Evidence in Person 13

ALTERNATIVE S3A XXXXXXXXX
I have presented my case to the Inquiry - my Statement of Case and the Highways Agency have produced a response entitled "Response to Objection" reference Document H.
I shall now deal with that response
Under heading "Submission by Mr N Austin", heading B, the Highways Agency look at the Archaeological Evidence on paragraph B1. Here the Highways Agency rely totally upon Annex L - Mr Gardiner's evidence.
This evidence has been shown to be unreliable in many aspects. It is a desktop exercise, which it is admitted does not address the evidence in my manuscript relating to the crutial elements of the Norman Fort, the Norman boats or the port area, since my evidence is predominantly outside of the narrow corridor of the road. In consequence the Highways Agency case simply cannot be relied upon in a case of national heritage importance, such as that at the landing and camp site of the Norman Invasion.
Wilting has a known written history, going back to near Domesday, as a farm and manor, with a proven archaeological record dating back to the Bronze Age.
I believe that apart from showing Mr Gardiner's critique as having no validity as evidence to counter my case, on the other side of the coin I have shown that Wilting is a remarkable site worthy of preservation on the historical and archaeological record alone. Where else in this part of England can you find a site with a continuous record dating back to 3,000 BC. Where within the boundary of one two hundred acre site there is the potential to show children and people from all over the world, man's development from Bronze to Iron Age, through the Roman period, on to Saxon camps and the ancient port of Hastings.
The Norman Invasion is the icing on the cake. The potential to the area in heritage terms is invaluable, and none of this value is recorded anywhere in the Highways Agency submission. The value to the local economy could be millions of pounds per year, every year.
As stated in my Statement of Case "It is my case that a site of this nature is not just another archaeological site in the path of a road development. This site has the potential to become a major national treasure. It has the potential to provide Hastings with a historical site capable of attracting thousands of visitors a year. A site to rival Bayeux. This economic potential must enter the equation when costing the impact of the road". I believe that the Highways Agency have not addressed this case in their rebuttal and therefore it must stand as a legitimate point in favour of preserving this site and choosing alternative route S3A.
The Highways Agency cannot under any circumstances counter my claim that the excavations at the site of the Norman Camp, my excavations at the site of the Norman Boats or the excavations in Chapel field are not correct. I can make this statement because they have been invited to examine this evidence and have failed to look at it.
I must conclude that they considered, in view of the evidence, that the risk of undertaking such work as too high. If they had instructed Mr Gardiner to do this work, which was well within their capability, the risk of evidence coming to light that was valid in all respects to my claims, was in my view too high a price to pay.
It could conceivably have meant a major setback to their plans. Indeed Mr Kendall of English Heritage in his letter to the Highways Agency agents, my bundle page 62 states "It remains to be seen whether Mr Austin will formally object to the road orders and hence whether an inquiry will examine his claims". I would say that is a case of underestimating the situation. Clearly English Heritage did not know in September 1995 whether I was going to pursue this case. It shows how little Mr Kendall understood the implications, how little he had absorbed about my manuscript, and how low on the priority these matters were considered by those dealing with the archaeological matters.
However failing to look is no not a legitimate defence against my case. It ultimately means that they have no case and therefore the argument presented in my Statement of Case stands without challenge.
On this basis the issue must arise as to which alternative route should be adopted.
This deals effectively and finally with the heritage issue detailed in point B1 of the Highways Agency Response to Objection, which I call their "rebuttal".
Point B2 Confirms that the Combe Haven SSSI is of national importance and therefore I conclude that regardless of the heritage issues, the Highways Agency must comply with guidelines associated with those laid down by government and their own code of conduct in regards to such sites.
Point B3 The Highways Agency state that "a viaduct crossing of the valley on the alignment of the Published Schemes was considered to represent the best balance between nature conservation and landscape objectives". - "Best balance between nature conservation and landscape objectives?
I challenge this point, since the Highways Agency have not presented a case where an alternative route avoiding the SSSI has been considered at all until now. I do not know if one was considered before I presented my route?
At the time of the Environmental Statement no route south of Combe Haven was considered as far as I can tell.
