The letters KCC didn’t want you to read…

When asked why KCC did not publish all the public comments on the application to build the new Link Road and flyover in Sturry, the reply was along the lines that it would be ‘more efficient’ for the committee to read a summary, rather than all the individual points made by local residents.

Here are the points that were made by local residents, redacted by KCC and made available by a Freedom of Information request. Not all the points made reached the ears and eyes of the committee. Unlike Canterbury City Council, KCC do NOT publish public comments alongside planning applications. In an age of open democracy this is a shameful and high handed approach to the planning process.

Our representative at KCC is Alan Marsh

These are the comments not published by KCC…

From Finn and Co. on behalf of clients

Dear Ms Edwards

Proposed A28 Sturry Link Road – Planning representation – Our clients

Further to the previous representations made by my client dated 14th June 2019 and 21st November 2019 I am now instructed to make a further written representation in respect of the resubmitted application for the Sturry Link Road (reference KCC/CA/0136/2021).

As you will appreciate the resubmission of the above application following its dismissal earlier on in the year is extremely disappointing. This is exacerbated by the fact that the KCC highways department until very recently have supplied little or no information to my clients. Following a meeting in November 2019, it was agreed that KCC would provide requested information, but a response was not actually received until after persistent chasing in July 2021 – twenty months later.

My clients fundamentally oppose the scheme. However, it is believed that, if the scheme is to go ahead, there is scope for necessary and reasonable compromises.

In addition to the points raised in the previous representations (copies attached) my clients are keen to make the following statements and requests in respect of the new application:

• • _Drainage – a new drainage report (reference CO04300692) has been completed, which will see water from the new drainage lagoon discharged into the ditch to the front of , rather than into the Stour as originally proposed. Given the formation and condition of the current ditch it is not believed that this will have sufficient capacity to take away drainage water from the new road scheme and despite the discharge being limited, the ditch will need substantial works to ensure that it is even remotely capable of carrying increased volumes of water. KCC have confirmed that the ditch will be reprofiled and dredged as part of the works, however this is something that needs to be discussed and agreed with my clients and should be conditioned as such.

Furthermore, it is considered that the drainage lagoon could be moved further North and made narrower, thus resulting in less land take. KCC have advised that there is no detailed drainage design completed at present and that this will be conditioned under the planning consent, again need to be party to this process. There is little justification as to the required size of the lagoon or the fact that it now needs to discharge into the ditch as opposed to the River Stour. Note the main concern is with regards to the 2

lagoon overflow pipe, and the alignment of this into River Stour (which is of greater importance than the discharge to the ditch). The initial overflow pipe proposal (drawing number: 4300392/000/75 rev0) adversely and significantly impacts my clients land with regards to the size, usage and rights.

• • _Fencing – my clients do not wish for any fencing to be erected around the new lagoon or around the works which would appear obtrusive when entering their property. Such detail is to be conditioned and my clients need to be party to these discussions and any boundary treatment on land adjacent to must be discussed and agreed with my clients before works commence. This is not an unreasonable request and is necessary for the continued enjoyment of their property. My clients would find it objectionable to be seeing a blatantly unsightly ‘prison-like’ fencing every time they enter or leave their residence.

• • _Landscaping – at present there is a section of hedging to the front of adjacent to the existing A28 and this needs to continue around the new native woodland main mix as shown on plan 4300392-000-74 to meet with the new access to . This will provide further screening whilst the trees establish. In addition, it has been discussed that the hedge line could be installed along the top of a small grass bund thus providing further privacy for and should the application be consented then it would be preferential if the installation of the small bund were conditioned as part of the landscaping works.

• • _Security – at present there is a parking space/hard standing proposed adjacent to the new drainage lagoon and the new access to , this is not considered reasonable as this will hugely impact upon the privacy and security in respect of and will provide a hidden area for nuisance behaviour to take place.

It is estimated that the parking space/hardstanding might possible be required just once a year for a maintenance vehicle. Other highly suitable locations have been proposed, which are notably more cost effective and more convenient for any vehicle manoeuvres.

• • _Noise – KCC were due to send an updated noise report to my clients, however this has not been received, so my clients are unable to make any comments. The points made in the previous representations therefore still stand and my clients are sceptical regarding the modelling that has been completed, especially when one considers the recent proposals made by Canterbury City Council and KCC regarding a new ring road to the South of the city, which would continue from the new roundabout.

• • _Embankment – There has not been sufficient consultation and the requested information has not been provided regarding the embankment along the southern part of the proposed Sturry Link Road, particularly in the region where the viaduct merges with the road. My clients were told (see drawing 4300392/000/74 rev 0) the embankment slope would be based on a 1:1 ratio, which is commonly found throughout the UK, however the newly introduced proposal is to use a 1:2.5 slope, which results in substantially more than necessary land being taken from my clients. Despite being frequently requested, no technical or overriding justification has been given for why the embankment slope cannot be a 1:1 ratio.

My clients have very strong views on this issue and emphasise that, should planning consent be given, it needs to be conditional on the embankment slope and land take being fully addressed to their satisfaction.

I would urge you and the committee to take account of the representations made by my client and request further information from KCC Highways on these pertinent points. Should the application be consented then it is imperative that strict conditions are imposed on the consent that ensure my clients will be a party to the finer detail, which could have a dramatic impact upon and my clients in perpetuity.

Please confirm receipt of this representation and make a note that my clients request an opportunity to speak in front of the planning committee to reinforce the points raised above.

Yours sincerely

xxxx

Redacted comment

To: Sturry Link Road Major Project ‐ GT

Subject: Rejection of plans

To whom it may concern

I am putting my opinion forward to have these plans rejected, by putting traffic lights up , and the link road cars will divert through Hawe Lane/Popes Lane to use as a rat run. This is not acceptable as I am a resident in Hawe Lane and the traffic flies though here already ( even though you have put up 20 Miles per hour signs up) I must add to that the speed camera still says 30 Miles per hour. I take it whom ever has put these plans forward does not live in the area , so is all about lining their pockets, you must STOP THESE PLAN !!!!!

Redacted comment

On 13 Jul 2021, at 13:25, wrote:

Dear Sir,

I have received an up‐date of Sturry plan to divert traffic from centre of the

village.

I cannot believe we are still peddling this utter waste of money which will do

nothing to relieve the increasing traffic on the A28. What is required is a

proper by‐pass starting on the A28 in the area of Perry’s Garage , Westbere

and proceeding north of Hawe Lane/Popes Lane with a round‐a‐bout

junction with the Herne Bay Road in the gap between Sturry and Broad Oak

then proceeding south and over the railway to join the Sturry Road. This is

would benefit everyone, local residents and through traffic whilst leaving the

centre of the village undisturbed. We should stand firm and insist this and

nothing but this will be accepted.

Your faithfully

Redacted comment

Subject: Sturry Bypass Comments KCC/CA/0136/2021

To Whom It May Concern

Further to the flyer posted through our letterbox, I have the following comments to make in relation

to the Sturry bypass and more importantly the lack of a wider scheme around the entire Sturry

village.

Firstly, its great to see imminent improvements to the road infrastructure approaching

Sturry. Whilst the current planned scheme will bring partial benefits to Sturry, it lacks a wider

solution to the village itself, and I do not see the current scheme delivering any improvements

Sturry desperately needs.

What the village ultimately needs is a further link road around the north of the village (Broad Oak

junction with Herne Bay Road heading north of Popes Lane and connecting to Island Road at

Westbere). In this respect, I enclose your plan with thick black line indicating where I feel the

remaining bypass should be constructed.

The completion of this second phase will bring huge benefit to the local community including:

‐ Reduced carbon footprint as it will alleviate traffic backing up Island Road everyday during

peak hours.

‐ Reduced road traffic accidents along Island Road. I can safely say that I estimate 90% of

daily traffic use along Island Road between Fairview Avenue and Babs Oak Hill speed well in

excess of 40mph limit. The footpaths here are also very narrow. It is s game of chance that

to date, nobody has been killed here. In the short‐term this section of road desperately

needs traffic calming like Canterbury City Council have done on Whitstable Road.

‐ Positive impacts on people’s health through reduced vehicle emissions due to idle queing

traffic.

The cost of the second phase can quite easily be funded by all the developers identified in the next

local plan.

It’s really a no brainer and a second phase must go ahead.

Thanks

Redacted comment

Greetings Alan, I hope you and your have survived the year… what an experience!.

I see a group of councillors visited us, and I thought I would check about some new

reflections apart from the details that has produced on behalf of Sturry

Parish Council.

1) The narrowness of the southern end of Sturry Hill, where no two lorries or buses

could pass alongside – KCC are asking householders to consider giving over part of

their gardens to enable the road to be widened…but there would still be no

pavement.

2) New traffic lights would control the rail crossing but (a) the ‘new’ bus stop by the

toilets would create stops and therefore tailbacks

(b) crossing the road to access the Coop would be a nightmare

(c) from Island Road turning left over the crossing, again causing tailbacks

(d) Sturry Court Mews residents in deep trouble to get to the Coop or bus stop.

