Councillor John Wright proposed and Councillor James Hunt seconded the following Motion, advising that they wished to amend the wording of the Motion to include consideration of Option 4 or Option 10, as set out below:

“This Council agrees that the proposed Junction M2/A249 improvements Option 12a will not provide a long term solution to the issues faced here by many drivers and businesses as it still impedes traffic flow along the A249 with traffic lights and the impractical crossover at the roundabout is not a sustainable scheme for the future of Swale.  It urges Highways England and the Government to fund Option 4 or Option 10 which provides a long term sustainable solution to cope with the growth anticipated in the future not only in Swale, but with the extra traffic from the Lower Thames Crossing and other districts”.

In proposing the Motion, Councillor John Wright gave concerns about option 12a in terms of the lack of traffic modelling; that there was no through route for traffic travelling from the Isle of Sheppey to Maidstone without impedance; referred to the volume of accidents and queues; and the need to future proof the junction and to consider the environmental impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  He considered that Option 10 was his preferred option, but Option 4 should also be considered, and that the option suggested was a short term measure that would not work.

In seconding the Motion, Councillor James Hunt agreed that Option 10 was his preferred option but Option 4 should also be considered, although he had some concerns regarding the impact on Oad Street and the traffic on the A249.  He urged Members to support the Motion, referring to the need for bigger infrastructure; that the amount proposed to be spent on the improvements was not enough; and Swale had been given the cheapest option.  He referred to the lost business hours from businesses, commuters and in particular freight sitting in traffic; the growth taking place in the Borough; and the need to provide an option that was sustainable for the future.  Safety also needed to be considered as the road was in the top 50 national casualty locations, and he urged the Council to support the Motion.

The Mayor invited other Members to take part in the debate, drawing attention to the thirty minute time allocation for this item, as set out in the procedure rule.

Councillor Nicholas Hampshire welcomed the Motion but advised of additional concerns in terms of ‘rat-running’ in rural areas and additional traffic in Borden, and the impact on bus service provision, and proposed the following amendment to add additional words:

“…. and fails to address rat-running in surrounding rural areas and indeed may increase it, and threatens the future of bus service provision along Chestnut Street and Danaway with key urban centres”.    The amendment was seconded by Councillor Mike Baldock.  The proposer and seconder of the original Motion agreed to accept the amendment.

The Leader endorsed the Motion and said the proposed scheme was not fit for purpose.  He encouraged all Members to support the Motion to show that there was unanimous opposition and that Highways England needed to think again. 

The Leader of the Labour Group spoke in support of the spirit of the Motion and agreed that the proposed scheme was not fit for purpose; it would not solve current problems or be sustainable for future growth, referring to additional housing development and the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing.  He was not questioning the expertise of professionals but considered that Highways England were working with an insufficient budget, and suggested that there should be a cross-party meeting involving the Minister and local MP so that something was done about it.

The Leader of the UKIP Group spoke in support of the Motion and expressed concerns in terms of ‘rat-running’; lack of consideration of the impact of the Lower Thames Crossing; and the impact on local roads, in particular Oad Street, Chestnut Street and Danaway.

Other Members gave their views on Option 12a, speaking in support of the Motion and the need for Highways England to reconsider.  Comments centred on the following themes:  the volume of accidents; the impact on the junction from growth at Sheerness Docks, Eurolink, the Science Park and investment in housing; the need to future proof it to ensure good economic viability; it was a main through route to the Channel Tunnel; the traffic congestion already at the junction and the impact of the proposed traffic lights; and the need to future-proof the junction and to ensure it took account of the Local Plan; the need to send a clear message that Swale would not accept this and for Kent Districts to unite in support for properly funded schemes; the need for infrastructure improvements to have a reasonable cost; and the suggestion that widening the number of lanes on the M2 could be done at that stretch when the works were undertaken.

During the debate the Mayor agreed to extend the time limit to allow for four more speakers and the Proposer to sum up.

In summing up, Councillor John Wright thanked Members for their support and referred to the difficulty in condensing all comments into one motion.  He was hopeful that the transport modelling would highlight the issues.  He encouraged all Members to respond to the consultation and to lobby and write to the MP and Secretary of State for Transport, and asked them to encourage their residents to do the same.

The Motion was then put to the vote and agreed unanimously.

Resolved:

(1) That this Council agrees that the proposed Junction M2/A249 improvements Option 12a will not provide a long term solution to the issues faced here by many drivers and businesses as it still impedes traffic flow along the A249 with traffic lights and the impractical crossover at the roundabout is not a sustainable scheme for the future of Swale and fails to address rat-running in surrounding rural areas and indeed may increase it, and threatens the future of bus service provision along Chestnut Street and Danaway with key urban centres.  It urges Highways England and the Government to fund Option 4 or Option 10 which provides a long term sustainable solution to cope with the growth anticipated in the future not only in Swale, but with the extra traffic from the Lower Thames Crossing and other districts.