Agenda item

(1)     Following the meeting of the Cabinet Committee on 23 April 2013, approval was granted to take the highway improvement scheme through to the next stages of development and authority was given to enter into land and funding agreements. The scheme was shown diagrammatically on a plan attached to the report.  The formal Pinch Point funding offer of £3.5m had been received from the Department of Transport.  The terms and conditions were typical of DfT grant funding and had been accepted on behalf of KCC by the S151 Officer.  KCC had committed to contribute up to £1.5m and Tunbridge Wells had indicated a willingness to underwrite £0.5m, and there were potential opportunities for S106 contributions.

(2)     The Pinch Point funding bid was predicated on an indicative overall scheme cost of £5m, and the next stage would be to produce a detailed cost estimate.  However, the changes to the design were considered neutral in terms of scheme cost.  Initial responses from utility companies who had provided indicative estimates of diversions costs were also consistent with what was previously assumed.  The critical aspect of the scheme cost was not just the physical cost of the works but the costs associated with the buildability aspects and phasing of the works to accommodate utility diversions and to manage traffic.  Longfield Road was heavily congested and it would be a careful balance of getting on with the works quickly and efficiently while seeking to avoid adverse impact upon the businesses and retail parks. 

(3)     The Head of Planning Applications had issued a Screening Opinion that in the view of KCC, as Planning Authority an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required and therefore a planning application was not required for the improvement scheme which was contiguous with the existing Longfield Road.  Some environmental surveys would still be required to ensure that appropriate mitigation measures were taken for any protected species that might be affected by the works and loss of habitat.

(4)     Some small areas of land were formally in unknown ownership.   Those areas were within the overall corridor of the existing adopted public highway.  On that basis, the intent was to publish Notices under S228 of the Highways Act 1980 declaring the areas of land to be adopted public highway.  In addition, 11 land owners were required to dedicate land required for the scheme. They would retain ownership but the land would become public highway on completion of the scheme. Contact had been made with all landowners and meetings had been held on site.

(5)     To address concerns relating to the loss of parking spaces, the scheme design had now been refined to avoid any loss of parking. The scheme had also been amended over the rural section between Knights Park and A21 to avoid the requirement for the dedication of land from a landowner who was unlikely to be supportive at this time because of objections to the A21 Tonbridge – Pembury scheme.

(6)       The requirement for the scheme design to be refined had meant that achieving the full commitment to the release of land by all landowners by mid-June had not been realised. However, the discussions with the landowners, leaseholders representatives and store managers to date had resulted in 5 verbally indicating full support.  5 had verbally given cautious support and should be strengthened by the revised scheme that had avoided direct impact on operational land.  1 of those and 1 other were concerned about the impact of the construction period on their businesses and were keen to see the supporting traffic assessment on both the overall scheme benefits and to their individual access to their properties.  Officers perceived that there was wide support in principle to the dedication of the land required and that by having refined the scheme design and avoided impact on operational land, together with the reassurance that could be given about traffic aspects, the support could be translated into firm commitments.  Officers considered that an extension of the deadline to the end of July in order to secure the land would be appropriate.

(7)     RESOLVED that the Cabinet Member for Transport & Environment be recommended to:-

(a)     approve the revised scheme for the improvement of Longfield Road, shown as an outline design on Drg 4300034/000/01 for land charge disclosures and development control in substitution for Drg No. B2500600/04 Rev0;

(b)       give approval to continue to progress the scheme subject to all land required for the scheme being formally secured or committed by 31 July 2013; and

(c)     give approval for Legal Services to take a dedication, transfer or by some other appropriate legal mechanism to secure the land required to deliver the Longfield Road scheme, shown in Drg 4300034/000/01 including but not limited to any ancilliary works such as drainage and environmental mitigation.