The Public Inquiry into the Revocation Orders
for the Gargrave and Hellifield and Long Preston Bypasses
started at 10 am on Tuesday 21st February in the Primary School, Neville Road,
Gargrave.
Final submissions and summing up will be on Thursday morning, with the
Inspector making an accompanied site visit on Friday morning.
I will attempt to summarise
the proceedings, but this can NOT be considered a complete, or
necessarily fully accurate report.
If any of those present consider that I have misreported the proceedings or
omitted some vital point in my summary, then please send an email to
webmaster@lopra.org.uk with your corrections or additions. Please
also advise me if you find any broken links.
The Inspector appointed
by the Secretary of State is:
Dr Martyn Heyes (BSc Eng)
Go to DAY 2
Go to DAY 3 Go
to DAY 4 Go to Top of page
Day 1: Tuesday 21st
February 2006
The Highways Agency presented their case
for the Revocation of the Bypass Orders, by Mr Alan Evans - Barrister at
Kings Chambers, Manchester. Principal Witness: Mr J. Hornagold -
Highways Agency.
This essentially hinged on the fact that the
Government Policy, as set out in the White Paper "A New Deal for Trunk Roads
in England", was to restrict the Trunk Road network to roads of national
significance, rather than those of local or regional significance. After
taking into account various planning and strategic considerations, the
Minister of Transport decided that the A65 was no longer a Core Trunk Road,
this is stated to be Government policy, and thus the Highways Agency's (HA)
view is that this de-trunking decision is not open to challenge at this
inquiry. So from the Minister's point of view, there is no need for the
by-pass orders to remain in place, as he no longer proposes to construct
these bypasses as part of the trunk road program, as the A65 only carried
local and regional traffic.
Additional justification for revocation was
stated to be removal of planning blight and the saving of expenditure on the
maintenance and administration of the one property and section of land in
Gargrave and the five plots on the edge of Long Preston and Hellifield.
In it's justification for declaring the
A65 a non-core trunk road the HA stated the national average for trunk roads
was 18,900 vehicles per day, with average 'A' roads carrying 10,900 vehicles
per day. Although there was disagreement in traffic volume increases between
the HA, claiming some 2 to 3%, from 1994 to 2004, with NYCC claiming 7% over
the ten years 1993 to 2004, the HA still maintained that their figures
of 9,600 /day for Gargrave and 11,600 /day for Hellifield and Long Preston (
by an automatic traffic counter to the North of LP ) clearly indicated that
the A65 was a non-core trunk road and only served local and regional needs.
See
LoPRA A65 Traffic Data Summary for LoPRA Traffic Count data which is
broadly in agreement for Mondays to Thursdays - but higher on Fridays and at
weekends ( excludes bank holidays - which, based on only a few hours of
sampling, are confidently predicted to be even higher).
On cross-examination by the barrister
representing the North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), the witness for the
HA admitted that safety considerations could be a justification for a
bypass, even if this was not part of the core trunk road network. He also
admitted that although there was no foreseeable likelihood of any changes to
the policy on core trunk roads, this could of course change in the future.
There was also disagreement as to the projected costs of the bypasses; with
the NYCC estimate of £18M for Gargrave and £27M for Hellifield and Long
Preston being questioned by the HA who quoted national average DoT guideline
figures of around £30M and £60M respectively. These estimates having
significant effect on any cost/benefit analysis.
Ian Evans, representing the Long Preston
Parish Council and LoPRA, cross-examined the HA witness as to the
matter of planning blight, and obtained an admission that as the land was,
and would probably remain, agricultural land there was not any significant
blight, in the usual usage of the term. He also admitted that although some
properties were estimated to be likely to experience a 10dB an increase in
noise levels, this was an increase on a very quiet present level and would
not be significant enough to justify any compensation, and also agreed that
a bypass would significantly reduce the noise levels of vastly more
properties in the village itself. Ian Evans next raised the point that
despite the A65 being considered a non-core trunk road many vehicles
preferred to use this in preference to the HA's recommended route of the M62
/ M6, even to the extent that a company transporting nuclear waste used the
A65. The witness reluctantly agreed that the HA could not force transport
companies to use the core trunk network and that A65 was probably a
preferred choice due to shorter mileage and overall journey time.
The only supporter of the Revocation
Orders to present a case, was
Mr Faulkner, a resident of Gargrave.
This was based on the view that a bypass would
adversely effect the tourist potential for Gargrave and surrounding area,
and that traffic had not significantly increased though Gargrave, and in
fact HGV volumes had in his opinion decreased. On questioning he admitted
that although being a member of Gargrave Parish Council, he was not speaking
on their behalf, but as a private resident.
The North Yorkshire County Council next
presented their case for opposing the Revocation Order. Presented by Mr
Mathew Copeland - Barrister at Kings Chambers, Manchester. Principal
Witness: Mr E. Williams - NYCC Highways Department.
Their case was largely based on the Revocation
Order being premature. In that although they agreed that any bypass was
unlikely to be build in the original form, their studies had shown that
shorter, single carriageway bypasses would indeed be cost effective.
Although such bypasses did not feature in the current Local Traffic Plan (LTP),
covering the period 2006 to 2011, there was an agreed need for relief from
traffic for the effected villages. Under cross examination by the HA
it stated that one reason the bypasses under discussion did not appear in
the current LTP was not that it had no such plans, but that within the 5
year time frame of the LTP, other schemes had taken precedence as they had
been at a more advanced planning stage (by NYCC) and that as in principal
the bypasses under discussion could still be funded via the HA. NYCC wished
to retain the bypass lines as these could still be required for future
traffic relief, and until other means of traffic relief to the communities
was decided upon it was prudent to retain the present protected lines.
Return to DAY 1
Go to DAY 3 Go to
DAY 4 Go to Top of page
Day 2: Wednesday 22nd February
2006
The proceedings on Wednesday started with
the Presentation of Case for Craven District Council, followed by the
Presentation for Long Preston Parish Council and LoPRA by Ian Evans, and then
the cases of other private objectors; Mrs. Gillian Jones, Mrs B Dodgson, Revd. Rachel Wilson and
Mrs P. Derry.
