87

Report Number: 030130/CAB148 Date: 30 January 2003

TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

REQUEST FOR DECISION BY CABINET

*Part 1 Report Non-Exempt

Title and Executive Summary:

*RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED DUALLING OF THE A21 BETWEEN AND

The Borough Council are being consulted by the Highways Agency on proposals to dual the section of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. The proposals are outlined, the impact on the Borough is discussed and Members’ views are sought on the proposed response, with key points in bold within the report. The deadline for submission of comments was 20 December 2002 and so a holding letter and brief Appendix summary of the key points has been approved and submitted by the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder and Director of Operational Services, on the understanding that it may be reviewed following Cabinet consideration and decision.

In principle support is expressed for the proposals, but an officer meeting is requested to discuss design and modelling options.

WARD: All HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT

PORTFOLIO: Planning and Contact Officer: Michael Thornton Extension: 2062 Transportation

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1) That the Borough Council supports the earliest construction of the improved Tonbridge – Pembury bypass link. The progress of the proposals should not be delayed by consideration of other sections of the route south of Kippings Cross;

2) That the provision of a grade separated junction at Longfield Road is welcomed in terms of the capacity created;

3) That information is required to enable proper consideration of the options set out in the main report;

4) That the principles for minimal impact on the landscape, the natural environment, heritage, and the concerns of environmental protection, as outlined in the main report, should be applied;

5) That the provision of a parallel route for non-car users, integrated with the local access network and grade separated crossings of the A21 would be a highly desirable aspect any scheme; and

6) The Borough Council requests detailed discussion on the comments expressed in the main report at the earliest opportunity, and the opportunity of continuing dialogue with the appointed contractor team.

Reason: 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)) 88

Item No. 8 TUNBRIDGE WELLS BOROUGH COUNCIL

CABINET – 30 JANUARY 2003

REPORT OF HEAD OF STRATEGY AND DEVELOPMENT

*RESPONSE TO THE HIGHWAYS AGENCY ON THE PROPOSED DUALLING OF THE A21 BETWEEN TONBRIDGE AND PEMBURY

Executive Summary

This report (0301301/CAB148) addresses the latest proposals of the Highways Agency to dual the section of the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. The Borough Council has been consulted on the proposals, which are outlined in the report and the impact on the Borough is discussed. Members’ views are sought on the proposed response, with the key points of response in bold text. The deadline for submission of comments was 20 December 2002 and so a holding response, in the form of a letter and brief Appendix, have been approved by the Planning and Transportation Portfolio Holder and Director of Operational Services, on the understanding that this may be reviewed following Cabinet consideration and decision.

In principle support is expressed for the proposals, but an officer meeting is requested to discuss design and modelling options.

FOR DECISION

Introduction

(1) The Borough Council has been consulted by the Highways Agency on its current proposals for improving the A21 between Tonbridge and Pembury. A single detailed alignment option was presented in late November with comments required by 20 December 2002. In view of the limited time-scale, an initial response was prepared by officers, approved by the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Planning and Transportation and submitted. The response is presented here for confirmation. (A similar consultation is also being undertaken for the A21 south of Kippings Cross, with a later deadline for response).

(2) The Highways Agency will be presenting a report to Government in spring 2003 that reflects the results of public consultation and other ongoing assessment. If approved in its present form, the scheme would be accepted into the Department for Transport’s “Targeted Programme of Improvements” (TPI) for implementation.

(3) If so approved, a contractor would be appointed at an early stage to assist in further development of the scheme design and construction methods. An Environmental Statement (addressing the design and construction method) and draft Orders under the Highways Act would then be published and open to objection and potentially a Public Inquiry. Construction could start in 2005/06, after the Bypass but prior to further improvements south of Kippings Cross.

Background to the proposal and the restricted nature of the current consultation

(4) The proposals for this section of the A21 have a complicated history which is outlined in Appendix 1 of this report for clarity.

(5) The Access to Study tested two options for an off-line and on-line road widening to provide a “crawler lane “ ascending Castle Hill. However, the Study concluded with a firm recommendation that a third, untested, option be pursued: that being an on-line dual carriageway with an at-grade enlarged at Longfield Road and with design speeds of 50mph – enabling the existing alignment to be closely followed and restricted movements for access for local properties to be maintained onto the new road.

(6) The Study concluded:

“The alignment will be (my emphasis) chosen to have as little impact as possible on the surrounding ancient and semi-ancient woodlands and the RSPB Reserve, but some land will be required from both. Without knowing the vertical alignment it is difficult to say how much land take is required…” but that it is likely to be ”…less than the published proposal.” (Para 8.40). 89

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(7) Only if the Highways Agency consider that they cannot make the route option work might alternatives be considered.