In P.Masters Proof of evidence on Ecology and Nature Conservation he states, para 4.3.3. in the section on loss of habitat in relation to the road that" Some ecologists consider that it can be a barrier to weak flying insects, and it is clearly a barrier to invertebrates which rarely fly and require physical continuity of the same habitat in which to move freely."
The published route does not help in this respect, however this problem will not exist with route S3A since the barrier is to the south of the SSSI.
In paragraph 4.3.13 Mr Masters states "Variations in water table height are of crucial importance for many communities on seasonally-inundated or wet soils."
The published route does not help in this respect, however this problem will not exist with route S3A. which crosses the Combe Haven below the end of the SSSI and therefore past the flood plain entrance.
In paragraph 4.5.4 Mr Masters states that "Very careful consideration has been given to the route in the Combe Haven area. It has been decided that, in principal, a viaduct crossing in the location described in the engineering and landscape proofs would be the best balance between nature conservation and landscape objectives".
Whilst I agree that careful consideration may have been given in respect of the published route, it is a wholly unsatisfactory state of affairs because no-where has anyone ever identified why a route south of the Combe Haven SSSI was not chosen. A route was drawn on a map by men in darkened rooms and we are then presented with it as a fait a complis. All that this statement does is confirm that it is the best that they can do, but no evidence is provided to justify it. In the absence of evidence to justify the route I say that route S3A has none of the ecological or nature conservation problems, that this report seeks to redress by mitigating measures. If the S3A route requires less mitigating action it must be better in all respects.
I paragraph 7.4.1 Mr Masters recognises that crossing the Combe Haven valley will have an impact on the "single ecological unit" of the Combe Haven SSSI. I believe that to dissect this valley with such a construction, when an alternative less damaging route is available, route S3A, the implementation of the division of the single ecological unit would run contrary to agreed guidelines for the Highways Agency.
Alternative Route S3A does not suffer from the cataclysmic severing of the habitat.
Under Mr Masters Proof of evidence paragraph 7.4.3 areas of ancient woodland would suffer as a result of the published route.
The effect of route S3A is to reduce this impact considerably and therefore must be a more appropriate route in this respect.
According to paragraph 6.4.6 and 7.4.7. grassland effected by the road in the SSSI will suffer, whilst considerably less grassland will be effected by alternative route S3A. In this respect route S3A must be a more appropriate choice of route.
Under paragraph 7.4.10 Mr Masters states " Based upon surveys undertaken with Western Bypass, the site is clearly of national importance for aquatic beetles as a lowland ditch system with 66 species"
Alternative route S3A does not damage this system and in that respects is a better and less compromising route to the Published Route.
Under paragraph 7.4.11 The SSSI is an assembly point for breeding birds at Filsham Reedbeds.
Alternative route S3A proposes a better method of retaining the integrity of the Filsham reed beds and this matter I shall deal with when discussing Sussex Wildlife Trusts, who manage these beds.
Under paragraph 7.4.12 the Combe Haven SSSI is noted as a "site of national importance for its assemblage of terrestrial invertebrates with 16 Nationally Notable and one red Data Book species. The aquatic invertebrates are also nationally important."
The adoption of the published route puts these species in this area at risk, the adoption of route S3A does not. Therefore the adoption of route S3A must be a preferred route.
Under paragraph 7.4.26 Mr Masters notes that the ditches of the Combe Haven are "probably of at least regional importance for nature conversation".
Route S3A does not interfere with the ditch system of the SSSI as far as I am aware. These ditches could be recreated along the edge of the SSSI as per the recommendations of Sussex Wildlife Trusts, which I shall deal with later. In consequence Route S3A is less damaging than the published route and should be adopted.
Under paragraph 7.4.34 Mr Masters notes the importance of the SSSI for migratory birds. Adopting Route S3A reduces the impact on migratory bird by avoiding the majority of the SSSI and avoiding cutting the flight path long the valley floor in two. The retention of the SSSI as one unit retains the integrity of this element and therefore route S3A must be a preferable route to that proposed by the Highways Agency.
Under paragraph 7.4.44 Decoy Pond was found to hold a pair of lesser spotted woodpeckers, which are regionally important.
