A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Statement of ... · Bean Junction 1.4.2. The proposed...

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction

Improvements

Statement of Common Ground

with Bean Parish Council Status: A1

APPROVED - PUBLISHED Document Ref: HE543917-ATK-EGN-XX-RP-ZH-000009

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Statement of Common Ground with Bean Parish Council

Atkins Revision C04 Page 2 of 47

Notice

This document has been prepared for the purpose of the Public Inquiry in relation to A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements only and no third party should rely on it for any other purpose unrelated to the Public Inquiry.



Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 5 1.1. Purpose of Statement of Common Ground 5 1.2. Parties to this Statement of Common Ground 5 1.3. Terminology 5 1.4. The Scheme 6 1.5. Design amendments 8

2. Record of engagement 9

3. Issues / Representations 10 3.1. Issues / Representations relating to the Scheme 10 3.2. Topic issues raised by Bean Parish Council 11

Tables Table 2.1: Engagement activities between Highways England and Bean Parish Council 9 Table 3.1 Topic Issues raised by Bean Parish Council 11 Table 3.2: Further comments 44 Table 3.3: Design Modifications 46





1. Introduction

1.1. Purpose of Statement of Common Ground

1.1.1. This Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been prepared in respect of the proposed A2 Bean to Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements (the Scheme). The Scheme is being promoted by Highways England Company Limited (Highways England). Orders relating to the Scheme (the “Orders”) have been submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport (Secretary of State) and a public inquiry to the Orders is due to commence in October 2019.

1.1.2. This SoCG does not seek to replicate information which is available elsewhere within the documents submitted as part of the Draft and Made orders. All documents are available in the deposit location and the Highways England website.

1.1.3. The SoCG has been produced to confirm to the Inspector where agreement has been reached between the parties to it, and where agreement has not (yet) been reached. SoCGs are an established means of allowing all parties to identify and to focus on specific issues that may need to be addressed during the Public Inquiry.

1.2. Parties to this Statement of Common Ground

1.2.1. This SoCG has been prepared by (1) Highways England as the Applicant and (2) Bean Parish Council.

1.2.2. Highways England became the Government-owned Strategic Highways Company on 1 April 2015. It is the highway authority in England for the strategic road network and has the necessary powers and duties to operate, manage, maintain and enhance the network.

1.3. Terminology

1.3.1. In the tables in the Issues chapter of this SoCG, "Not Agreed" indicates a final position, and "Under discussion" where these points will be the subject of on-going discussion wherever possible to resolve, or refine, the extent of disagreement between the parties. "Agreed" indicates where the issue has been resolved.

1.3.2. It can be taken that any matters not specifically referred to in the Issues chapter of this SoCG are not of material interest or relevance to Bean Parish Council, and therefore have not been the subject of any discussions between the parties. As such, those matters can be read as agreed, only to the extent that they are either not of material interest or relevance to Bean Parish Council.



1.4. The Scheme

1.4.1. The Scheme is located within the administrative boundaries of Dartford Borough Council, Gravesham Borough Council and Kent County Council. The Ebbsfleet Development Corporation is the planning authority for the Ebbsfleet valley. Bean Parish Council, Stone Parish Council and Southfleet Parish Council sit in the vicinity of the Scheme. The Scheme comprises improvements to the junctions at Bean and Ebbsfleet including provision for non-motorised users (NMU). It also includes a new bridge over the A2.

Bean Junction

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

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

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

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

1.4.6. The Bean South Roundabout will be widened to the east to provide more capacity and link to the new bridge. The eastbound off-slip will be widened to three lanes.

Ebbsfleet Junction

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



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

1.4.9. The eastbound off-slip will be widened at the approach to the roundabout with a dedicated signal controlled left turn lane. Ebbsfleet West Roundabout will be extended to the south and will be fully signalised. The west arm at the roundabout will provide access to the Ebbsfleet Green development. The circulatory carriageway will be widened to provide for three lanes. The entry to the roundabout from the north will also be widened to three lanes on the approach to the junction.

A2 mainline

1.4.10. Narrow lanes will be provided along the A2 eastbound carriageway over a length of approximately 1.5km between Bean Junction and Ebbsfleet Junction. This is required to avoid the need to widen the A2 into the north verge, where significant constraints include ancient woodland, electricity pylons, a subway and a grade II listed arched footbridge.

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

Non-motorised user provisions for walkers and cyclists

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

Mitigation and other works

1.4.13. The works described above would be subject to specific mitigation requirements, for example, landscaping and environmental mitigation. Outlines of these are set out in the Outline Environmental Management Plan (OEMP) and the Register of Environmental Actions and Commitments (REAC) and shown on the Preliminary Outline Environmental Design drawings, which are included as Figure 2.3 in the Environmental Statement.



1.5. Design amendments

1.5.1. Highways England has submitted a number of modifications to the published scheme.

1.5.2. The Modifications have been published on the Highways England website and notification of the modification was issued to parties that objected to the published orders and those that submitted representations including the four local authorities.

