LAND AT JUNCTION 11, M20 ADVICE NOTE
July 2015 2 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Limitations Where assessments of works or costs identified in this Report are made, such assessments are AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ltd based upon the information available at the time (AECOM) has prepared this Report for the and where appropriate are subject to further sole use of Shepway District Council (“Client”) investigations or information which may become in accordance with the Agreement under available. which our services were performed. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to AECOM disclaim any undertaking or obligation the professional advice included in this Report to advise any person of any change in any matter or any other services provided by AECOM This affecting the Report, which may come or be Report is confidential and may not be disclosed brought to AECOM’s attention after the date of by the Client nor relied upon by any other party the Report. without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Certain statements made in the Report that are not historical facts may constitute estimates, The conclusions and recommendations projections or other forward-looking statements contained in this Report are based upon and even though they are based on reasonable information provided by others and upon the assumptions as of the date of the Report, such assumption that all relevant information has forward-looking statements by their nature been provided by those parties from whom it involve risks and uncertainties that has been requested and that such information is accurate. Information obtained by AECOM could cause actual results to differ materially has not been independently verified by AECOM, from the results predicted. AECOM specifically unless otherwise stated in the Report. does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this Report. The methodology adopted and the sources of information used by AECOM in providing its Where field investigations are carried out, these services are outlined in this Report. The work have been restricted to a level of detail required described in this Report was based on the to meet the stated objectives of the services. conditions encountered and the information The results of any measurements taken may vary available. The scope of this Report and the spatially or with time and further confirmatory services are accordingly factually limited by measurements should be made after any these circumstances. significant delay in issuing this Report.
Copyright © This Report is the copyright of AECOM Infrastructure and Environment Ltd. Any unauthorised reproduction or usage by any person other than the addressee is strictly prohibited. Land at Junction 11, M20Land Feasibility at Junction Advice 11, M20 Note Feasibility Advice Note 3
CONTENTS 1 Introduction x
2 The Site x x 3 Planning Policy Context Chapterx title here 4 01Market Context x 5 Development Scenarios x
0.0 xx 6 Testing the Scenarios x x
0.0 xx 7 Deliverability x x
0.0 xx 8 Conclusions & Next Steps x x
0.0 xx x
Revision Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by
01 March 2015 Draft Giuseppe Verdone Mark Hughes Jonathan Crabb Urban Designer Associate Technical Director
02 May 2015 Draft Giuseppe Verdone Mark Hughes Jonathan Crabb Urban Designer Associate Technical Director
03 June 2015 Draft Giuseppe Verdone Mark Hughes Jonathan Crabb Urban Designer Associate Technical Director 4 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 1
01 x Introduction
Introduction x Introduction AECOM’s commission Background to this document x This document explores the potential for AECOM has been appointed by SDC to provide AECOM commission x development, at different scales and with strategic planning advice in respect of the different mixes of land use, on land adjacent to opportunity for development adjacent to Purpose of this document x Junction 11 of the M20, located within Shepway Junction 11 of the M2. AECOM has worked on a Structure of this document x District Council, Kent. number of studies in the area and is able to bring considerable local knowledge to the commission. The study is intended to assist Shepway District In addition, the team comprises a mix of Council (SDC) in its assessment of what might landscape architects, planners, urban designers, constitute appropriate development in the transport planners and utilities engineers, location and also to inform discussions between allowing AECOM to address the full range of SDC and the various landowners and others with complex issues that might impact ona large and an interest in the study area. potentially complex site, such as Junction 11.
In addition, AECOM has been supported by BBP Regeneration, who have provided advice in respect of the property market and viability. 2 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Parcel D
Parcel C
Parcel E
Parcel B
Parcel A
0 100 200 300 400 500m Figure 1.1: The study area (showing the various parcels and their areas) Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 3
Background and this current study is the first step in that Structure of the document process. As the land is not owned by the Council, The potential suitability of land adjacent to this work represents a feasibility study rather Text Junction 20, was identified in SDC’s emerging than a definitive plan for the area. The Council economic development strategy. This potential has received sufficient positive feedback, was further reinforced by the accompanying land from landowners, to commission this current and property market analysis, which noted the technical assessment and, in doing so, SDC viability of introducing high quality employment sees itself as performing an enabling role. Once sites close to the M20 and the associated rail this initial assessment is complete, the Council route (the strategic nature of these two transport intends to engage further with the landowners to corridors being a key factor in this current discuss how matters might move forward. assessment). Demand for development in the vicinity of the Purpose of the Document Junction 20 is evident from the number of recent proposals for commercial and residential This document has been prepared on behalf of developments in the area. Development proposals SDC in its capacity as the plan making authority included those submitted through the Council’s - it is not have any material interest in the land Places and Policies Local Plan ‘Call for Sites’, under consideration. The purpose of this study is such as the completed Stop 24 service station. to provide a comprehensive, high level overview However, a co-ordinated plan for the site and its of the constraints and opportunities and the surrounds has not been prepared, to date. potential for development at Junction 11. It is SDC’s intention to be able to put emerging In terms of planning policy, there is currently no proposals into a strategic context, both in terms provision for a strategic development at Junction of need and opportunity. 11, beyond the references to the potential for a strategic employment site to be development at It is also SDC’s intention to scope the nature of the this location. However, given the cyclical nature development that might be delivered at Junction of the planning process, SDC will , at some point 11, both in terms of land use and scale. While in the near future, begin to give consideration initial discussions with landowners focused on a to the next iteration of its Local Plan. On that more limited piece of development, on land close basis, there is scope for a more considered to the junction, SDC is keen to understand the assessment of the capacity for development at implications of a more comprehensive scheme, Junction 11, how that capacity might be framed particularly in light of the aims of the emerging in terms of revised policy and, also, how the economic development strategy and the potential potential for development might in turn help for policy to be updated in the medium term. shape policy, particularly in terms of strategic council objectives in respect of the continued As noted, above, there is also the possibility economic development of the district. This matter that this study might also feed into emerging, is addressed, further, in Section 3, below. revised policy relating either to this location or to the more general principles of development SDC has, therefore, identified the need for a opportunity, whether it be residential, mixed use co-ordinated planning approach for the area, of commercial/employment. 4 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Scope Prepare a constraints plan identifying physical, environmental (including flooding At the project inception meeting with SDC, it and archaeological constraints) and planning was confirmed that the study, while focusing constraints; on a core area for the main outputs, should not be limited to that smaller parcel of land. It was Undertake a ‘high level’ landscape character agreed that if there was a rationale for a more assessment; comprehensive study area to be considered as Identify employment development areas part of the commission, AECOM would define that around J11, within Areas A and B, proposing area, assess the constraints/opportunities and boundaries to development areas; prepare strategic options that supported the more detailed options proposed for the core study area. Prepare sketch layouts to identify floor areas for Areas A and B; The intention is that both the core and wider study area exercises should provide SDC with a Prepare indicative layouts for lorry parking as range of options, each with a high level evidence part of the mix, using existing studies, where base providing a rationale for that development possible; option. The options will have their origins in current planning policy, with the proviso that Identify access and new road layouts; policy is continually updated and revised. Assess requirements for reinforcement of Given the likelihood that some of the utilities, and development potential at Junction 20 might Estimate costs for infrastructure and not be realised within the current Local Plan abnormal development costs. period, it is not unreasonable for SDC to begin a process of assessing where future development opportunity might be located and how planning policy might develop to allow for that opportunity Crucially, SDC anticipate a key output of the to be realised. work being consideration of the broader spatial context and infrastructure requirements With reference to the original brief and the recognising that policy supporting development themes set out above, SDC identified the across a wider area would probably form part of following as key tasks for this commission: a Core Strategy Review.
Prepare a baseline assessment of the existing However, it should be borne in mind that the transport infrastructure (rail and road) and its core study area, for the purposes of this current capacity; exercise, comprises Parcels A and B.
Prepare a baseline assessment of the existing utilities and their capacity;
Undertake a desk top site investigation study to identify potential for abnormal cost items; Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 5
02 x The site
Strategic site context 0–0 Strategic Site Context This section of the report covers matters relating to the physical and environmental constraints including: Study area 0–0 To properly understand the capacity of Junction Landscape and environmental designations; Land ownership 0–0 11 to accommodate development, it is vital that we have a clear picture of the physical context Built heritage designations; Site context: landscape & environment 0–0 within which development might be delivered. Hydrology and topography; Site context: built environment 0–0 Given the strategic nature of this document, Flood risk; Site context: hydrology & topography 0–0 the initial studies were, for the most part, desk-based, with database information from Ground conditions; Site context: ground conditions 0–0 Envirocheck and utilities providers, for example, Agricultural land classification; informing the definition and assessment of Site context: transport 0–0 physical constraints. These desk-studies were Transport, and augmented by a site visit, early in the project. The Site context: utilities & infrastructure 0–0 Utilities. assessment considered the following themes: Composite constraints & opportunities 0–0 Matters relating to Planning Policy are addressed in Planning policy. Section 3, below. Environmental designations, including landscape and ecology, flooding, etc.;
Built heritage, including archaeology;
Transport infrastructure, and
Utilities. 6 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Strategic Setting
The study area is located within Shepway District Council, approximately is XX km from the centre of Folkestone, XX km from Hythe and XX km from Ashford. There are no other major urban areas in close proximity to the study area.
The infrastructure corridor comprising the M20 motorway and railway lines serving HS1 and local services, is a major structuring element. The station at Westenhanger, with local stopping services to both Folkestone and Ashford is a key consideration, as there may be considerable scope for an improved service, should development occur in some form.
To the north, south and east lie designated and protected landscapes.
The study area
At the project inception meeting with SDC, it was confirmed that this current study, while initially conceived of as focusing on a core area for the main outputs, should not be limited to that smaller parcel of land. It was agreed that if there was a rationale for a more comprehensive study area to be considered as part of the commission, AECOM would define that area, assess the constraints/opportunities and prepare strategic options that supported the more detailed options proposed for the core study area.