(8) To progress this the Highways Agency commenced feasibility studies into establishing an on-line 2-lane dual carriageway scheme. None of the evaluation conducted into route alternatives has been made available and only a single route option published for public consultation. Little detailed information is available with which to properly assess the impact of the proposal or to compare it with the off-line alternatives.

(9) The proposals place great reliance on the Access to Hastings Study as a mandate of public consultation support and technical endorsement yet the current proposal has been significantly varied from the parameters set by the Study in that:

• rather than at-grade at each end, the scheme provides an enlarged southbound slip lane at Tonbridge and grade-separated junction at Longfield Road, in order to provide adequate capacity;

• because through-flows on the A21 over the Longfield Road junction will be unimpeded and 70mph speed limit sections of road are at either end of this stretch, and with an overall objective for a “step- change” reduction in journey times to Hastings, the new stretch is designed for 70mph flows; and

• consequently, even with restricted movements only, direct access to the dual carriageway by adjacent properties is very strictly limited to occasional uses only. Therefore, segregated local access arrangements have been created for other properties. This includes an underpass to enable bridleways and other public rights of way to traverse the road safely, as detailed below.

(10) Despite the findings of the Access to Hastings Study, public consultation has not been conducted on the various options available for a broadly on-line alignment and local access arrangements. Nor has material been published to demonstrate how environmental impact has been minimised or how the options compare.

The form of the response to the consultation

(11) With the limited information available, the Borough Council is being forced into a position of responding to the consultation by either accepting this proposed route (with inadequate justification and comparison), or to reject it in the hope that the Highways Agency might present an alternative proposal in time. This does not assist constructive dialogue.

(12) The report sets out the principles that should be applied in the further reworking of the design of the road improvements with the Highways Agency and contractor, with a selection of additional specific comments on some points of detail. Key observations are in bold text.

(13) The overall established position of the Borough Council is that improvement of this link and the capacity of relevant junctions is urgently required, and that this should be achieved with the minimum of disruption to landscape, environment, heritage and property. The Borough Council has made various representations to this end in the past, see Appendix 1: History.

(14) The Borough Council implores the early construction of an improved Tonbridge – Pembury bypass link, whilst seeking assurances concerning the published scheme as further detailed design work progresses.

The proposed scheme briefly described

(15) The scheme before the Borough Council is an on-line dual 2-lane carriageway with grade separated junctions to either end of the link. is achieved at Tonbridge through amendments to the southbound access slip at the Vauxhall junction. The Longfield Road junction currently being constructed, as part of the former Seeboard site development, is to be replaced by a dumb-bell junction arrangement with the A21 passing over the top of the route between Tonbridge Road and Longfield Road. Each dumb-bell roundabout is approximately the size of the roundabout currently under construction. The eastern roundabout is positioned close to the current roundabout with the western roundabout approximately 120m to its west. The junction of Knights Way is approximately 300m to the west of this roundabout. Dedicated left turn slip roads are provided for the A21 northbound access and exit slips and the southbound exit slip. 90

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(16) Road lighting on the main route is to be restricted to the junctions at Longfield Road and Vauxhall only. Further to this, the underpass on the local access roads would be lit for personal security.

(17) Access to properties along the route is achieved in the majority by a single junction northbound and southbound, connecting to a network of local access routes based in part around the existing A21 route. Two direct accesses are provided for Top Lodge and the ancient monument and telecommunications site. Forest Farm, to the north of the route, has its access severed with apparently no revised access proposed.

(18) References are made to a continuous parallel route for walkers, cyclists and equestrians for the length of the proposed route. This would integrate with the local access route but details are not provided.

(19) Along the corridor, noise bunds and pockets of landscaping are proposed to mitigate acoustic and visual screening.

Environmental Design Principles - Environmental and landscape quality

General

(20) The increase in design speed from 50mph to 70mph has significant implications for flexibility of the route in terms of horizontal and vertical alignment, design layout and noise. This renders an on-line route more difficult to accommodate within various constraints.

(21) Whilst it is accepted that the principle of “on-line” should be less damaging environmentally, the cost benefit analysis for the published off-line scheme indicates that the impact on biodiversity and heritage could potentially be the same or worse for an on-line scheme, whilst the landscape impact of the on-line route is less.

Comment

(22) The Borough Council seeks dialogue over certain of the design decisions made and consideration of design and modelling options, detailed at paragraph 90.

Landscape

(23)As the scheme is almost entirely within the High Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty that, along with National Parks, attracts the highest level of protection for landscape and scenic beauty, the environmental design for this scheme is expected to be of the highest standard. Every effort should be made to avoid and minimise landscape and visual impact, providing adequate mitigation and/or compensation where impact cannot be avoided.

