Further to your recent
seminars and public discussions I must write to you, as requested and formally
object to the way in which the Highways Agency is proposing the route of the
much publicised A120 Braintree to Marks Tey link road.
Please find detailed
below a list of questions that I would like answered as I was unable to get a
satisfactory answer from your representatives at the exhibitions.
is the road project being called the A120 Braintree to Marks Tey link when the
road is being proposed to join Kelvedon on the A12,† would you also
Comment on why
the A12 is being burdened for another 8 miles of A120 traffic, surely it would
be beneficial to keep this to a minimum.
Why the A120 is
being given priority over the much more congested A12
is the road being taken from the existing dual carriageway 3 miles south of the
Marks Hall Roundabout at Braintree, considering?
A perfectly good
dual carriageway exists to this roundabout already.
With the current
cost of building roads and the necessity to reduce the environmental impact,
why is this section of dual carriageway now being downgraded for local traffic
you confirm if there has been any discussion with the Highways Agency in
respect of the proposed Incinerator Plant depot planned for Rivenhall Airfield,
bearing in mind the proposed southern road scheme passes through it? If so
- Will that information become accessible
under the Freedom of Information act?
- Is there any correlation to the Southern
you provide data for the impact on the number of residents affected by the
southern route, northern route and upgrading the old road (middle route)?
you also confirm the following:-
- What is the modal traffic flow along the
A120 at Marks Tey, at peak and off peak times
- What is the modal traffic flow at
Braintree for a similar period above
- What would be the estimated through
traffic from these studies
- What is the resultant total attributable
to local traffic.
- What local traffic will be denied access
to the A120 due to restrictive entry / exit slip roads causing longer
journeys for local traffic movement
you provide the Highways Agency or any external consultantís conclusions as to
why it needs to construct approx 3 miles of additional road at Braintree and
re-construct approx 8 miles of the A12 north of Kelvedon?
an environmental impact assessment been undertaken on the effects to the River
Blackwater, in particular?
- Where will the road drainage be
- What consideration has been given to the
valley of the Blackwater at Coggeshall Hamlet and surrounding areas?
- Will the water quality be affected?
- Will the marine and aquatic life be
- Will it meet the Water Framework
you provide, based on current costs, the projected expenditure for all the
proposals put forward so far, with the middle route included into the analysis.
you explain why the southern route is the preferred route with no other
detailed plans being made available for public discussion and review?
of the road on the southern route cannot always follow high elevation countryside
to avoid flooding dangers from the River Blackwater.
What plans are in
place to counteract localised flooding on the proposed road?
sections of the road as it enters densely populated areas will be visible or
submerged below the natural datum line, in particular?
At Silver End
And what effects will be made to minimise road noise?
the new road go over the railway line, or below it? Taking into account the
If the south
route at Feering is the chosen option, the rail line is approx ľ mile away, how
will this affect the road elevation to and from the A12, and how will this
interact with the adjacent countryside?
How can it be
screened as suggested?
†What consideration is being given to the
northern route, if adopted, the rail line north of Marks Tey is within 50m of
the road. Any elevated section could be incorporated and lead naturally into a
bridge without any impact to the community whatsoever as this area is scarcely
Depending on the
access position, the rail line North of Marks Tey is in a natural depression
anyway, thus making it simpler from an engineering view to transverse this, has
this been considered?
is a roundabout intersection being considered at Feering, in particular?
This will lead to
a major bottleneck and increased traffic noise?
†This goes against your primary consideration
not mention moving the current congestion problems at Gallows Corner roundabout
to the new junction at Feering?
Why this is
considered a satisfactory option.
intersection for local traffic at the a120 / A12 junction would not be user
friendly to local traffic which is against your primary objective.
your opening considerations you are prepared to move the traffic so it does not
affect residents on the existing A120.
- Why do you consider it is necessary to
move the problem to the residents of Cressing, Silver End, Feering and
Kelvedon again against your primary objective?
A120 road shown on your map will continue through from a valley of the River
Blackwater and will need to rise sharply to overcome the hill.
- On top of the hill are a substantial array
of high voltage pylons and power station. How will this be overcome?
the Southern route is accepted what will be the impact to residents within the
noise boundary of the new road, also consider.
- How many people are affected by the A120
as it stands at present? The existing road actually has 70 houses along it
from Marks Hall roundabout in Braintree to the beginning of Marks Tey
village. (Ignoring Coggeshall village which is bypassed and Bradwell
village which could easily be bypassed).
the Southern route is accepted what restrictions and facilities will be
implemented to stop the local traffic at London & Inworth road being used
as a rat run?† The B1023 from Tiptree
enters Feering at a junction with Feering Hill (Gore Pit) presently A12 bound
traffic can only turn right to go north or turn left to go South passing
through Kelvedon. The scheme proposed would encourage the traffic to turn right
only and head for the new A12 / A120 junction north of Feering where it will be
able to travel North & South.† The
Gore Pit junction is a serious accident black spot area and the increased traffic
turning right would cause severe delays, disruption to the local community and
decrease road safety?
isnít there an A120 scheme to build a two lane carriageway adjacent to the
existing road east bound, and utilize the extg road for westbound traffic? Much
of the A120 is bound by hedgerows.
19.††††† If safety is an issue being given for the
for residents already on the A120 road, †† what
consideration, if any, is being given to residents around the A12 at Mark Tey †††††† and other residents along the A12 and
neighbouring road networks
20†††††† Why is there a need to spend huge amounts
of money in building a 3rd lane from †† Kelvedon
to Marks Tey in both directions?
substantial sum of money has already just been spent on re-surfacing this
section of dual carriageway?
