A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements

Highways England Statement of Case

In respect of Orders under Provisions of the Highways Act 1980

May 2019

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

STATEMENT OF CASE

for

THE HIGHWAYS ENGLAND (A2 TRUNK ROAD BEAN AND EBBSFLEET JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER 2019

and

THE HIGHWAYS ENGLAND (A2 TRUNK ROAD BEAN AND EBBSFLEET JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS) (SIDE ROADS) ORDER 2019

and

THE A2 TRUNK ROAD (BEAN AND EBBSFLEET JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS)

(SLIP ROADS AND ROUNDABOUTS) ORDER 20[ ]

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Table of contents

Chapter Pages 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Overview 1 1.2. The Scheme 1 1.3. Secretary of State’s responsibilities 3 2. Background 4 2.1. Existing conditions 4 2.2. Scheme history 5 2.3. Alternatives considered 5 2.4. Need for and benefits of the Scheme 6 2.5. Scheme objectives 7 3. Environmental Assessment of the Scheme 8 3.1. Introduction 8 3.2. Summary of environmental assessment 9 4. Traffic and Economic Assessment of the Scheme 13 4.1. Introduction 13 4.2. The strategic traffic model 13 4.3. Strategic traffic forecasts 14 4.4. Operational model assessment 22 4.5. Economic performance of the Scheme 24 4.6. Additional sensitivity tests 26 5. The Orders 27 5.1. The planning position 27 5.2. The Compulsory Purchase Order 27 5.3. The Line Order 29 5.4. The SRO 29 6. The Case for Compulsory Acquisition 32 6.1. Introduction 32 6.2. Compelling case in the public interest 32 6.3. Government transport policy 35 6.4. Acquisition of land and rights by agreement 39 6.5. Interference with human rights 40 6.6. Implementation of the Scheme 42 6.7. Use of the land 43 6.8. Other consents and impediments 43 7. Special Considerations 45 7.1. Crown land 45

i

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

7.2. Statutory undertakers’ apparatus and land 45 7.3. Veteran trees 45 7.4. Green Belt 47 8. Objections and Representations 50 8.1. Summary 50 8.2. Responses of support 51 8.3. Statutory objections 52 8.4. Non-statutory objections 62 8.5. Representations 67 8.6. General enquiries 79 9. Specialist Evidence and Deposit Documents 81 9.1. Proofs of evidence 81 9.2. Deposit documents 81

Appendix 1 – Deposit Documents

Appendix 2 – Status of negotiations with landowners Tables Table 4.1 Journey Time - AM Peak (07:00 to 08:00) ...... 21 Table 4.2 Journey Time - Inter Peak (09:00 to 15:00) ...... 22 Table 4.3 Journey Time - PM Peak (17:00 to 18:00) ...... 22 Table 4.4 Network Performance Comparisons – 2023 DM & 2023 DS ...... 23 Table 4.5 Network Performance Comparisons – 2038 DM & 2023 DS ...... 23 Table 4.6 Summary of economic assessment results ...... 25

Figures Figure 4-1: Area of Detailed Modelling ...... 14 Figure 4-2 2038 AM Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 15 Figure 4-3 2038 AM Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 16 Figure 4-4 2038 Inter Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 17 Figure 4-5 2038 Inter Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 18 Figure 4-6 2038 PM Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 19 Figure 4-7 2038 PM Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr) ...... 20 Figure 4-8 Journey Time Routes ...... 21

ii

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Glossary of terms and abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

ALA Acquisition of Land Act AM Ante meridiem AMMS Archaeological Mitigation and Management Strategy AQMA Air Quality Management Areas BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio BT British Telecommunications CPO Compulsory Purchase Order CPRE Campaign to Protect Rural England CS Core Strategy DBC Dartford Borough Council DCLG Department for Communities and Local Government DfT Department for Transport DM Do Minimum DMRB Design Manual for Roads and Bridges DS Do Something ECHR European Convention on Human Rights EDC Ebbsfleet Development Corporation EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EIGP Ebbsfleet Investment General Partners ES Environmental Statement GA General Arrangement GPDO General Permitted Development Order ha Hectare HA Highways Act HE Highways England KCC Kent County Council LLP Limited Liability Company LPAs Local Planning Authorities LTC Lower Thames Crossing LWS Local Wildlife Site NIA Noise Important Areas MHCLG Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government NMU Non-motorised user

iii

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Abbreviation Definition

NN NPS National Networks National Policy Statement NPPF National Planning Policy Framework NPV Net Present Value NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide NRSWA New Roads and Street Works Act (1991) NSIP Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project OCEMP Outline Construction Environmental Management Plan OEMP Outline Environmental Management Plan PLC Public Limited Company PM Post meridiem PRoW Public Right of Way PVB Present Value of Benefits PVC Present Value of Costs REAC Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments REP Representation RIS Road Investment Strategy RTF Road Traffic Forecasts SDLLP Swanscombe Development LLP SEBs Statutory Environmental Bodies SR13 2013 Spending Review SRN Strategic Road Network SRO Side Roads Order SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest STIPS Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme STP Strategic Transport Programme TUBA Transport User Benefit Analysis UKPN UK Power Networks UTC Urban Traffic Management Control Veh/hr Vehicles per hour WebTAG Web based Transport Analysis Guidance

iv

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

1. Introduction 1.1. Overview

1.1.1. This Statement of Case relates to the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements (the "Scheme") and the Orders that were submitted by Highways England Company Limited (the "Applicant") to the Secretary of State for Transport (the "Secretary of State") on 14 February 2019. It relates to the following orders: (Appendix 1, A.1 to A.7)

a) The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) Compulsory Purchase Order 2019 (the "CPO"); b) The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Side Roads) Order 2019 (the "SRO"); and c) The A2 Trunk Road (Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Slip Roads and Roundabouts) Order 20[o] (the "Line Order") together, the "Orders". 1.1.2. The decision on whether the Scheme will be subject to a Public Inquiry is made by the Secretary of State. A notice was issued by the Department for Transport on 4 April 2019 confirming that the Secretary of State intends to hold a Public Inquiry.

1.1.3. This Statement is provided pursuant to Rule 7 of the Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 (Appendix 1, F.1) and Rule 6 of the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994 (Appendix 1, F.2). It sets out the case that the Applicant will present at the Public Inquiry in support of the Orders, although the Applicant reserves the right to supplement the issues to be addressed and produce further documents and evidence in response to submissions made by other parties to the Inquiry. 1.2. The Scheme

1.2.1. The Scheme is located within the administrative boundaries of Dartford Borough Council and Gravesham Borough Council in Kent. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation are the planning authority for the area and Kent County Council is the local highway authority. The Scheme comprises improvements to the junctions at Bean and Ebbsfleet and the A2 mainline, including improved provision for non- motorised users.

1.2.2. An indicative layout of the Scheme illustrating the works referred to in the following paragraphs is provided on the General Arrangement Drawings (Appendix 1, A.9 to A.25).

Bean Junction 1.2.3. The proposed Bean junction improvements broadly retain the existing layout but with an additional bridge over the A2 adjacent to the existing Bean Lane overbridge and a new slip road on to the A2 for eastbound traffic.

Page 1 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

1.2.4. The existing roundabouts will also be enlarged and converted to full traffic signal control. The Bean North Roundabout will be widened to the east to accommodate an eastbound on-slip, full traffic signal control and a new southbound link to the new bridge over the A2. This will require demolition of eleven properties (Ightham Cottages) and the acquisition of Spirit's Rest Horse sanctuary.

1.2.5. A new bridge over the A2 east of the existing Bean Lane Overbridge will be provided for southbound traffic from the roundabout (the existing Bean Lane Overbridge will be used for northbound traffic) and there will be a new entry slip road on to the A2 for eastbound traffic. The entry slip will provide four running lanes eastbound between the entry slip and the A296 merge by replacing the hard shoulder with a hard strip.

1.2.6. The A2 westbound off-slip will be widened to three lanes on the approach to the roundabout with all three lanes available for right turn movement to Bean Lane (link road). The existing B255/A296 slip road will be kept open in its existing layout, including the dedicated left turn lane. A narrow traffic island or barrier will be introduced to the B255 southbound carriageway between the Bluewater Parkway merge and the A296 diverge, segregating the four-lane carriageway into a dual two-lane carriageway.

Ebbsfleet Junction 1.2.7. The proposed Ebbsfleet Junction improvements also broadly follow the existing road layout but with the existing roundabouts enlarged and provision of full traffic signal control. Access will be provided from the junctions to the new and future development areas. The link road between the roundabouts will be widened from the existing single carriageway to a dual two-lane carriageway with additional widening to three lanes on the approach to the roundabouts. The existing eastbound and westbound off-slips will be retained.

1.2.8. The Ebbsfleet East Roundabout will be extended to the north and an additional arm added to accommodate access to the proposed Station Quarter South development. The eastbound exit arm from Ebbsfleet East Roundabout will be widened to three lanes, which divides into two carriageways with one lane heading to the local road network at Pepperhill Junction and the other two lanes heading to the A2. The eastbound off-slip will be widened at the approach to the roundabout with a dedicated signal controlled left turn lane.

1.2.9. The Ebbsfleet West Roundabout will be extended to the south and will be fully signalised. The west arm at the roundabout will provide access to the Ebbsfleet Green development. The circulatory carriageway will be widened to provide for three lanes. The entry to the roundabout from the north will also be widened to three lanes on the approach to the junction.

A2 mainline 1.2.10. Narrow lanes will be provided along the A2 eastbound carriageway over a length of approximately 1.5km between Bean Junction and Ebbsfleet Junction. This is required to avoid to the need to widen the A2 into the north verge, where significant

Page 2 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

constraints are present including ancient woodland, electricity pylons, a subway and a grade II listed arched footbridge.

1.2.11. Along this section the central reserve metal barrier will be replaced with rigid concrete barrier to provide more width on the eastbound carriageway. The existing central reserve concrete barrier will be shifted slightly south under Swanscombe Footbridge, to provide more width on the eastbound carriageway. There will be changes to the gantries along the A2 including one demolished gantry, two new cantilever gantries and changes to the signs and signals on retained gantries.

Non-motorised user provisions for walkers, and cyclists 1.2.12. A number of public rights of way (PRoW), footways and cycleways are located close to the Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions. A non-motorised user (NMU) route links the A296 to Bean Village via Bean Lane in front of Ightham Cottages and Hope Cottages. This includes a footway which is located on the eastern side of the existing B255 Bean Lane Overbridge with a signalised pedestrian crossing adjacent to Hope Cottages. Cyclists are instructed to dismount when using the footway across the existing Bean Lane Overbridge. The Bean Junction improvements will close the existing footway over the bridge. As a replacement for this link it is proposed to include a new segregated cycleway and footway across the east side of the new bridge and along the east side of Bean Lane (North), crossing the new slip roads via new signalised crossings.

Mitigation and other works 1.2.13. The works described above would be subject to specific mitigation requirements, for example, landscaping and environmental mitigation. The Scheme also includes amendments to existing attenuations ponds to either side of Bean Junction and an area for Enhanced Environmental Mitigation to the east of the Bean South Roundabout. These are set out in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) and the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC) and shown on the Preliminary Outline Environmental Design drawings, which are included as Figure 2.3 in the Environmental Statement Volume 2 (Appendix 1, B.3). 1.3. Secretary of State’s responsibilities

1.3.1. The Applicant is the government-owned company charged with operating, maintaining and improving the strategic road network (motorways and trunk roads) in England on behalf of the Secretary of State.

1.3.2. The Applicant is the Highway Authority for the A2 Trunk road including the slip roads at the Bean Junction and the whole of the Ebbsfleet Junction. Kent County Council is the Highway Authority for all other public roads connecting at the junctions.

Page 3 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

2. Background 2.1. Existing conditions

2.1.1. Bean Junction is the first junction on the A2 to the east of the M25. The land south of the A296 (Watling Street and Roman Road) and south of the A2 east of the Bean Junction merge is designated as green belt in the Dartford Local Plan and consists of villages, fields and woodland.

2.1.2. North of the green belt, the land is urban with areas of housing and employment centred on Northfleet and Swanscombe. To the north of the A2, between the junctions, is an old chalk pit which is part of the Ebbsfleet Garden City development.

2.1.3. Major developments accessed from the junctions are Bluewater Shopping Centre (located to the north of Bean Junction off the B255) and Ebbsfleet International Station (north of Ebbsfleet Junction off the A2260).

2.1.4. The existing A2 highway through the area is a 4-lane dual all-purpose road which reduces to 3-lanes through Bean Junction to accommodate dedicated diverge and merge lanes either side of the Junction. The alignment generally runs in an east/west direction, with large radius curves, and follows the existing undulating topography, falling from a high point just east of Bean Junction to a low point at Pepperhill, east of the Ebbsfleet Junction.

2.1.5. The A2 was originally constructed as a three-lane dual carriageway in the mid- 1960s and in the subsequent decades, various improvements have been made, including the addition of hard shoulders. The eastbound carriageway of the A2 between the Bean entry slip road and Pepperhill was widened from three to four lanes in 1999 as part of the Bluewater development. The westbound carriageway was then widened in 2003 under Phase 1 of the A2 Bean to Cobham Widening Scheme. The A2 between the M25 and the A2 Bean Junction was widened to four lanes in each direction in 2008 as part of the A2/A282 Dartford Improvement Scheme.

Bean Junction 2.1.6. The Bean Junction was rebuilt in 1999 as part of the Bluewater development and comprises three roundabouts and associated slip roads. The eastbound on-slip road is formed from the old A2 (now the A296 Watling Street). As part of the redesign of the junction layout significant modifications were made to the overbridge linking the east and west bound slip roads.

Ebbsfleet Junction 2.1.7. The Ebbsfleet junction connects the A2 to the A2260 Southfleet Road. The junction comprises two roundabouts joined by a short link road and associated slip roads. It was constructed in 2005 by Union Railways to serve the Ebbsfleet International Rail Station.

Page 4 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

2.2. Scheme history

2.2.1. The need for the Scheme has been recognised at a national and regional level for over a decade. In 2006 work commenced on the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme (STP), which involved modelling the transport impacts arising from planned development in the area and identifying schemes to mitigate those impacts. The Highways Agency was one of the partners involved in preparing the STP. Two of the schemes identified for inclusion in the STP were improvements to the A2 Ebbsfleet Junction and improvements to the A2 Bean Junction.

2.2.2. In 2008 an initial strategy shaping, and prioritisation study was undertaken by the Highways Agency. The study identified improvement options for the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions. In 2010, funding for the STP was withdrawn following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The schemes were revived in 2013 as part of the Government's Spending Review.

2.2.3. The Scheme is funded by the Department of Transport with Section 106 contributions provided via the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme and the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation. The Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme consists of seven improvement schemes (including this Scheme) that will partially be funded with developer contributions.

2.2.4. The Scheme Assessment report (August 2017) (Appendix 1, C.2 to C.5) describes how in July 2014 the Client Scheme Requirements for Stage 1 (Highways England’s Options Identification Stage) were developed with key stakeholders to include consideration of a wider range of options for the improvements than in the previous stage. As a result, high level alternative junction arrangements were developed and reviewed at a key stakeholder workshop in 2015 where some were rejected. 2.3. Alternatives considered

2.3.1. The Scheme is the product of a thorough option short listing and evaluation process as set out the Scheme Assessment Report, 2017 based on a staged approach that considered the merits of each option against the scheme objectives and an analysis and assessment of traffic, engineering, buildability and environmental factors, as well as engagement with stakeholders, the local community, and public consultation.

2.3.2. During Stage 1, the Option Identification Stage, a ‘long list’ of options was identified for both Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions with seven possible options at Bean and a single Option at Ebbsfleet. Options were reviewed and discounted due to limited connections to nearby road or development areas and capacity to accommodate the forecast traffic flows.

2.3.3. In April 2016 a short list of the Options was produced and comprised three options at Bean and a single option at Ebbsfleet. Bean Options 3 and 4 were assessed in combination with Ebbsfleet Option 1 and rejected due to their overall performance against assessment criteria, low value for money and cost of the Scheme. This

Page 5 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

included exceeding the Scheme budget, impacting on The Thrift and Darenth Wood ancient woodland and Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). As identified in the Technical Appraisal Report (January 2017), (Appendix 1, C7 and C8) the outcome of the appraisal was that only one option for each junction was selected and taken through to the consultation in 2017 (18 January to 01 March 2017) and a consultation report prepared (Appendix 1, C6).

2.3.4. Highways England published the Preferred Route Announcement and the Scheme Assessment Report in August 2017 that included a combined option of junction improvements at both Bean and Ebbsfleet. This option comprised Bean Option 5 and Ebbsfleet Option 1. The Scheme Assessment Report stated that the scheme option selected was considered to perform the best against scheme objectives and the majority of the appraisal factors, including supporting economic development and housing, minimising environmental impact and reducing accident rates.

2.3.5. Further details are provided within the Environmental Statement (ES), Volume 1, Chapter 3 Assessment of Alternatives (Appendix 1, B.1). 2.4. Need for and benefits of the Scheme

2.4.1. The Scheme is needed to support significant new residential and employment development in the region. Dartford Borough Council's Core Strategy (2011) (Appendix 1, H.1) identifies a requirement for up to 17,300 homes between 2006 and 2026. Development has already commenced to create a new Garden City at Ebbsfleet and the Borough has delivered 7,463 new homes across the plan period up to April 2018. Planning permission exists at April 2018 for 12,200 more (Annual Monitoring Report 2017 and Dartford Five Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply 2018) (Appendix 1, H.5). The Gravesham Core Strategy (2014) (Appendix 1, Ref H.4) sets a housing requirement of 6,170 dwellings for the period 2011 to 2028 of which 1,325 were completed up to April 2017 (Gravesham Five Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply Statement 2017-2022) (Appendix 1, H.6).

2.4.2. Although the existing road network usually operates within its design capacity, it does experience challenges, including congestion at Bean Junction during peak hours and traffic flows along the A2 being at, or near, route capacity. The existing road network in the area of the Scheme has insufficient reserve capacity to support future development.

2.4.3. Traffic modelling indicates that without the Scheme the road network will become congested, resulting in delays and adverse environmental effects:

 Traffic using the A2 Bean junction (including the A296) will increase by 30% in the weekday AM and PM peaks, and 44% in the weekday interpeak, by 2038 compared with 2016 traffic levels; and  Traffic using the Ebbsfleet junction will increase by 150% in the weekday AM peak, 197% in the weekday interpeak and 122% in the weekday PM peak, by 2038 compared with 2016 traffic levels. 2.4.4. Further information on the need for the Scheme, including details of the traffic modelling, is included in Chapter 4 of this Statement, the Transport Data Package (Appendix 1, H.4), the Transport Model Package (Appendix 1, H.5), the Transport

Page 6 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Forecasting Package (Appendix 1, I.6), the ES (Appendix 1, B.1 to B.4) and the Scheme Assessment Report (Appendix 1, C.2 to C.5).

2.4.5. The London Resort is a proposed nationally significant infrastructure project near Swanscombe, Kent, to the north of the Scheme. The planning status of the London Resort is not ‘near certain’ or ‘more than likely’ therefore it has not been included in the traffic modelling core scenario. This is in accordance with the approach described in section 2.3 of the Transport Forecasting Package; should this status change then this Scheme would be reviewed. The Applicant will inform the Secretary of State if this position should change in a way that has consequences for the Scheme and/or the Orders. 2.5. Scheme objectives

2.5.1. The Road Investment Strategy 2015 to 2020 (RIS) (Appendix 1, I.1) states that the Scheme should “enable major developments in the vicinity of Ebbsfleet” and “support the development of a Garden City at Ebbsfleet” to facilitate housing growth to accommodate the growing population.

2.5.2. The objectives for the Scheme were developed in conjunction with the Department for Transport (DfT) and local authorities. Improving the junctions will:

 Support economic and housing growth in north Kent, including Ebbsfleet Garden City;  Increase capacity of the junctions and minimise the impact on the A2;  Improve journey times;  Improve road safety;  Minimise impact on the environment; and  Provide value for money.

Page 7 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

3. Environmental Assessment of the Scheme 3.1. Introduction

3.1.1. An Environmental Statement assessing the environmental impact of the Scheme was published with the Orders on 14 February 2019; a copy of the Environmental Statement is included in the documents on deposit (Appendix 1, B.1 to B.4).

