Agenda item

The KCC Strategic Transport Planner, Peter Rosevear, reported on the progress towards a transport strategy to support the Local Plan, following on from the Transport Workshop that was held in December.

The Board was advised that:

·  The presentation made by Amey at the Workshop has indicated that the road network would come under increasing pressure from substantial additional demand for journeys as development proceeded into the future. By the end of the Local Plan period the results were showing an increased demand for travel of 17-18% in both peak hours.

·  With the implentation of a full package of capacity improvement schemes, the projected increase in total journey time across the network was calculated as a 25% increase in the morning peak (8-9 a.m.) and a 34% increase in the evening (5-6 p.m.)

·  The reduction in resilience created by the increases would entail a greater impact on congestion should any incident such as breakdowns and roadworks occur.

·  It was suggested that two new model runs be undertaken. The first would be based upon the current Local Plan development expectations supported by the package of capacity improvements. This would include sustainable transport improvements but not the Leeds Langley Bypass. The second would be a KCC specified run which would assess suggested alternative development scenarios and transport improvements.

·  The results of the first of these would be available in February. There was an opportunity for another informal workshop to be held for Members to discuss the outcome.

Discussion included the following points, among others:

The modelling to date had been undertaken on urban areas and was strategic. Rural areas would be included within smaller level modelling on specific junctions. The MBC Head of Planning and Development confirmed that VISIN modelling had been undertaken on three junctions in Coxheath and two in Staplehurst, with both sets of findings being available from February 2015. The same modelling could be undertaken for Headcorn due to an increase in applications for this area. The primary reason for undertaking VISIN modelling was to provide a firm foundation when dealing with applications, and to clarify the impact of housing numbers on congestion, as and when planning decisions are required to be made. It was clarified that VISIN modelling was conducted at a strategic level.

The Amey modelling work concentrated on producing headline results which will be available as soon as completed. Three models had been undertaken: base model, do-minimum, and do-something which included the proposed package of measures. There would then be a choice between asking Amey to produce all documentation or modelling other options. As MBC had chosen a detailed dispersed route which incorporated relatively small sites it would require detailed modelling. It was suggested that MBC Officers and Members may wish to produce a list of questions that they would like the modelling to address. Members expressed an interest in viewing the validation report for the base model.

Reports to Planning Committee invited responses to applications from statutory organisations, one of which being KCC Highways. It was requested that further detail from these organisations would benefit the consideration of applications in areas where highways difficulties were foreseen, and that this might be assisted by Officers being provided with the modelling that was being undertaken. It was also noted that it was essential to get further detail on the do-minimum position, to allow developers to undertake their own modelling and utilise the detail already produced.

The Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 agreements provided funding for highway improvements, however Members raised the concern that more properties had to be built in order for these funds to be raised, which had to potential to further add to future congestion. The Local Growth Fund had been accessed which would make the package of measures proposed affordable should the maximum grant be given.

The Planning Inspectorate would require evidence to make decisions, and modelling would provide information regarding potential constraints on housing numbers. It was posited that the main constraint was securing funding of the schemes, and that greater detail on costs and availability of funding was essential.

It was queried whether highway developments would have a knock-on effect on areas where there was no development. Mr Rosevear advised that the dispersed growth route avoids the exacerbation of town centre congestion which may impact on other areas. This would need to be expressed and addressed through modelling.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the report be noted.

2.  That the following documents be circulated to Members of the Board:

a.  Presentations delivered by Amey and KCC Officers to the December workshop

b.  The validation report for the base model

3.  That further details on the cost of schemes and the availability of funding be provided when available.