1.5.3. The formal route is for any comments made in relation to the modifications to be provided to the DfT. The comments are to be addressed separately to the SOCG.

1.5.4. Following the last meeting with BPC we have recorded the relevant comments in Table 3.3, as to date no comments have been passed to DfT.



2. Record of engagement

2.1.1. A summary of the meetings and correspondence that have taken place between Highways England and Bean Parish Council since the scoping report in 2018, including the publication of the Orders in February 2019 in relation to the Scheme is outlined in Table 2-1.

2.1.2. The purpose of this table is to set out the engagement undertaken to date in chronological order and show the response at the time of the meeting.

2.1.3. Meeting notes where available, to the meetings in Table 2-1 below, are provided in Appendix A.

Table 2.1: Engagement activities between Highways England and Bean Parish Council

Date Form of engagement

Key topics discussed and key outcomes

05/01/2018 Email Summary of key purpose / discussion: Bean Parish Council, in conjunction with Bean Residents’ Association provided a response to the scoping report that was submitted to the Secretary of State on 21 November 2017. The Council stated that the 296-page document contains many errors and assumptions not tested in public.

22/03/2019 Letter Summary of key purpose / discussion: Bean Parish Council provided an objection letter to the published orders in February 2019. The Council supports the objection and concerns raised by Bean Residents’ Association. The main concern is the traffic modelling.

• The scheme should be subject to Public Inquiry

• Traffic data provided excludes Bluewater peak times (weekends, Bank Holidays and School Holidays.

• No stress or sensitivity testing for Bluewater peaks.

27/03/2019 Meeting David Hammock attended a meeting with Bean Residents Association.

16/05/2019 Letter Summary of key purpose / discussion: Highways England responded to Bean Parish Council’s objection to the A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Orders issued on 14 February 2019.

07/06/2019 Letter Summary of key purpose / discussion: The Council thanked Highways England for their very detailed response to the Council’s concerns and submitted their observations. Main area of concern is traffic modelling, particularly Saturday peak time.

16/09/2019 Meeting Summary of key purpose / discussion: Discussion to address the questions raised by BPC and to explain the modifications that have been proposed. (See Table 3.3)



3. Issues / Representations

3.1. Issues / Representations relating to the Scheme

3.1.1. The table of issues below have been derived from the ongoing engagement on the scheme since the Publication of the Orders and ES, representations raised by Bean Parish Council to the Draft and Made Orders in February 2019 and include reference to subsequent discussions and work undertaken.



Table 3.1 Topic Issues raised by Bean Parish Council

Bean Parish Council Reference

Highways England/ Atkins Reference OBJ-030

Bean Parish Council Comment

Highways England Response Further Bean Parish Council Comment

Further Highways England Response

Further Bean Parish Council Comment 30/09/2019

Status / Note

SUMMARY

1 001 The Scheme should be subject to Public Inquiry.

A Public Inquiry is being held and starts 1 October 2019.

Public Inquiry is being held and starts 01 October.

Worthy of public enquiry - PI pending

Agreed

2 002 The modelling to underpin

the Scheme design has not been published.

The outputs from the modelling are described in reports and these are available on the Scheme website: 

• Traffic assessment: Transport data package 

• Traffic assessment: Transport forecasting package 

• Traffic assessment: Transport model package 

https://highwaysengland.co.uk/projects/a2-bean-and-ebbsfleet-junction-improvements/

The Transport Data Package describes the information that was used to build the model, the Transport Model Package describes how the model performs in the existing situation and the Transport Forecasting package describes the future year scenarios.

Assumptions and conclusions need examination in Public Inquiry.

Noted. We would be happy to discuss in advance of the PI if you have any specific queries.

Traffic modelling -ongoing as project evolves – awaiting modelling data from RA suggestion

Under discussion

3 003 The Scheme lacks a

Highways England is satisfied that the powers of compulsory acquisition sought

No further comment in

CPO - opposing

Not agreed












Status / Note

compelling case for powers of compulsory acquisition.

are necessary, proportionate and justified and is firmly of the view that there is a compelling case in the public interest for compulsory acquisition as set out in Chapter 5 of the Statement of Reasons published with the orders on 14 February 2019.

letter dated 7 June 2019

opinions – BPC maintains the scheme lacks a compelling case for powers of compulsory acquisition.

4 004 There are mismatches between the Order Plans and Engineering GA’s.

Bean Parish Council refer to figure [1] and the diagrams within that figure and our comments are below with queries in bold, responses in italic.

See separate entries below.









Status / Note

COMMUTER CAR PARK

004 No entry to Commuter Car Park from south or east, no exit from commuter car park to east.

Car park access and egress is indicative for this stage and shall be revisited in detailed design. As per the preliminary design proposal, entry to the car park is from Bean Lane southbound and exit is from A296 westbound. Motorists coming from the south can enter the car park via the A296 roundabout. Motorists exiting the car park and heading east can use the A296 roundabout.

