March 15th 2005
Dear Mr Shuker
Re: A120 Braintree to Marks Tey
I am writing to try and help you understand the
local impact that your ‘preferred route’ for the A120
would have and to suggest that there may be a better route.
By way of introduction, my wife and I have lived
in Feering village for 20 years. It is an old village with a historic
church and listed buildings (including ours) and an excellent train
link (in neighbouring Kelvedon) to London and Ipswich. I also cycle
and run in the area through which you are proposing to drive the
new A120. Although there are particular concerns for Feering, which
I will cover, I have listened to and talked with many people in
Coggeshall, Kelvedon and Feering as we are a fairly close community,
with considerable interaction between the three villages and a civic
pride which leads many of us to be more concerned about how we look
after this heritage-rich area and what we will leave behind.
The nice straight line which the Highways agency
has drawn on the map will no doubt appeal to road haulage companies,
but on the ground your ‘preferred route’ would cause
awful and irreversible damage to the beautiful and peaceful River
Blackwater valley between Coggeshall and Kelvedon/ Feering, and
– as it could not have a junction at Coggeshall for local
and Earls Colne traffic – would cause major traffic problems
in and around Coggeshall and down to Feering, and would probably
not even be the godsend hoped for by those Bradwell residents who
live along the current A120 trunk road!
You have only put forward one route for consultation
but have shown some alternatives that you have also considered and
apparently rejected. Many of us believe that the route identified
as the ‘preferred route’ is probably the worst of the
routes on display, for a variety of reasons. Also, over the past
few years we have often discussed the A120 with our elected representatives
and understood that Essex CC’s preferred route – on
grounds of environmental impact, cost and other important considerations
– would bring a new A120 in to join the A12 between Witham
and Kelvedon. The Highways agency has not even presented this route
for public consultation.
Some specific observations that I would ask you
please to take into consideration as you and your team try to develop
a more appropriate solution:
1. As even your own consultants seem to recognise,
your ‘preferred route’ passes too close to the north
of historic Feering village. The preferred route would have a serious
adverse effect on Feering Conservation Area and on the local community
in terms of visual intrusion, noise, air quality, severance and
seriously increased traffic on local roads that will be unable to
take them. I am pleased that The Highways Agency recognises this
and talks of ‘mitigation measures’ – which would
probably be insufficient – and has even proposed an ‘alternative
Southern route.’ From a purely Feering village perspective
this ‘alternative Southern route’ would be marginally
less bad, as it would go through an area that is more sparsely populated
than Feering village. However I believe that the whole Southern/Feering
North route idea is the wrong solution.
2. I think that you will find that most people in
and outside the area agree that between London and Ipswich (LOIS)
by far the highest priority is to improve the A12. At Hatfield Peverel,
Witham, Kelvedon and Feering the two-lane sections lead to massive
congestion at peak hours (even at current traffic levels) and –
being two-lane – whenever there is an accident or breakdown
the knock-on effects can be excruciating for the villages along
the route. And this is only at today’s traffic levels. The
optimum A120 solution should surely take advantage of the eventual
improvement of the A12. The Highways Agency’s inclusion within
the A120 project of the costs of upgrading part of the A12 is misleading
and may lead to inappropriate decision-making on the route for the
A120.
3. A new A120 would be intended to provide long-term
solutions. As it would in the medium and long term co-exist with
an upgraded A12, is it asking too much for the Highways Agency to
prioritise the A12 and synchronise plans for both roads? The need
to upgrade a longer stretch of the A12 should surely not be a reason
not to pursue options which would see a new A120 joining the A12
closer to Witham than to Mark’s Tey? If however the only way
we are going to get an upgraded A12 is for you to amalgamate the
costs with the A120, please bring the A120 even further south! What
price Chelmsford!
4. There is a specific Feering/Kelvedon problem
that your current A120 proposals would aggravate: part of the project
includes widening the A12 either side of a new A120/A12 intersection,
but without any junction/slip road for traffic coming north from
Tiptree. The continued lack of a sliproad (to the by then improved
A12 and A120) would seriously aggravate what is already a major
problem for Kelvedon and Feering: even at today’s traffic
levels the absence of a link from Tiptree to the A12 results in
a lot of lorries and other vehicles having to go through these villages
to get on to the A12 in either direction. At peak times there can
even be a tailback on the Coggeshall Road, Feering, of vehicles
trying to get on to the London Road. With an upgraded A12 and new
A120 the above problems would get much worse unless the Tiptree
problem can be adequately addressed.
