030227/CAB161 Date: 27 February 2003

Report Number: 030227/CAB161 Date: 27 February 2003

TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

REQUEST FOR DECISION BY CABINET

* Part I Non Exempt

Title and Executive Summary:

* RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE A21 SOUTH OF PEMBURY TO HASTINGS

This report addresses the latest proposals of the Highways Agency to improve the A21 between Pembury and Hastings. This includes the construction of a new dual carriageway from Kippings Cross to the northern junction of the planned Lamberhurst Bypass. The Borough Council has been consulted on the proposals, which are outlined in the report and a dialogue continues as the proposals are being developed in response to comments received.

A strategic level initial response is recommended at this stage, with a more detailed response via a further report to Cabinet, to be made in the near future once the proposals become clearer. In addition, prioritisation of improvements for the section between Lamberhurst and Flimwell is also urged. Members’ views are sought on the issues of principle to be put in an initial response.

WARD: ALL HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT

Contact Officer: Michael Thornton Extension: 2062 PORTFOLIO: PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION

RECOMMENDATION(S):

1. That the strategic level comments contained in the report be forwarded to the Highways Agency as an initial response to the proposals for the A21, and that a further report be made to Cabinet for agreement of any firm comments to be made on the route alignment and road type options;

2. That the Highways Agency is urged to prioritise the comprehensive improvement of the A21 Section between Lamberhurst and Flimwell prior to other sections south of Flimwell, to ensure a sequential approach to route improvement and urgent treatment of this most dangerous section of the A21; and

3. That the Highways Agency be requested to ensure that the Borough Council has opportunity to comment on relevant sections of the ECI contract specification to the contractor/designer of sections of work within the Borough (and that the ECI contract specification ensures that the contractor/designer be required to enter ongoing dialogue with the Borough Council over the new road design, construction and rearrangements of detrunked sections of the existing road).

Reasons:

To present the interests and concerns of the Borough Council on the proposals.

(Items marked * will be the subject of recommendations by Cabinet to full Council; in the case of other items, Cabinet may make the decision, subject to call-in (Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rule 15))

030227/CAB161 30

Item No 7

TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET – 27 FEBRUARY 2003

REPORT OF HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT

* RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS OF THE A21 SOUTH OF PEMBURY TO HASTINGS

Executive Summary

This report (030227/CAB161) addresses the latest proposals of the Highways Agency to improve the A21 between Pembury and Hastings. This includes the construction of a new dual carriageway from Kippings Cross to the northern junction of the planned Lamberhurst Bypass. The Borough Council has been consulted on the proposals, which are outlined in the report and a dialogue continues as the proposals are being developed in response to comments received.

FOR DECISION

Introduction

(1) The Borough Council has been consulted by the Highways Agency on its current proposals for improving the A21 between Pembury and Hastings; these further the agreed recommendations of the Access to Hastings Study. In general terms five Route Objectives and various options for the form of road to be built are put forward for comment. Specific initial alignment designs for two sections of the road: Section A - Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst; and Section C - Flimwell to Robertsbridge are also put forward. For the remainder of the route, including Section B - Lamberhurst to Flimwell, the consultation will help identify: which sections will receive priority; and the design principles to be applied to possible subsequent improvements. Officers and the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder are in ongoing dialogue with the Highways Agency and their advisors, Hyder-Consulting.

(2) Compared to the consultation process and design proposals for the Tonbridge – Pembury section, this consultation is on longer and later timescale and the design proposals are far less specific. Indeed, the design for Section A - Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst is currently being developed, and further information is to be provided in relation to Section B. A different form of response to that made to the Tonbridge – Pembury consultation is therefore appropriate.

(3) The response recommended is in the form of strategic level comments on the principles of design. Initial officer level comments on the December 2002 consultation proposals, consistent with these recommended principles, have been forwarded to the Highways Agency (in liaison with the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder) by the formal deadline of 14 February. Verbal update will be given to the meeting and further detailed comments on the revised scheme will be forwarded in due course, following further consideration by Cabinet.

030227/CAB161 31

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

The Process

(4) The Access to Hastings Study recommended that further studies be conducted to identify improvements between Kippings Cross and Hastings. The Highways Agency held public exhibitions in December on its initial proposals and is now engaging in discussion with interested parties, with the current aim to finalise a report to the Minister for Transport in the Spring.

