Messrs M.G., S.M., J.H. and J.M. Grindal and the M.G. & S.M.

Inquiry Document No: HA/23/01 

M1 Junction 19 Improvement 

Public Inquiry 

Response by the Highways Agency 

Messrs M.G, S.M, J.H. and J.M. Grindal 

and the M.G. and S.M. Grindal Partnership 

Inquiry Commencing March 2013



Inquiry Document No. HA/23/01 

1 OBJECTION SOBJ03: THE GRINDAL FAMILY; MESSRS M G, S M, J H AND 

JM GRINDAL AND THE M G AND S M GRINDAL PARTNERSHIP 

1.1 Introduction 

1.1.1 This rebuttal document is provided in response to what is described as the Proof of 

Evidence submitted on 12 th February 2013 by Burbage Realty. This Proof of Evidence 

was sent on behalf of the Grindal Family; M G, S M, J H and J M Grindal and the M G and 

S M Grindal Partnership. 

1.1.2 The Grindal Family live at the following locations: 

• Mr MG & Mrs S M Grindal, Manor Farm, Catthorpe, Lutterworth, LE17 6DB 

• Mr J H Grindal, Love Park Farm, 1 Swinford Road, Catthorpe, Leicestershire, LE17 

6DG 

• Mr J M Grindal, Manor Farm Shop & Tearoom, Main Street, Catthorpe, 

Leicestershire, LE17 6DB 

1.1.3 Burbage Realty are located at Conduit House, 65 St Giles Street, Northampton, NN1 1JF 

1.1.4 The Proof of Evidence submitted by Burbage Realty, on behalf of the Grindal Family, is 

contained in Appendix A. 

1.1.5 This rebuttal from the Highways Agency (HA) only seeks to cover points not previously 

raised by the Grindal Family or which have not already been covered in the Proof’s of 

Evidence previously produced by the HA. It should be read in conjunction with the HA’s 

evidence generally. 

1.1.6 This response statement is submitted on behalf of the HA, but it represents the collation of 

further rebuttal evidence from Ivan Marriott (Highways Agency Overview), Peter Kirk 

(Engineering and Design), Barry Moore (General Environment), Ted Rogers (Agriculture), 

Nick Steggall (Ecology and Nature Conservation), and Stuart Turnbull (Traffic and 

Economics) so far as it affects the relevant areas of their expertise and it forms part of 

their evidence to the inquiry. 

2 POINTS RAISED BY BURBAGE REALTY 

OBJECTION 1 – ROUTE OF NEW BRIDLEWAY 

2.1.1 The Grindal Family state that the HA is currently consulting on the Alternative Bridleway 

Routes (1 and 2) but the results of this consultation have not yet been made public. 

2.1.2 Barry Moore responds: - The Alternative Bridleways that were raised were published by 

the HA on the 25 th January 2013. The responses received are dealt with in the HA’s 

Alternative Bridleway Report 1 and 2 in part 3.2. 

BRIDLEWAY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1 – IMPACT ON GRINDAL FAMILY 

2.1.3 The Grindal Family contend that Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would be very beneficial to 

the Grindal Family because they believe that the proposed bridleway under the Scheme 

would lead to the loss of 3.14 acres of their land which they say is predominantly 

B0531000/OD/411 Messrs Grindal Response Rev. 2 February 2013 

1




productive arable land. They contend that very little land would be lost to the bridleway 

under Bridleway Alternative Route 1 because: 

(a) It would be on land already being acquired as part of the Scheme for an access track. 

(b) They refer to the HA’s Statement of Case (Page 54 Paragraph 7.1.6) which states that 

the proposed Scheme ‘has the smallest footprint, restricting adverse impacts on 

landscape, biodiversity, heritage and agricultural assets’. They contend that Bridleway 

Alternative Route 1 would further reduce the impact on the landscape, biodiversity and 

particularly agricultural assets. 

(c) The Scheme bridleway would need to be fenced to keep horses and pedestrians away 

from the otter holts and River Avon wildlife corridor. They contend this would increase 

the difficulty for them in maintaining the 8 metre strip of land between the River and 

the new fence. 

(d) They contend that Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would reduce disruption to farming 

activities and wildlife in the field during construction of the Scheme. 

(e) They contend that the location of the Scheme bridleway, 8 metres out from the edge of 

the field, would make farming of the remainder of the field significantly more difficult. 

2.1.4 Ted Rogers responds: - The HA has already acknowledged that the Scheme does involve 

the loss of some productive agricultural land due to the proposals in respect of the 

Scheme Bridleway. However, the comparative areas affected by the Scheme and the the 

two alternatives are (by way of correction to the figures set out in para 4.4.2 of the 

Alternative Bridleway Report Options 1 & 2 ( HA/21/01)) as follows:- 

• The Scheme Bridleway : Grindal Family 11,438 m 2 / Mr Lloyd 2,815 m 2 

• Bridleway Alternative 1 : Grindal Family 853 m 2 / Mr Lloyd 1,166 m 2 

• Bridleway Alternative 2 : Grindal Family 5,893 m 2 / Mr Lloyd 5,821 m 2 

2.1.5 The Scheme Bridleway therefore only affects 1.14 ha of the Grindal Family land, rather 

than a figure of 1.27 ha (3.14 acres) referred to by the Grindal Family. Alternative 1 would 

still require 853 m 2 of land from the Grindal Family land. The net difference is therefore a 

loss of 1.06 ha of Grindal Family land brought about by the Scheme as compared with 

Bridleway Alternative 1. 

2.1.6 Barry Moore responds: - The reference in the Alternative Bridleway Report to the Scheme 

having the ‘smallest footprint’ is a reference to its comparison with other junction options 

which were considered at public consultation. Any changes to bridleways would not make 

a significant difference to this comparison and in addition, the Scheme bridleway would 

not have an adverse impact on the landscape. 

2.1.7 Nick Steggall responds: - As is set out in para 7.2.7 in the Proof of Evidence on Ecology 

and Nature Conservation submitted on behalf of the HA (HA/08/01), the Scheme 

bridleway would be better for biodiversity than Bridleway Alternative 1 as it provides a 

better opportunity to improve the habitat of the River Avon. 

2.1.8 The Grindal Family refer to what would be some limited lengths of fencing required to 

provide screening for otter holts. These are associated with planting which would make a 

positive contribution to the subsequent management of the land for wildlife. It is not right 


2




that the entire length of the Scheme Bridleway needs to be fenced. (Ref Alternative 

Bridleway Report Options 1 & 2 HA/21/01 paras 4.4.3) 

2.1.9 Nick Steggall responds: - Both Alternative Bridleway 1 and the Scheme Bridleway would 

result in some disruption at construction stage, but this would be kept to a minimum 

through the implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan. The 

wildlife would be monitored to minimise or avoid disturbance prior to and during the 

construction period, especially when the new crossing is built over the river. Otter activity 

along the river is known to fluctuate and on some visits minimal activity was recorded 

along this section. Bridleway Alternative 1, although not generally following the river 

corridor, would still require the construction of a new river crossing, and this would be in 

close proximity to an otter lay-up, thus resulting in potential disturbance impacts. 

BRIDLEWAY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1 - WILDLIFE 

2.1.10 The Grindal Family assert that the stretch of the River Avon in the field affected by the 

Scheme Bridleway is recognised as an important undisturbed wildlife haven that is home 

to a variety of species including otters. They refer to the fact that the Scheme proposals 

show the bridleway running alongside the River and crossing it via a new bridge half way 

across the field. 

2.1.11 Nick Steggall responds: - In fact the Scheme Bridleway would be constructed 8 metres 

from the river bank. This does ensure that wildlife is not significantly disturbed. 

2.1.12 The Grindal Family contend that impact on the wildlife caused by the construction and use 

of the bridleway can be completely avoided by opting for Bridleway Alternative Route 1. 

2.1.13 Nick Steggall responds: - The contention that the impact on wildlife could be completely 

avoided by opting for Bridleway Alternative 1 is not correct. Bridleway Alternative 1 would 

still follow the route of the Avon for a short length and there would still be a requirement to 

construct a new crossing over the river, which is the same for the Scheme bridleway. 

However the location of the crossing for Bridleway Alternative 1 is very close to an otter 

lay-up which has been identified. This would potentially result in a greater impact than the 

crossing for the Scheme, which is not located in close proximity to any holts or lay-ups. 

2.1.14 The Grindal Family also contend that the fact that the HA is proposing to fence stretches 

of the Scheme Bridleway to protect the otters suggests that it has recognised that locating 

the bridleway 8 metres from the river could lead to conflict between users of the bridleway 

and the otters. They also contend that disruption of the otters is more likely now that the 

existence of the otters in this stretch of the river has been made public by the HA. 

2.1.15 Nick Steggall responds: - The use of fencing has already been dealt with above, along 

with the potentially greater impact on otters that would be likely to arise from Alternative 

Bridleway 1. As to the objection based on identification of the presence of otters, this is 

misconceived. The presence of otters in the river Avon is already well-known and their 

presence has been identified and published by other organisations before the HA. For 

example, the National Biodiversity Network website details the presence of otters on this 

stretch of the river Avon. Recent surveys have confirmed a continued and regular otter 

presence over the years, including the period since the publication of the ES in 2010. 

2.1.16 The Grindal Family also appear to complain that the type of fencing that will be used 

alongside the Scheme Bridleway has not been disclosed. They express a concern that the 

fencing will either restrict the wildlife’s ability to roam freely or be insufficient to prevent 

dogs straying from the bridleway and getting close to the otter holts. 


3




2.1.17 Nick Steggall responds: - In fact the fence type proposed by the HA is post and wire stock 

type fencing combined with planting. There are lengths of fencing and vegetation 

screening, similar to that proposed for the Scheme Bridleway, where the existing 

bridleway EX7 (which passes beneath the A14) comes within 20 metres of an otter layup 

on the opposite bank. The fencing at this location is not dog proof but is known to be 

effective at discouraging access. It is therefore not considered necessary for fencing to 

the Scheme Bridleway to be fully dog proof. The fence would be open at either end to 

allow for the movement of wild animals. 

2.1.18 The Grindal Family suggest that the scent of humans and dogs using the proposed 

bridleway may cause the otters and other animals to move away from an area that they 

have inhabited undisturbed for many years. They contend that this risk can be largely 

avoided by using Bridleway Route Alternative 1. 

