Agenda item

(Report by Capital Programme Manager)

(1)       In December 2005, the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Supporting Independence took the decision, following public consultation, to progress the scheme known as Alternative Route B.  The Officer recommendation was for Alternative Route A and Members of the Highways Advisory Board were split equally in their views between the two options.  The adopted route was strongly opposed by M-Real New Thames Ltd and M-Real Sittingbourne Ltd, who owned Kemsley Mill, and the adjacent and associated private sector interests of Fletcher Challenge Industries, Rexam Property Developments and Kemsley Fields Ltd who were now all directly affected (all referred to for ease in the report as ‘the Mill’).  They saw no basis for departing from the established proposals and affecting their existing and future interests to the benefit of residents of new housing development in the Recreation Way area.

(2)       The adopted scheme had been progressed and it achieved planning consent in September 2006.  The Mill retained their strong opposition to the scheme.  The Compulsory Purchase Order, Side Roads Order and the S106 Scheme for the Milton Creek Crossing were published in February 2007.  The Mill again retained their objections to the Compulsory Purchase Order and Side Roads Order and submitted formal statutory objections.  There were 27 objections to the S106 Scheme.

(3)       The normal process would now be for the Secretary of State to instruct a Public Inquiry following the advice of the County Council on a suggested venue and dates.  At the Inquiry the County Council would present evidence to convince the Inspector, appointed by the Secretary of State, of the merits of the scheme.  This could be done and a robust case could be presented.  However, there were a number of aspects that needed to be considered in view of the continued and sustained objections of the Mill.  These could be summarised as follows:-

·                    The Mill was a long standing major employer and contributor to the economy of the town.

·                    A key purpose of the scheme was to support existing businesses and future regeneration.

·                    The scheme reduced the length of storage available for in-bound HGV’s on the approach to the Mill and the weighbridge.

·                    The scheme took land from that designated in the Local Plan for a possible future paper making mill – while the land take was relatively small, paper mills were long linear production lines and any loss of land was considered significant by the Mill.

·                    The Scheme encroached onto land that the Mill was seeking to have designated in the Local Plan for commercial development.

·                    The route of the Relief Road was long established and pre dated residential development in the immediate area and particularly Recreation Way.

·                    Owners of the houses would have acquired the properties in the knowledge of the proposals for the Relief Road.

·                    The Officer recommendation was for Alternative Route A.

(4)       Officers had maintained contact with the Mill to better understand the operation of the mill, their objections and to challenge their validity.  While their initial reaction to the chosen route was understandable, the objections had not lessened with time.  Many of the objections could be tested by simple inspection and others were related to the history of the Relief Road and local development.  The issue of the impact on a future paper making mill was harder to judge without a concept design, however, it could not be denied that the site was constrained by a pylon to the north and Ridham Avenue to the south and any loss of land however small could be a concern.

(5)       The availability of compulsory powers of acquisition was a powerful facility available to local authorities.  Compulsory Purchase Orders were not confirmed lightly and there was stringent scrutiny where there were statutory objections.  As part of the process at Inquiry, an Inspector might reasonably ask if there was a compromise solution.  In view of the sustained objections from the Mill and in anticipation of the public inquiry, investigations had been carried out.

(6)       The fundamental objectives were to see if an amended junction arrangement was possible at Ridham Avenue that would:-

·                    Avoid landtake from the site identified for a future paper making mill.

·                    Maximise the length of road available for the storage of HGV’s entering the Mill.

·                    Keep the basic alignment of the Relief Road route on the east side of the overhead electric power line to try and maintain distance from the houses in Recreation Way that was a key reason for the Cabinet Member’s decision to adopt Alternative Route B.

·                    Reduce the landtake where the Mill had commercial development aspirations.

(7)       Three options had been considered:-

Option A – Relocating the roundabout and centred on the pylon. – Drawing no. 4568/WD/86RevA and Fig. 2.

This avoided critical land take and increased HGV storage.  It was a conventional roundabout layout.

Option B – Extending the existing roundabout into a lozenge shape enclosing the pylon - Drawing no. 4568/WD/87RevBO and Fig 3.

This avoided critical land take and maximised HGV storage.  It lengthened the junction which would probably be a concern to residents.  Its unconventional layout was a slight concern with the risk of faster traffic on the straight sections.

Option C – Extending the existing roundabout along Ridham Avenue into a lozenge shape – Drawing no. 4588/WD/88RevO and Fig. 4.

This option involved the least change from the current scheme but was not favoured.  It still required land from the future mill site and was physically constrained by the power line pylon making it difficult to achieve the Relief Road and Mill entrance link connections in the space available.

(8)       If an amended scheme was to be proposed then it was a choice between Option A and Option B.  Option A was to be preferred because it was a conventional layout and had least increased impact on residents of Recreation Way.  There would be a slight increase in noise levels although a noise bund topped by a noise fence would help to mitigate the effects.  In noise assessment terms 3 properties were predicted to have a noise increase of just over 3dB(A) but still well below the 68dB(A) threshold whereby noise insulation would be offered.

(9)       If an amended scheme was promoted then the residents of Recreation Way in the immediate area of the relocated roundabout could be expected to be concerned.  If such a scheme was pursued then they might object to the revised planning application that would be required and in due course might become non-statutory objectors to subsequent statutory Orders.

