A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project Options Consultation Report Spring 2020 Contents

1. Executive summary 4 “This has been needed for a generation 2. Document purpose and structure 8 on safety grounds alone...” 3. Introduction to the project 10 Quote from consultation response 4. Options for consultation 12 5. Consultation approach 24 6. Responses by respondent profile 32 7. Consultation responses to options 36 M6 Junction 40 Kemplay Bank roundabout – option A 37 M6 Junction 40 Kemplay Bank roundabout – option B 38 Penrith to – option C 38 Penrith to Temple Sowerby – option D 39 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – – option E 39 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Kirkby Thore – option F 40 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Crackenthorpe – option G 40 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Crackenthorpe – option H 41 Appleby to Brough – option I 41 Bypass – option J 42 Cross Lanes to Rokeby – option K 43 Cross Lanes to Rokeby – option L 43 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – option M 44 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – option N 44 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – option O 45 8. Your suggestions from the consultation process 46 9. Summary and next steps 52

2 3 1. Executive summary

Project overview The project will involve dualling multiple sections The public consultation ran for eight weeks, from In total, 21 consultation events were held during Consultation findings of single carriageway along the A66 between M6 16 May to 11 July 2019. The consultation brochure the consultation period to allow interested parties In total, 854 consultation responses were junction 40 at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch was distributed with a covering letter to 1823 homes to speak with the project team. 20 of these events received. A total of 391 were received as paper Corner. Other improvements are proposed along its within 250m of the entire route. Residents within were open to the public and one was held at the response forms, 375 via the online response form, length, such as at Kemplay Bank roundabout and 2.5km of the route (14,076 homes) were sent a flyer holiday destination, Center Parcs as a large-scale 84 responses were received by email and 4 as the junctions with the M6 and A1(M). This work is promoting the consultation events. employer, for members of staff to participate. posted correspondence. important to enable future growth and will help the The catchment areas were agreed with the local In addition, a consultation launch event was held economies of both the North East and , as Three responses were received outside of the authorities of , Durham for invited senior stakeholders at well as improving journeys across the country. This consultation period. County Council and North County Council village hall. route travels through the Local Authority areas of As these were email responses they did not prior to consultation and the map of the distribution Cumbria, and Durham. Members of the project team were available at answer the specific questions asked in the area was published in the Approach to Public these events to answer any questions, hear the consultation response form, they have not While the A66 plays a crucial role in the life of Consultation document along with an outline of views on the existing road and gather feedback and therefore been counted in terms of the charts in nearby communities, it also has an essential role the programme. This document was printed and information to feed into our long-term strategy for the this report but have been considered as part of for journeys across the UK for freight operators. distributed via deposit points and online. route. A total of 2,333 people attended our events. the preferred route decision. Two of these late The dualling programme will improve the journey The consultation brochure covered responses asked us to consider cycling provision time reliability of the route, enable us to keep traffic Members of the team also delivered a workshop the following sections: and noise levels so did not raise any issues which flowing during accidents or bad weather and, most for children at Kirkby Thore Primary School centred were not already being considered as part of the importantly, enhance safety. It will also reconnect ■ Background information on the plans. consultation process. The third response came communities currently severed by the road and ■ Details of how to respond to the consultation Consultation responses were accepted from Appleby Town Council and raised concerns improve accessibility to key tourism areas. ■ Details of the consultation events through the following channels: around maintaining traffic flow during construction This project forms part of the Government’s second ■ Map to show each single carriageway section ■ Online, using the online response form and the potential for dedicated slip roads for the Road Investment Strategy (RIS 2) period which will Cross Croft Industrial Estate. This information was of the route and the proposed options ■ Submitting a paper copy of the response form cover investments between 2020 and 2025. passed onto the design team for consideration. ■ Benefits and impacts tables for each option at public consultation events The consultation Of the 854 responses received during the ■ Consultation response form ■ By post using a freepost address printed consultation period, 90 responded on behalf of an We held public consultation events in May and June on the paper response forms ■ Proposed mitigation 2019 to listen to communities, landowners, special organisation or group. The remaining responses ■ Email to the dedicated project email address: interest groups and local leaders to understand the ■ Information on discounted options (764) were from individuals. [email protected] views towards the proposed dualled route options. ■ Next steps Some participants chose to submit comments via We also consulted on proposed improvements for letter or email and not the online or paper response the roundabout at Kemplay Bank near Penrith and Information was also available on the project form. 766 participants responded to the closed discussed potential changes to the associated webpage: (highwaysengland.co.uk/a66- questions (although not all responded to every junctions on the M6 J40 and A1(M) Scotch Corner. northern-trans-pennine). The consultation was closed question). In addition one petition was Consultation was also undertaken with parish and advertised in the local press, by direct mail and submitted as part of the consultation. This was town councils. Specialist groups of walkers, through posters in deposit points. The project submitted by Crackenthorpe Parish Council and cyclists and equestrians undertook a dedicated also generated considerable media interest and raised a number of points to be considered. survey and members of the business, freight 92.5% respondents voted was featured on local and national press, social Of the 670 unique responses to the closed and ports community took part in a detailed media, television and radio outlets. in favour of dualling. question “Are you in favour of dualling the questionnaire and interview process so we could single carriageway sections of the A66?” there understand their issues. was very high agreement that improvements are needed with 92.5% (620) respondents voting in favour of the dualling programme. 4 5 The table below shows the number of respondents voting in favour or against each option in the seven sections of route by responding ‘strongly agree’ or tend to agree’.

Route section Route Number of respondents who Number of respondents who option stated ‘strongly agree’ or ‘tend stated ‘strongly disagree’ or to agree’ to each option ‘tend to disagree’ to each option

M6 junction 40 to Kemplay Bank A 358 31 B 87 226 Penrith to Temple Sowerby C 234 44 D 105 128 Temple Sowerby to Appleby Kirkby Thore E 314 118 F 171 211 Temple Sowerby to Appleby Crackenthorpe G 95 176 H 286 54 Appleby to Brough I 251 31

Bowes Bypass J 223 8

Cross Lanes to Rokeby K 176 37 L 85 108 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor M 137 92 N 179 70 O 41 160

Table 1: Respondents agreeing/disagreeing to each option – a full breakdown of these figures can be seen in Section 7 of this report

The results of the consultation as outlined above have fed into the process of choosing a preferred route for all the single carriageway sections of the A66 from M6 junction 40 to the A1(M) at Scotch Corner.

Next steps 90 groups and organisations The results of this consultation helped us refine responded to the consultation. the option designs, incorporating feedback provided where practicable, and complete this stage of our assessment work.

All this data has been fed into the development of a preferred route for the project which has now been announced.

6 7 2. Document purpose and structure

The aim of this document is to present the feedback Dualling of all the single carriageway sections will Background to the project received during the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine reduce congestion and improve the reliability At Highways we believe in a connected As part of this project other improvements are Project options consultation. The feedback has of people’s journeys between the M6 at Penrith country and our network makes these connections proposed along its length, such as at Kemplay been used to inform the preferred route. and the A1(M) Scotch Corner and nationwide. happen. We strive to improve our major roads and Roundabout and the junctions with the M6 and motorways – engineering the future to keep people A1(M). The report has the following structure: The dualling will improve strategic regional and moving today and moving better tomorrow. We national connectivity, particularly for hauliers. Section 1. Executive Summary. Provides a summary want to make sure all our major roads are more The project will be critical to improving safety Heavy goods vehicles account for around a of the consultation responses and the key findings dependable, durable and, most importantly, safe. by providing a consistent driving experience at quarter of all traffic on the road and any delays to from the consultation. the same speed limit along the full route from journeys can have an extremely negative effect on We have been commissioned by the Department Penrith to Scotch Corner. Reconnecting villages Section 2. Document purpose and structure. business, including lost working time and missed for Transport (DfT) to investigate the potential to and providing better connections between Provides context for the consultation. shipment slots. improve the A66 between M6 junction 40 at Penrith communities and better access to tourism Section 3. Background to the project. and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner. This is in order to destinations will also be benefits of the project. The improvement works will also reduce delays Section 4. Consultation Response. Details of address the lack of east / west connectivity across and queues during busy periods and improve Most of the A66 has been upgraded, from single the consultation approach and methods used. the in the north of England. the performance of key junctions such as the to dual carriageway, in a number of stages since Section 5. Responses from Respondent Profile. A66/A6 and the M6 junction 40. The A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project will the 1970s, with the most recent dual section, the involve dualling the remaining single carriageway Temple Sowerby Bypass, opening in 2007. Seven Section 6. Consultation Response to Option. Also, having a dual carriageway enables us to sections between M6 junction 40 at Penrith and sections of single carriageway remain, making the Attitudinal question responses. close lanes where required due to accidents or the A1(M) at Scotch Corner. route accident-prone and unreliable. Section 7. Suggestions raised from the break downs and keep traffic moving. Consultation. By making the route more reliable we can improve Section 8. Summary and Next Steps. connectivity between the key employment areas Summary of the data findings, plus next steps. of Cumbria, Tees Valley and Tyne and Wear and Our objectives in developing the A66 improve access to key tourist destinations such as the North Pennines, and By introducing a consistent standard of dual North Yorkshire. carriageway with the same speed limit throughout, we aim to reduce the number of accidents. Better road standards and consistent speeds will minimise noise levels for people living and Use of the ‘old’ A66 as part of the local road working near the route and the preferred route aims network will deliver safer, more enjoyable to reduce the visual impact of the new A66. journeys for cyclists and pedestrians. Our preferred route has been chosen to minimise The preferred route also re-connects communities negative impacts on the natural environment and and links villages along the route. It also improves landscapes of the North Pennines and Lake District. connections for local people living and working nearby providing better access to services such It is also the best option for reducing the impact as healthcare, jobs and education. on nearby homes and minimising the number of properties which will need to be acquired or demolished.

