Where are we with the plans for the Sturry Link Road?
Will a white elephant be built over the River Stour?
Here we will try to bring you up to date with what is being planned and what is likely to happen.
What is it all about?
Conceived as part of KCC’s fourth local transport plan for the years 2016 to 2031, the A28 Link Road was proposed to mitigate the traffic effect of 16,000 new homes to be built to the east of Canterbury, and ease access to the sites.
The cost of this construction (a flyover and associated access roads, running from the existing A28 to the new east-west road through the new housing) was (in 2017) somewhere between £19.5m and £23.5m. Using the Bank of England’s inflation calculator, today’s equivalent cost would be £21m to £25.5m. That’s not taking into account the recent rocketing prices of cement and building materials. Government figures show that costs of some of the main materials required have increased by over 30%. See diagram below.
Where are we?
The situation now (early July 2021) is that having had one application turned down, KCC Highways have submitted a second, almost identical, application to build a bridge over the railway line and River Stour. The location is very close to the Water Treatment works, with the traffic from the bridge joining the existing A28 near the eastern entrance to the Park and Ride.
What’s the big difference?
The most noticeable alteration in the proposals is that traffic at the Sturry crossing will be able to turn left when travelling from the Hersden direction.
What does it entail?
The junction will still be remodelled, the northbound bus stop on Sturry Hill moving to the South of the crossing (outside the public conveniences), and it will all be controlled by traffic lights, phased to link in with the crossing gates.
What about Sturry Station?
The vehicle access will be altered, with cars banned from exiting near the crossing. This may lead to some difficult U-turns at busy periods
Will the road through the estate join Shalloak Road?
Yes. That part of the road will be built by the developers.
What about Sturry Hill?
Sturry Hill pavement issues continue to be ignored as this next round of the relief road plan is offered again. This road plan is only for traffic and not for pedestrians or cyclists. The pavement is very narrow, allowing for only one person at a time to walk on it, leaving parents with children, dogs and owners and couples very worried about walking together when faced with traffic travelling at 40+ mph, being very close to them.
KCC have clearly not understood that constructing a roundabout without pedestrian crossings, means pedestrians will be unable to simply walk up and down Sturry Hill.
This means some residents will be trapped, as they might not be able to access buses, the Farm Shop, the Butchers, the Co-op, or the village.
The levels of traffic is set to increase, certainly with all the A28 traffic going up the hill, and the new Herne bypass sending all the traffic down the hill.
Residents living on the hill will find it increasingly difficult to cross the road to get to the safety of the narrow pavement. There is still no provision for an eastern pavement, as this area is outside the designated plan area.
Is there an alternative?
Many people have commented that extending the platforms at Sturry Station would stop trains straddling the road as they do currently. SouthEastern and HS1 services tend to use 8 car trains on a platform that is only designed for six. Regular travelers are well aware of the need to enter and exit the train via the front four doors, as the train stops at the end of the platform.
In a briefing note that accompanies the application by KCC, the applicants do their best to deflect this option on the ground of cost/time etc. However, they miss the point.
The front of the train needs to stop further away from the crossing. This could be achieved without massive expense by extending the platforms as a ‘service’ platform only. Passengers would be restricted to the existing platforms, but the narrower platform (similar to those used at train depots) would ensure the driver’s safety in an emergency. Signalling would need to be revised, but it is not a root and branch operation that the briefing note infers.
Is there a precedent for this?
Yes, Selep, who are promising a £5.9m contribution to the flyover, have recently funded major (80m) extensions to the platforms at Sandwich, including the construction of a new passenger footbridge. According to the report in Kent Online (https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sandwich/news/rail-station-to-get-4m-revamp-ahead-of-the-open-204882/) this cost in the region of £4.3m.
It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Sturry costs would be lower, and that the improved traffic flow would obviate the need for a flyover.
It would mean closing the Milner Crossing by JKS, but Network Rail safety experts have wanted that to happen for many years.
What about traffic going on into Canterbury?
