Agenda item

To receive a report from the Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport, Cabinet Member for Economic Developmentand Corporate Director for Growth, Environment & Transport on the proposed response to the Highways England consultation on a proposed route for a new Lower Thames Crossing.

1.            The Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, Mrs Stewart, introduced a report  that  sought the Cabinet Members comments on the County Council’s proposed response to the Highways England consultation on a proposed route for a new Lower Thames Crossing.  Mrs Stewart stated that the response to the consultation was a work in progress.  Consideration would be given to all comments raised at this meeting and those made at the Growth, Economic Development and Communities Cabinet Committee meeting held on 3 March.  The consultation was due to close on 24 March, before which, Cabinet would make its final considerations to the final draft of the response at its meeting on 21 March.

2.            Members were made aware that the County Council had been working closely with the borough councils affected by the proposals taking account of their concerns within the response.

3.            The Transport Strategy Manager, Mr Ratcliffe, advised on the background of the consultation, variations to routes proposed since the first consultation held in 2013 and the rational of KCC’s draft response appended to the report.

4.            The Chairman welcomed the Mr Sweetland, Local Member for Gravesend Rural, who had received permission to speak to the meeting. 

5.            Mr Sweetland highlighted that he had resigned his Cabinet post because he did not agree with the County Council Administration’s view that it strongly supported Option C. He highlighted the issues for his decision; (i) A reference in the DfT published document in 2013 by AECOM reference to Option C “that it is likely that the Dartford Crossing would remain close to capacity and although delays would be reduced incidents could still lead to long delays as they do at present” Mr Sweetland believed that this was a very big risk which would not be realised until the crossing was built in Gravesham. He stressed the issues of the continued traffic congestion at Dartford’s former toll area including; air pollution and associated health problems, the many incidents per week on that route meant there were three miles of traffic.  Mr Sweetland highlighted KCCs response to the DfT consultation in 2013 when it agreed Option C included the proviso that a variant was built in; the upgrading of Bluebell Hill.  In the current consultation HE had taken the decision not to progress with the variant upgrading of Bluebell Hill.  He highlighted the high rates of asthma using a health map from the Dartford Crossing Hospital emergency Unit that showed areas either side of Dartford which he did not want to see in Gravesend. He quoted from a document produced by KCC in 2002 “What Price Growth” and asked for the four tests within the report to be returned; to preserve our; countryside, traditional villages, market towns and environmental heritage.  He advised that a meeting on the Dartford Crossing recorded by Radio Kent would be air in the evening.   He concluded that HE’s consultation was bias; poorly managed, accompanying information difficult to obtain and would result in the likelihood of no growth with gridlock. He thanked the Chairman for allowing him to speak.

6.            Mr Balfour considered that the consultation was not about growth in Kent but was about traffic. For the foreseeable future Ramsgate M2 Folkestone A20.  It was a fact that Dover was the shortest and cheapest route From Europe to Kent.  Traffic was going to increase by 30% over the next 10 years HGVs.  Three borough councils enough may look for traffic needs to be looked into. He stated that KCC did not strongly support.  There were variant CC would support parts missing from HE eg compensation length of tunnel and environment landscape but heavily constrained.  Make mention what’s needed to go ahead.

7.            Members comments were noted and responses to questions by Members were as follows:

a)     Mr Baldock raised concerns about; the lack of links between the A2/M2 corridor and the A20/M20 corridor and the lack of evidence from Highways England to show that upgrades would be made to the link roads. He considered that it had not been demonstrated that alternative options had been considered.  He considered that it would be irresponsible of KCC not to respond to Option A in its response, the costings were included in the consultation.

b)     Mr Baldock stated that he did not support the recommendation.

c)      Dr Eddy highlighted the following on the format of the draft response:

·      That the responses to the questions began with the words “strongly agree” and considered that this needed to be toned down. 

·      The opening paragraph should set out issues mentioned further on in the text so that the degree of support for each issue was clear.

·      He noted the issues around the policy objection for bifurcation of the M2/20 were not mentioned until paragraph 1.10 which he considered was too late in the response and should be mentioned in the introductory paragraph.  He suggested that we say “our agreement clearly is contingent on other changes to the infrastructure of the roads; M2 and M20 join with the M25 and the A2 and A20 join Dover; and most of that traffic was going through the Port of Dover.

·      He was pleased with the comments in paragraph 7.9.

·      He considered that there was a need to reemphasise in the answer to the question on feedback on the consultation, towards the end of paragraph 9.3, the need for more road improvements to link the two systems together otherwise there would be a single link road to Dover choked with heavy goods vehicles.

·      The question on just in time deliveries would be a major cultural change and needed to be addressed.

d)    Mr MacDowall suggested the following:

·      that KCC’s response should be “subject to upgrades on the M20, A20, A249 and in particular the duelling of the A2; Lydden and Whitfield, a route should be created which moved freight away from Dartford, a built up urban area, to come into the western suburb link and that HE create a tunnel from there through to Essex which would be a direct route for freight and more resilient”. 

