Representation by Luddesdown Parish Council (Luddesdown Parish Council)
- Date submitted
- 5 February 2023
- Submitted by
- Parish councils
Luddesdown Parish Council has participated in all the many consultations run on this project and have concerns that have not been addressed in the consultation materials. Below is a summary of the concerns we have raised with National Highways throughout the design consultations:- Lack of traffic modelling on our roads - The centre of the village of Luddesdown is approximately 1.7miles from the roundabout joining the A2 at Cobham junction and is served entirely by Class C minor roads (single track) which are unlimited (national speed limit) but which are used by a large amount of NMU's. These roads join the A2 via Half Pence Lane to Cobhambury and Batts Roads. At peak times and when there are hold-ups on the A2, traffic from the A2 migrates (rat runs) through the parish either from the A2 to A227, A228 to A227 or A2 to M20 via minor roads. When the A2 is stationary (which happens not infrequently) the village and approach roads become gridlocked. During consultation National Highways have consistently declined to accept responsibility to model the effects of increased traffic to our area. Our concerns were heightened by the restriction of the A2 from 4 lanes in each direction down to 2 lanes in the later stages of design (a design change not indicated in the 'ward impact summary' consultation document). The consultation documents (heat maps) on the topics of traffic and pollution have shown the effects on the area as blank - which is also the indication that there is no effect. We (the affected residents) need to know the effect and to have it taken into account when the application is considered. Difficulty in accessing underlying data during consultation - and in understanding what exactly is proposed (as was the case for the restriction of the A2 from 4 lanes in each direction to 2 lanes in each direction at the point where the project joins the A2). The 'consultation documents' offered by National Highways came in two flavours; glossy print documents which boldly proclaim the benefits of the project and outline descriptions of the work underlying the design, and immense and detailed documents which were poorly organised, very large to download and highly technical in nature requiring specialist expertise to understand, but which mostly failed to provide answers to the questions we had. While the 'client facing' staff were most responsive to our questioning, the answers they provided in most cases either referred us to a later document that had not yet been issued or stated that information would only be provided at DCO. Absence of clear environmental impact information - In particular absence of baseline survey data or an updated PEIR. As locals, we use the area that is under consideration for this development in leisure activities and during our daily work. We are interested in how the project will change the area and how those effects are being mitigated. We would also, as global citizens, like to champion the cause of the nature and the biodiversity of the area, which we have unique experience of. Luddesdown is unique in that the parish (the longest in the borough) spans the AONB from Cobham in the north to Vigo in the south. No quantitive update on consultation or scheme objectives - While local representations are principally concerned with the traffic and pollution effects of the project, as tax payers and part of the population who are the supposed beneficiaries from the scheme; we feel a more scientific and detailed approach should be taken towards setting, assessing and monitoring the scheme objectives (in measurable and quantitative terms). With regard to consultation, there has been a complete absence of any quantitative feedback on any of the consultation responses post 2013. There was a summary of responses to the 2013 consultation but the absence of numbers in the subsequent 'you said we did' document was conspicuous.