(5) For Section A - Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst, this could lead to the formal declaration of a preferred route in the summer. The preferred route would not include the details shown on the consultation plans but only a road centre line with a margin of deviation extending 70m either side of that centre line. The next stage of the project for this section would see the early appointment of a contractor/designer later in the year under a Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) Contract. This is a new approach to such projects intended to speed up implementation. The ECI contractor would detail the designs and supporting assessment, pilot the proposals through the preparation of necessary Highways and Compulsory Purchase Orders, then Public Inquiry into those Orders, and finally, subject to approval, construction possibly commencing in 2007. Proposals for Section C – Flimwell to Robertsbridge, could attain a similar programme.

(6) For the remainder of the route, the second stage of the project would see the preparation of initial designs for consultation purposes for those elements prioritised as a result of the current consultation process. Therefore a key part of the first stage of the project is the selection of the key principles and priorities to be applied in the second stage of the project. The suggested Borough Council response to the Highways Agency includes firm support for the prioritisation of improvements of Section B - Lamberhurst to Kippings Cross.

The proposals – general principles

(7) The proposals are designed to achieve Five Route Objectives:

1) To improve the safety record of the A21, reducing accidents by at least 50% over the next 30 years; 2) To ensure reliable journey times and produce a significant reduction in journey time between Pembury and Hastings; 3) To minimise impact of improvements on the AONB, designated conservation sites and heritage; 4) To improve the environment in communities along the route and address severence; and 5) By improving the route, to assist regeneration and development in Hastings and region, including support of delivery of the Tunbridge Wells and Rother Development Plans.

(8) Options for the form of the sections of road are put forward:

• Three-lane Single Carriageway Standard (60mph) incorporating a hatched safety zone in a 19m wide corridor. Clearly marked, the third standard width lane would provide for overtaking and crawler lanes, switching direction only at roundabout junctions along the route. This would require 10% and 40% less land than the following two options and could more flexibly integrate into the topography and landscape because of the lower speed limit/design standards.

• Compact Dual Carriageway Standard (70mph) incorporating a minimal central reservation in a 20.2 – 23.2m wide corridor. This includes reduced width lanes.

• Standard Dual Carriageway (70mph) with conventional barrier central reservation and off carriageway hardened margins in a 26.1m corridor.

030227/CAB161 32

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

(9) The Three-lane option is shown in alignment drawings for Section C and the Standard Dual for Section A (and is agreed for the Lamberhurst Bypass). The consultation offers opportunity to respond to the suggestion of Three-lane Carriageway for Section B, Lamberhurst to Flimwell.

The proposals, alignment of Section A – Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst

Proposal briefly described

(10) The proposal is for an additional new standard two-lane dual carriageway road between the existing two-lane dual carriageway terminating at Kippings Cross and the new roundabout at the northern end of the planned two-lane dual carriageway Lamberhurst Bypass (construction commences spring 2003). The road would be designed to the Highways Agency’s standards for a 70mph two-lane rural dual carriageway with roundabouts at each end and no access points en route. The existing road would be detrunked and substantially retained and adapted to create a continuous through-route between Kippings Cross and Lamberhurst with access to all properties en route and would serve local traffic, including public transport, cyclists and other non-motorised road users. All existing public rights of way would be served, including grade separated crossings of the new road.

(11) The plan at Appendix A shows the existing road which follows the line of an iron-age trackway along a descending ridgeline, weaving to follow the easiest route from a high point at Kippings Cross reservoir towards Goudhurst. It then turns south, descending towards Lamberhurst and ultimately the river crossing. A new Standard Dual Carriageway requires a far straighter and less steep alignment than the existing road. The Public Consultation Proposals (December 2002) show a preferred, detailed road alignment, details of which will be displayed at the Cabinet meeting. The centre line of this alignment is shown on the map at Appendix 1. At the northern end the road connects directly to the existing roundabout at Kippings Cross. A new roundabout some 35m east on the Matfield road provides connection to the detrunked road and proposed service area at the Blue Boys. The dual carriageway runs eastwards, initially on the southern side of the existing road, passing right through the Proteam warehouse/distribution site. It then crosses the road three times as the existing road weaves around Lamberhurst Quarter. The new road then stays on the northern side to join the new Lamberhurst roundabout. Two underpasses are provided for the detrunked road to pass under the dual carriageway and three bridges for local access roads pass over it. There are extensive sections of cutting: through the hill south east of Kippings Cross; at The Grange near Lamberhurst Quarter and into the slopes of the hill at Windmill Farm near the eastern end. However, extensive sections of embankment are also used on the valley sides at either end of Lamberhurst Quarter. A section of new local road is built onto an embankment at the new Clay Hill underpass. Lay-bys are provided on this section.

