Correspondence following the Notification of Breach of Duty of Care

January/May 2018

22nd/23rd January 2017 Notification letter posted and emailed to Highways England, KCC and CCC.

31st January 2018 CA//18/00235 Construction of a new eastbound (coastbound) A2 off slip, as-sociated reconfiguration of both Ten Perch Road and the Ten Perch Road/A28 junction, modified footpath/cycle routes, ground re-profiling, lighting, surface water attenuation features and land-scaping. PPL’s Application registered.

14th February 2018 CA//18/00346 PPL: Variation of conditions 03 & 31 of planning permission CA/15/01479/OUT (outline permission for mixed use development of up to; 750 residential units, 4,000 m2 of business use, 1,000 m2 of retail/service uses, 5,000 m2 of residential institutions, in-cluding hospice and nursing home, 2,000 m2 of community and leisure uses; primary school; ex-tended westbound slip road on the A2, accesses to Cockering Road; internal roads, footpaths and cycle routes; plus new planting and landscaping. All matters reserved) to allow: relocation of; the employment area, the nursing home, a proportion of the housing, reduced local centre footprint; increase the height of the hospice; updated cricket pavilion pitch area; and updated internal access routes.

7th March 2018 CA/18/00490 Frontier Estates, Proposed part two-storey and part three-storey 64 bed care home with accommodation in the roof together with associated landscaping, parking and access. Application registered.

10th May 2018 CA//18/00235 Application Granted. There were other important decisions taken at this meeting, including the development at Kingsmead, apropos of which the following statement was reported in the KM Gazette - which clearly shows CCC’s attitude to its own Planning Ap-plications procedures and the people who take time and trouble to produce substantial contribu-tions to them.

“Speaking after the vote, Canterbury City Council council spokesman Rob Davies said:

‘Tonight's decision is the culmination of many years of hard work and we are delighted this exciting project for Canterbury has overcome this important hurdle.

‘It is the city's last big regeneration site and this scheme will transform a tired, run-down corner of Canterbury into a vibrant leisure and residential hub.

‘It's generally the case that at planning committee, the majority of public speakers are against what's pro-posed, but we know from previous consultations, public feedback and social media that there is a lot of sup-port from local residents and we look forward to the project taking shape in the months ahead.’ ”

It appears that Facebook and other social media carry the day, though such postings have not been made available on CCC’s Planning web pages.

�1

Highways England and the Notification Signatories

23rd January 2018 Kevin Bown of HE emails Gillian Bull, Wincheap Society:

“Dear Ms Bull, I acknowledge receipt of the attached email notification regarding  the input into and require-ments thereto (or not) of Highways England, Kent County Council Highways and Canterbury City Council in connection with the following planning permissions/ current applications:

CA/14/02891, Pentland Homes LtdCA/15/01479, Pentland Properties LtdCA/17/00519, Quinn Estates LtdCA/17/02718, Pentland Properties Ltd

Your notification will be registered as Stage 1 Complaint.

We will respond to it within the 21 calendar day period allowed for under our Operating Licence; ie you should hear from us no later than 13 February 2018.

The investigation will be led by the Spatial Planning Team Leader, Paul Harwood. Any future correspondence on this matter should be forwarded to Paul Harwood, copied to Planning SE planningse@highwayseng-land.co.uk .

Given that Kent and Canterbury are copied in to your original email, I have also copied this response to them.”

23rd January 2018 Gillian Bull emails Kevin Bown and Paul Harwood of HE:

“Thank you for this acknowledgement. Please address any future correspondence on this issue to Roger Cheeseworth, as indicated on the Notification letter.”

15th February 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Kevin Bown of HE:

“Dear Mr BownThank you for your email of 23rd January where you state that we could expect a reply within the 21 day period which you stated is no later than 13 February 2018. As of this morning we have not had a reply of this stage 1 Complaint. Could we also now complain about HE lack of commitment to honouring their promise.”

20th February 2018 Kevin Bown of HE emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Dear Mr CheeseworthI hope that you received my out of office, so you will be aware I have been on leave, only returning today.I also note that you didn’t quite get our generic email address correct ( planningse@highwaysengland.co.uk ), so I don’t think others in the team will have seen your email.I have been seconded to a new team so am no longer dealing with planning matters in Kent.However, I will investigate what happened to your original complaint which I had passed to others, as per our protocol, to deal with. If we have been tardy and not responded in time, I can only apologise.I will respond further as soon as I am able.”

