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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

M1 Junction 19 Improvement Response by the Highways Agency 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
M1 Junction 19 Improvement Response by the Highways Agency Inquiry Document No. HA/23/01 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 B0531000/OD/411 Messrs Grindal Response Rev. 2 February 2013 2
Page 1: Inquiry Document No: HA/23/01 M1 Ju
Page 5 and 6: M1 Junction 19 Improvement Response
Page 11 and 12: Your ref: Our ref: dd: df: e: Date:
Page 13 and 14: Our ref: Your ref: Mr. Paul Allen,
Page 15 and 16: idleway, otherwise the whole field
Page 17 and 18: • Pond DP7 - The northwest extent
Page 19: Godbold, Adam Subject: FW: M1 Junct
Page 27 and 28: Vehicles per day (2-way) Currently
Page 29 and 30: BIRD’S NEST COTTAGE HEATH HOUSE A
Page 52 and 53:
M1 JUNCTION 19 IMPROVEMENT PUBLIC I
Page 54 and 55:
M1 Junction 19 Improvement - Proof
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76:
show all

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?