3) As the CPRE booklet ‘End of the Road’ explains, new roads always cause more

traffic, more pollution, more delays.

To build a major road through a new housing complex seems devoid of any sensible

planning.

However, should approval be given, some people will rue they day: do you not

agree?

Take care, stay safe,

Redacted comment

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am concerned that the above proposal will lead to long queues of stationary traffic waiting at the

traffic lights resulting in increased exhaust emissions, air and noise pollution and poorer air quality.

Also, that pedestrians will need to negotiate 4 sets of traffic lights to get from the village centre to

the local Co‐op and surgery. I seem to remember the last Transport plan saying that the needs of

pedestrians should be the highest priority in future planning. That doesn’t seem to be the case here.

If I understood the original proposal correctly access to Mill Road was to be reserved for buses (and

possibly cycles) to allow for a speedier journey into the town centre making it a more attractive

alternative to the car and thereby reducing traffic volumes. I think this idea should be retained.

In summary, I can’t see any advantage to the new proposal and urge councillors to reject it.

Yours,

Redacted comment

Absolutely Not!!!!!!!!!

What a ludicrous idea.

Especially when a gentleman has today on Facebook shown that this will not correct any problems but just cost s fortune and make some company very rich.

Indeed I Register that I am opposed to this.

I suggest you see the info the gentleman has put on Facebook for all to see, showing your idea will not work and also showing a better management plan plus showing that the operator of the Rail Barrier in Sturry is very lax in lifting it because once the gent was “clocked” with his notice board standing there timing things he suddenly lifted the barrier rather quickly after a train passed by. Looking forward to hearing from you that my opposition has been registered.

Kind regards

Redacted comment

I am a resident down in shalloak road who will be badly affected if this flyover is accepted

And passed by the councillors.I need some help to get my position across before they meet.

I have Tried ccc and kcc which I’m not sure is going to get my side across.

Please can you call me to advise what to do.

I am the only house that will be directly affected by this development as it will be directly in from t

of my property.I need help to have my say as an important

Part as to why it should not be constructed.

Redacted comment

Here are some pictures facing out from the

To give you an idea of how stunning it is in broad oak.if you can imagine sticking in each picture a

massive bridge with 30.000 cars a day from the full view left to right that is what I will see

(Take in photos)

Redacted comment

Subject: broad oak link road.

Dear I am writing this letter to you to get some

Help regarding the new proposal of the

sturry/broad oak viaduct development that is coming up for discussion yet again after being turn

down twice since November 2020.I have lived in with my family in for 13

years.we bought the house as a run down shell with an unloved paddock sized garden backing on to

the field that is the site offered for the proposed development of the viaduct link road to be

constructed.We have spent our whole time since we

Bought the house landscaping and renovating

The house which after such along journey we have restored it to being a lovely country style

cottage

With a fully seasoned planted garden which we have added 10 trees which have now all grown

To there adult sizes.we love are house and our outside space even more.I spend all my spare time

Working in the garden as we want it to be the most beautiful space to fit in with our surrounding

environment of beautiful fields and ancient forest.

We feed all the abundance of wildlife we are lucky enough to share our home and garden with

including

A mother fox and two Cubs which we leave food out for at the edge of the field wild rabbits that

come into our garden and feed off the lovely green grass

On our lawn at least 25 different species of birds

Which rely on us for a super mixed diet if foods

We put out for the religiously and the queen bee that we have working from her home in our bar

helping to

Keep the area as beautiful as she can.

This added to the amazing field and forest we are surrounded by makes us feel blessed to have

This as our home area where we wake up everyday.

I work from home now doing carpentry and making

Garden items to sell and now we run an

attracting tourism to Canterbury and broad oak

To enjoy the beautiful countryside walks and local

Pubs and sights Canterbury still has to offer.

This is a growing business which is going from strength to strength based on the service we offer

The stunning location and being able to share The country walks and views plus being only 10 minutes from the centre of Canterbury.

This is now my full time job due to That I have to work around in my day to day life.

I which working as a landscaper which made me take the decision to try and do

something different.being lucky enough to have such a lot of space we decided it would be safer to

so I can work in a safer environment Doing something I love ( working with timber ) and add something to our local community in broad oak

With the addition of the classic shepherds huts which give character and charm to the area.

at our property

Large bridge with 4 lanes directly at the back of my Property.as you stand at the back of my land looking

Out we have unspoiled views as far as you can see Which with this new development we would then face as close as 500 metres away an 8 metre high Concrete bridge running along my whole sky line Destroying are habitat and way of life as we know it.

By the time you add the barriers street lights which will glow up like a airport runway we may as well live on the runway at Gatwick.there is a link road which will also run directly from the round about at the Field end of the development directly towards joining on to the country sized road .Overnight this could destroy us and everything we have done creating everything we live for.I worry about with the stress that this will cause.with all the works we have done we have got our house value up to a very healthy value which is everyone’s goal to have something to leave their children when they are gone.under advice from our agent this Development would Massively affect our value to the point of having no equity value left at all which after 13 years and being close to I could not start again. This is the place we are going to stay for the rest of our lives as we would never find anywhere Better this would stop our

In its tracks as no one would .

I litterly can’t stress enough how this bridge should Be put on the scrap heap for good it will be nothing

But an extension of the A28 that will just spread the pollution further down in to the last green

space on the outskirts of Canterbury.it would be criminal to do this and it will not make any

difference to traffic flow in Canterbury it will just destroy a beautiful place and destroy our lives in

the process.

The calm and pleasure people in our area get from this area is Unreplacable and to destroy this area

Would be unforgivable.I ask you to just remember that the way the world is headed these spaces

For mental health and freedom to escape from the concrete jungle of suburbia must be preserved

For future generations and I erge you to make The right decision and refuse this development

Once and for good.what we have is historically Important as well as a massive habitat for a mass of wildlife which cannot be replaced.

Please do the right thing and keep Canterbury as an area of natural beauty for future generations

.our kids will thank you and so will everyone from the broad oak village.

Kind regards

Redacted comment

 Planning Application KCC/CA/0136/2021

I have looked at the documents associated with this application and I feel that very little has changed from the earlier planning application which was refused in March.

The Aim of the New Sturry Link Road (SLR) and the changes suggested for the junction at the Sturry Level Crossing:

‘Opportunity to ease intermittent but severe congestion at the junction during operation of the level crossing allowing far greater free movement of traffic to relieve this long-established undesirable situation’.

The changes made to the junction by the railway line do little to ease the problem.

There is no pedestrian crossing on the A291 Sturry Hill for pedestrians travelling down the hill to safely cross the road for the bus stop, local Coop store and Doctor’s Surgery without a lengthy detour. This will result in pedestrians trying to cross a very busy road when the A28 traffic is using the new layout to access the SLR. The question also arises as to whom the bus stop is for. Surely the buses will be travelling along the SLR and not in this part of Sturry Hill. Likewise there is a bus stop outside of the Railway Station. Buses travelling from the Thanet direction will not be able to access the SLR from this stop. It does not seem as though the actual use of public transport has been thought out with the design of this junction.

A question arises as to how many vehicles, cars, buses, HGV will be able to wait at the junction, if they wish to access Sturry village and beyond, before the waiting line of vehicles from the A28 and A291 cause blockages to the flow of traffic.

The junction is to be signal controlled this will affect the flow of traffic and it is likely that traffic flow will be impeded and slowed down as a result.

The current situation does result in delays at peak travel times but for most of the time traffic flows freely. The most affected traffic is from those travelling towards Canterbury and the A28 on the A291 Sturry Hill. The use of a sensor signal-controlled access, stopping traffic on the A28, would allow those vehicles on

Sturry Hill to access the A28 in either direction would make life much easier without the need for such radical changes to the junction, as proposed in the current planning application.

The cost of the SLR and viaduct is a huge amount of money and also the future cost of maintenance. The SLR viaduct built over the Great Stour River will be in an area where Otter and Beaver have been detected. The building of this construction will cause damage to their environment. Also the Noise Change Contour shows a huge increase of noise associated with the new SLR, affecting residential properties, the Great Stour and the Ancient Den Grove Woodland.

The road system in the planning application for Land at Sturry has been passed by Canterbury Planning Committee. This will provide a link between the A291 and Shalloak Road. This will ease congestion and will also take traffic away from Sweechgate. This would be a sufficient change if money was also made available from SELEP funding and the developers to improve the signaling at Sturry Railway Station and increase the length of the platforms, so that trains did not sit across the road when they stop at the level crossing.

Motorists do complain about hold-ups at peak times but the A28 is so congested as progress is made towards Canterbury that what would actually be the gain in time for motorists travelling the SLR route? I object to this planning application.