22nd February 2018 Kevin Bown of HE emails Roger Cheeseworth: “I have investigated and found that unfortunately due to the hiatus between me being seconded and my replacement being put in post, we lost time on a number of tasks including responding to your complaint.However, it is now being investigated and you will either receive a response within the next 5 working days or an email to explain the delay and a revised response date.Once again I can only apologise for this delay and for us not contacting you to let you know.” 

�2

2nd March 2018 Paul Harwood, Regional Lead Spatial Planning, HE writes to Roger Cheese-worth:

“Dear Mr Cheeseworth,Thank you for your letter of 22 January to Kevin Bown regarding planning applications No’s CA/14/02891 (Pentland Homes Ltd), CA/15/01479 (Pentland Properties Ltd) CA/17/00519 (Quinn Estates Ltd) and CA/17/02718 (Pentland Properties Ltd). May I first apologise for the protracted delay in our responding to you.

You consider Highways England has failed in its duty of care of two counts as follows: 1. two unsafe road constructions proposed for the A28 junctions with the A2, and 2. existing illegal pollution levels resulting from traffic on the A28 Wincheap, which will be increased by the proposed road constructions.

Management of AQMAs (Air Quality Management Areas) is the responsibility of the local authority, in this case Canterbury City Council, although we work with the council to achieve their goals where there is a di-rect impact as a result of the operation of the strategic road network or where the council have designated an AQMA site on our network. It is for Canterbury City Council to consider the impact of development pro-posals on air quality.

With regard to the A2 slip road modifications and additions, we are content that the design for the modifica-tions to the London bound off slip to the A28 Thanington Road is appropriate. Whilst I understand your concerns, the scheme has been subject to independent road safety scrutiny under the direction of High-ways England. The applicant and his consultants have not had any influence over the contents of the report that has resulted from the Road Safety Audit process. I therefore do not accept your council’s or signatorys’ position that we have failed in our duty of care in regard to the safe design of this slip road.

We are in the process of discussing the design of the new coast bound off slip to Ten Perch Lane with the developer. Further work is needed to confirm the safety of the design. The developer has submitted a plan-ning application for these works and we have advised Canterbury City Council not to approve the applica-tion until the developer has demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the proposal. We also wish to dis-cuss with Canterbury the timing of their proposals for a gyratory traffic system at Wincheap relative to those of the proposed slip road.

I trust that the above is of assistance and that my response addresses the matters you raised as concerns. If you require any further assistance please contact me again.”

14th March 2018 John Osborne, Wincheap Society, on behalf of the Notification signatories, writes and emails to Paul Harwood HE (cc’d by email to KCC and CCC).

“Dear Mr Harwood, Thank you for your letter to Roger Cheeseworth of 2nd March, addressing the points we raised in the Notification. We have no further comments to make to Highways England at this time re-garding the issues of air quality and the continuing discussions regarding the 4th slip road.

However, regarding the London bound slip road, we do have grave concerns that neither Highways Eng-land, Kent County Council nor Canterbury City Council has been prepared to address over the past two years. Crucially, we seek a straight answer to one central question:

How are vehicles longer than a domestic car to negotiate the left turn from the eastern A28 into the contra-flow?

This is a sharp angle: 45 - 50 degrees. This left turn cannot be smoothed, as the similar angle turn from the A2 into Ten Perch Road has been, by bringing it forward into the car park. There’s a sheer drop onto the A2. Anything long turning left into the contra-flow will need to swing into the exit lanes. The “bell mouth” junction can only be widened by pushing out the pedestrian areas: on the west side right up against the unfortunate people who are living in the first house; on the east side by biting space off the already not very adequate pedestrian pavement.

�3

This question seems to fall into the category of “Emperor’s New Clothes”. It appears to us, who are “expert” in living in the area and using this stretch of the A28 daily, to be a simple matter of what is or is not physically feasible. You don’t need to be an expert to see that the proposed design is deeply problematic.

But no one is prepared to answer it. None of the reports or audits produced by Pentland Properties Ltd”s agents address it. Furthermore, some such plans show vehicle access to the contra-flow by a 90 degree right turn for traffic coming from the west on the A28, whereas others show no such turning, but require traffic to negotiate the proposed “keyhole” layout of the 4th slip road, then turn 90-degrees right from Ten Perch Road onto the A28, and then left into the contra-flow. The alternative to this convoluted trip would be for drivers to turn into St Nicholas Road (as they surely will, and indeed are required to do in the early stages of Thanington Park construction): the very manoeuvre that the contra-flow was planned to avoid.