The adoption of route S3A will avoid these important birds and therefore I propose it to be a more appropriate nature conservation route.
Paragraph 7.4.57 deals with ditches of national importance at Decoy Pond, as part of the SSSI.
The adoption of route S3A will avoid these ditches and is therefore less damaging to the environment.
In Mr Masters Overall Assessment of the Impact of the Published Scheme he states "I acknowledge that the Combe Haven crossing would have a significant impact on the integrity of the Combe Haven as an ecological unit." There is no beating about the bush here. The Highways Agency and everyone in this room knows that the Combe Haven crossing will "Have a significant impact on the integrity of Combe Haven".
The plain truth is that Route S3A will have virtually none and certainly none that cannot be reinstated by mitigating circumstances.
In the same paragraph "manipulation of water levels" is suggested and the point I would make is that no manipulation of water levels is required using alternative Route S3A, because no water movement or interference is necessary. The road route avoids all contact with the SSSI flood plain, crossing the ASTEN river with a bridge South of the SSSI. A major benefit in terms of ensuring no environmental or human disasters further up the valley, because of flooding, caused by the intervention of the viaduct on a very sensitive flood plain. Taking the route south of the floodplain ensures a permanent safeguard against human error.
In paragraph 7.4.65 Mr Masters concludes that the impact of the viaduct would be in his words "moderate on a site of national importance." Under my proposed route S3A the impact would be negligible. Therefore Route S3A is the best and only route that conserves the integrity of the Combe Haven SSSI.
In conclusion Mr Masters report is one horrific intrusion into a site of special scientific interest, where paragraph after paragraph lists habitat that will be lost or damaged as a result of the proposed Published Route, with a list of mitigating efforts, none of which can guarantee success.
Alternative Route S3A is the only alternative available which removes almost all the problems that have concerned so many objectors to this route, and therefore the only agreeable choice for nature conservation.
When looking at risk the Highways Agency have produced an analysis of risk in their document reference 10059/RC/9/032/9/A page 29 of 95 September 1994.
This states that risks of spillage on each stretch of the Published scheme was "one such accident per year, with one major spill every ten years." I believe it is not unreasonable of me to say that this is just too high a risk to take with our valley.
The proposal therefore is the implementation of balancing ponds to catch contamination. However I say that this risk of one in ten is too high for what is a national asset, when that risk can be avoided. The implementation of Route S3A can ensure that balancing ponds are located outside of the SSSI and that the risk of total loss to this area can never happen. In consequence Route S3A must be presented as the preferred route because it is the only route that can guarantee no contamination of the SSSI.
Taking all these matters into account I cannot see how the Highways Agency can claim in their rebuttal paragraph B3 that their scheme provides the best balance between nature conservation and landscape objectives. We have looked at nature conservation issues and they are not the best. Now lets look at the landscape issues.
I have proposed in Route S3A that my road follows the natural boundary of the ridge as it passes from Hastings to Bexhill, remaining on the town side of the ridge wherever possible to avoid intrusion into the SSSI of the Combe Haven valley and the countryside.
As stated in my Statement of Case my route"Further uses the landscape by complying with the natural flow of the ridge, reducing visual impact on the protected areas of national interest to the North. It better uses the existing Queensway, by retaining the slip road to St Leonards by the reservoir, whilst removing the Mayfield interchange and replacing it with a simple overbridge, in keeping with the landscape and traffic use on the Crowhurst road. Traffic travelling east would still be able to exit at the Castleham Interchange and there is no need for the BNAR interchange producing substantial cost saving to the government."
In Mr Holland's Proof of Evidence in relation to the Landscape evidence, he states "The viaduct across the valley floodplain would be widely visible" - paragraph 4.3.5.2 This in my view is not a benefit.
This is of course a major intrusion into the SSSI, where noise and visibility have an impact on the wildlife which depends upon a lack of intrusion to retain its habitat. Under my proposals for Route S3A this wide visibility would be reduced from within the valley to almost nil, by the implementation of a cheap barrier on the section past Filsham Estate, together with other mitigating circumstances necessary where visual intrusion is highest.