Redacted comment

Having read the recent update, it would seem the new proposals for the crossing are worse than the previous suggestion. The proposed bus stop by the public conveniences will be on what is probably the narrowest part of the A28 between Canterbury and Margate. At the moment lorries/buses cannot pass at that point so the proposed bus stop would cause chaos and be dangerous so close to the railway crossing. It gives no consideration to emergency vehicles. Is it really necessary to have a bus stop there when there is already one by the entrance to the village? The layout seems to have been designed by somebody who has not visited the site.

–

Redacted comment

Sir

I suppose that the proposed changes:‐ “The A28 through Sturry gets congested because the level crossing interrupts traffic. The new road would allow traffic to avoid the level crossing and improve access to Sturry station.” Implies the problem, that the level crossing causes congestion and that the station is inaccessible.

Your proposed solution does not address these problems. Traffic lights at the station junction will increase congestion, i.e. traffic stopped in one direction or the other for 60 minutes every hour; the present level of stopped traffic due to the crossing is just 10 minutes every hour (94 train movements per day). Thus increasing pollution levels by 6 times. Not something I’d like to be in part blamed for in the light of inquests finding that traffic pollution is a cause of death.

Access to the station has not changed, i.e. if a passenger buys a ticket from the machine to a destination towards London and then crossing barrier descends, access to the appropriate platform is denied.

In the light of climate change, which is becoming an all too apparent global threat as I type these words, different solutions need to be found to non‐active travel. You are proposing a white elephant of a project that could quite possibly be redundant before it is completed. This the time to rethink Canterbury’s transport systems and build something to replace use of private cars.

As to the pressure of extra housing on the transport system the solution is quite simple. The developers need to cram so many houses (slums of the future) that already provision for attached gardens are minimal. So if the developers didn’t provide car parking space or garages as well, they could build even more homes and discourage extra congestion on roads leading into Canterbury.

I leave you to draw the conclusion that this email is to protest the sanity of Canterbury City Council’s Sturry Link Road planning proposals.

Yours faithfully

Redacted comment

Subject: Sturry A28 plans.

I have been looking at the proposed plans and I am horrified by them. The environmental impact

from the process of building the whole project is off the scale. Just to make it easier to drive faster

from AtoB. Are we collectively so stupid?

My short term objection is the guaranteed increase in already speeding traffic cutting through

Popes lane onto Babs Oak Hill to re‐join the A28 at the bottom of the hill. Are you aware of how

many people walk up and down Babs Oak Hill every day where there is no pavement? There will be

deaths I fear.

My long term objection is that IF the Broadoak roundabout is built it will inevitably carry the road on

along the top of the hill in parallel with the current A28 freeing up more land to be grabbed by the

big building companies.

How can the massive carbon footprint of this be justified?

WE need to Stop being so selfish and careless with our children’s future and not allow these plans to

happen.

Yours sincerely

.

Redacted comment

Dear Kent County Council,

I writing to oppose the construction of the flyover by the water works due to otters being present. Otters are a protected species and you’re breaking the law if you: *capture, kill, disturb or injure otters

(on purpose or by not taking enough care) *damage or destroy a breeding or resting place

(deliberately or by not taking enough care) *obstruct access to their resting or sheltering places

(deliberately or by not taking enough care) according to the Gov.UK website.

Please protect our wildlife. Our fields, our farmland, our futures and our childrens…

Redacted comment

Subject: Sturry Railway Crossing

Re: above having lived in Sturry for 56 yrs experienced the crossing when operated

manually, where gates were opened when the trains were at the station.

Hersden has grown & trains are longer. To my mind is the reason for the congestion.

Now we read that the cost & time to carry out changes are the main reason why the

options WILLNOT BE EXPLORED.

The Broad Oak reservoir should brought to planning again if more houses are to be build.

Redacted comment

Subject: Re: Application KCC/CA/0136/2021 and further proposed developments in the wider area

Dear Councillors

Please find the attached letter setting out my objection to plans covered by ref KCC/CA/0136/2021

as advised by correspondence published by Sturry & Broad Oak Action Group.

As my elected representatives on Canterbury CC and Kent CC, I would be obliged if you would

represent my views.

I note that you are all Conservatives. I do not envy your position‐ that of having to defend the

interests of developers wanting to make a profit over the wishes of ordinary people in the locality.

You are in power having been voted for by the majority of the electorate so they should not object

to these proposals as they are consistent with Conservative ideology. You may be able to rebuff

their objections with “you voted for this”.

Unfortunately for me, I did not.

Kind regards,

23rd July 2021

Councillors:

cc.

Re: Application KCC/CA/0136/2021 and further proposed developments in the wider area

I read with alarm the latest “plan” for Sturry and the surrounding area.

I will address the following concerns:

1. Sturry railway station and level crossing

2. Road infrastructure, existing and planned

3. Housing development

1. Sturry railway station and level crossing

I have timed the barriers and they come down up to four minutes in advance of a stopping train’s

arrival. Road traffic is at a typical frequency at peak times of one vehicle per second coming from

both directions. I make this 8 x 60 which I make 480 road vehicles stopping in anticipation of a train’s

arrival. In “green” terms, there are fewer people on the train than the total drivers and passengers

waiting for them at the crossing.

The agony is compounded by the train straddling the crossing on stopping at the station.

There are three reasons for this:

1. The track activated sensors (which lower the barriers automatically when tripped by an

approaching train) are timed for the high‐speed services which need greater advance

distance due to their greater speed. This translates as barriers lowered for a longer time.

2. The train operators do not divide trains at periods of lower passenger demand‐ for

operational reasons eight coach sets (2x four coach multiple unit sets) continue to run off

peak (in railway terms but at daytime peak in road terms) to save time and money

shortening them when 4 coaches would suffice for passenger numbers. A four‐coach set

would not straddle the crossing. The up platform is the length of 6 coaches.

3. Platform length. I understand that Network Rail refuses to extend the length of the station

platforms due to cost implications. This is a red herring. There is no need to extend the

platform. A safe staging with steps down to a safe walkway by the side of the track would

allow the driver to de‐train safely if required.

4. The relevant starter signals can be moved to facilitate this.

A typical expression of this stupidity is when the barriers at Sturry are lowered for a down

(coastbound) train, the barriers at Broad Oak remain raised (the traffic can be seen crossing from

Sturry station). Down trains reach Broad Oak before Sturry. How can this make sense?

The latest idea to introduce traffic lights, apparently uncoordinated with the barriers trumps even

this insanity.

2. Road infrastructure, existing and planned

The local authorities (Kent Highways and Canterbury Council) are still operating under the delusion

that making it difficult for road traffic to pass through built‐up area will deter drivers from passing

through and that traffic levels are as though this is the 1930’s with the odd Morris 8 or Rover 10 when

few people owned cars and those who did consulted the Bartholomew’s touring guides. What‐Ho,

let’s go on a jolly jape around the town via Harbledown….

This is a debateable strategy where there is an alternative but in Canterbury there is not.

1. A trip from, say, Herne to Chartham or beyond means passing through the city‐ the evidence

is there to see and the same applies for most other journeys made in the area. When will

the “experts” get this point?

2. There have been almost daily disruptive (traffic light controlled) on the city’s arterial routes

over the last three years, several of which this year are on diversion routes for road closures

elsewhere, thus hindering existing and additional displaced traffic obliged to drive through

the city.

3. Some years ago, Canterbury Council allowed a residential development at the former Barton

Mill site on the A28 just outside the city centre, in fact less than 1km from the city centre.

The council’s ideology, remember that of deterring through traffic…traffic lights were

installed and phased to prioritise new residents over the A28 TRUNK ROAD. That is, arterial

route traffic from far away from the city, obliged to cross with no alternative had to stop for

locals falling out of bed tripping the lights to prioritise their passage into town (from less

than 1km from the city centre remember). What better encouragement was there for

council engendered policy adding traffic to the town centre??

4. How many local residents know the Park and Ride buses do a daily 40 odd mile round trip to

be garaged in Whitfield? I know this because I work shifts in Dover and see them heading

out and back on my way to and from work (I work 24/7 shifts in Dover and it is not practical

for me to use public transport) It really is time Canterbury Council came clean. Signs along

Sturry Road: Should you be car sharing? Should you be switching off your engine to reduce

emissions (while having to stop and idle unduly due to their traffic deterrent measures)?

5. Talking of Park and Ride, what “buffoon” chose a location “downstream” of the pinch point

that is Sturry level crossing? Would Westbere or Hersden, beyond said crossing not have

been a better option, as by the time one queued and passed Sturry level crossing (qv case

against above), one may well have continued in one’s own car all the way into the city

centre…?

6. On a similar matter, the closure of the fire station in sturry: Most retained firefighters lived

in the village to the north of the crossing. The fire station stood to the south of the railway.

This meant most of the retained crews were thwarted in their attempts to attend the station

on receipt of alarm if the barriers were down (qv previous submission re blocking of passage

of traffic at the crossing). Somebody unwisely allowed:

• The demolition of the fire station in the High Street (for residential development).

• Residential development of the former filling station site on the A28 east of the

down railway platforms opposite the Co‐op shop which would have been the perfect

location for a new fire station‐ Canterbury covers up to Sturry on the A28 when the

crossing is closed, new Sturry could have covered the village and the A28 east to

Ramsgate’s patch.