3.1.2. The full Environmental Statement comprises four volumes in total, as follows:

 The Environmental Statement Main Text setting out the environmental assessment in chapters (Volume 1);  The Environmental Statement Appendices (Volume 2);  The Environmental Statement Figures, including drawings, photos and other illustrative material (Volume 3); and  The Environmental Statement Non-Technical Summary (Volume 4). 3.1.3. The following environmental topics have been assessed as part of the EIA:

 Air Quality;  Noise and Vibration;  Biodiversity;  Road Drainage and the Water Environment;  Landscape and Visual;  Geology and Soils;  Cultural Heritage;  Materials and Waste,  People and Communities including Human Health; and  Climate. 3.1.4. The EIA was been undertaken by a team of specialists working in collaboration with the design engineers responsible for the preliminary design of the Scheme. This has maximised the opportunity to avoid or reduce environmental effects and to identify the most effective mitigation of those effects that cannot be avoided.

3.1.5. The Scheme has been designed to avoid key environmental constraints as much as possible.

3.1.6. The engineering and environmental designs will continue to be developed and will seek further opportunities to reduce or avoid residual environmental impacts.

Page 8 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

3.2. Summary of environmental assessment

Air quality 3.2.1. There are four Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA), where national air quality objectives have been breached, that could be affected by the Scheme. The Air quality assessment considered the impacts of the Scheme during construction and operation. During construction, there will be no significant effects with the implementation of suitable mitigation measures outlined in the Outline Environmental Management Plan in the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix B. During operation, with or without the Scheme, 11 human health receptors are expected to exceed the annual average objective for NO2 concentrations in the opening year With the Scheme, one receptor, located near the new slip road onto the A2 from Bean Junction, is expected to have a small increase in concentrations. The other 10 receptors are expected to have a decrease or imperceptible change in NO2 concentrations. In summary, during operation, the Scheme is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on human health or ecological receptors.

Noise and vibration 3.2.2. There are residential properties within 1km of the Scheme and new developments to the north and east. There are a number of receptors that are within Defra Noise Important Areas (NIA) which are areas that have been identified as being subject to high levels of noise.

3.2.3. The noise and vibration assessment considered the impacts of the Scheme during construction and operation. During construction, there will be potentially significant night time noise effects. The frequency of these impacts will be reduced, if night time construction works are limited to essential works only.

3.2.4. Mitigation measures including best practice, are identified in the Outline Environmental Management Plan in the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix B. During operation, the Scheme will not have a significant adverse effect on any residential properties including Noise Important Areas or at any non- residential sensitive receptors.

Biodiversity 3.2.5. Darenth Wood Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Ebbsfleet Marshes Local Wildlife Site (LWS), five ancient woodlands, River Ebbsfleet and hedgerows (a notable habitat) are located adjacent to the Scheme. The Scheme land contains veteran trees, lowland mixed deciduous woodland (a notable habitat) and other habitats comprised of plantation woodland, scrub, semi improved grassland, arable farmland and ponds. The Scheme land also supports notable and legally protected species.

3.2.6. The ecological assessment considered the impacts of the Scheme during construction and operation. During construction, the assessment concluded that there will be a significant adverse permanent effect due to the loss of three individual veteran trees, which constitute an irreplaceable habitat, and a significant

Page 9 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

adverse temporary effect due to vegetation clearance affecting habitats and hazel dormice. There will be no significant impacts on Darenth Wood SSSI, Ebbsfleet Marshes LWS, ancient woodland, River Ebbsfleet, and other supported notable and legally protected species due to the mitigation measures incorporated into the Scheme. During operation, once habitats are established, the Scheme is likely to result in beneficial effects for habitats, hazel dormice and birds due to an increase in the total area and improved quality of newly created habitats.

Road drainage and the water environment 3.2.7. The key water environment features for the Scheme include The River Ebbsfleet (classified as a Main River); surface water features including: ponds and lakes to the north of the A2 and a series of lakes at Bluewater shopping centre both associated with historical quarrying activities, two Water Framework Directive groundwater bodies, Principal Aquifer, and Secondary Aquifers and Source Protection Zones 1 and 2.

3.2.8. The assessment has considered the effects of the Scheme during construction and operation. During construction, there will be no significant effects, with the implementation of mitigation measures, on surface water, Water Framework Directive compliance, groundwater or fluvial and surface water flood risk. During operation, there will be a temporary significant effect on surface water runoff quality to the River Ebbsfleet, with or without the Scheme. With mitigation measures implemented there will be no significant effects on groundwater, flood risk and Water Framework Directive.

Landscape and visual 3.2.9. During construction, loss of existing screening vegetation due to construction activities at Bean Junction, such as the new Bean South and North Roundabouts, changes to on and off-slip roads, new on-slip and Bean overbridge will result in open views of the existing highway and the Scheme for residents of Bean Village, Hope Cottages, Bean Farm, Thrift Cottage and users of Public Rights of Way (PRoWs).

3.2.10. The amenity ‘gateway’ planting on the two roundabouts at Ebbsfleet will be lost during construction of the new roundabouts. The contractor’s compound could also potentially impact the amenity of the area between the two roundabouts. During operation, views of the Scheme opened up during construction would remain at the Bean Junction until the proposed mitigation planting has matured. A large area of mitigation planting is proposed in the field south east of the Bean South Roundabout. Advanced screen planting may be carried out in this area. The amenity planting at Ebbsfleet would be replanted with nursery stock to replicate the lost ‘gateway’ planting.

Geology and soils 3.2.11. During construction, there will be no significant effects on geology and soils with the implementation of suitable design and mitigation measures. With design and mitigation measures a number of identified land contamination impacts will be beneficial, permanent and significant, to both human health and controlled water

Page 10 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

receptors. During operation, it is unlikely that new pathways will be created however accidents and incidents have the potential to create new sources. To minimise contamination, accidents and incidents will be minimised by good practice measures outlined in the Outline Environmental Management Plan in the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix B.

Cultural heritage 3.2.12. Potential historic resources within the Scheme study area include four Scheduled Monuments including Springhead Roman Site, listed buildings and also surviving archaeological remains that could date from the Palaeolithic to the post-medieval periods.

3.2.13. During construction, there is high potential for encountering both known and unknown heritage assets and buried archaeological remains during construction works, including site vegetation clearance, earthmoving operations, creation of site compounds, road and bridge construction, and all associated infrastructures.

3.2.14. An Archaeological Mitigation and Management strategy (AMMS) is being prepared that includes archaeological excavation, targeted watching briefs, monitoring of geotechnical works and geoarchaeological monitoring and sampling and will be agreed with Historic England and Kent County Council archaeology. The mitigation will ensure preservation by record of the known heritage assets and will enable identification and preservation by record of any previously unrecorded archaeological remains. During operation, there will be no significant effects with the implementation of mitigation measures including the AMMS.

Materials and waste 3.2.15. There will be no effects during construction or operation with the implementation of mitigation measures including adhering to the waste hierarchy, preparation and maintenance of a Construction Environmental Management Plan and a Site Waste Management Plan, reusing materials where possible and training staff will help reduce impact

People and communities 3.2.16. The construction of the Scheme will result in the loss of Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary and the demolition of eleven residential dwellings, Ightham Cottages, resulting in significant effects on private dwellings and the horse sanctuary. The loss of 11 dwellings is considered to be small scale at a local authority and county level when considering the existing housing stock levels.

3.2.17. Significant effects on amenity (due to visual and night-time construction noise effects) will occur at Hope Cottages, Bean Farm House, Watling House, Beacon Drive, Ebbsfleet Green and Brickfield (Nursery) during the construction phase. Temporary effects at four NMU routes will occur during construction. Mitigation measures will help to reduce effects and include: ensuring access is retained to businesses and homes; notifying NMU and vehicle travellers of changes to routes; providing clear signage; reducing public transport disruption; and ongoing community engagement.

Page 11 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

3.2.18. During operation, there will be mostly beneficial effects on Ebbsfleet Development Corporation development land due to improved capacity at the junctions, on some NMU routes through improved crossings, safety, signage and facilities. Mitigation will include proposed screen planting to reduce views and the use of noise barriers and low noise surfacing.

Climate 3.2.19. The climate chapter assessed the effects of the Scheme on climate and the vulnerability of the Scheme to climate change. During construction, there would be no significant effects on the climate from emissions from the Scheme and the Scheme itself is assessed to have no significant climate change impact.

3.2.20. During operation no significant climate vulnerability effects will occur although it is noted that a residual risk associated with driving in dangerous weather conditions will remain.

Page 12 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

4. Traffic and Economic Assessment of the Scheme 4.1. Introduction

4.1.1. The assessment of traffic impacts of the Scheme has been undertaken using both a strategic and local operational transport model developed specifically for this study. A copy of the following key reports, outlining the approaches and findings, are included Appendix 1. These relate to the following:

 Transport Data Package – Traffic data collated and used in the development of the traffic models (Appendix 1, I.4.)  Transport Model Package – development of the base year traffic models (Appendix 1, I.5)  Transport Forecasting Package – future year forecasts and impacts of the Scheme (Appendix 1, I.6)  Transport Economics Package – economic assessment of the Scheme (Appendix 1, I.7) 4.1.2. The traffic modelling and economic assessment has been undertaken by a team of specialists working in collaboration with the design engineers and environmental assessment team.

4.1.3. A summary of the assessment is given below. 4.2. The strategic traffic model

4.2.1. In developing the strategic traffic model for the Scheme, a cordon of the Lower Thames Area transport Model has been used as the basis. This approach was considered appropriate as it ensured that the Scheme model was based on the most recent survey data collected, retains a level of consistency between the models and enables the impacts of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) scheme to be incorporated within the Scheme assessment, which is important particularly for movements along the A2 corridor.

4.2.2. The Scheme model has been based on a March 2016 Base year for the following time periods:

 AM Peak Hour from 07:00 to 08:00;  Inter Peak Average Hour from 09:00 to 15:00; and  PM Peak Hour from 17:00 to 18:00. 4.2.3. This model has been further updated to ensure that it meets the Department for Transport’s WebTAG guidance (Web based Transport Analysis Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/transport-analysis-guidance-webtag) for the key study area, shown below. The study area is sufficiently wide in coverage to allow a detailed analysis of the routeing decisions that are likely to be affected by the Scheme.

Page 13 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-1: Area of Detailed Modelling

Model calibration/validation 4.2.4. Validation and convergence standards for highway assignment models are specified in WebTAG Unit M3.1.

4.2.5. The model has been validated and calibrated to WebTAG guidance including individual link traffic flows, screenlines and journey times as outlined in Sections 5 and 6 of the Transport Model Package. Accordingly, the model is suitable for the purpose of developing traffic forecasts to inform economic, environmental and operational appraisal of highway infrastructure schemes around the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions. 4.3. Strategic traffic forecasts

4.3.1. In forecasting traffic flows for the opening and design years of the Scheme, the traffic model takes into account the response of drivers to changes in journey times and costs. This will result in rerouting of local traffic to the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions.

4.3.2. Five forecast years have been modelled, namely:

 Forecast year 2023 (‘Scheme opening year’);  Forecast year 2026 (‘Lower Thames Crossing opening year’);  Forecast year 2031. This is the mid-point between the Scheme opening year and the design year;  Forecast year 2038 (‘design year’); and

Page 14 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

 Forecast year 2051, for economic assessment of the Scheme. 4.3.3. In line with WebTAG guidance, the modelled years take into account all transport network and development proposals in the area of the model that have been categorised by the relevant local authorities as ‘near certain’ or ‘more than likely’ by the modelled years. These schemes are outlined in the Transport Forecasting Package Section 2.3 (see Appendix 1, J.6). Further sensitivity tests have been undertaken to consider low and high growth in line with WebTAG.

Forecast traffic flows 4.3.4. Hourly traffic flows for the 2038 design year for the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions are provided in Figures 4.2 – 4.7 below. ‘Do Minimum’ (DM) is the forecast if the Scheme is not built. ‘Do Something’ (DS) is the forecast if the Scheme is built.

Figure 4-2 2038 AM Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Page 15 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-3 2038 AM Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Page 16 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-4 2038 Inter Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Page 17 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-5 2038 Inter Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Page 18 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-6 2038 PM Peak – Bean Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Page 19 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-7 2038 PM Peak – Ebbsfleet Junction – All vehicles (Veh/hr)

Forecast journey time changes 4.3.5. The journey times along twelve routes produced for the validation of the model are shown in Tables 4.1 – 4.3 for the opening year 2023 and design year 2038 for the different peak periods.

4.3.6. Figure 4.8 shows the journey time routes.

4.3.7. These results show that the introduction of the Scheme reduces the overall journey times across the majority of the routes in both the opening and design years compared to the Do Minimum.

Page 20 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Figure 4-8 Journey Time Routes

Table 4.1 Journey Time - AM Peak (07:00 to 08:00)

2023 2038

Journey Time Route Name Direction DM DS Diff DM DS Diff Route

Route 1 Littlebrook Interchange (A206) to EB 13:40 13:37 0% 13:58 13:45 -2% Stonebridge Road/A226 Junction Route 1 WB 14:39 14:54 2% 14:54 15:14 2%

Route 2 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 11:00 10:45 -2% 11:49 11:15 -5% A2260/A2 Junction Route 2 WB 14:08 13:53 -2% 14:31 14:18 -1%

Route 3 Darenth Interchange to A2/Hall Road EB 06:17 06:17 0% 06:14 06:15 0% Junction Route 3 WB 10:16 10:17 0% 08:48 08:47 0%

Route 4 A2260/A2 Junction to Stonebridge NB 07:27 06:38 -11% 08:03 07:24 -8% Road/A226 Junction Route 4 SB 06:47 06:47 0% 07:17 07:33 4%

Route 5 B255/Hook Green Road Intersection to NB 08:47 08:52 1% 08:58 09:00 0% London Road(A226)/ B255 Junction Route 5 SB 08:52 09:02 2% 09:20 09:20 0%

Route 6 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 15:24 15:30 1% 15:43 15:46 0% Hall Road/Spring Head Road Junction Route 6 WB 17:36 17:39 0% 18:34 18:34 0%

Page 21 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Table 4.2 Journey Time - Inter Peak (09:00 to 15:00) 2023 2038 Journey Time Route Name Direction DM DS Diff DM DS Diff Route

Route 1 Littlebrook Interchange (A206) to EB 14:06 13:53 -2% 14:15 14:03 -1% Stonebridge Road/A226 Junction Route 1 WB 14:13 14:16 0% 14:52 15:00 1% Route 2 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 11:39 10:53 -7% 12:40 11:15 -11% A2260/A2 Junction Route 2 WB 10:58 10:46 -2% 12:07 11:22 -6%

Route 3 Darenth Interchange to A2/Hall Road EB 06:25 06:25 0% 06:14 06:15 0% Junction Route 3 WB 06:27 06:27 0% 06:20 06:20 0%

Route 4 A2260/A2 Junction to Stonebridge NB 06:31 06:21 -3% 07:27 06:44 -10% Road/A226 Junction Route 4 SB 06:47 06:47 0% 07:23 07:07 -4%

Route 5 B255/Hook Green Road Intersection to NB 09:18 09:07 -2% 10:14 09:36 -6% London Road(A226)/ B255 Junction Route 5 SB 08:55 09:08 2% 09:11 09:08 -1%

Route 6 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 15:46 15:46 0% 16:01 15:59 0% Hall Road/Spring Head Road Junction Route 6 WB 16:29 16:33 0% 17:12 17:00 -1% Table 4.3 Journey Time - PM Peak (17:00 to 18:00)

2023 2038

Journey Time Route Name Direction DM DS Diff DM DS Diff Route

Route 1 Littlebrook Interchange (A206) to EB 15:31 15:14 -2% 18:56 17:09 -9% Stonebridge Road/A226 Junction Route 1 WB 18:50 19:24 3% 21:01 18:44 -11%

Route 2 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 19:13 14:36 -24% 21:33 18:40 -13% A2260/A2 Junction Route 2 WB 12:18 12:14 -1% 14:24 12:59 -10%

Route 3 Darenth Interchange to A2/Hall Road EB 09:17 10:01 8% 07:46 07:56 2% Junction Route 3 WB 06:25 06:24 0% 06:36 06:36 0%

Route 4 A2260/A2 Junction to Stonebridge NB 06:20 06:38 5% 07:32 06:36 -12% Road/A226 Junction Route 4 SB 07:04 06:28 -8% 09:46 07:53 -19%

Route 5 B255/Hook Green Road Intersection to NB 10:26 09:43 -7% 12:07 10:53 -10% London Road(A226)/ B255 Junction Route 5 SB 09:40 09:23 -3% 10:23 09:53 -5%

Route 6 Princes Road(A225)/B260 Junction to EB 17:47 17:29 -2% 18:33 17:51 -4% Hall Road/Spring Head Road Junction Route 6 WB 18:07 18:20 1% 19:10 18:44 -2%

4.4. Operational model assessment

4.4.1. The strategic model outlined above has been developed to assess the impact of the Scheme across the entire wider study area, including how traffic will reroute due to the changes in the highway network as well as accounting for the levels of traffic growth forecast. An operational model has also been developed to provide a more detailed assessment of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions. The base year model has been validated in line with WebTAG guidance and has been used as a basis to consider the performance of the Scheme. This operational model draws

Page 22 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

on the traffic flow data from the wider strategic model providing a level of consistency between the models.

Forecast results 4.4.2. Using the wider strategic model forecasts of traffic movements around Bean and Ebbsfleet, the impacts have been assessed within the operational model.

4.4.3. Table 4.4 and 4.5 provide a comparison of the overall operational model performance between the DM and DS scenarios in terms of average delay per vehicle and total trips (Non-latent demand) that have been processed through the model network for the 2023 and 2038 forecast years respectively. Each network performance parameter is explained below.

4.4.4. The total trips represent non-latent demand which is the sum of vehicles present in the network (active) and vehicles reached to the destination (arrived) at the end of the simulation period. The vehicles which are not able to enter the network (latent demand) are not added to the total trips.

4.4.5. The total delay represents the delay experienced by active, arrived and latent vehicles in hours.

4.4.6. Total delay per vehicle (in seconds) is the ratio of total delay to all the vehicles. For this calculation, active vehicles, arrived vehicles and latent demand was taken into consideration.

Table 4.4 Network Performance Comparisons – 2023 DM & 2023 DS 2023 AM 2023 PM Network Performance DM DS Diff DM DS Diff Total Delay (In Hours) 620 493 -126 965 829 -136 Total Delay per Vehicle 117 93 -24 145 124 -21 (In Seconds) Total Trips (Non-Latent 18894 19045 151 23084 23889 805 Demand) in Vehicles Table 4.5 Network Performance Comparisons – 2038 DM & 2023 DS

Network Performance 2038 AM 2038 PM Parameters DM DS Diff DM DS Diff Total Delay (In Hours) 1335 706 -628 2874 2033 -841 Total Delay per Vehicle 215 114 -101 353 253 -100 (In Seconds) Total Trips (Non-Latent 21297 22121 824 25825 26852 1027 Demand) in Vehicles 4.4.7. These results show that total delay is predicted to decrease by 24 seconds per vehicle for the 2023 DS scenarios when compared with the 2023 DM scenarios in the AM peak hour. The PM peak hour model predicts similar reduction in average delays of 21 seconds per vehicles.

4.4.8. The 2038 DS model predicts an improvement in total delay of 100 seconds per vehicles in both the AM and PM peak hours.

Page 23 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

4.4.9. Total throughputs (non-latent demand) have increased by 150 vehicles in the AM and around 800 vehicles in the PM peak hour for the 2023 DS scenarios compared with the DM scenarios. For the DS 2038, the model forecasts an increase of around 820 total vehicle trips in the AM peak hour and an increase of vehicle throughputs by approximately 1,020 vehicle trips in the PM peak hour. This highlights that, as a result of the Scheme the reduction in congestion across the operational model network will enable more trips to be able to pass through the Bean and Ebbsfleet study area within the modelled periods. 4.5. Economic performance of the Scheme

4.5.1. The economic assessment compares the monetised costs and benefits of the Scheme (the Do Something or DS) against the alternative without-Scheme scenario (the Do Minimum or DM). The overall approaches and results are presented in the Transport Economics Package (Appendix 1, I.7). The key elements and overall result are outlined below.

TUBA economics 4.5.2. User benefits during normal operation over a 60 year period, relating to savings to travel times, vehicle operating costs and user charges, have been assessed using the Deportment for Transports (DfT) Transport User Benefit Analysis (TUBA) programme

Accidents 4.5.3. The appraisal of accident savings due to the Scheme was undertaken using COBA-LT software. The COBA-LT assessment provides an analysis of the impact on accidents of a highway scheme, including a monetised impact for inclusion in the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) discussed below. Overall the Scheme is forecast to provide £6.37 million of benefits (2010 values and prices discounted to 2010) over the 60 year appraisal.

Environmental impacts 4.5.4. The impacts of the Scheme on greenhouse gas emissions, local air quality and noise has been assessed using the traffic flow and speed data taken from the strategic transport model. This has been undertaken in line with the DfT’s WebTAG guidance. These results have then been included in the overall economic assessment of the Scheme.

Reliability and wider economic Impacts and Social and Distributional Impact 4.5.5. Supplementary assessments have been undertaken to consider journey time reliability benefits, wider economic impacts, and Social and Distributional Impacts in line with WebTAG guidance.

Page 24 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Costs 4.5.6. Scheme costs have been supplied and adjusted to 2010 values and prices to be consistent with the economic benefits forecasts for the Scheme.

Overall economic benefits 4.5.7. Table 4.6 below shows the Initial Benefit to Cost Ratio (Initial BCR), which includes all the elements described above apart from journey time reliability benefits and wider economic impacts. On this basis the Present Value of Benefits (PVB) is estimated at £143.82m, and the Present Value of Costs (PVC) at £61.76m. This produces a Net Present Value (NPV) of £82.06m and a BCR of 2.33.

4.5.8. Journey time reliability benefits (£11.28m) and wider economic impacts (£4.69m) are then added to give an Adjusted BCR. Adding these increases the PVB to £159.79m. The PVC is unchanged at £61.76m. This gives an adjusted NPV of £98.03m and an adjusted BCR of 2.59.

Table 4.6 Summary of economic assessment results

Item Core Scenario Noise £0.15m Local Air Quality £0.25m Greenhouse Gases -£2.37m Accident Savings (COBA-LT) £6.37m Economic Efficiency: Travel Time 159.3m Economic Efficiency: Vehicle Operating Costs £9.88m Economic Efficiency: Construction and Maintenance -£10.29m Economic Efficiency: Developer Contributions -£15.21m Wider Public Finances (Indirect Taxation Revenues) -£4.26m

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £143.82m

Broad Transport Budget £61.76m

Present Value of Costs (PVC) £61.76m

Net Present Value (NPV) £82.06m

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.33

Note: 60 year appraisal costs and benefits are expressed in 2010 values and prices

Page 25 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

4.6. Additional sensitivity tests

4.6.1. Operational modelling of the Bean junction for Weekend has taken place due to the particular nature of the traffic flows at this location. The results of the additional sensitivity test are that the approach arms on the junction all operate within acceptable levels (Appendix 1, I.8). Further analysis will be carried out in the detailed design stage to identify further efficiencies.

4.6.2. Following the modelling and economic assessment of the Scheme the Road Traffic Forecasts (RTF), released by the DfT, have been updated. These have a lower level of forecast growth for Light Goods and Heavy Goods vehicles compared to the previous RTF values and as a result, an additional sensitivity test is being undertaken to understand the impacts on the economic assessment of the Scheme. Overall it is expected that this will impact upon journey time savings and delays and hence reduce the benefit of the Scheme, due to reduced levels of congestion in the DM, whilst still providing value for money.

Page 26 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

5. The Orders 5.1. The planning position

5.1.1. Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Appendix 1, D.2) provides the definition of development for the purpose of that Act. Subsection 55(2)(b) exempts certain operations from being categorised as development, namely 'the carrying out on land within the boundaries of a road by a highway authority of any works required for the maintenance or improvement of the road but, in the case of any such works which are not exclusively for the maintenance of the road, not including any works which may have significant adverse effects on the environment'.

5.1.2. The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the "GPDO") (Appendix 1, E.1) sets out, in Schedules 1 and 2, the developments for which planning permission is granted by the GPDO.

5.1.3. Class B of Part 9 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO relates to development of roads by either the Secretary of State for Transport or, as is the case with the Scheme, the Applicant as a 'strategic highways company'. Class B confirms that any works in exercise of the functions of the Applicant under the Highways Act 1980 or works in connection with, or incidental to, the exercise of those functions is considered permitted development. This includes development that is subject to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (Appendix 1, E.2).

5.1.4. Additionally, Class A of Part 9 of Schedule 2 to the GPDO provides that highway improvement works by any highway authority on land within the boundaries of a road, or on land outside but adjoining the boundary of an existing highway, is permitted development.

5.1.5. The following paragraphs explains the purpose and effect of the Orders, which in the case of the CPO and the SRO have been made by The Applicant and submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation, and in the case of the Line Order prepared in draft and submitted to the Secretary of State for making. 5.2. The Compulsory Purchase Order

5.2.1. The scope of the compulsory acquisition powers sought by the Applicant is set out in full in the CPO.

5.2.2. The Applicant seeks authorisation to acquire the majority of the land required for the Scheme outright. For some plots the Applicant is seeking authorisation to compulsorily acquire or create new rights, for example in relation to drainage. The Applicant has sought to minimise the extent of compulsory acquisition, including the acquisition or creation of rights instead of outright acquisition, wherever possible.

Page 27 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

5.2.3. A summary of the powers in the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 1, D.1) which are relied upon to acquire the land and new rights in relation to the Scheme is provided below:

a) Under section 239 the Applicant as the strategic highways company may acquire land required for the construction of a trunk road and as highway authority may acquire land required for the construction of a highway which is to become maintainable at the public expense. It may also acquire land which is required for the carrying out of works authorised by an order relating to a trunk road under section 14 (i.e. the SRO) or for the provision of buildings or facilities to be used in connection with the construction or maintenance of a trunk road. The Applicant may also acquire any land required for the improvement of a highway, being an improvement which it is authorised by the HA 1980 to carry out. b) Under section 240 the Applicant as highway authority may acquire land required for use in connection with the construction or improvement of a highway, or with the carrying out of works authorised by an order relating to a trunk road under section 14 (i.e. the SRO) and the carrying out of a diversion or other works to watercourses. c) Under section 246, the Applicant as highway authority may acquire land for the purpose of mitigating any adverse effect which the existence or use of a highway constructed or improved by it has or will have on the surroundings of the highway. d) Section 249 prescribes distance limits from the highway for the acquisition of land for certain purposes. e) Section 250 allows the Applicant as the highway authority to acquire rights over land, both by acquisition of those rights already in existence, and by the creation of new rights. f) Section 260 allows the Applicant as highway authority to override restrictive covenants and third-party rights where land already acquired by agreement is included in a compulsory purchase order. 5.2.4. ‘Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules’ (MHCLG, 2018) (the “Guidance”) (Appendix 1, G.3) provides guidance to acquiring authorities on the use of compulsory purchase powers and the Applicant has taken account of this in making the CPO.

5.2.5. The Applicant is using its powers of compulsory purchase contained in the HA 1980 and the Acquisition of Land Act (ALA) 1981 (Appendix 1, D.3) because it is satisfied that the acquisition of the land is required to facilitate the construction and operation of the Scheme. The Applicant recognises that a compulsory purchase order can only be made if there is a compelling case in the public interest (paragraphs 2 and 12 of the Guidance). It is considered that a compelling case exists here, as explained further in Chapter 6 of this Statement.

5.2.6. On confirmation of the Order the Applicant intends to execute General Vesting Declarations in order to secure title to, or rights in, the Land. Alternatively, it may follow the Notice to Treat procedure.

Page 28 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

5.2.7. The 'Mining Code' contained in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 2 to the ALA 1981 is incorporated in the CPO. The incorporation of Parts 2 and 3 does not of itself prevent the working of minerals within a specified distance of the Land, but it does enable the Applicant to serve a counter-notice stopping the working of minerals, subject to the payment of compensation.

5.2.8. There is no requirement to acquire permanent land or rights for the Scheme from registered common land nor is any of the land to be acquired used by the public as open space. For this reason, there is no provision for exchange land and a certificate under the ALA 1981 section 19 is not being sought. 5.3. The Line Order

5.3.1. Section 10 of the HA 1980 makes provision in relation to the status of trunk roads. Amongst other things it confirms that the Minister (i.e. the Secretary of State) may by order direct that any highway or proposed highway to be constructed by the Applicant shall become a trunk road, or that any trunk road shall cease to be a trunk road, from such date as may be specified in the order. Section 10(3A) confirms that the power to direct that a highway or proposed highway shall become a trunk road includes the power to direct that the Applicant is the highway authority for that trunk road.

5.3.2. The Scheme involves the construction of new highway that is to become trunk road, as follows:

a) four new slip roads to connect the eastbound and westbound carriageway of the A2 trunk road with a modified Bean junction; and b) two new slip roads and a modified roundabout to connect the eastbound carriageway of the A2 trunk road with a modified Ebbsfleet junction. 5.3.3. Accordingly, the Applicant seeks the Line Order under sections 10 and 41 of the HA 1980 to confirm the status of this new highway as trunk road and the Applicant's status as highway authority for that road. 5.4. The SRO

5.4.1. Section 14 of the HA 1980 confers powers on highway authorities in relation to roads that cross or join trunk roads or classified roads. Amongst other things it provides that an order may be made to authorise the highway authority for a road to stop up, divert, improve, raise, lower or otherwise alter a highway that crosses or enters the route of the road, or is or will be otherwise affected by the construction or improvement of the road. The order may also authorise the construction of a new highway for purposes concerned with such alteration, or for any other purpose connected with the road or its construction.

5.4.2. Section 14(1)(b) confirms that an order may make provision for the transferring to another highway authority of a highway constructed under the order.

5.4.3. In the case of the Scheme, the 'road' for the purposes of section 14 is considered to be the A2 trunk road.

Page 29 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

5.4.4. Accordingly, the Applicant has made the SRO to authorise it to carry out the works that are specified therein, including:

Bean Junction a) improving the existing local highway A296 (Watling Street) on the east and west sides of the B255 and A296 / Bean Lane roundabout to facilitate the modified approach roads; b) improving the existing local highway B255 (north of the A2 trunk road) between the Bean North roundabout and St. Clements roundabout to facilitate widened lanes, increased roundabout circulatory carriageway at Bean North roundabout and construction of new slip roads as referred to in the Line Order; c) improving the existing local highway B255 (south of the A2 trunk road) between the A2 trunk road, adjacent to Hope Cottages and Bean House to facilitate an increased roundabout circulatory carriageway at Bean South roundabout and construction of new slip roads as referred to in the Line Order; d) stopping up lengths of existing highway to then be used for alternative purposes and reclassified as such as stated in the SRO schedule at Bean Lane (old) from Ightham Cottages northwards (north of the A2 trunk road) and also Bean Lane (old) adjacent to No's 15 & 16 Hope Cottages (south of the A2 trunk road); e) constructing new highways (as classified) either as a public highway (crossing the A2 trunk road on a new bridge) or as a cycle track (with a right of way on foot) as required; f) stopping up existing private means of access to premises or land connecting to / from the A296, Bean Lane (old) (north of the A2 trunk road), Ightham Cottages, Hope Cottages as required to facilitate the new scheme works; and g) providing new private means of access to said locations where access will be required in future; Ebbsfleet Junction a) improving the existing local highway Ackers Drive on the west of the modified Ebbsfleet West roundabout to facilitate the modified roundabout; b) improving the existing local highway A2260 between the Ebbsfleet West roundabout and Ebbsfleet Gateway roundabout to facilitate widened lanes and increased roundabout circulatory carriageway at Ebbsfleet West roundabout; c) constructing a new highway spur (as classified) for the purposes of connection to a development proposed to the north of the Ebbsfleet East roundabout from the modified Ebbsfleet East roundabout as referred to in the Line Order;

Page 30 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

d) stopping up existing private means of access to premises or land connecting to / from the Ebbsfleet West and East roundabouts as required to facilitate the new scheme works; and e) providing new private means of access to said locations where access will be required in future. 5.4.5. Each new highway created under the SRO is to be transferred to Kent County Council as the local highway authority.

5.4.6. The SRO provides that rights of statutory undertakers and telecommunications code operators will continue to exist in relation to any of their apparatus that is in the highway if that highway is stopped up under the order, subject to section 21 of the HA 1980. This provision is authorised by sections 14(1)(c) and 14(2). Section 21 applies certain provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (subject to modifications) relating to the extinguishment of such rights where a highway is stopped up or diverted under a section 14 order.

5.4.7. Section 125 of the HA 1980 provides that an order made under section 14 may also authorise the authority to stop up any private means of access to premises adjoining or adjacent to land forming part of the road or forming the site of any works authorised by the order, and to provide new means of access to any such premises. The SRO therefore also includes provisions for the stopping up of existing private means of access and the creation of new private means of access, as outlined above. Where an existing private means of access is to be stopped up with no new access provided, that is because the Applicant is of the view that another reasonably convenient means of access is available, or because there will be no requirement for access to that location in the future.

Page 31 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

6. The Case for Compulsory Acquisition 6.1. Introduction

6.1.1. The guidance on the fundamental principles that the Secretary of State will take into account in deciding whether or not to confirm a compulsory purchase order are set in ‘Guidance on Compulsory purchase process and The Crichel Down Rules' (Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government 2018) (the “Guidance”) (Appendix 1, G.3).

6.1.2. It states:

a) A compulsory purchase order should only be made where there is a compelling case in the public interest (paragraphs 2 and 12). b) The confirming authority (i.e. the Secretary of State) will expect the acquiring authority to demonstrate that they have taken reasonable steps to acquire all of the land and rights included in the order by agreement (paragraph 2). c) The purposes for which the compulsory purchase order is made must justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected, with particular consideration to be given to the provisions of Article 1 and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the Convention (paragraph 12). d) The Secretary of State will consider each case on its own merits. It is not essential to show that land is required immediately to secure the purpose for which it is to be acquired, but the Secretary of State will need to understand, and the acquiring authority must be able to demonstrate, that there are sufficiently compelling reasons for the powers to be sought at this time (paragraph 13). e) An acquiring authority should have a clear idea of how it intends to use the land which it is proposing to acquire (paragraph 13). f) An acquiring authority should be able to show that all the necessary resources are likely to be available within a reasonable time-scale (paragraph 13). The acquiring authority should address sources of funding and the timing of that funding as part of its justification (paragraph 14). g) The acquiring authority will need to be able to show that the scheme is unlikely to be blocked by any physical or legal impediments to implementation 6.2. Compelling case in the public interest

6.2.1. The Applicant is satisfied that paragraphs 2 and 12 of the Guidance are met and that there is a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition.

6.2.2. The following paragraphs demonstrate how the Scheme will meet the objectives set out in paragraph 2.5 of this Statement.

Page 32 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Support economic and housing growth in North Kent, including Ebbsfleet Garden City 6.2.3. The need for the Scheme has been recognised at a national and regional level for over a decade. In 2006 work commenced on the Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme (STP), which involved modelling the transport impacts arising from planned development in the area and identifying schemes to mitigate those impacts. The Highways Agency was one of the partners involved in preparing the STP. Two of the schemes identified for inclusion in the STP were improvements to the A2 Ebbsfleet Junction and improvements to the A2 Bean Junction.

6.2.4. In 2008 an initial strategy shaping and prioritisation study identified improvement options for the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions. In 2010, funding for the STP was withdrawn following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review. The schemes were revived in 2013 as part of the Government's Spending Review.

6.2.5. In the 2014 Budget, the Government announced that it would support a new Garden City at Ebbsfleet in Kent for up to 15,000 new homes based on existing brownfield land and involving up to £200m of public investment, to be driven forward by the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC) which has compulsory purchase powers. EDC is contributing £45m to this project.

6.2.6. The overall economic benefit of the Scheme is presented in Table 4.6 in Section 4 above.

6.2.7. In addition, the wider economic benefits of the Scheme, which for this Scheme is based on the additional margin that firms can make on each additional unit of output they can produce as a result of travel cost savings, are estimated to be £5m.

6.2.8. On this basis, it is considered that the Scheme will support economic and housing growth in the region.

Increase the capacity of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions and minimise the impact of increased traffic on the A2 6.2.9. Traffic congestion is experienced at Bean Junction during peak hour periods and also at weekends in relation to the Bluewater Regional Shopping Centre.

6.2.10. Traffic modelling indicates that without the Scheme. the road network will become further congested, resulting in delays and adverse environmental effects with the following levels of traffic growth expected:

 Traffic using the A2 Bean junction (including the A296) will increase by 30% in the weekday AM and PM peaks, and 44% in the weekday interpeak, by 2038 compared with 2016 traffic levels; and  Traffic using the Ebbsfleet junction will increase by 150% in the weekday AM peak, 197% in the weekday interpeak and 122% in the weekday PM peak, by 2038 compared with 2016 traffic levels.

Page 33 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Improve journey times 6.2.11. As shown in Table 4.6 above, customers are forecast to see £159m of journey time benefits and a further £10m of vehicle operating cost savings over a 60 year economic appraisal period as a result of the Scheme.

6.2.12. In addition, journeys are expected to become more reliable, through reduction in incident-related disruption and travel time variability. This represents a forecast £11m of value to customers and also offers potential improvement to journey quality through reduced driver frustration, potentially leading to an improvement in customer satisfaction.

Improve road safety 6.2.13. The Scheme will contribute to a reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in collisions. As shown in Section 5.3 of the Transport Economics Package, the Scheme is forecast, over the 60-year appraisal period, to save 154 accidents, 1 fatality, 19.5 serious injuries and 185.7 slight injuries. The Scheme includes improvements to several non-motorised routes which will improve the safety and amenity of the routes for the benefit of all users.

Minimise the impact on the environment 6.2.14. The Scheme has been developed over previous project stages and is the result of analysis and assessment of traffic, engineering, buildability and environmental factors as well as consultation with stakeholders and the local community.

6.2.15. Objectives have been developed in response to the design principles set out in the Road to Good Design (Appendix 1, I.2) published by the Applicant in 2018, delivering the government's vision for the Strategic Road Network to work more harmoniously with its surroundings, with less impact on local communities and the environment.

6.2.16. Environmental designations including Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, a SSSI, a LWS, other important biodiversity features such as areas of ancient woodland, veteran and ancient trees, were identified during the environmental assessment work as part of schematic design.

6.2.17. The Scheme has been sited to take account of its geographical context and sense of place. The proposed junction improvements largely follow the layout of existing road infrastructure in terms of style and function i.e. larger roundabouts replacing smaller roundabouts of a similar nature.

6.2.18. The siting of the junction at Bean avoids environmental designations, ancient woodland and ancient trees in the area. In addition, the new southbound approach to Bean North Roundabout and new slip roads would result in the direct loss of three individual veteran trees. A compensation strategy is proposed that includes translocation of the three existing veteran trees to be lost and new planting comprised of nine semi-mature oak trees, woodland, scrub and species-rich grassland that will directly join existing ancient and broadleaved woodland. See Chapter 7 of this Statement for further information on veteran trees.

Page 34 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

6.2.19. The proposals for the Ebbsfleet Junction closely follow the existing layout and comprise infrastructure of similar nature to the existing. Reinstatement of the distinctive amenity planting will retain the existing strong sense of place and replacement planting will compensate for habitats removed to facilitate construction of the Scheme.

6.2.20. The ES provides an analysis of the direct, indirect, temporary and permanent impacts of the Scheme, determined by undertaking detailed level assessments. The direct impact on three individual veteran trees will result in a significant adverse permanent effect. However, replacement habitats will provide enhancement and an overall increase in the total area and improved quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats associated with the Scheme. Long-term visual impacts for occupants of Hope Cottages (adjoining the Scheme) will also be significant due to views of the overbridge at Bean and increased number of lanes of traffic. However, it is expected that the proposed mitigation planting will mature gradually following construction and screen the views, thereby reducing any significant effects.

6.2.21. The Applicant considers that overall the impacts of the Scheme on the environment have been minimised as far as reasonably possible and that the Scheme therefore meets this objective.

Provide value for money 6.2.22. As explained in Chapter 4 of this Statement, the economic case developed by the Applicant shows an initial benefit cost ratio (BCR) of 2.33. These benefits exceed the costs and therefore provide value for money in economic terms. Inclusion of journey time reliability benefits and wider economic impacts gives an adjusted BCR of 2.59. Benefits are reduced travel times and improved reliability as the Scheme relieves congestion on the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions of the A2. Dis- benefits arise primarily from delays during construction at already busy junctions.

6.2.23. The Scheme is considered to provide value for money. 6.3. Government transport policy

6.3.1. As stated in the ES (Appendix 1, B.1 to B.4) and Statement of Reasons (C.1), the Scheme has support at all levels of government policy and this is reiterated for completeness below.

The Road Investment Strategy (RIS) 6.3.2. In December 2014 the DfT published its Road Investment Strategy (RIS) (Appendix 1, I.1) for the period 2015-2020, announcing £15 billion to be invested in the strategic road network.

6.3.3. Section 2 of the RIS explains that the Strategic Road Network (SRN), of which the A2 is part, requires upgrading and improving to ensure it can deliver the performance needed to support the nation throughout the 21st century. Inconsistent and insufficient investment in roads has led to problems on the network, with capacity being close to breaking point at certain points, poor

Page 35 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

connectivity at others, and increasingly common environmental black spots. Certainty of funding, the ability to plan for the long term and the opportunity to drive increased efficiency, being the products of roads reform, are seen as providing the tools to bring lasting improvements to the network.

6.3.4. The RIS explains that DfT's ambition is to revolutionise the road network and create a modern SRN that supports a modern Britain, making a real difference to people and businesses. It wants to have transformed the network by 2040, delivering safe, more stress-free journeys, as well as enhanced reliability and predictability. As part of achieving this DfT expects the Applicant to make the network safer and improve user satisfaction, while smoothing traffic flow and encouraging economic growth.

6.3.5. Section 4 of the RIS explains that by 2040, without sustained investment and other action, congestion will become a serious problem for many important routes. Based on a 'high growth scenario', the projections estimate that every household will spend 16 hours stuck in traffic each year, with 28 million working days lost and a £3.7 billion cost to the freight industry annually. Difficulties could include:

a) Impeded travel between regions that hampers business. b) Longer travel times that constrain possible job opportunities. c) Negative impacts on efforts to spur economic growth, with enterprise zones, potential housing sites and areas of high growth held back by bottlenecks. d) Increased stress on roads to ports and airports, making it harder for British businesses to access export markets. e) Safety and the environment suffering as congested traffic is more polluting and there is an increased risk of accidents. 6.3.6. It can be seen that many of these difficulties are highly relevant to the Scheme, particularly considering its location on the network. The RIS notes that the Scheme will play a particularly important role in unlocking access to new housing developments, in this case including the Ebbsfleet Garden City.

6.3.7. As part of achieving the DfT's vision the RIS and accompanying Investment Plan, which sets out how the Applicant is to turn the DfT's intentions into reality by delivering performance improvements in the short term, set out a list of 69 new schemes that are to be developed by the Applicant over the 2015-2020 period. The list includes the Scheme, which is identified as one of the key investments in the SRN for London and the South-East. Its status is confirmed as being 'committed subject to other contributions, which means that the DfT is committed to providing part of the funding for the Scheme in the expectation that the balance will be available from other parties, including local authorities and/or affected property developers. Funding for the Scheme is addressed in detail further on in this chapter.

6.3.8. The objectives of the Scheme closely reflect the DfT's ambitions for the SRN set out in the RIS and the Scheme is considered to have strong support from the DfT through the RIS. The Scheme is an important part of achieving the DfT's ambitions

Page 36 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

for the SRN, both overall and in the London and South-East region, and its delivery will help the Applicant to meet the DfT's expectations.

National Networks National Policy Statement 6.3.9. The Government has produced a series of National Policy Statements, including the statement for National Networks (DfT, 2014) (NN NPS) (Appendix 1, G2). The NN NPS sets out "the Government's vision and policy for the future development of nationally significant infrastructure projects on the national road and rail networks" and provides guidance for promoters of such projects. Although the Scheme is not classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project (NSIP), it is nevertheless on the SRN and the NN NPS confirms that it may be a material consideration in decision making on non-NSIP schemes, and whether, and to what extent, it is a material consideration will be judged on a case by case basis.

6.3.10. The NN NPS identifies that there is a "critical need" to improve the national networks to address road congestion and provide safe, expeditious and resilient networks that better support social and economic activity; and to provide a transport network that is capable of stimulating and supporting economic growth. Without improving the network, it will be difficult to support further economic development, employment and housing and this will impede economic growth and reduce people's quality of life. The NN NPS states that: "The Government has therefore concluded that at a strategic level there is a compelling need for development of the national road network."

6.3.11. Paragraph 2.23 confirms that the Government's wider policy is to bring forward improvements and enhancements to the SRN to address the need described in the NN NPS. Proposed enhancements to the existing national road network are described, including (of most relevance to the Scheme) "junction improvements, new slip roads and upgraded technology to address congestion and improve performance and resilience at junctions, which are a major source of congestion" and "improvements to trunk roads, in particular dualling of single carriageway strategic trunk roads and additional lanes on existing dual carriageways to increase capacity and to improve performance and resilience."

6.3.12. It is considered that the Scheme will help to address the critical need identified in the NN NPS, and particularly that it will support and stimulate economic growth and activity in north Kent and provide a safe, expeditious and resilient network.

National Planning Policy Framework 6.3.13. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (Appendix 1, G.1) sets out the Government's planning policies for England. It provides a framework within which local authorities and residents can produce local and neighbourhood plans reflecting the needs and priorities of communities. The NPPF advises that local authorities should provide for any large scale transport facilities that need to be located in their area, and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion and contribution to the wider economy.

6.3.14. Paragraph 59 acknowledges the Government's objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, noting that "it is important that a sufficient amount and variety

Page 37 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

of land can come forward where it is needed". Paragraph 72 states that "The supply of large numbers of new homes can often be best achieved through planning for larger scale development, such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns, provided they are well located and designed, and supported by the necessary infrastructure and facilities." The Scheme would support significant residential development, including at Ebbsfleet Garden City.

6.3.15. Paragraph 80 states that "Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development." Paragraph 102 confirms that: "Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals". Planning policies should inter alia: "provide for any large-scale transport facilities that need to be located in the area, and the infrastructure and wider development required to support their operation, expansion and contribution to the wider economy."

Local policy 6.3.16. The Scheme also has strong support in local policy documents. A brief summary of relevant policy documents is set out below.

6.3.17. The Dartford Borough Council Core Strategy Local Plan (2011) (Appendix 1, H.1) is a long-term plan to regenerate the Borough by outlining where and how new homes, infrastructure and jobs will be created. It includes an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, which is a list of the infrastructure that is required to meet the demand for future growth and enable the ambitions set out in the Core Strategy to be achieved. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan includes strategic junction improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet.

6.3.18. The Core Strategy includes Policy CS 16: Transport Investment. It states that the Council will work with its partners to deliver a Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme (see below) to ensure that the transport network operates at acceptable levels and that transport infrastructure is in place to support new development.

6.3.19. The Dartford Development Policies Plan (2017) (Appendix 1, H.3) states that Policy CS 16 remains "highly relevant with partnership work ongoing, including for major junction upgrades and through the Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme...Extensive collaboration is occurring between Highways England, the EDC, the Council and Kent County Council"

6.3.20. The Gravesham Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) (Appendix 1, H.4) sets out a long-term vision for the future of the Borough based on what is needed to support existing and future communities. Like the Dartford Core Strategy, it includes an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (Appendix 6), being a list of the infrastructure that is required to support the delivery of the Core Strategy. The Infrastructure Delivery Schedule includes a strategic junction improvement at Ebbsfleet. Paragraph 5.4.5 of the Core Strategy states: "Enhancing capacity at the A2 Ebbsfleet junction is essential to the delivery of development at Ebbsfleet and

Page 38 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Eastern Quarry, developments which will take place within both Gravesham and Dartford Boroughs".

6.3.21. Kent County Council's Local Transport Plan 4: 2016-2031 (Appendix 1, H.2) notes that the County Council's role is to enable planned, sustainable growth and ensure the necessary infrastructure is in place to stimulate regeneration and encourage people and businesses to come to Kent. The transport network needs to be able to cater for current demand, enable economic growth and support a growing population. The delivery of junction improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet is noted as one of the transport priorities for Dartford.

6.3.22. The Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme (Appendix 1, H.7) aims to deliver key improvements to the strategic transport network, thereby enabling planned development to be realised. This relates directly to Ambition 1 (To Grow the Economy) of the Vision for Kent 2012 to 2022 and actions set out in Bold Steps for Kent to drive economic prosperity. The Programme includes junction improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet.

Conclusions 6.3.23. The Scheme has strong support from Government through the DfT and is a committed Scheme under RIS following the securing of other contributions through the Ebbsfleet Development Corporation and is included in the Highways England published delivery plan. Further support for the Scheme is found in the NN NPS and NPPF, which both emphasise the importance of, and indeed the "critical need" for, projects such as the Scheme. Local planning policy is supportive of the Scheme, with Kent, Gravesham and Dartford Councils all recognising the need for improvements to transport infrastructure, including the Scheme, to enable the ambitions in their plans to be realised. 6.4. Acquisition of land and rights by agreement

6.4.1. The Applicant is aware of the requirement in paragraph 2 of the Guidance to take reasonable steps to acquire all of the land and rights included in the CPO by agreement.

6.4.2. At the same time, the Applicant notes that the Guidance recognises that although compulsory purchase is intended as a last resort to secure the assembly of all the land needed for the implementation of projects, if an acquiring authority waits for negotiations to break down before starting the compulsory purchase process, valuable time will be lost. Accordingly, the Guidance recognises at paragraph 2 that it may often be sensible for the acquiring authority to plan a compulsory purchase timetable as a contingency measure and initiate formal procedures (i.e. progress the making of an order). The Guidance notes that this will help to make the seriousness of the authority's intentions clear from the outset, which in turn might encourage those whose land is affected to enter more readily into meaningful negotiations.

6.4.3. The Applicant has engaged with all landowners and occupiers with a view to acquiring their interests by agreement. This has involved sending: land interest questionnaires and consultation letters; invitations to consultation exhibitions held

Page 39 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

in February and March 2018 and meetings; and the Orders when published on 14 February 2019. The Applicant is in the process of engaging with landowners’ subject to the CPO with regard to the acquisition of their interests by agreement, and negotiations with this objective will be ongoing throughout the process.

6.4.4. The status of these negotiations at the time of writing is set out in Appendix 2 to this Statement. Where appropriate, negotiations will consider agreements to use land for a specified, temporary period rather than permanent acquisition.

6.4.5. Whilst negotiations are ongoing, the Applicant is mindful that it is under a duty to acquire land at best value and that it is required to deliver the Scheme within a specified timescale. It has concluded that it may not be possible to acquire all land interests necessary to deliver the Scheme within this timescale. In addition, some plots are in unknown ownership and cannot be acquired by agreement. The Applicant has therefore concluded that the Scheme is unlikely to be capable of being delivered without compulsory acquisition powers.

6.4.6. An update on discussions to acquire land by agreement is outlined below and in Chapter 8 of this Statement. 6.5. Interference with human rights

6.5.1. As set out in Section 6 of the Statement of Reasons, the Human Rights Act 1998 (Appendix 1, D.4) incorporated into domestic law the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The ECHR includes provisions in the form of Articles, which aim to protect the rights of the individual. The relevant Articles are summarised in paragraph 6.1 of the Statement of Reasons.

6.5.2. The relevant Articles can be summarised as follows:

a) Article 1 of The First Protocol protects the rights to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. No one can be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest. b) Article 6 entitles those affected by compulsory powers to a fair and public hearing. c) Article 8 protects the right of the individual to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. Interference with this right can be justified if it is in accordance with law and is necessary in the interests of, among other things, national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country. 6.5.3. Section 6 of the Act prohibits public authorities from acting in a way which is incompatible with the rights protected by the ECHR.

6.5.4. Paragraph 12 of the Guidance sets out how applicants should approach the issue of human rights:

"An acquiring authority should be sure that the purposes for which the compulsory purchase order is made justify interfering with the human rights of those with an interest in the land affected. Particular consideration should be given to the

Page 40 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

provisions of Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in the case of a dwelling, Article 8 of the Convention.”

Compliance with the convention 6.5.5. The Applicant recognises that the Scheme may have an adverse impact on individuals but considers that there are significant public benefits that will arise from the Scheme that outweigh any harm to those individuals. The CPO strikes a fair balance between the public interest in seeing the Scheme proceed (which is unlikely to happen in the absence of the CPO) and the private rights which will be affected by the compulsory acquisition.

6.5.6. In relation to both Articles 1 and 8, the compelling case in the public interest for the compulsory acquisition powers included within the CPO has been demonstrated in Chapter 5 of the Statement of Reasons. The land over which compulsory acquisition powers are sought as set out in the CPO is the minimum necessary to ensure the delivery of the Scheme. The Scheme has been designed to minimise harm whilst achieving its publicly stated objectives. In this respect, the interference with human rights is both proportionate and justified.

6.5.7. In relation to Article 6, the Applicant is content that the proper procedures have been followed for both the consultation on the Scheme and in determining the compulsory acquisition powers included within the CPO. Throughout the development of the Scheme, the Applicant has given persons with an interest in the land an opportunity to comment on the proposals and the Applicant has endeavoured to engage with landowners. The Applicant has had regard to landowner feedback in both the initial design of the Scheme and in iterative design changes throughout the life of the Scheme. Examples of design changes resulting from consultation feedback are provided within the Consultation Report, February 2019 (Appendix 1, C.1).

6.5.8. Individuals affected by the Orders have submitted objections and representations to the Secretary of State during the objection period as set out in detail in Chapter 8 of this Statement. The Secretary of State has informed those that have submitted representations and objections that a Public Inquiry is to be held which will enable those affected by the Orders to have a fair and public hearing. Additionally, if the Orders are confirmed, a person aggrieved may challenge that decision by way of judicial review in the High Court if they consider that the grounds for doing so are made out.

Acquisition of residential properties 6.5.9. Eleven residential properties are being acquired for the Scheme. The properties are adjacent to the existing Bean Junction and are Nos 1 to 11 Ightham Cottages.

6.5.10. Due to their proximity to the existing road network there is no way that the proposed improvements to the Bean Junction can be carried out without the acquisition and subsequent demolition of these properties.

6.5.11. Engagement with the owners and occupiers of Ightham Cottages has been ongoing since 2015. Regular one to one meetings have taken place to discuss the

Page 41 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

process for the purchase of the Cottages by the Applicant and to answer questions relating to the particular circumstances of each owner/occupier. In addition, the owners and occupiers were notified of the exhibitions which took place in March 2017 and February and March 2018 and some of them attended those events. The owners were subsequently sent the Orders when published on 14 February 2019.

6.5.12. At the time of writing four of the eleven cottages have been purchased by the Applicant outright and two are expected to be concluded shortly following the completion of the conveyancing process. Blight notices have been received and accepted in respect of a further three. The remaining two properties are not eligible for blight due to them not being owner occupied. Discussions with the owners and occupiers of the cottages are ongoing.

6.5.13. Owners of two of the cottages have submitted an objection to the Scheme as discussed in Chapter 8 of this Statement.

Fair compensation 6.5.14. Any person affected by the exercise of compulsory acquisition powers may be entitled to compensation. This entitlement to compensation is provided for by the compensation code. Any dispute in respect of compensation may be referred to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber), an independent tribunal, for determination. 6.6. Implementation of the Scheme

Timing of the orders and construction of the Scheme 6.6.1. The Scheme is due to start construction by Spring 2020. Construction is due to be completed and the Scheme opened to traffic by 2023.

6.6.2. The confirmation of the Orders during 2019 is important to ensure that work on the Scheme can start in full in 2020 and that construction is not delayed due to the necessary land interests not having been secured. Although the Applicant already owns some of the land, it is necessary for it to secure the ability to acquire, or create rights over, all the land so that there is no impediment or delay to construction.

6.6.3. The Applicant therefore considers that there are sufficiently compelling reasons for the powers to be sought at this time.

Funding 6.6.4. The Applicant is content that there is a reasonable prospect of the necessary funds for acquisition being available. The financial case has demonstrated that the Scheme is affordable, that risks have been taken into account in the costings and are being actively managed, and that efficiency targets are in place and being managed.

6.6.5. An agreement was signed in January 2018 between DfT, DCLG and EDC, such that EDC would underwrite the £45m third party contribution to add to the

Page 42 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Applicant's majority funding (from DfT) to deliver the Scheme. To date the Applicant has received two payments totalling circa £15m in accordance with the payment schedule in the agreement.

6.6.6. The total cost of the Scheme, which includes the estimated cost of the compulsory acquisition of the land required, is estimated to be £117m (Highways England Commercial Estimate) in cash terms. When the third-party funding of £45m is taken into account, the estimated net cost to Highways England of £72m is significantly below the RIS commitment. 6.7. Use of the land

6.7.1. The Applicant has a clear idea of how it intends to use the Land. Confirmation of the Orders will enable the Applicant to compulsorily acquire land required for the Scheme in order to improve highways, stop up highways and private means of access to premises and to provide new means of access to premises. It will also enable the Applicant to compulsorily acquire land required for the mitigation of adverse effects and enable the acquisition of rights for construction and maintenance of the Scheme. Twenty one of the 98 plots are required as a temporary licence working space in connection with the construction of the Scheme (total area 1.84ha).

6.7.2. A significant amount of work has been carried out to date on the design of the Scheme and the preliminary design is shown on the Scheme drawings (ES Figure 2.2) and the Preliminary Outline Environmental Design drawings (ES Figure 2.3) (Appendix 1, B.1 to B.4). This design work has in turn informed the preparation of the Scheme boundary and the CPO Plans (Appendix 1, A.7).

6.7.3. The purpose for which each plot of land is required is described in Appendix 2 to the Statement of Reasons (Appendix 1, A.8).

6.7.4. The Scheme represents the most feasible option which requires the least amount of permanent acquisition. The Applicant has further sought to minimise the extent of compulsory acquisition through the acquisition or creation of rights instead of outright acquisition where appropriate.

6.7.5. Careful consideration has been given to the amount of land that is required and the plots shown on the CPO Plans have been drawn so as to minimise land take as far as possible. 6.8. Other consents and impediments

6.8.1. It will be necessary for the Applicant to obtain a protected species licence for the construction of the Scheme in relation to hazel dormice. The Applicant has had discussions with Natural England in this regard and is not aware of any reason why a licence should not be granted if required. This is addressed further in Chapter 7 (biodiversity) of the ES (Appendix 1, B.1).

6.8.2. Some of the works required for the Scheme may take place within 8 metres of the Ebbsfleet River, which is classified as a main river by the Environment Agency. Any works within that distance will require an Environmental Permit.

Page 43 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

6.8.3. Discussions have taken place between the Applicant and the Environment Agency and the Applicant is not aware of any reason why a permit should not be granted if required. This is addressed further in Chapter 8 (road drainage and the water environment) of the ES.

6.8.4. Traffic Regulation Orders will be made as appropriate and when necessary in respect of the Scheme.

6.8.5. The Applicant does not consider that the Scheme is likely to be blocked by any physical or legal impediments to implementation.

Page 44 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

7. Special Considerations 7.1. Crown land

7.1.1. Section 327 of the Highways Act 1980 (Appendix 1, D.1) provides that the appropriate authority for any Crown land (in this case The Crown Estate Commissioners) and a highway authority may agree that any provisions of that Act shall apply to the land in question. While the agreement is in force the relevant provisions of the Act shall apply to the land, subject to the terms of the agreement.

7.1.2. The Applicant has made provision in the CPO for the acquisition of an area of Crown land comprising 5 plots, 1/27a, 1/27b, 1/27c, 1/27d and 1/29a. The agreement of The Crown Estate Commissioners to the compulsory acquisition of this land is required.

7.1.3. The Applicant has entered into discussions with The Crown Estate Commissioners. No correspondence was submitted by The Crown Estate during the statutory objection and representation period. At the time of writing the Applicant has not yet secured the necessary agreement from The Crown Estate Commissioners to the compulsory acquisition but will continue to endeavour to secure it and the Inspector will be updated on the negotiations prior to the Public Inquiry. The Applicant does not foresee anything which would prevent consent from being given. 7.2. Statutory undertakers’ apparatus and land

7.2.1. In order to mitigate the impact of the Scheme on the undertakings of Thames Water, Southern Gas Networks, National Grid, Cadent Gas, UK Power Networks and telecommunications companies, the Applicant has identified a number of diversions of apparatus, and protective measures to be taken in respect of apparatus to be retained in situ, which will prevent any disruption to those undertakings. Where applicable, arrangements will be made to divert or protect the apparatus under the provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (Appendix 1, D.5) (NRSWA).

7.2.2. In addition to the statutory public consultation, engagement has taken place with the statutory undertakers to determine likely diversion requirements and estimated costs as part of the NRSWA C3 process. The diversions will be contained within the proposed highway boundaries. The Applicant has identified likely diversions to Thames Water, Southern Gas Networks, UK Power Networks, BT Openreach, Vodafone and Virgin Media apparatus. Objections to the Orders have been submitted by National Grid, UK Power Networks, Vodafone and GTC, details of which are provided in Chapter 8 of this Statement together with the current status of discussions. 7.3. Veteran trees

7.3.1. Three individual veteran trees will be lost as a result of the Scheme. Extensive work has been carried out by the design team to investigate whether the loss of veteran trees can be avoided. This work has involved the consideration of

Page 45 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

alternative designs and design changes, which have enabled the avoidance of direct impacts to a total of nine individual veteran trees that were identified as potentially requiring removal to facilitate the Scheme. However, the design review work has concluded that direct impacts cannot be avoided for the three individual veteran trees, as the alternatives were found not to be feasible in terms of the geometrical design, cost, programme, and health and safety. More information on the three affected veteran trees can be found in Chapter 7 (Biodiversity) of the ES. All three individual veteran trees are located immediately adjacent to the highway boundary.

7.3.2. Paragraph 175(c) of the NPPF (Appendix 1, G.1) states that: "development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees) should be refused, unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists".

7.3.3. A footnote to this paragraph gives examples of 'wholly exceptional reasons': "For example, infrastructure projects (including nationally significant infrastructure projects, orders under the Transport and Works Act and hybrid bills), where the public benefit would clearly outweigh the loss or deterioration of habitat." The Scheme is an infrastructure project of the kind referred to in this footnote.

7.3.4. The need for and considerable public benefits of the Scheme have been outlined above. Although the Scheme will result in the loss of veteran trees, the loss is limited to a low number; three individual specimens. The compensation strategy proposed will involve translocation of the three veteran trees to be lost, and the advanced planting of 2.2ha of native woodland and nine new trees of the same native species as the lost veteran trees. These nine new pedunculate oak trees will be of local origin and planted with space around them to develop into an open crown. Pedunculate oaks will also be included in the wider woodland creation plan, along with other native species.

7.3.5. Additional habitat creation will result in a total of 5.64ha of native woodland, 2.8ha of species-rich grassland, 0.61ha of native scrub, 200m of native hedgerow and an extra 0.2ha of ponds, which contribute to an overall increase in the total area and improved quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats as a result of the Scheme.

7.3.6. A Habitat Management Plan will be implemented for the maintenance and management of newly created habitats (particularly new woodland and individual trees) to ensure their successful establishment. Monitoring will take the form of arboricultural/ecological surveys of newly planted trees, focusing on those planted with the aim of developing into veteran trees and woodland to inform appropriate ongoing management practices.

7.3.7. Monitoring will be undertaken by walkover survey annually in the first two years after planting. Newly planted trees will be monitored annually throughout the maintenance period. After the initial two years, an ongoing schedule of monitoring of newly created habitats will be agreed with the Applicant's contractor.

7.3.8. The above measures to compensate for the loss of three individual veteran trees are included in section 7.8 of the ES, the OEMP in Volume 2 of the ES and as commitments in the REAC (Chapter 3 of Volume 2 of the ES) (Appendix 1, B.1 to

Page 46 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

B.4). It is therefore considered that a suitable compensation strategy, as referred to in the NPPF, exists and is deliverable as part of the Scheme.

7.3.9. In conclusion there is a clear need for the Scheme, which is an important infrastructure project. The Scheme will have extensive and considerable public benefits, as described in this Statement, which are considered to outweigh the harm that will be caused by the loss of three individual veteran trees. 'Wholly exceptional reasons' are therefore considered to exist for the purpose of paragraph 175(c) of the NPPF. A suitable compensation strategy also exists for the purposes of paragraph 175(c) by virtue of the extensive mitigation and compensation measures to be provided to increase the total area and improved quality of terrestrial and aquatic habitats to be created as part of the Scheme. It is therefore considered that the requirements of paragraph 175(c) are satisfied in relation to the Scheme.

7.3.10. A site visit took place on 15 May 2019 by an arboriculturalist, ecologist, and invertebrate specialist, primarily focussing on the three veteran trees to be lost, to inform the method of translocation for each individual specimen.

7.3.11. The Applicant is not making an application for planning consent and therefore the test for making/confirming the Orders is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest, having taken into consideration the requirements of local and national planning (section 10(2) of the HA 1980). 7.4. Green Belt

7.4.1. Land required for the Scheme is designated as Green Belt, as shown on Figure 2.1 of the Environmental Statement Volume 3. The land acquisition within the Green Belt is required to accommodate the Scheme at Bean Junction and comprises approximately 6ha (of which 2.6ha is required for environmental mitigation).

7.4.2. According to paragraph 133 of the NPPF the aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

7.4.3. Paragraph 134 states that the Green Belt serves five purposes:

a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; c) to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and e) to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 7.4.4. 'Inappropriate development' is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in 'very special circumstances' (paragraph 143).

7.4.5. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special

Page 47 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Although the Scheme is not the subject of a planning application, the same test that Local Planning Authorities are required to apply has been taken into account as part of the design process for the Scheme.

7.4.6. The landscape and visual impacts of the Scheme have been assessed by Ms Angela Wade (BA (Hons), Dip LA). The assessment is set out in Chapter 9 (Landscape) of the ES. Paragraph 9.12.1 notes that the existing junctions at Bean and Ebbsfleet will increase in size and extent, resulting in a slight increase in the influence of the highway at either junction. The type of development proposed is of a similar nature to the highway infrastructure which already exists. The Chapter concludes that the only residual significant landscape and visual impact of the Scheme is the impact on receptors at 2-16 Hope Cottages. With regard to the impact on the landscape, initial moderate adverse impacts are predicted to reduce to slight beneficial at Bean Junction and to neutral elsewhere by year 15, when mitigation planting would be expected to have established. It is not therefore considered that the Scheme will have any long-term adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

7.4.7. Paragraphs 145 and 146 of the NPPF set out forms of development that are not, or may not be, considered inappropriate. Paragraph 146 includes local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location, provided it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

7.4.8. The Applicant considers that the Scheme can be classified as 'local transport infrastructure'. As described previously in this Statement, it finds significant support in local policy. One of the main objectives of the Scheme is to support economic and housing growth in north Kent, including Ebbsfleet Garden City.

7.4.9. The Scheme will also increase the capacity of the junctions and improve journey times and road safety for all users. It is therefore considered that the Scheme falls within this exception in paragraph 146, on account of the relatively limited development that is required in order to expand the capacity of the existing highway network. The Scheme would not introduce new development into the area of a scale considered to conflict with the aim of preserving the openness of the Green Belt. Accordingly, it is not considered to be inappropriate development.

7.4.10. For completeness, and in order to address any claim that the Scheme does not preserve the openness of the Green Belt or conflicts with the purposes of including land within it, the existence of 'very special circumstances' has been considered. Paragraph 144 requires the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, to be clearly outweighed by other considerations in order for 'very special circumstances' to exist. 'Very special circumstances' are considered to exist in this case on the basis that the Scheme will:

a) Support economic and housing growth in North Kent, including Ebbsfleet Garden City.

Page 48 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

b) Increase the capacity of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions and minimise the impact of increased traffic on the A2. c) Improve journey times. d) Improve road safety. e) Minimise the impact on the environment. f) Provide value for money. 7.4.11. Given the current regeneration plan established by the local authorities and all of the benefits that regeneration will bring, and the necessary facilitative function of the Scheme in the implementation of this regeneration plan, point (a) on its own is considered to lead to a conclusion that 'very special circumstances' exist in this case for the purposes of paragraph 144. The other benefits referred to at (b) to (f) add further weight in the balance of 'other considerations' against harm to the Green Belt. It is the Applicant's view that, when taken together, the benefits of the Scheme clearly outweigh any limited harm to the Green Belt and that very special circumstances therefore exist.

7.4.12. It should be noted that the Applicant is not making an application for planning consent and therefore the test for making/confirming the Orders is whether there is a compelling case in the public interest, having taken into consideration the requirements of local and national planning (section 10(2) of the HA 1980).

Page 49 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8. Objections and Representations 8.1. Summary

8.1.1. The Orders together with the Environmental Statement and other accompanying documents were published on 14 February 2019 and the statutory objection period ran until 28 March 2019. By the end of the objection period 13 statutory objections, 7 non-statutory objections and 13 representations were received as set out in the relevant date letter from the Department for Transport on 4 April 2019 (Ref: TTRAN/HE/LAO/182). There are discrepancies in the categorisation of statutory and non-statutory objectors in the letter from the DfT and the list below is considered to be correct. Please note there is no specific order to how the objectors, non-statutory objectors and represented are listed.

Statutory objectors

 UK Power Networks  National Grid Electricity Transmission PLC  Vodafone  Neil Thomas Elliott and DTG Elliott & Son Limited  Bean Parish Council  Marston’s PLC  WT Investments LLP  Mr Darren Winchester  Sarah Winchester  Mr Philip Jenns  Mr and Mrs Topping  Gravesham Borough Council  J&B Construction Non-Statutory Objectors

 Mr Toine Napier  Les Brown Associates Ltd  Bean Residents Association  CPRE Kent  Woodland Trust  Gary Outram  Dartford & Gravesham Cycling Forum

Page 50 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Representations received from

 Natural England  Historic England  Environment Agency  Ebbsfleet Development Corporation  Dartford Borough Council  Kent County Council  GTC  Southfleet Parish Council  Neil Fuller  Linda Collins on behalf of Bean Residents Association  EIGP  Land Securities and Blueco  Swanscombe Development LLP 8.1.2. A summary of the objections and representations received in response to the Orders and high level summary of the Applicant’s response is set out below.

8.1.3. Detailed responses to the objections and representations will be provided in the various Proofs of Evidence as set out in Chapter 9 of this Statement. 8.2. Responses of support

8.2.1. The host Local Authorities namely Kent County Council, Dartford Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation are in principle, in support of the Scheme. In addition, Swanscombe Development LLP, Southfleet Parish Council and Ebbsfleet Investment General Partners (EIGP) all state that they support the Scheme in principle.

8.2.2. Dartford Borough Council state in their representation “the Council is keen that the delivery of improvements at Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions is urgently progressed, in order to meet the needs of the development coming forward”.

8.2.3. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation state in their representation: “EDC firmly supports the principle of improving the existing junctions as the provision of sufficient capacity at the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet road junctions is essential to development of the Ebbsfleet Garden City and wider growth in the area...”.

8.2.4. Gravesham Borough Council state in their representation: “The Council welcomes the Scheme aimed at improving access to the development areas of the Ebbsfleet area and address existing concerns with junction operation (principally at Bean). It is an essential part of delivering the overall growth objectives in the wider area…”.

Page 51 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.2.5. Gravesham Borough Council continues: “The Scheme supports the overall objectives of this Council, Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Dartford Borough Council and Kent County Council as represented by the Strategic Transport Infrastructure Programme (STIPS) programme. This includes substantial improvements to public transport as an essential part of the overall strategy for accommodating development”. 8.3. Statutory objections

Statutory undertakers 8.3.1. The following statutory undertakers submitted holding objections pending further consultation given the apparatus in the vicinity of the Scheme and confirmation that they will be able to carry out their statutory functions no less efficiently than previously and at no additional cost or cost will be reimbursed.

 National Grid Electricity Transmission;  Vodafone; and  UK Power Networks.

8.3.2. Applicant’s response National Grid: The Applicant is aware of National Grid’s buried and overhead services within the Scheme boundary. During the Preliminary Design stage, contact was made with National Grid as part of the NRSWA C2 process. The C3 response in March 2018 confirmed that the Applicant can proceed using normal safe systems of work. In a meeting on 18 May 2018 to discuss proposed works near pylon YN073, near Ebbsfleet Junction it was agreed in principle that construction could proceed close to the tower base and overhead lines with no diversions required.

8.3.3. The Applicant confirm that no live National Grid apparatus will be directly affected by the works, and no diversions are required. Safe systems of work when working within the vicinity of the apparatus will be applied and during the detailed design stage further contact and agreement on any required diversions through the C4 process as per the NRSWA Code of Practice - Diversionary Works will be sought.

8.3.4. Negotiations are currently on ongoing and an Asset Protection Agreement is being agreed between National Grid and with Highways England in order to remove their holding objection.

8.3.5. Applicant’s response to Vodafone: During the Preliminary Design stage, contact was made with Vodafone as part of the NRSWA C2 process and an engineering assessment regarding any potential diversion/protection of affected apparatus was undertaken which confirmed some Vodafone apparatus may be affected in the vicinity of Ebbsfleet and the indicative diversions plans were issued. As part of the C3 Budget estimates, the Applicant received a response on 6 April 2018 including the budget estimate for carrying out the necessary diversion/protection to Vodafone Limited’s apparatus due to the Scheme.

8.3.6. During the detailed design stage, the Applicant will contact Vodafone to request Detailed Estimates (C4) providing details of the final design with working drawings

Page 52 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

and can assure that all the necessary steps to safeguard the apparatus will be taken and reimbursement of the cost for the necessary works will be provided.

8.3.7. Applicant’s response to UK Power Networks (UKPN): During the Preliminary Design stage, contact was made with UKPN as part of the NRSWA C2 process. For buried services, the C3 response provided by UKPN indicated that some diversions may be required, and these will be agreed with UKPN through the C4 process at a later stage.

8.3.8. For overhead UKPN services, the Applicant met UKPN on 16 March 2018 to discuss works near several pylons and overhead lines at Bean Junction. It was agreed in principle that construction could proceed close to the tower bases and lines with no diversions required.

8.3.9. The Applicant understands that the standard approach for statutory undertakers is to object to the CPO pending the signing of a compromise agreement stating The Applicant will finance any alteration to their networks necessary to facilitate the works.

8.3.10. The Applicant is confident that agreement will be reached with those undertakers and written confirmation (diversion agreements or Asset Protection Agreements) that they are content with the proposed solutions in respect of their apparatus will be obtained prior to the start of the Public Inquiry to enable these objections from National Grid, Vodafone and UKPN can be withdrawn.

Landowners directly affected by the Scheme WT Investments, Mr Darren Winchester and Sarah Winchester 8.3.11. Three landowners (namely WT Investments, Mr Darren Winchester and Sarah Winchester) objected specifically on the grounds they do not agree that meaningful negotiations have been undertaken to acquire their land interest voluntarily, and they contend there has been excessive use of compulsory purchase powers. In summary, the key points raised are:

 Excessive use of compulsory purchase powers in relation to plots 1/4A to 1/4I and 1/25A and 1/28.  Plots 1/4A to 1/4I are subject to an extant planning consent and a lawful development certificate and therefore the landowner would like The Applicant to consider alternative sites for the proposed essential licence / compound.  No meaningful negotiations have been undertaken and they consider that the Applicant needs to properly review and enter into meaningful discussions in an attempt to reach voluntary acquisition of land by agreement. 8.3.12. Applicant’s response: With regard to bullet 1, the Applicant has not sought excessive use of compulsory purchase powers in relation to 1/4A to 1/4I and 1/25A and 1/28. Other than land required to be included within the CPO for permanent acquisition (outright title) to enable construction of the Scheme (being Plots 1/4b, 1/4g, 1/7a, 1/7b, 1/25a & 1/28a), land has been included within the CPO which the

Page 53 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Applicant deems essential to providing the works and for future access and maintenance.

8.3.13. With regard to bullet 2, the Applicant has reviewed the planning history of the site and has had discussions with Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, as the planning authority for the area. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation is currently reviewing the historic planning consents and is in discussions with landowners. The Applicant agrees there is a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of land as a commuter car park (Application Ref: 15/00329/LDC). The Applicant is unable to confirm the status of the proposed motel and tourist caravan park planning consent (Application Ref: 79/00596/FULA1); Ebbsfleet Development Corporation is currently investigating the status of this consent.

8.3.14. With regard to bullet point 3, the Applicant has been in discussion with the landowners with two meetings held in 2018 to discuss the land to be acquired in the forthcoming published Orders. A further meeting was held on 3 May 2019, and the Applicant has commenced negotiations with the landowners to acquire the land by agreement.

Philip Jenns – 4 Ightham Cottages 8.3.15. One landowner that lives at No. 4 Ightham Cottages has objected on the grounds the Orders represent an unjustifiable interference with home and family life. In summary the points raised are:

 The ES has not properly considered the impact on People and Communities in terms of mental health and well-being in particular: o The impact on Mental Health and well-being of those threated by compulsory purchase at 1-11 Ightham Cottages appears not to have been considered in the ES. o The specific circumstances of those living at 1-11 Ightham Cottages has not been taken into account. 8.3.16. Applicant’s response: The impact on the mental health and wellbeing of the residents of Ightham Cottages has been assessed in Chapter 13 of the ES (People and Communities). The assessment concludes that there will be a moderate adverse impact on the residents to be relocated under the section on mental health and wellbeing and in addition the section under ‘housing and shelter’ assesses the impact at slight adverse, with mitigation. Paragraph 13.9.92 concludes that there will be slight to moderate adverse effects on mental health and wellbeing for relocated residents. The Applicant therefore consider that impacts on mental health and wellbeing have been properly considered and assessed in the ES.

 That a scheme option requiring less, or no compulsory purchase of residential property should be progressed. 8.3.17. Applicant’s response: The Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) published in August 2017 and submitted alongside the Published Orders on 14 February 2019 considered the impacts on Ightham Cottages in determining the preferred route option. The Report acknowledged that there were expected to be major adverse impacts on People and Communities, including the residents of Ightham Cottages.

Page 54 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

The anticipated impacts of the different options were weighed up and compared, with the conclusion being that the preferred option, although requiring the demolition of Ightham, performed best against the Scheme Objectives and the majority of appraisal factors, including supporting economic development and housing, minimising environmental impact and reducing accident rates.

 The Applicant has met with my client and provided documentation about Statutory Blight, accepted blight notice and are engaging in valuations and negotiations. Nevertheless, The Applicant has not: o Offered advice and assistance to affected occupiers in respect of their relocation and providing details of available relocation properties as is recommended by the guidance referred to above. o Responded to my client on their queries and concerns about the commercial parking space. o Provided an undertaking to pay professional fees, other than the entitlement under the statutory blight process where The Applicant’s policy is only to pay fees on completion of a sale. 8.3.18. Applicant’s response: The Applicant has discussed the purchasing of the Ightham Cottage property and the family’s relocation in person with Mr Jenns. During the discussion the Applicant believed that a suitable level of advice was offered with respect to the relocation. This was assumed because The Applicant understood that Mr Jenns did not require further advice or assistance, due to the fact that a blight application had been submitted for the property by Mr Jenns and that the only remaining matter to be resolved was the agreeing of the valuation.

8.3.19. With regard to lorry parking, negotiations for the sale of the property to the Applicant are ongoing between the Applicant’s valuer Nicholas Coote (Valuation Office Agency) and Mr Jenns and these include discussions around potential disturbance compensation in connection with the lorry parking. Nicholas is currently awaiting clarification on a number of points surrounding the lorry parking, such as why the vehicle cannot be parked in a normal residential street (it is not clear how large the vehicle is) and whether Mr Jenns has explored the availability of alternative sites in the area (not just free facilities).

8.3.20. With regard to reimbursement of professional fees, reasonable surveyor’s fees undertaken will be paid by the Applicant.

Ashleigh and Jason Topping – 6 Ightham Cottages 8.3.21. The owners of No. 6 Ightham Cottages have objected on the grounds that the loss of properties was not given enough weight in selecting the preferred scheme option and that other options which did not cause the demolition of dwellings, should have been preferred. In summary the points raised are:

 Finding a new home of similar value properties to your current property in the immediate area taking into consideration family / child care arrangements and proximity to place of work.

Page 55 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

 Scheme alternatives and insufficient weight given Ightham residents during the route selection stage. 8.3.22. Applicant’s response: A blight notice has been served by Mr and Mrs Topping and accepted by the Applicant. The Applicant is happy to meet with Mr and Mrs Topping to discuss this matter further and have written to the owners to this effect.

8.3.23. With regard to Scheme alternatives, the SAR (Appendix 1, Ref: C.2 to C.5) published in August 2017 and submitted alongside the Published Orders on 14 February 2019 considered the impacts on Ightham Cottages in determining the preferred route option. The Report acknowledged that there were expected to be major adverse impacts on People and Communities, including the residents of Ightham Cottages. The anticipated impacts of the different options were weighed up and compared, with the conclusion being that the preferred option, although requiring the demolition of Ightham, performed best against the Scheme Objectives and the majority of appraisal factors.

J & B Construction 8.3.24. J&B Construction owns land to the south of Ebbsfleet junction and has objected on the basis that, at the time of writing of their objection, they had not received satisfactory information relating to how the access to their site will be affected. Little detail was provided in the objection letter, but it is understood that the access proposed could have impacts on developing their land in the future.

8.3.25. Applicant’s response: The Applicant has provided further detail of the Scheme proposals and plans in a detailed response sent to J&B construction in order to provide further clarification regarding the proposed access shown on the plans. The Applicant had a meeting with J&B Construction on 27 March 2019 where the proposals were discussed following receipt of the plans. As a directly affected landowner, Highways England is committed to ongoing engagement and working with J&B construction to develop the proposals, in order find a mutually satisfactory solution.

Landowners within the vicinity of the Scheme (no direct land take) Marstons PLC – Spring River Pub and Lodge 8.3.26. Marstons PLC own the Spring River Pub and Lodge on Talbot Road, Ebbsfleet, which is accessed from Ackers Drive via the Ebbsfleet West Roundabout adjacent to the Northfleet / Gravesend A2260 junction on the A2. Marstons PLC has objected as the works proposed include new slip roads at Bean Junction and new slip roads and roundabout enlargements at Ebbsfleet which is adjacent to the Spring River pub / restaurant and Marstons’ Lodge and is concerned about the impacts during construction on access, air quality, noise and visual amenity to the Spring River pub and Lodge.

8.3.27. Applicant’s response: The Applicant is planning to implement a number of mitigation measures which will minimise the impact on Spring River Pub and Lodge. During construction works, there will only need to be a limited number of short overnight closures to complete the tie in works to Ackers Drive. Before any closures, consultation will take place with the local businesses to ensure that the

Page 56 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

closures minimise effects on traffic. Temporary noise barriers would be used to ensure the levels of noise do not exceed the daytime significance threshold limits. Existing vegetation which screens the Lodge and Public House from the A260 and existing roundabouts will be retained to provide continued screening throughout the works and long-term operation of the Scheme. Appropriate mitigation measures will be used to minimise dust emissions.

8.3.28. It is expected that the construction noise would be audible, given the distances from the works to the Hotel and garden, although it is not expected that the levels of noise would exceed the daytime significance threshold limits of 75dB, with mitigation in place. Night-time noise levels at this location are predicted to exceed night time threshold criteria, even with mitigation. As stated in the paragraph above, there will only need to be a limited number of short overnight closures to complete the tie in works to Ackers Drive and therefore limiting the periods of noise levels above night time threshold criteria.

8.3.29. The mitigation measures to be implemented during construction are set out in more detail in the Outline Environmental Management Plan in the Environmental Statement Volume 2 Appendix B (Appendix 1, B.2).

8.3.30. During operation, the air quality assessment showed that the Scheme would have an imperceptible effect at the Lodge and staff accommodation, with no exceedances of air quality criteria.

8.3.31. During operation, the predicted changes in noise are negligible, with predicted changes in noise less than 1dB at this location.

Neil Thomas Elliott and DTG Elliott & Son Limited 8.3.32. The landowners own the Springhead Nurseries off Ebbsfleet Junction and objected to the Orders on the basis that the Applicant has not provided any details of the works or access requirements to their land (Plots 2/9a, 2/10a and 2/11a) and therefore they are unable to assess how the Scheme may impact their property and business in the short term and also permanently. Also, the Applicant has admitted that the land might not be needed but this is not certain until the drainage design is completed which might not be for some time.

8.3.33. Applicant’s response: The Applicant confirms that access to Springhead Nurseries has been considered during the preliminary design stage and the proposals have been specifically designed to ensure that the major drainage works will be carried out upstream of the network near the access to Springhead Nurseries.

8.3.34. The proposed drainage works include the installation of oversized carrier drain pipes along the Pepperhill link road kerb line for attenuation and an unlined swale (i.e. grass ditch) along the south side of the slip road (i.e. edge of disused petrol station site) to address water quality concerns. No changes are expected to the pollution control chambers under the Springhead Nurseries car park.

8.3.35. The Applicant has attended several meetings with DTG Elliott and their agent, Hobbs Parker, to discuss the main concerns regarding the proposed works near

Page 57 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Springhead Nurseries. The drainage works near Springhead Nurseries were explained and drawings have been shared. No requirement for construction traffic along the access road to Springhead Nurseries is anticipated and there will be no requirement to close or utilise the access into and out of the Nursery.

8.3.36. The network condition will be investigated further during the detailed design phase and may require further improvements. The Applicant will continue to require occasional access to their assets for routine maintenance operations and the appointed contractor will ensure that any disruption will be kept to a minimum.

8.3.37. The construction of the adjacent Ebbsfleet Junction will require traffic management using a combination of lane closures, narrow lanes, overnight full carriageway closures and possible traffic light control with convey escorts. the Applicant will consult fully during development of the detailed design, including the development of traffic management proposals for this area.

8.3.38. At Ebbsfleet Roundabouts, the two gyratory systems and connecting link roads will be kept open to provide access to both the Ebbsfleet development (Ackers Drive), Ebbsfleet International Station and Swanscombe.

8.3.39. The Applicant is committed to keeping Springhead Nurseries operational throughout the works and do not envisage that deliveries will be prevented. There may potentially be a temporarily loss of some customer car parking during the works however this is proposed to be kept to a minimum.

8.3.40. The Applicant would like to enter into a legal arrangement with the owners of Springhead Nurseries for the purchase of land and granting of rights required for the construction of this Scheme by agreement.

Gravesham Borough Council 8.3.41. In principle Gravesham Borough Council are in support of the Scheme as it aims to improve access to the development areas of Ebbsfleet and addresses existing concerns with junction operation (principally in Bean). However, they have submitted a holding objection due to issues with the traffic model which is based on a cordoned part of the Lower Thames Area Model. The Council argue the traffic modelling is not up to date, that it is unclear how well validated the model is for use at the local level and would also like an option to be tested in the model should the Lower Thames Crossing not go ahead.

8.3.42. Applicant’s response: The Applicant is having ongoing discussions, including regular collaborative planning meetings, with the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), including with Gravesham Borough Council. The Applicant is preparing a Statement of Common Ground with Gravesham Borough Council where a response to the points raised by the Council will be responded to in detail and a response to the comments specifically raised on the traffic modelling and a non- Lower Thames Crossing scenario.

8.3.43. A meeting was held on 16 April 2019 attended by Gravesham Borough Council and the Applicant where the holding objection on traffic modelling was discussed further. An email was sent from the Applicant summarising their understanding,

Page 58 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

that undertaking the following assessments would be suitable to address the current holding objection by Gravesham Borough Council, namely:

1. Further information demonstrating the air quality and noise impacts of the Scheme at the Pepper Hill junction using the current traffic models; 2. A further sensitivity test looking at the traffic along the A2 mainline in a no Lower Thames Crossing scenario for the design year of 2038. 8.3.44. These assessments are currently ongoing, and the findings will be shared with Gravesham Borough Council and the inquiry.

Bean Parish Council 8.3.45. Bean Parish Council submitted an objection to the Orders for a number of reasons as set out in summary below:

 The Scheme lacks a compelling case for powers of compulsory acquisition.  Occupants served a CPO are being pressurised to vacate prematurely including the Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary.  There are mismatches between the Order Plans and Engineering GA's.  A Commuter Car Park has a CPO and made smaller without explanation.  Unregistered land with rights of use is being acquired without compensation.  The triangle between A2 and A296 is incorrectly described as not Green Belt.  There is no evidence that the 'budget constrained' Scheme meets Objectives and the Statement of Reasons, accompanying the Draft and Made Orders, fails to demonstrate that the Orders achieve the Scheme Objectives.  Evidence to the Treasury that the Scheme is value for money is unsound.  Traffic data provided excludes Bluewater peak times (weekends, Bank Holidays and School holidays) and should be analysed separately.  The Scheme does not deal with the hazardous dual 3-lane A2 main line.  The A2 will not cope with the 2 close slip roads (east/coast bound) merging in narrow lanes.  The segregation barrier which we had been told was for safety reasons to stop weaving but it is to force traffic to use the new on-slip. 8.3.46. Applicant’s response: The Applicant has provided a detailed response to each of the points raised by Bean Parish Council; this response is summarised below.

8.3.47. The Applicant is satisfied that the powers of compulsory acquisition sought are necessary, proportionate and justified and is firmly of the view that there is a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition as set out in Section 6 of this Statement of Case.

Page 59 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.3.48. Highways England has engaged with directly impacted land and property owners for some time. They have been offered one-to-one meetings with Highways England to explain the Scheme to them and the process it follows to compensate those who are affected.

8.3.49. Since the announcement of the Preferred Route in the summer of 2017 the owner-occupiers of the Ightham Cottages have been entitled to submit blight notices asking Highways England to purchase their properties. To date Highways England has purchased four of the cottages while several others are at various stages in the process.

8.3.50. Highways England considers that it has been following the appropriate process for making a CPO, for handling applications for blight and negotiating with landowners in preference to using the powers of the CPO.

8.3.51. Highways England has endeavoured to be respectful and considerate to the situation of the impacted residents and does not intend that occupants are being pressured to vacate their land prematurely. Highways England are keen to work with landowners to find ways to mitigate the impacts of advanced surveys, walkover surveys and the works proposals. Highways England has appointed a District Valuer to manage lands compensation claims and are actively pursuing meetings with affected landowners to discuss their concerns.

8.3.52. With regard to the Spirits Horse Sanctuary specifically, site investigation is required to provide information for the next stage of the design. A site walkover was held recently and while the area occupied by the Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary is large, there would need to be sufficient space to work safely around the animals. The detailed plans of how the investigations are to be undertaken are being developed. The Applicant will engage with the horse sanctuary to plan how best to carry out this work and to ensure that the right precautionary measures are in place at the right time.

8.3.53. The Applicant is aware of the Kingsferry Coach service and the car park located in the north west corner of the Bean Triangle. The area of the car park available for vehicular parking is reduced by only by a limited amount due to the scheme requirements involving the introduction of a new bus lay-by on Bean Lane eastbound just south of the A296 roundabout and the new access route to Bean Pond, electricity pylon and an area of woodland.

8.3.54. The construction compound layout is being discussed with the buildability contractor and every endeavour will be made to retain the existing car park or accommodate the same number of car parking spaces in a different layout during construction. This will be considered in a Traffic Management Plan to be prepared during the detailed design.

8.3.55. Compensation would still be payable to any parties who can prove ownership of or another interest in the land in question, whether it is registered or unregistered. In cases where there is unknown ownership (i.e. not registered with Land Registry and no owner has been found after diligent enquiries have been made), the matter will be submitted to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine compensation payable for the land.

Page 60 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.3.56. The Statement of Reasons (Appendix 1, A.8) incorrectly states that "Land north of the A2 is now no longer within the Green Belt, with the exception of the land west of the B255 and east of the M25 including the northern section of Darenth Wood and Darenth Country Park". However, the calculation of approximately 6ha of land within the Green Belt required to accommodate the Scheme at Bean Junction, identified in paragraph 7.27 of the Statement of Reasons, does include the area of Green Belt within the Bean Triangle.

8.3.57. Chapter 6 of this Statement of Case demonstrates how the Scheme meets the objectives. The appraisal, and ultimately the value for money assessment, has been carried out in accordance with the Department for Transport's appraisal guidance "WebTAG", which in turn accords with the Treasury's appraisal guidance "The Green Book". The appraisal concluded that the Scheme represents high value for money.

8.3.58. Given the proximity of Bluewater Shopping Centre and its operation at weekends a Saturday traffic scenario test has been applied and the findings shared with to Bean Parish Council (Appendix 1, I.9).

8.3.59. Improvements to the A2 mainline capacity and the wider network are outside the scope of this Scheme, however, detailed operational modelling of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junction network, including the A2 has been undertaken. Narrow lanes and proximity of junctions is subject to Departures from Standards. Narrow lanes are successfully used on the strategic road network and are normally developed and agreed during the later stages of a design, however for the Scheme to progress The Applicant is seeking formal agreement to use narrow lanes at this stage. There will be a new signal controlled junction in between the Watling Street roundabout and A296 merge as part of the Easter Quarry committed development which will create natural gaps in traffic arriving at the merge with the A2.

8.3.60. Improvements to Bean north roundabout and the new eastbound slip to the A2 are key elements of the Scheme. Segregation of the B255 and revised traffic signing will direct traffic from Bluewater towards the new slip road and away from the A296 which has numerous accesses and parking for HGVs, presenting hazards for road users. Improvements to the A296 are beyond the scope of the Scheme.

8.3.61. Regarding traffic lights on Bean South (Hope Cottages), standard practice is not to model the weekends or the public holidays and unusual traffic conditions. The junction has been modelled for Weekday AM and PM Peaks and the results show that traffic will not queue beyond the slip road's stacking capacity.

8.3.62. With regard to the segregation barrier on the B255, improvements to Bean north roundabout and the new eastbound slip to the A2 are key elements of the Scheme. The Scheme provides additional capacity by introducing a new bridge and slip road at Bean North Roundabout. Segregation of the B255 and revised traffic signing will direct traffic from Bluewater towards the new bridge and slip roads for the A2 west and eastbound carriageways. It will direct traffic away from the A296 which is currently congested at peak times and has numerous accesses and parking for HGVs, including access to the new housing development. Improvements to the A296 are beyond the scope of the Scheme.

Page 61 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.3.63. The barrier has been proposed as part of the traffic engineering measures complementing the retention of the B255 to A296 slip road. There are records of congestion related collisions on the B255 in the north and southbound directions. The barrier will eliminate dangerous weaving manoeuvres and associated conflicts on the B255. The barrier will also encourage traffic to access the A2 eastbound via the new slip road at Bean North Roundabout and improves safety by regulating traffic flows.

8.3.64. Collision data provided by KCC has been assessed during the design process and this shows that incidents on the B255 collisions are congestion related nose- to-tail type.

8.3.65. The Applicant is committed to liaising and engaging with Bean Parish Council throughout the detailed design and construction of the Scheme. 8.4. Non-statutory objections

8.4.1. Non-statutory objections were received from the following parties on the following grounds.

Mr Toine Napier 8.4.2. One resident of Hope Cottages (14 Hope Cottages) has submitted an objection on the grounds that the consultation process was a “sham”, concerns about air quality breaching air quality criteria as a result of a potential increase in air pollution in the area of the Bean Interchange and the lack of mitigation for air quality, noise, landscape and visual impact at Hope Cottages.

8.4.3. Applicant’s response: The Applicant considers the consultation process was robust and carried out in line with statutory procedures. The Applicant is committed in continuing to engage with the community and stakeholders to keep them informed as the Scheme progresses and it will continue to do so including during construction. The timelines for this Scheme define the points when consultation is to occur, in order that views are brought into the preliminary design stage before it is completed. The Applicant consider it has provided the owner of 14 Hope Cottages with all the information currently available and has made contact with in advance of publication of the Orders to provide an update on Scheme progress and to invite any questions on the Scheme design.

8.4.4. Regarding air pollution, the current Air Quality Management Area at the Bean Interchange, declared for exceeding the annual mean nitrogen dioxide national objective, includes Ightham Cottages but not Hope Cottages. Local authority monitoring data at the roadside of Bean Lane in the vicinity of Hope Cottages has shown that the national objective for nitrogen dioxide has not been exceeded since 2014. With the Scheme, concentrations are expected to decrease at Hope Cottages, although the change would be small or imperceptible as set out in (paragraphs 5.7.14 and 5.7.15, Appendix E and Figure 5.10 of Environmental Statement (Appendix 1, Ref: B. 1 to B.4)).

8.4.5. The noise assessment includes the provision of two new environmental noise barriers adjacent to Hope Cottages. For the properties that are closest to the A2,

Page 62 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

including 14 Hope Cottages, the Scheme is predicted to provide a minor improvement in noise. In terms of visual impact, the feasibility of enhancing the noise barrier to include planting or planting adjacent to the barrier is being investigated and upon completion of this work further details will be provided to the Inquiry.

Woodland Trust 8.4.6. The Woodland Trust support the avoidance of ancient woodland loss, which has been achieved through further development of the Scheme design. The Woodland Trust state in their response: "We are pleased to note that no ancient woodland will be lost to facilitate the proposed development".

8.4.7. However, they have submitted an objection due to the potential impact and loss of three individual trees displaying veteran characteristics. The Woodland Trust state in their objection: “We will maintain our objection unless Highways England can ensure that all veteran trees on site are retained and adequately buffered in line with Natural England’s standing advice”.

8.4.8. The Applicant’s response: The Applicant has ensured the avoidance of ancient woodland loss and has reduced the potential loss of veteran trees from a potential nine to three individual specimens. The Applicant has provided a suitable mitigation and compensation strategy to address the environmental impacts of habitat and veteran tree loss through the construction of the Scheme, which will include translocation of the three veteran trees to be lost either as standing living or dead wood and extensive habitat creation comprised of newly planted broadleaved woodland, nine individual semi-mature pedunculate oak trees, scrub, species-rich grassland, ponds, hedgerow, and habitat features for invertebrates. A Habitat Management Plan will also be put in place to encourage establishment and provide for the appropriate management and maintenance of these newly created habitats.

8.4.9. The Applicant considers that there is a compelling case for this Scheme as set out previously in this Statement, having taken into consideration the requirements of local and national planning (section 10(2) of the HA 1980) (Appendix 1, D.1) to outweigh the loss of veteran trees.

Bean Residents Association 8.4.10. Bean Residents Association has raised similar points to those from Bean Parish Council with the following additional concerns:

 Environmental mitigation is not addressed in detail.  Consultation materials are inadequate. 8.4.11. Applicant’s response: Please see the Applicant's response to Bean Parish Council above for a summary of the responses to these points. A response to the additional concerns is set out below.

8.4.12. The Environmental Statement, Volume 2 Appendix B Outline Environmental Management Plan, in particular Section 3 'Record of Environmental Actions and

Page 63 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Commitments' (REAC) (Appendix 1, B.2), sets out mitigation which is embedded into the Scheme design and records what actions and commitments will be secured for environmental mitigation during the detailed design stage. It provides a framework within which consents will need to be addressed. The REAC has been developed in consultation with the Environment Agency and Natural England as statutory environmental bodies.

8.4.13. The Applicant considers that all the statutory requirements have been met, both in relation to consultation on the Scheme and the representation period following the publication of the Orders on 14 February 2019. The period from 14 February to 28 March 2019 was not a consultation period but was for interested parties to submit representations on and objections to the Orders to the Secretary of State for Transport. The Applicant intends to continue its engagement with stakeholders, including Bean Residents Association, throughout the detailed design and construction stages.

Gary Outram and Dartford and Gravesham Cycling Forum 8.4.14. Gary Outram submitted an individual representation as well as an objection on behalf of Dartford and Gravesham Cycling Forum; this is recorded as two objections.

8.4.15. The objections focus on the grounds that the Applicant has made inadequate provisions for safe movements of Non-Motorised Users (NMU) within the area covered by the Scheme. It is contended that there has been a failure to provide a safe East-West crossing for NMUs of the B255 on the northern arm of the A296/B255 roundabout particularly as the location is within the red line boundary. Closure of the B255/A296 slip road was an option consulted upon and it would be incongruous to suggest that this location does not form part of The Applicant’s Scheme.

8.4.16. Applicant’s Response: The location is within the Scheme’s boundary, however improvements to the A296 and the east-west route do not form part of the Scheme. At consultation in Spring 2018, the option to close the B255 to A296 slip road was being considered, but this would not have required any significant physical changes to the A296/B255 roundabout layout. A signalised crossing of the northern arm would require significant changes to the roundabout layout. The Applicant is currently investigating an option of introducing a Toucan crossing on the northern arm of the B255/A296 roundabout and the results of the assessment shall be shared in due course.

8.4.17. The Applicant acknowledge that the existing NMU routes might be disrupted by the construction works. The Applicant appointed contractor will ensure that the local community is consulted throughout the construction period and NMU diversions are clearly signed to avoid any potential inconvenience to non- motorised users. This commitment is set out in the OCEMP and REAC (Appendix 1, B.2).

Page 64 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

CPRE Kent 8.4.18. CPRE provided a number of detailed points in their objection and Highways England has provided a detailed response. In summary, the key points raised are:

 Lack of traffic modelling data, reliance on average traffic flows and lack of assessment of the impact of the changes to the interchange on the strategic network; key information on traffic assessment was missing.  Confusion over the interface with the Scheme, Designated Funds and EDC Bean Triangle project; supportive of improvements to the design of the NMU routes during the consultation process.  Lack of sufficient funding and the Scheme offers very poor value for money at a high environmental cost and will have a large impact on local residents.  Southern (Hope Cottages) roundabout o concerns of safety of weaving traffic; inadequate signing, putting in third lane on the roundabout is not cost effective and ineffective in operation. Removing the third lane would reduce the environmental impact and reduce impact on local residents. o NMU provision – footpaths DR18 and DR312 should be reconnected. Safety concerns over the NMU crossing and users of the central island.  Bean North (Ightham Cottages) Roundabout o The new slip road and introduction of narrow lanes will have adverse effect on the SRN and result in traffic backing up onto the Dartford Crossing causing more congestion on local roads. o The new slip road cannot be justified in the green belt due to the adverse effect on the SRN and would affect the openness and character of the green belt. o Loss of three veteran trees is unjustified. o Fate of Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary and no works should commence until a new location is found for the sanctuary. o The Scheme does not provide for any additional road capacity on the B255 resulting in more congestion tailing back to Bluewater. o Loss of Ightham Cottages cannot be justified.  Watling Street Roundabout and South Bound Approach o Adverse impact of the installation of barriers on the B255 on the strategic road network and knock on impact of additional traffic on the A296, B2174. o Inclusion of a north south toucan crossing on the A296 is welcomed however an A296 east west toucan should also be included in the Scheme.

Page 65 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

o Concerns on the filtering as A296 joins the A2 eastbound resulting in an increase in traffic back to the Bean junction and then towards the M25 junction. o Impact on the Kingsferry commuter car park. 8.4.19. Applicant response: The Applicant has provided a detailed response to the points raised by CPRE. Most of the points raised by CPRE follow similar themes to points raised by other parties.

8.4.20. In summary, regarding lack of traffic modelling data, this information has been shared with CPRE as well as other parties who raise similar concerns.

8.4.21. The A2 westbound off-slip at the Bean South Roundabout requires three lanes due to the high volume of traffic leaving the A2 to travel to Bluewater and Greenhithe. This is to ensure that the queue at the stop line does not block back the A2 westbound through traffic. All three proposed lanes from the A2 westbound off slip at the Bean South Roundabout will be allowed to circulate and continue north over the A2 bridge to the Bean North Roundabout. Two of these lanes are provided for the movement of traffic onto the B255 northbound towards Bluewater.

8.4.22. With regard to NMU provision including the reconnection of footpaths DR18 and SR312 and the lack of an east west toucan crossing of the A296, please see the response to Gravesham and Dartford Cycling Forum in paragraphs 8.4.10 to 8.4.13 above.

8.4.23. In terms of the impact of the Bean North roundabout on the openness and character of the green belt please see Section 7 which sets out in detail the justification for the Scheme being constructed in the green belt.

8.4.24. With regard to the loss of three individual veteran trees, please see the response to the Woodland Trust above, paragraph 8.4.4. With regard to the loss of Ightham Cottages, the Applicant has set out its position in relation to the loss of Ightham in previous sections of this Statement.

8.4.25. With regard to the Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary, the Scheme Assessment Report (SAR) published in August 2017 and submitted alongside the Published Orders on 14 February 2019 considered the impacts on the Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary in determining the preferred route option. The anticipated impacts of the different options were weighed up and compared, with the conclusion being that the preferred option, although requiring the Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary land, performed best against the Scheme Objectives and the majority of appraisal factors, including supporting economic development and housing, minimising environmental impact and reducing accident rates.

8.4.26. The Applicant has been in discussions with the Sanctuary in May, July and November 2018 to discuss the acquisition of the land and discussions between the Applicant, the Spirits Horse Sanctuary and Dartford Borough Council about the impacts on the Sanctuary are ongoing.

Page 66 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Les Brown Associates 8.4.27. Les Brown Associates has objected due to a lack of traffic modelling data available at the time of the publication of the Orders.

8.4.28. Applicant’s response: The traffic reports have since been published and copies have been sent to them. No further correspondence has been received at the time of writing. 8.5. Representations

Local Authorities 8.5.1. Representations received requested further information or provided comments on aspects of the Scheme while not objecting. These include a number of the host local authorities.

8.5.2. The Applicant has issued holding responses to the local authorities informing them of the Applicant’s intention to prepare a Statement of Common Ground with each of them as set out below.

Kent County Council 8.5.3. Kent County Council has submitted a representation with a number of comments mostly around traffic data. The points raised by Kent County Council together with a summary of the Applicant response is set out below.

8.5.4. Age of Traffic Data: The Stage 3 A2BE model has used a combination of 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 data, normalised to March 2016. Given its age, this data is now on the cusp of acceptability.

8.5.5. Applicant’s response: The guidance in DMRB Part 1 Traffic Appraisal in Urban Areas (Appendix 1, I.8) states the following: “A present year validation should be presented when the model is based on data more than five to six years old, or when there is reason to believe that conditions have changed since the data were collected.” As the transport model was developed and validated in 2017 / 2018 and as this used adjusted data from between 1 to 4 years old it is concluded that the model is in line with the guidance above.

8.5.6. Assessment of the Inter Peak: The forecasting report shows that at three of the junctions where traffic counts were undertaken, the vehicle flows were higher during the interpeak than in the AM, yet no interpeak period has been modelled. It is noted, however, that the PM peak hour flows are higher than the inter-peak period, and the PM peak hour has been modelled for capacity.

8.5.7. Applicant’s response: Whilst it is noted that the interpeak has not been assessed within the Operational model this period has been included within the strategic traffic model. In addition, the PM peak, as noted, represents the worst case with regards to overall flow across the junctions. The Saturday model assessment has also been undertaken to assess the impacts of the Bluewater Saturday peak hour and the results shared with Kent County Council.

Page 67 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.5.8. Developments and network schemes included in the model: The assessment has not considered a future scenario (post 2027) without the Lower Thames Crossing. The Lower Thames Crossing model has not included a number of planned development sites (including the objectively assessed needs) and therefore, these have also not been included within the A2BE model. This is a concern. However, it is recognised that local developments have been assessed, the impact of the additional planned sites is likely to be focussed on the A2 mainline flow and overall, the local area is constrained, and the models show that the proposed mitigation to the junctions will provide much needed capacity during the future scenario.

8.5.9. Applicant’s response: The network schemes and developments explicitly modelled in the core scenario for the strategic traffic model have been identified through discussions with the Local Planning Authorities (including Dartford, Gravesham, Kent County Council and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation) and are based on the uncertainty log guidance in WebTAG Unit M4.

8.5.10. Saturday Operational Model peak period: The results of the Bluewater Sensitivity Assessment were provided to KCC on 8 March 2019 and showed that the junctions are predicted to operate within capacity during the 2038 design year, which is positive. However, the peak hour assessed within the model was 1600-1700 which is surprising for this type of use. The traffic counts sent to The Applicant on 11 December 2018 appear to suggest the peak hour occurs between 12:00-13:00. KCC therefore requests confirmation of the peak hour.

8.5.11. Applicant’s response: The Saturday assessment was undertaken to evaluate the Bluewater impact at the A2 Bean junction. Based on this the Saturday Operational modelling has been undertaken using the observed Bluewater traffic Saturday Peak hour of 16.00 to 17.00. The results of the assessment have been issued to Kent County Council.

8.5.12. Construction Management Plan: An Outline Environmental Plan has been provided which makes reference to a construction related issues. However, a Construction Management Plan is required to minimise disruption to the local highway network. This should include more detailed information about the construction period including (but not limited to) the number of related vehicle trips, construction vehicle routeing, employee trips and parking arrangements, employee Travel Plan and the management of deliveries.

8.5.13. Applicant’s response: A Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEM) will be produced by the Contractor setting out the protection measures that will be implemented during construction to minimise impacts on the local highway network. This commitment is included in the REAC (Appendix 1, B.2).

8.5.14. The Applicant is having ongoing discussions including regular collaborative planning meetings with the local authorities, including with Kent County Council, and is preparing a Statement of Common Ground. It will include commitment that the Council and its technical advisors will be consulted and involved with the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the detailed mitigations proposed. The Applicant is committed to liaising and engaging with the host local authorities throughout the detailed design and construction of the Scheme.

Page 68 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Dartford Borough Council 8.5.15. Dartford Borough Council has provided a detailed representation to the Orders and confirmed that they are supportive of the Scheme but have some issues that they would like to be addressed as summarised below, together with a response from the Applicant.

8.5.16. It is noted that Dartford Borough Council accepts that Kent County Council are the highways authority for the local highway network in the area. In their representation it states:

“Although the Council understand that DMRB does not require a transport assessment as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment the Council find it concerning that traffic information and the assumptions relating to the traffic modelling were only provided to the Council mid-way through the consultation process even though these underpin some of the other assessment work that the Council has statutory duties with regard to, i.e. noise and air quality. The Council defers to Kent County Council (KCC) as highways authority with regard to analysis and consideration of the transport modelling and has no comments to make with regard to the assumptions used for the traffic modelling. The Council understands that KCC’s highways and transportation are satisfied that the proposed junctions will work in the scenarios put forward by the modelling and including during the peak hour on Saturdays. The Council has no reason to dispute these findings”.

8.5.17. Please refer to the Applicant’s response to Kent County Council comments on traffic data and modelling in paragraphs 8.5.4 to 8.5.11 above.

8.5.18. It is noted that the Council does not wish to see the delivery of the junction improvements to be delayed any further than 2022. Also, the Applicant is pleased that Dartford Borough Council supports the improvements for non-motorised users, in particular the provision of a dedicated footway/cycleway across the A2 as well as improved crossing.

8.5.19. A summary of the key points raised by Dartford Borough Council and the Applicant’s response are set out below.

 DBC considers that a more holistic view should be taken of the strategic road network allowing for an optimum solution which builds in additional capacity on the wider network, not only at this junction, in order to allow for resilience. Applicant’s response: The traffic models developed for this study are based on average weekday conditions and hence include the associated queues and delays. It is noted that the Scheme has been developed to accommodate the forecast levels of growth up to the 2038 design year and therefore the Applicant consider resilience has been allowed for in the traffic models.  A request that the signalised junctions are provided with the capability of being linked to an Urban Traffic Management Control scheme so that at times of congestion the signalisation of junctions can be optimised.

Page 69 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Applicant’s response: The signals proposed for this Scheme will be linked to the Highways England UTC system.  Loss of the homes of Dartford residents. Applicant’s response: It is noted that the Council considers the creation of a worsened environment for these residents should the properties have been retained would not be supported by the Council and that the Council requests a full and proper consideration is given to the needs of occupants and that every possible support, financial and otherwise is provided to mitigate their loss. The Applicant has set out its position in relation to the loss of Ightham Cottages in previous sections of this Statement.  Dartford Borough Council requests that on the basis that the Scheme goes ahead, the Council and its technical advisors are consulted on the biodiversity and archaeology aspects and are consulted and involved with the detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan and the detailed mitigations proposed. Applicant’s response: The Applicant is having ongoing discussions including regular collaborative planning meetings with LPAs, including with Dartford Borough Council, and is preparing a Statement of Common Ground. It will include commitment that the Council and its technical advisors will be consulted on the biodiversity and archaeology aspects and will be consulted and involved with the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the detailed mitigations proposed. The Applicant is committed to liaising and engaging with the host local authorities throughout the detailed design and construction of the Scheme. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation 8.5.20. Ebbsfleet Development Corporation (EDC) provided a detailed representation to the Orders and confirmed that they are firmly supportive of the Scheme but have some issues that they would like to be addressed as summarised below, together with a response from the Applicant.

 Lack of details have been made publicly available in respect of forecast traffic flows and junction considerations. However, EDC are content to defer to Kent County Council in its role as the Local Highways Authority in respect to forecast traffic flows. Applicant’s response: The Transport Reports have been published. See response to Kent County Council comments on traffic data and modelling in 8.5.4 to 8.5.11 above.  EDC are disappointed that the former petrol filling station site to the south of the Ebbsfleet East roundabout is not proposed for acquisition and incorporation into the Scheme, as previously discussed with The Applicant. Applicant’s response: The inclusion of the former petrol station in the Scheme was not previously agreed and the Applicant does not consider that its acquisition for the Scheme could be justified.  The Scheme does not include a signalised crossing on the northern arm of the B255/A296 roundabout, which has previously been discussed between

Page 70 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

The Applicant and EDC as being necessary to provide a link for National Cycle Route 1. Applicant’s response: The Applicant is currently investigating the option of introducing a Toucan crossing on the northern arm of the B255/A296 roundabout and the results of the assessment shall be shared in due course and at the Inquiry.  EDC support ideas being explored by the Applicant for enhancing the visual appearance of the noise barrier fronting Hope Cottages through their separate Designated Funds programme, and for advanced installation to mitigate construction impacts, but consider that the base design should adequately mitigate its impact. Applicant’s response: The noise barrier runs along the top of the embankment from no.6 to no.15 Hope Cottages at which point there is a break for the pedestrian/cycleway to run through to the relocated pedestrian crossing. This barrier is shown on preliminary environmental design drawing, Environmental Statement Volume 3, Figure 2.3, sheet 2 of 5 (Appendix 1, B.3). With this barrier in place, the Scheme provides a minor improvement. The feasibility of enhancing the barrier to include planting or planting adjacent to the barrier is being investigated and upon completion of this work further details will be provided to the Inquiry.  Environmental mitigation in the ES and OEMP - it is necessary to ensure mechanisms are in place to require implementation of the proposed mitigation measures at the appropriate stage and that relevant local authorities as well as SEBs are consulted to ensure proposals are suitably robust and that mitigation is appropriate. Applicant’s response: The Applicant is having ongoing discussions including regular collaborative planning meetings with the Local Planning Authorities (LPAs), including with EDC, and is preparing a Statement of Common Ground which will include commitments that the Council will be consulted and involved with the Construction Environmental Management Plan and the detailed mitigations proposed. The Applicant is committed to liaising and engaging with the host local authorities throughout the detailed design and construction of the Scheme. Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEBs) 8.5.21. The Applicant is committed to liaising and engaging with statutory environmental bodies and affected local authorities throughout the detailed design and construction of the Scheme. The Applicant has issued holding responses to the SEBs informing them of the intention to prepare a Statement of Common Ground with each of them as set out below.

Environment Agency 8.5.22. The Environment Agency has confirmed that they have no objection to the Scheme providing their comments are taken into account and there is continued formal consultation on the Scheme’s technical details in advance of any works commencing. The Applicant is preparing a Statement of Common Ground with the

Page 71 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Environment Agency to set out and agree the mechanisms of how their requirements for formal consultation on the final Scheme will be adhered to.

Natural England 8.5.23. Natural England provide a number of comments in their representation, which are in support of the environmental assessment for the Scheme, as summarised below:

 Natural England support the conclusions of the Habitat Regulations Assessment Stage 1 Screening report for the Scheme in that there will be no likely significant effects on European designated sites as a result of the Scheme. Natural England state in their representation: “The Assessment concludes that the proposal can be screened out from further stages of assessment because significant effects are unlikely to occur, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. On the basis of information provided, Natural England concurs with this view”.  Natural England are in support of the key ecological receptors included in the environmental assessment, the consideration of potential impacts upon them, the conclusions, and mitigation proposed to address any likely significant effects. Natural England state in their representation: “From Chapter 5 of the Environmental Statement we are satisfied that key ecological receptors; Darenth Wood SSSI, The Thrift ancient woodland, Parkhill Wood ancient woodland and Ebbsfleet Marshes Local Wildlife Site, have been considered with regards to air quality impacts from dust and traffic emissions” … “We note that the air quality assessment of the operational Scheme concludes that there will be no increases in total N deposition rates as a result of the Scheme and there will be a decrease in annual mean NOx concentrations with the Scheme. As such, we concur that mitigation measures are not required with regards to impacts on traffic emissions”.  Natural England are aware of the loss of three individual veteran trees, which are proposed for removal to facilitate construction of the Scheme and consider that further measures have been taken throughout the design stage to address Natural England’s previous concerns regarding the compensation strategy, which has been updated in-line with the comments received. Natural England would be able to provide further advice to finalise the measures in the compensation strategy. Natural England state in their representation: “Natural England will be happy to work with the applicant at the Scheme implementation stage to finalise the measures on a cost recovery basis through our Discretionary Advice Service. It is pleasing to see that this is reflected in Environmental Statement; “Detailed design will keep works around the locations of veteran trees under review. If detailed design allows trees to be retained in situ […] then this approach will be taken.”  Natural England are aware of the design measures taken to avoid loss of ancient woodland and support the proposed protection measures where construction will take place near to these features. Natural England state in their representation: “Natural England notes that the Scheme has been

Page 72 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

designed to avoid direct impacts to ancient woodland, i.e. loss of ancient woodland. Due to the constraints associated with this Scheme, and the fact that the Scheme avoids ancient woodland, we concur that a 15m buffer is sufficient1. Further, it is noted that the OEMP, and ultimately the CEMP, will secure specific mitigation measures as specified within the Environmental Statement”. 8.5.24. Natural England submitted a representation setting out their comments. Whilst not objecting to the Scheme, Natural England’s comments relate to a number of matters, which are summarised below, together with a response from the Applicant.

 Air quality – dust control measures within the OEMP will need to be secured within the CEMP to ensure there will be no likely impacts on ecological receptors from the construction phase.  Applicant’s response: A CEMP will be produced incorporating all the avoidance and mitigation measures set out in the OEMP.  Protected species – measures to avoid/minimise impacts from noise on protected species will need to be refined through the necessary protected species licensing scheme.  Applicant’s response: A European Protected Species (EPS) mitigation licence will be required for hazel dormice. Potential impacts resulting from noise during construction of the Scheme will be addressed within the licence application documents and suitable mitigation measures will be put in place to reduce the significance of any adverse effects on this particular species. In addition, mitigation measures regarding noise that are set out in the OEMP will be secured by the CEMP.  Ground water – mitigation measures outlined in Section 8.8 of the Environmental Statement in relation to ground water and Darenth Wood SSSI will need to be secured as part of the Order to ensure no negative impacts on this designated site.  Applicant’s response: A CEMP will be produced incorporating all the avoidance and mitigation measures set out in the OEMP.  Darenth Wood SSSI – mitigation measures outlined in Chapters 5 (Air Quality) and 8 (Water and Drainage) of the Environmental Statement will need to be secured via the CEMP to avoid negative impacts to the SSSI.  Applicant’s response: A CEMP will be produced incorporating all the avoidance and mitigation measures set out in the OEMP. 8.5.25. The Applicant is preparing a Statement of Common Ground with Natural England to confirm that their comments have been taken into account and that a CEMP will be produced to secure the committed mitigation measures outlined in the OEMP with the aim of avoiding adverse impacts to the specific receptors outlined above and in their representation.

1 The Applicant advises that this measure will be implemented as described in the Environmental Statement, as follows: “for designated sites and ancient woodland, a buffer zone (of at least 15 m where practicable) will be implemented around these receptors where works are not limited by the existing carriageway”.

Page 73 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

Historic England 8.5.26. Whilst not objecting to the Scheme, Historic England have a number of concerns about the assessment of archaeological potential within the Environmental Statement and the proposed mitigation strategy in particular, with regard to potential Palaeolithic and Mesolithic remains at Ebbsfleet junction and its potential to contain remains on national importance, and potential impact on the Springhead Roman site Scheduled monument.

8.5.27. Applicant’s Response: The Applicant met with Historic England, also attended by Kent County Council archaeologist and Dartford Borough Council, on 8 March 2019 to discuss the representation and concerns raised. As discussed and agreed at the meeting, Highway England is preparing a Statement of Common Ground specific to the historic environment with Historic England and KCC (in conjunction with Ebbsfleet Development Corporation, Gravesham Borough Council and Dartford Borough Council) which will include an outline Archaeological Management and Mitigation Strategy (AMMS), with further meetings as required. The AMMS will be shared with Historic England, KCC and at the Inquiry.

Other organisations 8.5.28. Representations were also received from the following organisations.

GTC Plant Enquiry Services 8.5.29. GTC Plant Enquiry Services state they have no objection to the Scheme, however stated that should any diversion of their assets be required then a C3 diversion request should be sent.

8.5.30. Applicant’s response: In December 2017, the Applicant contacted GTC Plant Enquiry Services to request utility asset drawings within the Scheme boundary area as part of the NRSWA C2 and received a C2 response email, accompanying drawings and safe working guidance on 28 December 2017. Following the review of the GTC apparatus, the Applicant anticipates that minor diversions might be required relating to street light columns 01B and 02B and the associated service cables west of the Ebbsfleet West Roundabout. During the detailed design stage and following the refinement of the Ebbsfleet West Roundabout layout, The Applicant will contact and agree required diversions with GTC through the C4 process.

Neil Fuller on behalf of Bean Residents Association 8.5.31. Neil Fuller raised a number of points in support of those raised by Bean Residents Association following this meeting (see responses to Bean Residents Association set out earlier in this section). In summary the main points raised, and the Applicant response is set out below.

 Consideration should be given to noise and air quality pollution from the Scheme and mature vegetation and trees should form part of landscaping and community land.

Page 74 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.5.32. Applicant’s response: The existing environmental noise barrier on the mainline A2 will be retained, with the barrier on the westbound off-slip road replaced to align with the proposed earthworks. The Applicant considers the effect of vegetation on noise is limited and that noise barriers are more effective than vegetation at mitigating noise. In terms of air quality, the assessment showed that overall there would not be a significant adverse effect on local air quality, and that no mitigation measures would be necessary.

 The traffic lights need to be computerised so that they monitor the flow of traffic. 8.5.33. Applicant’s response: The signals proposed for this Scheme will be linked to the Highways England UTC system.

 The B255 High Street Bean to/from Bean Interchange is in poor repair and would need to be replaced. 8.5.34. Applicant’s response: the B255 (both northbound and southbound) from the Bean North roundabout up to the B255 Overbridge will be newly constructed as part of this Scheme and resurfaced where there is no deviation, so the pavement will be replaced addressing any potential existing quality issues.

 Safe passage for cyclist/ foot access from Bean to Bluewater/ Hospital is required. 8.5.35. Applicant’s response: The Scheme is improving connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists along Bean Lane by proposing segregated pedestrian/cycle routes and controlled crossings. To the south, the NMU route commences on the west side of Bean Lane outside Hope Cottages where it ties into the existing route along the Hope Cottages access road. To the north, the NMU route connects to the NCN1 and to the pedestrian/cycle routes towards Bluewater and the Hospital via a proposed signalised crossing on the eastern approach of the A296 roundabout.

 The road surface/tarmac should be designed to minimalise road surface noise. 8.5.36. Highways England’s response: The Scheme includes a low noise surface on all new and altered sections of the route. This surface is expected to reduce noise by 3.5dB, when compared with standard bitumen surfacing.

Linda Collins on behalf of Bean Residents Association 8.5.37. Linda Collins, on behalf of Bean Residents Association, submitted a table of detailed issues raised at a drop-in session held between the Applicant and Bean Residents Association on 9 March 2019, a summary of the key issues raised by Bean residents in this drop in session is set out below:

 Lack of traffic modelling data  The fate of Spirits Rest Horse Sanctuary including eviction date and access required for the GI.  The fate of Ightham cottages

Page 75 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

 Impact on Kings Ferry Cark Park  NMU and crossing points routes, lack of NMU crossing at Sandy Lane; no safe passage for cyclist/ foot access from Bean to Bluewater/ Hospital, reconnection of DR18 to DR312  Signage and signalling on B255  Proposed CPO land at Nos 15 and 16 Hope Cottages and impact on residents.  Proposed noise fence at Hope Cottages  Height and width of proposed new bridge  A2 speed limit  Works near Woodbine Cott  Veteran & Other Trees  UXO data is incomplete  Temporary Traffic Diversions 8.5.38. Applicant response: The Applicant has responded to most of the comments above in Section 8 of this Statement, please refer to responses relevant to the above issues.

8.5.39. With regard to the height of the new bridge, the Applicant confirms that the difference in levels is as a result of the different structural forms and the clearance standard requirements on the new structures being greater than on existing structures. Reduction in speed limit is not part of the Scheme.

8.5.40. With regard to works near Woodbine Cott, the Applicant can confirm at this stage no major works at Sandy Lane soakaway are expected.

8.5.41. With regard to incomplete UXO data, this is being gathered as part of the GI works and the results will be shared in due course and at the Inquiry.

Southfleet Parish Council 8.5.42. Southfleet Parish Council submitted a representation including a number of comments to the Order as summarised below:

 Relating to existing traffic volumes on the A2, B255 and B296 and the effect of incidents on the A2 on surrounding roads  Queried the cultural heritage and buildings considered in the Scheme assessment process (Bakers Hole, Scadbury Manor, Cyclopark)  Requested discussions about artificial lighting being included as part of the Scheme  Construction method of working including hours and patterns of construction work

Page 76 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

 Requested copied of the Environmental Statement and Outline Environmental Management Plan, particularly interested in: o Road drainage, presence of underground aquifers and highways flooding issues o Air Quality 8.5.43. Applicant’s response: The Applicant has requested a meeting with the Parish Council or its designated representatives to discuss the points raised.

Land Securities and Blueco 8.5.44. Land Securities and Blueco submitted a representation to the Orders for a number of reasons as set out in summary below:

 No further assessment of retaining the B255/A296 slip-road has been seen since issue of the Scheme Assessment Report in 2017.  Further information was requested regarding traffic modelling and details regarding how future traffic growth had been derived.  No further traffic information had been provided to LandSec/Blueco and therefore they were are unable to comment in more detail on the ability of the improvement scheme to accommodate future traffic flows, and in particular at peak shopping periods.  The proposed segregation barrier between the Bluewater Parkway Merge and the B255 southbound mainline represents a minor inconvenience to motorists who have exited Bluewater via the Bluewater Parkway. However, it is recognised that this is in the interests of improving safety.  Clear signage needs to be designed and installed within Bluewater to inform drivers of the appropriate route choice when exiting the site  It is proposed that any works within the vicinity of Bluewater Shopping Centre which would impact the ability of customers to access the site are suspended temporarily during the peak holiday period in December and January.  Bluewater is able to provide a detailed schedule of peak periods for trading which can be used to inform the construction schedule in relation to any works that would affect access to Bluewater. 8.5.45. Applicant’s response: The Applicant has provided a detailed response to each of the points raised by Land Securities and Blueco and the response is summarised below.

8.5.46. The Preferred Route Announcement (PRA, 2017) design included the closure of the existing B255 southbound (from Bluewater) to A296 eastbound slip road, re- routing traffic via the enlarged Bean North Roundabout. In response to feedback from the 2017 public consultation, the Preliminary Design investigated the option of retaining the B255/A296 slip road including the effect on congestion and traffic movements in the area. The current proposal is to retain the B255/A296 slip-road in the preliminary design.

Page 77 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.5.47. Traffic Modelling reports which detail how the models have been developed and how future demand has been derived were made available on the Highways England Website.

8.5.48. A traffic sensitivity test for Saturday peak hour (16:00 to 17:00) was carried out and results shared with Land Securities and Blueco. The conclusions of this included the 2038 Do-Something Saturday LinSig [local operational] model indicated that all links at the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet roundabouts operate at less than 90% capacity with the introduction of the Scheme.

8.5.49. Overall the Do-Something option is predicted to improve operational performance in the Saturday peak hour between 16:00 – 17:00, at both the Bean and Ebbsfleet roundabouts, compared to the 2038 Do-Minimum network. In addition, all links at both roundabouts operate at or below 90% DoS (degree of saturation) up to the 2038 design year with the introduction of the Scheme.

8.5.50. The Applicant has attended a number of meetings with the Bluewater representatives during which the reasoning behind the Scheme was explained and the plans to amend the road signage discussed. The preliminary signage design signs all A2-bound (eastbound and westbound) traffic exiting Bluewater to take the northern exit so as to access the B255 and Bean North Roundabout via the Bluewater Parkway / B255 roundabout (St Clements Roundabout).

8.5.51. The current construction schedule is at a high-level view that confirms the feasibility of constructing the preliminary design. The Applicant will liaise further with Bluewater to understand the traffic impacts of the proposed construction works on them including peak periods of trading and aim to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum. This will inform development of our works programme and scheduling of activities in the Bean area.

8.5.52. The Applicant will include contractual restrictions in their construction contract to ensure the effect of works on Bluewater is minimised during peak periods of trading such as the Christmas/New Year period.

8.5.53. The Applicant aims to enter into a legal arrangement for the granting of rights required for the construction of this Scheme.

8.5.54. Detailed design of signage will be undertaken during the detailed design stage a enquires.

Swanscombe Development LLP 8.5.55. Swanscombe Development LLP (SDLLP) controls land at Swanscombe Peninsula and recently obtained planning permission from Ebbsfleet Development Corporation for 220 homes at Croxton and Garry (EDC/17/0110). SDLLP supports, in principle, the planned improvements to both the Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions of the A2.

8.5.56. Swanscombe LLP object on the grounds that the Environmental Statement does not consider transport and highways as a specific topic and does not present the technical evidence (such as distribution and volumes of traffic) which underpins

Page 78 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

the assessments made. As a result, it is not clear that the full impact on the nearby or surrounding road network as a result of the proposed development, has been considered or assessed and clarity is sought in this regard.

8.5.57. In addition, SDLLP state there has been inconsistency in approach to committed, allocated Local Plan sites and developments and asks why London Resort was not included in assessments.

8.5.58. Applicant’s response: The Transport Reports have been published. The Applicant confirm that the outputs from the strategic transport models have been used in the environmental assessments where appropriate.

8.5.59. With regard to the second point, the development uncertainty log for the transport models was created following consultation with the local planning authorities of Dartford Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council, Kent County Council and Ebbsfleet Development Corporation. Regarding the land at Swanscombe Peninsula including Croxton and Garry, which forms part of the Dartford Core Strategy strategic policy CS6, the Transport Forecasting Package Report (Table 2-3) (Appendix 1, J6) identifies some 500 residential units and 2,300 sqm of B2 Industry employment which has been included within the core scenario forecast models.

8.5.60. With regard to the London Resort, the planning status is not ‘near certain’ or ‘more than likely’ therefore it has not been included in the traffic modelling core scenario. This is in accordance with the approach described in section 2.3 of the Transport Forecasting Package. Should this status change then this Scheme would be paused, and the situation reviewed. 8.6. General enquiries

8.6.1. The Applicant has received 18 general enquiries following publication of the Orders. A number of the general enquires have been from the owners or agents for units within the Bluewater Shopping Centre inquiring as to why they had received the package of Orders.

8.6.2. The Applicant provided a response that The Applicant is seeking to acquire rights of access over the Bluewater Parkway access road to allow the installation of new road signage and temporary traffic management in connection with the improvements at the A2 Bean junction and confirmed that there is no intention to purchase any land in Bluewater. The Applicant is not intending to alter the existing access road or close the shopping centre for deliveries. Installing any traffic management will only occur after consultation and agreement with the Bluewater Management team.

8.6.3. The Applicant has begun the process of reaching a legal agreement with the owners (Bluewater Outer Area Limited) however this has not yet been completed. Clarification has been provided to the Bluewater tenants of how their interests are affected where that was sought in their enquiries.

Page 79 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

8.6.4. Other enquiries were received from Cadent Gas and National Grid Gas Transmission PLC who confirmed they had no apparatus in the vicinity of the Scheme.

Page 80 of 81

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvements Highways England Statement of Case

9. Specialist Evidence and Deposit Documents 9.1. Proofs of evidence

9.1.1. Based on the objections and representations that have been made, the Applicant expects to prepare specialist Proofs of Evidence covering:

1. Traffic Modelling 2. Economics 3. Planning 4. Construction 5. Environmental Design and Mitigation 6. Air Quality 7. Noise and Vibration 8. Biodiversity 9. Historic Environment 10. Contaminated Land 9.1.2. The Proofs of Evidence will be sent to all remaining Statutory Objectors at least three weeks before commencement of the Public Inquiry and will be available for inspection at the deposit location from that time. 9.2. Deposit documents

9.2.1. Documents referred to in this Statement will be made available for inspection from 16 May 2019 at the following location:

Dartford Borough Council Civic Centre Home Gardens Dartford DA1 1DR

9.2.2. From commencement of the Public Inquiry, an additional set of deposit documents will be available at the public inquiry venue and may be inspected whenever the inquiry is in session which will include all documents referred to or submitted in evidence at the Public Inquiry.

9.2.3. The Deposit Documents referred to in this Statement of Case are listed in Appendix 1.

9.2.4. They are also available to view on the Highways England project website: https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/a2-bean-and-ebbsfleet-junction- improvements/

Page 81 of 81

Appendices

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

Appendix 1 Deposit Documents

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

A DRAFT AND MADE ORDERS The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Side Roads) Order 2019 A.1 – Public Notice The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Side Roads) Order 2019 A.2 – Orders Booklet The A2 Trunk Road (Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Slip Roads and Roundabouts) Order 20.. – A.3 Public Notice The A2 Trunk Road (Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) (Slip Roads and Roundabouts) Order 20..– A.4 Orders Booklet The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) Compulsory Purchase A.5 Order 2019 – Public Notice The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) Compulsory Purchase A.6 Order 2019 – Orders Booklet (Order & Schedule) The Highways England (A2 Trunk Road Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements) Compulsory Purchase A.7 Order 2019 – Orders Booklet (Plans) Statement of Reasons - for the three Orders (Side Roads, Compulsory Purchase and draft Slip Roads and A.8 Roundabout) A.9 Preliminary Design Drawings A.10 Preliminary Design Drawings 1 A.11 Preliminary Design Drawings 2 A.12 Preliminary Design Drawings 3 A.13 Preliminary Design Drawings 4 A.14 Preliminary Design Drawings 5 A.15 Preliminary Design Drawings 6 A.16 Preliminary Design Drawings 7 A.17 Preliminary Design Drawings 8 A.18 Preliminary Design Drawings 9 A.19 Preliminary Design Drawings 10 A.20 Preliminary Design Drawings 11 A.21 Preliminary Design Drawings 12 A.22 Preliminary Design Drawings 13 A.23 Preliminary Design Drawings 14 A.24 Preliminary Design Drawings 15 A.25 Preliminary Design Drawings 16

B ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Volume 1 Environmental Statement main text, February B.1 2019 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Volume 2 Environmental Statement Technical Appendices, B.2 February 2019 B.3 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 3 Figures, February 2019 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Environmental Statement Volume 4 Non-Technical Summary, B.4 February 2019

C CONSULTATION DOCUMENTS, DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY ON DEPOSIT C.1 A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Report Consultation, 2019 C.2 Scheme Assessment Report (August 2017) C.3 Scheme Assessment Report Volume 2: Drawings - part 1 (August 2017) C.4 Scheme Assessment Report Volume 2: Drawings - part 2 (August 2017) C.5 Scheme Assessment Report Volume 2: Drawings - part 3 (August 2017) C.6 Report on Consultation (May 2017) C.7 Technical Appraisal Report Volume 1 (January 2017) C.8 Technical Appraisal Report Volume 2 - drawings (January 2017)

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

D CORE LEGISLATION (Acts) D.1 Highways Act 1980 D.2 Town and Country Planning Act 1990 D.3 Acquisition of Land Act 1981 D.4 Human Rights Act 1998 D.5 New Roads and Street Works Act 1991

E REGULATIONS E.1 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 E.2 Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017

F RULES F.1 Rule 7 of the Compulsory Purchase (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2007 F.2 Rule 6 of the Highways (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1994

G NATIONAL PLANNING POLICY GUIDANCE NOTES/PLANNING POLICY STATEMENTS National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2019) DCLG Department for Communities and Local G.1 Government G.2 National Networks National Policy Statement (NN NPS) (2014) G.3 Guidance on compulsory purchase process and the Crichel Down Rules

H LOCAL AND REGIONAL PLANNING & POLICY DOCUMENTS H.1 Dartford Borough Council Core Strategy Local Plan (2011) H.2 Kent County Council, Kent Transport Plan (2016-2030) H.3 Dartford Borough Council Development Policies Plan (2017) H.4 Gravesham Borough Council Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) H.5 Dartford Five Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply 2018 H.6 Gravesham Five Year Deliverable Housing Land Supply Statement 2017-2022 H.7 Kent Thameside Strategic Transport Programme (STP) and Appendices

I TRANSPORT & TRAFFIC I.1 Department for Transport (DfT) Road Investment Strategy (2014) I.2 Road to Good Design 2018 I.3 Transport Analysis Guidance (Department of Transport) DfT 2018 – WEBLINK ONLY I.4 Transport Data Package I.5 Transport Modelling Package I.6 Transport Forecasting Package I.7 Transport Economics Package I.8 DMRB Part 1, Traffic Appraisal I.9 Bluewater Saturday testing

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

Appendix 2 Status of negotiations with landowners

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

Plot No. Owner (including Status details of other land interests) 1/1a Walter John Elliott Initial engagement and discussions in September 2018. Shape of area required refined at request of landowner to minimise impact on viability of the farm. Agent for landowner confirmed on 13/12/18. Valuer instructed to commence negotiations. 1/2a Land Securities Meeting held in February 2018 to discuss the development Trading Limited at Ebbsfleet and the land required for the Scheme. Discussions regarding the timing of the works and minimising impacts. 1/3b and Refer to plot 1/9a, 1/10a, 1/16a, 1/17a, 1/18a, 1/19a, 1/20a for 1/3c detail for related landowners. 1/4a to WT Investments LLP Meeting held in May 2018 and 2019 to discuss the land 1/4i and required permanently for the Scheme, land required 1/28a temporarily for construction and vehicular rights of access required for the benefit of adjoining landowner and statutory undertakers. Valuer instructed to commence negotiations. 1/5a & Dartford Borough Engagement and discussions in May, July and November 1/5b and Council 2018 with tenant to discuss the acquisition of the 1/6a & land. Ongoing engagement with Planning team in relation to 1/6b Christine Anne Bates (Tenant) the Scheme. Meeting to discuss the acquisition of land held with Property team in November 2018. Valuer was instructed in September 2018 to assess the value of buildings and fixtures on the land in preparation for the future relocation of the horse sanctuary. Information to be supplied prior to commencement of negotiations. Enquiries being made with Dartford BC about other land available in the area for the horse sanctuary. 1/7a, Darren Keith Meeting held in May 2018 and 2019 to discuss the land to be 1/7b and Winchester acquired. Valuer instructed to commence negotiations. 1/25a Sarah Winchester 1/9a John Taplin On-going engagement regarding the acquisition of the Matthew David White property. Agreement to commence negotiations. (Tenant) 1/10a Carrie Louise Dixon Purchase agreed in April 2019, conveyancing commenced. Stuart Jon Dixon 1/11a The Applicant Purchased by the Applicant. Company Limited 1/12a The Applicant Purchased by the Applicant. Company Limited 1/15a The Applicant Purchased by the Applicant. Company Limited 1/16a Ashleigh Jane On-going engagement regarding completion of purchase by Topping the Applicant. Negotiations ongoing. Jason David Topping

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

Plot No. Owner (including Status details of other land interests) 1/17a Lorraine Theresa On-going engagement regarding the acquisition of the Crowley property. Colin Richard Meager Clare Meager (Tenant) David Meager (Tenant) 1/18a Philip Jenns On-going engagement regarding completion of purchase by the Applicant. 1/19a Christine Anne Bates On-going engagement regarding completion of purchase by the Applicant. 1/20a Duncan Robert Wood Purchase agreed in January 2019, conveyancing ongoing.

1/21a The Applicant Purchased by the Applicant. and Company Limited 1/22a

1/27a to The Queen’s Most Initial engagement and discussions in August 2018 including 1/27d Excellent Majesty in in relation to the agricultural tenancy. District Valuer has and Right of The Crown been instructed and is progressing discussions with Crown 1/29a Walter John Elliott Estate’s agents. (Tenant) 1/31a Dartford Borough As Plot 1/3b, 1/5a and 1/31a and Council 1/31b Kent County Council Sandra Lilian Dodds 1/32a Blueco Ltd Meetings held in March 2019 to discuss Scheme proposals. The Royal London Further discussion planned for May 2019. Mutual Insurance (Lessee) 1/33a to Bluewater Outer Area Meetings held in March 2019 to discuss Scheme proposals. 1/33c Limited Further discussion planned for May 2019. Kent County Council 1/33d to Bluewater Outer Area Meetings held in March 2019 to discuss Scheme proposals. 1/33h Limited Further discussion planned for May 2019.

2/1a, Redrow Homes Initial meeting held in February 2018 to discuss the 2/3a and Limited development at Ebbsfleet and the land required permanently 2/4a to 2/4e and temporarily for the Scheme. Discussions regarding the timing of the works and minimising impacts. 2/2a to Ebbsfleet Investment Initial engagement and discussions in September 2018. A 2/2p, (GP) Limited second meeting took place in December 2018 at which 2/5a & discussions revolved around best approach to maintain 2/5b, Ebbsfleet Nominee No.1 Limited access to pylons for National Grid.

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junctions Improvement Highway England Statement of Case A2BE Statement of Case

Plot No. Owner (including Status details of other land interests) 2/7a to 2/7d

2/6a to J & B Construction Initial engagement and discussions with this landowner in 2/6d Limited July 2018 and subsequently in November 2018 to discuss land required permanently for the Scheme, land required temporarily for construction and vehicular rights of access required for the benefit of adjoining landowners. Further meetings held April 2019 to discuss Scheme proposals. 2/10a Neil Thomas Elliott Two meetings held in March and September 2018 to obtain information about the business, discuss the land to be acquired and the Scheme design and any anticipated impacts during construction. 2/8a, D.T.G. Elliott & Son Two meetings held in March and September 2018 to obtain 2/9a and Limited information about the business, discuss the land to be 2/11a acquired and the Scheme design and any anticipated impacts during construction.

© Crown copyright (2018). You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected].

Printed on paper from well-managed forests and other controlled sources.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guilford GU1 4LZ The Applicant Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363 s company name