The intention is that both the core and wider study area exercises should provide a range of options, each with a high level evidence base providing a rationale for that development option. The options will have their origins in current planning policy, with the proviso that policy is continually updated and revised. tbc
Figure 3.4: Strategic location Collingwood Pond 141.4m Cowl Cottage
Spring ef D
Path (um) Pond
Def CP & ED Bdy Pits
75.4m El Sub Sta Path LB
73.0m GP Little Granary Court 78.3m Kite Horton Park Farm
Manor
Def Und Pond 130.9m Pinehurst
Silo CP & ED Bdy Jasmine
Pond Street Cottage Pond
Drain The Outlook
CS 128.1m
Def T ra GP ck Issues Lodge Pond 74.6m 125.9m Coal Yard Path (um)
Track Collects CP & ED Bdy FB CR Smeeds Farm Pond
72.1m CS T ROAD Horton Park 77.4m Sinks Cock Ash Def ARY COUR 68.0m Southenay SOUTHENA Y LANE Brickclamp Wood GRAN Farm Pond Def 67.0m Little Southenay 123.6m Pond Smeeds Farm Bungalow Holly Wood Pond Drain Drain 66.6m CS ETL FB Pond k 119.8m Trac Spring Weir 128.8m Southenay The Towers 121.0m Cottage House Foot Bridge Def Lake Pilgr ims' Way
Def Lake 121.7m Well CP & ED Bdy CS D Bdy Lower Cock Ash Pond Spring Coopers 116.6m P & E 85.4m Wood C 114.6m
ETL
67.7m CS Drain
The Firs 109.7m 115.7m
103.5m
RH m 101.5m 0.91 Kimberley Issues Cottage Wood 116.1m 71.4m
H 85.7m 0.91m R Pond Lodge 105.5m
Ward Bdy
Pond
NE Pent Lodge
HENAY LA CR 102.8m SOUT
84.9m Pond 109.9m D rain Highlands
ETL
59.1m f The Bungalow De D rain Drain Pond
FB 102.1m Drai Path (um) 97.9m Def n NE FB 92.1m E LA Pump House 101.7m S BLINDHOU FB ) Und 100.3m Path (um ain Foot Bridge Dr The
Horton Priory Pent and remains of 94.7m CR Priory Gables Cottage treet Farm Path 101.7m 59.9m (Cluniac founded 1142) (um) Farm
Court Ash Wells Tennis
Pond MAN ROAD
Stone S
Little Priory Wood 94.5m RO
Path (um) GP Pilgri 103.8m Blindhouse ms Hyham Hill Way PLAIN ROAD Pond
2 Dr ain
1 Path (um) 84.3m Stone Hill Farm The Roseries Ash Wells FB Spring
66.2m CR Issues Foot Bridge Def Collects Drain 92.9m Bungalow 98.7m CR RH Pond GP White Cottage 0.91m FB Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 7
Def The Old Bak 104.3m Drain Pond 83.1m er Churchfield Riv The Downsview rack Baytree Cottage tour Stour Rise T st S m) Ea Meadows ath (u ery 91.8m P 86.5m Track Und 69.7m 102.9m Path (um) Hayton Wood rd Bdy Page Def a Stone Hill W Farm Crest Vi f 2 De Guide Post FB Ward Bdy Ward Bdy 1 Guide Post 0.91m RH 98.0m Pond Path Drain Track T 3 ry ew E rac S . na AN C 81 Gra (um) Swan House L k m TCB RH St Mary's Church Page Farm SWAN GP Ashdene 93.8m Oast Pond RSTOCK LANE k able O Track St MO Trac 83.6m Court 4 Pond Hou CR se LB Roost Bdy Court Byre Kennels Drain ard Cottage W Def Postling Great Priory Wood Oakwe Postling Court Henley Cottage Court Farm 1 CS 75.6m 0.91m RH ll H West Court Pond ouse Manor Lodge House Path (um) Well Home Def Old Page T Farm Pond r ack B 2068 Farm 0.9 Water Myrtle Cottage 1m RH
81.6m Rose Cottage 0.91m Pond 92.3m Issues RH Wealden Tk Ponds House S 1 tone Snowdrop 0.91m 93.9m rain Drain CS Hill D CS 78.6m Old Forge Def RH Dr Windsor Cottages Pond ain Cottage 3
1 Pond Ponds
Talbot House 80.8m
White Ho ard Bdy Def LB W Old Mill House 0.91m RH Hall FB Swimming Orchard
Pool rses 7 Cottage Track Nightingales 6 Postling 5 FB Coppice 4 3.8 1 Wood Walnut Trees ell Milland m 9 W Vue Issues RH FBs Stone Cottage 92.3m
The Hazel Albert House Sycamore Wa Tolsford Hoddiford 2 74.9m Wentways Path (um) Moorstock 1 House Hom Cattle Grid rd B Farm House Dale Dr Pond a The d in Magpie Cottage eleigh y ETL Cottage CR Windmill Myrtle s T LB ra EET The expanded study area is located to the south of c GP Villas k ROAD Path (um) ottages Ellis 2 Eastfield ain 76.1m Pond ll C Stone 1 r Mi Cottages Priory View D 1 Fair View 4 THE STR Woodlands er 2 Hill Trust Cottages Rushbourne ROMAN iv Ward Bdy r R Fox Gables Moorstock Bungalow 7 Malham Pond East Stou Normandy 2 TREET Fieldwaye Pond Drain Rorty FB Cottage Moorstock Crankle Weir 1 90.7m New House STONE S
K LANE The Firs Pear House Def Mellora Pond View Moorstock 79.3m 5 1 CR MOORSTOC 2 the M20, at Junction 11, and is shown on Figure 2.2, Holmeland Moorstock Pond Pond 2 10 Rose Cottage 4
Farm Drain 1 Ashley Ashdown 1 Cottages House Fields Track Pent Villa The Laurels Pond Briar Hoddiford Mill 49 90.7m Cottage Track The Old Cottage Sunnycroft Pond 73 22 Pond
STONE HILL 63 Hope Farm El Sub Sta 75 2 1 Hope Brooklands 65 GREENFIE Cottage Drain Cottage Hayton Pond Vicarage Path (um) 20 Manor Dunholme LDS opposite, and comprises the following parcels of Def Farm 37 81 22 Brook Lane Farm Pond 17 Brooklands Farm 93 Cottages Pond St David's 14 Bungalow Pantiles El 91 The Stormes 28 The Sta Homestead Pond Ppg 78.0m Maison Sta 83 13 12 2 0.91 Dieu Pond 86.9m RH S 89 12 35 NFIELD 86.1m um) Path ( GREE The Stormes Dr FB Weir CF CG ain 11a Barn Drain Rectory 15 11 Pilgrims' Way Farm 7 LB SWAN LANE CG Stour River Ponds Drain Hayton 83.6m land: East Old 25 5 Pond Tanyard Tanner's Track Drain
FB s Cottage Bridge FB Hayton Cottage
Court Sewage Drain 5 Tenni Pond 1 Ppg Sta Stocklands Spring 1 Def Place 85.0m Pond The New 80.1m Weir Pond Uradal CHISLETT CLOSE Highlands TCB CUCKOO Pond Wenham 1 Glebe Farm B Glebe Farm Lansdowne
arn B 2068 Rectory Farm Allotment The Elms LANE FB Drain Gardens
Whispers Swan 98.8m Cott gh CD Lees Farm
Beachborou Issues Ellwick Brookgate FB Cottage Mumberry (um) Path Holly BROOK LANE Track Weir Gibbins' Brook Weir 75.0m Und Bridwel Church ETL HAYTON ROAD FB Villa Wymondham Path (um) 106 Ward B Rock Cottage Beechcroft Hartleigh 2 Lynwood Ferndale 1 104.9m dy A 20 63.4m Jubilee Cottage Area A: a triangle of land, bounded by the railway 62.7m Meadowbank Homefield 98 80.4m 106.2m TCB 63.3m ASHFORD Club
Ward Bdy ROAD Douglas Mews 1 Drain Sports Ground St Mary's Church 63.8m Bowling 2 Green Court 90 Stonehayne
Lodge Robrae Douglas Farm Sunbreak Douglas Farmhouse Bungalows 88
Fir Dunrovin Robony Stone L Twrs 73.9m Pond FF 117.4m The Old LB Orchard End 86 Barnhaven line, along its northern boundary, Ashford Road on Vicarage Bankside GP Court Lodge Farm Keymer L TwrsTennis Pavilion Cattle Grid 84 84a 0.91m RH Wagon Lodge Drain Cattery Douglas Farm Cottage Path (um) Croft Vill 65.1m Springfield The Mews House Drain Tylden a Flats Guinea Hall Cottage 80
2 1 Pevetin 4 117.9m Cottage Drain Vicarage (PH) Pond Cattle
1 2 Old School East Stour River Grid Oak Cottage Drain The Saddlers Lees Cottages Cottages 65.9m Homelands
3 Drain The Old 77.6m Kestrels Cobden Farm 72 Elm Tree Farm 1 Farmhouse Stone Cattle Grid Gibbins Brook The Manor House 5 Church Apsley Guinea Hall 2 Well LB Filberts Pond 67 Drain Cottages Farm its eastern boundary and Stone Street to the west use Elm Tree Duke's Cattle Grid Potten Farm Cottage Wellington Head Bungalow
Hale Cottage
Drain Cottage FF Hale Ho (PH) Issues 74.1m 70.4m 53 59 Woodside Def Pond 1 2 36 Pond 35 64 Cottage Ivy Cottage Potten 67.3m Pond Farm A 20 Cottages 2 Sellindge HOMELANDS1 CL 12 Nursery 66.9m 49 58 Forge The Chase 3 1 Cottage 66.8m 2 60 Fieldhead LOURDES OSE 22 ROMANTolsford ROAD View MS N Collingwood GP E 43 7 Issues Litt 37 SWAN LAN 4 Honeysucklelecroft 5 Playing Field 26 50 El 69.6m Cottage and encompasses some 41.64 ha. SWAN GREE Sub Drain 4 Yew Tree Sta 40 Drain Cottage 115.4m 33 Stanford 76.2m
Day 30 17
Nursery 5 0.91m RH
Brooke Stone Street 70.9m Sellindge Well 32 Primary Cottage Belvedere 18 Manor School 33 Cottage Pond 15 Kebun Grove House 29 Pond 21 9 Gyminge
ANE 38 Brook Waterloo 1 MAIN ROAD Def Cottage Drain Terrace 24 67.1m WHITEHALL WAY Foot Bridge Brook Place Pond Lees 64.9m 1 10 2 Tudor Cottag 1 M 20 HARRINGE L Drain 4 16 DOWNS W 10 e The Silver Spray 22 3 2 ETL 23 39 Hillview CHURCH FIELD 4 1 AY 1 Stuart 75.9m Pond 46 13 Issues FB 8 Pond 3 6 EES CLOSE Tendresse
3 5 Plantagenet 75.6m 78.0m Path (um) Hall 13 2 5 WOODL El Sub Sta 14 Catk 5 2 ins Area B: a large, loosely rectangular parcel of land Woodlands Benham Waverley Path (um) Tel Ex Villa LEAFIELD 7 4 Cattle Grid Parish 66.2m 3 Penshurst All Saints' Church Ponds 9 64.9m Room 75.2m Und tfield Cattle Pond 6 Felicidad Grid 1 Findrum Wes Surgery 6 1 ETL Pond 1 Track Salfoord Stoneleigh 13 67.3m Rothergate 2
9 Mast FORGE CLOSE 1 5 KENNETT LANE Stourmead 3 School House Old Rectory Cottage Path (um) 8 14 7 Lodge The Chestnuts Waylands The Old Rectory Pond Pond 68.4m (156.87 ha), bounded by the railway line on its YEW TREE CLOSE Drain The Lees Brook 6 1 8 Farm Avonlea 4 B 2068 Path (um) 81.5m 102.9m A 20 15 3 67.3m 2 M 20 Pond 1 Terschelling The Buccleuch MP 61.7 Foo Cwaft 75.9m 5 Dell Spring Cottage ttages
Rhodes House 1 Albion Co 2 Rotherwood Roselea 1 Kennett Drain Drain Rosemary Cottage Pond 81.0m Mast Brook Farm Hawthorn House Und SL Mast Rotherwood Orillia The Barn Woodside TCB Little (Kennels) Farm PO The Rhodes Farm LB Yew Tree Path (um) 68.6m Studios 78.8m Butcher Wood northern edge, Stone Street to the east, and Ashford Pond Pond Pond KENNETT L 76.9m 91.7m MP 62 ETL WB Pond Kennett Lane ANE The 1 0.91m RH Cottages Farmhouse
8 SL SL Yew Tree Farm 100.0m Km P 1 00 Harringe SL 0.91m RH
Bridge ASHFORD Rhodes House 77.3m
) St George's Woodside Barn Lodge Butcher Wood 6 ROAD ll ETL Fairview Path (um 16 11 5 Old Mi Road to the south and west. Drain Millside Cottage 93.6m 15 75.7m SL MP 62.25 12 House 3 GP M 20 13 Somerfield Medhurst Def Path (um) Track Old Mill SL SL SL Field Hayward House East Stour River Barn Court Richardson Court View Path (um) 1
Drain
SL 0.91m RH Stanford Mill Conifers Pond
Drain The Old Mill m) Barnstor Pumping Station mers Path (u 0.91m RH
Barn Bungalow Path
(u FB m) 94.7m MP 62.5 Drain Hollybank POSTLING St Def Pond Path (um) WENTS FB SL Bartholomew's Wood Wents SL Cottage
ROMAN ROAD Belmont Ne STONE STREET wlands ETL 96.2m Kirkwood Drain 55.1m M 20 Parcel D East Stour River Area C: a linear parcel, on an east-west axis Km P 101 Stanley House MP 62. Und SL 1 75 Holmdene The Old SL LB SL East Stour River TCB Drain Path (
um) Sunningdale PLACE Track Def Touchwood 74.0m Weir River View 61.2m M 2 54.3m 0 y Ppg Sta ETL Path (um) Def Pond FB Laburnum Springwood 40.77ha Ward Bd
4 Grove Bridge Balancing BECKLEY Stanford Hall adjacent to Stop 24, extending to some 46.09 ha SL Pond 4 MP 63 Grove Bridge Beech House Stream Cedar Terrace m GROVE BRIDGE 17 to 22 ard House 5 Orch 16 Haytons Strea 1 Perry Wood brook Woodcote FB 1 Stanford House Meadow 4 Tank THE CE Inglew ood FB 61.5m DARS 8 1 Track Def 7 Hadleigh FB Track
1 Ryll House 1 SL Grove Virginia situated between the M20 (to the north) and the Parcel C Oakwell MP 63.25 FB FB Oaklands SL SLS Drain East 5 MEADOW GROVE SL Fairmead Drain Hillside 1 Stour SL Swiss Cottage Rabbits' Wood The 2 8 Pines SL Hazelyn SL Path (um) 56.9m River White Lodge The Conifers Km P 10 72.3m Glenville 2 Drain Path (um) Fairview FB Drain 11 Pinecroft Path 93.4m
17 Bernhurst The Lodge SL NGE LANE Pat Path 22 h (um)
B 2068 railway line to the south, and The Firs 46.09ha Def
HARRI Gables West SL MP 63 Drain .5 Fairmead Farm 65.6m 1 Gables East Ward Bdy 5 in Dra ISE R Barrowhill M 20 HILL May Track Und Morning BARROW Drain 60.4m The Ridge House SL 10 Path (um) Drain