• The level crossing when closed continues to be a significant obstacle to the rapid

movement of emergency vehicles.

Traffic congestion in Canterbury is amplified by the above average volume of pedestrian traffic (large

numbers of students, often travelling as pedestrians in “crocodile” formation) using light‐controlled

crossings at which priority is given to button‐controlled operation even at low road traffic volumes.

There needs to be a reset here as this ad hoc deviation from the computer‐controlled system of citywide

traffic control causes havoc, especially at peak traffic flow times.

3. Housing development

Further housing development is unsustainable due to the strain on infrastructure explained above

together with the following factors:

 Fresh water provision: South East Water plays a regular tune of “save water”, often

accompanied by a threat of summertime hosepipe bans. Notwithstanding the significant

loss of water due to unattended leaks in their own distribution network, they struggle to

supply existing households with adequate volume and pressure of water. A serious leak in

Broad Oak cut off supplies to most of Sturry in 2020. Sometime earlier, Sturry Hill was

closed for several days while a required spare part was sourced from abroad. I infer the

reason for this is that they do not stock everything they need to maintain and repair the

network, relying on “on‐time” delivery for spares to keep costs down, hence the inordinate

delays to repair. Invariably, these main bursts derive from increased pressure to keep pace

with greater demand from recent housing development. These new proposals knock

anything previously proposed into a cocked hat.

 Drainage: Further area of building, associated hard paving and roads reduces the ability of

the ground to soak away surface water which raises the risk of flooding, particularly for lowlying

areas in winter. Consideration should be given to providing reservoirs and abstraction

plants in the lower Stour to store supplies for summer and reduce flooding (while allowing

regulated flooding as part of the natural cycle of land in flood plains).

 Road surfaces are inadequately maintained with existing traffic levels. It appears that utility

companies employ contractors to dig and fill and who get the contract by quoting low by

spreading too thinly their workforce (leading to excessive time to complete works) together

with inadequately regulated filling in once the job is done (Sturry Road in Canterbury being a

supreme example). Where will funding come from for more when there is insufficient at

present?

 There is too much granting of land protection orders under Section 31 (6) of the Highways

Act 1980 and/or section 15A(1) of the Commons Act 2006. This anti‐social measure protects

land so landowners can sell it for development without the hinderance of public rights of

way established by regular use. The latest lodged being the form CA17 and map ref 09/21 in

respect of land to the east of Barnets Lane lodged on behalf of South East Water on

20/04/2021. Loss of such land to building development reduces the “lung capacity” of the

green space in the area. The land near Barnets lane supports exceptional numbers of

meadow butterfly species and Nightingales nest in the adjacent hedgerow.

 Biodiversity. Loss of natural habitat is an inevitable consequence of increased housing

development and it is not only the physical land lost to the building of houses‐ as the green

belt is pushed out and wildlife loses its home under bricks and mortar, a further ring of

human intrusion disturbs remaining wildlife. Scarce species observed locally but beyond the

ring of excessive human intrusion include Firecrests, Common Lizards and Honey Buzzards.

These factors have a cumulative negative impact on our quality of life, and I implore you to resist

the excessive quantity of new build housing in the area, resisting the interests of developers in

favour of local residents must be your priority if the associated matters are not to be the latest in a

litany of disastrous decisions made by the local councils and their elected representatives.

Yours faithfully,

Reacted comment from Viridor

Issued by email only: planning.applications@kent.gov.uk

Dear Sir / Madam

KCC/CA/0136/2021 A28 Sturry Link Road, Sturry, Canterbury, Kent CT20

Construction of part of a new road (A28 Link Road) including viaduct between A28 Sturry

Road and A291 Sturry Hill and associated on-line improvements

This letter is submitted on behalf of Viridor Waste Management limited, owner and operator of

Shelford landfill site. The landfill site is an operational waste site with the benefit of planning

permission for landfilling until 2036. The above planning application impacts the access to the

Landfill site.

Shelford Landfill site currently received waste from Kent (including Canterbury, Ashford, Sandwich

and Dartford), Rochester and Crayford. Several Household Waste Recycling Centres operated by

KCC in Kent also deliver non-recyclable waste to the landfill site. In addition, the landfill site is

available to receive residual waste from KCC when the Allington ERF is not operational.

The site operates under a waste permit issued by the Environment Agency which sets out

operational requirements, including commitments for leachate and gas management and

monitoring. As such, access is required to the site 24/7.

We have received notification of the above-mentioned planning application and submit this letter as

a holding objection until further information is submitted and provided to us for consideration and

comment. Without such information our objection would remain outstanding. In such

circumstances we request for the application to be reported to committee and our concerns raised.

Having reviewed the key planning application documentation, it seems the proposal for road

widening at the junction which includes the only access road into the landfill site will take around 18

months. We are unclear at this stage what the access arrangements for waste vehicles,

operational vehicles, staff vehicles and emergency vehicles during this period would be.

The National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014, NPPW) sets out the Waste Management

Plan for England. In determining planning applications, Paragraph 8 of the NPPW states:

When determining planning applications for non-waste development, local planning

authorities should, to the extent appropriate to their responsibilities, ensure that the likely

impact of proposed, non-waste related development on existing waste management

facilities, and on sites and areas allocated for waste management, is acceptable and does

not prejudice the implementation of the waste hierarchy and/or the efficient operation of

such facilities.

It is crucial for there to be uninterrupted access for vehicles to the landfill site, as well as leachate

and gas monitoring points. As such, we request clear details of how the site would remain

accessible for all vehicles during the construction phased be provided.

We look forward to receiving further information as set out above.

Yours faithfully,

Planning Manager

Redacted comment

I understood that one of the objectives of this scheme was to improve the flow of traffic at Sturry level

crossing. While I can see that users of the A291 will benefit in this respect, it is obvious that it will do

nothing to improve the flow of traffic on the A28 Island Road. When the level crossing gates are

closed, traffic wishing to cross the railway will back up and prevent traffic using the proposed link road.

This and the traffic lights and pedestrian crossings will cause traffic to queue along Island Road, just as

they do now. It is quite likely, that some drivers will avoid this junction by using Babs Oak Hill and

Popes Lane in order to join the A291 on Sturry Hill. Neither of these roads are suitable for high volume

traffic. For these reasons I object to the proposed scheme .

Redacted comment

I object to the application due to it being too excessive and expensive waste of taxpayers money. This

relief road will bring no benefit to the community or road users. It will damage local businesses. Traffic

will still be excessive too the area. Altering the bus stop to south of the level crossing outside the

public conveniences, will make the traffic build up even more. At least on the north side the bus has

room to pull over and still let passing traffic go past up the hill. The biggest benefit too the area would

be a proper by-pass what this community and road users have been asking for for decades, which

would avoid Sturry Road, and the Centre of Canterbury, going south to pick up the A2, and improving

traffic problems in Wincheap too. My biggest complaint is that KCC expect most of the financing for

this relief link road to come from local developers. The knock on to this is that developers are then

excused in not providing at least 30% of affordable housing in these developments, which can be made

up of shared ownership or social housing. So yet again communities who really need affordable

housing lose out. The arguments and decisions for not making the existing train station a viable option

with new signaling and platforms and spending a lot less money in doing so, is bizarre and short

sighted by KCC.

Redacted comment

Transport Planning Associates has been appointed by ,

) to provide transport planning consultancy services

in relation to the highway improvement scheme proposed for the A28 in the vicinity of its properties on

Island Road, Sturry. Our client supports Canterbury?s vision, as set out in the District Local Plan

(adopted 2017), for a new link road to relieve traffic congestion on the A28 and to allow development

in the area. However, delivery of this vision should not adversely impact the local community. A review

of the proposed highway improvement scheme of the A28/A291 junction has highlighted a number of

areas of concern. They include safety concerns with regard to pedestrians and cyclists, the impact on

local residents and the Co-op store, the form and layout of the proposed junction and its capacity, and

the potential for a bottleneck when considering the operation of the adjacent level crossing. In our

view, the proposed junction would have an unacceptable impact on local residents and shoppers and

would result in an adverse impact on the continued use of the forecourt to Sturry railway station. It

would also result in a compromised layout that may place pedestrians and cyclists at risk. The need to

incorporate the adjacent level crossing in the design of the junction improvement is likely to result in a

junction with limited capacity that could act as a bottleneck to the detriment of traffic flows in the area.

This could serve to undo any benefits delivered by the wider A28 link road scheme. For the above

reasons and on behalf of our client, we strongly object to the proposed A28/A291 highway

improvement scheme in its current form. To that end, please see the attached Technical Note (TPA

document reference 1905-051/TN01, dated 3.8.21) that sets out a review of the proposed works to the

A28/A291 junction and the reasons for this objection.