2.1.19 Nick Steggall responds: - As set out in the HA’s ecological proof of evidence, it is 

considered that otters would become used to any increased levels of activity in the area 

following completion of construction of the Scheme. Footpaths and bridleways currently 

cross the River Avon both up and downstream of the Scheme Bridleway where the area is 

currently used by otters. Several of these points have thinner areas of bankside / marginal 

vegetation (with areas of short, grazed pasture directly abutting the top of the banks) than 

that proposed as a part of the mitigation. Under the A14 bridge over the River Avon, the 

existing bridleway EX7 is within a few metres of the River Avon and otter sprainting sites. 

This shows that the otters which use this stretch of the river are habituated to interacting 

with users of the adjacent public rights of way. The otters along this stretch of the River 

Avon have also been observed at the fishing lakes to the west of the A5 by the anglers 

and otter evidence has been recorded within populated areas of Rugby. As otters have a 

mean home range of 18.7 kilometres (female territory) and 38.8 kilometres (male territory) 

(Kruuk 2006 DD367), it is anticipated that the urban areas of Rugby form part of the same 

otter territories as those within the Scheme. There would not be sufficient disturbance as a 

result of the Scheme during construction or operation, with mitigation in place, to cause 

the otters present to abandon the River Avon. In addition, the majority of human usage 

along the Scheme Bridleway during operation would be during daylight hours. Otters 

which inhabit rivers in the UK tend to be active after dark (Kruuk, 2006 DD367), and this 

would further reduce the possibility of disturbance for otters from users of the new 

Bridleway. 

2.1.20 The Grindal Family also state that they do not agree with the HA’s analysis as to the 

additional length of Bridleway Alternative 1 and they consider this would be seen by many 

as beneficial. They contend that the additional distance is not particularly significant in any 

event as a horse would cover the extra distance in 3½ minutes when trotting and 7 

minutes when walking. 

2.1.21 Barry Moore responds: - The HA does not accept that the additional length of Bridleway 

Alternative 1 is a benefit in recreational terms, given the poor amenity associated with 

routes immediately adjacent to major highways. The Grindal Family response does not 

address the issue of poorer amenity which the HA identified. 

2.1.22 The Grindal Family also contends that the HA ignores the fact that the existing bridleway 

(which the Scheme proposes to extinguish) currently follows Alternative Route 1 that runs 

along the farm track on the western side of the field, adjacent to the M1 (see Figure 7 of 

HA’s Statement of Case). The HA also fails to acknowledge that the field is sandwiched 

between the A14 and the M1 and wherever the bridleway is located it will be exposed to 

traffic noise. 


4




2.1.23 Barry Moore responds: - The HA recognises that Bridleway X12 is adjacent to the M1, but 

it is a Scheme objective to improve conditions for Vulnerable Users. User groups have 

confirmed that they do not favour parallel diversions next to major highways. (Ref 

Alternative Bridleway Report Options 1 & 2 HA/21/01 para 4.2.3). Background motorway 

noise is omnipresent around the junction, but noise from traffic is more intense at close 

range, as would be the case for the whole length of Bridleway Alternative 1. Therefore 

Bridleway Alternative 1 would result in poorer amenity value for Vulnerable Users. 

2.1.24 The Grindal Family does not agree with the HA that: ‘[t] he opportunity for positive habitat 

creation in the river corridor and benefits for the river habitat and specifically otters, as 

described above, would be lost under Alternative 1. The Grindal Family contend that an 

excellent habitat along the river corridor has already been created that is rich in wildlife 

and is home to the otters. They contend that this has not happened by accident; the river 

margin is the subject of a 10 year Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) agreement with Natural 

England which ‘aims to deliver significant environmental benefits in priority areas. It 

involves more complex environmental management…’ ‘…achieves a wide range of 

environmental benefits over a longer period of time’. The Grindal Family contends that the 

otters and other wildlife would be better served by keeping work and disruption close to 

the river to an absolute minimum. 

2.1.25 Barry Moore responds: - The Grindal Family’s management of the river corridor for wildlife 

is not in dispute. The measures proposed by the Scheme are in addition to the current 

management. 

BRIDLEWAY ALTERNATIVE ROUTE 1 – HORSE RIDERS 

2.1.26 The Grindal Family accepts that Bridleway Alternative 1 is a longer route and may not be 

as attractive as the Scheme Bridleway route that follows the River Avon. The Grindal 

Family suggests, however, that as Bridleway Alternative 1 largely follows the existing 

bridleway therefore there will be no loss of “amenity” from what is already enjoyed. 

2.1.27 The Grindal Family seek clarification on the number of horses the HA’s survey shows 

using the existing bridleway and they asserts that Bridleway Alternative 1 would improve 

conditions for horse riders in comparison to the Scheme Bridleway. 

2.1.28 Barry Moore responds: - The Scheme objective is to improve conditions in this area. By 

contrast Bridleway Alternative 1 would increase the length of bridleway adjacent to the 

highway boundary and would be subject to poorer amenity in comparison to the Scheme 

Bridleway route. 

2.1.29 Surveys carried out between 2003 and 2005, including for the northern termination of X12 

and X13 to the north of M6, did not identify any horse riders. It is accepted that the current 

usage of the network is low, but that is because (as set out in Section 6.4 of the General 

Environment Proof of Evidence (HA/05/010)), the present network is considered by users 

to be badly fragmented and unsafe, involving conflicts with heavy traffic. Improving 

conditions would encourage greater use. 

2.1.30 Representations received from supporters of Alternative 1 are set out in Alternative 

Bridleway Report Options 1 & 2 (HA/21/01) Section 3.2. It is noted that 12 riders keep 

horses at Manor Farm and Old Barn Farm and these could potentially use the Scheme 

Bridleway or Alternative 1. 

2.1.31 The track surface for the Scheme Bridleway has yet to be determined in consultation with 

the Grindal Family. 


5




2.1.32 Safety issues raised regarding the Scheme bridleway and the river are addressed in the 

Alternative Bridleway Report Options 1 & 2 (HA/21/01) para 5.1.4. A designer’s risk 

assessment has been carried out in accordance with the CDM Regulations. Given the 

provision of a hardened foundation and an eight metre separation from the river, an 

adverse event is considered to be highly unlikely and the risk is acceptable. Fencing is not 

required on safety grounds. Since these sorts of issue have been raised in these 

representations, an enquiry to Leicestershire County Council’s Senior Access and 

Development Officer has confirmed that the County Council has no record of an accident 

involving a horse taking its rider into a river, over the last 26 years. 

OBJECTION 2 – EXTENT OF BALANCING PONDS 

2.1.33 The Grindal Family have previously set out an objection to the location of DP3. The HA 

has indicated that it is prepared to move pond DP3 to the location shown in the letter of 

Friday 6th February (see copy attached at Appendix A). 

2.1.34 In respect of Drainage Pond DP6, the Grindal Family have sought clarification as how the 

water is to get to the River Avon from DP6. 

2.1.35 Peter Kirk responds: - The HA is seeking to acquire rights over 362 square metres of 

drainage ditch adjacent to DP6 (Compulsory Purchase Order Parcel 3/1b) ‘for all 

purposes connected with the construction and maintenance of the drainage outfall’. The 

Environment Agency have agreed in principle to the use of this ditch and other 

ditches/water courses in the area to carry water from the ponds into the River Avon. 

OBJECTION 3 - ACCESS TO THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK 

2.1.36 The Grindal Family seeks clarification from the Highways Agency as to the correct 

information on traffic movements past the entrance to the Tea Room and Farm Shop. 

2.1.37 Stuart Turnbull responds: - A table was provided in the letter from the HA to the Grindal 

Family dated 6 February 2013 (further copy attached at Appendix A) which is correct. 

2.1.38 The Grindal Family contend that planning consent to convert the former grainstore into 

industrial unit was granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement which states that lorries 

coming to and from the unit would need to leave via M1 Junction 19/A14/M6. The Grindal 

Family are concerned that the HA has not been able to give any assurances about the 

future access and egress from Old Barn Farm’s industrial unit. 

2.1.39 Ivan Marriott responds: - The HA have spoken to Leicestershire County Council and will 

work with the Grindal Family in order to obtain a Section 106 Agreement to maintain 

access to Old Barn Farm. 

2.1.40 The Grindal Family also seeks assurances that the drive to Old Barn Farm will be kept 

open at all times on the basis that parcels of land at the bottom of Old Barn Farms drive 

are subject to the compulsory purchase order. 

2.1.41 Ivan Marriott responds: - The HA confirms that access to Old Barn Farm will be kept open 

at all times. 

OBJECTION 4 – IMPACT ON FARM VEHICLE ACCESS 

2.1.42 The Grindal Family state the land East of the M1 (shown coloured red at Appendix I) is 

owned by JH and JM Grindal and it will lose its access on to the public highway at the 

dumbbell roundabout. They state that this access is currently used to bring farm 


6




machinery and equipment into the fields; in particular the combine harvester and seed 

drill. They state the Scheme proposes this access will be lost. 

2.1.43 In addition, the Grindal Family contend that once the Scheme has commenced, access to 

this land will need to be via land owned by other members of The Grindal Family. They 

state that although inconvenient, this is workable as long as the Highways Agency 

ensures that all roads and tracks are at least 4.5 metres wide. Confirmation of this point is 

sought from the Highways Agency. 

2.1.44 Peter Kirk responds: - The HA confirms that all new tracks will be provided as agreed with 

the land owners. However, it is noted that the existing track off Station Road to Grindal 

Family’s land east of the M1 is currently 4 metres wide. 

2.1.45 The Grindal Family refer to the fact that since the proposals for the junction first emerged 

in 2003, they have asked the HA to look to increase the width of the junction on Station 

Road as part of the Scheme. However, the road would only need to be widened by 

approximately 1 metre for a very short distance to allow farm vehicles to freely access 

Station Road without having to drive across the verge. 

2.1.46 For the avoidance of doubt, the Grindal Family is not asking for parking restrictions to be 

imposed in this area as this would be wholly unfair on residents of the village who park 

outside their homes. 

2.1.47 This issue was again raised at a meeting between The Grindal Family and Highways 

Agency on the 23 rd January 2013. A response from the HA is awaited. 

2.1.48 Ivan Marriott responds: - The HA is currently discussing the improvements to Station 

Road with Leicestershire County Council with a view to County Council progressing a 

scheme to improve the Station Road junction should the Scheme be approved following 

Public Inquiry. 