a. At the public consultations at Coggeshall and
Kelvedon, Highways Agency consultants pointed out that some convoluted
route involving two or more roundabouts, the current London Road,
Feering, and the current A12 could be considered. This is not a
convincing solution to what is already a major problem at today’s
traffic levels. Indeed some of the large lorries involved may cause
even bigger blockages on such a complicated network of slip roads.
b. When asked about the lack of access for Tiptree
traffic, another of the Highways Agency’s consultants at the
Coggeshall public consultation said that such a Tiptree road/A12
junction would be too close to their preferred location for the
new A120/A12 junction. This objection would be overcome by locating
the new A120/A12 junction closer to Mark’s Tey (the “alternative
location” in the Highways Agency’s three other options)
– or by being addressed as part of a solution that brings
a new A120 in to join the A12 between Witham and Kelvedon, as favoured
by our elected representatives on Essex CC..
5. Despite local objections, it seems that the Government
is still considering locating a major incinerator at Rivenhall,
which would take waste from a very large area (including Kent.)
The increase in lorry movements that such an incinerator would involve
would further underline the need for an improved A12. Furthermore
these problems could also be alleviated by bringing a new A120 further
south to join the A12 much closer to Rivenhall.
6. As I am sure you will realise when you visit
the area, your report is wrong to claim that your ‘preferred
route’ would not directly affect any designated areas of environmental
interest. The increased flood risk, noise, visual and ecological
impact on the River Blackwater valley near Coggeshall would be terrible
and irreversible.
a. Residents of Coggeshall, Kelvedon and (to a lesser
extent) Feering already have concerns about the flood plain and
recently parts of the area suffered severe flooding. It is probable
that a flood risk assessment of the four options displayed at the
consultations would indicate that your ‘preferred route’
would increase the flood risk more than the other options –
or a possible alternative between Witham and Kelvedon, further from
the River Blackwater. We appreciate that your report talks of trying
to mitigate the increased flood risk, but there is no doubt that
the already unacceptable risk would be increased.
b. Furthermore the visual impact and noise pollution
that would be caused by the proposed bridge over the River Blackwater
would have a dreadful and irreversible negative impact on the environment
in a quiet and particularly beautiful part of the Essex countryside.
The land between Coggeshall and Feering (near Feeringbury Manor)
and between Coggeshall and Kelvedon (near Coggeshall Hall) on either
side of the River Blackwater have considerable environmental interest.
Your ‘preferred route’ would go straight through the
River Blackwater valley, in an area which has benefited from outstanding
environmental stewardship over the years. There is also significant
birdlife in the area, with kingfishers, herons, bitterns, egrets,
many different ducks and geese, grebes and sandpipers. The ‘open
gardens’ at Feeringbury Manor are a popular attraction and
give outstanding views of beautiful Essex countryside. This area
also has considerable historical and heritage value, of which I
believe you have already been made aware.
7. Many local residents believe strongly that, as
there is already a by-pass at Coggeshall, every effort should be
made to incorporate it into any future plan for the A120. (The bends
on the current by-pass would however need to be smoothed out, unlike
on the route shown in the brochure.) We appreciate that a solution
for the new A120 has to be found, and believe that there is a better
solution than any which have so far been put forward for public
consultation: namely for the A120 to join the A12 between Witham
and Kelvedon, which would undoubtedly be less environmentally damaging
than your extremely damaging currently ‘preferred route’.
Regarding a Witham/Rivenhall/Kelvedon option, I
understand that there is a concern within the Highways Agency that
a predominantly East-West route should not have a ‘North-South
dog-leg’. Roads do however frequently have to diverge from
the preferred straight line because of facts on the ground, for
example to avoid built up areas, to minimise adverse environmental
impacts, to respect the human rights of residents or for other considerations.
A solution with the A120 joining the A12 between Witham and Kelvedon
would also be more convenient for many Witham residents and business
to access the new A120, and would alleviate some of Witham’s
often chronic traffic problems.
So I join the chorus of voices asking you to consider
bringing a new A120 in to join the A12 between Witham and Kelvedon.
There are strong arguments to prefer such a solution, and we would
ask the Highways Agency to take its clearly inappropriate “southern/Feering
North” route off the table as soon as possible, as it is causing
considerable anguish and ‘property blight’ in the area,
without (I hope) any realistic likelihood that it would ever end
up being the final choice.
Yours sincerely