Agenda item

(Report by Mr B Sweetland, Cabinet Member, Environment, Highways & Waste and Mr P Crick, Director of Planning and Environment)

(Mr Vince Lucas, Service Director, Southeastern, was also present for this item)

1.               The Chairman welcomed the Service Director of Southeastern, Mr Lucas and Director of Planning and Environment, Mr Crick to the meeting.  With the Chairman’s permission Mr Crick advised that he had an announcement to make before he presented the report.

2.               He advised Members that on 18 January the Government announced that it intended to consult on a Hub Airport in the Thames Estuary in March 2012.  KCC’s position on the Hub Airport, which came from the Aviation Consultation in 2011, was that KCC objected to the proposals for a Thames Estuary Hub Airport as it felt that this would cause irreversible and fundamental environmental damage and it believed that the existing airports in the South East such as Manston and Southend were assets that could be used far more, rather than providing a new environmentally damaging facility.  With the maximising of High Speed one in the South East and the planned High Speed two, there was the potential to link to Heathrow, Gatwick and Birmingham to create a virtual hub airport in the South East and Midlands of England without the need to spend £50-70billion.

3.               Although the Government’s consultation on the Hub Airport in the Thames Estuary was not due until March 2012, Mr Crick invited Members to submit their views to him.

4.               Members were given the opportunity to comment and ask questions that included the following:

a)    A Member disagreed with KCC’s stance on this matter.   People he had spoken to were generally keen about the creation of thousands of jobs this proposal would generate and that it would be an asset to the more difficult parts of East Kent.  The Hub Airport would provide opportunities that Kent would get no other way and it would make a difference to the whole of East and North Kent.  He proposed that KCC should seek to find out what the people of Kent’s views were on the proposal.

b)    A Member advised that the Liberal Democrat Group was opposed to the Thames Estuary Hub Airport in principle.  He understood that the Government’s consultation was broader and considered Hub type Airports for the whole Country.

c)     A Member described views they had heard discussed on Kent Radio and concluded that views would differ depending on where you lived and agreed that there needed to be a wider debate.

d)    In response, Mr Crick advised that his Team would be coordinating KCC’s response to the Government’s consultation on the Hub Airport in the Thames Estuary in March 2012.  He would be happy to receive any comments by Members in the meantime.

5.               Further on, Mr Crick introduced the report highlighting the following:

·                 Kent was successful in securing £40 million Regional Growth Fund (RGF). £5 million would be used to support enhancements to line speed on the Ashford-Ramsgate rail route.

·                 There was the potential to take 10 minutes off the journey time from Ramsgate to St Pancras on the high speed line, this would reduce the journey time from Manston to Central London to 60 minutes .

·                 The construction of a Thanet Parkway Station was unsuccessful in the first round RGF bid in January 2011 as the Government considered that it would not create sufficiently large number of jobs in the three years of the fund.   The business case remains strong with a Benefit Cost Ratio of 5:1.  Work on developing the business case for a Thanet Parkway Station would continue.

6.               The Chairman invited Mr Lucas to speak on the High Speed rail links.  Mr Lucas said that he had been interested to hear the earlier debate on the Hub Airports as he was a Transport Business representative on Local Enterprise Partnership.  He highlighted the following:

·                 Research showed that by reducing journey times and increasing speeds you will attract more passengers.

·                 Southeastern had been jointly working with Network Rail on a project to reduce the journey times from Ashford, Canterbury and Ramsgate.

·                 Southeastern had worked on the Rail Action Plan for Kent with Mr Crick and his Team.

·                 When the line speeds were in place, rigorous tests were made on the new infrastructure.  Following those tests at the next convenient timetable date the journey times would be changed to reflect the enhanced speeds.  This was carried out approximately 6 months after the line speeds were tested.

7.               Members were invited to make comments and ask questions which included the following:

a)              In response to a question, Mr Lucas advised that to make a route faster for Hythe and Canterbury there would have to be fewer stops. It was mandatory that the trains called in at Meopham and Longfield as part of growing businesses there.  The impact of those two stops added 6-10 minutes on the journey time.

b)              In reply to a question, Mr Lucas advised that Southeastern carried out research with Canterbury City Council looking at passenger numbers, growth etc.  After looking at all of the stations in the area, Hythe Whitstable etc, there was a change in passenger patterns  with an increase at Canterbury West, a reduction at Canterbury East, no change at Herne Bay ,at the time, and an increase at Whitstable.  They produced detailed graphs of the regular and High Speed services.  Overall the rail journeys from the Canterbury City area increased from 1.2 to 1.5 million journeys per annum after the introduction of High Speed.  There had been a reduction in passengers using the Canterbury East to Victoria.  The number of passengers travelling by train from Herne Bay was falling but had been falling long before the introduction of High Speed services, although, in the last year they had begun to increase.  Mr Lucas considered that this may have been due to a change in the demographics of the people living in the area.  He was happy to share this data with the POSC. 

c)               Mr Crick responded to concerns regarding the safety of the level crossings between Ashford and Ramsgate, especially at Wye.  He advised that the £5million of the Regional Growth Fund would be going towards improving those level crossings.  At this time he was unable to say whether there would be enough money to build a bridge at Wye but it would be a priority to improve the crossing.

8.               RESOLVED that the information in the report and given to Members be noted with thanks.