2.1.49 The Grindal Family state that an alternative route for farm vehicles accessing land to the 

East of the M1 would be the access track at Old Barn Farm which runs across land owned 

by JH Grindal. They state that the current farm road is narrow and would need to be 

widened to at least 4.5 metres. They note that a representative of the Highways Agency 

looked at the road with James Grindal on 23rd January 2013 and the feasibility of 

providing an improved farm track suitable for combine harvester along bridleway X13 and 

the track to the South of Old Barn Farm is currently being appraised. They contend that if 

the HA wishes to upgrade this farm track it would need to be widened from Old Barn 

Farm’s drive off Swinford Road all the way through to the land East of the M1 for it to have 

any benefit. 

2.1.50 Ivan Marriott responds: - The Highways Agency current preference is to agree a Station 

Road junction improvement with Leicestershire County Council to provide access to 

Station Road. However, if this cannot be achieved then new and improved 

accommodation tracks would be provided. 

OBJECTION 5 – ACCOMMODATION WORKS 

2.1.51 The Grindal Family state that in the 3 years since their objection was raised no proposals 

from the HA have been received by The Grindal Family in respect of any accommodation 

works. They state that in order to allow the Family to plan for the future, and to mitigate 

their losses, they would like to have sight of the Highways Agency’s accommodation 

works proposals at the earliest opportunity. They assert that without having full insight into 


7




what is planned they are unable to fully understand the Impact of the Scheme and make 

appropriate representations to the Inquiry. 

2.1.52 Ivan Marriott responds: - Following publication of draft Orders, and shortly after the end of 

the objection period, the Scheme was suspended as part of the 2010 Government 

Spending Review. 

2.1.53 The Scheme development was suspended until autumn 2011, when work recommenced 

on the Scheme. Following recommencement, a further design review and an update of 

environmental surveys was required, and the statutory process was recommenced in 

October 2012. As with any scheme, accommodation works details will have to be agreed 

as part of the detailed design, but the HA has already demonstrated that it is willing to 

discuss the principles of accommodation works with objectors and it remains willing to do 

so with the Grindal Family. 

OBJECTION 6 – IMPACT ON FARM SHOP AND TEAROOM 

2.1.54 The Grindal Family contend that it is of particular importance to the viability of the Farm 

Shop and Tea Room to ensure that during the construction period, when the Catthorpe to 

Swinford road will be closed for at least 18 months, customers and staff can easily reach 

the Farm Shop and Tea Rooms. They state that imperative to this is the erection of 

temporary local directional signage (yellow signs) stating that “Manor Farm Shop and Tea 

Room Is Open As Usual”. They say assurances have been sought from the Highways 

Agency that these will be provided in strategic locations including on the A5; a meaningful 

response is awaited. 

2.1.55 Ivan Marriott responds: - The responsibility for the provision of local direction signage 

(tourist direction signs) is the responsibility of the local Highway Authority. The Grindal 

Family will therefore need to apply to the HA and Leicestershire County Council to 

determine whether local direction signs can be provided from the A5 and the Local Link 

Road, but the HA has no objection in principle to the provision of such signs. 

OTHER MATTERS 

2.1.56 The Grindal Family said that they request that the Inspector instructs the Highways 

Agency to disclose which areas of their land will only be required on a temporary basis 

and that the HA should endeavour to negotiate a licence for its use of these areas rather 

than using compulsory acquisition powers. 

2.1.57 Ivan Marriott responds: - The areas of land that will be only required on a temporary basis 

have already been identified, and have been passed to the Grindal Family, following the 

meeting on the 23 rd January 2013. The HA have confirmed that they will endeavour to 

negotiate a license for the use of the land. Compulsory acquisition will only be made if the 

efforts to agree a license are unsuccessful. 


8

APPENDIX A CORRESPONDENCE

Your ref: 

Our ref: 

dd: 

df: 

e: 

Date: 

HA/065/018/000227/1 

PRA/SEF/1905b 

01604 658625 

01604 604466 

paul.allen@bidwells.co.uk 

19 May 2010 

Secretary of State for Transport 

Highways Agency 

Broadway 

Broad Street 

Birmingham 

B15 1BL 

4 Waterside Way 

The Lakes 

Northampton, NN4 7XD 

t: 01604 632200 

f: 01604 604466 

bidwells.co.uk 

By post and email: trevor.murrain@highways.gsi.gov.uk 

Dear Sir 

Mrs K Grindal, Mr I G Grindal (Dec'd), Mr M G and Mrs S M Grindal 

M1 Junction 19 improvement – Draft Compulsory Purchase Order, 

Side Roads and Trunk Road Orders Number 20 

We act as agents for the above landowners and write to lodge our objections to the draft Orders that have 

been served on our clients. These are as follows: 

1 Site plan 4 – proposed new bridleway 

A new bridleway route is proposed along the River Avon being partly to the north of the river on my client's 

land and then crossing the river to follow the southern bank. We believe it will be better if the new bridleway 

was located in its entirety to the south of the river. There are several compelling reasons for this. 

The first is that it will avoid the unnecessary cost of a new bridge being constructed across the river. If the 

southern route is followed there is a disused railway with an existing strong bridge which could easily be 

adapted to carry a bridleway at much lower cost. 

By following the route of the old railway to the south it should minimise any conflict between horses and farm 

vehicles when going underneath the M1 bridge. This is a narrow track and we have serious concerns about 

horse riders being injured should they encounter farm traffic in this area. Our clients are very concerned that 

they could be held liable for any injuries caused. 

This access under the M1 is likely to be increasingly used given that my client's main access to their land from 

the north would no longer be available. 

Furthermore the proposal to locate the bridleway track some way out into the field means there would be a loss 

of good quality agricultural land. The river is used for irrigation and we will need to ensure that irrigation pipes 

can be placed on top of the bridleway route or underneath it, otherwise the whole field area will no longer be 

able to be used for growing potatoes. 

We do question the need for the new bridleway to follow the river given that it is an important environmental 

and wildlife corridor. The reason it is so attractive for wildlife is no doubt because of the lack of public access. 

Surely it would be beneficial to preserve this wildlife corridor and instead link up the bridleway network by using 

the existing bridleway that runs up the east side of the M1 and then create a new extension to this following 

along the access road to the drainage ponds to the south of the A14 before crossing underneath this to meet 

up with the existing bridleway network to the north of the A14. 

EG Property Advisor of the Year 2009 – Eastern Region 

Bidwells is trading name of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership, 

registered in England and Wales with number OC344553. 

Registered office: Bidwell House Trumpington Road Cambridge CB2 9LD 

A list of members is available for inspection at the above address

Mrs K Grindal, Mr I G Grindal (Dec'd), Mr M G and Mrs S M Grindal 

M1 Junction 19 improvement – Draft Compulsory Purchase Order 

Side Roads and Trunk Road Orders Number 20 

25 May 2010 

Page 2 

This route should be more cost effective as existing tracks could be used and also most of the land is outside 

of the flood plain. 

If this latter proposal is pursued we would suggest that consideration still be given to creating a separate 

bridleway/vehicle route underneath the M1. 

2 Plan 4 – Extent of balancing ponds 

The way the balancing ponds have been designed makes the remaining land difficult to work and will also 

sterilise large areas that it won't be possible to farm, given the corners and short working lengths etc. This is 

particularly relevant for growing potatoes where long working runs are critical for operating planting, harvesting, 

and irrigation equipment. 

We propose that the design of these areas is looked at again to see if it is possible to make them longer and 

narrower areas, following the road boundaries more closely rather than sticking out into the field. 

It would also be beneficial if balancing pond 4/2H could be moved further south-eastwards. 

3 Access to local road network 

The current design does not allow traffic to come off or rejoin the motorway/trunk road network at junction 19. 

This will have a major impact on my client's farm shop and tearoom business. They currently generate a 

significant proportion of trade from people coming off the trunk road network. This will all be lost. 

The lack of connection to the trunk road network will also have an impact on my client's ability to develop the 

commercial units at Old Barn Farm. 

4 Combine harvester access 

In order to access my client's land to the east of the M1 it will now be necessary to bring their combine a 

different way through Catthorpe village. We believe this will require improvements to one of the junctions in 

the village and would suggest this work is incorporated into the scheme. 

5 Accommodation works 

Detailed agreement needs to be reached on accommodation works, both to mitigate my client's loss, and also 

to enable them to continue farming their remaining land in a cost effective and efficient manner. This needs to 

include both temporary accommodation works during the construction phase and permanent ones once the 

scheme is completed. 

6 Farm Shop/Tearoom 

We need to agree how to maintain access to this during the construction period. It is anticipated that levels of 

trade will decline during this phase as customers avoid the area. We need to reach agreement in advance as 

to how this will be dealt with, particularly implications for staffing levels. 

Yours faithfully 

Paul Allen

Our ref: 

Your ref: 

Mr. Paul Allen, 

Bidwells, 

Seacourt Tower, 

West Way, 

Oxford, 

OX2 0JJ 

M1 J19 SOBJ03 

PRA/SEF/1905b 

Nigel Hudson 

MP Project Support 

Floor 10 

The Cube 

199 Wharfside Street 

Birmingham B1 1RN 

Direct Line: 0300 123 5000 

6 December 2012 

Dear Sir 

M1 JUNCTION 19 IMPROVEMENT – DRAFT ORDERS 

We refer to your letter of 19 May 2010 on behalf of Mrs K Grindal (Deceased), Mr I G 

Grindal (Deceased), Mr M G and Mrs S M Grindal regarding the draft Orders publication 

for the M1 Junction 19 Improvement scheme. You will recall that the Highways Agency 

published draft Orders for the scheme in February 2010, and that the objection period 

closed in May 2010. However, following the end of the objection period, the 

Government announced a spending review and work on the M1 Junction 19 

Improvement was suspended. 

In the 2011 Autumn Statement the Government announced that funds were to be made 

available to improve M1 Junction 19, as part of a wider growth initiative to invest in 

critical infrastructure projects and improve the UK’s transport network. As a result of this 

announcement, development of the scheme has recommenced. Traffic and 

environmental work has been reviewed and there have been some minor changes to 

the scheme. The changes are described in the leaflet ‘Changes to the Non-Technical 

Summary - October 2012’ attached to this letter. 

As part of the statutory process which restarted 25 October 2012, the Highways Agency 

is taking this opportunity to respond to the objections to the proposed improvement. 

Response to Objection No.1: Proposed New Bridleway 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state that the new bridleway would be better located to 

the south of the River Avon in its entirety. 

Please find attached a plan (SKETCH/OBJ/GRINDAL/001) illustrating our interpretation 

of your proposal (Route Alternative 2). 