The Craven District Council's case for
opposing the Revocation Order was
presented by Cllr Helen Firth.
The main points of objection are summarised
as:
Protection of the reserved line is important for possible future bypass
developments - revocation is premature whilst alternatives are being
considered. The quality of life of residents is adversely affected by the
lack of relief from the traffic which is increasing.
The A65 is a specified as a Key Route in the "Draft Regional Spatial Stategy"
The aim of the "Local Development Plan" is to conserve and enhance the built
environment. Revocation of the protected line would prejudice this Local
Plan.
On cross-examination the barrister for the
HA put it to the councillor that CDC, as planning authority, had it within
their own planning powers to safeguard the line of the bypasses, if they so
wished. It did not require the continued protection of the present bypass
orders by the HA. He also pointed out that the Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs)
for the sections of the route not currently owned by the HA had expired and
in any case were not transferable to some other bypass scheme.
He agreed that the A65 was a key regional route, but insisted it was
not a key national route. Cllr Firth agreed that the bypasses did not
at present feature in the "Local Development Plan", but this was at an early
stage of development and will in future include local transport plans and
the document will consequently be revised.
Rather than attempt to
summarise Ian Evans' presentation, the complete content of his written
submission to the Inquiry is included here - as it is available to me in
electronic form.
Objector Mr
I Evans for
Long Preston Parish Council and Long Preston residents Association.
1) Representing
– Long Preston Parish Council (LPPC). LPPC meeting of 5 September 2005
approved preparing a joint case with Long Preston Residents Association
(LoPRA) & on 3 October 2005 LPPC approved the Statement of Case (S/C).
Also LoPRA, Long Preston Residents Association
– an unincorporated association with a current membership of 64 households
out of about 315 households in the village (20 %). LoPRA’s AGM on 22
September 2005 approved joint case with LPPC.
2)
Statement of case has been provided plus a
series of documents.
(see
Submitted Statement of Case)
In this brief, Highways Agency (HA) taken to be the same as the former
Department of Transport (DoT) / Departments of the Environment & Transport.
References to
submitted evidence documents annotated within
[Obj3/1/-].
Introduction:
3) HA
S/C states that the bypass orders are no longer appropriate as the current
Secretary of State (SS) does not intend to build the bypass and intends to
detrunk the A65. Also the HA states the Revocation Orders (ROs) will remove
blight and uncertainty. The HA refers to statutory and planning blight
caused by the uncertainty of the bypass proposal.
4) LPPC
& LoPRA will try to show that the Bypass Orders should not be revoked for a
number of reasons, all consistent with the Government’s (Gov’t) criteria in
its Roads Review, ie the bypass is still integral to transport policy, it is
economic and it improves safety, the environment and accessibility.
5) A
lot of our case will derive from a Public Inquiry (PI) held in 1992 into
the Hellifield and Long Preston (H&LP) Bypass.
This PI found the case
proven for a bypass based on local needs.
6)
We will explain
(a) Our
views on the past and current Gov’t policies,
(b) Why
the currently approved bypass route would, if built, mitigate
blight and how there is comparatively little statutory
and planning
blight,
(c) The
importance of the bypass to the Yorkshire Dales National Park
(YDNP) and LP’s Conservation Area, and
(d) How
resident’s Human Rights are infringed by the proposed ROs.
(a) Our
views on Gov’t policy
a) Our Views
7) For
the 1992 PI, the DoT has stated “a clear need for improvement
as been identified at Hellifield and Long
Preston”.
[(Obj) 3/0/2 para 4.1.2]
8) The
SS’ intention to detrunk the A65 is claimed to be a result of government
policy. It may be outside the scope of this inquiry to consider this but it
does need to be borne in mind that not only do governments change but also
policies do as well. It would be wrong to take an action, ie revoking these
bypass orders, which will have far longer effects than the foreseeable life
of a government or a policy. There have been, since 1985, when the H&LP
Bypass was first included in the National Roads Programme, 1 change in
government and a number of policy changes, 2 of which relate to the H&LP
bypass.
9) The
1997 Roads Review was to be part of the ODPM’s integrated transport policy.
This integrated transport policy seems to have been quietly put aside. As
well, since then, transport was off-loaded from the ODPM.
10)
The HA S/C also states the SS does not intend
to build the bypass. This does not mean that the current approved route
should be done away with. The taxpayer has already expended significant
amounts of money in the administration of proposing a bypass, from working
out a number of optional routes to holding a PI to decide on the route.
11)
To lose the route because it is not current
policy means that there will most probably never again be an option for it
to be built as a result of any future policy change. The need has already
been established and, to revoke the bypass orders now, would impose forever
what is only a current policy.
12)
The ROs stem from the HA’s wish to detrunk the
A65 as a result of its designation as a non-core Trunk Road. This
designation is based on an evaluation by civil servants on the national and
regional importance of the A65. However, on a line drawn through LP
from coast to coast, there are only 2 major north – south routes, the M6 and
the A1. The A65 is the 3rd route, much used as a short cut,
especially with the high fuel costs, from the eastern areas of the Midlands
and South Yorkshire to north western areas of England as well as Scotland
and N. Ireland.
13)
The H&LP bypass was however decided on its own
merits at the 1992 PI. It was only some years after this PI, in 1996, that
the bypass came to be included within the A650 Cumbria/Bradford Design,
Build, Finance and Operate Scheme. This policy change was itself changed in
1998 when it was decided to designate the A65 as a non-core trunk road.
14)
The HA want to revoke the bypass line without
facilitating, with North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC), any solution to
the current A65 problems. It would be better to defer any decision on the
ROs until the A65 problems are properly resolved. Otherwise all the HA is
doing is to abdicate their responsibilities.
