assessment and review, the assessment for some assets is queried. The increased traffic in West Camel and Sparkford may require mitigation. Any traffic calming measures that are required as a direct outcome of the dualling works should be included in the DCO and their effects on Conservation Areas and associated cultural heritage assessed. Such measures should assess the impact on the character and appearance of a conservation area or setting of a listed building and impact of traffic-induced vibration on the structural integrity of historic buildings and structures. Given that the traffic modelling for the scheme indicates an increase in HGV traffic as a direct outcome of the dualling works, it is recommended that traffic-induced vibration on historic buildings and structures, and increased traffic loads on Camel Bridge are assessed. Whilst mitigation measures are outlined with the application, additional mitigation is required, details of which will be outlined in the Written Representations and Local Impact Report. Impact on Archaeology The data does not currently include the full suite of field investigations required to assess the significance or impacts of heritage assets. The applicant has carried out a geophysical survey of the scheme and is currently engaged in trial trenching. The applicant’s archaeological consultants have been in contact with the South West Heritage Trust (SWHT) and Written Schemes of Investigation for the survey and trial trenching have been agreed. The geophysical survey has indicated archaeological potential across areas of the scheme. The SWHT is engaged in monitoring of the trial trenching (in conjunction with HE where appropriate) and this is progressing well. It is understood that the results of the fieldwork will be submitted during the application process and so it is envisaged that all required information will be available prior to any determination. The documents that have been submitted are accepted as meeting the requirements of the initial phase of the assessment. The later submission of the geophysical survey and trial trenching will enable a mitigation strategy to be designed. At present it is not possible to comment fully on the ES Chapter and issues associated with the impacts on archaeology. Impact on Landscape The methodology for establishing the landscape and visual baseline in the ES is comprehensive and clearly sets out the study area, designated sites, landscape character and its sensitivity to change, and the visual baseline and its sensitivity to change. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the DMRB, Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessments (replacing parts of the DMRB) and the Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessments. The DMRB is the accepted methodology for infrastructure projects and the Landscape Institute guidance is a long-established industry tool. The assessment for the likely effects is challenged for a number of visual receptors and requires reassessment. A number of measures and additional information are recommended to the landscape design to improve the impact on the scheme on the landscape its appreciation from visual receptors. These will be detailed in the Written Representations and Local Impact Report. Impact on Biodiversity The information presented is generally accurate but there are some omissions and these have been raised at Highways England Technical Working Groups and officers are working to progress matters. Any outstanding matters will be raised in the Local Impact Report. Approximately 91 hectares of habitat clearance would be undertaken as part of the proposed scheme, 77.4 hectares would be temporarily damaged and 13.7 hectares permanently removed. Whilst overall it is suggested that there would be a net gain in biodiversity, this is unclear and requires evidencing using the use of metrics. The loss of hedgerows and woodland is concerning. The replanting and replacement of mature trees on a 1 for 1 basis is insufficient and new planting should be on a 3 for 1 basis which would allow for natural losses. An appropriate ecological management plan will need to be in place to ensure that all the re-created habitats are managed to the intended habitat and for the duration of the scheme. Of particular concern is the hedgerow east of Canegore Corner, no mitigation measures are proposed to counteract the effect of the proposed road construction on bats or other species, or for proposed species crossing the new A303 once operational. It is recommended that a “green bridge” be considered here and underpasses elsewhere as the opportunity exits. The ecologist welcomes further dialogue to fully understand the various assessments of species and the extent and nature of the proposed mitigation, enhancement and monitoring and the mechanisms for securing it. Further survey work will be required prior to construction and the ecologist welcomes input. Impact on People and Communities Only light touch proposals regarding construction methodology and traffic management have been submitted to date. The Councils will therefore look to ensure that a mechanism is included within the wording of the DCO to secure an approved construction traffic management plan. The Council has previously raised concerns over the absence of an approved signage strategy and potential implications of less direct access to Fleet Air Arm Museum and RNAS Yeovilton. The impact of the design of Hazelgrove Junction upon the viability of local businesses is also of concern and should