In our view it is appropriate that part of the diverted route is proposed to the north of the 

river, as the existing routes it is replacing, Bridleway X12 and Footpaths X7 and X8, are 

Page 1 of 6

also on land within your clients’ ownership on the north side of the River Avon. 

Approximately 555 metres of the new route would be on your clients’ land. This 

compares with a total of 1,490 metres of X12, X7 and X8 which are to be stopped up on 

land retained by your clients. 

The line as published has the following advantages:- 

• It utilises existing underbridge crossings of the A14 on the south side of the river 

and the M1 on the north side. 

• It provides the most direct replacement for the existing Public Rights of Way. 

• The route minimises the potential impact on the known otter holts which are to the 

south of the River Avon at the western end of the proposed bridleway. 

• The route minimises the impact on known otter activity below the River Avon 

viaduct and disused railway bridge. 

• It has a high amenity value, compared with other possible routes close to major 

highway boundaries. 

• It is in accordance with a strategy agreed in consultation with representatives of 

the vulnerable user groups and the local Highway Authorities for Leicestershire 

and Northamptonshire. 

We now turn to the specific points raised in your letter. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state that a bridleway to the south of the River Avon 

would avoid the unnecessary cost of a new bridge across the river. Following a 

southern route would enable the existing strong bridge on the disused railway to be 

adapted to carry a bridleway at a much lower cost. 

The condition of the disused railway bridge is unknown. It has not been maintained for 

several decades and its adoption as a Public Right Of Way with dual use as an 

agricultural access would carry a greater risk in terms of refurbishment and 

maintenance costs, than the purpose built bridleway bridge which is proposed. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state that by following the route of the old railway to the 

south, conflict between equestrians and farm vehicles would be minimised. You also 

state that this access would be increasingly used by your client as the main access to 

the north would be no longer available. 

The proposals below the River Avon viaduct retain the present situation, whereby an 

existing bridleway and agricultural access are shared. In consultation with the previous 

owner of the adjoining plot (Mr. Wright), and your clients, it was agreed to move the 

proposed extension of the bridleway, west of the viaduct, on to the route of the disused 

railway, thus restricting the shared use to that as already exists. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state that the proposal to locate the bridleway some 

way out into the field would result in the loss of good quality agricultural land. You also 

state that irrigation pipes would be required either on top of, or under the proposed 

Page 2 of 6

idleway, otherwise the whole field area will no longer be able to be used for growing 

potatoes. 

The Environment Agency requires an eight metre headland between the river and the 

bridleway to allow for maintenance of the river. This requirement would apply to both 

river banks and would lead to a similar loss of land area, whether the bridleway was 

north or south of the river. We consider that the land affected on your client’s side of the 

river is graded as 3b, moderate quality agricultural land, mainly due to soil limitations. 

Mitigation would include provision for an irrigation water pipe under the proposed 

bridleway on your clients’ land. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you query whether there is a need for the bridleway to 

follow the river given that it is an important environmental and wildlife corridor. 

The value of the river as a wildlife corridor is understood. The published Environmental 

Statement confirms that environmental measures associated with the proposed 

bridleway to mitigate potential disturbance to otters, coupled with improved pollution 

measures to the road drainage system, would lead to an overall improvement to the 

river corridor in terms of ecology and nature conservation. The measures associated 

with the bridleway are:- 

• the eight metre headland which would not be in intensive agricultural use 

• re-grading of sections of the river bank to extend marginal vegetation 

• shrub planting to screen the known otter holt 

• woodland planting to provide a further otter refuge. 

With the bridleway in place and the scheme in operation, the Environmental Statement 

confirms that there would be a Slight Beneficial effect for the river habitat and a 

Moderate Beneficial effect for otters. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state it would be beneficial to preserve the wildlife 

corridor along the River Avon. You advocate an alternative bridleway route which runs 

up the east side of the M1, before following the access road to drainage pond DP7 

south of the A14. The bridleway route would continue south of the A14 before crossing 

under the A14 and joining up with the existing bridleway network. 

Please find attached a plan (SKETCH/OBJ/GRINDAL/001) illustrating our interpretation 

of your proposal (Route Alternative 1 or 1b). 

It is considered that your alternative would have the following disadvantages when 

compared with the published proposal:- 

• The alternative routes are indirect and would add approximately 795 metres to the 

section between the M1 and A14, resulting in a distance of 1960 metres compared 

with 1165 metres for the published proposal. 

Page 3 of 6

• The amenity of the alternative routes would be considerably less than the 

published proposal, being adjacent to the M1 and A14 throughout and more 

exposed to traffic noise. Consultations with the vulnerable user groups and local 

Highway Authorities identified the river route as the most appropriate corridor. 

They also identified a preference to avoid the parallel diversion of routes next to 

major highways, as they would be noisy and unattractive. 

• The opportunity for positive habitat creation in the river corridor and benefits for 

the river habitat and specifically otters, as described above, would be lost. 

Issue Raised: In your letter you state that your alternative bridleway route would be 

more cost effective as existing tracks could be used and most of the land is outside the 

flood plain. 

In terms of cost, there would be some saving in providing the bridleway route you 

advocate, however a new bridleway bridge across the River Avon would still be 

required. It should be noted however that the cost saving would likely be outweighed by 

the disadvantages set out above. 

The risk of flooding to the bridleway is recognised by the HA, vulnerable users and the 

local Highway Authorities, but cannot be avoided by any option. The fixed point of 

crossing below the A14 is prone to flooding in any event, making the alternative and the 

published proposal inaccessible at such times. 

The net impact of the diverted bridleway on your clients’ farm business would be 

assessed and properly considered in the compensation negotiations. 

Response to Objection No.2: Extent of Balancing Ponds 

In your letter you state that the current design of balancing ponds would result in the 

remaining land being difficult to work and that large areas would be sterilised. You 

further state that long working runs are critical for operating planting, harvesting and 

irrigation equipment. You advocate the need to revisit the pond designs to see if it is 

possible to make them longer and narrower in area. In addition, you would welcome the 

repositioning of pond 4/2H (now pond ref. DP3) further southeast. 

The site and location of the drainage ponds has been determined by engineering 

requirements in terms of drainage outfalls, locations and gradients and by Environment 

Agency (EA) requirements in terms of capacity. It is also a requirement that the ponds 

remain outside the 1 in 100 year flood plain. 

The issue of sterilisation of large areas of farmland as a result of the shape of the 

drainage ponds as well as a request to make them longer and narrower was discussed 

at the meeting held with your clients at Manor Farm on 26 th June 2009. 

Following the meeting the shapes and locations were reviewed to determine whether 

they could be amended, but it was not possible to narrow them further for the following 

reasons:- 

Page 4 of 6

• Pond DP7 - The northwest extent of this pond is governed by the location of the 

highway drainage outfall. The south east extent is determined by the need to avoid 

the flood plain. It is not possible to move this pond to the south east, or to narrow it 

and meet the EA or engineering requirements. 

• Pond DP3 - It would be technically feasible to extend this pond to the south, but 

taking into account the levels, which fall towards the River Avon, this would have 

the effect of increasing land take compared with the proposed design. To provide 

sufficient storage volume above the level of the outlet an extended pond would 

need to be excavated deeper at the northern end. The land required for the 

excavations would be wider than the present proposal. 

The net impact of the proposed drainage ponds on your clients’ farm business would be 

assessed and properly considered in the compensation negotiations. 

Response to Objection No.3: Access to Local Road network 

In your letter you state that severance of the Motorway/Trunk road network and Local 

Road network at Junction 19 would have a major impact on your client’s farm shop and 

tearoom business. Furthermore, severance would result in an inability for your client to 

develop his commercial units at Old Barn Farm. 

As you correctly state, following the proposed improvements, access from the 

Motorway/Trunk Road network to the Local Road network would be removed at 

Junction 19. Flows are forecast to decrease on the road past your client’s farm shop 

and tearoom business. However there would be no loss of direct access from the public 

highway to Manor Farm (Farm shop/tea room) or Old Barn Farm (Commercial units) 

arising from the proposals. 

The net impact of the scheme proposals on your clients' business would be assessed 

and properly considered in the compensation negotiations. 

Response to Objection No.4: Combine Harvester Access 

In your letter you state that in order for your client to gain access to land to the east of 

the M1 it would be necessary to use a different route through Catthorpe Village. You 

suggest junction improvements in Catthorpe are consequently required. 

I would be grateful if you could confirm the route your client would take between Manor 

Farm and the land to the east of the M1, following the M1 Junction 19 Improvement. 

With regard to specific junctions in Catthorpe, the junction between Elm Lane and 

Swinford Road is already used by combine harvesters and is deemed adequate. The 

junction between Swinford Road, Main Street and Station Road has a larger turning 

radius than the aforementioned junction and is also considered acceptable for 

navigation by a combine harvester. 

Response to Objection No.5: Accommodation Works 

In your letter you state that detailed agreements need to be reached on accommodation 

works (temporary and permanent) in order for your clients to continue farming their 

remaining land in a cost effective and efficient manner. 

Page 5 of 6

Your points are noted and agreed in principle regarding the need to provide appropriate 

accommodation works and temporary measures during construction and after 

construction by agreement. 

Response to Objection No.6: Farm Shop and Tea Room 

In your letter you state that an agreement is required on how to maintain access to the 

Farm Shop and Tea Room during construction. 

There would be no loss of direct access from the public highway to the farm shop/tea 

room at Manor Farm during the construction period. 

We trust that the above responses address your comments and will enable you to give 

consideration to withdrawing your objection. However, as a Statutory Objector, in order 

to try to reach agreement on as many issues as possible before the Public Inquiry, the 

Highways Agency would like to meet with you to discuss your objections in more detail. 

Please can you contact the M1 Junction 19 team on 0300 1235000 or email 

m1junction19@highways.gsi.gov.uk to identify a mutually convenient time and date to 

meet and discuss further. 

Yours faithfully, 

Nigel Hudson 

MP Project Support 

Email: m1junction19@highways.gsi.gov.uk 

Enc. 

Changes to Non- Technical Summary - October 2012 

Non –Technical Summary of the Environmental Statement – February 2010 

SKETCH/OBJ/GRINDAL/001 - Route Alternative 1, 1b and 2 

Page 6 of 6

Godbold, Adam 

Subject: 

FW: M1 Junction 19 - meeting with the Grindals 

From: Paul Allen [mailto:Paul.Allen@bidwells.co.uk] 

Sent: 15 January 2013 15:47 

To: Thickbroom, Melanie (SCE) 

Subject: M1 Junction 19 - meeting with the Grindals 

Dear Melanie 

I hope you got my voicemail left earlier today to say that the meeting with the Grindals next Wednesday 23 January 

needs to be postponed. 