An explanation for widening Bean Lane is lacking.

A drawing showing how DR312 could be connected to Bean Lane was tabled at the Public Inquiry into the A2/A282 Improvements. It was deferred then until Bean Interchange Improvements. When pursued with KCC the preferred solution was to join DR18 to Wood Lane. This could be

Bean Lane (southbound carriageway just south of the A296 roundabout) has been widened to accommodate the proposed bus lay-by. The lay-by was introduced to address the safety concerns raised by the Stage 1 – Road Safety Audit in relation to an in-line bus stop (i.e. risk of collision due to overtaking a stationary

Agreed









Status / Note

within highway land.

bus at the stop).

Bean Lane widening

The Council opposes any plans to widen the section of Bean Lane between Hope Cottages Roundabout (Bean South) and the junction with Beacon Drive although would support a lay-by to accommodate pick up and drop if by the school buses. It should be NOTED that there are 3 memorial cherry trees planted on the verging between the

We have no plans to widen Bean Lane to the South of Bean South roundabout.

Agreed









Status / Note

entrance to the field currently be accessed by HE and the junction with Beacon Drive which must not be moved. (30/09/2019)

Size of Commuter Car Park reduced whilst demand up

The area of the car park available for vehicular parking is reduced by only a limited amount due to the introduction of a new bus lay-by on Bean Lane southbound just south of the A296 roundabout and the new access route to Bean Pond, electricity pylon and an area of woodland.

No further comment in letter dated 7 June 2019

Agreed

Who is responsible for A296 widening and crossings?

The proposed signalised crossing on the eastern approach to the A296 roundabout and the associated works i.e. the extension of the existing traffic island to accommodate the crossing and the subsequent widening of the carriageway at that location is part of the Scheme. Highways England will be responsible for this stretch of the A296 carriageway (approx. length is 50m) until it is handed over to Kent County Council.


Crossings at the junction of the B255/A296 will fall within the Scheme.

Other crossings along the A296 are the responsibility of other parties and fall within

Agreed









Status / Note

different schemes.

Who is responsible for NCN1 Improvement at r/a?

The National Cycle Network 1 (NCN1) improvement is not part of the Scheme. Improvements are proposed as a part of the separate designated funds scheme.


This Highways England Scheme is now providing and east west crossing on the NCN across the northern arm of the B255/A296 roundabout.

Agreed

Reason for Commuter Car Park CPO?

Four plots are included within the Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) in relation to the “commuter car park” (as shown on the CPO main window of Sheet 1 and within Inset 2).

Plot 1/4b is required for permanent use as part of the widened Bean Lane / A296 Roundabout and proposed adjacent non-motorised user route. It is the intention to purchase this land outright.

Plot 1/4c is required as temporary use to enable construction of the Scheme. This

Commuter car park – CPO now n/a

Agreed









Status / Note

land is intended to be handed back to the landowner in its original state at the end of the construction period.

Plot 1/4d is required to construct a new access track for the benefit of the owner and others. Intended users would be those parties entering and exiting (to the north only) the owners land (commuter car park area), exiting out from the balancing pond access track to the A296 (Highways England, Utility Companies and owners of residual land surrounding the revised pond). It is the intention to purchase this land outright and offer it back to the landowner upon establishment of the relevant rights of access (for all parties).

Plot 1/4e is required as temporary use to enable construction of the Scheme. This land is intended to be handed back to the landowner in its original state at the end of the construction period.

Is it to be improved?

There is no intention at this stage to improve the car park other than to provide safer vehicular access on highway land. Any improvement works to the car park or any land undertaken as part of the Scheme would be classed as “accommodation works” and would be a


Agreed









Status / Note

matter for Highways England and the Owner.

Does it pass to KCC or WT Investments?

As per the above, Plots 1/4c, 1/4d and 1/4e would be to offered back to the original landowner, WT Investments in the first instance.


Agreed

IGHTHAM COTTAGES

Orders do not allow for NMU on & near Bridge.

On the new bridge, the Side Roads Order (SRO) caters for the construction of a new Highway (reference letter ‘A’ on Site Plan 1 of the SRO) which allows for the construction of an adjacent Non-Motorised User route (NMU) within the proposed highway boundary (limits of boundary to boundary, in this case the parapet edges of the new bridge). The Slip Roads and Roundabouts Order or Main Line Order (MLO) caters for the construction of new trunk roads, in this case the new eastbound on slip at Bean Junction (reference letter ‘2’ on Site Plan 1 of the MLO). As with the SRO, this allows for the construction of an adjacent NMU within the proposed Highway boundary.

Ightham Roundabout – NMU and lane queries

Agreed

Pylon on r/a not accessible and collision hazard

The access to the UKPN pylon located in the central island of Bean North roundabout is improved by the scheme as the maintainer will be able to park in a dedicated bay and cross at traffic signals


Agreed









Status / Note

in order to carry out a close inspection of the pylon/equipment on the roundabout. UKPN have been consulted during the design process and are supportive of our proposal. The maintenance bays at this location shall be finalised in the detailed design stage.