15)
There may be a number of ways to alleviate
traffic problems in LP including a number of simpler and cheaper bypass
options than the one approved at the 1992 PI. Although alternative bypass
routes are outside the scope of this Inquiry, it should be noted that parts
of the current approved bypass route could be used in a number of other
bypass routes. These could impact even less on those people and properties
than may be currently affected by the approved route. But our aim at this
Inquiry is to get the current line of the bypass protected until a suitable
and acceptable alternative is available.
16)
Whether or not the designation of the A65 as a
non-core trunk road is Gov’t Policy, whether or not the A65 is to be
detrunked, the H&LP Bypass was a local solution in 1992. It was based on a
local need for relief and should therefore be retained until it is either
built or an alternative solution found.
17)
Should the PI decide that the ROs be approved
in effect as a matter of policy (following the designation of the A65 as a
non-core trunk road), we would ask that this PI consider if the H&LP Bypass
could be accepted as an exception case.
(b)
Blight
18)
The previous PI Inspector’s findings of facts,
conclusions and recommendations found that the need for a bypass had been
established [(Obj)3/0/5 para 10.63]. Also that there would be a positive
economic benefit for the full range of traffic growth prediction.
[(Obj)3/0/5 para 9.10]. The then Ss/S agreed with the Inspector’s findings
of fact and conclusions and accepted his recommendations. [(Obj)3/1/2 para
18].
19)
The benefit can only have been enhanced by the
greater weight given in the years since the PI to environmental concerns and
the human rights of the residents.
20)
The HA states the revocation will remove
blight and uncertainty. The HA refers to blight caused by the uncertainty of
a bypass proposal. There are 2 replies to this. Firstly, the HA are on
record as stating there is much more blight caused by the current A65 route
than there would be to people and properties were the bypass to be built.
This case is made several times in the evidence presented to the 1992 PI.
[(Obj)3/0/2 para 2.2 & (Obj)3/0/3 para 3].
21)
Secondly, 2 of the witness statements from
residents of LP who live alongside the A65 show that the possibility of a
bypass was relevant to their decision to purchase their homes. The ROs, if
approved, will bring about the opposite of what the HA state they are
wanting to do. Generally, the ROs, if granted, will increase the certainty
of blight to far more people and properties than to those who might benefit.
22)
The HA only own 5 parcels of land and no
properties as a result of the H&LP Bypass. The cost element to the HA of
these is therefore not really a material issue.
23)
Then the DoT said that the construction of the
Bypass would result in an estimated 92% to 94% reduction in traffic flows
within LP [(Obj)3/0/3 Fig 2] and there would be an appreciably lower noise
level in 350 residential properties in H&LP [(Obj)3/0/2 para 2.8.4]. (Since
1992, there has been an increase in the number of houses along the A65 due
to new builds, around 50 on or close to the A65. The total affected
residential properties would therefore now be in the region of 400.)
Additionally 19 shops, 3 public houses, 2 schools and 2 churches would
benefit from significant noise reduction. [(Obj)3/0/2 para 2.8.4]. (The
number of shops is now in 2006 about 11).
24)
On the negative side of the bypass for H&LP,
the DoT in 1992 estimated approx 96 properties would experience a noise
increase from the bypass. Although none would be considered as requiring
noise insulation, 74 would experience an increase of >10dB (10dB = doubling
of loudness). However it was noted these properties currently experience
low ‘rural’ ambient noise levels. [(Obj)3/0/2 para 3.2.3]. It can be
presumed, therefore, that there would be a low noise impact. On the other
hand, 289 would benefit from a decrease of 10dB or more [(Obj)3/0/2 para
2.8.5]. As these properties experience high noise intrusion, the benefit of
noise reduction would be high.
25)
No properties would suffer visual obstruction
from a bypass but 7 properties would experience high visual intrusion and 61
some degree of visual intrusion [(Obj)3/0/2 para 2.8.6]. However, as said,
about 400 properties in H&LP are on or are close to the current A65 and
would benefit from having the majority of traffic removed from the current
line.
26)
Also, on the negative side, in the whole H&LP
area, 47 hectares (117 acres) of land would be required and 2 farm buildings
demolished, noted as being in a poor state of repair. 14 farms would be
affected but all remain viable [(Obj)3/0/2 paras 2.8.11-13]. However
there would be landscaping and planting to ameliorate the effects of the
bypass and any sections of old road no longer needed would convert / revert
to agriculture 4.6 hectares (12 acres) [(Obj)3/0/3 para 3.7.1].
27)
It should also be noted that, when the bypass
was first proposed for H&LP in 1987, it was for a choice of single
carriageways. By 1989 / 1990, because of new forecasts of traffic growth,
the bypass was upgraded to a dual carriageway.
28)
The DoT said the daily use in 1990 of the A65
was 7,500 vehicles rising to 11,000 – 13,000 at holiday weekends.
[(Obj)3/0/1 para 26]. They noted this volume led to congestion in the
villages, driver frustration due to the current road conditions and a high
potential for accidents. Also they noted that, over time, as traffic flow
increases, delays and congestion would increase and, “almost certainly, more
accidents would occur”. [(Obj)3/0/1 para 27]
29)
Current levels vary between 11,000 per day
Monday to Thursday to over 12,500 per day Friday to Sunday [(Obj)3/1/3c], as
measured by LoPRA. The peak number is nearly 13,500 on Sundays. These are
an actual count, are outside of any Bank Holiday increases and do not
include any projections, eg for when the proposed new tourist development
between LP and H commences. The Highways Agency claim that the road is
currently lightly trafficked at 9300 but LoPRA’s actual count is 30%
higher.
30)
Photographic evidence of some of the accidents
within LP is attached as evidence [(Obj)3/1/3a]. In 1992 the DoT estimated
over a 30 year period that there would be a reduction of between 600 and 850
accidents (between 20 and 28 pa) at an estimated cost saving of £2 million
to £4 million [(Obj)3/0/3 para 3.3.2]. However this general figure has
little meaning to any one individual not only involved in an accident but
also in fear of one.