7
May Lodge 8 wn CP & ED Bdy High La Drain BARROW HILL MP 63.75 m SLs Shrine Barn Track CR Carisbrooke Brambles The Stourside Shrine Pond Larkfield Tumulus Farm
0.91m RH 9 Stourbank Pump 97.4m ton Def Ashbur Tumulus 72.9m Path (um) Park Pale Shrine Area D: a triangle of land, north of Junction 11, Tingley East Stour River Mast (Telecommunication) Path (um) Pond Drain Mast CR Springbok Bungalow Grove Station Bridge The Km P 103 House Somerfield Court Farm Mount 68.7m Martone Hide-n-seek SLs 4 w D FB MP 64 Willows El Sub Sta OA cres R
Linton 1 Lorry Park El Sub Sta Path (um South Vie Five A ) Path Def Klondyke Villas 70.8m M 20 (um) ASHFORD Brenwood 2 SL SL Path (um) Folkestone Service Area
4 encompassing some 40.77 ha, and bounded by the Roseville tour River SL ETL Mast Mast East S El Sub Sta horn Harringe Court Hawt Station Track Def Filling Cottages Park Wood 4 Barrow Hill Caravan Site Path (um) Farm Station Mast Sloping Mas A 20 's Depot St John 1 onry Sheep Wash Cottages 1 75.2m 3 SM Und
2 Issues Farm Cottage ROAD
Meadow 1 N Parcel E LB Path (um) 6 k Pale ROMA Tank DW Par SL Salt Sade WB Track Dome M20 on its southern edge, the B2068 to the east and Lorry Park Pond Westenhanger 76.8m SL Drain Oak Cottages Drain Westenhanger Drain Castle Parade Ring Tk El Sub Sta 2 1
1 Pinnacle Tollgate Cottage Paddock ck Pond Tra 1
Ward Bdy Baydon 2 Fountain Tk ges Cotta Tumulus MP 64.5 100.5m Harringe Court SA Track SL NDLI
Ottermere 72.9m Und Path (um) NG RO Mistletoe Cottage Pond Def 10.19ha AD Km P 104 Cycle Merlin Cottage Westenhanger Lane
Issues 2 CG (remains of) Honeywood Plantation 1 Stone Street to the west; Drain
Ivy Cottages Ponds 2 1 CR SL Honeywood Cottages 1 Grandstands 3 Capel Cottages Shelter ASHFORD ROAD Cycle Lane 81.4m Post East-View Post Post S Gantry Def A 20 Post CR Folkestone Race Course TCBs Folkestone Race Course 101.2m Und Syukur North Lodge Post Def Ward Bd Post Post Post Pond y Drain 74.2m MP 64.75 Pond Def 76.6m Lodge Humblebee Track Drain Lodge CR Parcel B FB Sheep Wash Path (um) Track Track
83.4m A 20 Humblebee 0.91m RH House The Old Stables SL Humblebee SL 0.91m RH Hall 95.8m S Gantry CR Drain Ward Bdy Drain SL Tunnel Pond Drain Def SL 74.6m 0.91m RH Humblebee Hillhurst Farm Tunnel ED Bdy Cottage 0.91m RH Area E: a parcel of land opposite Stop 24, also Drain East Stour River Westmead CP & 156.87ha Pond Mile Stone
Pumping Station FB (sewage) Drain Track Tank Pond Km P 105
Und
Def Stable SL Connaught Lodge Cycle Lane 79.1m SL Def 2 1 MP 65.25 bounded by the M20 to the north and the railway line Garden ASHFOR Cottage 3 Silver Wood Track Pond
D ROAD Pond Drain 2 73.1m Little SL Drain MP 65.5
1 MEADOW SL El Sub Sta CR Drain Wayside FB Und Folkestone Race Course 78.7m Und COURT 79.7m Wayside Cottage Track Guest Station Masters Glenroy Parcel A Sandling Station Cottage Issues to the south, covering approximately 10.19 ha. Dingley Jesters Westenhanger Rivendell 1 LB 2 Dell Gowers A 20 Barrow Hill Farm Cottages Drain Robroy 76.4m Drain Kilrush House Wood Sandling Farm Car Park Roseleigh Holly Highclere Cottage The White Lodge Drain Sydfoord
Stone Street
The Chalet Clarehaven ROMAN ROAD
3 Drain Sandling Park
76.4m 1 41.64ha Ivydene House Home Farm Jasmine Cottage Granville Bungalow Mink Farm Ranchu Lodge 79.2m Issues Sandacre Pond The Pine Airport Cafe e
Boleh White Drain Pond Hogs Green ASHFORD R Whiteways Peckingell OAD 83.1m Cottage Springfield Wood Folkestone Race Cours Rose Cottage Track Pond El Sub Sta 74.8m ASHFORD ROAD Def 70.9m Lyvedenhurst Und 72.3m Dellfield 80.5m 78.7m
Twin Chimneys CH 76.9m 75.3m Pond
Red House Farm Lyveden A 20 Colinwood
Def 77.5m Otterpool Manor Country Views HARRINGE LANE 0.91m RH
STONE STREET 82.9m
Drain 74.9m 0.91m RH 2 Ward Bdy
Cydonia Pond CR Franks Villas Cobtree The Bungalow Cottage Hogs Green Def Nurseries
Ward Bdy Pond Drain Benham Business Park 1 2a Ward Bdy
78.4m 79.7m Ward Bdy Quorum 2 Pond
Track Und Drain Drain Issues Issues 89.2m Pond
CF CS Benham Water Farm
SANDLING RO Pond
3 A 20
OTTERPOOL LANE FW 86.4m Killymoon Little Greys AD 1
Path (um) Weir Craylands Foot Bridge
Def
CF Collects 89.1m Pond Track 59.7m
Def FB 82.6m Foxhole ASHFORD ROAD Pond Pond The Willows Depot Track Def Spr CR Path (um) Track ASHFORD ROAD FB Pond Path (um)
El Sub Sta
Und 82.0m Track 83.8m Elm Acres FB 92.7m Pond Kiln Wood Drain CR FW Ponds Issues FB Issues Def 53.6m Track Path (um) TCB Upper Otterpool Newingreen LB Harringe Brooks Wood FW 94.1m Elms Farm
Path (um)
84.5m Posts FB CS Honeypot Path (um) A 261 Willow Wood
4 53.5m Newingreen Pond Cottages Track Path (um) Sinks tar Slaybrook Aurora Perchill
Kenaus Track Chablis Track Ash
Solitaire le Caerhays Lemanis Drain Hill View s OTTERPOOL ore Coach
Hadrian HYTHE ROAD
Field m) Downs View Brookda North Track Petersfield
Oak View
LANE CR
Cottesm Highland Woodfield Path (u Path (um) Boxley 60.4m Brook Black Hill Old Stone Farm Reculvers Chesterfield Wood y Sla Buena 90.4m El Southwood y Sub Sta
99.8m White Ho
Ward Bd use Homeleigh Brockhill Track Pond Play Country Park Whitfield Area
Def
Water St Peters Drain Def Romac Path (um)
Drain Weir
A 261 0 100 200 300 400 500m 101.3m Pond Black Hill Weir Farm G 91.9m
ate Path ( Wychwood CottStone Cou Weir Pond um)
Track Issues rt Path (um) PCs Deer Paddock Pond Cinque Newingreen Farm Sports Ground Ports Drain
Ward Bdy Amberlea Drain Weir Frilsham Lays
Beech Androstone Spring 102.5m House 91.2m Path (um)
Harringe Brooks Wood 84.8m
Elm Croft Drain CR Issues Figure 1.1: The study area (showing the various parcels and their areas) The Brockhill Park Nook Performing Arts College
Path (um) Track 0.91m R Berwick
H Spring
1 Pond Drain
Drain Drain 2 Cottages Ashford Lodge Lake
Track Path (um) Drain 88.7m 103.2m
Drain Tanks Garage Little Berwick Drain Track
Pond CS
Ward Bdy El Sub Sta
85.8m Church Cottage Ward Bdy
Berwick House Drain E Waterfall Track HYTHE ROAD Track Drain
LB HARRINGE LAN 102.8m 80.7m Und 79.6m
CS Factory Track Pedlinge Mount Pleasant Church Drain 79.5m Path (um) FB Pond Drain V U1 U2
El Sub Sta
Def 47 Berwick House Brockhil Brockhill Country Park Drain Oxenden 84.7m l Stream Warehouse Pond T 46 35 LB S3 Track 1
S1 34 2 Spicer House Oxenden Cottages Pond 9 32 Mast Track Coldharbour Cottage 21 36 WAY Pedlinge Farm OL LANE 30 Play Area 7 19 1 1 Sluice Path Truckwash WOOD Und Folks' Wood Pond MANOR Berwick Manor Drain FB
Ward Bd OTTERPO FOLKS 24 FARM 5
CLOSE Track 10 Track Track 2 Drain Posts 37 10
47 y Pond DormersNova Oxenden Farm Farm Cottage 2 22 Briarose P 12 ain Yew Tree Dr 14 79.6m P3 31 FB Yew Tree Harp Wood 7 High STONE STREET Issues
Danehurst Wood 9 Gatehouse 27 El Sub Sta 30
Coldharbour House 101.3m Pillbox 24 12 Drain Bramley Montreux Berwick Track H3 19 A 2 Swimming LOSE 13 Dovedale Manor 6 Issues 1 15 Farm 21 38 Lyndhurst 13 Trav C Arwendon Issues 19 Drain West View Slurry Lagoon Travelling Crane 11 HONEYWOOD C Oakwood O ve 50 Barton The A1 9 Highlands Cottage Bungalow Court-at-Street H1 Anvil North H4 Spinlo Mayfield Pond Manor Farm 5 House Down Melomel 40 Cottages 2 Mericourt Track House A2 5 4 TCB 17 El Sub Sta Manor Ascot House 2 B1 96.6m 1 TK 3 Lle Rosalind Track B 2067 1 Falujah Awliscombe LB 1 2 Sparrows 19 West Druminnor
N1 2 Highview Cottage Lympne Lodge Pear Tree House Drain Highclere 1 Danehurst Industrial Hillcrest Walnut Tree Path Hammel B3 The Little House Drain April Cottag FF Park 14 Hedley 20 12a N4
B4 N8 Wessex e Stranger Tremolat 12 Manor Farm Forge GP 21 PO 98.3m 11 Grantchest FF Seaview C1 94.2m Cottages Cottage Brivals Pond R1 to R4 Tall Trees Beech Cottage FB
Welcome 1 Highcroft er EW 27 10a Alder Cottages BELCAIRE CLOSE 28 BELCAIRE CLOSE Studfall Und 10 Woodford 4 Long View Danehurst 30 C4 M1 1 Trumps Track Drain Pumping 6 TCB ROMAN ROA Station Lancasa COR Bdy D 101.6m Leaside Russet Hous Villas Track Ashden Linden Lodge K1 to K9 Well ED and Ward 1 103.1m e 34 Trees Haven 2 96.8m ROMAN ROAD Stone 101.0m Hazeldene Lilac Cottage 93.8m TegwoodHills eas Und D1 Bengor CLOSE Pent Ancona Greenl Westerning R5 to R8 Lymway Windermere 102.3m Danewood North Lodge Latchmere Fairlands s Inisheer Danehill Highfield Maycrof Drain B 2067 98.3m D2 103.1m BELCAIRE Southease Oakley Caesars ALDINGTON ROAD 49.7m J 25 t Track Askynne Rockor Track Seacroft 97.4m 62.5m Fox Springmead 18 UE 27 Matterhorn 28 Haytor 15 South Lodge Cattle Grid Dyna Lympne The Laurels House Greenhurst 45 72.9m HYTHE ROAD FB Willaline Norbreck GP 29 Ward Bdy Otterpool
33 Garlandstone Cottage 9 House Issues CR HARMAN AVEN Roxton Redbrooks Upper Drain 96.5m Rose CLOSE Pedlinge Court Stones Wood Lodge Cottage Byworth Chapel W Ryegate A The Russ Spring Cottage 16 Pedlinge Court (remains of) E2 G1 's ISIS 35 37.8m C Gateways Stonew BERWICK B LONDON ROAD D 11 ood Stirrups Cattle Grid 101.0m 38 18 1 LANE Well Bellevue El DRIVE Spring Sub F2 6 Norde GP 1 Sta 39 n 2 Silo 23 G5 101.1m Shepmead Stone Issues Hydraulic Ram Fairview 1 36 12 24 Trail Rowland 7 Colet Basecamp 1 OCTAVIAN Minde Gate F1 HARMAN 5 Exercise The Old LB G 5 45 n 30.3m AVENUE Little Owl Inglenook Archways 26 Ppg Sta Drain Barn Swimming Ashden House 44 14 Drain El Sub Sta Little Redbrooks Shaw The Streams Pool 7 97.2m Pond Cattle 13 Vimiera 8 G6 19 Track 12 Stone Tank(dis) FB Hydraulic Ram Grid 13 74.7m Little 1 Ubique 82.1m Court El Sub Sta Def Tennis 6 4 Oathill 4 Selborn 12 Brook Issues Elephant Cliff 2 5 The Laurels Issues Cottage Cottage 2 20 5 MS
Track 6 Lodge 1 6 n Hayes Lea 14 e Myrtle Pitts Tsilivi ks LOSE Athlone Pond Pond 10 Villas Stones 8 Gre 2 Tank Nebenan 1 7 Kintail 15 A 261 Works Redbroo 1 Silverdale 23.5m 4 Oathill Barn Def 2 Track Brambledown Gables Elm TOURNEY C Kendal Track ttes ALDING 9 15 1 TON ROAD Holly Bush 1 eld 17 Lodge Lympne Ps Lodge ROMAN ROAD 31 32 enfi Dell Wingates 31 View C of E Gl d Cattle LB 103.3m RIDGEWAY Les Rocque Primary School 86.1m d Grid BEACON WAY 26 Cattle 33 33 Cranfor Stone 7 Grids Highfiel Queens 5 6 Stones 21 24 35 36 Spring Court 12 F El Sub Sta F 20 26 ROMAN ROAD 15 Pond Builder's ALDINGTON ROAD Speldhurst GP 4 3 Tank Pond 105.4m Yard 89.3m Stone 4 18 24 93.1m 8 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
8 7
10 8 7 11 12 13 4 3 9 2
5
4 1 6
0 100 200 300 400 500m
Figure 3.1: Land ownership within/adjacent to the study area (courtesy of BPP) Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 9
Land Ownership Ref Description Proprietor
As stated above, in Section 1, SDC has no 1 Folkestone Racecourse Folkestone Race Course Limited interest in any land parcels in either the core study area or the wider study area. 2 Westenhanger Castle G Forge (Civil Engineering) Limited
It is important, however, to understand where 3 North side of Westenhanger Castle G. Forge Limited the principal ownerships reside and the extent of those land holdings. 4 North side of Ashford Road Richard Price and Richard Cleveland Price This is especially true should it become apparent 5 North of Ashford Road Peter Lawrence Murphy, Sarah Jane Murphy and Gerrard Tyler that there is a more extensive, strategic development opportunity to be pursued at 6 Hillhurst Farm William John Hurley Junction 11.