Nor is it addressed anywhere in Highways England’s two letters set out in Comments on Application CA/15/01479 or its Formal Recommendation letter to LPA 11/12/15: “Annex A: Condition(s) to be attached to planning permission.” (Relevant extracts of all three documents are set out under the heading “Access to Thanington Park” on wincheapcampaigns.wordpress.com in the document “1. A2 westbound slip road ac-cess, Revised junction at A2 westbound slip road and A28” Wincheap Society Report August 2017.) Nor is it in the “independent road safety scrutiny under the direction of Highways England” to which you refer.

The Thanington Park Development includes “employment land” which is likely to mean warehousing and distribution.  Thus it will be expected that HGVS will exit from London on the new 4th slip and then turn left to access the Development via the contra-flow slip.  We continue to question the safety, practicality and indeed feasibility of this manoeuvre.

It is not too late for Highways England to address this issue. Unless this is done, our distrust of Highways England’s competence to protect public safety can only deepen. If this strikes you as somewhat harsh, please take a few minutes to read the two documents additional to the Notification now posted on the rele-vant page of wincheapcampaigns.wordpress.com (i.e. “Evidence of Contempt” and “PR Spoof”). These should make clear to you why we have become both frustrated and cynical over this issue.”

29th March 2018 Paul Haywood HE emails to Gillian Bull his reply to John Osborne:

“Dear Ms Bull, Thank you for the correspondence from your Chairman John Osbourne regarding the turning movements of large vehicles from the A28 onto the reconfigured A2 slip road.

It is a routine part of our road design process to check that layouts can accommodate turning vehicles. Moreover, depending on the road layout, it is not necessarily the longest vehicle that will have problems. Therefore we carry out checks for a number of vehicles.

We carry out these checks using vehicular 'swept path analysis' where we plot the extremities of the vehicle concerned for the whole of the turning movement.

I attach the current relevant drawings for both the 4th slip (coast bound, left turn from A28 to Ten Perch Road) and the London bound off slip (A28 left in to the new link road down to the development access). Those number 39183 relate to the 4th slip, those numbered 37827 are for the site access/London bound slip. The drawings provided cover the swept paths for refuse, bus and articulated vehicles.

I hope that these are sufficient to demonstrate that your concerns have been addressed in the design of the scheme.”

10th April 2018 John Osborne posts and emails Paul Harwood HE:

“Dear Mr Harwood, I am astonished and disappointed by your email reply to my letter dated 14th March, on behalf of all the Notification signatories.

Your response dated 29th March is Kafkaesque, in that it is perfectly circular:

1. Pentland Properties Ltd’s agent, PBA’s inadequate swept path analysis drawings led us to question the feasibility of their contra-flow plan.

�4

2. In the expectation that Highways England’s engineers will have assessed the accuracy of the PBA drawings, we wrote to Highways England (and KCC HIghways, and Canterbury Council) outlining our specif-ic concerns - how are long vehicles to turn on a 45-degree angle; only shorter vehicle lengths shown on the PBA drawings (i.e. 1998 rigid lorry lengths, not the 1000+ very long vehicles now being “trialled”); no co-ordination with plans for the proposed 4th slip road; no clarity as to whether traffic from the west also is to turn into the contra-flow, etc.

3. In your reply you insist that everything is absolutely fine because there’s a swept path analysis that says so - and you attach the same PBA drawings that gave rise to our specific concerns.

Your attachment in addition of the drawings for the 4th slip road indicates to us that you have not concen-trated your attention on the salient question in our letter, which concerns the contra-flow plan. Additionally, we are very puzzled by your statement:

“… it is not necessarily the longest vehicle that will have problems. Therefore we carry out checks for a num-ber of vehicles.”

Yes, we agree that there will be problems with vehicles that are shorter than the longest, but that does not in either case mitigate those problems. Your statement is otiose. It does not address our salient question.

And, who are the “we” you refer to? If this means Highways England, acting as independent technical as-sessors and not just rubber-stamping PBA’s reports, will you please provide us with your assessment data and conclusions? If such documented information exists, we hope it may alleviate our fears that no one is monitoring the physical feasibility of what is being proposed by a developer for changes to the A2/A28 junc-tions.”

