Transport Assessment

2019 DECEMBER

Proposed Residential Development, Land West of

Church Road, Otham, Maidstone

Iceni Projects Limited on behalf of

Bellway Homes (Kent) Ltd

ON BEHALF OF BELLWAY ICENI ICENI PROJECTS LIMITED HOMES(KENT) LTD

December 2019

Iceni Projects sessment London: Da Vinci House, 44 Saffron Hill, London, EC1N 8FH Edinburgh: 11 Alva Street, Edinburgh, EH2 4PH Glasgow: 177 West George Street, Glasgow, G2 2LB Manchester: This is the Space, 68 Quay Street, Manchester, M3 3EJ

Transport As Transport PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, LAND t: 020 3640 8508 | w: iceniprojects.com | e: [email protected] WESTOF CHURCH ROAD, OTHAM, MAIDSTONE linkedin: linkedin.com/company/iceni -projects | twitter: @iceniprojects

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 2

INTRODUCTION ...... 3

EXISTING SURROUNDING TRANSPORT CONDITIONS ...... 6

HIGHWAY SAFETY RECORD...... 18

NATIONAL & LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING POLICY ...... 23

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ...... 34

TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION ON HIGHWAY NETWORK ...... 40

JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS ...... 49

MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 64

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 71

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A1: SITE LOCATION PLAN

APPENDIX A2: KCC CORRESPONDENCE

APPENDIX A3: CYCLE MAP

APPENDIX A4: TRAIN NETWORK MAP

APPENDIX A5: BUS TIMETABLES

APPENDIX A6: 2018 & 2019 ATC SURVEYS

APPENDIX A7: 2015 ATC SURVEYS

APPENDIX A8: 2018 MCC SURVEYS

APPENDIX A9: 2015 MCC SURVEYS

APPENDIX A10: WALKING ISOCRONE & AMENITIES MAP

APPENDIX A11: PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT DATA

APPENDIX A12: PROPOSED SITE MASTERPLAN

APPENDIX A13: MAP OF FOOTPATH CONNECTIONS INTO SITE

APPENDIX A14: PROPOSED SITE ACCESS POINTS

APPENDIX A15: SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS OF BUS

APPENDIX A16: SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS OF SERVICING VEHICLE

APPENDIX A17: SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS OF EMERGENCY VEHICLE

APPENDIX A18: TRICS REPORTS AND CAR OWNERSHIP DATA

APPENDIX A19: 2018 OBSERVED CASE FLOW DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX A20: COMMITTED DEVELOPMENTS FLOW DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX A21: 2029 BASE CASE FLOW DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX A22: DEVELOPMENT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION FLOWS

APPENDIX A23: 2029 DEVELOPMENT CASE FLOW DIAGRAMS

APPENDIX A24: JUNCTION ASSESSMENTS

APPENDIX A25: MODELLING PARAMETERS DRAWINGS

APPENDIX A26: GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS TO DERINGWOOD DRIVE / CHURCH ROAD JUNCTION

APPENDIX A27: GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS TO WILLINGTON STREET / DERINGWOOD DRIVE JUNCTION

APPENDIX A28: ROUTES BETWEEN SITE & A20 ASHFORD ROAD

APPENDIX A29: GEOMETRIC IMPROVEMENTS TO CHURCH ROAD

APPENDIX A30: SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS OF DERINGWOOD DRIVE / CHURCH ROAD JUNCTION

APPENDIX A31: SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS OF WILLINGTON STREET / DERINGWOOD DRIVE JUNCTION

APPENDIX A32: STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – CHURCH ROAD & DERINGWOOD DRIVE / CHURCH ROAD JUNCTION

APPENDIX A33: STAGE 1 ROAD SAFETY AUDIT – WILLINGTON STREET / DERINGWOOD DRIVE JUNCTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed development site is allocated as part of the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan – Preparation (Regulation 18) – 2014, adopted 25th October 2017, identified as Site H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham, for the development of 440 dwellings.

In addition to the allocated sites, the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan includes various highway improvements that have been consulted upon and, more importantly, assessed and confirmed to be sound by an independent Inspector to accommodate growth in Maidstone.

Further, a holistic package of highway improvements was put forward previously by Officers at Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) as part of an Apportionment Table, which included this site at Church Road, Otham, as well as allocated sites at Land North of Bicknor Wood and Land North of Sutton Road. This was consulted upon, independently assessed, and Maidstone Borough Council Councillors resolved to approve the highway solutions in respect of previous applications.