(24) The landscape character of the area is dominated by the large-scale forest cover (with some areas being converted to lowland heath) contrasted with grassland pasture, thick shaws and sweeps of parkland. The proposed scheme needs to respect this character 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 Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment (Tunbridge Wells Supplementary Planning Guidance February 2002).

(25) In certain locations (e.g. in the cutting for the access to Tonbridge Road and embankments to Robinsgate Wood) the embankments are steep with engineering profiles. These should provide a smoother transition between the existing and proposed landscapes with more naturalistic profiles and graduated vegetation. It is recognised that this may involve a larger land take and significant off-site works but properly constructed these slopes can play an important role in nature conservation and landscape mitigation.

(26) The underpass, providing links for pedestrians, equestrians and cyclists is welcomed, as it will provide much needed connection between both sides of the new road. However the network of local access roads due to their extent and alignment have a significant impact on the local landscape. The arrangement of local roads running close to the main road whilst reducing the overall breadth of land take severely restricts the scope for landscape mitigation close to the dual carriageway. This could result in an unsatisfactory compromise for the main road, the local road and possibly the wider landscape. The extent of the access road for Yew Tree Farm is considerable requiring extensive land take in a sensitive area and again compromises mitigation for the main road. 91

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(27) Part of the quality of this area, and a key element to its character, is a sense of remoteness and a feeling of tranquillity. It is essential that visual and noise intrusion are kept to a minimum.

(28) The present road is an upgrade on the historic road, possibly a turnpike. This is located on high ground and closely follows the ridge, particularly in the southern section. This feature is typical of the historic road network in the area. The online route therefore maintains this historic context.

(29) The character of the existing road will inevitably be subsumed. It is important though to minimise the visual impact and to maintain the character as far as possible. Details of earth bunds, noise barriers shelter belts will require detailed discussion.

(30) The land through which the scheme passes is rich in historical artefacts and structures. The route of the A21 and adjoining roads has its own historical significance, which should not be overlooked.

Longfield Road Junction

(31) It would appear that the Longfield Road junction would have a significant visual impact on to the west by virtue of the elevation of the new road and existing topography.

(32) 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.

(33) 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 Borough Landscape Character Area Assessment (Tunbridge Wells Supplementary Planning Guidance February 2002). The Borough Council will seek:

(1) 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;

(2) Minimal and restricted lighting at junctions only;

(3) Low noise surfacing;

(4) Sensitively designed noise attenuation fences/bunds;

(5) 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;

(6) Vertical and horizontal alignments that will minimise the visual impact of the A21 and the Longfield Road junction.

Nature Conservation

(34) The High Weald has a rich biodiversity supporting a diverse range of habitats and protected or notable species of plants and animals. The existing road corridor of the A21 severs important habitats and is a barrier to some species. These problems will be exacerbated by the proposals, which provide for a wider and faster road. This proposal will have a significant impact on habitats and species and will result in further loss to sites of nature conservation interest that will require extensive mitigation.

Comment

(35) As part of the mitigation there is an 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.

(36) Compensation and mitigation measures for biodiversity should not rely upon off-site agreements but should rather be an integral part of the scheme, where appropriate, involving land beyond the immediate engineering requirements and should seek to protect and enhance the biodiversity of the area. 92

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(37) The Borough Council will seek the provision and/or enhancement of underpasses or bridges for ecological benefit (e.g. dispersal routes for badgers, reptiles and amphibians).

Environmental Protection

Noise during the Construction Phase

(38) At this stage it is mainly a matter of raising the issue with action and agreements achieved at a later stage.

(39) It is recommended that the Highways Agency, in the conjunction with the contractor, provides sufficient information within a suitable timeframe and discusses the construction phase with Environmental Protection to ensure all environmental impacts are kept to a minimum.

Noise during the Operational Phase

(40) No specific information as to the impact on remaining residential properties has as yet been supplied.

(41) Information as to traffic speeds and volume and how these impact on noise levels will need to be considered.

(42) Noise from traffic can be divided into the various components, i.e. road tyre noise which does vary according to weather conditions, engine noise/exhaust noise and wind noise, etc. Similarly, the percentage of Heavy Goods Vehicles will also have an impact.

(43) Details as to current noise climate along the route need to be taken and calculations of the road traffic noise made for the completed project. This is essential as part of the requirement to mitigate for noise for the remaining residential properties in the vicinity of the road development.

(44) The Highways Agency have a duty under the Noise Insulation Regulations 1975 to ensure residential properties are provided with suitable noise attenuation measures.

(45) The scheme shall not only include details as to noise insulation provided for the properties, but noise at source shall also be treated. This shall include information on quieter road surfaces used, details as to recent development into more effective road surfaces to protect against noise must be considered and option chosen justified. Noise barriers must be provided at relevant locations and again, justification as to choice of location included. Barrier design must be justified with consideration given not only to cost benefit but also environmental and visual impact, with earth bunding being a possible preferred option. Planting schemes have a negligible impact on noise attenuation, but provide excellent visual masking of the road and associated traffic. Any earth bunding must be provided by soil certified to be clear of contamination.