Over all the implementation of Route S3A produces a greatly reduced visual envelope. I have requested that a copy of this visual envelope be made available but have been advised that this is not necessary at this stage. I believe that it should be done to provide absolute proof of the reduction in visibility of the road compared to the Published Route.
It must be remembered that visibility does not only apply to property and who lives there. The main impact of visibility is on the integrity of the SSSI and this who walk there as a recreational activity. Only a visual envelope will demonstrate the greatly reduced impact of route S3A.
Paragraph 4.3.5.10 of Mr Holland's Evidence states "To the east of the viaduct the bypass would cross onto an 11 meter high embankment, which if left as an engineered slope would be prominent, particularly in views from the south within the valley floor and from the residential areas of Harley Shute."
I believe that once the visual envelope work is completed the reduction on visibility both within the valley and the Harley Shute area will be demonstrable. It is obvious that by removing the route from the centre of the valley there must be a significant reduction in visibility. This does not necessarily impact on the Harley Shute residents, as might be expected, because by drawing the line close to the existing Filsham Housing estate, low down next to the marsh the only properties that suffer are those in the immediate vicinity and not those higher up behind existing properties, which look over the properties onto the far side of the valley.
In paragraph 5.2.4.3 Mr Holland states "As the road rises up the northern side of the Combe Haven Valley to the Mayfield junction, the embankment and subsequent cutting would be prominent in views from the southern side of the valley".
The implementation of route S3A low down in the valley would not have this effect, therefore route S3A is better from a visual landscape impact point of view.
Having examined the landscape evidence I find nothing to show that the published route is better in any respect than my S3A route. In the conclusion Mr Holland states in paragraph 6.4. "Whilst visible, the viaduct across the Combe Haven would ensure the continuity of the valley". I'm sorry Mr Holland, are you really serious "viaduct ensures the continuity of the valley". Who is kidding who? This viaduct is a gross intrusion and the Published Route cannot pretend that it is not there, from the landscape intrusion point of view.
I make the case that Route S3A does not intrude in the same way and therefore is a better route, and should be chosen as such, because it does not intrude on the scale of the Published route.
In paragraph B3 of the rebuttal the Highways Agency state that the viaduct crossing was considered to represent the "best balance between nature conservation and landscape objectives". I believe I have demonstrated this is not the case because alternative S3A provides the best balance.
In response to paragraph B4 of the Response to Objection (Doc H.) relating to English Nature being "unable to sustain its objections on grounds of "substantial" damage to the scientific interest." I believe this is a red herring.
I believe that you should have received a letter from English Nature as a result of my meeting their representative, Mr Tinnings at the site of route S3A earlier in the month.
At that meeting the issues were discussed with Mr Jenman, the reserves manager of the Sussex Wildlife Trusts, who look after the SSSI at Filsham Reed beds.
It was explained to me that English Nature do not support one road against another and after examining my proposal on the ground it was agreed that there was merit in my case. Both English Nature and Sussex Wildlife Trusts agreed to write to the Inquiry to explain their position.
It was my understanding that the loss of SSSI in the area adjacent to Filsham Estate was not as important as I had believed. It was explained to me that the SSSI had experienced many problems from the Filsham Estate, because the intrusion of dogs and people were slowly devaluing the SSSI in that area. It could be seen that if the current rate of intrusion continued it would be possible to project forward a position where any value that remained in nature conservation terms would be marginal in twenty or thirty years time.
In consequence placing the road as a barrier to intrusion could serve a purpose. However until a proper survey was done the loss of habitat could not be evaluated. Mr Jenman made the case that whilst the reed beds are of great value now their erosion through infiltration could justify mitigating circumstances, because the reed beds themselves were created in the 1950's, and could easily be recreated as a bearable cost of mitigation.
I am not a nature conservationist but I understood what was being presented as an acceptable course of action. Mr Jenman was saying if we loose some of our reed beds to a road, because this route needs to encroach on the marsh, where the reed beds are located, this is an acceptable price where those same reed beds can be recreated a little further up the marsh. Thus no nature conservation loss in the long term and there is the added value of protection from incursion by the line of the new road.
