Agenda item

To receive a report that outlines a proposed response to the consultation by Highways England on a proposal to create a Permanent Lorry Area adjacent to the M20 at Stanford.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report on a proposed response to the consultation by Highways England on a proposal to create a Permanent Lorry Area adjacent to the M20 at Stanford, Ashford.  He highlighted the problems that the County had endured over the years when there were issues with lorries being unable to enter the Channel Tunnel and in particular this summer’s problems which drew the government’s attention as it became a national problem and cost the country millions of pounds.  The government asked that a solution be found by Highways England at a pace.  Mr Balfour steered the Cabinet Committee to only discuss the proposed response to the consultation and not what had gone before.  He said that he supported the retention of the Traffic Assessment Phase(TAP) scheme and that it should be carried out in a sophisticated way with variable speed limits and the queue into TAP should be reduced as much as possible.

2.            The Chairman had given permission in advance of the meeting to the Local Member for Elham Valley, Miss Susan Carey; and the Cabinet Member for Access, Councillor Nigel Collor, Dover District Council, to speak on this item.

3.            Miss Carey welcomed the opportunity to speak at the meeting. She advised that the residents of Elham Valley, who were amongst those who had suffered the worst as a result of Operation Stack and now felt punished by the Highways England’s proposal.  Both sites identified were not considered a good idea. Miss Carey welcomed the £250m found to fund a solution but was disappointed that Highways England was asked to look for a site for a lorry park and that it would have been more sensible for them to be asked to produce options for resolving Operation Stack. Miss Carey highlighted that Highways England’s consultation document was headed “Managing Freight Vehicles through Kent” and concluded that the document did not have much about managing freight but dwelled on a lorry park.  The lorry park would only hold so many lorries and would therefore not prevent lorries parking up around Kent. She suggested that the sites chosen by Highways England were not options on the list produced by KCC because KCC would not have received permission for them because they fell outside many policies of KCC.  Miss Carey welcomed the parts of the report before Members that considered a bigger solution of what could be done further upstream to stop lorries coming into Kent in the first place, the infrastructure that was need to support the traffic that we already have.  She considered that Stanford West was the right and least bad option, including the lower Thames crossing.  Miss Carey supported what the report said in terms of which option should be chosen if there was going to be one. She considered that Stanford West was the right choice for the reasons set out in the report.  Miss Carey considered that the way the Highways England consultation document was produced and written made it difficult to come to that conclusion as it lack necessary detail.  Highways England had advised that it could not give more detail until the site had been chosen and what it was going to be used for.  Miss Carey considered that it should be the other way round ie layout first and what the operation was to be for each of the different options so that consultees could make an intelligent response. 

4.            Miss Carey considered that this was a poor consultation and advised that as this was not a statutory consultation residents were not entitled to compensation under the Blight regulations when they come forward with a firm plan. She advised that local residents had already lost house sales and their plans were on hold. Miss Carey considered that a similar scheme should be operated as when the Channel Tunnel was built where people were allowed to sell their properties at the market rate that it would have been before the impact of the proposals.  People could not have expected to see this coming.  The issues in the report regarding environmental protection were welcomed.  She urged the Cabinet Committee Members to support the need for generosity to those who were faced with this on their doorstep.

5.            Councillor Collor read out a submission which had the support of various community hotelier and business groups in Dover. 