(46)Noise can also have an adverse impact on sensitive sites such as nature conservation sites, ancient woodland habitats, etc. The impact of noise on special sites should be considered with options for mitigation explored. For example, this may include extending noise barriers provided for residential premises to provide protection to natural habitats.

(47) As indicated under the Ambient Noise Strategy, special consideration will need to be given to those areas that have traditionally enjoyed a tranquil environment.

Air Quality

(48) Land use planning is integral to improving local air quality. The Government’s policies on ambient air quality are set out in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland published in January 2000. It aims to improve and protect ambient air quality in the UK and to protect people’s health and the environment from the adverse affects of air pollution.

(49) Local authorities are responsible under the Environment Act 1995 for reviewing and assessing ambient air quality in their areas. If there is a risk that, by the relevant date, levels of air pollution in any part of an authority’s area will be higher than the objective prescribed in the legislation, the Council is required to designate air quality management areas and develop action plans. The focus of a review is in areas where a person might reasonable be expected to be exposed to the air pollutant under consideration. 93

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(50) The air quality within Tunbridge Wells Borough was initially assessed in June 2000. Review and assessment is an ongoing process and a further screening review has to be completed by May 2003 and a more detailed assessment by April 2004. It should be noted that this will be an ongoing matter with yearly progress reports requiring to be submitted to the Government and assessments re-visited every 3 years.

(51) The Air Quality Review for Tunbridge Wells Borough does indicate that the main issue of concern is road traffic impacting on air quality. There are no significant industrial processes of consequence to air quality within the Borough. The review in June 2000 indicated that, using average meteorological data, no exceedences of the objectives on the implementation dates of 2004 and 2005 arise. However, there are some borderline issues in relation to particulate matter PM10 that is associated in this area with traffic. Hence the review to commence at the beginning of 2003 will concentrate on this issue in conjunction with another objective associated with transport nitrogen dioxide, NO2. Similarly, it is proposed to progress the integration of an air quality strategy with the Borough’s Transport Plan.

(52) The proposed A21 scheme will have an impact on the ambient air quality within the Borough. It is recognised that the air quality review currently to be undertaken will need to take the potential new A21 scheme into account and include this development within the review process.

(53) The Highways Agency will need to consider the issue of air quality in considerable detail within the Environmental Impact Assessment that needs to be carried out. Information on how conclusions on air quality are reached must be clearly stated and supported by evidence. Traffic data of existing usage and forecast data needs to be provided. This information needs to be compared to the forecasted data for the A21 scheme. All data supplied needs to be verified and the accuracy of data discussed. The Environmental Impact Assessment will need to include both an air quality assessment of the existing road in relation to the Objectives as set down and for the new road development. This information is necessary to be able to make an effective assessment of the impact of the new road on the ambient air quality for the area.

(54) Should it be established that the objectives as set out in the legislation cannot be met by the relevant dates, the Local Authority is required to declare air quality management areas. Action plans of improvements need to be developed taking aspects of costs and benefits into account, the aim being to achieve the objectives. Air quality management areas would need to be declared if it was found that the existing A21 caused exceedences to occur at relevant exposure points. Such exposure points, for example, would be near to residential premises, or in areas where it would reasonably be expected for persons to be present over the averaging time of the pollutant under consideration.

(55) Similarly, the same action would need to be taken should it be established that the proposed new A21 scheme also caused exceedences to occur. It should be noted that neighbouring Tonbridge & Malling and Councils indicate that their sections of the A21 are likely to have exceedences of the PM10 and NO2 objective by 2004/05.

(56) Modelled data will need to be justified by use of real time air quality monitoring. It is therefore recommended that an air quality station be set up along the A21 road to monitor for the relevant traffic pollutants and establish over time whether objectives continue to be achieved or exceeded. The cost of purchasing the station, together with some of the maintenance cost, should be borne by the Highways Agency.

Archaeology

(57)There appears to be excessive land take to the south of the new road on the approach to Castle Hill (chainage 1200 to 1500) which impacts upon the landscape setting of the Ancient Monument.

(58)The route immediately abuts a scheduled ancient monument at Castle Hill. This is an Iron Age hill fort with finds also from Mesolithic and Neolithic periods and the Bronze Age.

(59) The route also passes through the associated area of archaeological potential.

(60) The area of archaeological potential will need fully evaluating with an involvement from the County Archaeologist. The archaeology will need to be appropriately dealt with in terms of excavation, recording and archiving. 94

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued) Listed Buildings

(61) There are some eight listed buildings affected by the proposal, to varying degrees. The statutory guidance stresses the importance of preserving this finite resource of historic buildings, which are of special architectural or historic interest.

