Gloves are off as road link debate heats up

A NEW road link from the A2 to the M2 must be paid for by central government, says Swale Council leader Cllr Andrew Bowles.

He rejected proposals from some sources that the road — which would cost millions of pounds — could be funded by additional housing.

The council's draft transport strategy identified an A2/M2 link as a key project for development over the next five years.

Cllr Bowles believes the link is needed to cope with predicted extra traffic generated by the Northern Relief Road that will run from East Hall Farm, Murston and Bapchild, which Cllr Bowles points out will not be a local strategic route if it's a cul-de-sac.

He added: "If we are going to link every-thing from Sheerness to Sittingbourne to the A2 at Bapchild we need to consider an A2/M2 link."

However, the proposed new link faces strong opposition. The Highways Agency has already registered its "fundamental objection" to theadditional junction on the motorway which the road would require.

People living along the route of the proposed road are also fiercely opposed to the project.

Andy Hudson, a member of the Five Parishes Opposition Group set up to fight the expansion of Kent Science Park outside its current boundary, questioned why a new M2 link was required.

He said: "I do not think the council has got anything to back up its reason to build this road other than it thinks it would be a good idea. Until the Northern Relief Road is finished, how do we know how much impact it will have?"

Mr Hudson said he was concerned the route would come hand-in-hand with a large-scale expansion of the science park, which he understood was to fund a new feasibility study.

Cllr Bowles denied the claim. "To the best of my knowledge, that's incorrect," he said. Anyone interested in commenting on the strategy has until February 23 to send their views to Swale Council.

YOUR VIEWS

YOU asked (Gazette and Times,January 25) for comments on the suggestion in the Swale Council transport strategy consultation document that a new link between the A2 near Bapchild and the M2 will be needed at some point in the future.

I doubt if anyone had even considered this as a possibility until the owners of the so-called Kent Science Park decided it would increase the value of its property if it could have a link from the trading estate to the M2.

But it discovered that the department of transport was not interested in providing an expensive link and so came up with the idea of extending the link northwards to the A2, to be paid for by housing and industrial developments in the rural area which would make some people an awful lot of money.

The council now seems to have latched on to the idea and enthuses about it in its consultation document, claiming it would make an "uplifting entry into the town
But the council contradicts itself in the next breath: "Building more infrastruture in support of the growth of car travel is no longer sustainable. It is key that the best use is made of what we already have." And so say all of us!

Sittingbourne already has an adequate dual carriageway link to the M2 and is unlikely to generate enough heavy lorry traffic to make another necessary. We accept that there are short hold-ups at the Stockbury Valley interchange at peak periods, but we suggest it would be much cheaper and far less damaging to the environment to improve this interchange, rather than build a new road through pristine countryside.

Christine Rayner's meeting with the new chief executive suggested that he has a more realistic view of the worth of the "science" park. Let us hope he can drive some sense into the rest of his team and throw this scheme out for good.

MALCOLM MOORE,
CHAIRMAN, SITTINGBOURNE SOCIETY.

This article is used with the kind permission of The Gazette & Times