Created < 02-07-01, Changed; 01/03/2020, 08/10/2017

Old this webpage; http://ww1.andrew-lohmann.me.uk/environment/a21-at-castle-hill/other-a21/upda0797/

The A21 Pembury Bypass to Tonbridge By-pass dualling, scheme is called The Weald and Downland DBFO project, is presently under accelerated review. Myself and another councillor have asked if we could represent the objection to this scheme. We believe that other schemes objectors are represented and may wish to push traffic on to our scheme. The letter we sent follows:

The Baroness Hayman,                                                                            xx xxxxxx xx,

The Minister for Roads,                                                                          Southborough,

Departments of Environment and Transport,                                        Tunbridge Wells,

Great Minster House,                                                                               Kent, TN4 xxx.

76 Marsham Street,                                                          TEL. 01892 xxxxxxxx (home)

London, SW1P 4DR.                                                               Or 01892 xxxxxxx (work)

                                                                                                                    5 July, 1997

The Weald and Downland DBFO Project (A21 Trunk Road)

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your letter. We have written to various ministers both before and after the general election concerning the Department of Transports’ (DTp) road scheme called ‘A21 Tonbridge Bypass to Pembury Bypass Dualling’, part of the Weald and Downland Project. We, as two of a number of objectors locally who expected, or specifically asked to be informed by the DTp of any developments, have not been officially informed of the review except by your letter. Could objectors be informed of the review process so that they can be present and express their point of view. Since objectors were not aware of the speed of your review we doubt they will have had their comments presented to you in time. If objectors’ details from the public inquiry remain on file it would be courteous to inform those people of the new review. It seems that some parties who have objected to other schemes have been invited to the review, but not ourselves. We wonder why? Could it be that someone is trying to shift road traffic from a road scheme in their patch to ours? We put this question to illustrate our worries, but your answer would be of interest. Has anyone been invited to the meeting with you that we believe is to be held on 8 July to represent the case against the section of trunk road that concerns us?

Yours sincerely

Andrew Lohmann Labour Southborough Town Councillor

Val Catt Labour Tunbridge Wells Borough Councillor, Tel. 01892 528739

Some objections were put at the inquiry in 1993: (we attended a few days) The COBA costing system was strongly objected to as it would justify any grandiose scheme. Rail companies not in existence at the time of inquiry, running the London to Hastings sections of rail, may with good reason now be objectors given that this whole section of trunk road runs parallel with the main line rail. At the public inquiry their case seemed to be ignored by the DTp under whose jurisdiction they came. As far as we know Kent Trust for Nature Conservation are anticipating hearing from you on these matters. This is particularly important as we said in a previous letter ‘This concern about the assessment is supported by the inspector for the inquiry in April – June 1993 who says under the heading “Wildlife and Nature Conservation”- “…it is clear that detailed, sophisticated research is needed, preferably in partnership with the nature conservation interests…”’. Tunbridge Wells Friends of the Earth objected in writing to the pubic inquiry.