LANDOWNERS whose horse-breeding business is threatened by plans for a flyover on the A64 near York have warned they might go to the European Court of Human Rights.

Brian and Rosamund Percival made legal submissions to an inspector when a public inquiry resumed yesterday into the flyover proposals at Bilbrough Top.

The Highways Agency wants to build the bridge to provide a safe crossing over the dual carriageway for local traffic, so it can close a dangerous gap in the central reservation.

But a proposed link road which would take traffic to the flyover comes close to the Percival's home Springfield House, which is also where Mrs Percival's horse-breeding and rearing business is based.

The inquiry was adjourned until yesterday for the agency to consider an amendment to its scheme proposed by the couple, under which the link road would be moved further away from their home, allowing more horses to be kept in the field.

The agency told the inquiry at Askham Bryan College that the alternative route would increase the cost of the whole scheme by about £100,000, through the need to construct an additional roundabout, provide lighting for the roundabout and provide an additional crossing over a local high pressure gas main.

It said it still believed its scheme was the most cost-effective solution, while it accepted Mr Percival's proposal would be satisfactory and overcome many of his main concerns.

The Percivals suggested that the agency had not complied with the European Convention during the decision-making process, including a failure to carry out a "human rights audit or assessment."

In a legal submission, their representative told the inquiry: "The objectors reserve all their rights, including an application to the European Court of Human Rights."

The submission said that Article 8 of the convention established a right to respect for private and family life, and prohibited interference with it by a public authority except where it was lawful and necessary in the interests of matters such as public health and safety.

The Percivals accepted there was a public safety problem on the A64, but felt the gap could simply be closed. Their alternative would still affect their enjoyment and use of their property.

The agency in reply sought to dismiss their arguments, saying that the consultation process, the inquiry and the inspector's report would represent an "audit" of the scheme including human rights. It said the idea of just closing the gap is "not one that has been promoted by any of the professional highway engineers that have considered this road scheme and one that is not acceptable to the agency."

The inquiry was continuing today.

Updated: 16:00 Tuesday, November 13, 2001