With this revised application, the possibility is for traffic from Hersden to either turn left at the crossing as now, or turn right, go up the hill and through the new estate. If the new bridge is built then vehicle can head south towards the Park and Ride, or continue ahead to join Shalloak Road.
Traffic from Herne Bay will be able to use Shalloak Road, Sturry Hill down to a new roundabout and then either join the traffic going through the new housing, or travel south to Sturry crossing. The bus stop at the foot of the hill remains where it is.
I don’t drive. What will it mean for me?
Bus routes will be altered, with some going through the new housing. The bus stops on the new road have been designed to allow traffic to flow. However there is a lack of pedestrian crossings on the new road and the footpath through is on one side of the road only and it is a shared cycle/pedestrian design.
Did someone say Eastern Bypass?
According to the website localrags.co.uk “ the ‘preferred growth scenario’ set out in the committee report by Canterbury City Council is for between 14,000 and 17,000 new homes for the district up to the year 2040, with the majority of them in the city alongside some expansion on the coast and in villages to support the housing needs of those places and the continuing regeneration of Herne Bay.
The government’s minimum requirement for new homes in the district up to 2040 is 9,000, but following extensive research and having heard the views of residents in last year’s issues consultation, the council is taking the view that a much bolder approach might be the best way forward. Up to 17,000 new homes would unlock the developer funding needed to build the bypass, which would stretch from the A28 at Sturry, across to the A257 and then on to a new junction at the A2 at Bridge.
This long-talked-about bypass would allow cars to be removed from the inner ring road, to be replaced by dedicated cycle lanes and public transport links. This would address the city’s congestion problems, improve air quality and public health, and enhance Canterbury’s historic environment.”
So we know that the CCC seeks to build as much as possible
What about carbon emissions?
According to David McNaught, Policy Manager at the Institution of Civil Engineers:
Road building generates carbon emissions from a variety of direct and indirect sources, including:
- 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 and tunnel lighting and signage.
- Increased usage through more vehicles on the road, journeys undertaken and higher traffic speeds.
It is likely by elevating traffic some six metres above the surrounding residential development, emissions and particulate matter will be spread over a greater distance than when traffic is at ground level.
In a recent court case, testimony from two UK transport and environment professors – both of whom have previously acted as advisers to the government – said the true impact of the roadbuilding would be many times greater than the Department for Transport’s calculations suggest. They said carbon emissions from England’s planned £27bn roadbuilding programme will be about 100 times greater than the government has stated.
(Full story here: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/apr/06/co2-from-englands-road-plan-up-to-100-times-more-than-dft-says)
Last month the Welsh government decided to halt any future road building plans in an effort to achieve net zero emissions by 2050.
What is Canterbury City Council’s position on this?
According to their website
“Action on climate change is a global priority. But it is essential we address this challenge at a local level. Towns and cities need to be climate friendly and able to cope with the negative effects of changing weather patterns. Canterbury City Council has declared a climate emergency and is committed to take urgent action to reduce its carbon emissions to net zero by 2030.”
Conveniently, there is no mention of the damaging effects of new road building, and they maintain the position that the building of the link road is vital to the development of more housing sites around the city.
What does the Parish Council say?
The Parish Council have stated their position very clearly on the previous application. Their new response is expected soon, but here is what they said last time:
Sturry Parish Council Representation on Planning Application KCC/CA/0091/2019 Sturry Link Road
to KCC Planning Committee 9th March 2021
Sturry Parish Council has the following objections to this application.
1. Restriction of access to Sturry village centre and Fordwich. caused by the removal of the option to turn left over the railway crossing, for traffic approaching the junction of the A28 and A291 along the A28 from the east.
2. The very poor and inconvenient arrangements for safe crossing by pedestrians of the A291 and A28 immediately north of the rail crossing and rail station.
3. The threat to the future viability of the general store owned by the Co-op. on the A28 immediately north of the railway station.