- Could the money have been wisely spent
resurfacing and improving the roads not being affected by these proposals,
which by the way have been left untouched and in a bad state of repair?
- Why was a considerable amount of money
spent on a new 8 mile cycle path from Feering to Marks Tey when it will be
demolished when the 3rd lane is installed?
- Would you consider this to be wise use of
public money so far?
consideration is to lessen the impact of the environment and utilise †††††††††† agricultural land,
Why the southern
route? When identical land to the north of the extg A120 is also predominantly
agricultural, again against your primary objective?
21.††††† Your reasoning that the A120 is a major
link to the M11 from Harwich, taking into
consideration that your assessment of 30,000 vehicles per day will be †††††††††† travelling this route what
considerations have been taken to
impact to rural communities along the proposed routes.
The burden to
businesses and the public forced to travel south from Marks Tey to Kelvedon and
then back onto Braintree.
cost to the road user in travelling approx 8 miles further than is actually
The impact to the
environment based on Government guidelines to reduce car emissions and wasteful
why the link road is not more direct i.e. taken from the extg 3 lane carriage
way north of Marks Tey.
why the A12 is being improved to 3 lane in this area, and how will this improve
road safety and interact with the extg 2 lane carriageways of the A12
22.††††† How will residents along the A12 Feering
to Marks Tey section be disadvantaged by
the 3rd lane over and above those on the A120?
and how will road
safety be achieved when the residents wish to exit their properties onto a more
major road than the A120
businesses and local residents on the south bound slip road / access road at
Marks Tey are affected by the 3rd lane carriageway.
How will the extg
A120 slip rd at Marks Tey, onto the A12 on both carriageways be re-constructed
How will the extg
bicycle path from Feering to Marks Tey be re-established
23.††††† of the 329 incidents stated in your
document, over a 5 year period:-
- †How many of these were situated a notorious black spots of
Mark Hall, Gallows Corner roundabouts
- †B1024 / A120 Coggeshall interchange
- †Marks Tey village along the A120
- †Why is the Highways Agency keen to address these issues now
on a massive scale when localised road improvements through better design
could have overcome these road safety issues many years ago?
I would summarise:-
Whilst most are of the
opinion that the A120 needs to be re-invented, having used this road for many
years I cannot see why over a ľ billion pounds needs to be spent on this
section of road at all. Peak times do cause tailbacks especially at Marks Hall
& Gallows Corner roundabout, however major tidal flow can be given priority
over local traffic and a dedicated separate slip road would alleviate this
problem. Reconstruction at Gallows Corner can be achieved to ease congestion.
†If a scheme is to progress, the southern
scheme put forward by the Highways Agency, in my opinion, has been ill thought
out and would undoubtedly cost much more than is necessary. The Northern route
would impact less on rural communities, but no less than to the environment. A
middle route, which would impact less to residents already affected by the A120
and especially to the environment (with local bypasses) has not even been
mentioned, which seems an anomaly and could not be answered by your officials
at several constructive seminars held in the area.
interchange at Feering would only compound the bottleneck experienced at
Gallows Corner roundabout and would therefore need to be continuous slip roads,
North and South onto the A12. The interaction with the railway which runs
parallel with the A12 needs to be considered very carefully due predominantly
to its elevation. Between Feering and Marks Tey the line is above the natural
datum line and positioned approx 700m from the A12, therefore the new dual
carriageway would need to rise above, stay elevated to a new intersection above
the A12. No consideration has been given to the impact of this
North of Marks Tey,
where there is a 3 lane carriageway already, the rail line is below the A12 and
within 50m of the road. A natural bridge and intersection could be built and I
feel would be less of a challenge on an engineering point of view and moreover
less of an eye sore to all residents along the A12 corridor.
needs to be given in routing A120 traffic from Harwich along a grossly
congested section of the A12. With the increased traffic flow and the A12
reputation of numerous accidents along the Kelvedon, Rivenhall and Witham
bypasses, severe delays will also gridlock the A120 traffic. At present only
serious traffic accidents affect the A120 slip road at Marks Tey.
Although there is a
token point made about the environment I feel there is very little effort been
put in place to overcome the communities affected by the proposals, furthermore
there does not appear to be evidence of how the proposed roads will affect
wildlife, the associated river systems and more importantly the complete and
utter destruction of valuable, unspoilt Essex countryside, regardless of
whether it is agricultural land.
There appears to be a
massive waste of public money on the re-construction of the A12 north of
Kelvedon completed in Feb 2005. The entire stretch from Feering to Marks Tey
has just been resurfaced, with no safety access improvements at all, which if
the southern route is passed, would negate all the work carried out.
Furthermore to compound the waste, a new 8 mile bicycle path was re-constructed
again at massive expense for extremely low use, only to be devoured by a new 3rd
lane. What compounds the problem even further is that the Kelvedon bypass south
of the proposals was not touched under these works. A serious question needs to
be raised as to why this section was at least not undertaken first.
If the A120 needs to be
upgraded then I cannot see why the existing road is not redeveloped, this would
minimise the impact
- To the environment and the Essex
- †Rural communities along all the proposed routes
- †Maintain a sense of direction that the road is taking the
shortest route possible
- Save tax payers money
- Reduce the massive disruption this would
cause to the over congested A12
- Bring back credibility to the resurfacing
works just completed
I would be grateful
for a response to the above and your assurance that these points will be given
I would be happy to
discuss these issues with you?
A D Land