Agenda item

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 with the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning and Housing and the Executive Leader, be authorised 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”