This report appears in full elsewhere on this website. You can find it HERE

Redacted comment

This is going to be a complete and utter shambles we live in we have bad water pressure

pot holes that are not repaired roads not repaired when they say they are going to be lorries that go

up and down the roads that are far too big for the lanes which will not change when you put in new

road and housing extortionate electric bill and power cuts no paths to walk down to get anywhere you

take your life in your hands when walking down shalloak road to the shops and you want to put a great

big road in look at what we haven?t got first please orchards have been destroyed around the area

beautiful apple trees dug up and thrown in fields and left to rot very disappointed with Canterbury can?

t even empty bins town is becoming ghost town with all the empty shops extortionate council tax don?t

waste money on a road sort out what we have and improve that

Redacted comment

I support this scheme in principal. However, it lacks and overlooks a wider scheme around the entire

Sturry village. The current plan will not resolve alone this traffic issues in Sturry. Firstly, its great to

see imminent improvements to the road infrastructure approaching Sturry. Whilst the current planned

scheme will bring partial benefits to Sturry, it lacks a wider solution to the village itself, and I do not

see the current scheme delivering any improvements Sturry desperately needs. What the village

ultimately needs is a further link road around the north of the village (Broad Oak junction with Herne

Bay Road heading north of Popes Lane and connecting to Island Road at Westbere – as attached plan).

In this respect, I enclose your plan with thick black line indicating where I feel the remaining bypass

should be constructed. The completion of this second phase will bring huge benefit to the local

community including: Reduced carbon footprint as it will alleviate traffic backing up Island Road

everyday during peak hours. Reduced road traffic accidents along Island Road. I can safely say that I

estimate 90% of daily traffic use along Island Road between Fairview Avenue and Babs Oak Hill speed

well in excess of 40mph limit. The footpaths here are also very narrow. It is s game of chance that to

date, nobody has been killed here. In the short-term this section of road desperately needs traffic

calming like Canterbury City Council have done on Whitstable Road. Positive impacts on people?s

health through reduced vehicle emissions due to idle queing traffic. The cost of the second phase can

quite easily be funded by all the developers identified in the next local plan.

Received 13/07/2021 13

Redacted comment

How I am supposed to get into my house from the direction of Broad Oak and from the new link road?

Coming from this direction there is no convenient place to turn round so I can come to my entrance

from any other direction. Also it looks as though I will only be able to turn left from my entrance. A

complete mess. How can you think people are going to happy with sort of inconvenience?

Redacted comment

Firstly I support fully the application provided by Sturry Parish Council. I also want to say that

residents have not been consulted about this link road proposal – our KCC councillor has made no

effort to canvas opinion, despite knowing that some of the residents have been actively involved in

consulting with residents, through our Facebook page, our website and our leaflets that we have

produced and delivered to every household in the affected villages. You will be aware that despite

holding several hustings to invite County councillors the opportunity to talk to voters, our conservative

representatives did not participate at all. This shocking lack of consultation is in keeping with the way

these developments have been allowed to keep on tweaking applications without really addressing

many of the issues highlighted in previous application responses. I noticed that some councillors were

invited to visit the area, however no one was informed and therefore the opportunity for residents to

meet and discuss our fears and concerns were not possible. I invite you all to come and spend time on

our roads to see and hear what it is like, and how it is going to be if you allow this link road to be built.

In previous responses I have highlighted the lack of air pollution measurements, due in part because

CCC do not measure the particles that kill people. Because of the trees surrounding our roads and the

open access to minimise the impact of air pollution currently, but with these plans, the trees are to be

removed and new roads built. This raises carbon, and the impact on the environment will be huge

leading to flooding, because the drainage already cannot cope, and the run off roads will be

significantly higher than the woodlands now. None of this is measured in the updated report, which is

stuck in 2017. You will be aware of the 9 year old child who died because of air pollution being a main

contribution to her poor health. The response from the council was that the family should have moved!

You are going to condemn 100s of children to live times of ill health and maybe death because you will

allow 20,000 vehicles to drive past their houses 24 hours a day. 20,000 is only a measurement from

2015, given the growing developments across the area this traffic will rise, and although you can

expect electric vehicles will minimise air pollution, the sheer numbers of vehicles using this new road

will increase. I do not know because my county councillor has not be available to discuss such matters,

how KCC are going to address all the new environmental policy that the government is releasing. How

are you going to protect the residents in the area? This is a poorly sticking plaster to stem the flow of

poor planning, done in the interest of money and not need. You do realise that if you allow this

application to go ahead, CCC will build the Eastern bypass from it and Hersden, Sturry, Westbere,

Fordwich, Broad Oak, Herne will no longer exist as villages, they will be roads for all traffic that will

avoid Canterbury, but will be encouraged to pass through our villages. This will kill our villages. Talking

of which, when you visited the site, did you walk up Sturry Hill? Did the traffic that drives fast frighten

you? Did you think how a parent walks on this road with a little one, without being scared that the

lorry that is bigger than the width of the road, will suddenly come on the pavement? Did you witness

the drivers that ignore queuing traffic and take dreadful risks? Did you go on the red road that has

many deaths attributed to the speed of traffic on the road, and wonder how 30,000 vehicles will cope

with our narrow roads? As I said at the beginning, please read fully the response of our Sturry Parish

Council. Come and talk to us.

Redacted comment

Proposed junction between Link Road and Sturry Hill makes no provision for pedestrians needing to

walk up east side of Sturry Hill and no light controlled crossing for those needing to cross Link Road.

Extending up platform at Sturry station towards Canterbury and down platform towards Minster would

allow trains to stop at Sturry without blocking level crossing. This option would be much cheaper and

less obtrusive than building the Link Road.

Redacted comment

XXXXX feels that both the first and third reasons for the previous refusal have

not been adequately addressed in that there is inadequate provision in the revised application for both

public transport infrastructure and local traffic. We have particular concerns about the lack of provision

for pedestrians around the revised junction of the A291 and A28 and the lack of adequate footpath and

crossing points on the Sturry Hill approach. Foot traffic will be forced to navigate traffic light controlled

crossings at the proposed roundabout or risk crossing the stream of, possibly faster moving, traffic

further up the hill when reaching or leaving bus stops. The overall effect will be increased danger to

pedestrians and a deterrent to people using both public transport and walking to local facilities, such as

the Co-Op, the future viability of which may be jeopardised, which would be a great loss to the area.

We note that access to the Co-op for car drivers coming on the A28 from the East will also be made

more difficult by the removal of the U-turn into the shop car park. The decision to reimplement the left

turn (from the East A28) is welcome but fraught with problems in synchronising the traffic lights with

the level crossing gates. We feel that much more thought should have gone into this aspect, perhaps

combined with changes to the infrastructure at the station to lengthen the platforms and reduce the

impact of the crossing closings on traffic delays. The opportunity has been missed to improve access to

the station and encourage use of public rail transport for the short hop to Canterbury, where much of

the local traffic will be headed. Moreover, the plan does not provide an off-road cycle path from Sturry

to Canterbury, which would be a significant improvement to the proposed on-road cycle way creating a

safe route along the railway line (existing public footpath), providing a separated level path making it

more attractive for cyclists. The link road merely moves congestion further along the A28 and, with the

increased traffic from developments in Sturry, Herne and Hersden, will add additional vehicles and

congestion to Sturry Road and Broad Oak Road, not to mention the associated air pollution. Overall, we

object to this proposal, which we feel is lacking in long-term thought and designed to simply speed

more traffic through the area, encouraging greater car use and pollution at the expense of local

amenity.

Redacted comment

From the author of this piece.

Comment for planning application

KCC/CA/0136/2021

Application number KCC/CA/0136/2021

Type of Comment Objection

The application should be turned down on grounds of excessive cost, relative to the benefits

it will offer.

The financial costs:

Research shows statistically, at least 85 percent of every project is over budget to some

degree. (See diagram)

According to the Structures and Feasibility report submitted by Amey, and dated July 2017,

there are four main scenarios costed for this project.

Taking an average of the construction prices quoted, the overall cost figure is approximately

£29.5m. Using the Bank of England’s inflation calculator, the cost of this in 2020 could be

£31.7m.

With inflation running at 2.1-2.5%, by the time any construction starts the bill will very likely

be in excess of £33m.

This figure has not factored in the recent very high rise in the costs of building materials.

Source: McKinsey

4 June,2021, Construction News: “With construction activity and new orders continuing to

rise, and with materials in short supply, cost inflation has now reached its highest level for a

generation.”

Research from McKinsey and Co. shows that;

1: Nine out of ten projects experience cost overrun

The vast majority of construction projects completed in twenty countries over the course of a

70-year period—85%, to be exact—experienced cost overrun. The overall average overrun

was 28%.

2: In three years studied, only 31% of all projects came within 10% of their budget

Just 25% of projects came within 10% of their original deadlines over the same period.

3: Large projects take 20% longer to finish than expected, and are up to 80% over budget

Construction News is also quoted as saying “The UK construction industry has been struggling

with material shortages and rising prices since last year, due to companies restarting projects

they had paused due to the pandemic and a host of global complications.