8 9 3. Introduction to the project

In 2014, the Government announced that it intended Despite several upgrades to the route since the Discounted options to examine the case for dualling one of the routes 1970s, the A66 still suffers from congestion, unreliable The options brought forward for consultation options which are available. Options were also across the Pennines in the north of England. In journey times and a higher-than-average number have been shortlisted from a much longer list of constrained by existing bridges at Clint Lane and 2017, it was announced that the A66 had presented of accidents. Bad weather can severely impact options which have been considered against a at the A67. the strongest case for an upgrade and that plans conditions on the road, resulting in closures which list of constraints and conflicts covering matters for full dualling between the M6 junction 40 and are frustrating for road users, including hauliers. such as environmental designations and planning On the Appleby to Brough section a single the A1(M) at Scotch Corner would be developed policy compliance. proposal has been brought forward following five for the next Road Investment Strategy. This project will deliver a number of benefits for local other options being discounted due to impacts communities with faster journey times, improved Following a number of assessments carried out on the Area of Outstanding Natural (AONB), the The A66 between M6 junction 40 and A1(M) at accessibility and better local connectivity through in developing this project, various options were Roman Camp, the local environment and Scotch Corner is 50 miles long, 18 miles of which utilising the ‘old’ A66 and connecting to the local discounted prior to consultation as they were the . is made up of single carriageway sections. road network. considered not to be feasible. Typically, these were options which would have presented such This process of shortlisting our options avoided It is both a key local road and a national and For full details about the options presented at serious environmental impacts that they would unnecessary spending of public funds on more regional strategic link, carrying high levels of consultation and the full benefits, please see have been unacceptable at the planning stage as detailed design and appraisal for options which freight traffic, as well as being an important route our consultation brochure and response form they are contrary to planning policy. were unlikely to be environmentally acceptable or for tourism. Additionally, the route not only links the at Appendix A. meet planning policy requirements. east and west but is the best available option for Where multiple similar options existed, only the traffic travelling between the east of England and The A66 between M6 junction 40 most feasible options have advanced to the Further details on all the discounted options and the the west of . shortlist presented at consultation. rationale for why they have been discounted can and A1(M) at Scotch Corner is be found in the consultation brochure which you Our plans will ensure the entire route has two 50 miles long, 18 miles of which A single option is proposed at Bowes because can see at highwaysengland.co.uk/a66-northern- lanes in both directions along the full 50-mile route the village had already been bypassed by a trans-pennine under the consultation tab. making it the only fully-dualled east/west route is in single carriageway sections. single carriageway route in 1983, limiting other across the Pennines north of the M62.

10 11 4. Options for consultation M6 junction 40 to

This consultation specifically invited views on the Comments on the single option proposals are Kemplay Bank roundabout preferences of respondents around options for therefore also valuable in the design process. certain route sections. The approach roads and junctions need to be While we invited comments on the major junctions at improved and the two options proposed will either We propose to introduce dualling on seven sections each end of the consultation area – M6 junction 40 introduce a new underpass or overpass through of single carriageway. Of these seven sections, and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner, we did not formally the Kemplay Bank roundabout. five have route options and the remaining two offer consult or provide options for these junctions. We will a single proposal. There is also an underpass or be engaging further around these major junctions Option A (underpass) overpass choice at Kemplay Bank roundabout. In and the smaller local access points along the route A690 41 A167 61 41 total, there were 15 different options for respondents at a later date. Penrith A688 Options location map Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 A66 40 North Pennines Area of 60 Keswick Outstanding Natural Beauty Newton to comment on. Aycliffe A1 (M) A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees The maps in this section show each of the options M6 Junction 40 Barnard 58 Castle A167 A67 Middlesbrough to Kemplay Bank A67 A66 A171 Lake District A66 The aim of the consultation was to understand presented at consultation. (These maps have 39 57 A685 Whitby National Park A19 M6 56 A685 Scotch 53 which option was preferred by respondents been slightly adjusted since consultation in line with 38 Corner Richmond Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park (where there were options) but also to gather public feedback which was helpful in amending A6108 A684 National Park feedback on the route to inform the design stage. some factual inaccuracies). A6 A686 0 km 1 N Penrith Option A Underpass 0 miles 0.5

Penrith A592 Hospital M6

Kemplay Bank Junction

Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service

62 Access to Fire Station M6 A66 and Constabulary Brougham A68 Castle A686 A690 M6 Junction 40 A167 River 41 Eamont A690 61 A6

Penrith A688 North Pennines Area of A new dual carriageway under Kemplay Bank The underpass serving the police and fire services Outstanding Natural Beauty 40 60 roundabout providing an uninterrupted route for would need to be removed and an alternative A66 the A66 east and westbound. new access road constructed that would link into 1 2 A68 59 The Green, providing access to all the facilities in 3 Barnard A688 This option would require significant work on each of 4 Castle 58 A167 the arms of the roundabout, new retaining wall and the south east of the junction. A66 Brough A67 A67 bridge installations and the reconstruction of the Darlington A66 39 A66 57 roundabout itself. M6 5 Bowes Lake District A685 A167 National Park 6 7 56 Scotch 8 53 Corner 38 A685 Richmond

A1 A683 Yorkshire Dales (M National Park )

A6108 37 A684 A684 51

Map 1: Single carriageway sections

12 13 Penrith to Temple Sowerby

Option B (overpass) We proposed two options to introduce a dual Between Brougham Castle and Whinfell Park Farm, carriageway on this section. One required both options follow the line of the existing A66, A690 41 A167 61 41 Penrith A688 Options location map conversion of the existing single carriageway to utilising the existing carriageway where possible. Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 Workington A66 40 North Pennines Area of 60 Keswick Outstanding Natural Beauty Newton Aycliffe A1 (M) dual along its existing alignment and the other the A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees Whitehaven M6 Junction 40 Barnard 58 Both the options below would involve the Castle A167 Middlesbrough A67 construction of a new dual carriageway to pass to to Kemplay Bank A67 Darlington A66 A171 Lake District A66 39 57 realignment of some local roads and alternative A685 Whitby National Park A19 the south of High Barn. A new junction will also be M6 56 A685 Scotch 53 38 Corner routes would be provided to nearby junctions Richmond constructed at Center Parcs, providing access to Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park A6108 A684 National Park the holiday park and local roads. where required, improving ease of access for local road users and safety. 0 km 1 A6 A686 N Options C and D Penrith Option B Overpass 0 miles 0.5

Penrith 41 A690 A592 A167 61 Hospital 41 Penrith A688 Options location map M6 Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 Workington A66 40 North Pennines Area of 60 Keswick Outstanding Natural Beauty Newton Aycliffe A1 (M) A66 Kemplay Bank A68 59 North Sea Cumbria Barnard Stockton-on-Tees Junction Whitehaven Penrith to 58 A167 Constabulary Castle A67 Middlesbrough Temple Sowerby A67 Darlington A66 A171 Cumbria Fire and Lake District A66 39 57 Whitby Rescue Service National Park A685 M6 A19 56 A685 Scotch Access to Fire Station 53 Brougham 38 Corner A66 and Constabulary Richmond A167 Castle Yorkshire Dales North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park A6108 A684 National Park M6 Junction 40 River Eamont A6 N Sewage works River A new dual carriageway over the existing Kemplay Eamont Bank roundabout providing an uninterrupted route Woodside Barrackbank Option D Lane End for the A66 eastbound and westbound. A66 Wood Winderwath Farm Swine Gill All other elements of this option would be the A66 Brougham Westbound only Castle junction High Barn same as Option A. Whinfell Option C Temple Sowerby Park Farm bypass

All-movement junction C e 0 km 1 n te r P

a r 0 miles 0.5 c s a cc e s s

Center Parcs Option C Option D Holiday Village

From Whinfell Park Farm the road will divert to the This option is the same as option C but will not south to avoid the hamlet of Lane End. The road will divert the current road away from High Barn and will then re-join the A66 at Swine Gill before continuing therefore require the demolition of some buildings. to the Temple Sowerby Bypass.

14 15 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Kirkby Thore

There are two upgrade options which will divert the Four new bridges will be required over the Option F (southern bypass) A66 away from Kirkby Thore either to the north or existing road network at: the south of the village. A new dual carriageway would be constructed ■ New Kirkby Thore junction, north of the village towards the south of Kirkby Thore as a continuation of the Temple Sowerby Bypass. It would cross Options E and F ■ Station Road several fields and follow the path of an old railway ■ Main Street A690 41 A167 61 line until it re-joins the current A66 just after the BP 41 Penrith A688 Options location map CUMBRIA Bishop DURHAM Auckland A689 ■ Workington A66 40 North Pennines Area of 60 Sleastonhow Lane petrol station near Bridge End Farm. Keswick Outstanding Natural Beauty Newton Aycliffe A1 (M)

A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees Whitehaven Temple Sowerby to Appleby Barnard 58 Castle A167 A67 Middlesbrough – Kirkby Thore A67 Additional underpasses would be required to provide Darlington A171 A66 A66 It would also require a new bridge over Trout Lake District 39 A685 57 Whitby National Park A19 access for local farms and pedestrians, walkers, M6 56 A685 Scotch 53 Beck just before the new road returns to the 38 Corner Richmond Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors cyclists and equestrians. A new junction would allow A683 National Park A6108 National Park original alignment. A684 access to the former A66 and the village.

British 0 km 1 Gypsum This option would require the demolition of

0 miles 0.5 All-movement several buildings. junction

N Main Street Sta tion R Option E o a d

Kirkby Thore Sleastonhow Lane

Trout Beck

Scheduled Priest Lane Trout Beck All-movement monument Petrol junction Station Westbound only A66 junction

Sewage works Option F Scheduled Temple Sowerby Bridge End monument Bypass Farm River Eden

Disused railway Eastbound only junction

River Eden

Option E (northern bypass)

A new dual carriageway bypass to the north An additional junction will be created to allow of Kirkby Thore as an extension of the current direct access to and from the British Gypsum site Temple Sowerby Bypass. It will pass through and will reduce the level of heavy goods vehicles several fields to the west and then travel away moving through the village. from the village to the north and east. It will mostly be built along a route which is generally lower than the surrounding land which will help preserve the visual outlook of properties in the north of the village.

16 17 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Appleby to Brough Crackenthorpe

There are two upgrade options which will divert Only one proposal exists for this section of the the A66 away from Crackenthorpe to the north. A66 due to the constraints outlined in the Discounted Options section on page 11.