(12) A revised Route A (January 2003) has been produced by the Agency and this too is being further revised. Details are awaited but it is understood that this will take the road alignment further away from an area of unstable ground at Swan Farm and several listed buildings, reduce the scale of embankments on the valley side and enhance the landscape mitigation.

Alternatives and previous proposals

(13) In 1990 the then Department of Transport undertook a public consultation to identify a preferred route alignment for dualling this section of the A21. Four principal options were considered and a fifth option, in part an amalgamation of several of these, emerged through the consultation process. This was known as the “Orange Route”. In May 1991 the Orange Route was declared as the preferred route and accordingly protected from development. However, the scheme was never progressed to the detail required for draft Highways Orders or Public Inquiry and was dropped in 1997. However, a number of local occupiers had anticipated that any scheme of dualling in the future would be on this same previously preferred route.

030227/CAB161 33

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

(14) The main differences between the 2002 Consultation Route and Orange Route can be understood by reference to Appendix A. The Orange Route passes over to the north side of the existing road just south of Keys Green and then passes back over the existing road to remain on the south side for most of the route. Hyder-Consulting have recently produced a summary of their comparison of their 2002 proposals with the Orange Route. The information on which the summary table is based is not available to Council officers to assess.

Initial assessment and response to the Section A proposals

(15) The detailed drawings for the December 2002 Consultation Route have been assessed by officers in similar terms to those for the Tonbridge – Pembury section. However, these proposals have undergone some revision and are undergoing more. Therefore, only the main principles of concern are outlined below. Detailed comments on the original 2002 consultation scheme that are consistent with these main principles have been forwarded to the Highways Agency.

Strategic transport issues

(16) The principle of two-lane rural dual carriageway to 70mph design standards is appropriate, and consistent with those sections north and south of it. Such consistency is important to safety - Route Objective 1). Maintenance of the existing road as a through-route is warmly welcomed, as is the provision for local access (Route Objective 4). All Public Rights of Way appear to be capable of reasonable diversion. Careful consideration, with the Borough Council’s involvement, should be given to the treatment of the detrunked sections.

(17) There is a possibility of linkage of the design/construction contracts for this section with that for Tonbridge – Pembury. This must not give rise to any delay on the latter or the Lamberhurst Bypass. However, Section A should proceed before other sections to the south – see assessment of Section B.

(18) It is unnecessary to provide additional lay-bys on this section between the proposed services at Kippings Cross and those available in Lamberhurst Village. Given these other opportunities, provision here of laybys does not appear to serve any objective

(19) The location of a new roundabout on Matfield Road so close to the main roundabout gives rise to concerns. The new local service junctions roads and underpasses appear to employ more compact and tighter standards than employed for the Tonbridge – Pembury stretch. This inconsistency needs to be examined and the correct approach confirmed so that the implications of this can be assessed.

(20) The alignment of the dual carriageway appears to broadly comply with the various technical criteria. There may therefore be scope for relaxations and departures in standards to enable the proposed road to “better fit” the undulating countryside to achieve Route Objective 3).

Environmental design principles

(21) The road passes through land which retains a strong historical pattern of field, hedgerow and shaw, together with ancient woodland. Generally, more extensive woodland cover and an introverted landscape lie to the south and a more open, increasingly arable, landscape to the north. The road forms a boundary between two different landscape character areas, identified in the Supplementary Planning Guidance Tunbridge Wells Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment (August 2002), that is Area 1: Matfield–Brenchley Fruit Belt and Area 8: Bayham Wooded farmland. The road itself has historical significance.

030227/CAB161 34

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

(22) Every effort should be made to avoid and minimise landscape and visual impact, providing adequate mitigation and/or compensation where impact cannot be avoided. The scheme should minimise land take of historically sensitive areas and, where opportunity arises through the scheme, actively protect and enhance retained historical landscape features. The scheme should respect the character of the area with its form, design and materials and, in particular, the landscape mitigation strategy should build on the existing character and minimise detracting elements, taking note of the guidance contained in the Tunbridge Wells Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment (Supplementary Planning Guidance August 2002). The Borough Council will seek:

• significant mitigation planting and land management and careful re-profiling of cuttings that will go beyond the minimal engineered mitigation strip and address landscape character and biodiversity in a sensitive manner; • minimal and restricted lighting at junctions only; • low noise surfacing; • sensitively designed noise attenuation fences/bunds; • enhancement of the detrunked sections of the A21 to return them to an appropriate scale for their intended use and to a condition compatible with the character and quality of the area; • vertical and horizontal alignments that will minimise the visual impact; • opportunity to reconnect habitats either side of the A21, extend adjoining areas of nature conservation interest and manage mitigation planting in a manner that will enhance biodiversity for the area; • compensation and mitigation measures for biodiversity not relying upon off-site agreements but these should rather be an integral part of the scheme, where appropriate, involving land beyond the immediate engineering requirements; • protection of ground water flow – particularly that supplying the SSSI; and • the provision and/or enhancement of underpasses or bridges for ecological benefit (e.g. dispersal routes for badgers, reptiles and amphibians).