Outer s/b bridge lane not used for A2 w/b

Both lanes of the new Bean bridge can be used by motorists heading to the A2 via the A2 westbound on slip.


Agreed

Orders do not allow for services diversions

The Orders (SRO / CPO / MLO) do not need to allow for service diversions as utility companies have their own powers to undertake diversions within private land and public highways as required.


Agreed

No compensation for Side & rear accesses

Any party affected by permanent or temporary acquisition of land for the Scheme may be entitled to compensation in line with the standard statutory provisions. In the case of Ightham Cottages all properties (including gardens and accesses) are being acquired for the Scheme and appropriate compensation will be paid as determined by the District Valuer.


Agreed









Status / Note

Relocation prior to SI drilling not arranged.

The intrusive surveys are intended to be carried out in advance of the construction works to assist with the scheme’s detailed design. Surveys will take place over a limited time period and it is not anticipated that the residents would need to relocate, however we have been made aware of concerns related to the horse sanctuary and the possibility that the horses may need to be relocated. We will further engage with the representative/s of the horse sanctuary in advance of finalising our methodology for undertaking the surveys.


The drilling work within the horse sanctuary area has been postponed until the horse sanctuary has been relocated. Discussions have been held with the owner regarding survey works adjacent to the horse sanctuary.

HE states they will engage with representatives of Spirits Rest – failing to do so, now stating they are just tenants and causing great distress to owner and animals with their actions.

Not agreed

HOPE COTTAGES

New Turning Head at Hope Cottages not shown

The General Arrangement drawings are high level scheme layouts that indicate the proposals in an engineering perspective but are not final or definitive. They do not currently show the turning head.

Hope Cottages turning head – detailed plans not yet available

Under discussion

Is Farm Access to be closed?

We assume this comment relates to the field access to the northwest of No. 16 Hope Cottages. It is the intention of the scheme to close this field access as part


Agreed









Status / Note

of the proposals (as shown on the SRO, Site Plan 1, Inset 5A, reference ‘u’). No new alternative access is provided as the land holding can be accessed, as it is currently, from the existing farm access road just south of Bean House. This has been agreed with the tenant of the farm.

Footpath DR18 should be linked to here, Footpath DR312 should connect to N r/a

The reconnection of the two footpaths would either involve the installation of a signalised NMU crossing across a free flow lane or the installing of a new footbridge type structure. The negative impacts to traffic caused by the signalised crossing and the additional expense of a new structure are not appropriate considering that there are two existing alternative routes within a short distance - one through Darenth Wood and one along Bean Lane.

Hope Cottages – footpath concerns

Agree

Order covers New Turning Head Purpose Unclear:

For Residents benefit?

As the Scheme includes a non-motorised user crossing adjacent to No 15 and No 16 Hope Cottages the alignment of the current “old” Bean Lane carriageway in front of these properties requires amendment. The proposals will require a signalised crossing and associated signal poles etc. Therefore, as there is limited space within this area, causing a conflict should the resident of No. 16 Hope


Under discussion









Status / Note

Cottages wish to enter or exit their property with a vehicle, an alternative turning head arrangement has been proposed. Please note that this is a preliminary design arrangement and is not a detailed design and hence may be subject to change.


For Contractors use?

While the scheme works are being undertaken the contractor may use this area as required.


Under discussion


For Replacement Farm Access?

As per the point above, no new replacement access will be provided.


Under discussion


It is not the intention for UKPN to utilise the turning head to access their current pylon. The proposals have formalised the access into the plot of land adjacent to where the pylon is located (as shown on


Under discussion









Status / Note

For UKPN Access to Pylon:

the SRO, Site Plan 1, Inset 5B, reference ‘9’).


Who wants; it affects No 16 Garden?

The turning head has been located to allow safe access / egress from No 16 Hope Cottages onto the “old” Bean Lane. These proposals are in a preliminary design stage and will be firmed up during detailed design in discussion with the landowners impacted. The turning head does not require acquisition of any land from No 16 Hope Cottages itself, however it may impact on the property’s boundary treatments which will be discussed with the relevant landowner during detailed design.


Under discussion

BEACON DRIVE / BEAN LANE

Soakaway access differs from Order

The soakaway access is identified within the General Arrangement (GA) drawings and is shown consistently within the SRO (as shown on in the SRO, Site Plan 1, main window, reference ‘6). The required land for the access is as shown within the CPO (Sheet 1, main window, Plot 1/27c). We have not been able to identify any discrepancy in the accesses shown, the only variation between the GA and the SRO is the indication of the indicative soakaway footprint on the SRO Site Plan.


Agreed









Status / Note

Soakaway close to SWA main outfall

At the mentioned location our records only indicate Thames Water foul networks that have been avoided by the proposed Soakaway. [Please would you confirm the meaning of SWA.]