Options G and H Option I

A690 A690 41 A167 61 41 A167 61 41 41 North Pennines Area of Penrith A688 Options location map Penrith Outstanding Natural Beauty A688 Options location map Bishop Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 Workington A66 40 North Pennines Area of 60 Workington A66 40 60 Keswick Outstanding Natural Beauty Newton Keswick Newton Aycliffe A1 (M) Appleby to Brough Aycliffe A1 (M)

A66 A68 59 North Sea A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees Stockton-on-Tees Whitehaven Barnard 58 Whitehaven Barnard 58 Castle A167 Middlesbrough Castle A167 Middlesbrough Temple Sowerby to Appleby A67 A67 – Crackenthorpe A67 Darlington A67 Darlington A66 A66 A171 A66 A66 A171 39 39 A685 57 Whitby A685 57 Whitby A19 A19 Lake District M6 56 Lake District M6 56 A685 Scotch A685 Scotch National Park 53 National Park 53 38 Corner 38 Corner Richmond Richmond Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park A683 National Park A6108 A684 National Park A6108 A684 National Park

Trout Beck To N Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty N All-movement junction Option H Turks Head Cafe 66 A66 Roman Road Moor House All-movement Brough junction A66 Option I Bypass

All-movement junction y Wildboar Hill ilwa d ra Herit lway Westbound only Scheduled Disuse Sandford Mire age rai monument junction Roger Head Westbound only Farm junction Warcop Westbound only All-movement MOD Training junction junction Existing railway Appleby line and bridge Camp Dis Sandford us River ed

Option G Eden ra River i 0 km 1 lw a Eden 0 km 1 y Crackenthorpe 0 miles 0.5 To Bolton A66 0 miles 0.5 River River Eden Eden

River Option G (northern bypass closest Eden Option H (northern bypass furthest away The current carriageway between Café 66 and Access to the proposed route from local roads is to Crackenthorpe) from Crackenthorpe) Wildboar Hill will be widened and utilised as the to be limited to junctions at Flitholme, Landrigg, eastbound carriageway and a new westbound Sandford and Warcop which will make this The route follows the path of the old railway line to This option proposes a new bypass following the carriageway will be constructed directly to the section much less accident-prone. The existing the north of Crackenthorpe and two new junctions route of the original Roman Road to the north of south of the current A66. A66 between Moor House and Turks Head will would be created to serve the villages of Bolton, Crackenthorpe and Roger Head Farm. become part of the local road network for safer Crackenthorpe and Long Marton. Between Wildboar Hill and the Brough Bypass local access to nearby villages, especially for Two new junctions would be created to serve the a completely new dual carriageway will be pedestrians, walkers, cyclists and equestrians. It is proposed that the new road will re-join the villages of Bolton, Crackenthorpe and Long Marton. constructed directly to the south of the current A66. current A66 just to the west of the Settle-to- The existing road will then be used for local access This option minimises the impact on the Area of It is proposed that the new road will re-join the railway line. and pedestrians, walkers, cyclists and equestrians. Outstanding Natural Beauty to the north of the current A66 just to the west of the Settle-to-Carlisle current A66 and provides continued access for railway line. New culverts will divert streams under the road local communities during construction. at Moor Beck and Lowgill Beck. A new junction and bridge will provide access from the new road The new dual carriageway will connect back into to Warcop. the existing A66 at Brough bypass.

18 19 Bowes Bypass Cross Lanes to Rokeby

Only one proposal exists for this section of A new westbound carriageway to the south of the the A66 due to the constraints outlined in the current A66 between the B6277 junction at Cross Discounted Options section on page 11. Lanes and Rokeby, after which two options exist around the St. Mary’s Church buildings.

Option J Options K and L

A690 A690 41 A167 61 41 A167 61 41 North Pennines Area of 41 North Pennines Area of Penrith Outstanding Natural Beauty A688 Options location map Penrith Outstanding Natural Beauty A688 Options location map Bishop Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 Workington A66 40 60 Workington A66 40 60 Keswick Newton Keswick Newton Aycliffe A1 (M) Cross Lanes Aycliffe A1 (M) Bowes Bypass to Rokeby A66 A68 59 North Sea A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees Stockton-on-Tees Whitehaven Barnard 58 Whitehaven Barnard 58 Castle A167 Castle A167 A67 Middlesbrough A67 Middlesbrough A67 Darlington A67 Darlington A66 A66 A171 A66 A66 A171 39 39 A685 57 Whitby A685 57 Whitby A19 A19 Lake District M6 56 Lake District M6 56 A685 Scotch A685 Scotch National Park 53 National Park 53 38 Corner 38 Corner Richmond Richmond Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park A683 National Park A6108 A684 National Park A6108 A684 National Park

To HGV access to Barnard Castle N N Bessy Sike

Manyfold Beck B6277 Rokeby Grange Rokeby Park Cross Lanes Option L Eastbound only junction Street Side St Mary’s A67 junction Farm The Street Church

A66 Cross Lanes Tutta Beck Farm Clint Lane Hulands All-movement Campsite Quarry junction Tutta Beck All-movement T Old Rectory h Farm junction e S A66/A67 Ewebank Farm t junction Option J re et A66

M Option K

o

Low Broats o

r Clint Lane Farm h

Bridge o

u

Bowes s Greta A66 e Bridge L Stone Bridge a The Street n Farm e Brignall Lane Scheduled A66 monument No access 0 km 1 to A66 River Greta 0 miles 0.5 0 km 1

Option J Greta Valley Option K Option L 0 miles 0.5 We are proposing to widen the carriageway to the Two new eastbound slip roads will be built, providing Divert both carriageways to the south of The Old This option is similar to Option K but the new north of Bowes village and between Clint Lane access to and from the A67 and the village of Rectory and St Mary’s Church before re-joining westbound carriageway will be constructed next Bridge and the junction for the A67 where a new Bowes. This would require the demolition of some the existing road at Rokeby. to the current carriageway. This will mean that eastbound slip is being considered. derelict buildings and a neighbouring barn structure. some buildings to the south of the current A66 will A new junction will be provided for access to need to be demolished. After the A67 junction we are proposing to use The Roman Road known as The Street will be Moorhouse Lane, B6277 for Barnard Castle, Cross the existing carriageway for westbound traffic and closed to all users and access between Bowes Lanes Organic Farm and the listed building Cross This option would retain local access at Rokeby construct a new eastbound carriageway north of village and the A66 instead provided by the Lanes, making access safer and easier. junction for eastbound traffic. Westbound traffic the current road. This will require new or extended upgraded Bowes junction, making access to the would be required to utilise Cross Lanes junction bridges to be built. A66 safer for local traffic. A new junction west of St Mary’s Church is and the B6277 for access to Barnard Castle. proposed to allow access to the original A66 and Rokeby.

Two new culverts will be constructed to accommodate Tutta Beck. 20 21 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor Option M Option O After , we propose a new dual This option follows the same route as option M as A new dual carriageway at Stephen Bank, followed All the options below will incorporate the dualling of carriageway to the south of the existing A66 and far as New Lane where it diverts north avoiding by three different options that seek to minimise the the current A66 between Stephen Bank and West the properties at Fox Hall and Mainsgill Farm. Mainsgill Farm shop. impact on Fox Hall, Mainsgill Farm and the Carkin Layton broadly following the line of the existing road. It will re-join with the A66 at Carkin Moor Farm A new eastbound junction is proposed at Fox Hall Moor scheduled monument. beyond the scheduled monument. to provide local access to the old A66 and West Options M, N and O A new junction and bridge is proposed at New Layton. New Lane will be realigned to connect with Lane to provide access to the new A66 for several the new A66 to provide access for .

A690 41 A167 61 41 North Pennines Area of Penrith Outstanding Natural Beauty A688 Options location map properties and the villages of East and West Bishop CUMBRIA DURHAM Auckland A689 Workington A66 40 60 The proposed route will continue in a northerly Keswick Newton Stephen Bank Aycliffe A1 (M) Layton and Ravensworth. Several underpasses to Carkin MoorA688 A66 A68 59 North Sea Stockton-on-Tees direction to a new junction at Moor Lane which Whitehaven Barnard 58 Castle A167 will be created to maintain land access and A67 Middlesbrough A67 Darlington A171 A66 A66 will provide access from Mainsgill Farm and the 39 A685 57 Whitby public rights of way. A19 Lake District M6 56 National Park A685 Scotch former A66. 53 38 Corner Richmond Yorkshire Dales A167 North Yorkshire Moors A683 National Park A6108 Option N A684 National Park The new dual carriageway is expected to re-join

0 km 1 After West Layton, we propose a new dual the A66 just after Mainsgill Farm and therefore N carriageway to the north of the existing A66 and requires the widening of the road through the 0 miles 0.5 the properties at Fox Hall and Mainsgill Farm, scheduled monument. C Carkin Moor

o l l Option N i e West Layton r All-movement before re- joining the A66 at Carkin Moor Farm. L

a junction n Lane Moor e Carkin Ravensworth Moor Farm Lodge A new junction and bridge on Moor Lane will Stephen Bank Scheduled A66 monument A66 provide safe and easy access to the old A66,

Mainsgill the villages of East and West Layton and Farm D

i

c

k

S Ravensworth and the Mainsgill Farm Shop.

c W o Green Bank All-movement All-movement a Browson t Fox Hall W i a L Farm t junction junction r l re Farm a Old Dunsa a Inn n n e n r Bank d L e e a s an Eastbound only ne L East L The new dual carriageway is expected to re-join a junction w Option M n Browson Option O e e N the A66 just after Mainsgill Farm and therefore To Richmond Browson Beck requires the widening of the road through the scheduled monument. Holme Beck Ravensworth