Please give me a call when you have a moment and I will explain why, and what is going on. 

Thanks 

Paul 

Paul Allen 

Partner, Land & Business 

Seacourt Tower, West Way, Oxford, OX2 0JJ 

t: 01865 790116 

dd: 01865 797036 

The UK's leading regional property consultancy 

www.bidwells.co.uk 

DISCLAIMER: 

This message is private and confidential. Any sharing of this message or its contents is prohibited unless approved by Bidwells 

LLP. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and destroy the message and any attachments. 

This email is sent on behalf of Bidwells LLP, a limited liability partnership trading as Bidwells. Bidwells LLP is a corporate body 

owned by its members. 

Where used the term 'Partner' refers to one of the members or an employee who is a senior professional. The use of this term 

does not imply that Bidwells LLP is a general partnership under the Partnership Act 1890. 

Bidwells LLP is registered in England & Wales (registered number OC344553). Registered head office is Bidwell House, 

Trumpington Road, Cambridge CB2 9LD, where a list of members is available for inspection. 

Bidwells LLP reserves the right to monitor all communications through its internal and external networks. Whilst all effort is made to 

safe guard emails and attachments through virus checking, we advise you to carry out your own checks. Bidwells LLP do not 

accept liability for any loss or damage caused by software virus. 

Before you print, please think of the environment. 

1

6 February 2013 

Mr James Harrison 

Burbage Realty, 

Conduit House, 

65 St Giles Street, 

Northampton, 

NN1 1JF 

Our Ref: M1J19 SOBJ03 

Your Ref: PRA/SEF/1905b 

Dear Sir, 

M1 JUNCTION 19 IMPROVEMENT 

We refer to the meeting held on 23 January 2013 regarding objections raised by Mr 

Paul Allen of Bidwells, representing the Grindal family in their letter of 19 May 2010. 

In response to the topics discussed at the meeting, we can provide the following 

updates: 

Bridleway Alternatives 

We can confirm that the appraisals and costing of the Scheme Bridleway and 

Bridleway Alternatives 1 and 2 are currently on-going. We will contact you separately 

when these appraisals have reached a conclusion. 

Leicestershire County Council (LCC) has confirmed that bridleways which are fenced 

on both sides should have a minimum width of 5 metres (including 1.0 metre verges 

on both sides). Details of minimum width requirements can be found in the attached 

document titled ‘Leicestershire County Council: Development and Public Rights of 

Way – August 2011’. 

Location of Pond DP3 

A review of the location of Pond DP3 has been undertaken. It has not been possible 

to re-locate the pond in the location you suggested, due to the presence of a raw 

water main and due to conflict with the River Avon flood plain. Pond DP3 could be 

relocated as per the attached plan (WD/B0531000/B/WD/073), however the 

relocation of this pond would be subject to your agreement and the withdrawal of 

your objection regarding its location. 

Tea Room / Farm Shop 

The table below illustrates the number of vehicles which currently travel past your 

Farm Shop and Tea Room and which are forecast to travel past the businesses 

during construction and in the Opening (2017) and Design (2032) Years.

Vehicles per day (2-way) 

Currently 1300 

During Construction 1900 

Opening Year (With Scheme) 1500 

Opening Year (Without Scheme) 1700 

Design Year (With Scheme) 1500 

Design Year (Without Scheme) 2100 

The reason for the higher flow ‘During Construction’, when compared to current and 

opening year, is that the vast majority of traffic to/from Catthorpe will have to pass the 

farm shop once the access to Junction 19 is severed. 

Advice has been sought from LCC and from colleagues in the Highways Agency in 

relation to the provision of temporary signs for the Tea Room and Farm Shop during 

construction of the Scheme, and permanent signs on the A5 following construction of 

the scheme. We will advise you separately when we have this advice. 

Access for Farm Vehicles 

The feasibility of providing an improved farm track suitable for a combine harvester 

along Bridleway X13 and the track to the south of Old Barn Farm is currently being 

appraised. An alternative option of providing upgrades at Station Road Junction in 

Catthorpe Village has been discussed with LCC. We will contact you under separate 

cover when the feasibility of these options and discussions with LCC have reached a 

conclusion. 

As requested, copies of the draft Compulsory Purchase Order highlighting temporary 

land take from the Grindal Family land have been sent by Skanska under a separate 

cover. 

Accommodation Works 

As requested, the Soil Resource Statement has been forwarded to you by Ted 

Rogers under separate cover. 

Programme Dates – Severance of Local Road Network 

The phasing of the scheme would close the existing Rugby Road between Catthorpe 

and Swinford in Phase 6C of the Traffic Management Plan. It is planned that the 

closure would occur some 19 months from the start of construction, resulting in a 

closure of 18 months. Traffic between Catthorpe and Swinford would use a diversion 

via Shawell during this period.

Environmental Impact on Properties Owned by the Grindal Family 

MANOR 

FARM 

OLD BARN 

FARM 

1 & 2 

SWINFORD 

ROAD 

9 RUGBY 

ROAD 

PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS 

2017 Do Minimum 61dB 70dB 64dB 62dB 

2017 Do Something 61dB 69dB 61dB 62dB 

2017 Change in No Change Minor 

Moderate No Change 

Impact 

Reduction Reduction 

2032 Do Minimum 62dB 67dB 63dB 63dB 

2032 Do Something 61dB 67dB 61dB 62dB 

2032 Change in 

Impact 

Minor 

Reduction 

No Change Minor Reduction Minor 

Reduction 

Construction Impact* 

Close to site works? No Yes No No 

AIR QUALITY 

NO 2 

2011 Baseline - 26.1 µg/m 3 - - 

2017 Do Minimum - 26.0 µg/m 3 - - 

2017 Do Something - 24.7 µg/m 3 - - 

PM 10 

2011 Baseline - 18.2 µg/m 3 - - 

2017 Do Minimum - 17.2 µg/m 3 - - 

2017 Do Something - 17.1 µg/m 3 - - 

Construction Impact* 

Within 100m of site 

works? 

No Yes No No 

VISUAL IMPACT 

Year 0 Neutral Moderate Slight Adverse No Change 

Adverse 

Year 15 Neutral Slight Adverse Neutral No Change 

The assessment provides noise levels for the south, east and north facades of Nos. 1 

& 2 Swinford Road. Data above relates to the east façade as this is orientated 

towards the junction. 

Note that Air Quality data represents annual mean concentrations of Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO 2 ) and small particulates (PM 10 ) measured as microgrammes per cubic 

metre of air (µg/m 3 ). 

We do not have predicted Air Quality data specifically for Manor Farm, Nos. 1 & 2 

Swinford Road and No. 9 Rugby Road. However, data for nearby properties in 

Catthorpe, Heath House and Bird’s Nest Cottage, are set out below.

BIRD’S NEST 

COTTAGE 

HEATH HOUSE 

AIR QUALITY 

NO 2 

2011 Baseline 15.2 µg/m 3 16.2 µg/m 3 

2017 Do Minimum 15.3 µg/m 3 16.3 µg/m 3 

2017 Do Something 14.9 µg/m 3 14.7 µg/m 3 

PM 10 

2011 Baseline 17.9 µg/m 3 18.0 µg/m 3 

2017 Do Minimum 17.0 µg/m 3 17.0 µg/m 3 

2017 Do Something 17.0 µg/m 3 17.0 µg/m 3 

In terms of Air Quality, all of the predicted concentrations are well below the 

thresholds set by the Government’s Air Quality Strategy of annual means of 40 µg/m 3 

for both NO 2 and PM 10 . 

The assessment focuses on these two pollutants which are considered to be the 

most likely to exceed those thresholds in the vicinity of roads. 

Construction Impact 

Air Quality 

Properties within 100m of the works boundary are at a higher risk of being subjected 

to fugitive emissions from construction activities such as dust and construction 

vehicle emissions. 

Old Barn Farm is the only property, owned by the Grindal Family, which lies within 

100m of the works boundary. Mitigation implemented as part of the Construction 

Environmental Management Plan would minimise the risk of impact on this property. 

Noise 

Old Barn Farm is the only property, owned by the Grindal Family, in close proximity 

to the works. The noise level contributions from the earthworks and structural works 

are calculated to be 68 and 66 dB respectively. Given that the noise level contribution 

from the road network in Do Minimum 2017 at Old Barn Farm would be 70dB, 

against the background of traffic noise from the motorways, there is likely to be a 

Minor Adverse impact. 

No other construction noise impacts are anticipated for any of the other properties 

owned by the Grindal Family. 

We trust that the above responses address the comments you made at the meeting 

and will enable you to give consideration to withdrawing some or all of your 

objections.

Yours faithfully, 

Tim Worrall 

Senior Consultant 

Copies: 

MG & SM Grindal 

JM Grindal 

JH Grindal 

Enc. 

Leicestershire County Council: Development and Public Rights of Way – August 

2011 

Drawing WD/B0531000/B/WD/073 – Pond 3 Revised Location Plan Rev 0

M1 JUNCTION 19 IMPROVEMENT 

PUBLIC INQUIRY 2013 

PROOF OF EVIDENCE 

OF 

M.G.GRINDAL 

S.M. GRINDAL 

J.H. GRINDAL 

J.M. GRINDAL 

M.G. & S.M. GRINDAL PARTNERSHIP 

11 th January 2013

M1 Junction 19 Improvement - Proof of Evidence – The Grindal Family 

CONTENTS 

Page 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 3 

2.0 IMPACT OF THE SCHEME 4 

3.0 SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS 5 

4.0 OBJECTION 1 – ROUTE OF NEW BRIDLEWAY 6 

4.1 Introduction 6 

4.2 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 6 

4.3 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – Impact on The Grindal Family 7 

4.4 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 - Benefits to the Scheme 7 

4.5 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 - Wildlife 8 

4.6 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 - Horse Riders 11 

4.7 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 - Conclusion 13 

4.8 Bridleway Alternative Route 2 13 

4.9 Route of New Bridleway – Conclusion 14 

5.0 OBJECTION 2 – EXTENT OF BALANCING PONDS 15 

6.0 OBJECTION 3 – ACCESS TO LOCAL ROAD NETWORK 16 

6.1 Access To Local Road Network – Manor Farm Shop & Tea Room 16 

6.2 Access To Local Road Network – Old Barn Farm 18 

7.0 OBJECTION 4 – IMPACT ON FARM VEHICLE ACCESS 19 

7.1 Impact On Farm Vehicle Access – Land East of the M1 19 

7.2 Impact On Farm Vehicle Access – Station Road Junction 19 

8.0 OBJECTION 5 – ACCOMMODATION WORKS 21 

9.0 OBJECTION 6 – IMPACT ON MANOR FARM SHOP AND TEA ROOM 21 

10.0 OTHER MATTERS 22 

10.1 Other Matters – Soil Storage 22 

11.0 CONCLUSION 23 

Appendices 25 

Appendix 1 

Appendix 2 

Appendix 3 

Land Ownership 

Land at risk of compulsory acquisition 

Highways Agency revised proposal for Drainage Pond DP3 

2


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 The farming partnership of MG & SM Grindal farms at Manor Farm, Catthorpe and Old Barn 

Farm, Catthorpe. The proposed Scheme will have significant impact on the farms, farming 

partnership, the award winning farm shop & tea room and the 22 full and part-time staff 

employees of the partnership. 