Figure 2.3, opposite, sets out our understanding 7 Fairmead Farm Carolyn Hardy of land ownership at the time of writing. 8 Brook Farm David Thomas Holt
9a Stanford Motorway Service Area The Secretary Of State For Transport/Highways Agency
9b Phase 1 Saltwood MSA, Folke Site boundary Henry Boot Developments Limited
9c Stop 24
9d Lorry Park and ancillary facilities Channelports Limited
9e Land east of Stone Street Henry Boot Developments Limited
10 Part of the M20 Motorway Secretary of State For Transport/Highways Agency
11 East of Stone Street, Stanford, Ashford Secretary of State For The Environment Transport & Regions
12 Land at M20 and west of Stone Street Secretary of State For Transport/Highways Agency
13 East of Stone Street Saltwoodend Limited 10 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Landscape and Environment This has important consequences for the proposed the impact of the many visual detractors actions to be taken when delivering any new needs to be controlled. The study area is located in a landscape that might development within the character area: best be described as rolling countryside, which has this landscape presents an opportunity to been characterised in the Landscape Character create a new framework for this transitional create new landscape features, and Assessment of Kent (KCC, 2004) as being part of the landscape which respects the open, arable restore ecological interest to selected areas of Sellindge Plateau Farmlands character area. use, transport corridors and adjacent small scale character area patterns. arable land by sensitive management. The KCC document describes the landscape as having the following traits: existing built form and settlement edges need to be defined, flat to undulating plateau farmlands on good quality soils;
open arable landscape with pasture locally important on more undulating ground, and
small copses and gappy hedgerows on undulating ground.
In terms of its current condition, the character area is considered to be fragmented , with any historic patterns now lost and considerable intrusion into the landscape by the road and rail infrastructure. The predominance of arable agriculture limits the potential for natural habitats and rural heritage features, such as tree cover are limited and of poor quality. Importantly, the study states that existing built form is already sufficiently intrusive as to have a negative impact on the character of the landscape, with recent built development impinging upon historic development which was more likely to use local ragstone and brick.
The comment in respect of landscape character sensitivity is worth quoting in its entirety: Study Area ‘Historic land patterns are generally obscured or have no real function in the present landscape, with the notable exception of some estate landscape to the north of the character area. The flat landscape is apparent and has long views: visibility is therefore high. The sensitivity of the area is considered to be moderate’. Figure 3.4: Extract from the KCC Landscape Character Assessment (2004) with th study area illustrated in red. Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 11
Landscape and Environment
The study area is located in a landscape that might best be described as rolling countryside, which has been characterised in the Landscape Character Assessment of Kent (KCC, 2004) as being part of the Sellindge Plateau Farmlands character area.
The KCC document describes the landscape as having the following traits:
flat to undulating plateau farmlands on good quality soils;
open arable landscape with pasture locally important on more undulating ground, and
small copses and gappy hedgerows on undulating ground.
In terms of its current condition, the character area is View across Parcel A and Parcel B towards Folkestone Racecourse and the transport corridor (HS1 and M20) considered to be fragmented , with any historic patterns now lost and considerable intrusion into the landscape by the road and rail infrastructure. The predominance of arable agriculture limits the potential for natural habitats and rural heritage features, such as tree cover are limited and of poor quality. Importantly, the study states that existing built form is already sufficiently intrusive as to have a negative impact on the character of the landscape, with recent built development impinging upon historic development which was more likely to use local ragstone and brick.
The comment in respect of landscape character sensitivity is worth quoting in its entirety:
‘Historic land patterns are generally obscured or have no real function in the present landscape, with the notable exception of some estate landscape to the north of the character area. The flat landscape is apparent and has long views: visibility is therefore high. The sensitivity of the area is considered to be moderate’.
View across the southern triangle (Parcel A) out over the rolling landscape that is typical of this part of Kent 12 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
This has important consequences for the proposed actions to be taken when delivering any new development within the character area:
create a new framework for this transitional landscape which respects the open, arable use, transport corridors and adjacent small scale character area patterns.
existing built form and settlement edges need to be defined,
the impact of the many visual detractors needs to be controlled.
this landscape presents an opportunity to create new landscape features, and
restore ecological interest to selected areas of arable land by sensitive management.
View towards Westenhanger Station and the infrastructure corridor that runs through the middle of the landscape character area
View back towards the study area from the higher land to the north and west (approximately on the line of the North Downs Way) Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 13
Designations
There are a number of designated sites in the lcoal area, relating to both visual and landscape amenity and habitat and ecological interest. Gibbon’s Brook SSSI Kent Downs AONB wraps around the study area to the north, south and east. The land immediately to the south east of Parcel A is a Registered Park and Garden (Sandling Park). There are two SSSI’s close to the site , Otterpool Quary, immediately to the south of the A20 Ashford Road, and Gibbon’s Brook, to the north of the motorway and east of Sellnidge. Occasional stand of Ancient Woodland are dotted Parcel D across the landscape, but the prevailing land use is farming, in one form or another.
Parcel C
Parcel E Parcel B
Parcel A
Key
Study Area Otterpool Quarry SSSI Public Rights of Way
Woodland 0 100 200 300 400 500m
SSSI Figure 3.5: Landscape assets within and adjacent to the study area
Registered Parks and Gardens
Countryside Rights of Way
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty 14 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Built Environment
The site is, for the most part, surrounded by open countryside, albeit with significant components of infrastructure with the M20 and HS1/local rail network corridors.
In terms of urban areas, there are four small settlements, including Westenhanger and Newingreen to the south of the railway/motorway corridor, Stanford to the north and Sellindge, located to the west of the study are and bisected by the M20 and railway lines. Listed cottages Stanford Mill The ruins of Westenhanger Castle are the in Sellindge main built heritage asset on or close to the Newingreen Stanford site. It is a Scheduled Ancient Monument, with listed building sitting within its curtilage - Westenhanger Manor (grade I) and associated barns (also grade I). Immediately to the south, Sellindge on the junction of Ashford Road and Stone Street, listed the Royal Oak public house (grade II). Stone Street, although not designated, is a Listed barns Roman road dating from the 3rd century AD, at Westenhanger the very least. Stanford Windmill (grade II*) and Manor groups of cottages in Sellindge, just to the south of the rail/road corridor are the other, key listed building in close proximity to the study area. Westenhanger
Immediately to the east of Parcel A, and set within the Kent Downs AONB, lies Sandling Park, Otterpool a grade II registered landscape. Manor Sandling Park Upper Key Otterpool Royal Oak Study area Newingreen 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Scheduled Ancient Monument Figure 3.6: Built heritage assets within and adjacent to the study area
Listed Buildings
Ancient Woodland
Registered Parks and Gardens Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 15
It will be incumbent on any development proposals to ensure that the setting, special interest and significance of each of these heritage assets is protected and, wherever possible, enhanced. The Scheduled Ancient Monument, in particular is both a key constraint and also an opportunity requiring careful management through the design and planning processes. There are precedents for this significant heritage asset to be incorporated into a park that functions as an integral part of the wider opens pace network, e.g., Colchester Castle and Berkhamsted Castle.
Caption AECOM toCaption update
Caption 16 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Topography
The site nestles in relatively low lying, rolling countryside, with higher land to the east and north (part of the Kent Downs AONB).
The site itself is relatively flat, with localised high spots, for example, on the south eastern edge of Parcel A and the eastern boundary of Parcel D. For the most part, however, the scale of the site tends to make these localised variations less significant. The relatively prominent landforms in the south of Parcel A and east of Parcel D may be an issue in terms of the location of buildings that would be visible in strategic views from the AONB, and may require some element of landscape buffer to help integrate development Parcel D into the wider landscape in a more sensitive manner.
Parcel C Key
Study area
Primary River Parcel B Parcel E Secondary River
Tertiary River Parcel A Extended Current
Flood Risk Zone 2
Flood Risk Zone 3
50m AOD 55m 60m 65m 70m 0 100 200 300 400 500m 75m 80m Figure 3.7: Main water courses and topography 85m 90m 95m 100m Urban areas Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 17
Hydrology
The site is permeated by a number of waterways some of which are designated as primary and secondary river. The EA’s flood mapping tool shows a clear correlation between these routes and the extent of flood risk zones. The scale and nature of the water courses, and the surrounding landscape, would seem to contain the extent of flooding, although it would seem to be more extensive in parts of Parcel D, especially towards the southern boundary with the M27.
It is clear from the Figure 3.8, that there are flood management issues that will have to be addressed by development proposals on all of the major parcels, Parcel D bar Parcel A. It may be that careful integration of the green/blue infrastructure, with open spaces organised in such a way as to accommodate flood plain, would be Parcel C a key component of any design proposal.
Most of the site sits on top of Principal or Secondary Aquifer. This doesn’t preclude development, but Parcel B Parcel E employing the precautionary principle, careful consideration will be needed as to the nature of development in some locations, on the basis that some Parcel A types of land use can have harmful consequences for the aquifer. The site does not sit within a Water Source Protection Zone, Surface Water Safeguard Zone or Groundwater Safeguard Zone.
Key
Study area
Major aquifer - high leaching potential
Major aquifer - intermediate leaching potential
0 100 200 300 400 500m Major aquifer - low leaching potential Figure 3.8: Groundwater vulnerability Minor aquifer - high leaching potential
Minor aquifer - intermediate leaching potential
Minor aquifer - low leaching potential
Non-aquifer - negligible permeability 18 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Ground Conditions
A quick study of the ground conditions within the study area suggests that there are no major ground fill sites within the boundary.
There is, however, a possibility of historic landfill associated with the castle, which would only become apparent with further site-based assessment.