22 23 62 M6 5. Consultation approach A68 A686 A690 A167 41 Our consultation methodology was established In March 2019, prior to the pre-election period, A690 61 in our Approach to Public Consultation document we carried out a period of awareness raising to A688 Penrith 1 North Pennines Area of which outlined the consultation and established alert local people to the forthcoming consultation 2 Outstanding Natural Beauty 40 60 the distribution areas for consultation materials. events. This activity took the form of advertisements A66 4 This document, and the distribution area, were in local newspapers Northern Echo, Teesside 11 A68 6 8 agreed by local authorities along the route. A copy Gazette and the and Barnard A688 59 A66 Castle A167 of the approach to public consultation can be Herald and flyers distributed through deposit points 58 Brough 10 12 3 A67 A67 seen in Appendix B. in publicly accessible buildings along the route Darlington A66 5 (see map opposite). A list of deposit points can 39 A685 A66 57 M6 Bowes Consultation period Lake District 7 A167 be found in Appendix E, while copies of the flyer National Park 13 9 56 Scotch The consultation period ran for eight weeks from and press adverts are in Appendices F and G. 17 53 Corner 38 A685 Richmond 16 May to 11 July 2019. The adverts and the flyers detailed the events 14

programme and directed people to the project A683 15 16 Yorkshire Dales A1 Early awareness-raising National Park webpage for further details. (M ) We undertook some early engagement starting in Key A6108 March 2019 to better understand any constraints Businesses and landowners who might be Full addresses of all deposit points37 can be seen in Appendix E A684 51 as well as priorities for local people and road impacted by the plans were subject to a separate A684 users around the proposed options for potential strand of engagement activity (see page 30) and dualling. This work built on engagement in the public and stakeholders had the opportunity Map 2: Deposit points previous stages of the project. to share their views on the options through the public consultation. Stakeholder Reference Group A planned and focused approach was adopted to The Stakeholder Reference Group (SRG) was In line with feedback, the Stakeholder Reference ensure high quality and meaningful engagement. This consultation activity is summarised later in this originally organised to help us begin the process Group membership also formed the basis for a This provided opportunities for sharing complex document (see page 28). of gathering local knowledge. We sought an early series of focus groups which were held at the and technical information and facilitated understanding of the needs, priorities and opinions Holiday Inn Scotch Corner in March 2019. The relationship building with key stakeholders. of local people and groups around the options for focus groups gave the project team the opportunity dualling the remaining single carriageway sections to outline the proposed options and explore any We undertook a number of meetings with key of the A66. local constraints and issues raised by members. stakeholders prior to the consultation period. These included, amongst others, parish and The group meets at key stages in the project and The focus groups were also used as an town councils along the route, Cumbria County is designed to be a consultative and advisory opportunity to test the consultation materials Council, Durham County Council, North Yorkshire The consultation period ran group. It currently comprises 136 representatives including the design options which would be County Council, Tees Valley Combined Authority, for eight weeks from 16 May of organisations such as the emergency services, used at the public consultation. , Freight Transport Authority, local authorities, business representative bodies Environment Agency, Historic England and to 11 July 2019. and special interest groups. Natural England.

We have also met with landowners and held focus groups with stakeholders spanning business, freight and ports, local authorities, emergency services, environmental interest groups, walkers, cyclist and equestrians.

24 25 M6 Statutory Environmental Bodies Consultation event publicity 62 A68 Throughout this stage, the project has engaged Due to the size of the consultation area, and the A686 with statutory environmental bodies (SEB) to timing of the consultation events (shortly after the A690 A167 41 A690 share the emerging options and explore the local elections in May 2019), the consultation was 61 North Pennines Area of A688 environmental appraisal of the routes. These widely advertised along the route corridor in a N Penrith Outstanding Natural Beauty bodies comprise the Environment Agency (EA), second phase after the election period. 60 Historic England (HE) and Natural England (NE) A66 who have been engaged through a series of The public consultation events were also 40 A68 A688 59 advertised in the same newspapers which were Barnard meetings as the plans have been developing. Castle used in March, ahead of the pre-election period 58 A167 A66 Brough A67 A67 Darlington Through this engagement, we gained a detailed in May 2019. In addition, press releases were A66 A66 understanding of the environmental constraints distributed to the media advertising the events. 39 57 M6 Bowes Lake District A167 associated with each of the route options. In National Park A685 56 particular we worked collaboratively with the SEBs In May 2019 we produced a public consultation A1(M) J53 38 Scotch Corner to gather additional information on the scheduled brochure, providing context to the A66 Northern A685 Richmond

Trans-Pennine project and detailing the seven Residents within 250m of the A66 received 53 A1 monuments along the route, the North Pennines A683 ( a letter and a copy of the consultation brochure A6108 M sections of proposed dualling and the route Yorkshire Dales National Park ) AONB and special habitats. Information gathered Residents within 2.5km of the A66 received a letter and a flyer on the River Eden Special Area of Conservation options for each, it also outlined the Kemplay Bank roundabout improvements. The brochure 37 (SAC) and the Roman Fort Scheduled Monument A684 51 at Carkin Moor has been particularly helpful in included a detailed table on the benefits and A684 informing the option selection. impacts of each section proposed. Map 3: Consultation materials distribution area Industry and utilities Prior to the consultation period, all Parish and Town Councils along the route were invited to The brochures were also made available, along The online A66 project webpage promoted the Key major industry stakeholders, such as utility one of two briefing meetings which were held in with a freepost envelope (for returning the response consultation and provided details of the consultation companies, have been identified to seek important Penrith and Darlington to outline the project and form), in deposit points. Posters were displayed in events, copies of the brochure, response form and technical information including constraints associated the consultation process. the same locations (See Appendix H). Approach to Public Consultation document which with existing assets and future development plans. was produced to outline the process. There was Preliminary enquiries have been made to all utility The consultation Venue-specific posters were produced for each also an online response form where people could companies about the locations of their assets The brochure was mailed to all residents living consultation location, advertising the details of submit their views. to assist with understanding the impact on the within 250m of the A66 between the M6 junction the events which were to be held there. These proposed route options. 40 and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner to arrive on the were displayed in the venues in the run-up to the Business engagement first day of consultation (see map 3). It was also consultation events. made available at 18 publicly accessible deposit Businesses along each of the route options have points along the route including the Highways been contacted as part of the landowner engagement England office in Penrith. (See Appendix E). strategy and a number of meetings have taken place between our team and landowning and Two planned consultation dates at the start of tenant businesses. the programme were moved to accommodate a consultation launch event attended by the then The project has also engaged with wider Secretary of State for Transport, Chris Grayling. An industry stakeholders comprising prominent local updated project flyer with the amended dates was businesses in the freight and ports sectors, along therefore produced and distributed to all households with membership organisations such as the within 2.5km of the A66 between the M6 junction Chambers of Commerce and the Federation of 40 and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner (See Map 3 for Small Businesses. These organisations were part distribution area). The flyer detailed the consultation of the Business, Freight and Ports workstream events with locations and times and signposted to which conducted face-to-face, telephone and the project page for further details (see Appendix F). online interviews in September and October 2019.

26 27 Landowner engagement Consultation events Event locations, times and attendees Engagement with key landowners, tenants In total, 21 consultation events were held Date and time Venue Visitors and occupiers – who may be impacted or have during the consultation period to allow the local Thursday 16th May Gilling West Village Hall, High Street, Gilling West, Richmond DL10 5JG 134 land holdings adjacent to options put forward for community to speak with the project team. 20 of Launch event 11:00 – 13:00 consultation – was a high priority for the project these events were open to the public and one Thursday 16th May Gilling West Village Hall, High Street, Gilling West, Richmond DL10 5JG 136 team. Whilst it was not possible to share the was held at the holiday destination, Center Parcs 13:00 – 19:00 route options in advance of the consultation as a major local employer for members of staff. Friday 17th May Penrith Rugby Club, Winters Park, Penrith CA11 8RQ 184 period, letters were sent in May 2019 to all 224 11:00 – 19:00 landowners along all of the route options inviting In addition, on Thursday 16th May 2019, a Saturday 18th May Penrith Rugby Club, Winters Park, Penrith CA11 8RQ 119 them to book a one-to-one session with the project consultation launch event was held for invited 10:00 – 14:00 team during the consultation period. stakeholders such as MPs, local councillors and Wednesday 22nd May Gilling West Village Hall, High Street, Gilling West, Richmond DL10 5JG 109 parish councillors at Gilling West Village Hall. The 11:00 – 19:00 A follow-up letter was issued in June 2019 to remind invitation letter is included in Appendix C. There Thursday 23rd May Gilling West Village Hall, High Street, Gilling West, Richmond DL10 5JG 97 landowners of the opportunity to meet with us were 134 attendees at this event. 11:00 – 19:00 during consultation. Wednesday 29th May The Appleby Hub, Chapel St, Appleby-in-Westmorland CA16 6QR 154 The team delivered a workshop for children 11:00 – 19:00 A total of 70 meetings were held with landowners at Kirkby Thore Primary School. This followed Thursday 30th May The Appleby Hub, Chapel St, Appleby-in-Westmorland CA16 6QR 96 and their representatives throughout the consultation feedback through the local parish council that 11:00 – 19:00 period and were attended by a Highways more engagement in the community would be Friday 31st May The Appleby Hub, Chapel St, Appleby-in-Westmorland CA16 6QR 154 England representative. welcome. The workshop centred on the plans 11:00 – 19:00 for the A66 and around how Saturday 1st June The Appleby Hub, Chapel St, Appleby-in-Westmorland CA16 6QR 109 10:00 – 14:00 Publicity during consultation operates and aimed to increase awareness of Throughout the consultation period, media the consultation with teachers and pupils and, Tuesday 4th June Penrith Parish Centre, St Andrews Place, Penrith CA11 7XX 93 11:00 – 19:00 releases and photocalls generated considerable through them, reach out to parents and carers. media coverage locally which further publicised Wednesday 5th June Penrith Parish Centre, St Andrews Place, Penrith CA11 7XX 69 10:00 – 14:00 the events. A key element of this activity was the At the consultation events, people were invited Thursday 6th June Penrith Parish Centre, St Andrews Place, Penrith CA11 7XX 52 consultation launch, at Gilling West, attended by to sign in and the total number of attendees was 10:00 – 14:00 Chris Grayling MP who was, at the time, Secretary recorded for each event. The table opposite Wednesday 12th The Witham, 3 Horse Market, Barnard Castle DL12 8LY 94 shows the details of the event and the numbers of State for Transport. He spoke with media on 11:00 – 19:00 of attendees at each session. the route and addressed key stakeholders in the Thursday 13th June The Witham, 3 Horse Market, Barnard Castle DL12 8LY 117 consultation venue (samples of press coverage can 11:00 – 19:00 be seen in Appendix I). Friday 14th June The Witham, 3 Horse Market, Barnard Castle DL12 8LY 114 11:00 – 19:00 In addition, there were regular tweets from Saturday 15th June The Witham, 3 Horse Market, Barnard Castle DL12 8LY 49 @HighwaysNWest and @HighwaysNEast to 10:00 – 14:00 promote the consultation period and events. Monday 17th June Penrith Parish Centre, St Andrews Place, Penrith CA11 7XX 46 Organisations such as local authorities also 10:00 – 14:00 promoted the events through their social Tuesday 18th June Penrith Parish Centre, St Andrews Place, Penrith CA11 7XX 79 media channels. 11:00 – 19:00 Friday 21st June The Station, Station Yard, Richmond DL10 4LD 138 11:00 – 19:00 Saturday 22nd June The Station, Station Yard, Richmond DL10 4LD 127 12:00 – 16:00 Tuesday 25th June Center Parcs, Whinfell Forest, Penrith CA10 2DW 63 10:00 – 14:00