(10)     The Mill supported the concept of the Relief Road and were frustrated that they felt obliged to object to the current scheme in order to protect their operational, financial and commercial interests.  In ‘without prejudice’ discussions they had indicated that while they continued to believe that Alternative Route A should have been adopted and would argue this at Inquiry, they would be willing to support Option A because it goes a significant way to addressing their concerns.  Support for Option A was however conditional because they were very concerned about the potential Land Compensation Act Part 1 liability in respect of the Kemsley Fields element of the Relief Road that required to take account of the future use of the full Relief Road.  This was a difficult issue to resolve and for now only a commitment to discuss this concern with them to see if there was any equitable solution that could be considered could be given.  Despite this issue, it was not directly related to the fundamental operational and land use objections and it was considered that there would be more confidence in defending the compromise layout offered by Option A at any future Public Inquiry.

(11)     In regard to other issues, if the land south of the Mill was accepted by the Local Plan Inspector for commercial development then under any scheme scenario it was unlikely that access would be acceptable off Ridham Avenue.  In that eventuality it was accepted that access would be required from a ‘T’ junction directly off the Relief Road.  In the event that the retained land between the Relief Road and Recreation Way had development potential then under any scheme scenario it would be possible for access to be provided from the roundabout as a fourth arm.

(12)     Swale Borough Council was keen for the Relief Road to proceed to support the immediate need and on-going regeneration of the town.  It had informally indicated that it would support a compromise scheme and preferably Option A.

(13)     The S106 Scheme provided for a fixed link bridge and an air clearance of 4.2m above Mean High Water Spring tide levels.  The proposal had been the subject of public consultation and was reported to the Board in January 2006.  Of the 27 objections, 17 were from individuals with boating interests and 7 were from representatives of boating organisations.  The objections were generally that an opening bridge should be provided because the fixed link would deny access to yachts, limit the regeneration and tourism opportunities and fail to acknowledge the key role that Milton Creek played in the history of Sittingbourne.

(14)     The reality was that the Creek was little used and an opening bridge had a high extra-over capital cost and in particular an annual ongoing operation and maintenance revenue cost.  Up until now, these had been subjective statements based on experience and objectors had expressed concern that these had not been substantiated.  It was acknowledged that further research would be required in any event to present as evidence at an Inquiry and that this would be shared with objectors.  Our consultant, Jacobs, had produced a draft Report that indicated that an opening bridge would have an increased capital cost of between £3.5 – 4.0m and a revenue cost of between £30,000 - £90,000, depending on the number of openings per annum, that would equate to an equivalent extra-over commuted sum provision of £0.8m to £2.3m.  The maintenance costs of a fixed link were relatively negligible in this context.

(15)     The concerns of the objectors were well known and understood but existing use was minimal and any recent increased use had probably been generated by the threat of the proposal.  Future potential use was not really supported by local policy framework or emerging development proposals.  The Relief Road was an expensive scheme and could not support the increased median cost of about £5.0m.

(16)     The conclusion had to be that the proposed S106 Scheme for the fixed link should continue to be promoted.  In any event, it would be desirable to republish the S106 Scheme because of a technical error in the Order drafting.

Proposed Way Forward – Compulsory Purchase Order and Side Roads Order

(a)       The Board support the concept of a compromise junction arrangement at Ridham Avenue with a preference for Option A.

(b)       The Mill and the other private sector interests be consulted with the expectation that they would give conditional support to Option A.

(c)        The residents of the Recreation Way area be informed about the reasons for the change to the proposals and invited to make comments.

(d)       The Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste then be invited to take a formal decision.

(e)       On the presumption that the decision was for a compromise junction arrangement an amended or new planning application would be submitted.

(f)         Subject to achieving planning consent, revised Orders would then be published.

Proposed Way Forward – S106 Scheme

(a)       The Board note the draft Bridge Report and the view that the proposed scheme for a fixed link should continue to be promoted.

(b)       The objectors to the Scheme be invited to a briefing on the draft Bridge Report and given the opportunity to make further comments.

(c)        The Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste be invited to take a formal decision on the form of the bridge crossing prior to the republication of the S106 Scheme.

(17)     The local County Members had been consulted on the Report and particularly the compromise option aspects at Ridham Avenue.  They would also have the opportunity to comment before the Cabinet Member took the decision.

(18)     The Relief Road was an important scheme for Sittingbourne and it was important that progress was made quickly and any further slippage avoided.  It would be the objective for the consultation on the compromise layout at Ridham Avenue to be conducted by letter with a response time of two weeks so that the Cabinet Member was in a position to take a decision at the end of July.

(19)     There were no immediate financial implications.  The works costs of a compromise junction were comparable to the proposed scheme.  The land costs could be expected to be less with a compromise scheme that had the support of the private sector although this would be offset in part by likely increased Land Compensation Act Part 1 liability to residents of the Recreation Way area.

(20)     Clearly if any decision was taken to promote an open bridge crossing of Milton Creek then this would have significant cost and funding implications.

(21)     The Board supported the proposal for recommendation to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Waste that the proposals outlined above under ‘The Way Forward’ be approved.