The Nitrate Vulnerable Zone designation relates to farming good practice, in particular in relation to arable farming. It is not envisaged as being a limiting factor in respect of the potential for commercial or mixed use development. Parcel D More detailed investigations will be required, in the event of any proposals being developed, to ensure that ground conditions across Parcel C
Parcel E Parcel B
Parcel A
Key
Study area 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Waste Management Facility Figure 3.9: Key ground conditions data
Landfill Site
EA Historic Landfill Site
Nitrate Vulnerable Zone Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 19
Agricultural Land
The majority of the study area sits within Agricultural Land Classification Grade 2 and 3. These designations confer certain levels of protection on land, with respect to development, but further investigation is required to ascertain whether the land within the study are is actually farmland. For example, a large tract of land classified as ALC 2 in Parcel B is actually the race course. There are policy implications for SDC and consultation would be required with Natural England in the event of major policy changes at Junction 11 or a significant development scheme being proposed. Parcel D
Parcel C
Parcel E Parcel B
Parcel A
Key
0 100 200 300 400 500m Study area Figure 3.10: Agricultural Land Classification ALC Grade 2
ALC Grade 3
ALC Grade 4
Non-Agricultrual 20 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Transport To Canterbury The study area is bounded and bisected by roads that form a key part of the strategic network in this part of Kent - the A20 and the Stone Street M20. The transport infrastructure corridor which passes through the site from east to west is a major constraint on connectivity across the various land parcels, but it is also a significant B2068 opportunity, providing access on to the main transport networks, both locally and regionally. In particular, Westenhanger railway station clearly has the potential to provide access from To Ashford a new development to Folkstone and Hythe, but also to Ashford and from there, via HS1, to Parcel D London (in less than 40 minutes). M20
The M20 is the principal route adjacent to the Stone Street Parcel C Junction 11 site, with the A20 Ashford Road looping around To Folkestone the southern boundary of Parcels and A and B and offering a number of connections into other routes leading to Hythe, Lympne and Westenhanger Parcel E Canterbury. Sotone Street, a Roman road Parcel B Station connecting Lypmne (originally a Roman port) with Canterbury, is broken by the intervention of the rail road corridor. A network of public rights Parcel A of way permeates through the wider landscape. Parcel A and D are relatively well connected, but
Parcels A and C are less so, with access limited Stone Street A20 Ashford Road to a couple of north south routes. A20 Ashford Road
Key
Study area B2067 To Hythe To Lympne Motorway 0 100 200 300 400 500m Figure 3.11: Existing transport infrastructure and movement networks Principal roads
Railway line
Public rights of way
Railway station Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 21
Initial Assessment of the Existing Road Network
In order to understand the potential impacts of development, at different scales, on the existing network, an analysis of junction capacity was undertaken. This analysis considered the AM peak hour (0800-0900) and PM peak hour (1700- 1800) for the scenarios requested. The initial assessment looked at the network, as it stands, with consideration given to new, committed developments in the local area which would have the potential to affect traffic flows.
Parcel D Some junctions were not assessed, on the basis that new junctions elsewhere on the network, introduced to serve any new development, A: Junction 11 Parcel C would mitigate the potential effects of traffic in those locations (Figure 3.12, adjacent, shows the location of the junctions). This assessment is intended as a high-level review of the current Parcel E situation, and any further consideration of Parcel B development potential would require a more B: A20 LILO detailed assessment of the full network. Parcel A C: Access to For the purpose of this assessment, baseline Parcel A condition is defined as:
2026 Do Minimum (DM): No Parcel A D1: A20/Stone development or additional Stop 24 trips relating Street South to enhancd lorry parking capacity (i.e. forecast situation in 2026, accounting for traffic growth and committed developments).
D1: A20/Stone D2: A20/A261 Street South Hythe Road 0 100 200 300 400 500m Key
Figure 3.12: Assessment of the existing road network Study area
Junctions assessed
Junctions not assessed 22 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
For Stop 24, the following sources were uses: The analysis undertaken presents results in The maximum RFC at each junction is presented terms of the Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) in bracket, below, in a table setting out whether Data source – Transport Statement (October and queue length (in vehicles) for each junction each of the assessed junctions is currently 2014), for observed trips at the Stop 24 lorry approach. With respect to capacity, the following working within ideal capacity. park, and parameters apply: In summary, it is clear that some parts of the Trip distribution – No turning movements An RFC of 0.85 or lower indicates that the network are working well under capacity, while existed in the spreadsheet model for the Stop approach is predicted to operate within its others are already at, or beyond capacity. 24 arm of M20 Junction 11. As such, assumed ideal capacity; proportions for arrivals/departures were In particular the junctions of the A20, especially used (comprising 40% for M20 west, 40% for An RFC between 1.00 and 0.85 indicates that those with Stone Street and the A261 are M20 east, 20% for A20 and 0% for B2068). the approach is predicted to operate beyond significantly over capacity, as matters stand. Distribution on the remaining study junctions its ideal capacity, but within its theoretical Any new development would be adding to an to the south used turning proportions. capacity, and already difficult situation. However, it should be noted that significant new development would Presented below are the outputs from the An RFC of above 1.00 indicates that the be able to address the local transport issues, analysis, showing the sum of vehicle movements approach is predicted to operate over including the matter of local junctions which at each junction. capacity. are over capacity, as part of a suite of transport interventions across the local network.
Question: Does junction operate within ideal capacity Vehicle movements by junction (maximum RFC across all approaches of 0.85 or lower)?
Junction AM Peak PM Peak Junction AM Peak PM Peak
M20 Junction 11 2,449 2,324 M20 Junction 11 Yes Yes (0.45) (0.36)
A20 LILO 3,098 3,092 A20 LILO No Yes (Left in -left out) (Left in -left out) (1.03) (0.52)
Parcel A Access 2,771 2,753 Parcel A Access Yes Yes (0.80) (0.80)
A20/Stone Street 2,549 2,721 A20/Stone Street No No (south) (south) (2.10) (0.86)
A20/A261 Hythe Combined with A20/Stone Street (south) A20/A261 Hythe No No Road Road (2.10) (2.05) Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 23
Utilities and Infrastructure high voltage cables in close proximity of the The existing buildings that are situated in and Application Site, as described below: around the site are generally supplied with The provision of infrastructure and utilities to electricity by a series of overhead lines. serve any new development, regardless of its 270kV DC cables extend from Sellindge to size or location, is a key issue when considering Folkestone along the northern side of the the potential for development at Junction 11. M20; Enabling Works - Electricity The provision of new or upgraded services at a UK Power Networks Asset location plans indicate An easement will be required to accommodate scale capable of meeting the demands of new that there is a network of existing high voltage businesses or residents is clearly an important the 132kV DC cables extend below ground along cables in close proximity of the Application Site, the northern side of the M20 and the junction 11 issue, but it is also necessary to understand as described below: the location and nature of any services that roundabout, through the southern edge of Parcel D. This easement is likely to have a width of lie within the study area. The management 132kV DC cables extend below ground along approximately 25m on either side of the cables, of existing services - whether they are left in the northern side of the M20 and the junction which is likely to preclude the construction of situ or re-aligned/re-located such that there 11 roundabout, through the southern edge of buildings, roads or drainage features on the is continuity of provision for existing users is a Parcel D; major consideration. southern boundary of Parcel D. 132kV overhead cables extend through the The existing 33kV and 11kV electricity networks A high-level, desk-based survey of existing land to the north side of Parcel C and Parcel D that extend through the other development services was undertaken, the aim being to and cross the M20 and railway on the western areas will either require diversion, or it will be identify by type, scale and location the extent side of Parcels B and C; of existing utilities provision. Thereafter, this necessary to include areas of open space within understanding of existing provision will inform 33kV cables extend through the land to the any emerging proposals to ensure that proposed an assessment of the different development east of Butcher Wood through the northern development plots and buildings do not conflict scenarios. part of Parcel D; with the existing electricity apparatus.
Our assessment looked at the following types of 33kV cables extend through the land to the Localised diversions of existing electricity infrastructure: west of Parcel B and C; apparatus are also likely to be required elsewhere to ensure that this apparatus will not Electrical supply; Electricity substations are situated near to be affected by junction improvements or new the Westenhanger station to the east of Parcel accesses, depending on their final location and Gas supply; B, and near the airport café to the south of extent. Parcel B; Potable water: Existing electricity supplies to buildings that are Electricity substations are also situated to be demolished will require disconnection at Foul Water, and within the M20 Services and Filling Station the boundary. and near to the grandstand for the Folkestone Telecommunications Racecourse;
11kV networks extend along existing roads, Electrical Supply including Stone Street, Ashford Road, Barrow Hill, Sandling Road, and National Grid Electricity Transmission indicate that there is a network of existing extra 24 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Gas Supply
Southern Gas Networks (SGN) record drawings indicate that a network of low pressure gas mains extend through the local roads to serve the existing residential dwellings. We await confirmation from SGN but, at the time of writing, there does not appear to be any evidence of any strategic or high pressure gas apparatus within or close to the study area.
Enabling Works - Gas
The existing low pressure gas mains that extend Parcel D along the existing roads could be affected by junction improvement works and new accesses. These existing gas mains may require diverting Parcel C or protecting depending on the location of new accesses and on the extent of junction improvement works.
Parcel E Parcel B
Parcel A
Key
Study area
260kV DC route (National Grid)
132 kV overehead route
132 kV underground route
33kV route 0 100 200 300 400 500m EHV primary cable further information required Figure 3.13: Existing electricity apparatus within and adjacent to the study area from provider
EHV primary cable further information required from provider
Electrical sub-station Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 25
Potable Water
Our queries were referred to Affinity Water, who are responsible for the supply of potable water data in this part of the country. Asset location plans indicate that there is a network of water mains in close proximity of the Application Site, as described below:
300mm diameter ductile iron water mains extending along Ashford Road;
180mm diameter water main extending along Otterpool Lane;
Parcel D 150mm diameter water mains extending along Stone Street, and
Parcel C 4” diameter water mains extending along Barrow Hill and into the existing residential estates surrounding the development.
Parcel B Parcel E
Parcel A
Key
0 100 200 300 400 500m Study area
Figure 3.14: Existing gas apparatus within and adjacent to the study area Low pressure gas main
Medium pressure gas main
Intermediate pressure gas main
High pressure gas main 26 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Enabling Works - Potable Water
The existing water mains that extend along the roads adjoining the development parcels could potentially be affected by junction improvements works or new accesses, depending on their location and extent.
In the event that the highway construction works cause the cover to the existing potable water mains to be reduced to less than 900mm, then it will be necessary to lower the existing water mains. Parcel D Water Cycle Study Parcel C Appendix 5 of the Shepway Water Cycle Study contained information supplied by Veolia Water SE, which state that the existing potable water network in the vicinity of Westenhanger is likely Parcel E to be capable of supporting between 400 and Parcel B 900 additional units, although some off site connection work is likely to be required. This Parcel A Appendix also indicates that the local mains within the adjoining Sellindge area lack capacity and that reinforcement is likely to be required for the 100 to 250 units that were originally envisaged within this area.
0 100 200 300 400 500m
Key Figure 3.15: Existing potable water apparatus within and adjacent to the study area
Study area
Water distribution main Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 27
Foul Water
Southern Water (SW) is the local sewerage authority and is responsible for the treatment and disposal of foul water from the Shepway area.
The Southern Water Asset location plans indicate that a series of foul gravity sewers extend below Stone Street and below the M20 to a pumping station that is situated on the northern side of the railway. A 125mm diameter rising main extends from the pumping station to a gravity sewer on the southern side of the railway, which conveys foul flows west alongside the Westenhanger railway Parcel D station to the Newingreen Sewage Pumping Station. This pumping station is situated on the west side of the racecourse, also receives foul flows from foul sewers that flow in a westerly Parcel C direction along Ashford Road and through the land to the south of Parcel B. A 180mm diameter rising main extends in a north-westerly from the pump station through Parcel B and below the Parcel E Parcel B railway line and M20 before discharging to 300mm diameter foul sewers within Sellindge, which convey the foul flow to the Sellindge Wastewater Parcel A Treatment Works.
Key
Study area
Combined main
Combined rising main
Foul main
0 100 200 300 400 500m Foul rising main
Figure 3.16: Existing foul water apparatus within and adjacent to the study area Sewer catchment
Lateral drain
Building over agreement area
Sewage pumping station 28 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Enabling Works
Existing foul sewers or rising mains that extend through proposed development areas are likely to require diversion to avoid forming a constraint to the position of new buildings. Alternatively, the emerging masterplans will be required to include sections of open space allow easements along existing sewers and rising mains to be maintained.