(62) Demolition is proposed to two listed buildings:

Barn at Burgess Hill Farm – Part of farm group of associated farmhouse, granary/stables and oast. Proposed demolition is a major issue. (Appears that this building has been omitted from the environmental parameters drawing)

Burgess Hill Farmhouse – Part of farm group. Apart from intrinsic merit, has strong group value and setting in the landscape.

(63) The Borough Council objects to the loss of any listed building or significant impact on its setting and full justification of the necessity for this precise road alignment will be required. However, Policy EN2 of the adopted Local Plan allows consideration of demolition should substantial planning benefits, including economic regeneration, accrue.

(64) There is impact on a further six listed buildings:

Top Lodge – Lodge to Somerhill Park. The setting and approach to this building are a key issue and its relationship to the new road.

Castle Hill Farmhouse – Farm group associated with this listed building. Proposed alignment of new road is further away with earth bunding. Consequently, there is a better relationship with original Pembury Road and potential environmental benefits.

Fairthorne House – Previously farmhouse. Principal aspect to Half Moon Lane. Neutral effect.

Fairthorne Cottage – Previously farmhouse. Immediate aspect to Pembury Road potentially improved. Environmental barrier to new road a key issue.

Yew Tree Farmhouse – Previously farmhouse. Issues of setting, access and close relationship to elevated road, slip road will need careful consideration. How landscape and environmental barrier details are dealt with, and how they encroach on the setting of the building, is an issue.

Milestone at TQ 612 422 – This appears to have already been moved or removed without consent, in contravention of Section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Other Buildings of Note

(65) A number of other buildings are proposed to be demolished – of particular note are:

North Lodge – Arts & Crafts Style house, c.1900. Middle Lodge – Gothic cottage.

Both these are possibly associated with large house and estate.

Colebrook – The Coach House and Garden Cottage together with walled garden. Issue of the design of the environmental barrier could negate any potential benefits.

(66) The Borough Council would wish to see minimal impact on listed buildings and their setting through consideration of variations to the vertical and horizontal alignment of the Scheme and careful detailed design of engineering works close to the buildings.

Strategic Transport Assessment

(67) The issue is whether the proposed on-line dual-two scheme satisfies the local and strategic transport intentions of the Borough Council for this route. 95

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued) Congestion and Safety

(68) There are major traffic delays experienced on the route throughout the week and not only at peak times. However, peak hour delays are the most pronounced.

(69) Locally it is important that delays to traffic at the Longfield Road junction are removed and that the capacity and safety between Pembury and Tonbridge is improved. The outline benefits this would derive are:

• reliable access to, and egress from, the Longfield Road area; • safety improvements at the junctions and along the route; and • a reduction in traffic travelling through Pembury village seeking to avoid delays at the A21/Longfield Road junction.

Traffic Forecasts and Development Assumptions

(70) There is some concern that the base traffic flows quoted for this section of the A21 are too high compared to those collected in 2001 for the Travel Report, with consequential impacts on predicted flows for the route and the junction assessments.

(71) The Council has been advised that the Access to Hastings model has been used to inform the design process for the current scheme. This is not suitably refined to accurately assess the scale and form of junction proposals associated with the scheme. The model does not take account of traffic that seeks to avoid the route, nor a detailed account of the local development allocations and extant permissions.

(72) The position regarding current flows on the A21 needs to be clarified. Traffic forecasts should be refined at the next design stage to ensure an accurate prediction is made of the traffic flows, including the currently restricted peak demand held as queuing traffic on the A21. Furthermore, peak hour counts on the A21 would not capture the total demand for the route, as drivers are known to avoid the congested sections of the route via the surrounding rural road network, villages and via Tonbridge Road.

(73) When forecasting development traffic flows for the opening year, full assessment must be taken of the Local Plan Review – Second Deposit allocations and planning permissions. These would include the proposed Park and Ride sites; the Economic Development Area allocations, the District General Hospital allocation, the extant planning permissions including Guardian Business Park; and those under construction, including the former Seeboard site and the Royal Tunbridge Wells Business Park.

Impacts on the Local Network

(74) As expressed above, congestion on the A21 causes some drivers to seek a number of other routes to join or leave the A21 north of Longfield Road or to access Longfield Road itself. This traffic is effectively traffic and should not be using these local routes.

(75) It is hoped that the proposals will remove congestion on the route and reduce the desire to seek other routes. In particular, some northbound A21 traffic currently travels through Pembury Village from the A21/Hastings Road junction to the Longfield Road junction, seeking to gain priority over queues on the A21. Following completion of the proposals, traffic travelling to Longfield Road itself may continue to travel through the village if there are any delays at the revised junction. Furthermore, traffic from the A228 may seek to access Longfield Road via Tonbridge Road rather than joining the A21 at the A228/A264 junction. This may ease the operation of the A21/A228/A264 junction but could adversely affect safety and capacity at Woodsgate Corner traffic signals.