This has been confirmed as it should read TWA rather than SWA and does refer to Thames Water.

Agreed

Advance planting welcome, but:

Is land purchased?

The land is included within the CPO as Plot 1/27d. It is the intention to purchase this land outright although this is yet to occur.


We have an agreement that this land will be purchased.

Agree

Will Contractor excavate mineral first?

All discussions to date with the mineral resources authority is on the basis that the Scheme will not have any impact on mineral resources and as such this has been assessed in the Environmental Statement.

The contractor would not excavate the mineral in the field to construct the embankment, it is expected this material will be imported.


Agreed

Will Contractor want land for Compound?

The contractor is currently looking at locations for the main construction compound. Plot 1/4A in the CPO is no

No further comment in

Agreed









Status / Note

longer required. A small welfare facility in the land southeast of Bean South roundabout will be required for the workforce working on the embankment operation.

letter dated 7 June 2019

Who will be responsible for future maintenance? Who will asset pass to?

Highways England are purchasing this land and will be responsible for future maintenance. HE has not yet determined if the land will be passed to KCC to maintain, maintained by HE or another third party in the long term.


Agreed

B255 ST. CLEMENTS WAY DUAL CARRIAGEWAY

Order doesn’t cover effects of segregation barrier

As the works to the barrier are within the existing highway limits this can be undertaken without a specific order to segregate the carriageways. The approval to work on the Kent County Councils road network for these modifications is covered by the SRO (as shown on the SRO, “highway to be improved” cross hatching within Site Plan 1, in the upper left quadrant opposite Bluewater Shopping Centre). The effects of the barrier’s inclusion would not be shown on the Orders.

Agreed (on the understanding BPC will form part of the impact review)

Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review‘ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing to involve BPC in development of this document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).









Status / Note

Full width NMU outside highway land?

The existing NMU route adjacent to the B255 (east side of carriageway) is inside the current highway boundary. The Scheme does not intend to improve the existing NMU route running along the southbound B255 from the Bluewater Parkway slip road to the Bean Lane / A296 Roundabout


Agreed

Pros & Cons of barrier not investigated

The barrier has been proposed as part of the traffic engineering measures complementing the retention of the B255 to A296 slip road. There are records of collisions on the B255 in the north and southbound directions. The barrier will eliminate dangerous weaving manoeuvres and the associated conflicts on the B255 southbound. The barrier will also regulate traffic flows by reducing congestion on the A296 eastbound at peak times.


BPC agree on the understanding that BPC will be included as a stakeholder in the impact review

Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review‘ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing to involve BPC in development of this document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).









Status / Note

Order only covers access to Private Roads

Please refer to the response above. The SRO allows Highways England to undertake works on the local road network. A CPO is not required to undertake works on another statutory highway authority road network, this is the purpose of the SRO. The road network in Bluewater Shopping Centre however is a private road network and therefore needs to be included within the CPO to allow access to undertake any relevant works on private land.


. Agreed

5 005 Occupants served a CPO are being pressurised to vacate prematurely

Highways England has engaged with directly impacted land and property owners for some time. They have been offered one-to-one meetings with Highways England to explain the scheme to them and the process it follows to compensate those who are affected. Since the announcement of the Preferred Route in the summer of 2017 the owner occupiers of the Ightham Cottages have been entitled to submit blight notices asking Highways England to purchase their properties. To date Highways England has purchased four of the cottages while several others are at various stages in the process.

Highways England considers that it has been following the appropriate process for making a CPO, for handling applications


Not agreed









Status / Note

for blight and negotiating with landowners in preference to using the powers of the CPO.

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

6 006 Extremely concerned that The Horse Sanctuary have been told to clear paddocks for site investigation rigs in June, whilst the land is still under the ownership of Dartford Borough

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


The drilling work within the horse sanctuary area has been postponed until the horse sanctuary has been relocated. Discussions have been held with the owner

Spirts Rest –

HE is now back-tracking on arrangements stating the sanctuary is the tenant and not the landowner. Unreasonable stress inflicted on owner and animals with

Under discussion (Highways England is discussing the intricacy of the land occupancy basis with DBC, the District Valuer and with the owner of Spirits Rest).









Status / Note

Council. This shows a disregard and lack of understanding of both the nature of the Sanctuary and the serious impact the intrusion of persons and equipment would have on the animals there.

Highways England and their suppliers are visiting the Horse Sanctuary to discuss the Ground Investigation works that are required on site and will work to mitigate the impact of them and avoid disturbing the animals on site. Highways England is mindful of the animal welfare issues and will seek to agree appropriate mitigation measures during forthcoming site visits.

regarding survey works adjacent to the horse sanctuary.

intrusive actions.

7 007 A Commuter Car Park has a CPO and made smaller without explanation. The Council is extremely concerned that this will lead to commuters parking on neighbouring roads where there are no parking

Highways England is aware of the Kingsferry Coach service and the car park located in the NW corner of the Bean Triangle. The main construction compound is no longer in this location and therefore the car park will not be affected.