Water Cycle Study
The Shepway Water Cycle Study identifies Parcel D the main strategic deficiency in wastewater connections being the link between the Westenhanger area and Sellindge WWTW. SDC Parcel C identifies the need for landowners and the utility company to work together to address this deficiency and reserves the right to require direct developer funding and manage the delivery of Parcel E development or withhold support for strategic Parcel B development in this area, depending on the degree to which the wastewater deficiency is addressed. Parcel A
The Shepway Water Cycle (in 2011) assumed that there was capacity (as measured by Dry Water Flow Headroom - DWF Headroom) for approximately 1,250 dwellings in the wards dependent on the Sellindge WWTW. Housing growth was estimated, for those same wards, to be potentially in the region of 1,100 homes, based on the outcome of the Strategic Housing Land
Key 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Study area Figure 3.17: Existing telecommunications apparatus within and adjacent to the study area
Underground plant
Overground plant
Railway/underground data route Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 29
Availability Assessment (SHLAA) and subsequent Telecommunications Development Constraints representations by landowners/developers in the area. These figures do not, however, reflect other BT Openreach is the main telecommunications This current exercise is concerned only with potential development, for example, the enhanced provider within and adjacent to the study area. exploring and assessing the capacity of the land lorry parking at Stop 24 or strategic employment Telent, GeneSYS, Interroute and Instalcom also adjacent Junction11 to accommodate development. land provision at Junction 11, as well as other have apparatus in the area. Asset location plans However, it is helpful if the concept layouts residential or commercial development in the wider indicate that the following telecommunications generated to enable that assessment are couched, area. The Shepway Water Cycle Study, therefore, apparatus is located in close proximity of the study as far as possible, in reality. To that end, Figure recognises that it is entirely likely that the small area: 3.17, overleaf, is a summary of the main constraints headroom identified may, in practice, be non- to development at Junction 11. A constraint is existent at or before the end of the plan period. BT Openreach apparatus is present within not necessarily an obstacle to development, but It notes that the strategic deficiency identified Ashford Road, Sandling Road, Hythe Road, Stone it may require some form of mitigation, either by in the Westenhanger/Sellindge area should be Street and Otterpool Lane; design, spatial planning or planning policy to allow addressed by the private sector, explicitly linking development to occur in a specific part of the site Telent have apparatus extending along the the delivery of ‘further development’ with upgrades and in a particular way. B0267 and Barrow Hill; to infrastructure and capacity.
GeneSYS telecommunications have apparatus extending along the northern and southern side Environmental Constraints Improvements to Sellindge of the M20 near Junction 11; The flood plain that permeates through the centre WWTW Interroute have ducts and fibre optic apparatus of Parcel B and the western edge of Parcel D will require careful design and planning such that Souther Water applied for funding and submitted extending along the A20, Barrow Hill and the mitigation of the effects of flooding on site and investment proposals relating to Westenhanger/ B0267, and elsewhere on the network, is avoided. Sellindge. Although these proposals failed to Intalcom have telecommunications apparatus achieve funding, Sothern Water completed a £2.3 extending along the railway, Barrow Hill and the The proximity of parts of the site, Parcel A in million upgrade of Sellindge Wastewater Treatment B0267. particular, to the Kent Downs AONB will require Works in the middle of 2013. New screens have sensitive planning and siting of development such been installed to filter out non-biodegradable items that the visual quality and amenity of the AONB are from wastewater before it is sent on for treatment. Enabling Works preserved and protected. In addition, to the screens, Southern Water has also The existing telecommunications apparatus that Clearly, ecology will be an issue moving forward, but installed three new filters at the treatment works runs along the roads within the development could the extent and scope of the ecological assets is not alongside other major improvements as part of be affected when junction improvement works are known, at this time and will only become apparent wider plans to increase capacity in the wastewater undertaken or when new accesses are formed, following a Phase 1 and subsequent surveys. treatment system in the Ashford area to allow depending on their location and extent. for future population growth. The wider scheme included a £12 million upgrade at Southern Water’s Diversions or protection works are likely to be Built Environment Constraints Ashford treatment works, adjacent to the M20 required where new carriageways are extended motorway. over existing telecommunications apparatus. The existing settlements, at Sellindge, Westenhanger, Newingreen and Stanford will all be affected by development,to varying degrees depending on the scale and location. It will be 30 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
necessary to manage any potentially negative effects, which might include:
Development in proximity to existing settlement;
Uplift in traffic numbers on the network and at key junctions, and
Loss of access to open space
The Scheduled ancient monument at Westenhanger castle (and the associated listed buildings will require sensitive site planning and ongoing management.
Parcel D Physical Constraints
The various utilioties corridors within and adjacent to the site will be affected Parcel C by development and will require careful management, whether they are retained in situ or re-located. Parcel E Parcel B Key
Study area Parcel A
Existing urban area
Scheduled ancient monument
Area of outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB)
AONB influence
Flood plain
Public rights of way
Utilities routes 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Long distance views Figure 3.18: Constraints to development
Infrastructure corridor (movement & utilities)
Critical junctions
Listed buildings Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 31
Planning policy 03 x context
0.0 xx x
0.0 xx x
0.0 xx x
0.0 xx x
DS to provide this 32 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 33
04 x Market context
Introduction x
Commercial market x
Available land x
Residential market x
Current development? x Conclusion x Summary of BPP Report 34 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 35
Development 05 x Scenarios
Introduction x Introduction as a consequence of a fully resourced site analysis and design development exercise. It should also Rationale x To test the capacity for development at Junction be noted that the scenarios illustrated, below, Methodology x 11, a number of development scenarios were make assumptions about the availability of land devised. The scenarios reflect different levels of and are effectively ‘boundary blind’. The three Assumptions x intervention, by scale, location of development development scenarios are set out, below. Lorry park x and mix of land uses. The aim is to provide a sufficiently wide range of development Limited Development Scenario Development scenarios explained x options which can be assessed, at a high level, Development on Parcel A (commercial plus in terms of their potential to impact on the associated infrastructure) and at Stop 24 with an Scenario 1: small-scale development x constraints identified in Section X, above, and additional 360 lorry parking spaces. Scenario 2: medium-scale development x their requirements in terms of transport and infrastructure interventions. Intermediate Development Scenario Scenario 3: large-scale development x Development on Parcel A (commercial plus The three scenarios, illustrated below, are associated infrastructure) , with up to 850 intended to be realistic propositions, in terms dwellings on Parcel B and an additional 1,360 lorry of their spatial arrangement, scale and mix parking spaces at Stop 24 (Parcel C). of uses, but they do not reflect a detailed assessment of the environmental, physical and Intermediate Development Scenario economic constraints affecting the site, nor do Development on Parcel A (commercial plus they necessarily reflect current policy relating associated infrastructure) , with up to 3,200 to development, generally, and Junction 11, dwellings on Parcel B and D and an additional specifically. A clearer understanding of the 1,360 lorry parking spaces at Stop 24 (Parcel C). constraints to development would only be gained 36 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Extent of the Study Area
However, before devising the development scenarios, it was important to identify and agree which parts of the overall study area might be available for development, for each scenario.
The original core study are comprised Parcel A, therefore, it is deemed to be available for inclusion in all scenarios. Similarly, Parcel C, as the potential location for an enhanced lorry parking provision (see opposite), is also deemed to be potentially available so is included in each scenario. Parcel D
Parcel B, particularly the land to the east in the ownership of Folkestone Racecourse, has been Parcel C the subject of a number of representations to the Local Plan process, some of which have focused on the delivery of residential development at various scales. This being the case, Parcel B is Parcel E included as part of the Intermediate scenario Parcel B and, to a much larger extent, as part of the enhanced scenario, which includes all the Parcel A land to the west, in addition to the Folkestone Racecourse land ownership.
There is some logic to considering the potential for a ‘whole junction’ scenario, with development located to the north of Junction 11, as well as to the south. To that end, Parcel D is included, although there is a recognition that this may prove more difficult to deliver, in the short to medium-term.
Finally, Parcel E is potentially the least accessible of the various parcels that make up the original 0 100 200 300 400 500m study area. It is also has a use that is important Figure 5.1: Parcels to be included in the development assessment scenarios to the functioning of the wider strategic road network. Consequently, for the purposes of the current exercise, it is not included as a potential development site, although there is scope for it to be added, should circumstances change. Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 37
A) Existing provision of lorry parking at Stop 24 - no change Lorry Parking Provision at Stop 24
There is currently provision for approximately 130 lorry parking spaces at Stop 24. This is the base case for lorry parking at Stop 24 and was factored into our assessment of existing traffic conditions (Figure 5.2A).
Henry Boot has submitted an application for an additional 60 space, an uplift achieved by means of re-planning the existing lorry parking area. They are also considering the potential for an expansion of approximately 300 additional B) An additional 300 spaces to the west of Stone Street spaces, on land to the west of Stone street, located in the corridor of land between the M20 and the railway lines. This composite of an additional 60 spaces, plus a potential expansion of 300 spaces, forms part of the Limited Development Scenario, in addition to development for commercial uses on Parcel A (Figure 5.2B).
Thee is also potential for additional lorry parking at Junction 11, and fr the purposes of this current study, we have proposed a further 1,000 spaces to be located on the remaining land to the west of Stone Street and this larger uplift in lorry parking numbers forms part of the Intermediate and C) An additional 1,000 spaces added to the west of Stone Street extension Enhanced Development Scenarios (Figure 5.2C).
Figure 5.2: Extent of lorry parking at Stop 24 - different options 38 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Limited Development Total Area: 41.38ha/ 102.26 acres
Scenario Land uses Commercial: 23.66ha/ 58.45 acres The first scenario posits a development scheme Landscape*: 13.83ha/ 34.18 acres focused on the Triangle of land that is Parcel Infrastructure**: 3.89ha/ 9.62 acres A. The original premise for development at * Includes landscape buffers to Junction 1, which was the initial impetus for AONB and existing settlement the preparation of this paper, is based on the ** Includes primary road network delivery of employment uses on Parcel A. The and Park and Ride associated with proposed development would comprise a mix Westenhanger station of B1, B2 and B8 uses, plus a hotel close to Total Commercial Floor Space Junction 11 and a park and ride facility to serve B1 (office): 23,540 m2 Westenhanger station. For this scenario, it has B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2 been assumed that Parcel C has been developed, Plus 80 room hotel in part, to create lorry park totalling 360 spaces. This is the base case scenario. Total of employees (projected): 2,450
In addition to the base case scenario, two variants were also considered, each with a small amount of residential development fronting onto Stone Street at Westenhanger.
Key
Study area
Residential
Employment
Local centre
Open space
Landscape buffer
Allotments/sports pitches
Hotel
Lorry parking
Station
Station parking 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Primary routes Figure 5.1: Limited development scenario with Parcel A developed for employment uses only
Secondary routes
Junction improvements Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 39
0 100 200 300 400 500m 0 100 200 300 400 500m 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Figure 5.2: Limited development scenario, plus small residential development Figure 5.3: Limited development scenario, plus larger residential development 40 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Intermediate Development Total Area: 94.59ha/ 233.73 acres Scenario Land uses Residential: 28.30ha/ 69.94 acres This second scenario constitutes a more Commercial: 26.75ha/ 66.10 acres substantial development scheme, with a larger Landscape*: 26.34ha/ 65.08 acres component of residential. The employment Infrastructure**: 10.68ha/ 26.38 acres uses are retained on Parcel A, but the scheme is * Includes landscape buffers to now augmented by approximately 850 dwellings AONB and existing settlement on Parcel B , on land immediately to the west ** Includes primary road network of Westenhanger which is currently occupied and Park and Ride associated with Westenhanger station by Folkestone Racecourse. It is envisaged that development on Parcel B would be primarily Total Commercial Floor Space 2 residential, with associated open space and B1 (office): 31,087 m B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2 infrastructure (roads, services) provided , as necessary, for this scale of development. Parcel Plus 80 room hotel
C is assumed to have been developed to a greater Total of employees (projected): 2,450 degree, delivering a 1,360 lorry park spaces.
Key
Study area
Residential
Employment
Local centre
Open space
Landscape buffer
Allotments/sports pitches
Hotel
Lorry parking
Station
Station parking
Primary routes
Secondary routes
Junction improvements 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Figure 5.4: Intermediate development scenario, across Parcels A and B Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 41
Total Area: 235.48ha/ 581.87 acres Enhanced Development
Land uses Scenario Residential: 106.23ha/ 262.50 acres Commercial: 28.85ha/ 71.29 acres This final scenario envisages the delivery of a Landscape*: 74.32ha/ 183.66 acres substantial, mixed-use comprehensively planned Infrastructure**: 15.92ha/ 39.34 acres development across Parcels A-D. Parcel E is not
* Includes landscape buffers to AONB developed, in this scenario, for the reasons cited, and existing settlement above, in Section X. The large-scale scenario ** Includes primary road network includes a wider mix of uses as well as a greater and Park and Ride associated with quantum of development. Parcel A is developed Westenhanger station for employment uses, as before, but the extent of mixed use, residential-led development is extended Total Commercial Floor Space B1 (office): 31,087 m2 on Parcel B and introduced to Parcel D, for the first B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2 time. The range of uses, in addition to residential,l includes education, social and community facilities Plus 2 x 80 room hotel and commercial/retail/leisure in a new central Total of employees (projected): 2,450 location. Open space and infrastructure/services are also delivered, in a manner appropriate to the scale and type of development. As with the previous scenario, Parcel C is developed to provide 1,360 lorry park spaces.