In May (2021), fabricated steel reached prices that were more than 38% higher than prices a

year before, according to the latest government data. Imported plywood prices also went up

by 29.8 per cent over the same period.”

During this Covid pandemic every sector is experiencing shortages in staff (construction

workers, delivery drivers)

I would urge the committee to fully re-cost this project as the 2017 figures supplied seem very

unrealistic.

The congestion cost:

As proposed, the southern part of the flyover access will join the A28 Sturry Road near the

entrance to the Sturry Park and Ride.

In July 2021 Canterbury City Council announced it was suspending the Park and Ride at Sturry

Road for two months, due to “ongoing low demand”.

It is obvious that traffic flows have changed and although the flyover is designed to manage

‘future’ traffic movements. It is well known that the construction of a new road will increase

traffic in the long term.

According to the Campaign for Better Transport, when a new road is built, new traffic will

divert onto it. Many people may make new trips they would otherwise not make, and will

travel longer distances just because of the presence of the new road. This well-known and

long-established effect is known as ‘induced traffic’.

Induced traffic means that the predicted congestion benefits of a new road are often quickly

eroded. Traffic levels on bypassed roads can also rise faster than expected due to induced

traffic, all of which means the hoped-for benefits of a new road can evaporate very quickly.

CPRE report 2017: The End of the Road?

The report confirmed that major new roads increase traffic above the general traffic

increases for their areas, with traffic increases of up to 47% over 20 years.

The bad environmental effects of new roads, with loss of ancient woodland, wildlife habitats

and damage to the landscape are well known. (This proposal is in an area of High Landscape

Value, according to the last Canterbury Local Plan.)

But this CPRE report confirms that the promised safety and economic benefits from new roads

have not been delivered either.

This is based on the in-depth report from TfQL which analysed over 80 road schemes from

the past 20 years, using official data from the Post Opening Evaluation (POPE) reports.

You can read the full report here.

The applicants have remodelled the traffic data from the previous 2015 base (outside the DfT

recommended timescale), but it remains a computer model and does not take into account

any actual surveys of physical transport movements. During Covid (ongoing) traffic flow has

been much less than anticipated.

In section 2.2 of the Supplementary Transport Proposal there appears to be the conflation of

two differing sets of figures (one from 2019 SMC, the other the 2015 VISSIM) and the

conclusions appear to be based on modelled, rather than any actual figures for traffic

movement. Is this accurate enough when committing over £30m of expenditure?

The Environmental Cost

From the Environmental Statement Volume 2 submitted by the applicant

8.2.17 NPPF Section 9 Promoting sustainable transport (paragraph 103), states that

significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made

sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of

transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air

quality and public health.

This proposal will just move the traffic queues to an elevated position, worsening air quality

over the surrounding housing (yet to be built to finance the road) and the adjoining school

playing fields.

Canterbury City Council has declared a climate emergency and is committed to reduce carbon

emissions to net zero by 2030.

How does this help the government’s Road Investment Strategy, as we move towards the

targets set for COP26?

(The first two being:

1. Secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach

2. Adapt to protect communities and natural habitats)

For the first point, the very construction of this project will increase carbon emissions by

• Construction work, such as land preparation, embodied carbon in concrete, asphalt,

steel and other raw materials used to build road schemes, and emissions from

construction vehicles.

• Tree felling, to make way for roads reducing carbon capture.

• Maintenance and servicing work.

• Roadside lighting and signage.

• Increased usage through more vehicles on the road, journeys undertaken and higher

traffic speeds. (Induced traffic movements)

For the second point, the structure itself will bisect wildlife habitats and disrupt eco-systems

in the twin branches of the Stour and the surrounding marshland.

There is also the potential disruptive effect on the RAMSAR site at Stodmarsh a few miles

away from the construction site. It’s about the eutrophication of the water on the Stodmarsh

site (which means it is being deoxygenated by algae). This is a symptom of overdevelopment

causing pollution in the whole local area.

What are the causes of eutrophication? Water pollution measurements look at nitrates,

phosphorus and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), this is the amount of dissolved oxygen

needed to remove waste organic matter in the water. Inevitable run off of salts and other

pollutants on the road surfaces will leach into the soils and add to the toxicity of the river.

Alternative action

The Briefing Note accompanying the application looks into the potential of extending the

platforms at Sturry Station.

It is well known that trains overhang the crossing, blocking traffic movement, causing delays

and pollution from emissions, despite CCC’s attempts to place signs to persuade drivers to

switch off their engines.

These delays cause long queues and can, on occasions, last up to 5 minutes or more. With

two stopping trains an hour (and more at peak times) it can mean the road is blocked for 10

minutes an hour. Not only is it frustrating for drivers, it has severe impacts on the emergency

services, who are often delayed here.

However, the briefing note completely misses the point.

This is not about an upgrade to the platforms, but about facilitating trains to stop further

away from the crossing.

I would urge the committee to investigate the following before embarking on such a major,

expensive and disruptive project as this. Some scoping work now may save millions of

pounds .

Throughout the rail network there are construction of safety platforms at depots. These are

not full width platforms with all the associated works, but simple structures that allow rail

staff to access the train. Pictured below is such a structure:

Pic

The structure shown has been installed in railway sidings at Maidenhead by Balfour Beatty

There would be no need for public access (the passenger numbers do not warrant a fully

extended platform) and regular travelers are well aware of the need to move to a specific

carriage in order to embark/disembark the train.

Build these at the correct distance either side of the crossing and there would be immediate

improvements in road traffic flow. The signals may need adjusting, or a relay signal added,

but the cost of this would fall within the £5.9m SELEP funding.

There is a precedent for this approach to solving Sturry’s traffic problem by the recent joint

project with Network Rail to improve Sandwich station in time for the Open golf tournament.

Of course, in that instance it was about passengers, not positioning.

By choosing to improve the junction this way, KCC would have the additional benefit of not

covering the annual maintenance cost of the new flyover, the approach roads and associated

structures. It would be less harmful for the environment.

The Milner Crossing, the foot crossing on the PROW would possibly be closed or diverted.

Alternative traffic flows

With the shorter delays at Sturry crossing, traffic will flow better. The construction of the new

road for the Houses at Sturry could be an east-west road with a single entrance from Sturry

Hill, going through to Shalloak Road. To discourage rat-running, traffic calming measures

could be put in place (such as Hales Place Estate) making it a better environment for the 100

or so proposed new houses that will line the road.

Conclusion:

• Refuse the planning permission as the structure is unnecessary for improved traffic

flow and has and adverse effect environmentally.

• Traffic numbers predicted are not accurate, only educated guesswork.

• The flyover will only move the traffic problem a mile or so nearer Canterbury.

• The extension of Sturry station using a safety access for drivers will immediately

improve Sturry Crossing.

• Build more houses to build more roads to build more houses is an outdated and

unsustainable approach to environmental development. We need new thinking, and

it could start here.

Redacted comment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The document titled “Environmental Statement Volume 4 Appendix 1-1 Land at

Sturry Masterplan (988 kb)” shows images of the revised drainage strategy. The proposals are

inadequate and underestimate the risk of contaminated road run-offs entering the River Stour and

negatively impacting the internationally, and heavily protected, RAMSAR site at Stodmarsh. Therefore

the proposals must be rejected. EXPLANATION The proposed handling of the surface run-offs at the

Western end of the link road are not fit for purpose in that (i) the Flow Control Device – Orifice Plate is

designed around a “1 in 30 year storm” event, whilst (ii) the Attenuation Pond is designed around a “1

in 100 year storm event”. These are inadequate protections as they do not take account of the

increasing likelihood of localised flash-flooding caused by Climate Change. The UK’s Met Office states: ?

that extended periods of extreme winter rainfall are now 7 times more likely?. ?…the UK?s climate is

becoming wetter. For example the highest rainfall totals over a five day period are 4% higher during

the most recent decade (2008-2017) compared to 1961-1990. Furthermore, the amount of rain from

extremely wet days has increased by 17% when comparing the same time periods. In addition, there

is a slight increase in the longest sequence of consecutive wet days for the UK?. ?…Work using a high

resolution climate model, which can capture localised thunderstorms which are more important in

summer for considering flash flooding for example, shows that the intensity of rainfall is expected to

increase in future summers. This suggests that summers may tend to become drier overall but when it

does rain it will fall in heavier bursts, which has implications for flash flooding?… ?…climate change

has increased the risk of floods in England and Wales, such as those in Autumn 2000 (the wettest

Autumn on record), by at least 20% and perhaps 90%?… [Source:

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/understanding-climate/uk-extreme-events-_heavyrainfall-

and-floods ] Recent global events have shown that extremes of weather, (such as deluges of

rain) are occurring more frequently than previously calculated. Rainfall levels previously thought of a ?