Please also refer to the response for item No. 4 – Commuter Car Park for the justification of the design proposals at Bean Lane adjacent to the car park.

Commuter car park – CPO – CPO now cancelled

Agreed









Status / Note

restrictions, especially within the village envelope.

8 008 Unregistered land with rights of use is being acquired without compensation.

Firstly, Highways England may point out that unregistered land and unknown ownership are different matters.

If land is unregistered it does not mean the ownership details are unknown, as plenty of land remains unregistered with Land Registry. Compensation would still be payable to any parties who can prove ownership of or another interest in the land in question, whether it is registered or unregistered.

In cases where there is unknown ownership (i.e. not registered with Land Registry and no owner has been found after diligent enquiries have been made), the matter will be submitted to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine compensation payable for the land.

Unregistered land (agree status)

Agreed

9 009 The triangle between A2 and A296 is incorrectly described as

The Statement of Reasons incorrectly states that “Land north of the A2 is now no longer within the Green Belt, with the exception of the land west of the B255 and east of the M25 including the northern section of Darenth Wood and Darenth

Error in Statement of Reasons – triangle will be correctly

Agreed









Status / Note

not Green Belt.

Country Park”. However, the calculation of approximately 6ha of land within the Green Belt required to accommodate the Scheme at Bean Junction, identified in paragraph 7.27 of the Statement of Reasons, does include the area of Green Belt within the Bean Triangle. Figure 2.1 of the Environmental Statement correctly illustrates that the triangle between the A2 and A296 lies is within the Green Belt. The error in the Statement of Reasons will be corrected in advance of the inquiry.

referred to as green belt

10 010 Despite requests in 2017, 2018 and 2019, traffic data is still absent.

The stage 3 traffic modelling and outputs replace the previous modelling and have been provided: see the response to point 2 above Highways England was of the understanding that it was agreed at the meeting on 27 March 2019 that these earlier reports would not be provided as they have been superseded.

Traffic data – not available in a compatible format for BPC but submitted to other stakeholders

Agreed

11 011 Even on 7-Mar-19 KCC were still awaiting information from HE/ Atkins.

At this time KCC were waiting for the outcome of the Saturday scenario testing and the traffic model reports. This has since been provided to KCC

We understand that the peak hour is not agreed by KCC. Local experience is that the peak is on Sunday.

1. The Saturday assessment was undertaken to evaluate the Bluewater impact at the A2 Bean. Based on this the Saturday Operational

Delay in submission of traffic modelling

Agreed









Status / Note

(VISSIM) modelling has been undertaken using the observed Bluewater traffic Saturday Peak hour of 16.00 to 17.00 and has been shared with KCC. This assessment has been reviewed and accepted by Kent County Council in the Statement of Common Ground.

2.The Automatic Traffic Count (ATC) data provided as part of the Bluewater Transport









Status / Note

Assessment (TA) shows that the volume of traffic along the B255 is higher on Saturday compared to Sunday.

12 012 DBC were sent a Link to traffic data, but do not have software to interrogate it.

Highway England understood that Dartford Borough Council would discuss traffic with KCC as they are the Highway Authority in the area. We are not in control of what specialist software might be held by other parties.

It is disappointing that the information was not supplied in a user-friendly form.

The nature of the VISSIM models and the amount of information available makes it difficult to present in a user-friendly format.

Traffic data not user friendly

Agreed

13 013 GBC have concerns over the lack of transport modelling information

At the latest meetings held with Gravesham Borough Council transport modelling was discussed and the reports have been provided.


Agreed

14 014 Ebbsfleet Development Corporation have not been

Ebbsfleet Development Corporation has been provided with the traffic modelling reports.


Agreed









Status / Note

given any traffic data.

15 015 The Scheme does not deal with the hazardous dual lane A2 main line.

The Scheme is fulfilling the requirements of the RIS 2015 and the Highways England Delivery Plan 2015 which provides for the improvement of capacity for Bean and Ebbsfleet junctions to support local development and regeneration. Improvements to the A2 mainline capacity and the wider network are outside the scope of this scheme.

Is there another project for A2 in the area?

There are currently no other schemes for the A2 in this area.

A2 works hazardous changed (status to ‘not agreed’

Not agreed

16 016 There is no evidence that the ‘budget constrained’ Scheme meets Objectives.

The Statement of Case, Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 demonstrates how the Scheme meets the objectives

Scheme meeting objective and representing value for money – opposing opinions

Not agreed

17 017 The Statement of Reasons, accompanying the Draft and Made Orders, fails to demonstrate that the Orders achieve the Scheme Objectives.

Same response as point 5 – General Comments Table 3.1

The Statement of Case, Chapter 2 and Chapter 5 demonstrates how the Scheme meets the objectives.

Scheme meeting objective and representing value for money – opposing opinions.

Not agreed









Status / Note

18 018 Evidence to the Treasury that the Scheme is value for money is unsound.