31)
There is also a major problem of narrow
footways within LP. Pedestrians therefore have to suffer very close
proximity to traffic. An example of one particularly bad spot is access to
the Church at the junction of Kayley Hill and Church Street. All
pedestrians basically have to wait until there are at least no HGVs, and
preferably not even a car, in order to get into Church Street from the
centre of LP. This is not to cross the road, as crossing there is an even
worse scenario due to visibility restrictions. This is to walk along the
footway on the same side of the road as Church Street. The footway at
Kayley Hill is 0.74 metres wide which is narrower than a standard door
width. [(Obj)3/1/3a]. There is access to the Church via a back road from the
Maypole Green for people coming from the western side of the village but,
for elderly people, it is hilly. It is also isolated and unlit.
32)
As an example of what was done in H., the
footway alongside the A65 under the railway bridge, which is 1.11 metres
wide, has had a separate underpass built under the railway line, away from
the A65, to safeguard pedestrians. This sort of solution is just not
possible in LP.
33)
Pedestrians regularly, throughout LP’s
footways, if pushing a pram or if walking together (eg to escort an elderly
person or a child), have to walk on the A65 carriageway itself.
34)
Cars are often parked on the footway. The
police have to turn a blind eye to this as the only realistic alternative is
to park on the carriageway itself narrowing what is already, in a number of
places, an already narrow carriageway. This would increase traffic
congestion and a higher potential for accidents.
35)
Noise is also a major problem. In LP, the
narrow A65 is abutted in a number of places by houses on both sides of the
carriageway. A lot of the houses in LP do not have front gardens but front
directly onto the footway. In such circumstances, noise from vehicles
rebounds from one house, across the street and back again until it is
dissipated. Noise is therefore much more exacerbated within LP than in
other residential areas where houses are set further back from the road.
The dB levels measured by LoPRA show that HGV noise at Kayley Hill
approaches the start of unsafe levels, albeit only intermittently. The noise
levels in the village often range from the equivalent to that experienced in
an average factory to levels requiring some form of noise control if the
noise were continuous. The traffic levels mean noise is severely intrusive
within LP. Photos and noise level measurements show the footways and
indicate how the noise would and does reverberate. [(Obj)3/7a&d].
36)
Severance is a major concern within LP and
will, as recognised by the DoT in the 1992 PI, increase as traffic levels
increase [(Obj)3/0/3 para 3.10, table, eg Group 2 schools & Group 3 village
centres]. The village of LP is about a mile long and is primarily on or
close to the A65. The Church, school and one pub are on one side, while the
Village Hall, Post Office/shop, Methodist Chapel and the second pub are on
the other. There is one controlled crossing and there can’t realistically
be more than 1 extra crossing allowed because of the effect on the A65.
There is also the problem, as described in paragraphs 32 to 34, that a
number of footways are very narrow.
37)
The LP Village Plan, recently prepared and
supported with government funding, showed that 88% of the 111 votes cast
were in favour of a bypass. LPPC are looking at ways of taking the Village
Plan forward and a number of the
objectives and policies relate to improving the A65 situation and the
construction of a bypass. [(Obj)3/1/4].
38)
The A65 within LP is within a Conservation
Area and the YDNP. LP has 30 listed buildings of which 23 face onto the
A65. H has 19 of which 7 are on the A65 [(Obj)3/0/3 para 3.3.3]. Vibration
as evidenced by a sample of villagers in LP is a major problem but there is
also the damage to the listed and other buildings due to air pollution from
the high traffic levels. [(Obj)3/1/3d]. The bypass would contribute to the
conservation and enhancement of the listed buildings and the Conservation
Area. The DoT recognised and accepted this at the 1992 PI [(Obj)3/0/3 paras
3.4.2-3].
39)
A lot of LPPC’s and LoPRA’s case on blight
derives from the accepted facts and conclusions of the 1992 PI. However
these facts and conclusions are echoed in the sample of statements from
residents in LP who live alongside the A65. [(Obj) 3/1/3b].
40)
The residents complain of noise, vibration,
dirt and grime on a 19th century road coping with 21st
century traffic. The grime attracts damp which leads to damp penetration
and stone erosion. The residents state that double glazing is needed on
their properties but this only eases the noise problem, it doesn’t go away.
[(Obj) 3/1/3b].
41)
There is also confirmation of the fear
residents feel due to their houses being so close to the carriageway.
Indeed 1 resident complains that, because of the narrowness of the
carriageway, HGVs regularly encroach on the footway outside her house. This
has lead to the footway being compressed to the same height as the
carriageway leaving little differentiation between the two and an increased
fear in being able to get out of her front door. [(Obj) 3/1/3b].
42)
It is appreciated the HA and any road
authority would do its upmost to improve road conditions and reduce
accidents and there are a number of actions that can be taken apart from a
bypass. The scope for improving the current A65 line within LP in order to
remove the blight, severance and all the other problems of the road, now
unfit for purpose, is negligible in any real sense due to its route through
the village and the proximity of buildings.
43)
It may well be likely that there is no dispute
about the problems of the dangers of the current route, the traffic volume,
noise, vibration, pollution, severance, etc. Equally it might be thought
that, if government policy is to detrunk the A65 and not build the bypass,
that revocation of the route will not make those problems better or worse.
LPPC & LoPRA however disagree with that thought. It will make matters worse
because all chance for relief and respite will, in practice, be gone not
just for now, but forever. While the line is there, it gives the
opportunity for all parties to find an appropriate solution.
44)
The populations of LP & H are small, very
roughly 650 and 1200. However each person affected is not only entitled to
have respite from the current A65 route but is entitled to help from the
government agency responsible. At present the HA is going to make matters
worse by taking away the only solution currently available.