Key
Study area
Residential
Employment
Local centre
Open space
Landscape buffer
Allotments/sports pitches
Hotel
Lorry parking
Station
Station parking
Primary routes
Secondary routes 0 100 200 300 400 500m Junction improvements Figure 5.5: Enhanced development scenario, across Parcels A-D 42 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 43
06 x Testing the Scenarios
Introduction x Introduction Limited Development Scenario x Our assessment of the spatial options relates, Intermediate Development Scenario x primarily, to the following themes:
Enhanced Development Scenario x Transport;
Conclusion x Utilities and infrastructure, and
Deliverability
This section considers how the three development scenarios perform in terms of transport and utilities. For the purpose of this exercise, although three variants of the Limited Development scheme were generated, it is Option 1 - where the main focus is on employment provision, with no residential, that is the preferred option.
For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed that the development scenarios, as shown, would be able to address the environmental and built heritage constraints identified in Section 2, above. 44 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Limited Development Scenario
This development scenario comprises a range of employment uses located entirely on Parcel A (with an area of 41.38ha/ 102.26 acres)
In terms of land uses, the following mix is proposed:
Commercial: 26.75ha/ 66.10 acres
Landscape (including landscape buffers to the AONB and existing settlement): 13.83ha/ 34.18 acres
Infrastructure (including primary road network and a Park and Ride facility associated with Westenhanger station): 3.89ha/ 9.62 acres
The total commercial/employment floor space break down is as follows:
B1 (office): 31,087 m2
B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2
In addition, there is an 80 room 3 star hotel located on land immediately adjacent to Junction 11, in the north eastern corner of Parcel A. The total number of employees which might be delivered by a fully developed scheme is estimated to be 3,079.
Transport
The assessment sets out the predicted uplift 0 100 200 300 400 500m in vehicle movements across the relevant Figure 6.1: Limited development scenario with Parcel A developed for employment uses only junctions, in the event that there a Limited Development Scenario comprising employment uses on Parcel A goes ahead. The absolute number of movements at each junction, together Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 45
with the uplift from the 2026 Do Minimum The maximum RFC at each junction, as a result Utilities scenario is shown in the table, below. resulting of the Limited Development Scenario being delivered, is presented in brackets, below. Each of the different utilities has its own As before, the capacity of each junction risks and issues attached to the delivery of to accommodate change is based on an From the analysis, it is clear that Junction 11 development. The requirements, in terms of ne assessment of its ideal capacity and current would continue to function well within capacity, apparatus and upgrades to existing, to deliver loading - expressed as Ratio of Flow to Capacity while the other junction assessed are over the Limited Development Scenario, are set out (RFC) and queue length (in vehicles) for each capacity to varying degrees (and, in the case of below junction. The parameters used to assess the A20 LILO, A20 Stone Street and A20 Hythe whether a junction works or not are as follows: Road junctions, they would be over capacity by Electricity the 2026 target date, regardless of whether there High voltage connections are likely to be required An RFC of 0.85 or lower indicates that the is any development at Junction 11 under any of to approximately two electricity substations approach is predicted to operate within its the three proposed scenarios). ideal capacity; within the commercial development. A low voltage network will be required to extend from Interestingly, the junction originally built to the substations to proposed buildings. An RFC between 1.00 and 0.85 indicates that provide access to development Parcel A is the approach is predicted to operate beyond over capacity, even with a smaller tranche of The supply arrangements, number of substations its ideal capacity, but within its theoretical development limited only to that Triangle of land. capacity, and and extent of reinforcement listed above will be verified following receipt of quotations from UK An RFC of above 1.00 indicates that the Power Networks. approach is predicted to operate over capacity. Gas Enquiries have been issued to Southern Gas Networks to determine if it will be practical to Vehicle movements by junction for Limited Development Question: Does junction operate within ideal capacity provide a gas supply to the new development Scenario (plus uplift from 2026 Do Minimum Scenario) (maximum RFC across all approaches of 0.85 or lower)? parcels and to establish the extent of network Junction AM Peak PM Peak Junction AM Peak PM Peak reinforcements that may be required. However, a response has not yet been received. M20 Junction 11 2,768 2,702 M20 Junction 11 Yes Yes (+320) (+378) (0.46) (0.46) Given the limited extent of existing high or medium pressure gas apparatus situated in A20 LILO 3,423 3,348 A20 LILO No No close proximity to the development areas, the (+326) (+256) (2.46) (0.96) (Left in -left out) (Left in -left out) overall energy strategy should ideally seek to minimise any requirement for additional natural Parcel A Access 3,354 3,266 Parcel A Access No No gas connections to the site. For example, the (+583) (+513) (1.01) (1.05) development could be designed to avoid a 0 100 200 300 400 500m default to a gas main to service the development A20/Stone Street 2,832 3,010 A20/Stone Street No No on the basis that more practicable and energy (+283) (+289) (2.76) (1.04) (south) (south) efficient systems are available.
A20/A261 Hythe Combined with A20/Stone Street (south) A20/A261 Hythe No No Road Road (2.84) (3.23) 46 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Potable Water A new rising main will be extended from the A new distribution main will need to be extended pumping station to a suitable connection point through Parcel A to serve the commercial on the existing foul sewer network, potentially development, potentially from the existing where the sewer extends in a westerly direction 300mm diameter water main that extends to from Stone Street. The foul flows generated by the south of that parcel. The Shepway Water the commercial development will be relatively Cycle Study indicates that off-site connection small in comparison to scenarios that include works are likely to be required for development residential development and the peak discharge scenarios with a quantum of up to 900 units is unlikely to occur at the same time as the but that extensive off-site reinforcements are surrounding residential development. unlikely to be required. Consideration should, therefore, be given to the Although there is no mention in the Water Cycle provision of ultrasonic level detectors within of the capacity to provide for a development the existing foul sewer network that will enable scenario predicated entirely on the provision the pumping station on Parcel A to discharge of employment land uses, it is assumed that foul water to the existing sewers when capacity the mix proposed - B1 and B8, rather than B2, is available. The Shepway Water Cycle Study would result in a demand for potable water that indicates that the existing Sellindge WWTW has would be no greater than that generated by 900 a maximum headroom of 1,250 dwellings. On dwellings. the basis that there is no significant residential development within the area served by Sellindge On that basis, we would envisage the Limited WWTW, it is unlikely that it will be necessary Development Scenario being capable of delivery to upgrade the existing treatment works to without major reinforcement works being accommodate the foul discharge from the required. Regardless of the mix of uses, it is commercial development. However, it may be likely that water demand reduction measures necessary to provide localised improvements to are likely to be required to reduce potable water the existing sewerage network to accommodate demand in order to minimise the impact of the the additional discharge, such as the provision of development on existing water resources and additional emergency storage at the Newingreen comply with the requirements of the Shepway Sewage Pumping Station. Water Cycle Study (for example, for residential development the aim would be to reduce demand from 150 litres per person per day to 105 litres per person per day).
Foul Water A network of new foul sewers will be required to be extended through Parcel A to convey foul flows from the new commercial units to a new adoptable pumping station situated at the low point on the site. Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 47
Intermediate Development Scenario
This development scenario comprises a range of employment uses located entirely on Parcel A, together with a residential-led development of approximately 850 dwellings on the eastern half of Parcel B (having a total area of 94.59ha/ 233.73 acres)
In terms of land uses, the following mix is proposed:
Residential : 28.30ha/ 69.94 acres
Commercial: 26.75ha/ 66.10 acres
Landscape: 26.34ha/ 65.08 acres
Infrastructure: 10.68ha/ 26.38 acres
The total commercial/employment floor space break down is as follows:
B1 (office): 31,087 m2
B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2
In addition, there is an 80 room 3 star hotel located on land immediately adjacent to Junction 11, in the north eastern corner of Parcel A. The total number of employees which might be delivered by a fully developed scheme is estimated to be 3,079, with potential for additional jobs to be created should there prove to be potential for some form of retail or other land uses in a small local centre. 0 100 200 300 400 500m
Figure 6.2: Intermediate development scenario, across Parcels A and B 48 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Transport Utilities Gas As with the first development scenario, given The assessment sets out the predicted uplift The risks and issues attached to the delivery the limited extent of existing high or medium in vehicle movements across the relevant of development under the Intermediate pressure gas apparatus situated in close junctions, in the event that an Intermediate Development Scenario., in respect of utilities, are proximity to the development areas, the Development Scenario comprising employment set out below. overall energy strategy should ideally seek to uses on Parcel A goes ahead. The absolute minimise any requirement for additional natural number of movements at each junction, together Electricity gas connections to the site. For example, the with the uplift from the 2026 Do Minimum An electrical supply is likely to be required from development could be designed to avoid a scenario is shown in the table, below. one of the 33KVA routes and a new 33kVA/11kVA default to a gas main to service the development sub-station is likely to be required on or close on the basis that more practicable and energy As before, the capacity of each junction to the site. It is also likely to be necessary to efficient systems are available. to accommodate change is based on an install an 11kVA ring main throughout each of assessment of its ideal capacity and current the development areas with approximately four loading - expressed as Ratio of Flow to Capacity substations within the residential development (RFC) and queue length (in vehicles) for each and two substations within the commercial junction. The parameters used to assess development. whether a junction works or not are as follows:
The maximum RFC at each junction, as a result resulting of the Limited Development Scenario being delivered, is presented in brackets, opposite and below.
From the analysis, it is clear that, as with the Vehicle movements by junction for Intermediate Development Question: Does junction operate within ideal capacity Limited Development Scenario, Junction 11 Scenario (plus uplift from 2026 Do Minimum Scenario) (maximum RFC across all approaches of 0.85 or lower)? would continue to function well within capacity, Junction AM Peak PM Peak Junction AM Peak PM Peak while the other junctions assessed are over capacity to varying degrees. In particular, the M20 Junction 11 3,189 3,213 M20 Junction 11 Yes Yes two junctions on the A20, to the south west (+740) (+889) (0.53) (0.55) corner of Parcel A (at the southern end of Stone Street and at the A26 Hythe Road) are A20 LILO 3,770 3,699 A20 LILO No No significantly over capacity as, indeed, they (Left in -left out) (+672) (+608) (Left in -left out) (3.19) (1.50) would be even without the presence of any new development. That being the case, the delivery Parcel A Access 3,667 3,607 Parcel A Access No No of some form of development at a scale that (+896) (+854) (1.13) (1.64) allows it to deliver improvements to the local road network, especially at key locations where A20/Stone Street 3,062 3,289 A20/Stone Street No No there is an issue with capacity, would potentially (south) (+513) (+568) (south) (3.25) (1.41) be of interest. A20/A261 Hythe Combined with A20/Stone Street (south) A20/A261 Hythe No No Road Road (3.76) (6.67) Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 49
Potable Water However, the existing foul sewers and pumping New distribution mains will need to be extended stations are unlikely to have sufficient capacity through the new development parcels to serve to accommodate the considerable additional the commercial and residential development. foul flow generated by the residential component The distribution mains extending through Parcels of the Intermediate Development Scenario and A, and B are likely to be connected to the existing it is likely, therefore, that it will be necessary 300mm diameter water main that extends to to consider providing an on-site wastewater the south of these parcels. The distribution treatment works to accommodate foul water mains extending through Parcel C is likely to be generated by this scheme. connected to the existing 200mm diameter water This approach would remove the requirement main that extends to the east of this area. for extensive improvements to the existing Limited existing water mains are present in the foul sewers that convey foul flows from the vicinity of Parcel D and it is, therefore, likely to catchment to the Sellindge Wastewater be necessary to extend a new main along the Treatment Works. A network of new foul B2068 or Stone Street and potentially form a new sewers will be required to be extended through crossing below the M20. Rainwater harvesting or Parcels A and B to convey foul flows from the grey water recycling are likely to be required to new commercial and residential units to a new reduce potable water demand from 150 litres per adoptable pumping station situated at the low person per day to 80 litres per person per day in point on the site, which will direct flows to the order to minimise the impact of the development on-site Wastewater Treatment Works via a new on existing water resources. rising main.
