Issue - meetings

To receive a report from the Head of Development outlining the Council’s response to the Highways Agency Development Consent Order Pre-Application Statutory Consultation (TO FOLLOW).

Authorised the Head of Development, after consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing and the Executive Leader, to respond to the Highways Agency Consultation on the upgrade of the A14 as outlined in the Annexes to the report, subject to the strengthening of paragraph 4(g) of Annex C to include the words “the District Council reserves its position on matters of detail, such as the mitigation of the impact of the development on affected villages, on which it will negotiate with the Highways Agency”

(Councillor T Hayward, Ward Councillor for Buckden, was in attendance and spoke on this item.)

With the assistance of a report by the Head of Development (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Cabinet was acquainted with a suggested response to the pre-application statutory consultation exercise being undertaken by the Highways Agency on the A14 Improvement Scheme.

Members were advised that the project had changed slightly since it was first reported to Cabinet on 17^th October 2013, with the previously suggested tolling element of the scheme being dropped and a significant change in the proposed alignment of the route in the Brampton area. However, the remainder of the proposal contained many features for which the Council had been lobbying for including the proposed off-line A14 route to the south of Huntingdon and Godmanchester, the upgrading of the A1 between Alconbury and the A14 and the removal of the Huntingdon Viaduct.

Councillor Hayward was invited to address the Cabinet. He drew attention to the objections raised by Buckden Parish Council to the proposed removal of the Huntingdon Viaduct. It was argued that there were no supporting figures for the anticipated future traffic movements and the possible pollution levels and that the advantages of retaining the viaduct outweighed the three reasons given for its removal.  In conclusion, Councillor Hayward urged the Cabinet to reconsider its support for the demolition of the viaduct. In response the Transport Team Leader explained that retention of the viaduct would result in the reclassification of the existing road as a local road for which the County Council had confirmed that they would not be prepared to fund the maintenance of.

The Cabinet also were apprised of the outcome of debate on the matter at the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Environmental Well-Being) and the contents of written representation by Councillor Bates. In that respect, Members concurred with the Panel and Councillor Bates that the Council’s response should be strengthened so that the District Council reserves its position on matters of detail, such as the mitigation of the impact of the development on affected villages thus protecting areas of the District affected by the development.

In drawing their conclusions, the Cabinet recognised the benefits of the proposals, inter alia, in terms of separating local and thorough traffic, improving traffic movements between and around Huntingdon, Godmanchester, St Ives and Hinchingbrooke, addressing air quality issues, and presenting regeneration and development opportunities in the locality. In acknowledging that there could also be opportunities to improve the existing A1 and A428, Executive Councillors reiterated that the District Council’s financial contribution to the scheme remained dependant on the removal of the Huntingdon Viaduct, the creation of an improved new local road network for the town and the construction works commencing by 2016.

Having noted that Highways Agency would continue to work with Officers of the District Council to ensure the best possible solution for Huntingdonshire, the Cabinet

RESOLVED

that the Head of Development, after consultation  ...  view the full minutes text for item 15

To receive a report from the Head of Development outlining the Council’s response to the Highways Agency Development Consent Order Pre-Application Statutory Consultation (TO FOLLOW).

The Panel received and noted a report by the Head of Development (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) which outlined the Council’s response to the statutory pre-application consultation being undertaken by the Highways Agency on the Development Consent Order for the A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme. The Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing reported that the Highways Agency planned to commence construction works in 2016, which would take up to three years to complete. The Panel’s attention was drawn to the mitigation measures outlined in Annex C to the report which had been incorporated to protect villages affected by the development. The Transportation Team Leader went on to report on two changes which had been made to the development proposals; namely the alteration to the realignment of the A1/A14 corridor west of Brampton and the decision that tolling would no longer form part of the scheme.

Councillor M F Shellens addressed the Panel on the concerns of the residents of Brampton that the scheme would increase pollution and traffic congestion in the village and expressed support for the mitigation measures proposed by the Council. In response to a question by Councillor Shellens about the length of time it would take to remove the Huntingdon viaduct, the Transportation Team Leader informed the Panel that this work was likely to take around 18 months to complete and would commence after the construction works to the new A14 had been completed. The construction works were expected to take three years.

The Panel endorsed a suggestion by Councillor I C Bates the section of the Council’s response on mitigation measures should be strengthened as a further means of protecting affected villages. The view was held that this would explicitly state the Council’s ongoing role as a Tier 1 partner in protecting areas of the District affected by the development. This role would include applying expertise on local circumstances to the plans, such as traffic projections for example for Thrapston Road, Brampton.

RESOLVED

  that the Cabinet be recommended to endorse the recommendations contained within the report now submitted on the proviso that paragraph 4 (g) of Annex C is strengthened to include the words “The District Council reserves its position on matters of detail, such as the mitigation of the impact of the development on affected villages, on which it will negotiate with the Highways Agency”.