�5

Kent County Council and the Notification Signatories

 6th February 2018 Julie Cooper of KCC emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Please find attached, Mike Whiting’s response to your recent enquiry.”

6th February 2018 Mike Whiting of KCC writes to Roger Cheeseworth of TWPC:

“Dear Mr Cheeseworth, The County Council acknowledges receipt of your notification served upon us on 22 January 2018. As you will no doubt be aware, planning applications are decided by Canterbury City Council with Kent County Council being a consultee. For each application we assess it within the planning guidance and poli-cy and make representations to the planning committee when we believe changes need to be made. The Pentland and Quinn applications for the allocated sites at Thanington have been independently scruti-nised by the County Council with responses and evaluation made publicly available through the planning portal.

An application for the fourth slip is expected to be submitted with the next few weeks and once again the County Council will independently evaluate it and make an appropriate policy compliant response. I am aware that my predecessor, Mr Balfour, has already responded on behalf of the County Council on numerous occasions to reports and representations made by the signatories of this notification. I trust that you find this response useful however please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any fur-ther assistance.”

15th February 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Mike Whiting of KCC:

“Dear Mr WhitingThank you for your letter of 6th February 2018 which was emailed to me. We would like to take up your offer of further assistance which you offer in that letter. We have a problem with the A2 / A28 junction changes in that we keep getting pieces of the proposed changes. We would like a complete picture of the plan rather than trying to look at the changes bit by bit. We are sure that Kent Highways must be looking at the complete picture and not trying to cover up bits by hiding details in the part detail that is being given at present. For clarity this would be drawings that include new A2 off slip, changes to London bound slip road and con-traflow entrance to proposed Thanington Park, Proposed traffic lights at bottom of St Nicholas Road, Park & Ride Changes and how they are going to deal with mixing Trunk road traffic mixing with Retail park traffic, Pedestrians and Cyclist.”

16th February 2018 Denise Horner of KCC emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Dear Mr CheeseworthThank you for your below email dated 15 February to Mike Whiting. We are looking into the issues you have raised, and Mr Whiting’s response will be sent to you in due course.” 20th March 2018 John Osborne, on behalf of the Notification signatories, writes to Mike Whiting KCC:

“Dear Mr Whiting,

I enclose a copy of a letter dated 14th March to Mr Paul Harwood of Highways England, comprising part of an exchange of correspondence subsequent to the Notification of Breach of Duty of Care dated 22nd Janu-ary sent to Highways England, Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council.

You will see that in the letter to Mr Harwood we have requested an answer to one central question, i.e. “How are vehicles longer than a domestic car to negotiate the left turn from the eastern A28 into the contra-flow?”

�6

If CCC can provide us will an answer to this question, or even information that may point in the direction of an answer, we would be glad to receive it.

Please regard the terms of the letter as applying to KCC mutatis mutandis.”

28th March 2018 Danielle Dracup KCC emails John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Osborne, Thank you for your letter to Mike Whiting dated 20 03 2018. We are looking into the is-sues you have raised, and Mr Whiting’s response will be sent to you in due course. Yours sincerely.”

11th April 2018 Mike Whiting KCC writes to John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Osborne, Thank you for your recent correspondence. Following your letter of 14 March to High-ways England, and Mr Harwood’s subsequent response of 19 March, the County Council has the following additional comments.

The County Council is able to confirm that those Swept Path Drawings that Highways England has provided to you have been fully assessed and approved by County officers.

The County Council is satisfied that all movements of the various vehicle types can be safely accommod-ated and hope these drawings will alleviate those concerns you have on the specific turnings movements from the A28.

Thank you for contacting me about this issue. I trust that you find this response useful, however please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. Yours sincerely.” 

3rd May 2018 Gillian Bull emails Mike Whiting KCC on behalf of John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Whiting, thank you for your letter dated 11 April, in which you state:

[Reproduction of letter dated 11th April.]

I’m afraid that your response does not provide us with any reassurance. I attach a copy (in various formats for your convenience) of a second letter I send to Highways England concerning their utterly inadequate re-sponse to our concerns.”

[Copy attached of John Osborne’s letter dated 10th April to Paul Harwood HE.]