4. The excessive opportunity cost of the scheme to existing and future residents of Sturry
5. Lack of any evidence that the scheme will relieve congestion in Sturry.
Restriction of access to Sturry village centre and Fordwich.
The current proposals for the junction of the A291 and A28 were chosen following consultation with residents. The consultation offered a choice of three different arrangements for this junction all of which had adverse consequences for local accessibility and none of which were acceptable to local residents. No good option was put forward. The context within which the selection was made needs to be understood as it only means that residents were even more opposed to the other two options, not that anyone actually supported the option selected. It will cause significant inconvenience, with increased journey lengths, journey times, fuel consumption and pollution. Especially affected will be those who need frequent access to the village centre facilities including the post office, pharmacy, church, social centre, library and all destinations in and beyond Fordwich.
Safe crossing by pedestrians
The junction of the A28 and A291 is a pedestrian crossroad. The two main routes are
between Broad Oak/northern Sturry and the Co-op and bus stops and rail station and
between the village centre and the Co-op, bus stops and rail station.
At the moment pedestrians walking along both routes negotiate the junction using the pedestrian refuge at the bottom of the A291. The proposal will necessitate negotiating four separate sets of pedestrian lights and a U turn for people walking down Sturry Hill from the Broad Oak direction.
The threat to the viability of the Co-op.
The Co-op is Sturry’s principle general store without which many more people would be forced to travel to out of town stores for regular shopping. Please see the report by TPA on the risk of this proposal on the future viability of this store.
The excessive and unacceptable opportunity cost of the Link Road proposal.
The development proposals for Site 2 are, between them, expected to contribute £17.6 million towards the Link Road costs. The proposal for the southern part of Site 2 in Sturry is scarcely viable without this contribution if the requirements of the Canterbury and District Local Plan were to be met. As a result of the Link Road contributions there is a significant uplift in housing numbers from the LP Site requirement resulting in a socially problematic layout, unacceptable opportunities for crime, disregard for the landscape character of this area of designated High Landscape Values, degradation of the ancient woodland and a deprivation of usable public open space and necessary community facilities. In the view of Canterbury City Council’s Planners and Planning Committee the benefits of the scheme outweighs all these long-term and very damaging problems. But we ask:
1. What is the point in providing infrastructure to enable development that is so poor it will be a future liability.
2. If the benefits are much wider than enabling the (three in total) contributing developments then why is the funding basis not proportionally broader so that all those who benefit help to pay and the crushing financial burden placed on the Site 2 made proportional and affordable.
3. What happens if costs increase? Cost estimates for major infrastructure are notoriously optimistic at the planning stage. Are future residents of Site 2 going to be further deprived of decent living conditions. There isn’t much left to take – perhaps we could build shacks on stilts over the SUDS retention basins, build over the Green Gap, turn the only employment land into flats and not bother to deal with the lead pollution.
Lack of Evidence that the Link Road will relieve congestion In Sturry
The Link Road introduces three more roundabouts into the journey to and from Canterbury. At the most easterly roundabout the main tragic flow from the east must give way to traffic from the north. This, combined with new traffic signals at the A28 A291 junction adjacent to Sturry Railway Station, will impede traffic flow along the A28. It is very likely that we won’t be any better off on journey times, but a lot worse off in terms of journey length and pollution.
And what do our City Councillors have to say?
They have, in general been supportive of development and also ensuring there is a positive outcome for residents of the area. However, they have failed to vote either way and generally follow the party line. We would be very pleased to publish their thoughts on this site and start a public dialogue.
Can I do anything about it?
You have until the 24th of July to make comments on the application.
The link is here
https://www.kentplanningapplications.co.uk/Planning/Display/KCC/CA/0136/2021
Our Kent County Councillor is
You can also write to our City Councillors
georgina.glover@councillor.canterbury.gov.uk
Louise.Harvey-Quirke@councillor.canterbury.gov.uk
Or contact Sturry Parish Council
clerk@sturryparishcouncil.co.uk
Please make your opinions known. There is very little time.
