Agenda item

(Item C2)

Mr N Baker (Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport), Ms H Chughtai (Director of Highways and Transportation), Mr R Emmett (Senior Highway Manager), and Mr S Jones (Corporate Director for Growth, Environment and Transport) were in attendance for this item.

1. Mr Jones introduced the report and outlined the financial viability and risks of the proposed scheme. He explained that the project had already been debated and agreed at Planning Committee, and followed national guidelines and planning consents.

2. Members asked the following questions and made comments to Mr Jones and Mr Baker:

a)    A Member raised several concerns regarding the environmental and community impacts of the scheme, and questioned who would be monitoring and enforcing the environmental mitigations. The Member asked for regular updates to be included on the Work Programme. They felt that the scheme did not align with the KCC ‘Framing Kent’s Future’ document and raised concerns regarding the air quality in the local area due to dust and the removal of trees. The Member highlighted point 4.83 in the report and asked what environmental mitigation would be undertaken for local wildlife and the wetlands located under the bridge. They raised concern regarding the old shooting range in Broad Oak that had introduced lead contamination in the ground and would be within the Sturry Link Road project boundaries. They also raised concern regarding increased yellow algae on the nearby lake due to increased human activity in the area. The Member felt that community engagement had been poor, and comments and concerns raised by residents had not been recorded. Mr Baker agreed to organise a session with local Ward Members to discuss environmental issues surrounding the project. Mr Jones stated that the Environment and Transport Cabinet Committee would receive regular updates regarding the project and would continue to consider risk and mitigations. Mr Jones added that the Growth Without Gridlock Policy document contained with Framing Kent’s Future outlined the need for projects such as the Sturry Link Road and was in line with the national Transport Document.

b)    A number of Members raised concerns regarding the financial viability of the project, including the large proportion of funding through S106 monies which was not guaranteed and could be appealed against by developers in future years. Mr Baker agreed with concerns regarding the S106 funding contribution system, and highlighted point 4.7 of the report which outlined the use of banked funds. Mr Jones told Members that banked S106 contributions had an associated bond to ensure legal and financial protection. Mechanisms were also included within the project to ensure that the S151 Officer and Members were in agreement regarding the project before the breakpoint and compulsory purchase orders. Mr Jones told Members that S106 money was split between the developers, KCC and Canterbury City Council, so KCC would not have sole liability if S106 money was withdrawn.

c)    The Chairman asked officers to consider and outline a ‘Plan B’ in the eventuality that S106 funding was withdrawn.

d)    A Member felt that the S106 monies allocated for this scheme could be utilised better for other schemes within Kent.

e)    A Member asked if officers had spoken with Network Rail on alternative options such as extending the platform or providing a temporary platform at Sturry station to ensure trains with more carriages could fit on the platform and therefore reduce traffic congestion. Traffic modelling could then be undertaken to see if a link road was necessary in addition to these alternative options. Mr Jones explained that other alternatives such as platform improvements would not greatly improve the road as the level-crossing would remain a pinch point in the road network. Platform lengthening could be an alternative mitigation measure if required.

f)     A Member highlighted environmental mitigation measures and asked what would happen if mitigation was not adhered to and pollutants were found in the River Stour.

g)    A Member questioned the timeframe for the project and if S106 money usage was time limited. Mr Jones explained that the construction start date remained a financial challenge as labour and material costs had increased since 2020, but KCC would work with the contractor to start before the breakpoint in 2025.

RESOLVED: That the Committee recommended that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport consider all highways projects, including the A28 Sturry Link Road project, in relation to funding, funding risks, and borrowing, particularly in relation to S106 exposure.