�7

Canterbury City Council, the Notification Signatories and Councillor Nick Eden-Green

1st February 2018 CCC makes no response to the Notification letter dated 22nd January, but does contribute an aggressive/defensive comment to the KM Gazette, Canterbury edition,

26th February 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Colin Carmichael of CCC cc’d to KM Gazette with the document “Evidence of Contempt” attached:

“Dear Colin, Your officer (Robert Davies) sent a letter to the Gazette  stating that there was no reason for the local community to have any objections to the way the community has been treated by CCC.Attached is a copy of the way in which the community feels that it has been treated with contempt.PS Gerry please feel free to use any or all of attached documentSent on Behalf of Alliance of Canterbury Residents Associations, Hilltop Community Association, Thaning-ton Without Parish Council, Wincheap Society, Wincheap Ward Councillor Charlotte MacCaul”

28th February 2018 Colin Carmichael of CCC emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Dear Roger, It’s helpful that you’ve now set out in some detail why you feel that we’ve treated you with ‘contempt.’The 'letter' you refer to is, I assume, the statement (copied in the opening page of your attachment) that we issued in response to your claims.All we had from you when we gave the comment to the press (in response to yours) was that this is how you felt - you’d provided us with no evidence of why you might feel this way.To be frank, if you really want a dialogue with the Council about your local issues, this isn’t the best way to go about it. We are always ready to discuss issues as opposed to getting into public spats.”

28th February 2018 Nick Eden-Green emails Colin Carmichael of CCC:

“Dear Colin, As a member of the planning Committee I have been careful to keep out of this.

However, I was involved in various public meetings at the early stage of the process and am on record for what I said to the Planning inspector at the hearings, at the planning Committee in January 2016 and the Policy Committee in October 2017.

I have had numerous letters that have not been replied to.  I have had meetings with officers of KCC and CCC where there has been no sensible response to questions raised or they have laid responsibility on each other.  No comprehensive plans, despite numerous requests, have been produced showing the detail of how traffic and the resultant pollution issues are to be addressed.  There remains no clear assurance that funding will be in place to address the need for a Wincheap relief road and an adequate P&R before the 4th slip is put in place.

I have attended numerous parish council meetings and residents’ meetings but I have been unable to give them any clarity.  Every meeting with officers, when they have turned up, and with developers, has ended with frustration and in some cases anger, caused by lack of information or responses to questions.

Thus I am unsurprised that the notification and the evidence of contempt have been produced.  If you, or one of your colleagues, take a dispassionate look at the evidence and the Wincheap Society website, I think you will understand why.

For many years the land at Thanington has been serially refused planning consent for all sorts of develop-ment.  This continued through the deliberations of the Local Plan Steering Group.  Thus it can come as no surprise that the sudden overturning of years of policy, in response to the planning inspector’s unpicking of the evidence in the local Plan, needs to be supported with robust detail of why what was previously unac-ceptable is now acceptable and how the previously insurmountable issues can now be overcome.

I believe it is that detailed evidence which residents have, quite rightly, been seeking for over 2 years and its absence has caused them to adopt their current position.

I hope this helps.”

�8

28th February 2018 Colin Carmichael of CCC emails Nick Eden-Green”

“Dear Nick,As you know, we will need to agree to differ on some of these issues. I would also say that life isn't as straightforward as we would like it to be in terms of road building, given the fact that there is virtually no na-tional funding available for it - as well as the fact that the decisions on those issues fall to KCC, rather than us. However, significant effort is being put into all this to try to make a confusing and nationally - driven plan-ning system as logical as it can be made to be - and to deliver the infrastructure improvements which, in our Plan, are the quid pro quo for local communities when housing allocations are made in their area.I have no problem at all with people being dissatisfied with decisions that we - or KCC - take. I can under-stand that. My issue with Roger was that public battering (of each other) in the press isn't going to achieve anything. However, I’m sure that we can at least make some progress on renewing communication.” 

28th February 2018 Nick Eden-Green emails Colin Carmichael of CCC:

“Dear Colin, I have no problem with people agreeing to differ nor with different groups being dissatisfied with decisions.  ‘‘Twas ever thus.However, not answering letters or turning up to meetings or answering specific questions or providing in-formation is something else.  How else do people apply pressure other than via the press?”

7th March 2018 Maria Short of CCC emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Dear Mr Cheeseworth, Thank you for your email on behalf of the Thanington Without Parish Council.