(23) There appears to be no alternative to the principle of the western section and little alternative to the easternmost section unless the route is radically revised. The impact appears for the most part to be reasonable in the context of the proposal. The main concerns relate to the mid-section (chainage 1300 to 3300) of the road alignment where impact on the landscape is more severe and the conflicts with topography more pronounced.

(24) Specific issues arise in relation to the straightness and appearance of the alignment ascending the hill south from Kippings Cross, and the dominating new embankment structures for the proposed Clay Hill underpass facility, past Lamberhurst Quarter and on the slopes north of Lindridge. Alternative horizontal and vertical alignments need to be investigated for this mid-section to minimise impacts. The parking of HGVs at the proposed lay-bys at the eastern end of Lindridge, where the existing road and proposed dual carriageway almost meet could be unduly intrusive in the landscape.

Environmental Protection

(25) In the main these are issues for the next design stage of the scheme with the Environmental Impact Assessment and relate to generic issues of environmental protection standards for the periods of construction and operation.

(26) In relation to noise control this should begin at source with the use of a “quieter surface”, in conjunction with the use of noise barriers as necessary. The use of noise insulation glazing shall not be the only noise control measure utilised. Where barriers are created, naturalistic forms should be employed. As indicated under the Ambient Noise Strategy, special consideration will need to be given to those areas that have traditionally enjoyed a tranquil environment. Protection of the occupiers of Listed Buildings by noise insulation barriers and glazing presents specific difficulties best avoided by management of noise pollution at source.

030227/CAB161 35

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

(27) The Environmental Impact Assessment will need to take the National Air Quality Objectives into account and must include details as to the assessment of any potential exceedences. Forecasting over the next 10 years will be required. Details as to any sensitive receptors and areas of any potential exceedences must be included. No request for an additional Air Monitoring station is made for this stretch. However, suitable placement of the station along the Tonbridge – Pembury route should enable results to be utilised for future modelling and assessment.

(28) Maintenance of the flow of ground water into the SSSI near Lamberhurst Quarter should be protected.

(29) During development proper consideration must be given to any contaminated land along the route and the control of imported soil and materials. The location of the lay-bys could cause nuisance to local occupiers.

Historic landscape

(30) The road itself has historical significance and follows the route of an iron-age trackway and droveway. There appear to be historic hamlets along the route at Keys Green and Lindridge with farmsteads then set at intervals generally 1km to the north and south of A21 on the lower slopes.

(31) 16 listed buildings would be affected, ten of these primarily more from an occupier’s amenity point of view. Of the other six, worst impacts would be at Ambleford Cottage and Old Swan Farm. (Also see 26 above.) Revisions to the 2002 Consultation Route design may significantly reduce the impact on these properties. Fuller inspection is required of the quality of some affected and currently unlisted buildings, and the parkland landscape at The Grange that is affected. There appear to be no sites of archaeological potential affected by the route.

Other comments

(32) The Borough Council welcomes the offer from the Highways Agency to provide a copy of their analysis of the public consultation responses received. Until the alignment is settled it is unclear how many dwellings and businesses would be affected, including the impact on the viability of farms. However, it seems probable that any alignment will pass through the centre of the Proteam warehouse/distribution site at Kippings Cross and a number of residential properties could be affected.

Section B – Lamberhurst to Flimwell

Proposals

(33) The Highways Agency’s have not identified this section as a priority need nor to be readily achievable. Therefore no alignment proposals for this section are made at this stage. It has been indicated that a Three-lane Single Carriageway road type should be employed, and that properties would be accessed via short stretches of local access road that in turn feed into a small number of junctions onto the main road. Some “baseline data” assembled for the Highways Agency has been provided to officers.

(34) The material produced by the Highways Agency confirms that the whole of this section is host to the densest concentration of accident sites on the whole of the A21 between Kippings Cross and Hastings. It appears that this spread of accident sites cannot effectively be resolved through individual site-specific remedies. In addition, the creation of sections of dual carriageway north and south of this stretch could worsen the accident rates further, with a general increase in vehicle speeds and introduction of an inconsistency in road regime. On this basis it is considered that the improvement of the road should prioritised for the next stage of the work, in accord with Route Objective 1).