(76) The Council requests that, further to detailed consideration of the proposed A21/Longfield Road junction, a comprehensive assessment is undertaken of the impacts of the scheme on the junctions of:

• A21/A228/A264 – the County Council’s strategic route from north east Kent; • A228/Tonbridge Road/High Street (Pembury); • A21/Hastings Road (southern end of Pembury); and • The operation of the access to Knights Way in relation to the A21 junction at Longfield Road. 96

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(77)In light of these assessments, as the details of the proposal evolve, a signing strategy will need to be established for these routes.

Proposed Local Access Routes and Pedestrian, Cyclist and Equestrian access

(78)The Highways Agency propose very limited direct access to the proposed route and have shown a single local access junction in both directions to serve properties along the current A21 via a network of local access roads. The routes are very long and officers have been informed that junctions are below desirable standards. Yew Tree Farm, in particular, is over half a mile from the A21 access points.

(79) The only two direct access points, for Top Lodge and the Ancient Monument and Telecommunications masts, are poor. They allow only left-in/left-out movement and are without any acceleration/deceleration provision. Furthermore, there is no apparent access provision for Forest Farm.

(80) In addition to access to adjoining land and residences, the consultation publicity refers to “Improved facilities for cyclists, horse riders and walkers, particularly ease of access across the A21 to the Pembury Walks area.” This initiative is admirable but there is currently little definition on how it will be achieve.

(81) A re-evaluation exercise of the form and extent of the local access routes should be undertaken. Particular attention would be paid to the needs of local residents balanced against the needs of walkers, cyclists and equestrians.

(82) The provision of a footway/cycle-route/bridleway along the length of the proposed route between Longfield Road and The Vauxhall junction should be progressed.

(83) The option for a cut and cover tunnel section should be assessed near the crest of Castle Hill to seek to improve local access; to facilitate a continuous walking, cycling and equestrian route; and reduce the impact on archaeology and ecology.

(84) A consequence of the creation of the A21 Pembury Bypass was the formation of an at-grade footpath crossing from Blackhurst Lane. The crossing is highly unattractive and dangerous in its current form but with the introduction of a grade-separated junction and slip lanes at Longfield Road, through traffic speeds and vehicle manoeuvring across the width of the carriageway will increase further, reducing the safety of the crossing.

(85) The Royal Tunbridge Wells cycle network proposes a cycle route between Pembury and Longfield Road, currently passing along Tonbridge Road and connecting the Pembury Hospital. The proposed dumb-bell roundabout junction at Longfield Road is not suited to cyclists, compounded by the dedicated left slips.

(86) The crossing at the end of Blackhurst Lane (between Longfield Road and the A228/A264) should be upgraded to an over bridge. Furthermore, consideration should be given to providing high quality facilities for cyclists and equestrians between Longfield Road and Pembury. In seeking to achieve this, the option of a route alongside the proposed route to near the Blackhurst Lane crossing should be assessed. A future extension of this route along Blackhurst Lane to the adjacent residential areas and the network on Pembury Road would further enhance the proposal.

Public Transport

(87) There is currently one bus service along this section of the A21; the KCC funded 208 service. This route includes an hourly daytime service between Tonbridge Station and Pembury Hospital using the A21 between Vauxhall Junction and the Tonbridge Road/Longfield Road junction. As part of the S.106 agreement for the proposed redevelopment of the Pembury Hospital site the frequency of the bus service to Tonbridge is doubled, and two additional routes are added. One is an hourly service to Crowborough, crossing the A21 at Pembury Road, the second is a circular route to Tunbridge Well/High Brooms/Longfield Road crossing the A21 via Pembury Road and Longfield Road junctions. The proposed junction at Longfield road makes no specific provision for buses and the local service roads, midway on this section of the A21, would not offer an attractive diversion to bus services travelling between Tunbridge Wells and Tonbridge. An advantage of the alternative option of an off-line dual carriage (or a continuous local access route) could be the release of the existing A21 route for public transport as well as local access, pedestrians, equestrians, cyclists. 97

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued) Local Plan and Development

(88) The Highways Authority have lodged objections to the policies and proposals in the Tunbridge Wells Local Plan Review and a major planning application, on the basis that the existing A21 and nearby junctions have insufficient capacity for additional traffic, and that the Highways Agency’s own proposals to address this are unresolved.