Having discussed the document with the Kent Highways & Transportation Team and reviewed the other con-ditions on the outline permission, access to the site will be needed using the most direct route from the A28, which is via St Nicholas Road, in order to facilitate the works for the slip road without causing disruption to traffic or possible closures on the existing A2 exit. The A2 slip road is required to be operational on or before the occupation of 75 dwellings. I refer to condition 08 of the outline permission below:

"No development on any phase hereby permitted shall be commenced until detailed designs for the following highway works and a timetable for points (iv) and (v) below, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority:(i) A scheme of works to form the site access from the A2 as shown indicatively on drawing 21227/5503/004C.(ii) A scheme of works to form the site access from the Strangers Lane junction as shown indicatively on drawing 21227/5503/002B.(iii) A scheme of traffic signal works at the St Nicholas Road/A28 junctions as shown indicatively on drawing 21227/5503/003A; and as outlined in Table 8.1 of the Addendum to the Transport Assessment by Peter Brett.(iv) A scheme of lane designation signage works on the A28 as outlined in Table 8.1 of the Addendum to the Transport Assessment by Peter Brett.(v) A scheme of environmental improvements to the A2 underpass as shown indicatively on drawing 2585-52H. Thereafter no more than 75 dwellings within the development hereby approved may be occupied until the highway works listed at (i) to (iii) above have been completed and are available for/open to public use to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and highway works listed at points (iv) and (v) shall be carried out in accordance with the approved timetable. REASON: Pursuant to Articles 35 (1) and (2) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure)(England) Order 2015, the local planning authority is satisfied that the requirements of this condi-tion (including the timing of compliance) are fundamental to ensure the proposed site roads are laid out and constructed in a satisfactory manner in accordance with policies C1 and C4 of the adopted Local Plan 2006, policies SP3, T1 & T15 of the CDLP 2014 and provisions of the NPPF." The Kent Highways & Transportation Team and our Environmental Health Team have deemed the Construc-tion Environmental traffic management plan to be acceptable to discharge the condition and the application will be recommended for approval shortly.

�9

My colleague, Austin Mackie, has confirmed that he will be providing you with a detailed response regarding the various applications concerning this site by the end of the week. However, we would welcome a meeting with you to discuss the currently submitted applications and how we expect the development to be provided in further detail.I hope this is of use to you, however should you have any further comments, please do not hesitate to con-tact me.” 7th March 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Maria Short of CCC:

“Dear Maria, Thank you for this. I would like to arrange a meeting if you could give me some dates & times please. I had a good meeting with Martin Hart and Ian Hardman today.” 

8th March 2018 Maria Short CCC emails Roger Cheeseworth:

“Thank you for your email.  Myself and Austin are available at any time between 9am and 5pm on Tuesday, Thursday or Friday next week if this is convenient for you? Kind Regards”

8th March 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Maria Short CCC:

“Hi Maria,  Thanks for your swift reply, how about 11am on Tuesday 13.”

8th March 2018 Maria Short CCC emails Roger Cheesewoth:

“Good Morning Roger, Thank you for your email. Tuesday at 11am will be fine, we look forward to meeting you then. Kind Regards”

12th March 2018 Austin Mackie and Maria Short CCC email Roger Cheeseworth:

“From Austin Mackie. Dear Mr Cheeseworth, My apologies, the meeting deferral request is on my behalf as deadlines have been moved forward for completing Committee reports for the next Committee, which takes places immediately after the easter break.   This does not affect any of the Thanington schemes that we were planning to discuss, none of which are presently scheduled for a planning committee. As I hope was clear, I suggested the meeting be arranged in order to explain the relationship between the various applications that are currently before the City Council for the two Thanington sites and the associ-ated highways infrastructure.  Ahead of it taking place I will prepare the promised note explaining the various applications and their respective status. We were not aware that you were proposing to bring along other attendees.  If you would like to provide a list of others that you wished to invite I can ensure that all are updated and also ensure that we have an appro-priate room available. However, please note that the intention was principally to brief you on the various schemes, rather than host what might become a wider public meeting. Again my apologies to you and any others for the cancellation of the meeting.  Do let me know what other dates might be suitable for you either later this week or into next week” 

“Good Morning Roger, Further to our email correspondence below, we will need to re-arrange our meeting tomorrow to later this week due to the deadline for next month's committee reports being moved forward to tomorrow. Please can you confirm if Thursday or Friday this week is suitable for you. Apologies for any inconvenience caused. Kind Regards, Maria Short”

�10

14th March 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Colin Carmichael CCC, including this extract:

“Dear Colin, …On Monday 12 Austin Mackie cancelled our meeting with less than 24 hours’ notice. He asked me to give him another time I said I was free anytime and for him to give me a time. To date no reply.”  