1.2 The partnership comprises four partners: Michael Grindal, Susan Grindal, James Grindal and 

Matthew Grindal (‘The Grindal Family’); all of whom will lose land under the published 

proposals. 

1.3 The ownership of the farms is split between the farming partners. For ease of identification, 

the ownerships are shown as Appendix 1. 

Michael and Susan Grindal - Coloured Blue 

James and Matthew Grindal - Coloured Red 

James Grindal - Coloured Green 

1.4 The Grindal Family recognises the need for Junction 19 of the M1 to be improved on the 

grounds of road safety and consequently has not objected to the principle of the Scheme. 

The objections detailed in this proof of evidence relate to matters that would have 

significant benefit to the family’s livelihood and day to day operation of their businesses and 

could be altered without delay to or cost to the Scheme. 

3


2.0 IMPACT OF THE SCHEME 

2.1 The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (Page 54 paragraph 7.1.7) states that: 

‘where adverse effects are identified, for example for cultural heritage, landscape and 

community and private assets, the overall effects of the Scheme are generally slight and not 

significant’ 

2.2 This statement does not hold true for The Grindal Family where the impact of the Scheme 

will be very significant and includes: 

Loss of 33 Parcels of Land as detailed in Appendix II totalling 34.02 acres being nearly 6% 

of the total area of the farms. 

 

Loss of an additional rented land extending to 1.3 acres. 

 

The permanent loss of a significant number of customers from the successful farm shop 

and tea room due to the closure of the junction. 

 

The risk of a very significant temporary loss of customers from the farm shop and tea 

room during construction of the Scheme. 

 

Disruption of day to day farming activities during construction of the Scheme and post 

completion. 

 

A permanent loss of immediate highway access to land east of the M1 (Coloured red at 

Appendix 1). 

 

Impact on the house and business premises at Old Barn Farm. 

4


2.3 It is acknowledged that the Secretary of State for Transport is under a duty to compensate 

The Grindal Family for their losses, however it is at the Inquiry that changes can be made to 

the Scheme which will mitigate these losses and reduce the long term impact on the Family 

and its businesses without any material impact on the Highways Agency’s proposals. 

3.0 SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS 

3.1 The Grindal Family has objected, and continues to object, to a number of the Scheme 

proposals. These objections (SOBJ03) made on 19 th May 2010 have been summarised and 

responded to in the Highways Agency’s Statement of Case. 

3.2 The Grindal Family’s objections can be summarised as: 

1. The route of proposed new bridleway linking X6 and X13. 

2. Location of drainage ponds. 

3. Access to the local road network. 

4. Farm vehicle access. 

5. Accommodation works. 

6. Impact on the farm shop and tea room. 

5


4.0 OBJECTION 1 – ROUTE OF NEW BRIDLEWAY 

4.1 Introduction 

4.1.1 The need for a new bridleway is not disputed, but the published proposed route is not 

considered appropriate. 

4.1.2 The purpose of the new bridleway is to link X6 (to the east of the A14) and X13 (to the west 

of the M1). The Scheme proposal is it to construct a new bridleway across productive 

farmland owned by James and Matthew Grindal. 

4.1.3 The Grindal Family has consistently objected to the Scheme’s proposed route for the 

bridleway in favour of either Bridleway Alternative 1 or 2. The Family’s preference is for the 

bridleway to follow Bridleway Alternative 1 which is predominantly on their own land. 

4.1.4 The Highways Agency is currently consulting on the Alternative Bridleway Routes but the 

results of this consultation have not yet been made public. 

4.2 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 

4.2.1 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 runs around the boundary of The Grindal Family’s field. It 

follows the route of the existing bridleway (which the Scheme proposes to extinguish) along 

the western field boundary and then continues along the track that Scheme is proposing to 

create in order to access Drainage Ponds DP3 and DP7. 

4.2.1 Consideration has been given by The Grindal Family to the impact and benefits that 

Bridleway Alternative 1 would have on interested parties, these are set out below. 

6


4.3 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – Impact on the Grindal Family 

4.3.1 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would be very beneficial to The Grindal Family because: 

 

The proposed bridleway under the Scheme would lead to the loss of 3.14 acres of land which 

is predominantly productive arable land; very little land would be lost to the bridleway 

under Bridleway Alternative Route 1 because it would be on land already being acquired as 

part of the Scheme for an access track. 

 

The Highways Agency’s Proof of Case (Page 54 Paragraph 7.1.6) states that the proposed 

scheme ‘has the smallest footprint, restricting adverse impacts on landscape, biodiversity, 

heritage and agricultural assets’. Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would further reduce the 

impact on the landscape, biodiversity and particularly agricultural assets. 

 

The location of the Scheme bridleway, 8 metres out from the edge of the field, would make 

farming of the remainder of the field significantly more difficult. 

 

The Scheme bridleway would need to be fenced to keep horses and pedestrians away from 

the otter holts and River Avon wildlife corridor. This would increase the difficulty for The 

Grindal Family in maintaining the 8 metre strip of land between the River and the new fence. 

 

Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would reduce disruption to farming activities and wildlife in 

the field during construction of the scheme. 

4.4 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – Benefits to The Scheme 

4.4.1 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would deliver significant cost savings to the Scheme as it 

would eliminate the need to build a completely new bridleway all the way across a 

productive arable field. 

7


4.4.2 The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (Page 92) states that ‘In terms of cost there would 

be some saving in providing the [Alternative 1] bridleway route’. The Highways Agency has 

been asked to quantify the total savings and a response is awaited. The Grindal Family 

believes savings would be derived from: 

 

 

Reduction in the area of land needing to be compulsory acquired. 

Up to approximately 1,000 metres of new bridleway track would not need to be 

constructed. 

 

Unlike the proposed Scheme bridleway, Alternative Route 1 would not need to be 

fenced along its length. 

4.4.3 The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (page 74 Paragraph 9.10.17) states that the 

Scheme ‘has been designed to minimise the agricultural land take as far as practicable’. 

Bridleway Alternative Route 1 would enable the Highways Agency to reduce the land take by 

an additional 3.14 acres (12,622 square metres) from The Grindal Family and a similar 

amount from their neighbour, David Lloyd. 

4.5 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – The Wildlife 

4.5.1 The stretch of the River Avon in the field is recognised as an important undisturbed wildlife 

haven that is home a variety of species including otters. The Scheme proposals show the 

bridleway running alongside the River and crossing it via a new bridge half way across the 

field. 

4.5.2 The Scheme proposals are that the bridleway would be constructed 8 metres from the river 

bank in the hope that the wildlife would not be too significantly disturbed. In Highways 

Agency’s Statement of Case (page 88 paragraph 10.2.17) it states: 

8


‘The route minimises the potential impact on the known otter holts …..’ 

‘The route minimises the impact on known otter activity below the River Avon.’ 

4.5.3 It is The Grindal Family’s contention that impact on the wildlife caused by the construction 

and use of the bridleway can be completely avoided by opting for Bridleway Alternative 

Route 1. 

4.5.4 The fact that the Highways Agency is proposing to fence stretches of the Scheme bridleway 

to protect the otters suggests that it has recognised that locating the bridleway 8 metres 

from the river could lead to conflict between users of the bridleway and the otters. Disruptin 

of the otters is more likely now that the existence of the otters in this stretch of the river 

has been made public by the Highways Agency. 

4.5.5 The type of fencing that will be used alongside the bridleway has not been disclosed. It is 

feared that the fencing will either restrict the wildlife’s ability to roam freely or be 

insufficient to prevent dogs straying from the bridleway and getting close to the otter holts. 

4.5.6 The scent of humans and dogs using the proposed bridleway may cause the otters and other 

animals to move away from an area that they have inhabited undisturbed for many years. 

This risk can be largely avoided by using Bridleway Route Alternative 1. 

4.5.7 The Highways Agency’s Response (Statement of Case page 91) to The Grindal Family’s 

objection to the route of the bridleway, and in particular its suggestion that the existing 

wildlife corridor should be preserved by routing the Bridleway via Alternative 1, stated that: 

‘It is considered that the alternative would have a number of disadvantages when compared 

with the published proposal’. 

4.5.8 Three disadvantages were given by the Highways Agency; these are dealt with in turn below: 

9


 

Highways Agency states: ‘The alternative routes are indirect and would add 

approximately 795 metres to the route, resulting in a distance of 1960 metres compared 

with 1165 metres from the published proposal.’ 

4.5.9 Unlike the period before cars were commonplace, riders of bridleways are generally now 

using them for leisure and recreational purposes and the additional distance would be seen 

by many as beneficial. The additional distance is not particularly significant as a horse would 

cover the extra distance in 3½ minutes when trotting and 7 minutes when walking. 

 

Highways Agency states: ‘The amenity of the alternative routes would be considerably 

less than the published proposal, being adjacent to the M1 and A14 throughout and 

more exposed to traffic noise.’ 

4.5.10 The Highways Agency’s response ignores the fact that the existing bridleway (which the 

scheme proposes to extinguish) currently follows Alternative Route 1 that runs along the 

farm track on the western side of the field, adjacent to the M1 (see Figure 7 of Highways 

Agency’s Statement of Case). It also fails to acknowledge that the field is sandwiched 

between the A14 and the M1 and wherever the bridleway is located it will be exposed to 

traffic noise. 

 

Highways Agency states: ‘The opportunity for positive habitat creation in the river 

corridor and benefits for the river habitat and specifically otters, as described above, 

would be lost.’ 