One of the subjects that was discussed was the issue balance, balance between the need for nature conservation and the need for new roads. Mr Tinning made the point that when a trunk route needs to pass through a built up area, acceptable restrictions on speed, carriage width and barriers are all accepted as part of the balance, needed to put roads through these areas. It was put to me that where this road can avoid a major nature conservation site, it would not be unreasonable to put similar restrictions in place to accommodate and balance the loss. Why should nature conservation always give in response to development? Shouldn't an agreeable cost of such development be the reinstatement of loss to nature conservation. This is a principal well understood in the USA and one I would urge to adopt here.
I therefore propose that where this road is directly exposed, next to the marsh and adjacent to the Filsham Estate it is an acceptable mitigating circumstance for speed restrictions to 50 miles per hour and visual barriers to be erected. As have been erected in Swansea on the M4. This is for the benefit of residents and the inhabitants of the marsh.
At the same time IF any loss of reed beds is required, and I certainly believe it is not likely from the measurements I took, then these beds should be replaced further up the valley, in conjunction with an acceptable scheme with Sussex Wildlife Trusts.
I notice that their letter dated 14^th march is headed Alternative Route S3, however I believe this should be checked, because my discussions on site involved alternative Route S3A, and this would have a material difference on their conclusions.
Hence I believe that I have adopted a pragmatic and constructive approach on how to construct a road that does not breach the requirements of either English Nature, or the Sussex Wildlife Trusts. Two major objectors to the concept of roads crossing SSSIs.
The conclusion of paragraph B5 of the Highways Agency rebuttal is " S3A, whilst less damaging than S3…would be no better than the Published Scheme".
So in effect the Highways Agency, in their opinion, come to the conclusion that my scheme and theirs are equal in nature conservation terms. I of course do not accept this, for the reasons stated, but I am pleased that the Highways Agency acknowledge that if the worst comes to the worst my route S3A has the same merit as theirs. Therefore their route has no advantage.
Under paragraph B6 the Highways Agency state that Route S3A is more expensive than the Published Scheme. This is a rather major error. I am sure that they wish it were, but it is not.
Upon checking this matter with Mr Groom's office last week I received this letter dated 22^nd March 1996. This shows the true cost of Alternative Route S3A as £72.3 million, compared to the published Scheme Route of £73.5 million, a saving of £1.2 million pounds over the Published Route.
In consequence the Highways Agency have not produced a rebuttal to this. I therefore will seek to know upon what basis the current route should be chosen after establishing a cheaper alternative which does not compromise the SSSI, and does not compromise what I claim is a site of national heritage importance?
Under guidelines produced by the government in the Public Inquiry Policy Statement produced by the Highways Agency, Section 3 Extract: section 4.1 (Responsibilities and Aims) it states "The following aims set out in section 1.2, the aims of the Government's expenditure on roads and its support for local authorities expenditure on roads are to: conserve or enhance the environment by striking a balance between any environmental loss associated with the construction or improvement of roads and the overall benefits".
If this is the case Alternative Route S3A offers a better balance and cheapest option and therefore must be chosen.
Under the same Policy Statement Section Four Contents and Sections 1-11, of Trunk Roads in England 1994 Review states: Paragraph 4.2 "In determining priorities, the review of the programme concludes that proposals for building new trunk routes, particularly those which go through open countryside should be reduced still further."
As I have shown route S3A follows the natural boundary of Hastings and Bexhill. In consequence there is no excuse for choosing a route which goes through open countryside, when your own directives suggest that it should not. Here an acceptable cheaper alternative S3A should be adopted according to your own guidelines.
Under the same document headed "Making Every Penny Count" the Highways Agency have not provided a reason why a route which costs over a million pounds more than the Published Route, should be chosen over a cheaper less environmentally damaging route, being Alternative route S3A.
In respect of the Planning arguments detailed in paragraphs B7 and B8 in the Highways Agency Rebuttal, I do not intend to address these because I am not a planning expert. However I believe that the issues raised can be discussed in evidence with the planning representative if required. I would believe that Planning issues are for the Inspector to decide based upon his understanding of the evidence presented by experts. However I do not believe that the BNAR element of this scheme has any relevance to whether the Published Route should proceed across the Combe Haven valley and from there across the Norman Invasion site.