15th March 2018 Roger Cheeseworth emails Colin Carmichael CCC, including this extract:

“Dear Colin. Further to our email yesterday. It is a shame that you could not meet us sooner than 3 April as I am sure we could have sorted these problems but the City Council’s head in the sand approach does not work with the public who already think the planning dept is not fit for purpose.”

20th March 2018 John Osborne, on behalf of the Notification signatories, writes to Richard Moore and Austin Mackie CCC:

“Dear Mr Moore and Mr Mackie,

I enclose a copy of a letter dated 14th March to Mr Paul Harwood of Highways England, comprising part of an exchange of correspondence subsequent to the Notification of Breach of Duty of Care dated 22nd Janu-ary sent to Highways England, Kent County Council and Canterbury City Council.

You will see that in the letter to Mr Harwood we have requested an answer to one central question, i.e. “How are vehicles longer than a domestic car to negotiate the left turn from the eastern A28 into the contra-flow?”

If CCC can provide us will an answer to this question, or even information that may point in the direction of an answer, we would be glad to receive it.

Please regard the terms of the letter as applying to CCC mutatis mutandis.”

29th March 2018 Richard Moore CCC emails John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Osborne, I refer to your letter addressed to myself and Austin Mackie dated 20th March regarding highway design issues at the A28 Wincheap.

I note this morning that Paul Harwood from Highways England has responded on this issue and copied you in on his reply, so I trust this has addressed the queries raised in your letter. Yours sincerely.”

10th April 2018 John Osborne writes and emails Richard Moore CCC:

“Dear Mr Moore, With reference to your email date 29th March, in which you state:

“I note this morning that Paul Harwood from Highways England has responded on this issue and copied you in on his reply, so I trust this has addressed the queries raised in your letter.”

If you had read Mr Harwood’s response, rather than just noting it had been sent, it would have been cleat to you that he did not address our concerns in any way. I enclose a copy of my letter of today’s date to Mr Harwood, protesting the inadequacy of his response.

The terms of my letter to you and Austin Mackie dated 20th March still apply, and I would appreciate a re-sponsible and appropriate answer to it.”

16th April 2018 Richard Moore CCC emails John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Osborne, In your letter to me dated 10th April (emailed on 12th April) you state that you enclose a copy of your further letter to Paul Harwood. Unfortunately that wasn't included within the email attachments, would you be kind enough to send this through so that Austin and myself can provide comments as reques-ted. Yours sincerely,”

The Harwood letter was re-sent to Richard Moore immediately.

�11

18th April 2018 Richard Moore CCC emails John Osborne:

“Dear Mr Osborne, Many thanks for the copy of the letter from the Wincheap Society to Paul Harwood at Highways England, dated 10th April. I can confirm that Austin Mackie will respond to you shortly regarding these matters. Yours sincerely,”

23rd April 2018 Austin Mackie emails John Osborne:

“Mr Osborne, Before I speak to the respective applicants, can I check that where you refer to ' tracking for the longer lorries being trialled', you are referring the trial which the DfT started in 2012, in which up to 1,800 vehicles would be trialled for a 10 year period with longer than standard trailers (LST), ie, the standard trailer length of 13.6m could be increased to either 14.6m or 15.65m. Many thanks.”

3rd May 2018 Gillian Bull on behalf of John Osborne emails Austin Mackie CCC, cc’d to Colin Finch KCC:

Dear Mr Mackie, we were surprised at the details re LSTs you set out in your email of 23rd April as they are inaccurate. Our comments on PPL’s “Hybrid” Application CA//17/02718, an extract of which are reproduced below, were sent to you earlier this year. Its contains the correct details of LSTs - both measurements and the increase in numbers in the trial to 2800. Perhaps you did not read this when we submitted it?