(c)
The effects on the YDNP and LP Conservation
Area
45)
A bypass would remove a substantial amount of
traffic from the YDNP [(Obj)3/0/3 para 3.10, table, eg Group 4]. Section 62
of the 1995 Environment Act places a general duty on all relevant
authorities to take account of the National Parks’ statutory purposes,
namely conservation and enjoyment, in taking decisions. In no way can it be
said that revoking a bypass line which would remove traffic, pollution etc
from a Conservation Area within a National Park (NP) is in accordance with
this general duty. The approved bypass line lies outside of the NP except
for only a very small part when it joins up with the existing A65 between LP
& Settle.
(d)
Human Rights
46)
Part 2 of Schedule 1 of the 1998 Human Rights
Act enshrines the First Protocol of Article 1 that every person is entitled
to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. The exception is if this
conflicts with public interest. The Act requires that a fair balance is not
only sought but also attained between the rights of the individual and the
general interest of the community.
47)
I have tried to show that retaining the bypass
line is in the interest of the public – those living on the A65 and those
using it. The general interest of the community is not well served with the
plans for revoking the Bypass even if Government policy is to detrunk the
A65.
Conclusion
48)
We believe that the HA Case has not provided
enough substantive evidence of the need to revoke the Bypass Orders in terms
of blight and removing uncertainty faced by local communities. In fact we
believe the opposite has been shown.
49)
Also we believe that it is not government
policy to revoke the Bypass Orders but that the Revocation Orders are merely
a consequence of the HA wishing to detrunk the A65. The protection of the
approved bypass route is integral to securing relief from blight for
substantial numbers of the local population. Revocation is in practice an
irrevocable decision which should not be proceeded with while there is a
need for relief for the village. Not only would it rule out the possibility
that a bypass may one day be built but would also rule out securing a number
of possible alternatives to remedying the problems of the current A65 which
were once accepted by and argued for by the DoT / HA.
50)
It cannot be the case that the ROs are a
necessary step as a consequence of Gov’t policy. If this were the case then
it would be very hard to justify holding this PI. There is a choice and we
would urge that this PI finds that the Bypass Orders should not be revoked.
Evidence
(Obj)3/0/1 Department of Transport’s
1992 ‘A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass - Explanatory Statement’.
(Obj)3/0/2 Department of Transport’s
1992 ‘A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass - Secretary of State’s reasons
for proposing’.
(Obj)3/0/3 Department of Transport’s
1992 ‘A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass Environmental Statement’
(Obj)3/0/4 Department of Transport’s
1992 ‘A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass - Non-Technical Summary of the
Environmental Statement’.
(Obj)3/0/5 July 1992 Inspector’s
Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Recommendations.
(Obj)3/1/2 Letter dated 04/03/93 from
the Dept of Environment and Transport to Mr I Evans informing on the results
of the 1992 PI.
(Obj)3/1/3 (a) Photographic, (b)
witness statements, (c) traffic volume and (d) noise levels evidence.
(Obj)3/1/4 Letter dated 30/11/05 from
LPPC headed ‘The Community’s Vision for Long Preston’
Appendix
(Obj)3/1/5 Raw data in order to produce the traffic
volume graphs
submitted as evidence under (Obj)3/1/3c
Cross-Examination by the barrister for
the Highways Agency.
The cross-examination of Ian Evans was largely
taken with discussion as to the extent of blight, the HA starting
that contrary to the assertion that the protected line did not result in any
blight, that there had been actually two instances of Blight Notices being
served, one being for Guys Villa Farm in respect of some 35 acres.
The cross-examination spend some time on defining the term possible,
in the context of future policy changes re the by-passes; Ian refusing to
agree possible only meant a very slight chance, rather than it
was quite possible.
Rather than attempt to
summarise Gillian Jones' presentation, the complete content of her written
submission to the Inquiry is included here - as it is available to me in
electronic form.
Objector Mrs
Gillian Jones
- on her own behalf.
Statement
of Case against the Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass Revocation Orders.
Issue 1
1. In
1992 the then Secretary of State for Transport issued a statement of the
reasons for proposing to make the orders for the A65 Hellifield and Long
Preston Bypass. In making the case for the bypass he said:
2. “
The A65(T) runs between Leeds in West Yorkshire and the M6 near Kendal in
Cumbria forming part of the National Trunk Road Network. A significant
number of heavy goods vehicles use this route to travel between the
industrial areas of West Yorkshire, Cumbria and the west of Scotland via the
M6 motorway. The A65(T) also connects the population centres of West
Yorkshire and Lancashire with the recreational areas of the Yorkshire Dales
National Park, the Lake District and other areas of attraction in
north-western England.”
3. “Tourist
traffic causes high seasonal variation along the route making the summer
months particularly congested.”
4. However,
by July 1998 the Government had decided (ref ‘A New Deal for Trunk Roads
in England’ – as per the Highways Agency Statement of Case evidence
number D14) that:
5. “
The A65 at Gargrave and Hellifield and Long Preston was one of a number of
trunk roads which were considered to serve mainly local and regional
traffic.”
6. “The
existing A65 was not regarded as being strategically important and it was
proposed to be reclassified as part of a non-core network” (The White Paper:
A New Deal for Transport as per the Highways Agency Statement of Case
evidence number D17)
7. The
following Criteria were used to determine whether existing trunk roads were
to be classified as core or non-core roads:
i.
Linking main centres of population and economic activity.
ii.
Accessing major ports, airports and road intermodal terminals.
iii. Joining
peripheral regions to the centre.
iv. Providing
key cross border links to Scotland and Wales.
v.
Classification as part of the UK
Trans-European Road Network.
8. I
believe the A65 has been wrongly classified as a non-core trunk road as it
meets 4 out of the above 5 criteria.
i. As
the then Secretary of State said in 1992, it connects the population centres
of West Yorkshire and Lancashire with the recreational areas of the
Yorkshire Dales National Park, the Lake District and other areas of
attraction in north-western England.
ii. It
provides access to Leeds/Bradford Airport, Manchester Airport via Leeds
Station and is a main route to the ports of Heysham and Stranraer.
iii. The
A65 provides the only strategic road route for the population of the
peripheral area of the western Yorkshire Dales to access the main service
centres of West Yorkshire.
iv. As
the then Secretary of State said in 1992, a significant number of heavy
goods vehicles use this route to travel between the industrial areas of West
Yorkshire, Cumbria and the west of Scotland via the M6 motorway.
