Details have emerged of the transport and infrastructure plans being put forward by the University of Kent for site C12. They include:
- A proposed new route for Tyler Hill Road for the section where it passes through land owned by the University of Kent, taking it south of the current route to join up with the proposed Spine Road running north-south.
- In the University’s submissions to the public consultation held last year, it was also made clear that the University proposed to downgrade Tyler Hill Road – the only existing connection to the public highway within the site boundary – as it recognises that it is not suitable for a significant increase in traffic.
- The proposals involves “downgrading the existing Tyler Hill Road where it passes through the University owned land alongside the provision of a new highway diverted/routed through the site. This is essentially a traffic calming measure, maintaining the east-west connectivity of Tyler Hill Road, whilst decreasing its attractiveness to car borne traffic and conversely increasing its potential as a cycle route to the east of Canterbury.”
- The locations of two “primary education parcels” AKA sites for a new school and a replacement school if Blean Primary School is demolished to make way for the secondary access road.
- Location of the proposed “community hub”.
- New pedestrian and cycle routes through the landscape.
We understand that Kent County Council is currently undertaking transport modelling, which will then inform further research into the potential changes in city traffic, air pollution, biodiversity loss and other impacts. These will be given to Canterbury Council to aid in assessing the site.
unable to make sense of the proposal lacks clarity
I completely agree. The Map and Key are incomprehensible.
I’ll start if I may….”Crab and Winkle active travel route” shown with the large orange arrow running north south to the east of the C12 site (i.e. not actually on the C12 site). One minor issue I note is that UoK don’t own all this land and have not approached landowners, some of whom live in houses hidden under the arrow…
In the draft Local Plan a similar issue exists, the arrow in that case is a green one presenting an ‘opportunity for a green corridor’. At the time when pressed on this we were told it was conceptual as though it justified it somehow.
Who would like to go next?
Can’t make head or tail of this! How can UofK ‘downgrade’ a public highway?
Agreed Robert. We have not been consulted on the part of the Old Railway line (Crab and Winkle) which we own and have been maintaining as a wildlife corridor as part of our LEAF Marque and Red Tractor schemes which we need to supply UK Retailers with fruit. We also have not been consulted on the permissive cycle route which apparently is being upgraded !! The current agreement allows us to shut the route as a cycleway (but not footpath) giving 7 days notice. Frankly the whole point of a ‘green corridor’ is that there are no people nor dogs all over it.
Another gobbledegook plan from UKC. As with previous plans, poorly designed and presented. Key doesn’t match with diagram – unintelligible.