“1.2 Very long vehicles and road trains using the proposed new layout: not consideredThe 8 illustrations show green and arrowed routes at the 90 degree turn into the Thanington Park site and the 45 degree left tun at “bell mouth junction” for 4 types of vehicles, with maximum legal overall lengths, as follows:1. Single deck bus: 11.98 metres2. Articulated vehicle: 16.5 metres, kerb to kern turning radius 6.8 metres.3. Refuse vehicle: 11.347 metres.4. FTA Design HG Rigid Vehicle (1998) : 10 metres, kerb to kerb turning radius 11 metres.The maximum lengths chosen in these illustrations for articulated and rigid vehicles are puzzling, The cur-rent legal maximums in the UK are:One truck: 12 metres;Truck + trailer: 16.5 metres;Road trains: 18.75 metres.Longer semi-trailers (LSTs) now being trialled: 18.55 metres (60 ft).Road trains and LSTs are now with us, on roads in the Wincheap / Thanington area. Why are they not illustrated in PPL’s Application CA//17/02718?UK Road train UK LST: note the long “tail” extension behind the rear wheels: this is over 2 metres (7 ft) longerthan on most current UK lorries.A road train recently seen parking on alongside GO Outdoors Canterbury in Maynard Road, just off Cow Lane, filled the space between the entrance to and the exit from Go Outdoors car park, i.e. nine end-to-end car parking space. A photograph of a Google Maps display of this area and the car park indicates clearly what a length of 18.75 metres comprises.

�12

�13

Trials of LSTs commenced in 2011, initially planned for 10 years with a maximum of 1,800 LSTs. This max-imum number was achieved by 2015 and in January 2017 the UK government agreed to increase the num-ber of LSTs by an additional 1,000 and to extend the trial by 5 years. It was envisaged that this increase would take the number of LSTs from 1,800 to approximately 2,800 over the 12 months to January 2018. The trials were to be confined to motorways, plus some urban road use for lading and unloading.The effects of LSTs’ “tail swing” or “kick out” are being assessed on an annual basis by Risk Solutions for the Department of Transport. Their annual Report for 2016 (published September 2017), contains the fol-lowing:“Our analysis found no simple relationship between LST kick-out and the overall rate of injury and damage incidents on either trunking or ‘delivery’ routes.“However, we have recommended that DfT consider studying the rationale behind the adoption of the (many) different trailer designs, including the geometry, axle choice and hence tail-swing measurements. This might provide some insights to inform design guidance in any future expansion of the trial or general roll-out of LSTs.”and“The results from the data collected on the trial can only reflect the position within the trial fleet and under trial conditions. Now that we have a substantial trial dataset we recommend that during 2017-19, DfT should plan to conduct initial ‘scaling up’ analysis – applying the data gathered so far on the trial to a theor-etical scenario where LSTs were widely available at some point in the future. The would also require work to translate the journey saving results into measures of emissions reduction.“We have also recommended that DfT start conducting evidence based conversations between DfT, the haulage industry and other interested parties such as Local Authorities and civil society groups, re-garding what guidance or regulation might be required to maintain the positive results seen on the trial un-der post-trial conditions.”Transport Network reported on 30th January 2017 that the Campaign for Better Transport has warned that these vehicles pose a significant road safety risk and should be restricted in towns and cities. They also quoted Philippa Edmunds, Freight on Rail manager (who we recognise may have the rail freight industry’s fish to fry):“The Government is continuing to ignore the danger posed by these longer lorries on urban roads. Our con-cern is that these longer trucks will become the new standard trucks operating on all roads, regardless of

�14

the dangers to other road users. We want to see the Government limit their use to designated local au-thority routes within urban areas to reduce the risks to other road users, protect pavements and property from damage, and reduce the current financial burden of repairs that currently falls on local authorities and taxpayers.”Can such vehicles negotiate the 45 degree angle left turn into the contra-flow from the A28, of the 90 de-gree right turn into the development site, or the roundabout at the north end of Ten Perch Road? Can they do so without disrupting other vehicles?At the east side “bell mouth” junction of the contra-flow with the A28 there will be no bollards, only unshiel-ded pedestrians waiting to cross and standing on a corner pathway much reduced from what it is now. And will not buses and lorries of the lengths actually considered in CA//17/02718 intrude upon the north bound lanes? What will happen when an LST or road train attempts this turn, or the 90 degree turning into the site, or into the west bound A28? What will happen when one of these monsters turns into or out of St Nicholas Road and Cockering Road?(Regarding 90 degree left turns, the situation at the junction of Simmonds Road with Wincheap is informat-ive. Single deck buses (11.98 metres) and lorries turning east from Simmonds Road into Wincheap now have to wait for a space in traffic to become available in the westbound lane in order to swing out while making this manoeuvre. The metal bollards set up on the pedestrian pavement to protect people waiting outside the Maiden Head pub to cross the junction mouth are constantly knocked over by such vehicles.)”

�15