“Dover District Council fully supports the principle of your report and agrees that Stanford West was far the best solution of the two sites under consideration.  We also support what is described as alternative three.  It would maximise the facilities for lorry drivers while avoiding replicating facilities available at stop 24.  However, we do have concerns when reading within your report the statement that the main part of the site on the north side of the motorway, to be used exclusively for HGV queueing in a replacement for Dover TAP and Eurotunnel    excess with a dedicated access from the M20.  More effective management which is being discussed is likely to reduce the frequency for Dover TAP but we at Dover will be continuing to lobby extensively for the retention of Dover TAP and indeed as we have been doing so for the past few months seek for the current trial period to be made permanent.  Dover also has a freight clearance depot in direct competition with the facilities at top 24 so local employment needs protecting.  Since its introduction in April 2015, Dover TAP has been used 138 times to control the flow of freight vehicles through central Dover.  As most of you will appreciate the A20 between the southern end of the M20 and Dover Eastern Docks bisects Dover with businesses and tourists not having easy access between the town centre and well photographed and award winning seafront.  Pre TAP, Dover used to suffer from queues of trucks stretching back from the Docks entrance usually three or four evenings a week as the norm, during the adverse weather it was far worse they use to block accesses to businesses and residential properties, junctions roundabouts, pedestrian crossings, making the A20, which through Dover is also a local road, extremely dangerous, there was a fatal crash there last weekend. TAP, Traffic Assessment Phase, is very apt, as its control at the Western roundabout by the Port of Dover Police and drip feeds traffic through to the Eastern Docks at a rate that facilities can handle, it was not a stationary queue.  This elevates the need for trucks to queue along the A20, through the town and allows Dover to go about its business, bus services to flow to time and emergency vehicles to get through, to name but a few things other towns enjoy.  The queues of trucks through the town on the A20 often described as a nocuous wall of steel has led to the need to declare an air quality management area between the Western Heights roundabout on the docks that has to be monitored daily and an annual report sent to DEFRA stating what actions are being taken to address it.  Early indications are that TAP is helping to address this situation.  The detrimental impact of this routine congestion has had in recent years on residents, visitors and more importantly the local economy should not be under estimated given that it potentially creates a negative image of Dover deterring inward investment by the private sector at a time when the Council’s regeneration agenda is at last gaining momentum.  When Operation Stack was on before we had TAP, Trucks use to be let go from Stack in numbers that were too great for the Port to handle and Dover had queues back.  This proves that traffic through Dover cannot be controlled from 10 or 11 miles away as is suggested in your report when it refers to the lorry park replacing TAP.  In saying this it needs to be taken into account that this is not the only route into Dover that trucks find,  they use the A2, A256, A258, B2011as well as minor roads into the town often causing chaos by mentioning this point, truck drivers were always looking for a way round controls and should there be no control between the proposed lorry Park and Dover you will find that trucks will soon be bypassing it by trundling down the A20 from Ashford through the villages, Sellindge and Westenhanger and seriously affecting roads to other villages.  In the absence of TAP our problem will be yours tomorrow.  The proposed lorry park should be complimenting and supporting Dover with TAP not replacing it.  We are in discussions with the Port of Dover, Kent Police, Highways England and others to iron out some of the issues associated with TAP that require attention, possibly the main one here is the six miles of 40 mile per hour speed limit that Highways England have already some advance plans to turn this into a variable speed limit that will only be enforced when TAP is actioned.  Added to this, plans were in hand to improve the yellow boxes at the junctions.  We respectfully request that the use of the Port of Dover TAP be made permanently”.

6.            Mr Balfour reminded Members that this was not KCC’s consultation and therefore KCC had no control over the production of the document.  He stated that KCC was looking at technology as a means of connecting with; the five major freight companies that came through Dover; and the Port of Dover to enable better management of those lorries before they reached Kent and once they reach Kent, as part of the solution.  He considered that it was also important for Kent to build up a network of commercial lorry parks across the country which would require the government’s support.

7.            Mr Balfour then spoke on local commercial lorry parks. There was a need for those private commercial parks to be viable.  He advised that KCC was making strong representations with Highways England.  Members were advised that the former Gateway Committee had been reconvened.  Its Membership included all those local authorities concerned, freight representatives and as many of the operators of commercial lorry parks as possible, Kent Police, Kent and Medway Fire and Rescue and Highways England to find a solution on how best the commercial aspects of lorry parking, overnight storage, could best be done.  This would also include the input from ship operators, ports, the Channel Tunnel etc.