(89) The Highways Agency have objected to the Local Plan Review on the basis that policies to locate employment uses in the long-established industrial area at Longfield Road are “premature”, in advance of confirmation that the A21 will be enhanced with a grade-separated roundabout at Longfield Road. Other policies and proposals elsewhere in the Longfield Road area, including the Park and Ride site, are opposed on a similar basis. The objection states that development proposals in the Local Plan Review should be reviewed on the basis that an at-grade roundabout is to be maintained.

Overall summary comments, and design and modelling options for testing

Options and modelling

(90) On the basis of the above, the Borough Council requests that, as the detailed design of the scheme progresses, opportunity should be taken to assess the following design and route options:

• Realignment of the Longfield Road/A21 roundabout so that the currently planned enlarged roundabout (associated with the former Seeboard development site) is incorporated as one part of the lower level “dumb-bells”. The construction of this roundabout is underway at the cost of some 40 weeks’ disruption and wider environmental damage. Clearly, the potential to “reuse” this in the final design should be exhaustively evaluated.

• Review of the design of the Longfield Road/A21 roundabout to facilitate the addition of signal control (that interfaces with a signal control junction at Knights Way). This will provide for safe movement of all road users, ensure proper inter-relationship with the Knights Way junction and enable possible future development on allocated Urban Fringe sites to be accommodated.

• The option of a 'cut and cover' solution at Castle Hill/Burgess Hill Farm. This would potentially lessen the impact of the road on the setting of the ancient monument and could avoid the total demolition of two listed buildings, whilst enabling local access routes and the linear link alongside the A21 to cross the existing road and connect valuable amenity areas either side of the road. Extension and making steeper of the retaining walls of the cuttings should also be investigated as an alternative, to minimise impact on the setting of the monument and landscape.

• The underbridge, continuous local access routes and junction access to the A21. To consider alternatives to best achieve the objectives set out above.

• Introduction of a grade separated crossing for pedestrians and cyclists to replace the existing Blackhurst Lane pedestrian crossing, this should be integrated with the surrounding network.

• The modelling assumptions for the A21/A26/A228/A268 and development in Royal Tunbridge Wells and the area of Longfield Road and Pembury should be made explicit to the Borough Council to enable review. Tunbridge Wells is an important Sub-Regional Centre, identified in the Kent Structure Plan. Good access must be maintained against an increase in through-traffic flows drawn by the dualling of the A21.

West Kent Partnership

(91) Borough Council welcomes the on-line improvement scheme. Query is raised on the design of the on-slip at Vauxhall junction, as to whether a crawler lane or extended on slip lane is required on the incline up Castle Hill. The need for east facing slip roads at Chevenning Interchange on the M25/26 is advanced as could assist in making optimum use of the improvements to the A21.

(92)Arriva support improvements to the A21 between Pembury and Tonbridge – although it does not currently run any services on this section of road. It is concerned that existing congestion on the A21 has knock on effects of congestion on the A26 and consequential impact on bus services through Southborough. 98

Report of Head of Strategy and Development (continued)

(91) Arriva do not take a view on the scale or line of the improvements to the A21 but hope sufficient capacity is created to enable improvement to the reliability of bus services on the A26 and elsewhere. If the existing A21 road is not to be available for operating local stopping bus services, provision should be made for buses to be able to stop and pull onto the new carriageway safely. The need for grade separated junctions is firmly supported to ensure free flow to planned developments, ease the knock-on effects of congestion elsewhere, and facilitate the expansion of bus services across the A21 at Longfield Road junction in particular.

Both sets of comments are supported. Any other relevant comments notified through the West Kent Strategic Partnership will be reported to the meeting.

RECOMMENDED -

(1) That the Borough Council supports the earliest construction of the improved Tonbridge – Pembury bypass link. The progress of the proposals should not be delayed by consideration of other sections of the route south of Kippings Cross;

(2) That the provision of a grade separated junction at Longfield Road is welcomed in terms of the capacity created;

(3) That information is required to enable proper consideration of the options set out in the main report;

(4) That the principles for minimal impact on the landscape, the natural environment, heritage, and the concerns of environmental protection, as outlined in the report, should be applied;

(5) That the provision of a parallel route for non-car users, integrated with the local access network and grade separated crossings of the A21 would be a highly desirable aspect any scheme; and

(6) The Borough Council requests detailed discussion on the comments expressed in the main report at the earliest opportunity, and the opportunity of continuing dialogue with the appointed contractor team.

Contact Officer: Michael Thornton

TONY FULLWOOD Head of Strategy and Development

Appendix: History of the Proposal 99

APPENDIX History of the Proposal

The published off-line alignment

In 1996 the Secretary of State published Highway Orders and a Compulsory Purchase Order for an off-line 6-lane dual carriageway between Tonbridge and Pembury. The existing A21 route would remain in situ for local access. The published Highways Orders remain extant although the CPO has now time lapsed. The alignment is protected in the Tunbridge Wells Adopted Local Plan and Local Plan Review Second Deposit Draft.