Extensive reinforcements are likely to be Telecommunications required to the water supply network as the New telecommunications apparatus will need Water Cycle Study indicates that the existing to be extended through the Parcels A, B and network is capable of accommodating the C to serve the commercial and residential demand of approximately 900 dwellings, but development. The telecommunications makes no mention of the effect of a sizeable apparatus that serves Parcels A and B commercial development on available supplies are likely to be connected to the existing or the proposed residential development at telecommunications apparatus that extends Sellindge (c.200 dwellings) to the south of these parcels. The distribution mains extending through Parcel C is likely to be Foul Water connected to the existing telecommunications The Shepway Water Cycle Study indicates that apparatus to the east of this area. the existing Sellindge Wastewater Treatment Works has a maximum headroom of 1,250 units; therefore, it is unlikely to be necessary to upgrade the existing treatment works to accommodate the foul discharge from the commercial development. 50 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Intermediate Development Scenario
This development scenario comprises a range of employment uses located entirely on Parcel A, together with a residential-led development of approximately 3,200 dwellings on Parcels B and D (having a total area of 235.48ha/ 581.87 acres)
In terms of land uses, the following mix is proposed:
Residential: 106.23ha/ 262.50 acres
Commercial: 28.85ha/ 71.29 acres
Landscape: 74.32ha/ 183.66 acres
Infrastructure: 15.92ha/ 39.34 acres
The total commercial/employment floor space break down is as follows:
B1 (office): 31,087 m2
B8 (logistics): 39,079 m2
In addition, there are two 80 room 3 star hotels, one located on land immediately adjacent to Junction 11, in the north eastern corner of Parcel A, and the other in the south east corner of Parcel D, again immediately adjacent to Junction 11. The total number of employees which might be delivered by a fully developed scheme is estimated to be 3,239, with potential for additional jobs to be created by the retail and service offer in the local centre, plus the 0 100 200 300 400 500m education and social/community uses located throughout the larger development site. Figure 6.3: Enhanced development scenario, across Parcels A-D Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 51
Transport The maximum RFC at each junction, as a result there is an issue with capacity, would potentially resulting of the Limited Development Scenario provide a wider benefit. The assessment sets out the predicted uplift being delivered, is presented in brackets, in vehicle movements across the relevant opposite and below. junctions, in the event that an Enhanced Utilities Development Scenario goes ahead comprising From the analysis, it is clear that, as with the tow employment uses on Parcel A and residential- previous development scenarios, Junction 11 The risks and issues attached to the delivery led, mixed-use on Parcels B and D. The absolute would continue to function well within capacity, of development under the Intermediate number of movements at each junction, together while the other junctions assessed are over Development Scenario., in respect of utilities, are with the uplift from the 2026 Do Minimum capacity to varying degrees. As before, the set out below. scenario is shown in the table, below. junctions on the A20, to the south west corner of Parcel A (at the southern end of Stone Street Electricity As before, the capacity of each junction and at the A26 Hythe Road), as well as the A20 An electrical supply is likely to be required from to accommodate change is based on an LILO junction, are significantly over capacity. one of the 33KVA routes and a new 33kVA/11kVA assessment of its ideal capacity and current sub-station is likely to be required on or close loading - expressed as Ratio of Flow to Capacity Given that the A20/Stone Street and A20/Hythe to the site. It is also likely to be necessary to (RFC) and queue length (in vehicles) for each Road junctions are over capacity without any install an 11kVA ring main throughout each of the junction. The parameters used to assess significant development,the same argument development areas with approximately sixteen whether a junction works or not are as follows: applies as for the Intermediate Development substations within the residential development Scheme; that delivery of development at a scale and two substations within the commercial that allows it to deliver improvements to the local development. road network, especially at key locations where Gas As before, given the limited extent of existing Vehicle movements by junction for Enhanced Development Question: Does junction operate within ideal capacity high or medium pressure gas apparatus situated Scenario (plus uplift from 2026 Do Minimum Scenario) (maximum RFC across all approaches of 0.85 or lower)? in close proximity to the development areas, Junction AM Peak PM Peak Junction AM Peak PM Peak the overall energy strategy should ideally seek to minimise any requirement for additional M20 Junction 11 3,661 3,739 M20 Junction 11 Yes Yes (+1,212) (+1,415) (0.76) (0.66) natural gas connections to the site. For example, the development could be designed to avoid a default to a gas main to service the development A20 LILO 4,184 4,197 A20 LILO No No on the basis that more practicable and energy (Left in -left out) (+1,086) (+1,105) (Left in -left out) (4.29) (3.07) efficient systems are available.
Parcel A Access 3,991 4,012 Parcel A Access No No (+1,220) (+854) (1.26) (2.47)
A20/Stone Street 3,480 3,830 A20/Stone Street No No (south) (+931) (+1,109) (south) (5.56) (3.49)
A20/A261 Hythe Combined with A20/Stone Street (south) A20/A261 Hythe No No Road Road (9.65) (Infinitely over capacity) 52 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note
Potable Water new foul sewers will be required to be extended Telecommunications New distribution mains will need to be extended throughout the site to convey foul flows from Telecommunications apparatus will need to through the new development parcels to serve the new commercial and residential units to be extended through the new development the commercial and residential development. new adoptable pumping stations situated at the parcels to serve the commercial and residential The distribution mains extending through low points within the sites. Pumping stations development. The telecommunications Parcels A,B and C are likely to be connected will be required on site to intercept flows from apparatus extending through Parcels A.B and to the existing 300mm diameter water main gravity sewers that will be installed within each C are likely to be connected to the existing that extends to the south of these parcels. The catchment and to direct those flows to the on- apparatus that extends to the south of these distribution mains extending through Parcel C site Wastewater Treatment Works via new rising parcels. The telecommunications apparatus is likely to be connected to the existing 200mm mains that may be required to extend below extending through Parcel C is likely to be diameter water main that extends to the east the M20. The provision of an on-site treatment connected to the existing apparatus that of this area. Limited existing water mains are works for the Enhanced Development Scenario extends to the east of this area. Limited present in the vicinity of Parcel D and it is development scenarios provides potential to telecommunications apparatus is present in the therefore likely to be necessary to extend a redirect existing flows from the Newingreen vicinity of Parcel D and it is, therefore, likely to new main along the B2068 or Stone Street and Sewage Pumping Station to the new on-site be necessary to extend new telecommunication potentially form a new crossing below the M20. Wastewater Treatment Works in order to relieve apparatus along the B2068 and potentially form pressure on the existing Sellindge Wastewater a new crossing below the M20. Rainwater harvesting or grey water recycling Treatment Works. are likely to be required to reduce potable water demand from 150 litres per person per day to 80 litres per person per day in order to minimise The on-site wastewater treatment works that the impact of the development on existing water is likely to be required for the Intermediate resources. and Enhanced Development Scenarios could Extensive reinforcements are likely to be required potentially take the form of an Enhanced to the water supply network are likely to be Sequential Batch Reactors (ESBR), such the required as the Water Cycle Study indicates that system developed by Plantwork Systems. This the existing network is capable of accommodating form of technology is capable of increasing the demand of approximately 900 dwellings, biological removal rates of Total Nitrogen and well below the proposed 3,200 homes, plus Total Phosphorus by up to 95%. In addition, the commercial land uses, education and other, works is odour free and it occupies a relatively associated uses. small footprint, as it is capable of producing a very high quality of effluent without the requirement Foul Water for significant additional tertiary treatment. The The Shepway Water Cycle Study indicates that lack of primary and tertiary clarifiers reduces the existing Sellindge Wastewater Treatment the capital build cost of these works and also Works has a maximum headroom of 1,250 helps to reduce energy usage. In order to prove units; therefore, it is likely to be necessary the ESBR technology in the UK market, Plantwork to consider providing an on-site wastewater Systems intend to construct a works on the treatment works to accommodate foul water Southern Water site at Petersfield, Hampshire to generated by the larger scheme proposed by the demonstrate that the process will produce a final Enhanced Development Scenario. A network of effluent with a very low nutrient content. Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 53
07 x Deliverability
Introduction x Mus eaquae. Ebis ut eum faceatiam lis et qui sa cus necea quam qui ut volecep erepro is denis quam doluptate volores mo bearum aribusapic dolorererum es nos eostore nam doluptae Scale of development x tempore prenitionsed et quassequiae lantota nus eum quissun totate nobis et perum, cone Key infrastructure costs x spitate cullibus dit, aut etum ipsa qui alitio doles consenis eatur, sit quo es doluptatenis volore diaspientem eseque eri di ommos esti blandundi prae preperempor am, et eume nus utecae Sustainable development x dis del intis aliqui dolent offictatatur aliquidebite sitatur? Quidunt labo. Nem qui quamendunt hari quae volorem odigent, nat. optat idusape ratent, utem experum a dolupidus Overall viability x re voluptatur? Conclusion x Ferorias nostinctor sunt, offic torum vendam qui cus ento temporerum inctorunt.Uscilis Igenducimin entorectaque perum res nonsequia saniam exerioribus vella natet modi quam ipiciis illo bero ius, nus doluptatus non plibusam ut experspel et enimus inti nostTo as ratiisi come sinciatur? molorit- BPP restota tesciet, optatiorum quibus aut Qui is illorest, cuptatestios quatiusa consequide ea quis mod qui to eaquatissin estium latibea comnissequam quunt laturep eruntiu saperupti ribus, quis sum quiam nihil inveraectati commo ipsanim usanis quae nati re ipsum repro te simus sunt occum volloruptam que repera quatquatur molores et prorporesed quibus aboratu sdaectam faccus asperuptat. dolores et eatur alibus. Namustiure, simusdam cuscil idus nis ent Itius aut ationse repudi si omnihilique sam rem peri quiatet, nis di vernat excessum quossunt nobis estianis volum, si aspicia temquo optiaes harumquaes volupta tquisimin etur adi iam volor erchil in ea pa cus mo id moluptur, omni si de sunt voloriti blaut qui dolorat percimporrum et, volendel ma sint, to essequo moluptae vendi quia similla conem doluptis rehendam facerio im num untur ati omnis dolupta sapiendis cum il earuntionem vella 54 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note 55
Conclusion 08 x & Next Steps
Summary 0–0 Mus eaquae. Ebis ut eum faceatiam lis et qui sa cus necea quam qui ut volecep erepro is denis quam doluptate volores mo bearum aribusapic dolorererum es nos eostore nam doluptae Conclusions 0–0 tempore prenitionsed et quassequiae lantota nus eum quissun totate nobis et perum, cone Policy implications 0–0 spitate cullibus dit, aut etum ipsa qui alitio doles consenis eatur, sit quo es doluptatenis volore diaspientem eseque eri di ommos esti blandundi prae preperempor am, et eume nus utecae Next steps 0–0 dis del intis aliqui dolent offictatatur aliquidebite sitatur? Quidunt labo. Nem qui quamendunt hari quae volorem odigent, nat. optat idusape ratent, utem experum a dolupidus re voluptatur? Ferorias nostinctor sunt, offic torum vendam qui cus ento temporerum inctorunt.UscilisTo comeIgenducimin - entorectaque perum res nonsequia saniam exerioribus vella natet modi quam ipiciis illo bero ius, nus doluptatus non plibusam ut experspel et enimus inti nost as ratiisi sinciatur? molorit restota tesciet, optatiorum quibus aut Qui is illorest, cuptatestios quatiusainput consequide fromea quis mod all qui to eaquatissin estium latibea comnissequam quunt laturep eruntiu saperupti ribus, quis sum quiam nihil inveraectati commo ipsanim usanis quae nati re ipsum repro te simus sunt occum volloruptam que repera quatquatur molores et prorporesed quibus aboratu sdaectam faccus asperuptat. dolores et eatur alibus. Namustiure, simusdam cuscil idus nis ent Itius aut ationse repudi si omnihilique sam rem peri quiatet, nis di vernat excessum quossunt nobis estianis volum, si aspicia temquo optiaes harumquaes volupta tquisimin etur adi iam volor erchil in ea pa cus mo id moluptur, omni si de sunt voloriti blaut qui dolorat percimporrum et, volendel ma sint, to essequo moluptae vendi quia similla conem doluptis rehendam facerio im num untur ati omnis dolupta sapiendis cum il earuntionem vella 56 | Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note Land at Junction 11, M20 Feasibility Advice Note | 57 ABOUT AECOM
In a complex and unpredictable world, where growing demands have to be met with finite resources, AECOM brings experience gained from improving quality of life in hundreds of places. We bring together creative, technical and management specialists to work on projects at every scale. Our teams belong to a worldwide network of nearly 100,000 staff in over 150 countries. Through 360 ingenuity, we develop pioneering solutions that help our clients to see further and go further.
More information on AECOM and its services can be found at www.aecom.com.
aecom.com