030227/CAB161 36

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

(35) In terms of the overall programme, the Borough Council considers that the implementation of Section B should not delay the earliest implementation of the Lamberhurst Bypass and Tonbridge to Pembury Section and Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Section, but prior to Section C and other elements south of Flimwell.

(36) Traffic flows for Section B appear similar to those predicted for Section A at 23,400 AADT and in excess of the estimated 17,000 AADT on the Lamberhurst Bypass. South of Flimwell flows appear to decrease significantly. The AADT figures do not adequately reflect the peaks in flow caused by highly seasonal variations, nor the impact of the significant number of slow moving vehicles on travel time reliability. Furthermore, this section provides access to a significant range of sites. This includes a number of major (expanding) leisure trip attractions such as Bewl Water, Bedgebury Pinetum, the Happy Eater/Burger King roadside restaurant and several camp sites. Also access to Kilndown Village and a scattering of other residential properties and various enterprizes. In traffic terms there therefore appears to be little to justify “stepping down” to a Three-lane Single Carriageway north of Flimwell. Dual carriageway would appear best able to deliver Route Objectives 2 (Journey Time) and 5 (Economic Development). However, insufficient information is available to enable the Borough Council to assess and comment on the potential environmental benefits (Route Objective 3) of the increased flexibility of design and reduced land take of a 60mph single carriageway over a 70mph dual carriageway to counterbalance.

(37) Consequently, the options for road type should be left open to be determined at the next stage of the project. This consideration should include a 60mph dual carriageway option which may “fit” into the landscape more readily than a 70mph compact dual carriageway and could be consistent with a “stepping down” from a 70mph speed limit to the north and 60mph to the south.

Proposals at Section C and further south

(38) A route alignment with a Three-lane Single Carriageway bypassing Flimwell, Hurst Green and St Johns is proposed.

(39) This would locate a major roundabout just within the Borough Council boundary and near to residential properties at Flimwell Close. Appropriate screening and protection will be required from such a significant source of pollution. The Listed Flimwell Lodge will be surrounded closely on three sides, by the roundabout to the west, the new road to the north and the existing road to the south. The building was probably an original gate house lodge to Bedgebury Park. However, this relationship has long been weakened including by the establishment of the plantation. The road alignment also passes through the north side of the adjacent site, the Mick Gould heavy transport recovery operation. The impact of the proposals on all three aspects could be mitigated by environmental barriers and minor realignment of the new construction. No further comments are proposed on this section.

(40) Hastings Borough Council is understood to be promoting the prioritisation to the next stage of the project of improvements of the A21/A28/A2100 junctions at Baldslow on the edge of Hastings. The case for this and other proposals for the A21/A2100 junction at St Johns will be influenced by decisions over the road proposals to bypass Hastings and Bexhill.

Conclusion

(41) Because these proposals are at an earlier stage of formation and less specific than those at Tonbridge – Pembury, it is appropriate to make a different level of response. This report recommends that strategic level comments are agreed and made to the Highways Agency at this stage to assist further dialogue as the proposals develop. A further response with detailed comments on specific alignment and road type would be made in the future, as appropriate.

030227/CAB161 37

Report of Head of Strategy & Development Continued

RECOMMENDED –

(1) That the strategic level comments contained in the report be forwarded to the Highways Agency as an initial response to the proposals for the A21, and that a further report be made to Cabinet for agreement of any firm comments to be made on the route alignment and road type options;

(2) That the Highways Agency is urged to prioritise the comprehensive improvement of the A21 Section between Lamberhurst and Flimwell prior to other sections south of Flimwell, to ensure a sequential approach to route improvement and urgent treatment of this most dangerous section of the A21; and

(3) That the Highways Agency be requested to ensure that the Borough Council has opportunity to comment on relevant sections of the ECI contract specification to the contractor/designer of sections of work within the Borough (and that the ECI contract specification ensures that the contractor/designer be required to enter ongoing dialogue with the Borough Council over the new road design, construction and rearrangements of detrunked sections of the existing road).

Contact officer: Michael Thornton

TONY FULLWOOD Head of Strategy and Development

Appendices: Appendix A – Plan of A21 alignment between Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst

Background Papers:

Public Exhibition material supplied by Highways Agency and Hyder-Consulting Route plans December 2002 supplied by Highways Agency and Hyder-Consulting Revised Route plans January 2003 supplied by Highways Agency and Hyder-Consulting

030227/CAB161