1 in 30?, or ?1 in 100?, or even ?1 in 1000? year events are demonstrating that historical models are

flawed and no longer fit for purpose in an increasingly erratic climate. (e.g. China’s recent floods were

referred to as a ?1 in a 1000? year events, at the same time, halfway across the globe, Germany’s

deluge was referred to as a ?1 in 500?year event). As a consequence, considering the heavily

protected status of the Stodmarsh Nature Reserve, CCC would be failing in its duty to pass plans that

are only seeking to protect (only) against ?1 in 30? and ?1 in 100? year events. The Climate

Emergency we are in is acknowledged and accepted by Canterbury City Council. Therefore, plans that

only anticipate protecting road run-offs from entering the Great Stour upstream of Stodmarsh NNR for

?1 in 30? or ?1 in 100?, when these predictions are being shown repeatedly across the globe to no

longer represent adequate estimates of risk, must be rejected.

Redacted comment

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The link road will significantly impact a known otter holt, and also permanently

affect the nearby stretch of the Great Stour river which is known otter territory. These facts are stated

in the document titled ?Land at Sturry Environmental Statement: Volume 2 Main Text? that was

submitted as part of the inextricably linked nearby housing development. Otters are ranked as import

at a County level as they are afforded full legislative protection by the Conservation of Habitats and

Species Regulations 2017, and the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and are recognised as a priority

species and are the subject of a Kent BAP. There is the potential for the impact on the local otter(s)

will ‘fall down the cracks’ and the link road will claim that this is relevant to the housing development,

and vice versa. This ‘chicken and egg’ situation provides a convenient opportunity for those responsible

in the decision making process to (consciously, or unconsciously) avoid their obligations to adequately

safeguard this key protected species. CCC will therefore be failing in their legal duty if the impact on

the local otters is not independently re-assessed. Until such time the proposed construction has to be

rejected. SECTION (A) IMPACTS ON THE STOUR’S OTTERS The following sample selection of texts,

relevant to the Link Road and otters, have been pasted directly from the housing developer’s document

“Land at Sturry Environmental Statement: Volume 2 Main Text”: 7.97. …confirmed otter recolonisation

of the section of the Great Stour River south of the Application Site in 2014, and a resting

place or holt has since been identified by consultants working on the Sturry Link Road project. The

survey evidence suggests otters make use of the adjacent stretch of the river… 7.169. Disturbance of

light-sensitive fauna including otter could result via increased use of artificial lighting… 7.216. Interest

species… as well as otter… along the Great Stour River could be affected by noise and lighting from

the construction activities associated with the Proposed Development, Sturry Link Road… 7.239. The

Sturry Link Road ES has identified the potential for an otter resting site on the south fork of the Great

Stour River to be significantly disturbed during construction of the Sturry Link Road… 7.261.

Disturbance of light-sensitive fauna including otter could result via increased use of artificial lighting

associated with the Proposed Development and Sturry Link Road; which could reduce the suitability of

Great Stour, Ashford to Fordwich LWS for its associated interest features. 7.274. The Sturry Link Road

ES has identified the potential for increased operational road mortality for otters as a result of Sturry

Link Road… SECTION (A) SUMMARY: IT IS ON RECORD THAT OTTERS WILL BE IMPACTED BY THE

PROPOSED LINK ROAD SECTION (B): UNINTENTIONAL BIAS AND/OR LACK OF INDEPENDENCE The

housing development’s Environmental Statement, prepared by Marian Cameron Consultants Ltd, with

inputs on ‘Ecology and Nature Conservation’ from Bioscan (UK) Ltd, was commissioned by the

developers. Whilst acknowledging impacts on otter(s) the overall assessment was that the impact was

?negligible?. However, scientific reports that are funded by the organisation that stands to benefit from

their findings have a proven likelihood for being inappropriately positive. This is due to the well

documented, unintentional, influence of ‘Funding Bias’ and/or ‘Conflict of Interest’. [Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias ]. [ Source:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest]. A 2010 study by Harvard and Toronto Universities

found that scientific reports were 70% more likely to be skewed towards supporting the interests of the

organisation funding the research than independent reports. Bias in commissioned reports, when they

are funded by the customer, is therefore more likely than not to have occurred. Without independent

peer-review the developer’s reports associated with the Link Road are scientifically invalid. SECTION

(B) SUMMARY: HARVARD RESEARCH SHOWS THAT FUNDED REPORTS ARE 70% MORE LIKELY THAN

NOT TO FAVOUR THE NEEDS OF THE COMMISSIONING BODY. SCIENTIFIC REPORTS THAT ARE NOT

INDEPENDENTLY PEER REVIEWED ARE NOT ROBUST. OVERALL SUMMARY (i) a resting place or holt

has been identified and will be effectively destroyed during Link Road construction (ii) the nearby

stretch of river forms part of an otter’s territory and both noise and light pollution (during both

construction and operational phases) will impact the otter (iv) the Link Road will lead to otter road

mortality (v) The environmental report that states the above impacts will overall have a ‘negligible’

impact on otters is statistically more likely than not to be biased in favour of the developers that

funded the report. This is not claiming impropriety, it is a factual statement based upon the 2010

Harvard and Toronto University study which determined that 70% of ‘paid for’ Scientific reports were

biased in favour of the interests of the funding party. Considering the local rarity, importance and

protected status of otter, CCC need to demonstrate they have eliminated the possibility that the

‘negligible impact’ assessment is indeed appropriate and not due to the (unintentional) ‘Funding Bias’

and/or ‘Conflict of Interest’ that affects 70% of funded Scientific reports. The only way of achieving this

would be to ensure a truly independent, peer-reviewed, report is produced into the impacts of the

proposals on the local otters. Footnote: The ‘UK Wild Otter Trust’ notes that “In recent years the otter

has encountered new and varied threats, including habitat destruction (road building, new urban

development)”.

Redacted comment

Objection

Comments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The A28 Sturry Link Road is identified in the Canterbury City Council?s (CCC)

District Local Plan (adopted 2017) as ?a key piece of strategic infrastructure required to support

development within the Plan area with new home allocations of around 16,000?. However, the UK

Gov’s own Office for Statistics Regulation has found flaws in the Office of National Statistics’

calculations affecting university cities, such as Canterbury, with large Student populations. The flaw is

known to distort and over inflate the future housing demand that’s driving the construction of this Link

Road. Guildford Borough Council has already announced its own review of the Local Plan despite

having student population that’s a fraction of Canterbury’s. Canterbury’s quota of homes needing to be

built is therefore known to be flawed and over-inflated. Since much less than the claimed 16,000 new

homes are required the raison d’etre that’s driving the Link Road evaporates. EXPLANATION The

algorithms used by the Office of National Statistics to calculate future housing demand effectively take

the local demographic data from the 2011 Census and multiply those that are most likely to form new

households in the coming years (thus predominantly 18~24yr olds) by the forecast birth rate, then

deduct the forecast death rate. The flaw that was identified by the Statistics Regulator was that in

University Cities with large student populations it hadn’t occurred to anyone that almost all Students

move away again once their studies are completed. They do not create new households, nor bear

children in the area that will in turn drive demand even further into the future when when they in turn

reach adulthood. This means that every University city has an over-inflated future population estimate.

Guildford Borough Council have already announced they are reviewing their Local Plan. This is despite

only having a student population that’s a quarter the size of Canterbury’s. Early indications, using the

Government’s own data, shows that housing demand in Guildford will actually decrease during the

lifetime of the Local Plan, despite that council being currently told it needs to build new stock of 4,662

homes. Canterbury, with its c.40,000 students, has one of the largest University populations of any UK

City. This reduces the population forecast of the Canterbury area by c.34,000, (i.e. c.1.7 children

birthed by 20,000 mothers), of which half of those will, in turn become parents of 1.7 children. Thus

the number of new households required is less than claimed in the Local Plan by, potentially,

somewhere in the region of 28,000. In addition: the impact of Brexit with the associated reduction in

European workers and the anticipated global financial downturn due to Climate and Ecological issues

reduces housing demand further. In addition: The Office of National Statistics itself states that most

demand for homes CONCLUSION The Link Road is sited as being needed to facilitate the house building

East of Canterbury. However, it has been identified by the UK Government’s Office for Statistics

Regulation that the Office for National Statistics has miscalculated the forecasts for new homes in

University Cities. With a student population of c.40,000 the number of new homes required in the

Canterbury area will be significantly less than what is claimed in the Local Plan. To blindly carry on in

the knowledge of this fact and build a link road to facilitate 16,000 new homes in the area is

indefensible. The Link Road must therefore be rejected until a fully independent review of population

growth in the area is conducted and this fed into the Local Plan.

Redacted comment

Objection

Comments As the plans stand they are lethal for cyclists and fly in the face of encouraging and facilitating the

necessary transfer from commuting by car to commuting by bike. As a local resident that cycles

through this junction to/fro work in Canterbury the proposals are incredibly concerning. The proposed

layout will be dangerous for cyclists. Two specific areas of concern are: (A) Heading to Canterbury

from Island Road Conflict between cyclists and cars turning sharp left into the station entrance.