9. When
the A65 was evaluated against the above 5 criteria the process would involve
both quantitative and qualitative assessments by civil servants prior to the
decision being taken by the then Department for the Environment, Transport
and the Regions. Judgements would be made regarding the relative
contributions different Trunk Roads made to the National Network. I believe
that the contribution made by the A65 is of such significance that it should
have been classified as a core Trunk Road.
10. In
addition to the facts put forward under my points 1 to 4 above, it is
important to understand the role of the A65. North of Leeds and Manchester,
there are only 3 major north-south routes. These are the A1, the A65 and the
M6. Together, the 3 provide the only efficient and direct links into a
national network that provide road users with routes from the south of
England and from parts of the east coast to the north of England and
Scotland. Without the A65, the main routes would be either the M6 to the
west or the A1 to the east. The A65 provides a very convenient cross-country
route.
11. If,
as I understand it, the Inspector is unable to consider whether the A65 has
been wrongly classified, I suggest that the need for the Long Preston and
Hellifield By-pass is recognised and included in the by-pass programme as an
exception to the policy relating to non-core trunk roads.
Issue 2
12. The
A65(T) cuts through the village of Long Preston, resulting in approximately
half of the houses and local facilities lying on the western side of the
road and the remaining half lying on the eastern side. Sustainable
communities need safe access to facilities if they are to be vibrant in
character. Use of local facilities also reduces people’s need to travel and
is therefore environmentally sound.
13. The
main facilities are grouped around the centre of the village but are
unfortunately separated from each other by the main road. For example, the
school lies on the eastern side whilst the village hall lies on the western
side. Because of the nature of Long Preston (a linear village that has grown
up around the A65) there is no practical alternative for residents to get
from one end of the village to the other except by walking along the main
road. Six elderly persons bungalows are sited at the Settle end of the
village. Their occupants face a 10 or15 minute walk along the main road to
reach the Post Office (which is also our only shop), church, etc.
14. Bearing
in mind that in several places the pavement narrows to 0.5 metres, the
noise, vibration and wind blast that is caused each time a Heavy Goods
Vehicle passes is not only unpleasant for pedestrians but, for the elderly
and for parents with young children, it is downright intimidating. As a
result, many residents will choose not to make use of the facilities
available within the village centre.
15. In
1992 the then Secretary of State for Transport recognised these problems
when he described the A65 in its local context. Referring to both Hellifield
and Long Preston he said:
16. “
People living in the two communities are subjected to a high degree of
severance, particularly during the summer months, and suffer the
disadvantages associated with the proximity of heavy traffic. They are also
subjected to a high accident risk due to the low standard of road where it
passes through the villages.
17. The
A65(T) passes through the centre of Long Preston for a distance of 1.2km and
the traffic is subject to a 30mph speed limit. In the village there are many
side roads and private access junctions onto the trunk road, several of
which are very sub-standard in respect of radius and visibility. There are
pavements on each side of the trunk road which narrow to 0.5 metres wide in
places. The carriageway width is generally less than 7.3 metres and it is
particularly narrow near to the junction with the B6478 Station Road.”
18. The
Secretary of State’s case was clearly argued and resulted in the bypass
orders being confirmed. That case still stands in 2006. The only difference
now is that the case in terms of “the local context” is stronger. In the
past 14 years, there has been an increase in the number of HGVs travelling
through the village and there has been a significant increase in the number
of people living in Long Preston; for example, since 2002, 43 new properties
have been built in the village, an increase of 15%.
Evidence.
(Obj) 3/3 Department
of Transport’s 1992 ‘A65 Hellifield and Long Preston Bypass - Secretary of
State’s reasons for proposing’.
Cross-Examination by the barrister for
the Highways Agency
Mr Alan Evans, the barrister for the HA
disputed Mrs Jones' claim that the A65 was Strategically Important, and
emphasised that it had not met the five criteria for determining a core
trunk road used by the Secretary of State. He stated that the recommended
core route for national traffic going from Leeds/Bradford to the Carlisle
and on to Glasgow was the motorways M62-M60-M61-M6 and not the A65 which was
only used by local and regional traffic, not through traffic.
In reply Mrs Jones re-affirmed her belief
that the A65 was used by through traffic and that it met at least 4 of the 5
criteria and had been wrongly classified as a non-core trunk route, she
further stated that she had been refused access to the data used to evaluate
the criteria.
The barrister undertook to investigate why the HA had told her that this
information was not available to her.
Summary of the Presentation of Case
by Mrs B Dodgson - on her
own behalf
Mrs Dodgson's case was based around the
severe impact the traffic had on the villages, especially Long Preston, in
which she resided. The village was bisected by the road which was busy at
all times, especially at weekends and bank holidays, which was obviously
through leisure traffic.
The Heavy Goods Vehicles started to pass through the village at 4 am and
were the principle source of noise right through to 7am, when general
traffic also started.
Summary of the Presentation of Case by
Revd Rachel Wilson - on behalf of the Long Preston Parochial Church
Council.
The Revd Wilson showed the Inspector a
cross sectional drawing of the A65 at Kayley Hill, in Long Preston,
drawing attention to the narrow width of both the carriageway and pavements.
She reported that at this point the pavements were only 0.75m on one side of
the road and 1.05m on the other. She also displayed two wing mirrors, which
had recently been broken off two HGV's as they passed at this point, and
reported that this was a fairly regular occurrence.
Revd Wilson reported that on several occasions she had to escort mourners
from funerals around the corner from Main Street into Church Street, as
people, unused to the traffic in the village, were petrified by the
proximity of the vehicles.