4.5.11 The Highways Agency’s response completely ignores the fact that The Grindal Family has 

already created an excellent habitat along the river corridor that is rich in wildlife and is 

home to the otters. This has not happened by accident; the river margin is the subject of a 

10 year Higher Level Stewardship (HLS) agreement with Natural England which ‘aims to 

deliver significant environmental benefits in priority areas. It involves more complex 

10


environmental management…’ ‘…achieves a wide range of environmental benefits over a 

longer period of time’. The Grindal Family contends that the otters and other wildlife would 

be better served by keeping work and disruption close to the river to an absolute minimum. 

4.5.12 If the Inspector finds that Bridleway Route Alternative 1 is suitable, but also wishes to see 

additional habitat creation by the river Avon then the Grindal Family would be amenable to 

this, subject to the detail and the proposals not affecting their existing agreement with 

Natural England or unnecessarily disturbing the wildlife. 

4.6 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – Horse Riders 

4.6.1 It is accepted that the Bridleway Alternative 1 is a longer route and may not be as attractive 

as the published route that follows the River Avon. It does however largely follow the 

existing bridleway therefore there will be no loss of “amenity” from what is already enjoyed. 

4.6.2 The Grindal Family rarely sees riders using the existing bridleway and therefore the number 

of riders affected by the proposal for the new bridleway is thought to be small. The 

Highways Agency’s Proof of Case (Page 60 paragraph 7.1.28) states that the bridleway is 

‘already disrupted by the existing junction and its traffic’. The Highways Agency has been 

asked to quantify how many horses its surveys show regularly use this bridleway. 

4.6.3 The proposed Scheme bridleway would be built in the River Avon flood plain which would 

make it impassable at some times of year; Bridleway Alternative 1 largely avoids the flood 

plain. 

4.6.4 Before objecting the Scheme bridleway proposal in favour of Bridleway Alternative Route 1, 

The Grindal Family considered the impact of their preferred route on riders, particularly the 

11


12 riders that keep their horses at the stables at Manor Farm and Old Barn Farm. These 

considerations include: 

4.6.5 Track surface – the existing bridleway follows the farm’s concrete track. This track is due to 

be replaced, widened and extended as part of the scheme. The Highways Agency has not 

disclosed what the new access track will be surfaced with but it is felt that there is an 

opportunity for the Highways Agency to lay a surface appropriate for both vehicle and horse 

to use throughout the year. 

4.6.6 Conflict with vehicles – Bridleway Alternative 1 would see the track used by both slow 

moving vehicles and horses. This is no different to the existing bridleway and The Grindal 

Family report that there has never been an issue when slow moving vehicles and horses 

need to pass one another, either on the section of bridleway in this field or elsewhere on the 

farm. Visibility would uninterrupted along the length of Bridleway Alternative 1 so both 

driver and rider would have plenty of time to move into one of the proposed passing points. 

4.6.7 A number of people that keep their horses at Old Barn Farm and Manor Farm’s stables have 

young children and have indicated to The Grindal Family that they would prefer not to have 

the bridleway close to the River Avon in case ponies and or horses being ridden by children 

were to fall into the river. This would not be an issue if the whole length of the bridleway 

was to be fenced (as requested by The Grindal Family) but the Highways Agency is only 

proposing to fence short stretches of the bridleway in order to protect the otter holts. 

12


4.7 Bridleway Alternative Route 1 – Conclusion 

4.7.1 It is The Grindal Family’s conclusion that the impact on horse riders of Bridleway Alternative 

1 would be minimal and does not outweigh the benefit to the to the farm, the cost savings 

to the Scheme or the avoidance of significant disturbance to the River Avon wildlife corridor 

and the otters. 

4.8 Bridleway Alternative Route 2 

4.8.1 In the event that the Inquiry does not support Bridleway Alternative 1, then The Grindal 

Family advocates Bridleway Alternative 2 as a better alternative to the bridleway route 

proposed by the Scheme. 

4.8.2 Bridleway Alternative 2 follows the southern bank of the River Avon and would make use of 

the existing farm bridge over the river. This route would reduce the disruption and 

disturbance to The Grindal Family’s farm and the wildlife corridor. 

4.8.3 The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (page 50 paragraph 6.2.4) states that ‘two new 

bridleway bridges are required to carry the proposed bridleway over the River Avon’, (page 

49 paragraph 6.1.29) and that ‘Flood compensation is proposed for the Scheme to 

compensate for the proposed bridleway crossings over the River Avon.’ Removing the need 

to construct a second bridleway bridge would reduce the amount of land that would need to 

be acquired for flood mitigation. 

4.8.4 The Response in the Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (page 91) to The Grindal Family’s 

suggestion that the existing farm bridge is used for the new bridleway stated that: ‘The 

condition of the disused railway bridge is unknown.It has not been maintained for several 

decades.’ It is noted that the bridge is currently used by tractors and agricultural equipment. 

13


The Grindal Family refurbished an identical disused railway bridge on its own farm to make it 

suitable to carry heavy farm machinery and livestock (including horses); the cost was in the 

order of £14,000. At a meeting with the Highways Agency on the 23 rd January 2013, it 

undertook to provide a cost for making the existing bridge suitable for use as a bridleway 

but these costs, and the cost of building a new bridge, have not yet been provided. 

4.9 Route of New Bridleway – Conclusion 

4.9.1 The Scheme proposal to route the new bridleway across productive farmland within the 

flood plain is, in the opinion of The Grindal Family, far less desirable than routing the 

bridleway along Bridleway Alternative Route 1 which would minimise the impact of the new 

bridleway on the farm and wildlife. It is also expected to produce significant cost savings for 

the Scheme. 

4.9.2 The impact on routing the new bridleway along Bridleway Alternative 1 are very limited, 

particularly given the limited number of users of the existing bridleway. The Highways 

Agency’s objections to Bridleway Alternative Route 1 do not, in the opinion of The Grindal 

Family, stand up to close scrutiny, particularly in respect of improving the wildlife corridor. 

The benefits of Bridleway Alternative Route 1 to the landowners, the cost of the Scheme and 

the wildlife are very considerable and vastly outweigh any impact on the infrequent users of 

the bridleway. 

14


5.0 OBJECTION 2 – EXTENT OF BALANCING PONDS 

5.1 The Grindal Family objected to the extent and shape of the proposed balancing ponds DP3, 

DP6 and DP7 which would all be situated on their land. 

5.2 Following discussions with the Highways Agency, the shape of Ponds DP6 and DP7 was 

amended to reduce the difficulty in cultivating the surrounding fields. The Grindal Family’s 

objection to balancing ponds DP6 and DP7 is consequently withdrawn, save for paragraph 

5.6 below. 

5.3 The Grindal Family still objects to the location of pond DP3 which would significantly impact 

upon its ability to cultivate the surrounding field. This issue has been raised with the 

Highways Agency on many occasions. The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (page 92) 

states that: 

‘the shapes and locations [of the drainage ponds] were reviewed to determine 

whether they could be amended, but it was not possible to change to a layout that 

would provide further benefits’. 

5.4 Following the Inspector’s direction at the Pre Inquiry Meeting on the 15 th January 2013, The 

Grindal Family met with representatives of the Highways Agency on 23 rd January to discuss 

their outstanding objections. At this meeting the Highways Agency was again asked to 

consider relocating DP3 further to the south of its proposed location as it would make the 

surrounding field significantly easier to cultivate. 

5.4 A response to the proposal made at the meeting was received from Jacobs, on behalf of the 

Highway Agency, by The Grindal Family on Friday 8 th February. The respones stated that 

pond DP3 could be moved to the location shown on the plan at Appendix III which is the 

position that was proposed by The Grindal Family. A lack of detail in the Highways Agency’s 

15


revised proposal, and the need to submit this proof of evidence on 11 th February, means 

that the objection to the location of DP3 remains. It is hoped that agreement can be reached 

with the Highways Agency on the position of DP3 prior to the Public Inquiry. 

5.5 Should agreement not be reached with the Highways Agency prior to the Inquiry then The 

Grindal Family requests that the location of DP3 is moved to the revised position as shown in 

Jacobs’ plan (Appendix III) in order to alleviate the problems they would experience in 

cultivating the surrounding field which would be caused by the Scheme proposal for DP3. 

5.6 The Highways Agency’s Statement of Case (Page 48, Paragraph 6.1.24) states that ‘All these 

ponds would outfall into water courses which eventually flow into the River Avon.’ In respect 

of Drainage Pond DP6, clarification is sought on how the water is to get to the River Avon 

from DP6. It is noted that the Highways Agency is seeking to acquire rights over 362 square 

metres of drainage ditch adjacent to DP6 (Compulsory Purchase Order Parcel 3/1b) ‘for all 

purposes connected with the construction and maintenance of the drainage outfall’ but is 

not looking to obtain rights over any of the other ditches between DP3 and the River Avon. 

6.0 OBJECTION 3 – ACCESS TO THE LOCAL ROAD NETWORK 

6.1 Access to the Local Road Network – Manor Farm Shop and Tea Room, Catthorpe. 

6.1.1 The Grindal Family is very concerned about the loss of trade and disruption that the scheme 

will cause to its award winning Farm Shop and Tea Room due to the closure of the junction 

and local roads. 

6.1.2 Some regular customers use the A14 to reach the farm shop and tea room and this, 

combined with custom from passing traffic that the tea room and farm shop attracts, will be 

lost when the Junction closes. 

6.1.3 Of greatest concern to The Grindal Family is the impact on trade at the Farm Shop and Tea 

Room during the 18 months closure of the road between Catthorpe and Swinford. This 

16


period of road closure is anticipated to lead to a significant loss of custom that will be hard 

to recover once the local road network fully re-opens. 

6.1.4 The Grindal Family has asked, on many occasions, that the Highways Agency assist it in 

mitigating its losses by undertaking to organise and put up signage, both temporary and 

permanent, with directional signs to the farm shop and tea room. To date no assistance has 

been forthcoming, although it is acknowledged that at the meeting on the 23 rd January 2013 

the Highways Agency did agree to ask the County Council about the possibility of erecting 

temporary directional signs stating ‘Manor Farm Shop and Tea Room Open as Usual’. 

6.1.5 The Highways Agency has been asked since 2010 to provide projections for traffic flows 

through the village of Catthorpe so that The Grindal Family can understand the likely impact 

of the Scheme on its award winning farm shop and tea room. The Highways Agency’s Proof 

of Evidence (Page 93 Paragraph 10.2.19 Point No. 3) states that traffic flows through the 

village ‘are consequently forecast to decrease on the road past the Grindal Family’s Farm 

Shop and Tea Room Business’. 