The appraisal, and ultimately the value for money assessment, has been carried out in accordance with the Department for Transport’s appraisal guidance “WebTAG”, which in turn accords with the Treasury’s appraisal guidance “The Green Book”. The appraisal concluded that the scheme represents high value.

Scheme meeting objective and representing value for money – opposing opinions.

Not agreed

Traffic

The Parish Council is concerned that:

019 Traffic data provided excludes Bluewater peak times (weekends, Bank Holidays and School holidays) and should be analysed separately.

Given the proximity of Bluewater shopping centre and its operation at weekends we have conducted a Saturday traffic scenario test. We tested with the scheme, Do-Something, and without, Do-Minimum for the 2038 design year. Overall the Do-Something option is predicted to improve operational performance the Saturday peak hour between 16:00 – 17:00, at both the Bean and Ebbsfleet roundabouts, compared to the 2038 Do-Minimum network. This timeframe matches the Bluewater planning application. In addition, all links at both of the roundabouts operate at or below 90% degree of saturation up to the 2038 design year with the introduction of the scheme.

1. The Saturday peak hour is not agreed. 2. Local experience is that the Bluewater peak traffic is on a Sunday.

Same response as point 011

Bluewater – traffic data shared, and comprehended, but local knowledge contradicts statistics used.

Agreed

020 The A2 will not cope with the 2 close slip roads

Detailed operational modelling of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junction network, including the A2 has been undertaken and the results are presented in Section 4 and

We note your response, but our concern remains that

The traffic model operational assessment

A2 -responses noted but still fearful of an increase in

Not agreed









Status / Note

(east/coast bound) merging in narrow lanes

Appendix F of the Transport Forecasting Package. It is noted that there will be a new signal-controlled junction in between the Watling Street roundabout and A296 merge as part of the committed development, Eastern Quarry. This will create natural gaps in traffic arriving at the merge with the A2.

‘natural gaps in traffic’ will not address this likely problem.

of this scheme with the 2 merges from the Bean North and A296 has been undertaken for the 2023 opening year, (prior to the opening of the Lower Thames Crossing (LTC) and hence without the resultant reduction in flow on the A2 mainline) and the 2038 design year. This has shown that both of the merges operate within capacity and do not result in queuing back either on

accidents due to the hazards.









Status / Note

the A2 mainline or the slip roads themselves.

021 The segregation barrier which we had been told was for safety reasons to stop weaving but it would seem that it is to force traffic to use the new nonslip and we agree with Bean RA’s comments “ A consequence of the ‘segregation barrier’ is in Appendix C, page 62, 2023 AADT – Bean Junction (Veh/day) a doubling of traffic on both

F.25 Lane Allocation - The outside lane on the proposed new bridge includes two movements (traffic to A2 westbound and Bean Lane southbound). As a result the outside lane has a higher overall volume than the nearside lane.

Page 127 - The commentary presented on page 127 of the Transport Forecasting Package Report refers to the LinSig model results for all the proposed options. The preferred option 3a has the best overall operational performance compared to the other options.

B255 – segregation barrier and associated traffic flow.

Agreed (on the understanding that BPC will be included in the impact review)

Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review’ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing to involve BPC in development of this document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).









Status / Note

s/b routes to N r/a.

Appendix C. and F. diagrams omit to show turning movements at Watling St r/a.

Turning movements at Hedge Place r/a (for Bluewater) are not illustrated.

Appendix F. Options relate to variants based on Preferred Option 5 at Bean.

Appendix F. The allocation of traffic to lanes is questionable. Local









Status / Note

experience, during contraflow on Bean Bridge, is that hardly anyone uses the offside lane. How would drivers be persuaded to use both lanes at the 2700 turn for A2 w/b?

Figure F.25 shows unrealistic outside lane usage on the proposed new Bridge

Page 127 highlights queuing on roundabout approaches, but dismisses them as not network critical.









Status / Note

022 Traffic lights on Bean South (Hope Cottages) roundabout will, during Bluewater morning peak, especially at weekends on Bank Holidays, school holidays and weekends, cause severe tail backs on the A2 London/west bound in the Swanscombe cutting.

The operational model assessment has been undertaken for Weekday AM and PM Peaks and a weekend (Saturday) Peak. The results show that traffic is not predicted to queue beyond the slip road’s stacking capacity for these modelled periods. The proposed scheme will also widen the approach lanes on the A2 Westbound off slip to the Bean South Roundabout to 3 lanes compared to the 2 at present, increasing capacity. Additionally, queue detection will be added to slip roads to detect and prevent queues from forming beyond a point that will affect the main carriageway.


MOD3 has removed signals from Bean South roundabout

Hope Roundabout – concern over tail back onto A2 is no longer relevant now decision made to de-signalise.

Agreed

Conclusions

1 023 Nothing to show A2 Main Line can cope.

Improvements to the capacity of the mainline A2 are beyond the scope of this Scheme.

