Notes from Hilton A14 public meeting held in the Chapel, 12^th December 2006

Please find below the notes of the Public Meeting held on 12th December on the A14 proposals  - the Hilton A14 Action group and the Parish Council will be continuing to consider the different options and to seek further information from the Highways Agency.   The Action Group and Parish Council will be providing further information and suggestions on issues to consider in your responses in January.  Remember that you need to make your comments to the Highways Agency by 9th March 2007. 

PDF version can be downloaded by clicking here.

Notes from Hilton A14 public meeting held in the Chapel, 12^th December 2006

The meeting was attended by approximately 50 parishioners and was called by the Hilton A14 Action Group and the Parish Council (PC).

1. The meeting was chaired by Peter Balicki, with an introduction on the objectives of the meeting: primarily to discuss the detail of the A14 routes as revealed in the recent Highways Agency (HA) exhibition.

• To date, three exhibitions had been held and a further five were planned. The consultation period ends on the 9^th March 2007

• The exhibition content including the various routes, orange, brown and blue (with options) was summarised.

• Action Group and PC activities in the past, including representations to HA, local MP and the petition were reported.

The Brown Route is closest to the original Chumms route the Action Group and PC have been campaigning for.

2. The meeting was then opened to the floor for public debate and the following issues were raised.

The brown route crosses the Northern Buckden landfill site. The WSP consultant at the exhibition had been very informative and parishioners felt encouraged that crossing the landfill site was practicable. In particular:

·         There is an existing water treatment plant dealing with seepage from the older southern landfill

• The Northern site is the most recently and currently used site with better waste control measures and it is felt that the level of harmful waste in this site will be manageable

• The route also crosses the landfill in the general vicinity of old railway line, minimising extraction.

• Using the site for road construction was in line with Government policy on reusing brownfield sites and seemed a more appropriate use than housing.

• The future management and acceptance of liability of the landfill has also been raised.  It would not seem unreasonable for the current operators to be sub-contracted to continue to maintain the site on behalf of the HA. Residents felt a Government Agency taking long term responsibility for the site would be desirable.

  Should Hilton now support the blue route (option 2) which is furthest away from Hilton? Although this route is the cheapest, Hilton, and perhaps Conington, would be the only communities to benefit and that such an action could be seen as a “wasted vote” (please see the note below for an update on this).

  • It was felt that this route would be unlikely to be chosen as it sends a six lane road through the middle of Fenstanton

  • Hilton had always campaigned for a route nearer to the CHUMMS route (currently the Brown route)

  • Such an action would divide communities. If we all pushed for the route furthest away from us we were all opposing each other.  The Brown route created least noise pollution for communities throughout the route.  We can seek support from other communities, including Fenstanton, for the Brown route and also work together for effective noise reduction and visual screening.

  • The blue route also has a major junction at Galley Hill (A14 / B1040) and it was felt that this would result in increased traffic volumes through the village

  • It was also noted that although this route was estimated to be the cheapest, it was also the longest.

    Parishioners were urged to push for a full public enquiry. This would allow the wider transportation and environmental picture to be examined to confirm the suitability of the proposals.  In addition, if satisfactory mitigation measures (screening, etc) had not been obtained this would be an opportunity for communities to group together and press for them. Such an enquiry should review all matters relating to this route including:

    • The effects of the guided bus

    • The business plans for the eastern docks

    • The effects of “road pricing” that could be in operation by the proposed completion date of the road

    • Value for money

    Our local MP has also agreed to push for a public enquiry and should be included in such communications.

    Whichever route was chosen, effective amelioration will be required to minimise light, noise and visual intrusion and this should comprise more than just “token” trees. Residents were unhappy that more information is not available at this stage on what could be done, they were uneasy that amelioration was treated as an afterthought whilst affected communities felt it was critical and likely to influence their opinions on routes.   There was also concern that the budget for this work might get reduced if the price of building the actual road increased.  On the current plans the whole section of the road as it passes Fenstanton and Hilton and beyond will be raised, putting the road surface some 2-3m above ground level. This will greatly increase the intrusion on Hilton and increase the degree of amelioration required to compensate. The amount of amelioration provided will be determined in the “detail” following route selection and is something that parishioners will need to continue to campaign for in the future.

    It should also be remembered that the three roads near Hilton, that will cross the A14, will bridge the new route. The road surface of such a bridge will be raised to at least 7-8 metres (roughly the height of two storey house) with a significant length of incline to achieve this height. This will further impact on the village.

    There was confusion on the detail of the Fen Drayton junction with conflicting information from the exhibition. It was not known whether this junction was bi or uni directional. Clarification will be sought from HA to determine if traffic joining the new road from the Fenstanton area can join the west bound carriageway to travel to the A1 for instance.

    To maximise the effectiveness of parishioners’ responses, it was suggested that correspondence could be copied to local elected representatives and the Secretary of State for Transport (addresses are given at the end of these notes). The Action Group would also like to be kept informed.

    The layout of the consultation response form was also questioned. Some felt unhappy that a full address was requested rather than just a post code and that failure to complete the form may then invalidate the return.

    (Subsequent communication with HA has clarified the requirements and your attention is drawn the last paragraph)

    To help people respond to HA, a standard letter was requested to be circulated. However it was felt that this was not best practice and could result in a lot of duplicate responses being excluded. Comments and key points will be put on the village website and notice boards to help Parishioners formulate their responses including appropriate addresses.

    Parishioners were urged to respond to minimise the effects of the road. It is the belief of the Action Group and the PC that this is not a “done deal” and that we can influence the decision makers. The success of Boxworth in winning the recent Windfarm Appeal was some proof of this.

    Post meeting note:

    HA have clarified that they will accept comments provided that they have a name and postcode - so for those who are concerned, you could supply just this and still have your comments considered. 

    They also clarified the position on Data Protection - information on people's names and addresses is protected by the provisions of the Data Protection Act and would not be released, however under the Freedom of Information Act they could be required to disclose information on the nature (and potentially details ) of comments received. 

    Position of Conington

    Since the meeting we have received a letter from Conington setting out their support for the Blue Route Option 2 and expressing the view that other communities such as Boxworth and Fen Drayton would also benefit from this option.  It is obviously very difficult to consider all the implications of each route for all the communities affected.  The Action Group and PC will be considering the information provided further and will provide an update this and other matters in January in good time for you to submit your comments.

    Elected representatives

    MP
    Jonathan Djanogly MP, HCCA, 8 Stukeley Road, Huntingdon, PE29 6XG or electronically via his website www.jonathandjanogly.com .

    District and County Councillor
    Ian Bates, 4 Church End, Hilton, Cambs PE28 9NJ,
    email Ian.Bates@huntsdc.gov.uk

    District Councillor
    Chris Stephens, March House, Madeley Court, Hemingford Grey, Huntingdon, PE28 9DF, email Chris.Stephens@huntsdc.gov.uk

    Secretary of State for Transport
    Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP, Secretary of State for Transport, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 76 Marsham Street, London SW1P 4DR
    Email Douglas.Alexander@dft.gsi.gov.uk