8.            Mr Balfour stated that it was vital that lorry drivers had surety that if they joined the queue or lorry park as number eight they were the eighth lorry to leave the queue.

9.            Mr Balfour received comments and responded to questions by Members as follows:

a)    Mrs Waters broadly supported the report and strongly supported the local Member, Miss Carey.  She reinforced the words on pages 88 and 89, paragraph 2.7, in the report regarding compensation and asked that KCC support those residents affected.  She made the following comments; (i) Highways England’s consultation document was vague which made it difficult to respond to. (ii) she was not convinced that this was the right solution to Operation Stack and that more work should have been carried out by Highways England.  (iii) More commercial parks were needed north of the M20 which was where the majority of the lorries were travelling to; (iv) there was a need to look after our residents and businesses that were badly affected when Operation Stack was at its worst; (v) the miles of lorries parked up during Operation Stack in the Summer sent out the wrong messages to people coming to Kent; and (vi) was happy to support Dover District Council wish to retain Dover TAP.  Mr Balfour agreed to reinforce the support for local residents receiving compensation in the response to the consultation.

b)    Mr Eddy agreed with the statement made by Cllr Collor.

c)    Mr Balfour agreed to the suggestion that the wording in a sentence in paragraph 2.4, line 5 from the words “; and the Port of Dover queue…” being reworded.

d)    Referring to page 87, paragraph 2.5, within the final sentence “…, including the bifurcation of traffic between the M20/A20 and M/A2 corridors….”  a suggestion was made that if this happened it would require the duelling of the A2 at the Dover end which should be included in this document [This reference was in the “Growth without Gridlock” documentation]. Mr Balfour agreed to this being mentioned in the response to the consultation. 

e)    He advised Members that there was the likelihood of KCC would  respond to the Lower Thames Crossing in the future and that  Highways England was being careful how they discuss the added infrastructure required.

f)     A comment was made that the feeling in Dover was that as the West of Kent was affected by Operation Stack for a relative short time gave additional impetus to a solution for Operation Stack.

g)    Mr Eddy said that Dover lived with Operation Stack in one way or another on a regular basis.  This had a serious impact on Dover’s economic regeneration programme and on existing businesses.  He considered that this needed to be resolved not just in terms of a solution of a lorry park for particularly severe times but required consideration at a national level.  He had sympathy with Miss Carey’s local residents and felt that they were right to worry about air quality although the people of Dover had been putting up with problems with air quality for a long time. 

h)   Mr Balfour advised all Members had received an invitation to a special briefing with Highways England held last week and the Highways England document had a locality map within it.

i)     Mr Caller considered that option three was the best option.  He was pleased to note the comments regarding Dover TAP.  He considered that part of the solution was for lorry parks to be located further north.  Mr Balfour assured Members that national solutions were being considered.  Dover offered speed and efficiency audit was impossible for Kent to dictate to hauliers how they travelled.

j)      A Member commented that this had been a well-balanced well constructive debate.

k)    Mr Whybrow advised that he did not support the recommendation in the report and considered the consultation a poor document that lacked detail.  He considered it a kneejerk reaction. He suggested that KCC should respond saying that there should be a pause and that a more strategic look be taken to where the £250m should be spent.  He said that he was unimpressed by the Highways England briefing where Members were advised that; (i) this was the only feasible site for the lorry park; and (ii) there could be only one large lorry park [a decision they advised was reached after consulting with the freight industry]; and (iii) the exit slip way was not going to be compliant and as a result there would be variable speed limit on the A20 to cope with the 3600 HGVs. Mr Whybrow advised that the predictions on the increased volume of HGVs coming through Dover meant that by the time the lorry park was built it would be taking up some of the increase in volume and this would still leave the same number of HGVs as there were now on the M20 when Operation Stack arose.  Mr Whybrow considered that this report contradicted the work carried out by KCC a year ago on various sites for lorry parks when at the time the Stanford site was rejected due to issues of access and operation, landscape, serious environmental constraints, ecology, stakeholders and reference to the blight on Sellindge and Stanford. Mr Whybrow strongly suggested that this was not a proper consultation and the preferred option had already been decided. 