Journey Time impacts along the A2 Mainline (Route 3), for both the 2038 With and Without scheme scenarios, are presented in Tables 3.5 – 3.7 of the Transport Forecasting Package Report.

How is Journey Time affected without Lower Thames Crossing? Our 46-page copy ends at Section 2 and

The increase in traffic on the A2 without the introduction of the LTC will result in increased journey times along the A2

Not agreed









Status / Note

Detailed operational modelling of the Bean and Ebbsfleet junction network, including the A2, has been undertaken and the results are presented in Section 4 and Appendix F of the Transport Forecasting Package Report.

See also response to point 20 above.

only has Appendix A

in both the ‘with’ and ‘without’ Scheme scenarios.

Please refer to the Transport Forecast package available on the Highways England Website.

2 024 No stress or sensitivity testing for Bluewater peaks.

Same response as point 019. Same response as point 019

Same response as point 011.

Agreed

3 025 Doesn’t show effects on Bluewater private roads of segregation barrier.

As noted in the response to point 3 – Traffic Modelling Table 3.2 above the segregation barrier.

The barrier has been proposed as part of the traffic engineering measures complementing the retention of the B255



Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review’ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing

http://assets.highwaysengland.co.uk/roads/road-projects/a2-bean-ebbsfleet-junction-improvements/Orders/A2+Bean+to+Ebbsfleet++Transport+Forecasting+Package.pdf











Status / Note

to A296 slip road. Future developments at Eastern Quarry will increase local traffic in this area, on the A296 and joining the B255 just north of Bluewater at St Clements roundabout. It is also noted that Bluewater has been fully engaged throughout this consultation process

to involve BPC in development of this document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).

4 026 Ignores impact of extra traffic between Watling Street r/a and Ightham Cottages r/a

The traffic models take into account the traffic demand between Watling Street roundabout and Ightham cottages roundabout. The forecast flows for the with and without scheme scenarios on the link between these two junctions is provided in Appendix C of the Transport Forecasting Package Report.



Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review’ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing to involve BPC in development of this document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).

5 027 Omits Watling St and Hedge Place r/a turning traffic information

Same response as point 21. No further comment in letter dated 7 June 2019


Agreed (HE understands the ‘Impact Review’ to be the equivalent to HE’s Post Operating Performance Evaluation (POPE). HE is willing to involve BPC in development of this









Status / Note

document to hear their view about performance of the scheme from a local perspective).

6 028 Pressurising Landowners for Scheme designed only for average weekday traffic.

Same response as point 005. No further comment in letter dated 7 June 2019

Under discussion



Table 3.2: Further comments




Highways England Response

Further Bean Parish Council Comment



Status / Note

029 Highways England to find out what provision will be made to allow access on the A2 for emergency vehicles once there is no hard shoulder. DVH to Medway often travelled on blue lights.

This was discussed further at the meeting on 16/09/19 and the details will be picked up during detailed design. Emergency access to hospitals has to be considered.

Discussions with police and core responders have been held and the proposed design is not expected to inhibit access for the emergency services. As a Dual Carriageway All Purpose Road with hard strips, the cross section is sufficient to allow queuing vehicles to part, allowing emergency vehicles to make progress between lanes, to reach an incident

Under discussion

030 No consideration has been given to assisting the residents of Bean with accessing Hope Roundabout now that the decision

At this time it is proposed to remove the signals and the comments regarding mitigation measures were noted. Mitigation measures to assist residents to travel north from Bean and onto the Bean South roundabout

Agreed










Status / Note

has been made to de-signalise it. Highways England are open to suggestions and will investigate additional funds for this now that a £3.85m saving has been made.

will be considered during detailed design. HE understands that BPC is concerned that detailed design will be too late to make significant changes to the scheme. HE has confirmed that detailed design could include a review of the number of lanes and road markings. HE is committed to consider various options to assist residents leaving the village to travel northwards.

Highways England has not committed additional funds to support these measures but has committed to consider these issues during detailed design.



Table 3.3: Design Modifications








Status / Note

MOD 1plus MOD-3 -

Modification 2

031 These 2 modifications together will significantly increase queues on the Bean Lane North bound and will make exit from the Village more difficult as traffic will back up on Bean South roundabout during peak times.

Queues on Bean Lane northbound over the new bridge will increase from 4 to 6 cars (the published note contains an error and stated an increase from 6 to 10 cars).

Mean maximum queues on the approach to Bean South roundabout from Bean Lane are predicted to increase by 12 vehicles from our published scheme to the scheme with modification 3.

In recognition of the predicted impact on those wishing to leave Bean Village by travelling north, potential mitigation options will be investigated at Bean South roundabout as part of the detailed design.

Not agreed

© Crown copyright (2019). You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence: visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email [email protected]. Printed on paper from well-managed forests and other controlled sources. Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363

s company name

Date post:	28-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

A2 Bean and Ebbsfleet Junction Improvements Statement of ... · Bean Junction 1.4.2. The proposed...

Documents