Summary of the Presentation of Case by
Ms P Derry - on her own behalf
Mrs Derry stated that she was a long term
resident of Gragrave, and related that 20 years ago the village was
relatively quiet and residents could readily meet and converse as they met
whilst shopping in the village. Now the village was too noisy and smelly for
this to be a pleasant experience. The volume of the traffic had increased
enormously and with a marked increase in heavy lorries, was much noisier and
her impression was that average speeds though the village had increased.
In relation to the five criteria for
determining whether a road was a core trunk road or not, she disputed that
it only served local and regional needs. That morning she observed large
goods vehicles from three European countries passing though the village,
within just a short period. As well as the goods vehicles using the A65 as a
shortcut, at weekends and bank holidays it was obvious to anyone who looked
that the increased traffic at these times were not local people, but
tourists, using the A65 to cut across the country. She showed a road map of
the area and pointed out that to go from Leeds to Kendal via the M62-M61-M6
was some 40 miles further than the 70 mile direct route, via the A65. The HA
may well declare the correct trunk route is the longer one, but in reality a
vast amount of traffic chose to cut the corner, when travelling between the
East and West; with increasing fuel costs she could only see that the
traffic volumes would increase.
Summary of the Presentation of Case of
Gargrave Parish Council
by Mr Butcher
Mr Bucher reported that the majority of the
residents of Gargrave were against the de-trunking of the A65. The level of
traffic was such that the quality of life of the residents was severely
effected and also they were severely inconvenienced having to often wait for
considerable time, before being able to cross from one side of the village
to the other.
Return to DAY 1
Return to DAY 2
Go to DAY 4 Go to Top
of page
Day 3: Thursday 23nd February
2006
The proceedings on Thursday started with
the Presentation of Case for Wigglesworth Parish Meeting, followed by a presentation
by Cllr David Heather. The Closing Submissions by those objectors who wished
to do so were then heard. With final Closing Submissions by the NYCC and
finally the HA.
Summary of the Presentation of Case of
the Wigglesworth Parish Meeting by Mr M Dean.
In preparation.....
Summary of the Presentation of Case by
Cllr David Heather - on his
own behalf.
In preparation.....
The closing submission
by Gillian Jones is available to me in electronic form, so is included
here in it's entirety.
Before presenting her summary Mrs Jones make a
formal complaint to the Inspector that information she had sought had not
been provided by the HA; namely the quantitative data on which the decision
had been made that the A65 did not meet the five necessary criteria, and
hence had been classed by the Secretary of State as a non core
trunk road. The barrister for the HA advised her that this information was
in fact irrelevant to this inquiry as it related to the de-trunking of the
A65 and not the Revocation of the Bypass Orders. Further he did not think
that this information was in the public domain, however he would
investigate whether the information could be made available. Mrs Jones
sought, and was given assurance, that when she received this data and if she
felt it had a bearing on her case, contact details would be given to her so
that she could make representation to the Secretary of State.
Closing Summary by Mrs Gillian Jones -
on her own behalf.
I have
tried to show that the A65 has a strategic importance and should not have
been classified as a non-core Trunk Road. Whether the assessments &
appraisals that led to this decision have been fairly arrived at is
impossible to say, as the information I sought has not been made available
to me.
I do
have to say that I feel disadvantaged by this. When I asked Mr Hornagold
for the definition of a strategic route, I understood his reply as being
that it was a core trunk road. When I asked how a core trunk road was
defined, I understood the answer to be that it was a strategic route. If I
had received the information I requested from the DoT I feel I would have
been able to advance my case much more successfully, ie that the A65 should
be considered as a core trunk road, if not in name then in practice.
I
cannot understand what public interest might need to be safeguarded. We are
not considering matters of national security I would imagine. There are a
number of possible reasons from simple misunderstanding by the civil
servants involved to, perhaps, feeling that it would be better if these
points were not aired before a PI.
Nevertheless I have still tried to demonstrate that in practice the A65
should, at least, be recognised as being of regional, if not national,
importance, benefiting areas outside North Yorkshire. These areas include
West Yorks, Lancashire, Cumbria and the west of Scotland. We have also heard
at this PI about the continental wagons entering the UK at Hull and using
the A65 to reach Lancs, Cumbria, Scotland and N Ireland.
The
strategic nature of the route is supported by the fact that 3 major routes
feed into the A65 at Skipton. These are the A59 from Harrogate, York and
beyond, the A65 from Leeds and beyond and the A629/A650 from Bradford and
beyond. There is also the A682 linking into the M65 at Nelson that feeds
into the A65 at Long Preston.
From
Bingley to Ingleton (a distance of approx. 50 miles) the only significant
settlements not to have yet been bypassed are Gargrave, Hellifield and Long
Preston. Similarly there have been a number of bypasses on the A59 and A65
south of Skipton. Prior to 1998 there was a clear intention to complete the
strategic nature of the A65 with the construction of the Gargrave and
Hellifield and Long Preston Bypasses.
The HA
has identified the strategic road network between West Yorks and North Lancs,
Cumbria and the west of Scotland as the M62, M61 and M6. This is unrealistic
given the fuel costs/time issues for many road users, especially HGVs. It is
in fact a strategic route on paper only. In practice, the A65 provides the
strategic cross-country route between West Yorks and North Lancs, Cumbria
and the west of Scotland, as the recent article in The Times re the
transport of nuclear waste from Leeds to Sellafield powerfully illustrates.
We
have heard that the Secretary of State has a duty to keep the Trunk Road
network under review. Given the dynamic situation relating to the A65
Bypasses ( approved in 1993, reviewed and withdrawn in 1998) it is important
to keep the schemes alive.
We have also heard during this PI that mechanisms do exist to take the
schemes forward. Bypass projects for both core and non-core trunk roads can
be included in the rolling programme of the Government’s Targeted Programme
of Improvements (TPI).
I
would respectfully ask that the Inspector dismiss the Bypass Revocation
Orders for Hellifield and Long Preston and recommend that they are included
in the TPI.