Table 2: Event dates, times, locations and number of attendees

28 29 Exhibition panels presenting information about Data management Response channel Count We have considered the responses and the dualling programme and maps of each of the consultation themes identified from the analysis Submissions from the online response form were Total public responses 764 sections of the A66 with the route options were described in the development of a Preferred Route analysed. Hard copies responses were scanned Online response form 342 displayed at the consultation events (copies can digitally, analysed and the original hard copies for the A66 which will be taken forward to the Paper response form 372 be found in the Appendix J). were placed in secure storage for the duration of design stage and recommended to Government. Letter 3 the analysis. They will also be considered during the further Members of the project team covering all disciplines Email 47 design and development of the project. were on hand to answer questions or provide Data processing Total organisation/group responses 90 more information. We appointed a wholly independent research and Online response form 33 Limits of the information analysis organisation to process and analyse the This report is based on the responses received Paper copies of the consultation brochure and Paper response form 19 responses. As part of their independent assurance, to the consultation, and therefore does not response form were handed out to attendees at Letter 1 they reviewed the response form to ensure constitute a technical assessment of the proposed the events, and facilities were available for visitors Email 37 questions were impartial and not leading prior improvements. This report analyses the opinions to complete the form at the events. to consultation. Table 3: Number of responses by channel stated by those who responded to the consultation Attendees were also invited to put a pin in a large and, as such, is a self-selecting sample. Therefore, In line with the Government Digital Strategy, we format map to show their home location. This Data analysis the information in this report is not representative directed respondents to the online consultation map was a useful tool to highlight where people Closed question responses (e.g. multiple of all in the local community or stakeholders. The platform. This platform contained links to the had travelled from to attend the consultation. choice ‘tick box’ format) were totalled. The open value of the consultation is in identifying the issues consultation material and a link to the secure Overwhelmingly, the events attracted a local question responses (which contained the free and views of those who have responded and their online survey. audience which supported our strategy of holding text comments) were each analysed to identify perceptions of the proposals. multiple events in locations along the route. the themes emerging from the consultation. Many respondents could not, or chose not to, We worked alongside the analysis organisation Three email responses were received outside of respond online or via email. Hard copy versions Consultation response channels to consider the responses received and the the consultation period are not counted in terms of of the response form and accompanying freepost the charts in this report but will be considered as Consultation responses were accepted through emerging themes. envelope were made available at the consultation part of the preferred route decision. the following channels: events to supplement those which had been The response form included 11 questions in an ■ Online, using the online response form distributed through deposit points and by mail. open-ended format. Responses to each question This consultation attracted were reviewed and a codeframe created for each ■ Submitting a paper copy of the response form This consultation attracted a very high level of issue raised in the comments. As the codeframes a very high level of paper at public consultation events paper responses with 46% of the total responses were developed from the responses received, responses with 46% of the total coming in as posted response forms. ■ By post using a freepost address printed they are unique to the A66 consultation. on the paper response forms responses coming in as posted Respondents were not limited to using the The total number of codeframes therefore provides a ■ Email to the dedicated project email address: response form. People responding to the response forms. quantitative measure of the issues being raised and [email protected] consultation were also able to send their own a frequency count of these codes shows the relative written response via the freepost address or importance of this issue in terms of the number of The ways in which people could respond to the by email directly to the A66 inbox managed times the issue was raised by respondents. consultation were widely publicised and made by Highways England. These responses were clear in the consultation material as was the forwarded to the analysis organisation for The full report, A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project deadline for submission. All responses received inclusion in the analysis. Consultation, Analysis of Findings, written by Ipsos by 11.59pm on 11 July 2019 were included within MORI, along with all appendices, codeframes and The table opposite shows the response channels the consultation analysis. This was extended until a full analysis of the responses can be seen in utilised in the A66 Northern Trans-Pennine project 15 July for postal responses which were posted Appendix D. within the consultation period but not received by consultation. July 11.

30 31 6. Responses by respondent profile

A total of 854 responses were received during the Of the organisational responses, 19 were received Respondents’ postcode information public consultation period. A further three were as paper response forms, 33 via the online Most responses were generated from postcodes received by email outside the consultation period response form, 37 responses were received by directly on the route of the A66 which supports the and have not therefore been included in this email and 1 as posted correspondence. strategy of having multiple drop-in sessions along analysis but have been considered as part of the the consultation area corridor. The map below Of the public responses, 372 were received preferred route decision. shows the highest response areas by postcode. as paper response forms, 342 via the online

The feedback form distributed inside the A66 response form, 47 responses were received by Gateshead District brochure captured some analytical data from email and 3 as posted correspondence. 50 to 119 (3) CA12 Sunderland District 10 to 50 (6) respondents to provide some background 5 to 10 (4) It is important to note that while there were 854 2 to 5 (6) information about the residents and stakeholders CA4 0 DH1 5 1 to 2 (35) who responded to the consultation. Details of responses to the consultation, only 766 of those DH1 4 respondent profiles are broken down, by response responded on an online or paper response form CA11 9 CA101 District so that is the maximum number of responses for DL133 CA11 8 form question and the submitted answers on the closed questions analysed in sections five CA11 7 pages 35 and 36. DL14 6 DL12 0 and six of this document. Also, not all of these CA11 0 DL5 5 CA16 6

Response channel 766 respondents answered every question on the DL12 8 DL2 3 CA10 2 form. The total number of respondents is included DL12 9 DL3 8 Of the 854 unique consultation responses received DL1 4 during the consultation period, 90 responded on in the analysis of each question. CA10 3

LA22 9 DL11 7 behalf of an organisation or group and the remaining CA21 2 CA17 4 DL10 6 DL10 5 DL11 6 764 responses were from members of the public. DL10 4 Copeland District DL9 4 District DL10 7 DL7 0

DL7 8 DL8 5 DL8 1 LA9 7 DL8 3 District

LA6 1

Source: A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project Consultation, Analysis of findings. Ipsos MORI 2019

Road users The feedback form asked respondents how they currently used the A66. The responses are shown Car 711

in the table opposite. Of the 723 responses, the Bicycle 97 vast majority are using the road in private cars Public transport 67 but the table also shows representation from other vehicle users as well as equestrians, cyclists Walk 67

and pedestrians. HGV 44

Horse/horse drawn vehicle 9

Other commercial vehicle 73

Base: All valid responses (723) : Fieldwork dates: 16 May to 11 July 2019

32 33 Nature of interest in the A66 Consultation information Questions on the consultation Respondents asked about their interest in the A66 We are keen to ensure that we deliver our We also wanted to know if respondents had Finally, we asked respondents if they were happy route and the potential dualling programme. As consultations in the best way to reach our customers. attended one of our consultation events before with the level of detail included in the consultation shown in the chart below, out of the 634 responses As part of this we asked respondents about their filling out their response form. brochure. received, 589 were submitted by local residents, experience of the consultation process by asking: 446 also said that they regularly use the A66 in the “How did you hear that the consultation was Out of the 766 respondents completing the A total of 718 people responded to this question study area, in a private vehicle. It should be noted happening?” 720 people responded to this question. form, 718 responded to this question. Of those, with 74% (531) responding that they were happy that respondents could select more than one option 202 said that they had attended one of the with the level of detail. 88 respondents felt there for their interest in the consultation. Information about the consultation was distributed consultation events held along the route. A further was not enough detail in the brochure and a via a number of different channels along the 198 respondents said that they hadn’t attended further 97 were unsure. Q10. What is your interest in the A66? A66 to ensure that as many people as possible an event but had reviewed the information online heard about the events. We were keen, therefore, while 272 said they had been to an event and Q14. Do you think the consultation brochure to understand which communication had been reviewed the online information. Finally, 46 people contained enough information about the Resident 589 successful in informing local people about the filled out the response form without reviewing proposed scheme? Local road user 446 consultation process. The ‘other’ category received online materials or attending an event. Therefore

Local business 129 a high level of responses (129 respondents) and 66% of respondents completing this question had anecdotal feedback at consultation suggested this attended one of the consultation events. 97 Landowner 81 was word of mouth. This information about how Q13. Did you attend one of the consultation Other business 27 people heard about the events will help inform our 88 events or did you review the consultation Base: All valid responses (634) : Fieldwork dates: 16 May to 11 July 2019 future approach to consultation. brochure information online? 531 Q15. How did you hear the consultation was happening? Attend an event only 202

Reviewed information 198 online only Letter 304 I did both 272 Press release/ 286 Yes media ad in newspaper Neither 46 Flyer 150 No

Direct email from 87 Not sure Highways England

Project web page 44

Poster 30

Other 129

Base: All valid responses (720) : Fieldwork dates: 16 May to 11 July 2019

Out of the 634 responses received, 589 were submitted by local residents, 446 also said that they regularly use the A66 in the study area.