6.1.6 This statement about the decrease in traffic past the farm shop is contradicted by a letter to 

The Grindal Family’s agent from Jacobs, on behalf of the Highways Agency, dated 6 th 

February 2013 which states: 

Tea Room/Farm Shop 

‘The table below illustrates the number of vehicles which currently travel past your Farm 

Shop and Team Room and which are forecast to travel past the businesses during 

construction and in the Opening (2017) and Design (2032) Years.’ 

Vehicles per day (2 – Way) 

Currently 1300 

During construction 1900 

Opening Year (With Scheme) 1500 

Opening Year (Without Scheme) 1700 

Design Year (With Scheme) 1500 

Design Year (without scheme) 2100 

17


6.1.7 The Grindal Family seeks clarification from the Highways Agency as to what the correct 

information is with regard to traffic movements past the entrance to the Tea Room and 

Farm Shop. 

6.2 Local Access – Old Barn Farm, Catthorpe 

6.2.1 Old Barn Farm, which is owned by J H Grindal, has a number of businesses based in the farm 

yard; these include an industrial unit and office. Old Barn Farm is also home to a very long 

standing member of the farm staff and a DIY horse livery business. 

6.2.2 Planning consent to convert the former grainstore into industrial unit was granted subject 

to a Section 106 Agreement which states that lorries coming to and from the unit would 

need to leave via M1 Junction 19/A14/M6. As at the date of this Proof of Evidence, the 

Highways Agency has not been able to give any assurances about the future access and 

egress from Old Barn Farm’s industrial unit. 

6.2.3 Parcels of land at the bottom of Old Barn Farms drive are subject to the compulsory 

purchase order. Assurances are sought from the Highways Agency that the drive to Old Barn 

Farm will be kept open at all times. 

18


7.0 OBJECTION 4 – IMPACT ON FARM VEHICLE ACCESS 

7.1 Farm Vehicle Access – Land East of M1 

7.1.1 The land East of the M1 (shown coloured red at Appendix I) is owned by JH and JM Grindal. 

This area of land will lose its access on to the public highway at the dumbbell roundabout. 

This access is used for to bring farm machinery and equipment into the fields; in particular 

the combine harvester and seed drill. The Scheme proposes this access will be lost. 

7.1.2 Once the Scheme has commenced, access to this land will need to be via land owned by 

other members of The Grindal Family. Although inconvenient, this is workable as long as the 

Highways Agency ensures that all roads and tracks are at least 4.5 metres wide. 

Confirmation of this point is sought from the Highways Agency. 

7.2 Farm Vehicle Access – Station Road Junction 

7.2.1 The width of the road at the junction of Station Road in the village of Catthorpe is currently 

too narrow for farm machinery (particularly the tractor mounted seed drill and the combine 

harvester) to enter Station Road without the farm vehicles’ wheels mounting the kerb and 

driving across the grass verge. The width of the junction is further restricted because of cars 

parked on the side of Station Road. 

7.2.2 The Highways Agency Statement of Case states (page 93, paragraph 10.2.20 Point no 4) that 

“The junction is already used by combine harvesters and is deemed adequate”. 

7.2.3 The Grindal Family does occasionally take a combine harvester through the junction as it is 

the only route to some of their fields. However, this is kept to an absolute minimum because 

of the difficulty of squeezing the large vehicle between the existing road sign and vehicles 

parked on the road. The loss of access to their fields on the Eastern side of the M1 will see a 

19


significant increase in the number of farm vehicles needing to use Station Road which will 

invariably cause damage to the kerb, grass verge and vehicles’ wheels. 

7.2.4 Since the proposals for the junction first emerged in 2003, The Grindal Family has repeatedly 

asked that the Highways Agency look to increase the width of the junction on Station Road 

as part of the Scheme. The road would only need to be widened by approximately 1 metre 

for a very short distance to allow farm vehicles to freely access Station Road without having 

to drive across the verge. 

7.2.5 For the avoidance of doubt, the Grindal Family is not asking for parking restrictions to be 

imposed in this area as this would be wholly unfair on residents of the village who park 

outside their homes. 

7.2.6 This issue, which is of significance to the future smooth running of the farm, was again 

raised at a meeting between The Grindal Family and Highways Agency on the 23 rd January 

2013. A response from the Highways Agency is awaited. 

7.2.7 An alternative route for farm vehicles accessing land to the East of the M1 would be the 

access track at Old Barn Farm which runs across land owned by JH Grindal. The current farm 

road is narrow and would need to be widened to at least 4.5 metres. A representative of the 

Highways Agency looked at the road with James Grindal on 23 rd January 2013 and it is 

understood that ‘the feasibility of providing an improved farm track suitable for combine 

harvester along bridleway X13 and the track to the South of Old Barn Farm is currently being 

appraised’. For the avoidance of doubt, if the Highways Authority wishes to upgrade this 

farm track it would need to be widened from Old Barn Farm’s drive off Swinford Road all the 

way through to the land East of the M1 for it to have any benefit. 

20


8.0 OBJECTION 5 – ACCOMMODATION WORKS 

8.1 In its objection dated 19 th May 2010, The Grindal Family stated that in respect of 

accommodation works ‘detailed agreements need to be reached on accommodation works 

(temporary and permanent)’. 

8.2 The Highways Agency’s response in its Statement of Case of January 2013 is that ‘the points 

are noted and agreed in principle regarding the need to provide appropriate accommodation 

works and temporary measures during the construction and after construction by 

agreement’. 

8.3 In the 3 years since the objection was raised no proposals from the Highways Agency have 

been received by The Grindal Family in respect of any accommodation works. In order to 

allow the family to plan for the future, and to mitigate their losses, they would like to have 

sight of the Highways Agency’s accommodation works proposals at the earliest opportunity. 

Without having full insight into what is planned they are unable to fully understand the 

Impact of the Scheme and make appropriate representations to the Inquiry. 

9.0 OBJECTION 6 – IMPACT ON FARM SHOP AND TEA ROOM 

9.1 Produce from the farms has been sold directly to the public since 1973. Manor Farm Shop 

was opened in 1997 and expanded, with the addition of a Tea Room, in 1999. The award 

winning business employs 16 full and part-time workers (excluding The Grindal Family), all of 

whom live locally. 

9.2 The Grindal Family’s difficulty in planning for the future of the Farm Shop and Tea Room has 

been exasperated by the lack of accurate information that the Highways Agency has been 

able to provide in respect of anticipated vehicle numbers and road closures. 

21


9.3 Of particular importance to the viability of the Farm Shop and Tea Room is ensuring that 

during the construction period, when the Catthorpe to Swinford road will be closed for at 

least 18 months, customers and staff can easily reach the Farm Shop and Tea Rooms. 

Imperative to this is the erection of temporary local directional signage (yellow signs) stating 

that “Manor Farm Shop and Tea Room Is Open As Usual”. Assurances have been sought 

from the Highways Agency that these will be provided in strategic locations including on the 

A5; a meaningful response is awaited. 

10.0 OTHER MATTERS 

10.1 Soil Storage 

10.1.1 At the meeting between The Grindal Family and the Highways Agency on the 23 rd January 

2013 it was disclosed by the Highways Agency that Parcel 4/2f, being ‘3,799 sq metres of 

land being part of arable land on the South West of the A14 Trunk Road and East of the M1 

Motorway (OS tile SP5678)’ is only required as a temporary soil store during construction of 

the scheme. 

10.1.2 As the requirement for this land is only temporary, The Grindal Family believes that the 

Highways Agency should endeavour, in the first instance, to negotiate a licence for the use 

of its land. Compulsory acquisition should only be made if efforts to agree a licence are 

unsuccessful. No approach has been made by the Highways Agency to The Grindal Family to 

negotiate a licence. 

10.1.3 When drawing the Inspector’s attention to this point, it is noted in the Highways Agency 

Statement of Case (page 105 paragraph 10.2.5) that an area of land on a neighbours farm is 

only required on a temporary basis during the construction of the scheme and the Highways 

22


Agency has stated in its response to an objection that ‘as the requirement for this land would 

be temporary, the HA would endeavour to negotiate a licence for use of the land. 

Compulsory acquisition would only be made if the efforts to agree a licence were 

unsuccessful’ 

10.1.4 The Grindal Family respectfully requests that the Inspector instructs the Highways Agency to 

disclose which areas of their land will only be required on a temporary basis and that the 

Highways Agency should endeavour to negotiate a licence for its use of these areas rather 

than using compulsory acquisition powers. 

11.0 CONCLUSION 

11.1 In conclusion, The Grindal Family respectfully asks that, for the reasons given in this proof of 

evidence, the Inspector: 

1. Does not approve the Scheme Bridleway on the basis that the route of Bridleway 

Alternative Route 1 is much more suitable and can be agreed between the 

landowners and Highways Agency. 

2. Confirms that the position of drainage pond DP3 should be moved closer to the 

River Avon. 

3. Instructs the Highways Agency to ensure that it assists The Grindal Family in any 

way within its powers to minimise the impact on its farming business caused by 

the closure (temporary and permanent) of the junction and local road network. 

4. Instructs the Highways Agency to ensure that all tracks and roads leading to the 

land East of the A14 are at least 4.5 metres wide in order to accommodate modern 

farm machinery. 

23


5. Instructs the Highways Agency to acquire such land from the County Council that is 

needed to the widen the junction of Station Road in Catthorpe to avoid the need 

for farm machinery to drive over the kerb and verge. 

6. Instructs the Highways Agency to agree, at its earliest convenience, to put forward 

its proposed accommodation works and agree these works with The Grindal 

Family at its earliest convenience. 

7. Notes the likely impact of the Scheme on Manor Farm Shop and Tea Room and 

instructs the Highways Agency to do everything within its power to put up 

appropriate signage to limit the impact of the temporary and permanent road 

closures. 

8. Discloses which areas of land subject to the Compulsory Purchase Order are 

required for temporary storage (and alike) and instructs the Highways Agency to 

try and negotiate an appropriate licence from the landowners. 

24


Appendices 

Appendix 1 

Land Ownership 

Appendix 2 

Land at risk of compulsory acquisition 

Appendix 3 

Highways Agency revised proposal for Drainage Pond DP3 

25

Messrs M.G., S.M., J.H. and J.M. Grindal and the M.G. & S.M.

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?