Currently vehicles enter via the easterly entrance and make a gradual turn towards the station. It has

happened to me that cars have overtaken me and then immediately cut across my route into the

station. They’ve done this despite knowing I am there and/or being able to see me in their mirrors. It’s

simply a case that cars tend to misjudge cyclists’ speed and how quickly the car they drive slows down

when turning. However, in all cases, since the turn into the station car park is ‘gradual’ as opposed to

‘sharp’ I’ve had time to brake and avoid being knocked over. In stark contrast, with the new layout,

(and presuming that as a cyclist I will be allowed to use the bus lane), I will have cars (that will only be

looking out for bus-sized objects) cutting across from their lane, at a right angle, across my path and

into the station. Cars hitting cyclists will be unavoidable with this junction design. This is because, with

the angle of the bend, any cyclists in the bus lane will be in the car’s blind-spots and cars will not even

be aware that a cyclist may be there as they wouldn’t have ‘only just’ overtaken it. (B) Heading north

to the level crossing The creation of a bus-stop immediately south of the level crossing will be

dangerous for cyclists. If I am in the road and a bus is at the stop I will be overtaking it. If/when I am

overtaking it I will likely have a car close behind me, (even if there is a solid white line between the

opposing lanes; This happens; motorists can become fixated on following a cyclist who has room to

overtake and thus inadvertently cross solid lines they otherwise wouldn’t have. I used to cycle in Inner

London and this effect was commonplace. No idea of the ‘psychology’ behind it!). If/when the barrier

sounds I will be quickly stopping as I am perfectly able to do so in the available distance. My reactions

will also be instant because, being exposed to the elements, I’ll hear and see the signs immediately

with no distractions. In contrast car drivers are fractionally less instantly aware of the barriers

sounding, (as a car driver and bicycle rider, that uses this junction daily, I am aware of the splitsecond

difference caused by being ‘enclosed’ as a cyclist, versus being ‘exposed’ as a cyclist). In

addition a number of cars, when the amber light on the barriers first appears, they’ll carry on with their

momentum and/or accelerate to get across the crossing, (n.b. Two weeks ago I viewed the crossing for

an hour and on one occasion witnessed 5 cars go through the amber light… an amber light at which I

would have stopped at immediately when cycling). Consequently, if I’m overtaking a bus, I’ll be cycling

at c.20mph, and more often than not I’ll have a car close behind me. When the barriers sound I’ll

immediately start slowing down, whereas the car behind me will potentially not be able to/or not wish

to stop in time (particularly as they’ll have a lot of information to process, i.e. overtaking a bus, cyclist

ahead in the middle of the road doing 20mph suddenly stopping and unable to get safely over to the

left of the lane, flashing lights and a siren just starting, and a desire not to get held up) and

consequently there is significant risk of my being hit from behind. Note 1: If there’s a cycle lane on the

pavement by the bus-stop this is just as problematic. If I’m using it (and they are not mandatory to

use) I’m effectively out of sight whilst I ‘undertake’ any bus that’s parked. Therefore cars heading

north overtaking the bus won’t see me and I’d be rejoining the carriageway as a ‘surprise’ to any

motorists just ahead of a complex road junction, (n.b. The problems are compounded if any HGVs are

involved owing to the increase in their ‘blind spots’. Note 2: Regardless of the danger to cyclists the

bus-stop south of the level crossing appears to make the likelihood of a ‘head-on’ collision between

cars more of a certainty. One does not have to imagine too hard a car overtaking the bus and hitting

oncoming traffic that’s turning left from Island Road.

Redacted comment

Objection

Comments If the viaduct is approved there will be a ‘Temporary Access Route’ running alongside the southern

branch of the Stour from the westerly crossing to where the viaduct will be being constructed. I have

seen nothing in the plans to state what form this access road will take. e.g. How it will be constructed,

what protections will be put in place to esnure waste and contamination from vehicles and contractors

does not enter the river, etc. Nor have I found any comment on what monitoring will be undertaken

and by whom, and whose responsibility it will be to safeguard contamination of this stretch during

construction. The river is upstream from the internationally important RAMSAR site at Stodmarsh and if

appropriate controls are not described and in place this proposal has to be rejected to safeguard this

valuable natural resource.

Redacted comment

Objection

Comments There is a conflict between documents provided in support of this proposal. They cannot all be correct

and logically one must be incorrect. This undermines the accuracy and quality of the documents

supporting this proposal. The document titled ?A28 Sturry Link Road, Canterbury ES Addendum

Ecology and Nature Conservation? states on Page 19, section ‘Rivers’, paragraph 5.2.5, ?… to clarify

that a minimum 5m buffer will be maintained from the top of the river bank, as stated in the CEMP, to

protect the riparian margin within a construction exclusion zone. There will be no loss of riparian

habitat during construction.? However, the plans, (e.g. the map in the document titled ?Letter, Plan

and Article 13 Notice Network Rail_Redacted?), shows an approximately 400m long ‘temporary access

road’ running immediately adjacent to the bank of the River Stour that will be less than 5m from the

bank. Therefore, it is false to state that a construction exclusion zone of 5m from the riverbank will

exist and be maintained. Since it is a false claim the matter needs addressing before any decision can

be made. Ignoring, or accepting, such conflicts in the submitted documents, instead of rejecting them

until the conflict is resolved, would indicate either pre-judgement and/or bias exists amongst the

decision making team.

Redacted comment

No Objection

Comments. Will help improve traffic through Sturry village

Redacted comment

No Objection

Comments I support the proposed Sturry bypass road for the following reasons: – the current traffic is already

much too heavy for the existing infrastructure, particularly the Sturry rail crossing and the capacity of

Mill Rd. The addition of a significant housing development in the area will worsen the existing situation.

Adding more than 1000 houses without improving the infrastructure is frankly ridiculous – emergency

service vehicles are currently obstructed by the crossing and traffic volumes, the bypass would reduce

the obstructions and improve response times – the alternative route would allow more rail services to

run without interfering with traffic flow – the character of Sturry high street, St Nicholas church, and

the housing along Mill Rd is currently negatively impacted by the traffic volumes and pollution levels.

Both air and noise pollution is very disruptive – the bypass will reduce traffic through this conservation

area and therefore provide an opportunity to improve it by way of wider footpaths, planting, reduced

air and noise pollution

Redacted comment

No Objection

Comments I feel that the by-pass should go ahead. The levels of pollution in the village are too high for the safety

and well being of the residences. The road through the village was not designed for the volume of

traffic now using it. The houses shake as large lorries pass by and some of these homes are listed

properties. When the crossing gates are closed the traffic backs up and the pollution increases to

unacceptable levels. Sturry is a lovely small village and should be preserved as such. The by-pass will

provide a quicker and easier route and the opportunity to add a safe cycle lane.

Redacted comment

Objection

Comments I have severe concerns about the proposed bridge over the railway and river Stour. A much simpler

solution to sorting the problem would be to use the SELEP money (now miraculously still available

though we were told earlier in the year that it was time limited) for important improvements to the

station platforms at Sturry station. Without the overhang of the train a couple of times an hour,

extended gate closures could be much improved allowing for freer traffic flow. Residents of this area

are used to having to wait for trains; the viaduct will only make traffic get to Sturry road quicker which

will result in traffic congestion and total jams nearer into the centre of Canterbury. Without major

infrastructure improvement in the centre of Canterbury, merely providing a quicker way to get to

Sturry Road will not improve traffic flow elsewhere; it will make it worse. This viaduct will be a shortsighted

nightmare. The proposed traffic flow plan for the bottom of Island Road appears complicated .

The bus stop move to the south of the rail crossing seems poorly thought out with passing traffic

attempting to overtake a parked bus and the gates needing to come down – an accident in the making.

Traffic coming from Island Road will not be able to access the Co-op; this will lead to many drivers

having to take rat runs through the estate at Sturry to reach Sturry Hill to be able to get to the shop.

Think again KCC – the vast cost of the viaduct (especially with spiraling costs of materials) will be a

poor solution. Use the grant you already have to IMPROVE STURRY STATION.

Redacted comment

Comment

Comments The provision of the link road is supported. The Island Road / Sturry Hill junction improvements to

allow local traffic are beneficial for local residents allowing access to facilities and services on either

side of the railway, however as identified in the application, this runs the risk of undermining the

benefits of the link road and causing unnecessary congestion if non-local traffic considers this a viable

alternative route to the new link road, it also will do nothing to address traffic through Fordwich. The

implications of the councillor’s decision on the previous application requires an additional response to

simply amending the junction design, further measures will be required to ensure that the junction

only enables local traffic. It is therefore essential that KCC give consideration to the use of enforceable

access restrictions for local traffic from the outset, and bring forward a scheme of road layout

enhancements on the A28 south of the crossing to further dissuade through traffic and to enhance the

historic environment of the Sturry Conservation area once the link road is in place. Addressing the

matter of access restrictions through this application and the preparation of an enhancement scheme

by KCC for the area of Sturry south of the crossing for implementation once the link road has been

opened is essential to ensuring the success of the overall environmental enhancements to this area of

the village that the link road will bring.