34 35 7. Consultation responses to options

Respondents were asked their views on a total those who agree (those who responded ‘strongly of 15 options over seven single carriageway agree’ or ‘tend to agree’) and disagree (‘strongly sections and Kemplay Bank roundabout. In some disagree’ and ‘tend to disagree’). sections there are a choice of options and in others a single suggested route. In addition, there was an open text question asking respondents to provide more information on which In the response form people were asked a elements of the option they liked or disliked. closed question “To what extent do you agree or They were encouraged to give as much detail as disagree with this option?” They were provided possible. The most frequent reason for agreeing with six tick boxes ranging from ‘strongly agree’ to and disagreeing with each option, along with the ‘strongly disagree’ with an option for ‘don’t know’. number of mentions, is included. The following graphs are taken from the report A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project Consultation, For maps and descriptions of these options see Analysis of Findings and show the total number of section 4 of this report. responses for each question with a total number for

A total of 2,333 people attended the exhibitions and we received 854 responses to the consultation.

M6 Junction 40 Kemplay Bank “Underpass will stop all the complaints roundabout – option A about views being destroyed.” Local Road User

20 19 12 Most frequent reason for 37 not supporting this option

option A 279 Poor drainage and potential flooding of an (underpass) 92.5% 79 underpass – 13 mentions. said they were in favour “Beware of underpass flooding. This must of dualling the remaining be added to your risk assessment. The single carriageway Key Agree 358 Disagree 31 current roundabout is flat and level and sections between Penrith Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree thus the underpass will be 20 feet down and Scotch Corner and will require a pumping station.” Local Road User Most frequent reason for support

The underpass would cause minimal visual intrusion – 218 mentions.

36 37 M6 Junction 40 Kemplay Bank Penrith to Temple Sowerby – Penrith to Temple Sowerby – Temple Sowerby to Appleby – roundabout – option B option C option D Kirkby Thore – option E

18 17 23 35 49 24 70 20 48 52 10

48 option B option C option D 56 option E 137 70 140 241 (overpass) (offline) (online) (northern bypass) 48 37 80

81 73 89 94

Key Agree 87 Disagree 226 Key Agree 234 Disagree 44 Key Agree 105 Disagree 128 Key Agree 314 Disagree 118 Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree

Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support

An overpass will be better value for money / A southern diversion does not require the Option D aligns better with the existing Option E would remove HGVs and other large cheaper / cost less – 7 mentions. demolition of nearby buildings – 79 mentions. A66 route – 13 mentions. vehicles from the village of Kirkby Thore – 186 mentions. “The overpass may offer a quicker build “Option C doesn’t involve demolition of “My preference would be to maintain the and therefore more cost effective, with less existing buildings and impact the hamlet – alignment with the existing A66 route “British Gypsum trucks diverted from a real disruption to all traffic during construction.” there were no other differences between and preserve the rural character of the accident hotspot at Kirkby Thore turning.” Local Resident and Local Road User the two so it’s an obvious choice.” surrounding farmland” Local Resident Local Resident Local Resident

Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for not supporting this option not supporting this option not supporting this option not supporting this option

An overpass would be visually intrusive and A southern diversion would result in land take The northern diversion would require the Option E would give poorer access and spoil the character/landscape – 64 mentions. of local farmland – 10 mentions. demolition of nearby buildings – 22 mentions. connections to local areas – 82 mentions

“Would be the biggest mistake doing an “Option C goes through current wheat- “It does seem a pity to demolish buildings “The road would run past numerous overpass, it would be seen for miles fields, hence objections will be raised.” which look to have some history.” houses that are not affected by traffic around like a carbuncle on the Lakes.” Local Resident Local Resident or road noise currently” Local Resident Local Resident and Local Road User

“From a tourism perspective an underpass “Option E better serves the requirements would be the preferable option as it would of the local community and the HGV access detract less from the area visually.” and egress from the British Gypsum facility.” Assistant Director Planning and Economic Development, Eden District Councillor, Brough Ward Eden District Council

38 39 Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Appleby to Brough – option I Kirkby Thore – option F Crackenthorpe – option G Crackenthorpe – option H

21 20 19 51 31 20 115 11 13 23

44 35 139 option F 96 option G 40 option H option I (southern bypass) (Disused railway (Roman Road 198 (online) 170 option) option) 56 57 81 88 72 36 80

Key Agree 171 Disagree 211 Key Agree 95 Disagree 176 Key Agree 286 Disagree 54 Key Agree 251 Disagree 31 Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree

Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support While only one proposal was brought forward for this section, the feedback received will be Option F is a more direct route – 64 mentions. Bypass closest to Crackenthorpe would require Option H takes the road further away from utilised in the design phase of the project. least land – 12 mentions. unsuitable land especially in relation to the River “Option F should be the preferred route as Eden and land slips – 65 mentions. Most frequent reason for support this is most direct route and will not result “Option G reduces the environmental in significant increased journey times.” footprint, i.e. by leaving more land outside “Option H is the logical solution to Improved safety conditions – 33 mentions. the footprint and preserving the incorporate the old Roman Road, Local Resident and Local Road User “I like the fact that this part will be widened tranquillity and beauty of the foothills of resulting in traffic being routed further – this is a dangerous section of road and the Pennines.” from Crackenthorpe residents.” there has been a number of accidents Local Resident and Local Road User Local Resident here due to people getting impatient and trying to overtake. I strongly support the Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for road widening on this part of the road.” not supporting this option not supporting this option not supporting this option Local Resident Negative economic impact on local businesses Unsuitability of the land for a new road – Use of the original Roman Road – 21 mentions. and jobs – 40 mentions. 49 mentions. Most frequent reason for “Option H will destroy one of the last not supporting this option “The south bypass is much worse because “Too close to the River Eden… loss of sections of an ancient unspoiled byway, it will send all heavy goods vehicles that wild woodland and important habitats, a Roman Road, which will need thorough Option I would provide poor access and connections to local villages from are going to the British Gypsum plant especially owls, jays, badgers and deer. archaeological investigation, setting the A66 westbound – 59 mentions. right through the village of Kirkby Thore Red squirrels also seen here.” project back for years.” just like now.” Local Resident, Landowner and Local Road User Local Resident “Whilst we acknowledge that the current Local Resident junction is not ideal, we do not want to have to drive miles every day if we want “With increasing interest in to be able to go into by reopening closed railway lines, only being allowed to exit left.” it may be short-sighted to use the Local Resident dismantled railway line as a route.” Town Councillor, Kirkby Stephen Town Council 40 41 “The A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Bowes Bypass – option J Cross Lanes to Rokeby – Cross Lanes to Rokeby – Project is essential from a option K option L highway safety and economic perspective. These improvements 23 32 35 49 will significantly help the delivery 16 98 38 of aggregates and asphalt for 5 21 3 51 36 option J option K option L construction, maintenance and 159 repair of nationally important (online) (offline) (online) 71 infrastructure.” 64 57 72 Estates Manager, Aggregate Industries UK 78

Key Agree 223 Disagree 8 Key Agree 176 Disagree 37 Key Agree 85 Disagree 108 Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree

While only one proposal was brought forward Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support for this section, the feedback received will be utilised in the design phase of the project. Option K minimises the need to demolish Option L is a straighter road with fewer bends – buildings – 53 mentions. 13 mentions. Most frequent reason for support “Option K would appear to have less of “Option L is the best proposal as it would Option J is the most obvious solution – an impact on cultural heritage. Option K follow the existing road.” 51 mentions . will not require the demolition of buildings Local Resident and Local Road User “Option J seems to be a quite (cost, environmental impact).” straightforward solution to the widening Local Resident of the existing Bowes Bypass. As I see Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for it, I do not see how this stretch of the not supporting this option not supporting this option A66 could be widened any other way.” Local Resident and Local Road User Would result in poorer access and connections Route north of Old Rectory would provide poor to local area – 10 mentions. access and connections – 81 mentions. Most frequent reason for “The problems arise because of the lack of “Option L would appear to leave HGV not supporting this option plans to replace the bridge access routes traffic with no option other than to drive Would result in poorer access and connections into Barnard Castle and the related need a significant distance East (potentially to to local area – 17 mentions. for a town bypass.” Scotch Corner) in order to travel West. This Local Resident and Local Road User would add an hour to any journeys in my “Your current option for the Bowes Bypass HGV (I cannot cross County Bridge in appears to result in us having no access Barnard Castle as this has a 7.5t weight to the A66. Our suggestion for a safer limit) and would impact on not just my access to Bowes would be via a service own journeys but those of the other road past Stonebridge to The Street. “Option L would be much better for traffic businesses in town.” There is currently a partial road still flows in Barnard Castle with fewer HGVs Local Resident and Local Road User remaining from previous A66 route.” doing a 270 degree turn around the Email response Buttermarket.” MP for Bishop Auckland (Incumbent at the time of consultation)

42 43 Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor – “Option M appears beneficial in option M option N option O heritage terms… however the potential for possibly numerous and

36 35 currently unknown archaeological 37 32 88 assets to be impacted through the 35 9 choice of option M appears to have 61 126 option M option N option O 35 a far greater impact and is therefore (northern bypass) 86 77 (southern bypass) (hybrid) our least preferred option.” 31 49 Inspector of Ancient Monuments, Historic England 64 53 77 74

Key Agree 137 Disagree 92 Key Agree 179 Disagree 70 Key Agree 41 Disagree 160 Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Neithernor Strongly agree Strongly disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree Don’t know Tend to agree Tend to disagree

Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support Most frequent reason for support

Minimises damage to local heritage sites – Better access to local villages and places – Option O is my preferred option / the best / 51 mentions. 61 mentions. sensible option / logical choice – 4 mentions.