l)     Mr Balfour stated that this was not a kneejerk reaction.  He disagreed with the suggestion that KCC should respond to the consultation asking for Highway’s England to look at this again.  Kent had been trying to find a solution for many years, but did not have the funds for a solution.   He stressed that this was not Kent’s consultation and a considerable number of sites had been looked at by KCC and by Highways England, which had been specifically involved since February 2015.  Kent would be doing all it could through the use of technology and developing commercial lorry parks across the country for a holistic solution of which this was a part.

m)  Mr Baldock made the following points: (i) this was not a solution and the proposed location was an unsuitable site and would not solve the problem. He suggested that; (ii) the countryside would be destroyed for the occasional use as a lorry park; (iii) it was not a money maker and therefore would not pay for itself; (iv) it would be a white elephant;  (v) he agreed with Mr Whybrow’s response to the consultation; (vi) as Highways England had disregarded KCC’s policies he feared that this could be done again in the future; and (vii) he reflected on other schemes when compensation was not supported by the local authority. 

n)   Mr MacDowall made the following comments; (i) he supported having lorry parks around the country; (ii) he agreed that a major lorry park being at the Stanford West site; (iii) he suggested that a representative from the Highways Agency or the freight industry be invited to a meeting with Members to discuss logistics and whether having the site near the port was the best one;  (iv) he had concerns about the slip road not being compliant and made a request for this to be challenged; (v) he considered that Dover had suffered congestion in the area for many years but he would like to see Dover TAP removed but at a later date;  (vi)he considered that the A2 should be duelled to create an alternate route out of Dover.  Mr Balfour responded to Mr Baldock and Mr MacDowall confirming that the £250m would be used solely for the construction of the lorry park.  He advised that HGV representatives had already been invited to private meetings and had met with the Gateway Committee.  At those meeting they confirmed that Dover was where HGV’s would travel to and from as it was quickest and shortest route from Europe to the UK.

10.         Following Members comments, Mr Balfour concluded that the response to the Highway England would stand subject to the inclusion of (i) the need for a better TAP; (ii) reinforcing the need for proper compensation for residents; and (iii) a push for the other factors that were needed to ensure proper management of HGVs across the country because it was a national problem.

11.         Mr Whybrow moved and Mr Baldock seconded, the following amendment:

“That KCC’s response to the consultation paper should be that a more strategic look at the whole option of lorry parks and how the £250m was going to be spent and that Kent did not support the Stanford West lorry park fundamentally”. 

12.         The Chairman asked Members to vote on the proposed amendment and agreed to Mr Whybrow and Mr Baldock request for the votes to be recorded, the votes cast were as follows:                                                         

 For (2)

Mr Baldock, Mr Whybrow

Against (11)

Mr Caller, Dr Eddy, Mr Chittenden, Mr Homewood, Mr Ozog, Mr Pearman, Mrs Stockell,  Mr Simkins, Mrs Waters, Mr Wickham, Mr MacDowall.

Amendment lost

The Chairman asked Members to vote on the recommendation in the report subject to the additional comments raised in paragraph above, the votes cast were as follows:

For (11)

Mr Caller, Dr Eddy, Mr Chittenden, Mr Homewood, Mr Ozog, Mr Pearman, Mrs Stockell,  Mr Simkins, Mrs Waters, Mr Wickham, Mr MacDowall.

Against (2)

Mr Baldock, Mr Whybrow

carried

13.         RESOLVED that:-

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

(b)  subject to the inclusion of; (i) the need for a better TAP; (ii) reinforcing the need for proper compensation for residents; and (iii) a push for the other factors that were needed to ensure proper management of HGVs across the nation as this was a national problem the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee endorsed the proposed response to the Highways England Consultation on a proposal to create a Permanent Lorry Area adjacent to the M20 at Stanford as set out in the report.