The alignment was confirmed following a Public Inquiry conducted in the spring of 1993. Alternative routes were considered at the inquiry; the Borough Council promoted an alignment known as the “orange route” which was broadly “on-line” – that is broadly on the line of the existing road, except that it pushed away from the existing road to run to the east of Burgess Hill Farm and the Castle Hill Ancient Monuments. An alternative “off-line” alignment – the “blue route”- running to the west of Castle Hill, was eventually approved in 1996.

Access to Hastings Study

In 1997 the Government reviewed the whole of the road improvement programme in the light of the greater emphasis to be placed on multi-modal solutions to transport problems and to minimise the impact on the environment.

The Borough Council made representations to the Government in January 1998 (Technical Services Board 27 January 1998) in favour of a reduced scheme with an off-line 4 lane dual carriageway with a grade- separated roundabout at Longfield Road, utilising the route envelope and the then extant Orders of the published scheme to assist early implementation. The existing A21 route would be maintained for local access.

The Government‘s new approach led to the commissioning of multi-modal studies, and in November 1999 the Government commenced the Access to Hastings Study, within which the Tonbridge to Pembury scheme was examined. The Study included detailed analysis and public consultation and compared off-line dual carriageway schemes using the published alignment, with an alternative for an on-line road widening, with a southbound “crawler lane” ascending Castle Hill and restricted turning movements at local access points along the route. Within the context of Alternative Strategies for multi-mode transportation for the whole of the study area, the two options for this section of the A21 were compared using established Cost Benefit Analysis techniques to identify present values of cost and benefit with values attributed to safety improvements, environmental impact, travel time savings and economic / regenerative benefit etc.

The Study concluded in November 2000. The overall Firm Recommendation for this section of the A21, taking account of public consultation, was for a third solution, untested to the same degree to the original two. That being an on-line 4-lane dual carriageway designed for a 50mph speed limit and with at-grade roundabout junctions at either end. The Study conclusions included brief comparison of this proposal with the existing situation of neighbouring houses in terms of pollution, noise and vibration.

It is stated that impact on the natural environment will be greatly reduced and that:

“The alignment will be (my emphasis) chosen to have as little impact as possible on the surrounding ancient and semi-ancient woodlands and the RSPB Reserve, but some land will be required from both. Without knowing the vertical alignment it is difficult to say how much land take is required…” but that it is likely to be ”…less than the published proposal” (Para 8.40).

The conclusions acknowledge that the alignment will be closer to Castle Hill Camp Ancient Monument, than the existing road, but that this is considered marginal and outweighed by the benefit of the camp not being surrounded by roads, and by the benefit of the views of the ancient woodlands and landscape to the west being unchanged (para 8.42 refers).

An additional analysis was undertaken to consider the relative safety benefits of the scheme options. Compared to the existing situation / do-minimum situation, this showed “savings in accident costs” of nearly £8million over 20 years for off-line 4 lane dual carriageway, £4.3million for on-line 4 lane dual carriageway, and £2.8million for the on-line crawler lane option. (para 8.42 and Table 8.1). 100

The Firm Recommendation of the Access to Hastings Study is qualified thus:

“This recommendation remains subject to further design feasibility and to the consultation which will need to accompany statutory processes. On the balance of evidence, a (4-lane) dual carriageway scheme is desirable to address safety and capacity issues on this stretch of the road. However, if the recommended on- line solution proves not to be achievable, then an off-line dual-carriageway scheme should be given further consideration, subject to full New Approach to Appraisal (NATA) analysis”. (para. 9.14)

It was concluded that the on-line widening would achieve the majority of the safety improvements and time saving benefits of the off-line scheme but at a reduced environmental and financial cost. The Study concluded that if an on-line dual-two solution was not practicable then an off-line dual-two should be given further consideration.

The Borough Council was represented on the steering group for the Study. Operational Services Board (14 December 2000) considered and agreed to support the findings of the Study but in so doing stressed:

• the need for early implementation of improvements between Tonbridge and Pembury;

• the need for a grade separated junction at Longfield Road; and

• the importance of progressing an off-line dualling scheme if an on-line scheme proves not to be feasible.

Other aspects of the multi-modal study were also supported, including:

• further consideration of options for improvements of the A21 between Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst and Lamberhurst to Commbe Well Priory Farm (at );

• the proposed enhancement of rail services between and Tonbridge (either as a shuttle service or as an extension of the Gatwich-Tonbridge Wells service with stops at and High Brooms); and

• the electrification of the Ashford –Hastings rail line; whilst

• the lack of a clear recommendation on the provision of the Hastings Eastern and Western Bypasses was regretted.