Your Councillors

E-Planning - Parish Copies of Applications

Maidstone Joint Transportation Board

17 April 2019

 

Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP)

 

Decision Making Authority

Kent County Council/Maidstone Borough Council

Lead Director

Simon Jones

Lead Head of Service

Tim Read

Lead Officer and Report Author

Russell Boorman/Lee Burchill

Wards and County Divisions affected

Maidstone Borough including Tonbridge & Malling

Which Member(s) requested this report?

Committee

 

 

This report makes the following recommendations:

 

That the report be noted.   

 

 

 

 

Timetable

Meeting

Date

Maidstone Joint Transportation Board

17 April 2019



Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (MITP)

 

1.        INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

 

1.1       This report provides an update in respect of the proposed junction     improvements contained within the Maidstone Integrated Transport        Package (MITP).

   

2.        Business Case Submission:

 

2.1                  A business case was submitted to the South East Local Enterprise      Partnership (SELEP) on the 1st February 2019 outlining the requirements        of the remaining Local Growth Fund (LGF) in relation to the MITP.

 

2.2                  As previously reported to this board, the initial list of congestion ‘Hotspots’ identified in 2015 has been amended due to significant challenges faced     through the design process and now reflects a more deliverable        programme of mitigation measures within the available budget and Local   Growth Fund timeframe. 

 

2.3                  Table 1 show the amended list of deliverable         schemes.

 

Project

Location

District

1

A20 Coldharbour Roundabout

Tonbridge & Malling

2

a)    A229 Loose Road junction with Cripple Street/Boughton Lane

 

 

Maidstone

b)    A229 Loose Road junction with Armstrong Road/Park Way

c)    A229 Loose Road junction with A274 Sutton Road (Wheatsheaf)

3

A20 Ashford Road junction with Willington Street

Maidstone

4

A20 London Road junction with Hall Road

Tonbridge & Malling

Table 1:  Revised congestion ‘Hotspots’  

 

2.4     The board must note that the B2246 Hermitage Lane and A26 Tonbridge     Road project was removed due to the lack of demonstratable benefits and    good value for money but continues to be developed via a Member led          working group utilising S106 funding.

 

2.5     With regards to the A274 Sutton Road Maidstone project, following the       announcement of the MBC court proceedings being   withdrawn, alternative    design options are being considered and a report will be presented to the    board           in relation to the proposed recommendation at the JTB in January         2018 “…that the Maidstone Joint Transportation Board         recommends this scheme be not accepted as currently proposed      and recommends that Kent County Council be asked to amend the          scheme to a smaller scale, retaining the grass verges and trees     whilst paying more attention to local pinch points.  It is inherent   that some of the green verges will have to be removed”.          It is       anticipated that any scheme delivery will be outside the MITP programme.

 

2.6     Given the nature and proximity of the schemes, including other externally funded schemes and constraints on the network, and the potential to exacerbate already congested locations during the construction stages, a phased delivery programme, shown in Fig 1, has been produced.

 

Project

Apr 19

May 19

Jun 19

Jul 19

Aug 19

Sep 19

Oct 19

Dec 19

Jan 20

Feb 20

Mar 20

Apr 20

May 20

Jun 20

Jul 20

Aug 20

Sep 20

Oct 20

Nov 20

Dec 20

Jan 21

Feb 21

Mar 21

1

Detailed Design

Procurement

Construction

 

2

Detailed Design

Consultation

Procurement

Construction

3

Planning Application

Detailed Design

Procurement

Construction

4

Detailed Design

Procurement

Construction

 

Figure 1:  Indicative MITP Delivery Programme

 

2.7     During the business case evaluation period, there is a two ‘Stage Gate’       review process.  This offers the authority the opportunity to submit          additional information based on a Red/Amber/Green (RAG) rated system         to strengthen the business case.  A very positive first Stage Gate review           was received from the independent evaluator, and additional requested           information returned accordingly.

 

2.8     A decision regarding the release of the remaining Local Growth Funding      provisionally allocated to this programme will be announced at the SELEP     Accountability Board on the 12th April 2019.  KCC remain positive that the     business cases for these schemes in Table 1 will be reviewed by SELEP’s       Independent Technical Evaluator as presenting high value for money with   medium to high certainty of achieving this.   

 

2.9     A funding breakdown including S106 developer contributions secured for    each scheme can be seen in Table 2.

 

Scheme

LGF

S106

Total

Coldharbour Roundabout

£2.7m (secured)

£0.816

£3.516m

A20 Ashford Road/Willington Street

£1.672m (required) (this includes the original £1.3m)

£0.128

£1.8m

A229 Loose Road Corridor

£2.528m (required)

£0.822

£3.35m

A20 Hall Road Aylesford

£2m (required)

£1.3m

£3.3m

TOTALS

£8.9m

£3.066m

£11.966m

     Table 2: Funding Breakdown  

 

3.           Associated Risks:

 

3.1      Risks remain with the delivery of this programme and are identified                       below:

 

3.2      Project 1: Land requirement was the biggest risk in the delivery of this                scheme.  Meetings have been held with the land owner, Secretary of State            representative and KCC to discuss a way forward.  An ‘Agreement in                           Principal’ has been reached and although this remains a risk until heads of                    terms are signed, this is now a low risk.

 

3.3              Project 2: Due to its’ constrained environment, the need to acquire third             party land to deliver this scheme is essential.  This also requires ‘Traffic               Regulation Orders’ to alter existing access to side roads.  In order to                         successfully deliver benefits on this corridor, support must be given and                gained by Members and the local community.  However, based on                             previous experience in relation to support for a scheme that requires land                  to be delivered and the need for land acquisition can be an emotive             subject, this could result in negative feedback.  The need to acquire third             party land through Compulsory Purchase (CPO) powers, would mean a                 protracted process and would significantly impact on the timeframe for                 delivery.  Therefore, this scheme remains a high risk.    

 

3.4      Project 3: In order to deliver this project, vegetation requires removing      and an existing ‘listed’ ragstone wall requires to be taken down and re-    sited.  A planning application needs to be submitted accordingly, this         could generate objections although it must be noted that any vegetation          removed can be replanted and the existing ragstone will be used and       replaced where necessary.  A commission has been issued to develop the   feasibility design through to detailed design and this will be completed in    July 2019.  Early engagement has identified support for this scheme and     therefore this is a medium/low risk.  

 

3.5      Project 4: The main risk with this scheme relates to the statutory     undertaker apparatus diversionary works. Liaison continues with the         relevant undertakers to understand the impact on their apparatus and the        estimate for undertaking diversionary works.  Land owners have indicated      their ‘Approval in Principal’ to ‘gift’ the required land.  This project will       remain a medium risk until utility alterations are fully understood.   

 

 

4.       Conclusion

 

4.1        Kent County Council presents this report to Members for information. They must recognise the risks associated with the delivery of this package of works and understand the timing constraint of spending the Local Growth Fund contributions by the end of March 2021. 

 

4.2        KCC will keep Members and the board updated at key milestones throughout the next stages.   

 

4.3                  KCC also recognises the emotive nature of the acquisition of third-party land and will engage with the Local Members and affected parties accordingly. The improvements are aimed to address the current congestion and future growth and benefit all highway users.