·      He considered that building a junction at the A226 would not work and would become gridlocked.

·      He considered that if Option C could be built for less than £6 billion there was a possibility that the upgrade of major roads in Kent may be afforded. 

·      The response should also include the East London crossings at Belvedere and Silvertown as part of the overall package.

e)     Mr Caller raised the following concerns:

·      The acceptance of the roll on roll off traffic and what he considered a piecemeal sticking plaster approach to a major problem, rather than a long term strategic approach by the government.

·      KCC’s response supporting the government’s approach appeared to be accepting the growth in traffic without comment on the effect on the quality of life for the residents of Kent.

·      The many contradictory arguments made by HE within the consultation.

·      He did not accept that the UK could not afford to put in long bore tunnels similar to the link tunnel from Denmark and Sweden.

·      Referring to page 134, he did not accept the need to look at the A226 linkage in more detail and should dismiss this.

·      There were no detailed comments on the road parallel to Castle Lane in Chalk with no suggestion how this would be

·      There appeared to be a total lack of concern for the people of Kent represented in the response.

·      He opposed the draft response in its entirety.

f)     Mr Balfour considered that some of the Members comments were unfair stating that the reason for the report was for Members to put their comments forward.

g)    Mr Whybrow made the following comments:

·      He agreed with comments that KCC’s response to questions be addressed whether it did or did not “strongly agree” with points raised in the consultation.

·      He agreed with the criticisms of HE consultation process.

·      He considered that the figures detailed in the background information regarding economic growth and job potential lacked credibility.

·      He sought clarification on a question to whether KCC would support the Eastern Southern Link referred to on page 133 paragraph 5.2 which appeared to be unanswered.

h)   Mr Balfour explained that the draft response to the consultation was a working document and comment had been received from the Growth, Environment and Communities Cabinet Committee this committee and then Cabinet before its submission.  He stated that KCC could not agree to Option C without the mitigating factors to be fully detailed in the response.  Mr Balfour clarified that KCC would not support the Eastern Southern Link and that it would only support the Western Southern Link.

i)     Mr Chittenden made the following comments:

·       He was pleased to note other Members comments.

·       The loading of lorries onto trains was essential and supported a review of Kent’s Freight Action Plan.

·       It was essential to get passengers off the roads onto modal or bus transport.

·       He was disappointed that the connections onto the M20 and M2 were not being considered at this stage predicting that this would have serious consequences for both routes that already suffered from a serious accident record. He requested that this be brought forward in the response

j)      Mr Sweetland added that without the link or variant between the M20 and M2 eradicated the cost ratios that HE had given in the consultation paper.  There needed to be a holistic approach.

k)    Mr Ozog reflected on the rise in traffic since the Queen Elizabeth II Bridge was opened in 1991 and made the following comments:

·      Since the toll booths had been removed at the bridge the traffic congestion had worsened. 

·      He suggested that there was not room in the Dartford area to build another crossing and believed it had to be a tunnel option. 

·      Mr Ozog supported Option C. 

·      If freight was to go onto rail a new rail network would have to be provided and this would not be feasible. 

·      He suggested that the link road A249 should be upgraded.

l)     Mr Bowles  made the following points:

·      Referring to page 137, paragraph 7.9, he agreed with all of the points and the comments raised by Dr Eddy. 

·      He would not consider moving the disbenefits from Essex to the A249 and Medway Services on the M2.

·      He believed that the right option was Option C, although not perfect, he still struggled with recommending the Cabinet Member support this whilst HE was not addressing the improvement of the linking roads.

m)  Mr Brazier addressed the issue of freight on rail and why it had not worked in the past, due to many transfers that would need to be made of the goods from trucks to containers onto rail and the high cost this produced rendering it unaffordable.  He reminded Members that freight containers would not be able to be carried by rail through London as the infrastructure was too old.

8.            Mr Balfour referred to the A226 as an extra connection He agreed for this issue to be looked at holistically to include all the other road connections.  The issue of freight and rail was being looked at.  The comments by Member would be taken into account.   He agreed that some of the responses to questions should indicate that “we support subject to” highlighting what would make it work.  He agreed that as much mitigation as necessary would also be included.

9.            Members noted that the final report would be published 5 clear days before the meeting of Cabinet on 21 March and any comments on the final report would be welcomed. 

10.         Mr Sweetland thanked the Cabinet Committee for allowing him to speak and concluded that Public Health should also respond to the consultation with regarding the links to health risks.

11.         RESOLVED that:-

(a)  the responses to comments and questions by Members and the report be noted; and

(b)  the comments by the Local Member for Gravesend Rural, Mr Sweetland, and the Cabinet Committee Members be considered by the drafting officers for inclusion in KCC’s final response to Highways England’s consultation.