The closing submission
by Ian Evans is available to me in electronic form, so is included
here in it's entirety.
Closing Submission for Long Preston
Parish Council and Long Preston Residents Association - by Mr Ian Evans.
We
have heard a lot of evidence at this PI both factual and emotional. Through
all of the objectors’ cases, whether a County Council or a resident of a
village, there is the recurrent theme that the A65 is not just a local or
regional road as the HA might wish it to be designated or even become. I
don’t think many people would seriously expect, for example, weight
restrictions to be put on HGVs so that they would use instead the HA’s
strategic route via the M62, M62, M6. The quarry wagons alone that take
stone to build the motorways mean the A65 has to continue as a trunk road
whether designated as such or not.
The HA
case seems to be largely 2 fold. Firstly it seems to be a case of pleading
policy. However, if that were the case then I cannot see why or how this PI
is taking place. There may well be a government policy on roads (some might
consider the government policy has more bends than the stretches of A65 we
are talking about) but that policy does not and cannot dictate the result of
this PI.
The
second part of the HA case is the removal of uncertainty, blight and cost of
property management. I believe it to be demonstrated and accepted that
there is much more blight caused by the current A65 than that which is
caused either by a potential route or even an actually built bypass. The
amount and cost of property is miniscule for the government. That is not to
say it should be ignored but compared to the environmental damage, the
safety and accessibility issues associated with the current situation, it
cannot be a significant issue.
The HA
have questioned what NYCC and CDC have or have not done. They may be genuine
questions but I’m not sure that is for this PI. The A65 is a peripheral
road to NYCC – it links a few small towns and villages and runs for only
about 50 miles within the county itself. It does however link Lancs,
Scotland & beyond to W Yorks and beyond. The A65 has much more economic
significance for those areas – indeed perhaps one of those authorities might
be better placed to manage and maintain the A65 route.
I do
note that NYCC and CDC are concerned enough to expend considerable amounts
of their time and budgets to this PI – budgets that are much more restricted
than the HA’s.
I have
had some difficulty following the HA logic on whether the A65 goes into the
TPI or not. It seems agreed that the Secy State has a duty to keep trunk
roads under review. However the HA say that they won’t do any work to
determine if the A65 is to go into the TPI or not. If the HA adopts this
approach with all their roads, I cannot see how any would progress to TPI.
This approach is even more odd with the long history of the A65 and their
previous enthusiasm (which includes substantial time, efforts and costs) for
the bypasses.
Perhaps the HA view of forseeable is the problem. Perhaps they are just
looking at what is imminent rather than forseeable. There is a need to plan
for future possibilities (and I use that word advisedly) than just the
immediate future you already know about.
The
HA appear to agree there are major problems with the A65 in its current
form. Hoping those problems will go away by passing it onto another
authority to sort out is frankly not good enough. Their administrative
errors have resulted in a delay of 3 years in even getting this PI to
happen. Maybe with improved working practices in the past the bypass, as
approved in 1993, could have been built before the 1998 policy change.
I
also have to wonder if, in fact, the reason why the revocation orders are
being sought now have got confused over time. The 1992 PI proved the need
for a bypass. In 1996, a policy change meant the road was to become part of
a new route – the Aire Valley link between the M1 and the M6. Perhaps as a
consequence of another policy change, ie not to have an Aire Valley route (I
am sorry to have to keep mentioning policy changes but they do seem to be a
fact of life) it may be that the initial reason and need for the H&LP Bypass
were overlooked.
The
A65 is a road appropriate for the HA to administer. It is not appropriate
or efficient for another authority to come in and to start entirely from
scratch, not even able to pick up from where the HA left off. If the bypass
lines were maintained and could be passed over to NYCC then at least that
would not be such a desertion of duty.
There
is another part of the HA case that I find inconsistent. They have stated
that they had protected the bypass line until NYCC decided if they wished to
include the schemes within their LTP (para 3.18 of their Proof of Evidence).
I did ask Mr Hornagold about this but didn’t feel that I got a real
explanation. If there was a point in protecting the line once, even if it
was for another authority who apparently could not make use of the bypass
line, why cannot the line be protected until there is a satisfactory
solution to deal with the admitted A65 problems.
The
government’s criteria in its roads review, ie integration, safety, economy,
environment and accessibility all have relevance to the A65 and point to the
need for a bypass. I would therefore ask, on behalf of LPPC and LoPRA, that
the Inspector recommends to the Secy State that the ROs be set aside.
Closing Submission for
North Yorkshire County Council by their barrister, Mr Mathew Copeland.
In summary the NYCC's view is that: "The revocation of the bypass
orders is premature at this point in time. The effect of the orders is to
protect a route upon which the Minister may build the bypass schemes for
both Gargrave, and Hellifield and Long Preston .The need and wish for bypass
schemes around these three villages has been long standing. Although of
concern to residents prior to 1975, it was in that year that schemes were
first formally considered by the government of the day to be essential. That
need has not diminished and until alternative relief schemes have been
devised, the line should remain protected.
The full text of this fairly lengthy closing submission
is
available to me as a printed document, which I have scanned and uploaded.
Click here to see the full text.
Closing Submission for
The Highways Agency by their barrister,
Mr Alan Evans.
This was a lengthy
submission covering the Legal Framework of the Revocation, and restating the
Scope of the Inquiry.
In summary the HA's view is that: "The County Council has no current plans
to build the by-passes, and the Government currently plans not to. It is no
real basis to object to the revocation orders on the grounds that something
might nevertheless turn up". So in the circumstances the Highways Agency
respectfully asks the Inspector that he recommend that the revocation orders
are made as drafted.
The
full text of this very lengthy, tedious and repetitive closing
submission is available to me as a printed document, which I have scanned and
uploaded.
Click here to see the full text.
Return to DAY 1
Return to DAY 2
Return to DAY 3 Go to Top of page
Day 4: Friday 24th February
2006
Accompanied Site Visit by
the Inspector to Coniston Cold and Long Preston.
|
