Agenda item

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Cabinet Member for Economic Development; and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport that outlines a proposed response to the Lower Thames Crossing route options consultation launched by Highways England on 26 January.

1.            The Director of Environment, Planning and Enforcement, Mrs Stewart, introduced a report that outlined a proposed draft response to the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) route options launched by Highways England (HE) on 24 January 2016.

2.            Mrs Stewart highlighted that the report would also be considered by the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee at its meeting on 11 March and the final version of the response would be submitted to Cabinet on 21 March for approval to meet the HE deadline on 24 March 2016.  She advised that there had been engagement with the local councils directly affected by the proposed routes into Kent including Gravesham Borough Council and Medway Council.

3.            The report focused on Option C which built on the previous response to the consultation by the Department for Transport (DfT) in 2013 when KCC highlighted the economic growth and transport benefits and the greater network reliance of the creation of a new strategic route from Dover to the Midlands and the North.  Concerns had been raised within the response regarding the dropping of C variant and the need for measures to mitigate local and environmental impact as well as the need for compensation scheme for local residents and businesses.

4.            The Transport Strategy Manager, Mr Ratcliffe, described the proposed route options set out in the consultation.  He advised that Option C was HE’s preferred option and within that option there were three potential routes through Essex with two possible alignments in Kent. .  HE preferred option was to the Eastern Southern Link.  This was an entirely new route that had not been considered.  In the 2013 consultation HE’s proposed alignment ran through Shorne village, Shorn Woods and connected to Junction 1 of the M2.  This route had been changed to skirt round the edge of Shorne and then connect into Junction 1 of the M2.  KCC’s response in 2013 argued strongly against that initial alignment by DfT and put forward an alternative Link which was now being described as the Western Southern Link.  This provides a connection into the Gravesend East junction, skirting round the Eastern edge of Gravesend, between Thong and the eastern side of Gravesend and then a  bored tunnel just south of the Lower Higham Road.  There was a new proposed junction on the A226.   KCC’s proposed response to the consultation would continue with its support for the Western Southern Link option within Option C subject to some further modifications of the junction design put forward.  Mr Ratcliffe stressed that the detailed design had not been produced  and those in the consultation were purely illustrative.  The detailed designs would be produced after the Secretary of State had chosen a preferred route.  KCC would not be supporting the proposed junction at the A226 because strategic traffic should remain on the strategic road network.

5.            Mrs Stewart and Mr Ratcliffe noted comments and responded to questions by Members as follows:-

a)     The Cabinet Member for Economic Development, Mr Dance commented on the economics of the County and the predicted 10% increase in freight traffic year on year through the Channel Tunnel and the Port of Dover.  He stated that Option C was the preferred option that offered choice.

b)     The Local Member for Gravesham Rural, Mr Sweetland, thanked the Chairman for being allowed to speak at the meeting.  He advised that he did not support Option C.  He was speaking on behalf of the 16,500 electorate in his area of which 63% voted for the current administration and felt let down.  Mr Sweetland had received a petition from the Villages of Shorne, Cobham, Higham and Chalk with nearly 3500 signatures.  This had triggered the opportunity for the petitioners’ views to be heard at the next Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee on 11 March.  He also raised the following points:

·      The outcome of this item at the Cabinet Committees was a fait accompli. 

·      Kent did need growth but considered that there would be no growth but there would be  gridlock. 

·      There needed to be an assurance that the option chosen by the Secretary of State this was scrutinised to avoid gridlock. 

·      One area that KCC was keen to promote in 2013 was Option C variance. 

·      How would the predicted increased traffic in ten years’ time travel to another crossing built at East of Gravesham.

·      The HE consultation did not address a case for upgrading existing roads such as Bluebell Hill or the A249 or the A227 which were routes used by existing traffic that were already congested. 

·      There would be a need for an interchange for traffic to get to the M2 and A2 which had not been mentioned in the consultation.  KCC had previously addressed this in its response in 2013. 

·      The issues of air pollution had been observed over the years at Dartford. Gravesham did not want the same issues in the area.

·      The reference to additional housing growth was not included in Gravesham’s Local Plan and this should be addressed with Gravesham Borough Council.

·      The HE Consultation had been poorly handled. Firstly, only Option C was going to be consulted on, then Option A was added. The Consultation was leaked a week early which cause confusion; and only 10% of the supporting documentation was made available.

·      The Chairman and Mrs Cooper advised that KCC’s response   did address the issues of the Option C Variant in paragraph 3.9 page 54 of the report.

c)     A comment was made that a status quo was not an Option.  This was about Kent, South East England and the UK economy and support should be given to the proposed response.

d)     Comments were made that the criticisms outlined on page 81, section 9 of the report of HE’s handling of the consultation; and the issue of compensation was in Appendix C, page 81 under paragraph 8.6 of the report were welcomed. 

e)     Support was given to the suggestions for further improvements to the existing road network.

f)      A comment was made about the A226 and standing traffic would create air pollution that did not exist in the Shorne Country Park

g)     A Member expressed concern that the A229 and A249 were being considered as links between the A2 and M20.

      Mrs Stewart advised that the response did refer to wider network improvements in Appendix C, page78 paragraph 7.8.  The DfT has advised that they would discuss the issues in the wider investment programmes.

h)     A Member commented that making a link to the A226 would be  an unparalleled disaster as it would  open up an alternative rat run route that everyone would try to use especially when there were issues on the main routes and the effects on the local communities would be disastrous.

i)       The options do not move the economic benefit to the Swale area but potentially moved some of the disbenefits to Swale.

j)       For the Kent economy Option C was the right option but from an environmental point of view it has to be questioned whether increased traffic can be diverted from the M20 onto the A2 M2 corridor whilst   not guaranteeing improvements on that corridor..

k)     It was suggested that Option C was not a solution as it created a new exit for traffic leaving the A2.  To keep the traffic flowing it would be preferable to improve the existing roads and improve the existing junctions. It was suggested that HE retained Option A because; (i) it was the cheapest and most likely to happen in the short term; and (ii) once you were on the road and kept traffic moving was the best way to get to a destination. 

l)       Further comments were made as follows:

·         that Option C was poorly thought out as most traffic would already be on the M25 and moving the traffic onto the A2/M2 corridor was not a solution as those roads would be unable to cope with the increase in traffic. 

·         KCC had set out a range of proposals but the conversations with DfT had not been reflected in the response.

·         Members were being asked to response to an option that would bring gridlock to the other side of the County. 

·         KCC should request further information regarding Option A, if this option was upgraded it was far more realistic.

·         A comment was made that KCC was doing it all it could do to; protect local people and the environment.

6.            RESOLVED that responses by Members be noted and the comments be considered by the drafting officers of the proposed response to the Highways England consultation on a proposed route for a new Lower Thames Crossing.