There are a few issues that need addressing in relation to the Highway Agency Response to Alternative Route S3. Much of this has been covered in this Inquiry bu reference to the discussions and documents presented in relation to Route S6A by the Local Amenity Groups.
I agreed to align the link road to Glyn Gap to fit in with their requirements but make the point that this is not an essential part of my proposal. In consequence I am not concerned if no link road takes place and am happy to leave the issue of where, and how much this costs, to local planning process. I understood from the initial meeting at the De La Warr Pavilion that the link roads were not a subject for this Inquiry and therefore I have ignored the issues connected with them.
The construction of the Alternative route S3A is not an issue I can comment upon. I presented my plans to Mr Bromley and he has drawn plans according to his best endeavours. I trust that the best solution to all engineering problems are achieved. In practice I see nothing in the Highways Agency Response that is not within the limits allowed for such roads.
In paragraph 2.26 of the Response the Highways Agency appear to complain that they have to dispose of tip material. I would have thought this was par for the course and is included in their costing. Taking tips out of circulation as opposed to good farming land must have infinitely more merit because land in use earns money whilst tips do not. In consequence there is an economic value that the Alternative route S3A has over the Published Route, which is not covered by the Highways Agency. This is the added value that Alternative S3A represents when the value of farmland retained is added back in economic terms over the life of the road.
In paragraph 2.27 the Highways Agency state that alternative Route S3A would require the demolition of 19 houses in the Filsham Estate.
I need to respond to this because this is not what Dr Bromley told me at my meetings with him a couple of weeks ago. He said that until this route was properly surveyed he could not tell how many houses would need to be removed. I told him that I had been down there with a tape measure and I believed that there was at least 80 meters from the SSSI to the back fence of most of the properties and this should allow the sweep between the railway bridge and the corner of the SSSI. However two houses. The ones which actually border the SSSI, and should never have been allowed to have been built up to the edge of the marsh, will need to be removed. Both these houses are recent construction. This is a small price to pay for the benefits associated with the gains that this route provides.
I therefore challenge this statement that 19 houses need to be destroyed. I have measured the line and believe the road can fit in. It is not as if there is any problem with taking a few feet out of the SSSI if the mitigation elements are taken into account.
I accept there will be a loss of holiday homes from the Combe Haven Caravan park. However this loss has no impact on permanent dwellings and is in my view acceptable.
It should be noted that according to the Highways Agency figures in their Response Alternative route S3A will produce a savings in accidents of a minimum of in the region of 200
Lastly the final issue which the Highways Agency have not addressed and the key issue upon which everything revolves. This is covered in my Statement of Case.
It is the stated policy of the Government under paragraph 8.4 of Trunk Roads of England 1994 Review, March 1994 ISBN 0 11 551257 8
"The Department has a long standing policy of keeping roads away from protected areas such as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, wherever possible. At an early stage, the department consults statutory environmental organisations to ensure that impacts on protected areas, where unavoidable, are limited."
The key words here are "keeping roads away from SSSI's WHEREVER POSSIBLE "- here it is possible to keep this road away from the SSSI by adopting the alternative route S3A. And "ensure that impacts on protected areas WHERE UNAVOIDABLE are limited." Here we have a protected area that IS avoidable.
What is the point of publishing guidelines if the Highways Agency blatantly ignores them. If these guidelines have any meaning, they mean that when there are two sites of national importance right next to one and other, and there is an alternative, cheaper route available to chose, the directive states that the cheaper and less damaging one MUST BE CHOSEN.
I do not need to harp on about how important these two sites are - the SSSI and the Norman Invasion site. I have spent an enormous amount of time checking every detail at the Wilting site and am sure that my facts are correct. I conclude my case by the words that finish my Statement of Case.
If my thesis is wrong, there will be no loss to the nation, either in terms of cultural heritage or in terms of nature conservation. However, if the Highways Agency is wrong the nation will lose forever the chance to preserve, in its entirety, its most important historical asset. I believe that given the other issues discussed this is too high a price to pay and in consequence Alternative Route S3A must be chosen.
This matter has received the interest of the local television as well as the press and I would be pleased it you would now play the tape shown on the local TV station who will be like me awaiting the outcome of this Inquiry.
FINISH.

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE