DOCSLIB.ORG

Hastings Borough Council Cc Cllr Dawn Poole – Lead Member Regeneration, Communities & Culture Appendix B

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Hastings Borough Council Cc Cllr Dawn Poole – Lead Member Regeneration, Communities & Culture Appendix B Matter 3 – HBC, SR8 APPENDICES INDEX Appendix A HBC letter to ESCC 25 February 2016 Appendix B ESCC Cabinet Report 8 March 2016 Appendix C HBC comments on the draft Waste & Minerals Sites Plan 19 August 2014 Appendix D HBC comments on the draft Waste & Minerals Plan 09 December 2015 Appendix E Queensway Gateway Road Letter of Support from Rupert Clubb, Director of Communities, Economy & Transport 5 August 2015 Appendix F Statement from John Shaw, Chief Executive, SeaChange Sussex Appendix G Statement from Kerry Culbert, Planning Policy Manager, HBC Appendix H Hastings Local Plan, Hastings Planning Strategy 2011-2028 (adopted 19.02.14); Hastings Local Plan, Development Management Plan (adopted 23.09.15); Hastings Local Plan, Policies Map, Development Management Plan (adopted 23.09.15) (incorporating Planning Strategy Policies adopted 19.02.14) Appendix A Please quote: Your reference: Date: 25th February 2016 Please ask for: Kerry Culbert Telephone direct: 01424 783304 E-mail: [email protected] Web: www.hastings.gov.uk/planning Regeneration and Culture Aquila House, Breeds Place Hastings, East Sussex TN34 3UY Mr Tony Cook Planning Policy and Development Management Planning Services Communities, Economy and Transport County Hall St Anne’s Crescent Lewes East Sussex BN7 1UE By email and by post Dear Mr Cook Thank you for the opportunity to meet with yourself and Sarah Iles on the 9th February to discuss your potential proposed Main Modifications to the Waste & Minerals Sites Submission Plan (W&MSP). We also welcomed your invitation to Rother District to attend in light also of that Council’s concerns with the Plan. We were encouraged by the fact that you are now proposing some “Main Modifications” to the Plan prior to submission but I felt extreme disappointment that at the meeting it appeared that your proposals were a “final offer” rather than any realistic opportunity to further consider Hastings outstanding concerns. Since the meeting I have had the opportunity to discuss matters with our Lead Member for Regeneration, Communities & Culture. As I emphasised at our meeting you will be aware of the strength of our Cabinet’s response regarding your proposed submission plan. I am accordingly now charged to write formally to you to express our disappointment that following our meeting we remain concerned that despite our previous initial comment of support in principle for the draft W&MSP providing it was not in conflict with our emerging Development Management Plan (DMP) that there has been no direct or indeed any further liaison since that original comment when clearly we consider that there is now significant conflict with our now adopted DMP. We do not feel this approach meets the spirit of the Duty to Co-operate – and that this situation we are now in might otherwise easily have been avoided. 1. Firstly – just to reaffirm that my Council’s Cabinet resolution is very strong and that, whilst welcoming what we see as being clearly a move in the right direction, what is on the table at present (via your proposed “ Main Modifications”) simply does not meet this Council’s concerns. Whilst points 3 and, to some extent 4, of the Cabinet resolution have been addressed, points 1 and 2 have not really been touched upon. 2. We do welcome the deletion of the land at Whitworth Road which we have previously expressed concerns about – this addresses our Cabinet resolution at point 3. 3. However we remain particularly concerned at the inclusion of almost all of the DMP employment land allocations as areas of search or opportunity for waste purposes (the exceptions being Hastings town centre and your own land east of Queensway) and the apparently blanket ‘acceptable in principle’ approach to existing industrial estates. Appendix A 4. With regard particularly to the DMP’s employment allocations on land West of Queensway – this approach, as promulgated in your Plan will significantly undermine one of the principal planks of our economic strategy – of delivering a high quality, easily accessible employment corridor – capable of significantly raising the quality, number and prospects of job opportunities within the Borough. This remains the main strategic thrust of our DMP and Planning Strategy for employment land and growth and underlines our concerns regarding the W&MSP as currently drafted and its adverse impact upon this strategic objective. 5. The inclusion of the Queensway land also seems to be at odds with what your Council has supported, from an economic development perspective, at our EIP in respect of what our DMP is trying to achieve. And also in terms of the support given by your Council for the proposed Queensway Gateway Road, a strategic piece of highways infrastructure that has recently been approved and which greatly enhances this employment corridor and its ability to deliver that strategic employment corridor. 6. The use of this land west of Queensway for waste management purposes might well also impact adversely upon Marline Valley SSSI in terms of air quality, disturbance and risk of pollution for example. 7. Whilst we welcome the proposed additional wording and references that are now within the proposed “Main Modifications” to the W&MSP, to our own DMP and Planning Strategy (Local Plan) we fear these could all too easily be overridden in the event of an application being considered. 8. In determining the appropriate level of new employment needed over the lifetime of the Local Plan, the Council has had due regard to the continuing need for regeneration. The Hastings Planning Strategy seeks to protect and enhance the Borough as a major centre of diversified employment, and to that end it proposes up to 70,000 sq m of employment floorspace during 2008-2028. The DMP employment allocations are clearly needed to meet this target which is now enshrined within the adopted Planning Strategy. We are greatly concerned as outlined at (3) above, that since the scale of what might be needed or proposed for waste management purposes is not clear at this stage the impact on allocated sites and existing IEs and ultimately the Council’s ability to meet its own Local Plan employment targets will be seriously undermined. 9. In fully accepting the need for waste and recycling facilities to be located close to the point of waste generation, in order to serve a growing Hastings and Rother population, we consider that there are clear and much more preferable alternatives that will not cause such damaging impacts upon the successful delivery of jobs within Hastings. There is considerable merit in looking at the Burgess Road area (land within Hastings and Rother) to provide for the future waste needs of both Authorities. That said, the current planning application at Burgess Road both vindicates our DMP allocation and emphasises our concerns as expressed to yourself at our recent meeting as to the apparent lack of rigour your Council has shown in the drafting of its Plan in terms of approaching landowners. We will of course be pleased to continue to be available to discuss this matter further and would again urge you to reconsider our concerns and point 4 of my Cabinet’s resolution to submit a revised proposed Submission version to more appropriately address these concerns. As matters stand we feel that we will have no option but to maintain our formal objection to the Submission Plan. May I finally take the opportunity to clarify our understanding of what you advised us at the meeting of 9th February, namely that you do not intend to separately publish your proposed Main Modifications for public consultation but instead expect that these will be consulted upon at the same time as any Main Modifications that may be recommended by the Inspector appointed to examine the Plan. I further understand that you are intending to report upon the matter of the Plan to your forthcoming Cabinet on the 7th March. Yours sincerely, Kerry Culbert Planning Policy Manager Cc Cllr P Chowney – Leader, Hastings Borough Council Cc Cllr Dawn Poole – Lead Member Regeneration, Communities & Culture Appendix B Report to: Cabinet Date of meeting: 8 March 2016 By: Director of Communities, Economy and Transport Title: East Sussex, South Downs and Brighton & Hove Waste and Minerals Sites Plan – Regulation 19 Consultation – Response to Objections Purpose: To agree an initial response to Objections received during the Regulation 19 Consultation on the Waste and Minerals Sites Plan to be submitted to the Inspector as part of the Public Examination, and, seek delegation to officers to agree and consult on draft Main Modifications to the Plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: Cabinet is recommended to: (1) Agree, subject to the endorsement of Brighton & Hove City Council and the South Downs National Park Authority, to the proposed approach to the Objections to the Pre- Submission Waste and Minerals Sites Plan and, to the submission of draft Main Modifications to the Inspector as included in Appendix 3, and thereby, alter the Minerals and Waste Development Scheme to reflect the revised programme; (2) Authorise the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport to agree, in consultation with Brighton & Hove City Council and South Downs National Park Authority, for subsequent public consultation, the draft Main Modifications and any further Main Modifications arising from the Public Examination necessary to make the Waste and Minerals Sites Plan sound, except where any subsequent change would involve a significant shift in the policy approach whereby this would be referred to Cabinet for approval prior to public consultation; (3) Authorise the Director of Communities, Economy and Transport to make, if necessary, minor changes to the document arising from any views of the City Council and National Park Authority, or, arising from the Public Examination; and (4) Note that all Main and Minor Modifications to the Plan will ultimately be presented to Cabinet and Full Council in due course as part of the Adoption of the Waste and Minerals Sites Plan 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Development of a Holistic Index for Safer Roads
    DEVELOPMENT OF A HOLISTIC INDEX FOR SAFER ROADS By ABEER KHUDHUR JAMEEL A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Civil Engineering School of Engineering College of Engineering and Physical Sciences The University of Birmingham December 2018 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. ABSTRACT Generally, road safety is an important issue. Some global and national organisations have recognised the size of this problem and introduced the “safe system approach ” approach as a successful guide for road safety management. The concept of this approach considers road safety as a system compiled of the elements of road infrastructure, mobility, and vehicles; which all should be designed to accommodate the vulnerability of the road users. This corrected the traditional view which considered road-user behaviour as the main contributing factor to the road safety problem. The question raised in this research is to what extent the safe system approach contributes to the national road safety strategic plans? To answer this question, an assessment of road safety performance is needed.
    [Show full text]
  • (TWA) Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004
    Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA) Transport and Works (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 2004 Application for the Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Public Local Inquiry - Department for Transport Reference: TWA/18/APP/02/OBJ/1002 Statement of Case Sally-Ann Hart, Perryfield House, Udimore, Rye, East Sussex, TN31 6AY, District Councillor for Eastern Rother Ward, Rother District Council and Portfolio holder for Tourism, Culture and Public Realm. Summary Position • Negative economic impact on the wider population • Inadequate economic bases for the Application • Abuse of Transport and Works Act 1992 legislation • Investment required on the A21 to improve the road to encourage tourism and other economic growth - not add further impediments by way of a level crossing • Growth in tourism is vital in our deprived coastal, rural communities - not just about the commercial position of Kent & East Sussex Railway • Additional pressure on Robertsbridge due to existing parking issues • Safety of level crossings - the creation of new level crossings on the national network is banned unless unavoidable • Highways England objects for reasons including safety and economic grounds 1. Rother Valley Railway (the Applicant) has submitted various documentation in its application for the above Order, none of which comprises, nor addresses, adequate economic bases for the Application. RVR’s Application focusses on what it perceives as the environmental argument in favour of a new stretch of railway through an area of High Weald AONB. 2. The Applicant commissioned a Local Economic Impact Study from Manchester Metropolitan University in 2007, with an update in October 2013. These reports provide an assessment of the socio- economic impacts of the re-construction of the railway (the Scheme) based on, for example, economic modelling, desk research and field work.
    [Show full text]
  • A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report
    A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report May 2016 Prepared for: A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report @ Mouchel Consulting 2015 A21 Route Treatment Project Feasibility Study Report Executive Summary Highways England has commissioned Mouchel Consulting to undertake a feasibility study of additional effective safety, accessibility and sustainability improvements that will work with, and complement, the installation of Average Speed Enforcement Cameras (ASEC), between Scotney Castle roundabout (south of Lamberhurst), and Hastings (Baldslow) on the A21. The A21 is an all-purpose trunk road serving as the main access route to Hastings from London and the North. The route forms a north-south link between the M25 at Junction 5 near Sevenoaks in West Kent and the Hastings Borough boundary on the south coast in East Sussex. The northern section of the route between the M25 and Lamberhurst is mostly dual carriageway. This study concentrates on the A21 south of the Lamberhurst bypass, from Scotney Castle roundabout to Baldslow. This 26km section of the route is a predominantly rural single carriageway which is considered to be of poor quality. It serves a number of villages and settlements in addition to forming part of the strategic road network. The main settlements on the route have a high degree of direct frontage access and there are also agricultural accesses throughout. Conflict between strategic through traffic and local trips, combined with the below- standard highway alignment, results in collision rates which are above the national average for severity ratio. As the route is single carriageway, recovery time from incidents is slow and this impacts on journey time reliability.
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Idp) November 2016
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN (IDP) NOVEMBER 2016 1 CONTENTS 1. Introduction .......................................................................................... 3 Background and structure .................................................................. 3 Legislative context ............................................................................. 5 Policy context ..................................................................................... 6 Demographic change in Bromley ....................................................... 7 2. Infrastructure funding sources ......................................................... 11 Infrastructure areas 3. Transport .............................................................................................. 15 4. Utilities .................................................................................................. 22 5. Education ............................................................................................. 26 6. Health ................................................................................................... 33 7. Open Space ......................................................................................... 37 8. Community Facilities (Leisure, Cultural, and Burial) ............................. 41 9. Heritage Assets .................................................................................... 48 10. Public Realm ...................................................................................... 51 11. Emergency
    [Show full text]
  • Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Idp) Update Report 2020
    LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY PLAN (IDP) UPDATE REPORT 2020 Date of drafting – 28 August 2020 The information contained in this document is based on the best available data, and is correct at the date of publication. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) provides an overview of current infrastructure needs; it does not establish a hierarchy of future investment decisions by either the Council or other infrastructure delivery agencies. The projections and infrastructure proposals may change over time, and the IDP will be updated periodically to incorporate such changes in line with new information and updated investment programmes September 2020 London Borough of Bromley Planning Strategy and Projects T: 0208 313 4344 E: [email protected] 1 CONTENTS 1 Introduction Background and structure Policy context Demographic change in Bromley 2. Infrastructure funding sources Infrastructure areas 3. Transport 4. Utilities 5. Education 6. Health 7. Open Space 8. Community Facilities (Leisure, Cultural, and Burial) 9. Heritage Assets 10. Public Realm 11. Emergency Services 12. Energy and Low Carbon 13. Waste and Recycling Facilities 14. Flood Risk Mitigation Appendix 1 Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan Schedule Table Appendix 2 Stakeholder list 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Bromley’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) sets out what infrastructure is required to support planned growth identified in the Local Plan. The Council, its partners and other stakeholders will use the document to ensure that the appropriate infrastructure is in place as growth is delivered. This document reviews and outlines the infrastructure needed to support the growth and objectives reflected in the Local Plan. 1.2 The infrastructure identified in the IDP, should be deliverable within the Plan period (2016-31) and includes details of where funding for this infrastructure will be sourced (where known).
    [Show full text]
  • Pre-Submission Local Plan
    Tunbridge Wells Borough Pre-Submission Local Plan Version for Planning & Transportation Cabinet Advisory Board on 11 January 2021 Pre-Submission Local Plan Draft for P&T CAB on 11 January 2021 Foreword 3 Index of Policies 4 Index of Strategic Policies 9 Index of Policies Maps and Inset Maps 10 Section 1 Introduction 11 2 Setting the Scene 18 3 Vision and Objectives 28 4 The Development Strategy and Strategic Policies 32 5 Place Shaping Policies 73 Royal Tunbridge Wells 74 Southborough 129 Strategic Sites: Tudeley Village and Paddock Wood, including land at east Capel 138 Paddock Wood 163 Capel 169 Cranbrook and Sissinghurst 171 Hawkhurst 193 Benenden 213 Bidborough 227 Brenchley and Matfield 229 Frittenden 237 Goudhurst 242 Horsmonden 250 Lamberhurst 262 Pembury 267 Rusthall 297 Sandhurst 302 Speldhurst 310 6 Development Management Policies 319 Draft published on 31 December 2020 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan Draft for P&T CAB on 11 January 2021 Pre-Submission Local Plan Environment 321 Environment and Design 321 Natural Environment 354 Air, Water, Noise, and Land 382 Housing 400 Delivery of Housing 400 Types of Housing Delivery 408 Economic Development 431 Employment Provision 431 Town, Rural Service and Neighbourhood Centres, and Village Settlements 451 Transport and Parking 462 Open Space, Sport, and Recreation 478 7 Delivery and Monitoring 484 Appendices 1 Biodiversity/geodiversity sites within Tunbridge Wells borough 488 2 Schedule of designated Local Green Space sites within Tunbridge Wells borough 492 3 The Monitoring Framework
    [Show full text]
  • A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings
    A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Average Speed Camera Study May 2015 Highways England A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker Approver Description First Issue for A 21 April 2015 Internal Use Only B 22 May 2015 Second Issue C 28 May 2015 Third Issue This document is issued for the party which commissioned it We accept no respons bility for the consequences of this and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned document being relied upon by any other party, or being used project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which used for any other purpose. is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. A21 Lamberhurst to Hastings Content Chapter Title Page Executive Summary i 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Objective __________________________________________________________________________ 1 2. Existing Conditions 3 2.1 Background ________________________________________________________________________ 3 2.2 Speed Limits _______________________________________________________________________ 3 2.3 Layout and Highway Cross-Section _____________________________________________________ 3 2.4 Personal Injury Collision Data __________________________________________________________ 6 2.5 Associated Schemes for the
    [Show full text]
  • South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report April 2014
    Safe roads, reliable journeys, informed travellers South Coast Central Route Strategy Evidence Report April 2014 An executive agency of the Department for Transport South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Document History South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Highways Agency This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Author Approved by 6 03/04/14 Fifth Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones Fourth Draft post stakeholder 5 17/03/2014 Peter Phillips Simon Jones comments 4 31/01/2014 Third Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones 3 15/01/2014 Second Draft amended Peter Phillips Simon Jones 2 14/01/2014 Second Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones 1 04/12/2013 First Draft Peter Phillips Simon Jones i South Coast Central route-based strategy evidence report Table of Contents Tables ........................................................................................................................ iii 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 4 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 The scope of the stage 1 RBS evidence report.................................................. 5 1.3 Route description ............................................................................................... 5 2 Route capability, condition and constraints ................................................... 10 2.1 Route performance .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of Highways 15 December 2020
    Goudhurst Parish Council HIGHWAYS COMMITTEE Minutes of a Virtual Meeting held on 15 December 2020 via Zoom Present: Cllrs David Boniface (Chairman), Craig Broom, Alan Foster, Antony Harris and Guy Sutton. Ted Bennett, Helen Sampson and Colin Wilson as advisors. Two members of the public. 1. Apologies were accepted from Cllr Peter Wood. 2. Declarations of Interest: None. 3. Questions from the public and press: There were none. 4. Update on A21 traffic. It was noted that a letter had been received by Ted Bennett from Baroness Vere of Norbiton, Minister for Roads, Buses and Places. She had written to the Members of Parliament for the A21 between Tunbridge Wells and Hastings to let them know that work to improve the safety, to add cycle lanes, and make various improvements that had been planned to run after 2025 will now aim to be completed by 2025 following negotiations which she had had with the Government and Highways England. Mr Bennett was not sure that her reference to Scotney Castle would include the section of the A21 road we are concerned about. It has been suggested to him by Peter Philips of Highways England that our section between the Scotney Castle roundabout and the T & J Motel would not be included. Greg Clerk wrote that the next step would be to convene a meeting to establish precisely what is proposed and to ensure that the measures proposed are satisfactory. We have to assume that this meeting will be after the COVID pandemic. After some discussion it was agreed that GPC would write to Greg Clark to confirm that we are looking forward to the meeting and that we would be intending to take part in discussions about the problems of speeding traffic and other dangers of the section of road through Goudhurst Parish near Bewl Water.
    [Show full text]
  • Philip Hamshaw Msc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS)
    RVR/W3/1 Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS) i-Transport Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Date: 04 June 2021 i-Transport – Basingstoke | London | Manchester | Leeds www.i-transport.co.uk Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT TEXT (RVR/W3/1 – HIGHWAYS) i-Transport Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Date: 04 June 2021 i-Transport LLP 85 Gresham Street London EC2V 7NQ Tel: 020 3705 9215 www.i-transport.co.uk COPYRIGHT The contents of this document must not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of i-Transport LLP Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT Contents SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1 SECTION 2 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND 4 SECTION 3 RELEVANT POLICY AND GUIDANCE 12 SECTION 4 EFFECT ON TRAFFIC FLOW 19 SECTION 5 ROAD SAFETY 22 SECTION 6 HIGHWAY DESIGN & DEPARTURES 27 SECTION 7 EAST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL (ESCC) 34 SECTION 8 THIRD-PARTY POSITIONS 36 SECTION 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 40 Date: 04 June 2021 Ref: PH/JN/ITL14477-006B Rother Valley Railway (Bodiam to Robertsbridge Junction) Order Proof of Evidence: Philip Hamshaw MSc MCIHT CMILT SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Qualifications & Experience 1.1.1 My name is Philip Hamshaw. I am a Chartered Member of the Institute of Logistics and Transport and a Member of the Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation. I have a Masters Degree in Transportation Planning & Engineering.
    [Show full text]
  • Public Document Pack Gravesham Joint Transportation Board
    Public Document Pack Gravesham Joint Transportation Board Members of the Gravesham Joint Transportation Board of Gravesham Borough Council are summoned to attend a meeting to be held at the Civic Centre, Gravesend, Kent on Wednesday, 10 September 2008 at 7.00 pm when the business specified in the following agenda is proposed to be transacted. Sarah Kilkie Assistant Director (Communities) Agenda Part A Items likely to be considered in Public 1. Apologies 2. To sign the minutes of the previous meeting held on 18 June - minutes (Pages 1 - 10) herewith. 3. To declare any interests members may have in the items contained on this agenda. When declaring an interest members should state what their interest is. 4. To consider whether any items in Part A of the agenda should be considered in private or those (if any) in Part B in public Reports In accordance with the principle adopted by other JTB’s it is assumed that members are familiar with the reports submitted and officers will not be required to introduce reports. 5. Highway and Transportation Scheme: Progress report 2008/09 herewith. (Pages 11 - 16) 6. Manor Road, Gravesend - report herewith. (Pages 17 - 20) 7. Satellite Navigation Devices (Satnav) - report herewith. (Pages 21 - 24) 8. A2 Pepperhill to Cobham Widening Scheme - report herewith. (Pages 25 - 26) Civic Centre, Windmill Street, Gravesend Kent DA12 1AU 9. New Cycle track to North West Kent College in Dering Way - report (Pages 27 - 30) herewith. 10. A227 Wrotham Road - report herewith. (Pages 31 - 32) 11. Verge Parking: Consultation - report herewith. (Pages 33 - 46) 12.
    [Show full text]
  • An Executive Agency of the Department for Transport Start of Works Exhibition Tonbridge to Pembury A21 Dualling Scheme
    Start of works exhibition Tonbridge to Pembury A21 Dualling Scheme Welcome We would like to welcome you to our start of works exhibition for the A21 Tonbridge to Pembury Dualling Scheme. On display you will see information about what is currently taking place and what will be happening during the coming months to allow the scheme to be completed by December 2016. On hand are members of the project team who will be happy to answer your questions. If they can’t, we will investigate and come back to you. At the end of your visit please do take a few moments to complete our feedback sheet as we do value your comments. Thank you and we hope you find the exhibition interesting. Highways Agency Media Services Dorking, S140395 An executive agency of the Department for Transport Start of works exhibition Tonbridge to Pembury A21 Dualling Scheme Why are we doing it? Between Tonbridge to Pembury the A21 is a single 7.3m wide carriageway of rural character with poor alignment and many individual accesses with restricted visibility. There are no footways on this length and verges are either very narrow or non-existent. This section of road carries about 35,200 vehicles per day, which is significantly higher than its original designed capacity. As a result severe congestion is frequently experienced, especially at peak times. Additionally, the number of accidents on this section of the A21 is higher than the national average for this type of road. Recent Key Dates • Public Inquiry – May – July 2013 • Inspector’s Report Published – May 2014 • Appointment of our contractor Balfour Beatty – July 2014 • Start of early works – September 2014 Highways Agency Media Services Dorking, S140395 An executive agency of the Department for Transport Start of works exhibition Tonbridge to Pembury A21 Dualling Scheme Scheme layout The proposed scheme is a dual 2 lane carriageway broadly following the line of the existing A21 and has a bridleway, pedestrian and cycle route along the whole length.
    [Show full text]