“I have driven this route over many “Option N moves the main road away “Option N is feasible but the easiest is years, experiencing the evolution of the from Ravensworth and will make turning Option O with just one all movement A66 from totally single carriageway to onto the A66 from Ravensworth much junction not east bound only to the south incremental dualling, preventing fatal safer. It will also make a much safer of the existing road. This all movement and serious casualty rate on this section junction for visitors to Mainsgill Farm and junction on the new road can take traffic demands dualling and improved junction Fox Hall.” Local Resident and Local Road User from West Layton, Moor Lane, New Lane arrangements. In my opinion, Option M, and Mainsgill with minimum new roads involving a new dual carriageway south of leading to it. There would be no need for a the existing A66 and rejoining the original new all movement junction on Moor Lane.” A66 Carkin Moor Farm, offers the most Local Resident and Local Road User satisfactory outcome.” Local Resident

Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for Most frequent reason for not supporting this option not supporting this option not supporting this option

Will cause an increase in traffic noise – Option N will cause damage to the local Increase in traffic noise – 13 mentions. 15 mentions. scheduled monument – 12 mentions. “Option O to me seems too “Option M would have a severe “Damage to the Roman fort is regrettable – ‘twisty’ so might not be as safe detrimental effect on Ravensworth construction must require archaeological as the ‘straighter’ options.” Village, bringing the A66 and surveys and recording to improve Local Resident Source: All quotes and accompanying noise and pollution historical record.” graphical data from towards the village.” Local Resident and Local Road User A66 Northern Trans-Pennine Project Consultation, Analysis Local Resident of findings. Ipsos MORI 2019

44 45 8. Your suggestions from the consultation process

In our response form, we provided people the Alongside the options-specific feedback, we opportunity to provide further details about have analysed these comments by theme. Where their feedback and the reason that they agreed comments relate to potential design of the individual or disagreed with each option. In addition, sections of the improved A66, these have been fed respondents could provide neutral comments or back to the design team for consideration in the suggestions for each option. development of the preferred route.

The numbers opposite in brackets after each comment relate to the frequency at which that subject appeared in the responses.

M6 junction 40 to Kemplay Bank There was a large number of positive comments in Signage was also considered to be important the free text boxes about the need for improvements in the planning of this junction and clear road in this area. Respondents welcomed plans for markings and electronic signage were mentioned the Kemplay Bank roundabout because the by five respondents. There was also considerable improvement works are necessary (27) and would feedback about traffic light sequencing in this help to improve safety at this critical roundabout (10) area (10) and the potential to remove the lights on and ease congestion and improve traffic flow (30). this section altogether to improve traffic flow (10). There were 10 mentions of the need to prioritise improvements at this junction over other areas of All these suggestions and considerations have the A66. been fed back to the design team. During the preliminary design stage, detailed ground Respondents on the Kemplay Bank roundabout investigation will be commissioned to determine requested us to review the plan for an underpass the most appropriate solution for the Kemplay in the light of potential flooding issues (5) especially Bank roundabout improvements and a full flood relating to the impact in the water table in this section. risk assessment (FRA) would be undertaken in Design considerations were important (5) as was order to understand potential flooding issues the desire to minimise the environmental impact and inform the design. In addition, consideration with planting and woodland (5). Respondents also will be given to adjacent stakeholders to ensure asked us to consider access for the Cumbria Fire continuity of access is maintained in any final and Rescue service (10) and the public rights of way proposals as well as during construction periods. used by cyclists (10).

46 47 Penrith to Temple Sowerby On the environmental points, a detailed noise All these suggestions and considerations have The plans for the improvement on this section were People were also keen to be engaged and assessment will be undertaken for the preferred been fed back to the design team. During welcomed in the general comments particularly consulted throughout the design process (8). option and appropriate noise mitigation will be the preliminary design appropriate mitigation with respect to how those works would improve See section 9 for details of further engagement incorporated into the design to minimise noise measures will be identified to minimise any adverse safety on this section (17). Respondents particularly and consultation throughout the project. impacts. Engagement with the Environment environmental impacts. This would be undertaken in welcomed the plans to improve the access at Agency and Natural England and additional collaboration with Statutory Environmental Bodies Center Parcs for both safety reasons (20) and to A number of respondents felt that both options survey work/modelling has helped identify the such as the Environment Agency. improve traffic flow and ease congestion (5). (E and F) had merit and would work in this options least likely to impact on biodiversity location (10). and flooding. Appleby to Brough The alternative suggestions on this section also Due to constraints (outlined in section 3) there focussed on safety and access with people asking The designs for Kirkby Thore presented two very Temple Sowerby to Appleby – was only one option presented for the stretch us to review the junction at Center Parcs (6) and different options for improving this section of the Crackenthorpe of carriageway between Appleby and Brough. at Llama Karma Kafe (5). A66. More specific comments were therefore The plans for dualling at Crackenthorpe received There was a lot of responses around the need received which focussed around the individual positive feedback with respondents saying they for improvements in this area (15) with people All these suggestions and considerations have been sections of the route to the south and the north of felt the plans were needed (3) especially for welcoming the dual carriageway plans (13). Most fed back to the design team. Safety is paramount the village. safety reasons (7). Connections to local villages of the respondents cited safety reasons (28) for to project design and as such, access to the A66 such as Bolton and Appleby featured highly in the their support. In relation to the southern bypass there were very for cyclists, local businesses and villages will be feedback around these sections of route. carefully considered. All existing provision will be few comments relating to this option. The only In this section respondents were keen that the team reviewed and arrangements will either be improved alternative suggestions were to move the bypass Respondents to this section were keen to reviewed access issues along the new dualled to current design standards or a suitable, safe further to the south (2) and to consider an all see consideration given to mitigating the carriageway with local towns and villages (5) and alternative provided. movement junction at the petrol station. environmental impact (5). farmland (6) getting most mentions.

Temple Sowerby to Appleby – In relation to the northern bypass, 24 respondents There were very few suggestions in this section Kirkby Thore asked the team to consider upgrading the junction but 2 people suggested option H could be built on Main Street at Kirkby Thore and a further 5 asked Generally, relating to both options, there was further along the Roman Road. for the current road to be retained for local traffic. considerable support for the improvement works in this location. Reasons cited for supporting While there were very few comments on this these plans included that they are necessary (6) section, 3 people mentioned moving the road with some respondents specifically relating this further to the North and 2 suggested moving it to safety reasons (19) and how it would ease further to the East. congestion (9) and improve traffic flow for HGVs through Kirkby Thore (11). All these suggestions and considerations have been fed back to the design team. The alignment Respondents also asked the design team to of both the northern and southern options were consider moving the junction north of Kirkby Thore carefully considered based on a high number of (14) to Main Street and to provide a link road from physical and environmental constraints and, as Main Street to the British Gypsum access road such, there is minimal opportunity for variants (13). They also asked us to consider noise impact of either option. During the preliminary design (11), biodiversity and wildlife (6), the impact on stage, all comments raised regarding junction the water table and the potential for flooding (5) locations will be considered as part of the and rights of way and access provision for cyclists ongoing junction strategy work. (9), pedestrians (7) and to local roads through underpasses or overpasses (5).

48 49 Feedback on the need for cycleways and cycle We have been in discussions with various A full flood risk assessment (FRA) would be Public rights of way were mentioned by a number crossing points also featured and access to and organisations about the potential to move the undertaken in order to understand potential of respondents to this section with a wide- from Appleby (5) and Brough (6) were specifically alignment further to the north in this section. flooding issues and inform the design. spread of different user types specified including mentioned by multiple respondents. However, the land to the north of the A66 is within equestrians (9), cyclists (6) and pedestrians (7). the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) Cross Lanes to Rokeby As with other sections, people were keen that we and the current alignment of the A66 is the Respondents in this section agreed that works are We also received a number of suggestions for review the water table locally and the potential boundary of that designation. The designation, required to this stretch with safety (11) featuring, this section where people would like to see the for flooding in this area (7) while others want us and the planning restrictions inherent within it, specifically around Rokeby (5). de-trunked A66 maintained for local use (14) and to minimise noise (6) with suggestions including therefore curb any development to the north of asked the team to consider building the route People have asked us to consider what mitigation screening (2) and planting (2). Planting was also the existing alignment. We have been in ongoing further south (6) and upgrading junctions (5). might be possible in this area with planting (4), suggested to minimise environmental impacts (3). dialogue with Natural England throughout the screening (5) and minimising land take (4) all All these suggestions and considerations have design process to investigate if there is any A number of people (14) asked us to consider being suggested. been fed back to the design team. All existing flexibility within this designation but their view building the dual carriageway on the Ministry of access points will be reviewed and current is that there has to be an exceptional planning Defence (MOD) land while others (19) simply While there were lots of suggestions for this arrangements will either be improved to current reason for development within the AONB and that stipulated it be built further to the north. section, not many received multiple mentions. design standards or a suitable safe alternative our plans do not meet this standard. The exception was one suggestion to make the provided. During preliminary design, lengths People were also keen that we considered a Bowes Bypass junction at Rokeby Park an all-movement junction of A66 to be de-trunked will be identified and number of junction improvement works with all (11) rather than the eastbound-only junction which proposals for their continued use discussed with The section bypassing Bowes to the north has movement junctions (6) and connections to farms is shown in the consultation materials. Other the local highway authority. only one suggested route (see page 13 for and fields (6) getting a number of mentions. suggestions included under and overpasses and constraints information) which was presented for Suggestions were also put forward around slip roads. How we’ll use your suggestions consultation, therefore there were less comments underpasses and overpasses to improve local All the feedback we have received through the and suggestions made in relation to this stretch of connectivity with mentions of fields (7), Flitholme (6) All these suggestions and considerations have consultation process has been reviewed, coded the A66. and Landrigg (6). been fed back to the design team. All existing and interpreted by our analysis partner. This access points will be reviewed and arrangements A number of comments were made saying the includes comments received through the online The retention of the detrunked section of A66 was will either be improved to current design works were necessary (10) especially in relation and offline response forms and those received by a popular option in this section with 16 people standards or a suitable safe alternative provided. to safety (15) and the A66/A67 junction (5). email and letter. mentioning it in their response. During the preliminary design we will identify appropriate mitigation measures to minimise All this information has been collated into themes All these suggestions and considerations have been People also asked the team to be aware of the any adverse impacts on landscape and visual and passed to the relevant teams within Highways fed back to the design team. For safety reasons water table at this location (7) and the potential receptors such as planting and screening. England. Some of this has been reviewed by the access to the A66 for cyclists, local farms and for flooding. Connectivity and access also design team who will look at comments you have villages will be carefully considered. All existing featured in the feedback on this option with farms Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor made about issues such as junctions, access provision will be reviewed and arrangements will (7) and public rights of ways (7) having a number There were three alternative options presented points and road configuration. Other teams will either be improved to current design standards or of mentions. for this section and there was agreement that review the comments received around subjects a suitable, safe alternative provided. The potential to retain Bowes Station as a heritage improvements are required here (8) specifically like heritage and ecology. the dualling programme (5). During the preliminary design, the preferred site received 4 mentions and 7 people asked us All the comments and suggestions have been option will be developed to identify appropriate to think about noise mitigation. Safety (10) was the most cited reason for agreement very valuable in the process and we are very environmental mitigation measures to minimise All these suggestions and considerations have with Mainsgill Farm access (13), New Lane junction grateful to everybody who took part in the any adverse impacts. This would be undertaken in been fed back to the design team. Access to the (5) and the Ravensworth road (11) being mentioned consultation. collaboration with Statutory Environmental Bodies A66 for local farms and villages will be carefully as particular areas of concern. People were also such as the Environment Agency. considered as will all public rights of way in this concerned about speeding (5) and congestion (8). section. All existing provision will be reviewed and arrangements will either be improved to current design standards or a suitable, safe alternative provided.