be mitigated where possible. The defined Local Impact Area for businesses is restrictive and does not allow impacts on various route-reliant businesses and visitor attractions to be taken into account. A number of small businesses and tourist attractions such as Haynes International Motor Museum, Hadspen House (Emily Estate to open spring 2019), Hauser and Wirth and Fleet Air Arm Museum are outside this tightly drawn area. Consideration should be given of the impact on the wider business community. The effective management of traffic and good signage, especially during the construction phase of the proposed route will be essential, to ensure that businesses and communities are not negatively impacted. Funding to promote these businesses during the construction phase where it may be more difficult to access the facilities is necessary. The message should be clear that “South Somerset is still open for business”. Road closures are included within outline proposals. However, only outline details have been received to date. Whilst it is suggested that the majority of closures be overnight, the potential impacts on residents and the business community will need to be considered. This further re-enforces the need to ensure that there is appropriate provision within the DCO drafting to include a commitment for detailed measures to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority, especially given that Yeovil Refresh includes highways improvements that may come forward during the construction period. Geology, Assets and Waste The Councils are satisfied with the approach, assessment methodology, identified likely effects and proposed mitigation measures presented by the developer in the documents reviewed. We do, however, have a number of observations on the baseline data presented in Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement and the proposed Site Waste Management Plan which link to waste generation in Somerset; latest data for landfill capacity in Somerset, including inert landfill; and, the operational status of Somerset waste sites, but we do not consider these affect the overall outcome of the assessment. Detail relating to these points will be further outlined within the Local Impact Report and Statement of Common Ground. Lead Local Flood Authority It is assumed that all the relevant CCTV surveys of drainage assets, as detailed in the DCO, have been undertaken as well as condition and extent surveys. It is understood that the ground investigations were being undertaken at the time of writing the Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategies, but these should be used to inform the strategies. There will be a need to provide more detail of the various drainage features, ponds and structures as the proposals progress, including cross sections, levels and structures. These details should include any temporary or phased arrangements necessary for the construction of the scheme; including how and when these will be brought forward and become operational. Conclusions It is hoped that the comments above are helpful to the Examining Authority in informing their initial assessment of principal issues for examination. As outlined above, the continued review of the application material will enable the Councils to provide greater detail and explanation in their Local Impact Report. "
Local Authorities
South Somerset District Council
"Somerset County Council and South Somerset District Council Joint Council Relevant Representation – 19th October 2018 Planning Act 2008 – Section 102 A303 Sparkford to Ilchester Dualling Scheme PINS Reference: - TR010036 The proposed dualling of the A303 between Sparkford and Ilchester is within the administrative boundaries of South Somerset District Council and Somerset County Council and therefore the ‘Councils’ are host authorities and statutory consultees in the Development Consent Order (DCO) process. This relevant representation reiterates the Councils’ support for the dualling scheme. However, the Councils wish to ensure that the development does not result in unacceptable impacts on the residents, businesses and environment of the affected local area. We have therefore taken the opportunity to highlight issues that should be considered by the Planning Inspectorate at the Examination. The Councils note that the scheme submitted is still only at preliminary design stage, and whilst advanced, is not finalised. On this basis, further localised impacts or issues may emerge and these will be presented to the Examining Authority as further information comes forward. There therefore continues to be a considerable volume of work that remains to be done and it is essential that the Councils have adequate resources provided to perform their functions. The Councils are disappointed that negotiations for a Planning Performance Agreement were unsuccessful which has limited their capacity and ability to fully assess the submitted DCO within the timeframes available. A detailed assessment of the scheme by the Councils is therefore ongoing. The Councils also have concerns in the context of having a fair chance to put their case and ensuring an adequate examination of the issues. The comments listed below are intended as a summary, which will be further developed and detailed within the emerging Written Representations, Local Impact Report and Statements of Common Ground. Impact on the Local Highway Network The Councils have previously advised the applicant during the pre-application stage that a Transport Assessment should be prepared to confirm that the proposed layout is appropriate in traffic terms. It is understood that this has not been prepared but the applicant has prepared and submitted a CoMMA Report and Transport Report which includes technical modelling data. Review of the modelling data has shown that the scheme is likely to increase traffic through the communities of West Camel and Sparkford. Whilst this is understood from review of the technical data, it is unclear why the impacts on these local areas, which could be more wide-ranging than just increased traffic and include for example impact on cultural heritage or ecology, are not described in detail within the Environmental Statement (ES) Chapters and we consider that there may be residual impacts which may need to be mitigated. We note that communities have raised concerns about increased traffic and we understand that the applicant is willing to make funds available to address this in West Camel; Sparkford is still being considered. Traffic calming measures and other mitigation measures should therefore be explored and considered through the DCO process with any additional impacts of this considered, and a mechanism established to secure this mitigation. The Local Impact Area does not appear to include the locations of West Camel, Queen Camel or Podimore Roundabout. We originally recommended to Highways England that a “wider sphere of influence may be required to capture the wider scheme impacts…..” it would appear that this hasn’t been taken into account and therefore it appears that a significant amount of scheme impact has not be included within the report. In addition, the CoMMA report includes operational traffic assessments of the proposed junctions but the assessment has shown potential issues around the junction of Sparkford High Street - The Avenue and Podimore Roundabout. In the absence of an explanation of these issues as part of the ES it is suggested that the applicant provides their view on the impacts and comment on whether the impact warrants appropriate mitigation. SCC as the Local Highway Authority (LHA) have been working with the applicant’s designer since January 2018, providing comments on technical submissions related to new local road provision; provision for non-motorised users; signage and road markings; structures; construction proposals; drainage; and street lighting. In addition, matters relating to maintenance provision and extents of responsibility; regulatory measures on local roads; and de-trunking works have also been discussed, but again are at an early stage of agreement. The technical elements do still require agreement through developed detailed design; however it is noted that the detailed designs are not yet programmed to be progressed until appointment of a further designer and potentially after conclusion of the examination. SCC considers that the outstanding issues are capable of being resolved, however, SCC will require provision within the wording of the DCO for the LHA to approve the remaining detailed design elements and agreement for the associated fees associated with this. At present it is considered that such a commitment is not yet contained within the DCO. For those sections which fall to the responsibility of the LHA under DCO de-trunking procedures, it is normal practice for the LHA to be compensated by Highways England for the additional maintenance burden the roads will present to the Council. The compensatory arrangements have not yet been agreed including the end uses of all redundant sections of the A303 route. Public Rights of Way The information in the various documents and Draft DCO where shown in detail, is generally an accurate portrayal of the recorded public rights of way. Some of the more schematic figures of the whole application area would appear to have minor errors, but not sufficient to be of concern. The LHA does have some concerns in relation to the methodology for assessing the usage of the network; by not covering full daylight hours, nor weekend days, the results of non-motorised user surveys is not considered entirely representative of the actual use. In general the analysis of the impact of the development is a fair portrayal with one particular exception in relation to public bridleway Y 30/28. The LHA has concerns in relation to the impact of the stopping up of the connection of Y30/28 with the A303. The current proposal from the applicant is provision of a route east to the nearest new vehicular overbridge. The applicant, in line with the National Policy Statement for National Networks, is expected to take appropriate mitigation measures to address adverse effects on public rights of way. The LHA considers that the proposed mitigation, whilst beneficial to the overall network is not the most appropriate. The length of the alternative route proposed by the applicant is c.5.2km for walkers, cyclists and equestrians. If instead the alternative was over Y 30/UN (now labelled Y 30/31), this length would be reduced to c.1.5km. This is a considerable difference in length and convenience. In addition to the recorded network of Public Rights of Way, there are potentially unrecorded rights that may exist which the development will interfere with. Given the potential impact of the scheme it is considered that the possible outcomes of current applications to modify the Definitive Map and Statement would necessitate a mechanism to be included within the DCO which safeguards the provision of such rights in the future if and when they are confirmed. Impact on Air Quality Having reviewed all the information provided with this application, we are satisfied that the baseline information and assessment methods used in respect of air quality modelling is satisfactory. Whilst there appears to be no significant changes to air quality from the proposed scheme itself and as such, no mitigation measures have been proposed, there are two areas of concern to the Council, West Camel and Sparkford High Street where it is predicted the scheme will result in significantly increased traffic movements which may have an adverse effect on air quality. Further investigation is needed to ensure these areas will not exceed air quality limits and to determine whether appropriate mitigation measures are necessary. Impact on Noise and Vibration Having reviewed the information provided, we are satisfied that the baseline information in respect of noise and vibration is satisfactory, the assessment methods used are appropriate and the presentation of the results clearly demonstrate the likely effects the proposed scheme will have during construction and when in operation. It is expected and understood that Best Practice Measures will be implemented during construction to mitigate the adverse effects of noise and vibration. Approval is to be obtained from the District Council through the Section 61 process which will ensure any mitigation identified will have no residual significant impacts. It is noted that there are 2 properties that will be significantly affected by operational noise once the scheme is open to traffic, however, the mitigation embedded in the scheme design and secondary double glazing for the 2 properties will be sufficient to mitigate the effects of the operational noise. We however have concerns about the proposed scheme causing significant increases in traffic on Sparkford High Street and West Camel and the subsequent increase in noise as a result of this. Impact on Cultural Heritage The scheme is within an area of high historic and cultural value and whilst the assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB), which is the accepted methodology for infrastructure projects, and sets out a logical sequence for assessment and review, the assessment for some assets is queried. The increased traffic in West Camel and Sparkford may require mitigation. Any traffic calming measures that are required as a direct outcome of the dualling works should be included in the DCO and their effects on Conservation Areas and associated cultural heritage assessed. Such measures should assess the impact on the character and appearance of a conservation area or setting of a listed building and impact of traffic-induced vibration on the structural integrity of historic buildings and structures. Given that the traffic modelling for the scheme indicates an increase in HGV traffic as a direct outcome of the dualling works, it is recommended that traffic-induced vibration on historic buildings and structures, and increased traffic loads on Camel Bridge are assessed. Whilst mitigation measures are outlined with the application, additional mitigation is required, details of which will be outlined in the Written Representations and Local Impact Report. Impact on Archaeology The data does not currently include the full suite of field investigations required to assess the significance or impacts of heritage assets. The applicant has carried out a geophysical survey of the scheme and is currently engaged in trial trenching. The applicant’s archaeological consultants have been in contact with the South West Heritage Trust (SWHT) and Written Schemes of Investigation for the survey and trial trenching have been agreed. The geophysical survey has indicated archaeological potential across areas of the scheme. The SWHT is engaged in monitoring of the trial trenching (in conjunction with HE where appropriate) and this is progressing well. It is understood that the results of the fieldwork will be submitted during the application process and so it is envisaged that all required information will be available prior to any determination. The documents that have been submitted are accepted as meeting the requirements of the initial phase of the assessment. The later submission of the geophysical survey and trial trenching will enable a mitigation strategy to be designed. At present it is not possible to comment fully on the ES Chapter and issues associated with the impacts on archaeology. Impact on Landscape The methodology for establishing the landscape and visual baseline in the ES is comprehensive and clearly sets out the study area, designated sites, landscape character and its sensitivity to change, and the visual baseline and its sensitivity to change. The assessment has been undertaken in accordance with the DMRB, Interim Advice Note 135/10 Landscape and Visual Effects Assessments (replacing parts of the DMRB) and the Landscape Institute Guidelines for Landscape & Visual Impact Assessments. The DMRB is the accepted methodology for infrastructure projects and the Landscape Institute guidance is a long-established industry tool. The assessment for the likely effects is challenged for a number of visual receptors and requires reassessment. A number of measures and additional information are recommended to the landscape design to improve the impact on the scheme on the landscape its appreciation from visual receptors. These will be detailed in the Written Representations and Local Impact Report. Impact on Biodiversity The information presented is generally accurate but there are some omissions and these have been raised at Highways England Technical Working Groups and officers are working to progress matters. Any outstanding matters will be raised in the Local Impact Report. Approximately 91 hectares of habitat clearance would be undertaken as part of the proposed scheme, 77.4 hectares would be temporarily damaged and 13.7 hectares permanently removed. Whilst overall it is suggested that there would be a net gain in biodiversity, this is unclear and requires evidencing using the use of metrics. The loss of hedgerows and woodland is concerning. The replanting and replacement of mature trees on a 1 for 1 basis is insufficient and new planting should be on a 3 for 1 basis which would allow for natural losses. An appropriate ecological management plan will need to be in place to ensure that all the re-created habitats are managed to the intended habitat and for the duration of the scheme. Of particular concern is the hedgerow east of Canegore Corner, no mitigation measures are proposed to counteract the effect of the proposed road construction on bats or other species, or for proposed species crossing the new A303 once operational. It is recommended that a “green bridge” be considered here and underpasses elsewhere as the opportunity exits. The ecologist welcomes further dialogue to fully understand the various assessments of species and the extent and nature of the proposed mitigation, enhancement and monitoring and the mechanisms for securing it. Further survey work will be required prior to construction and the ecologist welcomes input. Impact on People and Communities Only light touch proposals regarding construction methodology and traffic management have been submitted to date. The Councils will therefore look to ensure that a mechanism is included within the wording of the DCO to secure an approved construction traffic management plan. The Council has previously raised concerns over the absence of an approved signage strategy and potential implications of less direct access to Fleet Air Arm Museum and RNAS Yeovilton. The impact of the design of Hazelgrove Junction upon the viability of local businesses is also of concern and should be mitigated where possible. The defined Local Impact Area for businesses is restrictive and does not allow impacts on various route-reliant businesses and visitor attractions to be taken into account. A number of small businesses and tourist attractions such as Haynes International Motor Museum, Hadspen House (Emily Estate to open spring 2019), Hauser and Wirth and Fleet Air Arm Museum are outside this tightly drawn area. Consideration should be given of the impact on the wider business community. The effective management of traffic and good signage, especially during the construction phase of the proposed route will be essential, to ensure that businesses and communities are not negatively impacted. Funding to promote these businesses during the construction phase where it may be more difficult to access the facilities is necessary. The message should be clear that “South Somerset is still open for business”. Road closures are included within outline proposals. However, only outline details have been received to date. Whilst it is suggested that the majority of closures be overnight, the potential impacts on residents and the business community will need to be considered. This further re-enforces the need to ensure that there is appropriate provision within the DCO drafting to include a commitment for detailed measures to be agreed with the Local Highway Authority and Local Planning Authority, especially given that Yeovil Refresh includes highways improvements that may come forward during the construction period. Geology, Assets and Waste The Councils are satisfied with the approach, assessment methodology, identified likely effects and proposed mitigation measures presented by the developer in the documents reviewed. We do, however, have a number of observations on the baseline data presented in Chapter 10 of the Environmental Statement and the proposed Site Waste Management Plan which link to waste generation in Somerset; latest data for landfill capacity in Somerset, including inert landfill; and, the operational status of Somerset waste sites, but we do not consider these affect the overall outcome of the assessment. Detail relating to these points will be further outlined within the Local Impact Report and Statement of Common Ground. Lead Local Flood Authority It is assumed that all the relevant CCTV surveys of drainage assets, as detailed in the DCO, have been undertaken as well as condition and extent surveys. It is understood that the ground investigations were being undertaken at the time of writing the Flood Risk Assessment and drainage strategies, but these should be used to inform the strategies. There will be a need to provide more detail of the various drainage features, ponds and structures as the proposals progress, including cross sections, levels and structures. These details should include any temporary or phased arrangements necessary for the construction of the scheme; including how and when these will be brought forward and become operational. Conclusions It is hoped that the comments above are helpful to the Examining Authority in informing their initial assessment of principal issues for examination. As outlined above, the continued review of the application material will enable the Councils to provide greater detail and explanation in their Local Impact Report. "