50 51 In summary there are six sections where there 9. Summary and next steps was more than one option for respondents to choose from and for sections Appleby to Brough Summary of findings and Bowes Bypass only one route was proposed. The results of the public consultation exercise number of people stating a preference against The section, and the public preference for each, have revealed overwhelming support for the need each option can be seen in the table on page 55 of can be seen in the table below: to make improvements to the A66. More than nine this report. These are the opinions stated by those out of every ten respondents (492 of 532) stated who responded to the consultation and, therefore, Section Preference from Description of the option Number of Preferred consultation respondents route they were in favour of the project with only 27 the information in this report is not representative agreeing with individuals being against the dualling. of all stakeholders. option M6 junction 40 to Kemplay Bank A Underpass 358 A There seem to be clear forerunners in public Penrith to Temple Sowerby C Southern diversion 234 C preferences for particular options. The total Temple Sowerby to Appleby E Northern bypass 314 E – Kirkby Thore Temple Sowerby to Appleby – H Roman Road northern most route 286 H Crackenthorpe Appleby to Brough I Single route proposed 251 I Bowes Bypass J Single route proposed 223 J Cross Lanes to Rokeby K Southern diversion 176 K Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor N Northern diversion 179 N

Next steps We have used the information gathered through the preferred route for the A66 between the M6 the consultation to feed into the preliminary junction 40 and the A1(M) at Scotch Corner. We design of the project. We have also used have now concluded this work and announced feedback received about the local area to identify the preferred route any specific constraints we need to be aware of along the route and within the wider study area. The preferred route has been decided through a combination of the results from the public While the results of the consultation are a critical consultation and the detailed studies into element of the decision-making process, there environmental and geological constraints. The is also a considerable amount of investigation preferred route is in line with the preferences work, including environmental assessment work, express through the consultation process. wildlife surveys, planning policy considerations and detailed traffic modelling which have been undertaken before we reached a conclusion on

52 53 Further details of this decision making can be (DCO) and this will give you another opportunity seen in the preferred route leaflet and the scheme to get involved and share your views prior to assessment report (see the project webpage at our DCO application submission. A Statement highwaysengland.co.uk/a66-northern-trans- of Community Consultation (SoCC) will be pennine for further details). developed prior to the statutory consultation which will set out proposals for this process. Our preferred route will now be taken through to the preliminary design stage where we develop The DCO, if granted, will provide development the design in more detail and undertake more consent to undertake the improvements to the environmental surveys and detailed investigation A66. Development consent is required because works. All the feedback from the consultation will this project is categorised as a Nationally be fed into this design process. Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP) under the Planning Act 2008. The plans which are brought forward for the next stage of consultation will be underpinned Throughout this process, we will continue to work by these detailed assessments which will with natural and historic environmental statutory evolve throughout the process as we update bodies, landowners and stakeholders. our information. We will carry out a further consultation process as we develop our The seven-step process for this project is application for a Development Consent Order explained in the table below.

Pre-project Options phase Development phase Construction phase

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strategy, Option Option Preliminary Statutory Construction Construction, Closeout shaping and identification selection design procedures preparation commissioning prioritisation and powers and handover

I am behind the change as the volume of traffic warrants a duel carriageway. It’s one of the few roads leading into the Lakes and a major road connecting the East to the West. Quote from consultation feedback

54 55 Appendices

Appendix A 58 Consultation brochure and response form 58 Appendix B 59 Approach to public consultation document 59 Appendix C 60 Sample invitation letter 60 Appendix D 61 Analysis of findings 61 Appendix E 62 Deposit points 62 Appendix F 63 Flyers 63 Appendix G 64 Sample press advert 64 Appendix H 65 Sample poster 65 Appendix I 66 Sample press coverage 66 Appendix J 67 Sample exhibition boards 67

Full copies of all appendices can be viewed on the project website: highwaysengland.co.uk/a66-northern-trans-pennine/

56 57 Appendix A Appendix B

Consultation brochure and response form Approach to public consultation document

58 59 Appendix C Appendix D

Sample invitation letter Analysis of findings

60 61 Appendix E Appendix F

Deposit points Flyers

Location Point Address

Scotch Corner Scotch Corner Services Middleton Tyas, Richmond DL10 6PQ

Middleton Tyas Middleton Lodge Middleton Lodge, Kneeton Lane, Middleton Tyas, Richmond, North Yorkshire DL10 6NJ A66 Gilling West / The White Swan pub The White Swan, 51 High Street, Gilling West, Richmond DL10 5JG Northern Trans-Pennine project Richmond Public consultation – share your views Richmond Lidl Richmond Queens Rd, Richmond DL10 4AJ May – July 2019 Richmond Richmond Town Hall Town Hall, Market Pl, Richmond DL10 4QL

Richmond Richmond Post Office 6a Finkle St, Richmond DL10 4QB Investing in your roads

Richmond The Georgian Theatre Royal Victoria Road, Richmond, North Yorkshire DL10 4DW At Highways England we believe in a This will significantly improve journeys connected country and our network and connectivity, which is great news makes these connections happen. for the local, regional and national Richmond Richmond Library 10 Queens Rd, Richmond DL10 4AE economy. We strive to improve our major roads and motorways - engineering This work is important to future Richmond Richmond Yorks Golf Club Richmond DL10 5EX the future to keep people moving growth and will help the economies today and moving better tomorrow. of both the North East and Cumbria, as well as improve journeys between Barnard Castle Cross Lanes Organic Farm Cross Lanes, Barnard Castle DL12 9RT We want to make sure all our major England and Scotland. roads are more dependable, durable Barnard Castle Co-Op Prospect Pl, Barnard Castle DL12 8HL and, most importantly, safe. The following locations require improvements or dualling: We have been commissioned by the Barnard Castle TCR Hub Community Centre Shaw Cres, Middleton-In-, Barnard Castle DL12 8TD Department for Transport (DfT) to „ M6 junction 40 to Kemplay Bank investigate the potential to improve roundabout (A66/A6 interchange) Barnard Castle Barnard Castle Doctors Surgery Barnard Castle Surgery, Victoria Rd, Barnard Castle DL12 8HT the A66 between the M6 junction 40 „ Penrith to Temple Sowerby at Penrith and the A1(M) at Scotch „ Temple Sowerby to Appleby – Corner to address the east/west Kirkby Thore Barnard Castle Morrisons 23 Galgate, Barnard Castle DL12 8EJ connectivity across the Pennines in „ Temple Sowerby to Appleby – the north of England. Crackenthorpe „ Appleby to Brough Stainmore Stainmore Café A66, Kirkby Stephen CA17 4EU We are proposing to invest around a „ Bowes Bypass billion pounds to dual the remaining „ Cross Lanes to Rokeby single carriageway sections of the A66. Brough Brough Community Primary School Kirkby Stephen CA17 4EY „ Stephen Bank to Carkin Moor

Brough Brough Castle Ice Cream Parlour and Church Brough CA17 4EJ Tearoom

Appleby Old Hall Veterinary Centre Cross Croft, Industrial Estate, Appleby-In-Westmorland CA16 6HX

Appleby The Haybergill Centre Hayber Lane, Warcop, Appleby, Cumbria CA16 6NP

Appleby Warcop Primary School Warcop, Appleby-In-Westmorland CA16 6NX

Appleby Café Sixty Six Ketland Moor, Appleby-In-Westmorland CA16 6LN

Appleby Appleby Golf Club Brackenber, Appleby-In-Westmorland CA16 6LP

Appleby Appleby Leisure Centre Chapel Street, Appleby, Cumbria CA16 6QR

Appleby Appleby Sports Centre Battlebarrow, Appleby-In-Westmorland CA16 6XU

Kirkby Thore Kirkby Thore Post Office Somerset House, Kirkby Thore, Penrith CA10 1UD

Temple Sowerby Temple Sowerby Medical Practice Linden Park, Temple Sowerby, Penrith CA10 1RW

Temple Sowerby Hazel Dene Garden Centre Hazel Dene Garden Centre, Penrith CA10 1QF

Penrith Penrith Hospital Bridge Ln, Penrith CA11 8HX

Penrith Penrith Cricket Sports and Social Club 27 Wetheriggs Ln, Penrith CA11 8PE

Penrith Morrisons 24-25 Brunswick Rd, Penrith CA11 7JU, UK

Penrith Booths Westgate House, Brunswick Rd, Penrith CA11 7JU, UK

62 63 Appendix G Appendix H

Sample press advert Sample poster

64 65 Appendix I Appendix J

Sample press coverage Sample exhibition boards

66 67 © Crown copyright 2020.

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Mapping (where present): © Crown copyright and database rights 2020 OS 100030649. You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data. You are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of this data to third parties in any form.

This document is also available on our website at www.highwaysengland.co.uk

For an accessible version of this publication please call 0300 123 5000 and we will help you.

If you have any enquiries about this publication email [email protected] or call 0300 123 5000*. Please quote the Highways England publications code PR46/20.

*Calls to 03 numbers cost no more than a national rate call to an 01 or 02 number and must count towards any inclusive minutes in the same way as 01 and 02 calls.

These rules apply to calls from any type of line including mobile, BT, other fixed line or payphone. Calls may be recorded or monitored.

Printed on paper from well-managed forests and other controlled sources when issued directly by Highways England.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ.

Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363