A previous outline planning application (ref: 19/501600) was submitted in March 2019 for up to 440 dwellings in accordance with the Local Plan Site Allocation and included associated highways mitigation measures which have been discussed at length with KCC Highways and MBC.

This application for 421 dwellings at Land West of Church Road, Otham is made in accordance with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan and the cumulative assessment previously undertaken. Consequently, the measures proposed are and have already been accepted and approved. This application is made in accordance with the assumptions assessed at that time and therefore the same conclusions must apply.

In summary, given the above, it is considered that the development of site H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham has previously been assessed in terms of highways impact across the wider network and therefore this report focuses on the impact immediately surrounding the site and appropriate localised mitigation measures to support the proposal.

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Iceni Projects have been commissioned by Bellway Homes (Kent) Ltd to prepare this Transport Assessment (“TA”), reviewing their proposed residential development of a land parcel on Church Road in Otham, Maidstone (the “site”).

1.2 The site known as Land West of Church Road, Otham (site reference H1(8) is allocated for housing development of 440 dwellings within the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan – Preparation (Regulation 18) – 2014, adopted 25th October 2017. The proposed development is for 421 dwellings, as well as ancillary highways and landscaping works.

1.3 A Site Location Plan, outlining the location of the proposed development is included as Appendix A1, at the end of this report. The site lies within the administrative boundaries of Maidstone Borough Council (“MBC”) and Kent County Council (“KCC”).

Scope of the Report

1.4 This assessment relates directly to the proposed development site and highlights the accessibility of local services. The proposed road infrastructure will help to manage traffic in the local area whilst the connectivity of the site will be further improved by the proposed improvements and contributions towards accessibility of the site, which in turn will further reduce ‘the need to travel by car’.

1.5 The methodology used in the preparation of this Transport Assessment (TA) principally follows ‘travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision taking’ (March 2014), which forms part of the National Planning Practice Guidance. Consideration has also been given to the superseded Department for Transport (DfT) ‘Guidance on Transport Assessment’ document dated March 2007 and KCC Guidance on Transport Assessments and Travel Plans (2008). Further consideration has also been given to the DfT’s DMRB guidance documents, Manual for Streets and the Kent Design Guide where appropriate.

Planning History of the Site and the Surrounding Areas

1.6 The area is currently undergoing a number of development applications, mostly arising from the Maidstone Urban Area South-East Strategic Development Policy SP3 of the MBC Local Plan and MBC Housing Allocations. This application is being proposed on one of the allocated sites within the Borough.

1.7 Due to previous planning applications significant discussions have previously taken place with Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) and Kent County Council (KCC), whereby the application proposals and the content of the TA were reviewed, with clarification and subsequent work was undertaken in order to address officer comments. These officers have attended application meetings on the development proposals, alongside other statutory and technical consultees.

1.8 A significant factor of the additional work undertaken and discussions as part of the previous applications was as a consequence of other application schemes and the need to appropriately consider the cumulative impact of these schemes. This included various committed development schemes along with the following, all of which have since received planning consent;

• Land North of Bicknor Wood – Site H1(7) of the MBC Housing Allocations. Status: Application (ref: MA / 17 / 501449 / FULL) submitted by Bellway Homes for 250 dwellings, now approved

• Bicknor Farm, Sutton Road, Otham – Site H1(9) of the MBC Housing Allocations. Status: Application (ref: MA / 14 / 506264 / FULL) submitted by Jones Homes for 271 dwellings, now approved.

• South of Sutton Road, Langley – Site H1(10) of the MBC Housing Allocations. Status: Application (ref: MA / 15 / 509015 / FULL) submitted by Countryside Properties for 800 dwellings, now approved.

1.9 An outline planning application has already been submitted on this site in March 2019, under MBC planning application reference MA / 19 / 501600 / OUT, with very similar development proposals to the scheme under consideration within this application. This TA is being prepared for a full development permission application.

1.10 To mitigate the impact of these applications, individual measures along with a combined package of measures and financial contributions were agreed which included highway improvements at various junctions along with bus service improvements and prioritisation measures from the Willington Street junction to the Wheatsheaf junction.

1.11 In addition to the above, following comments made as part of the above discussed outline application, junction signalisation and other improvements to the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction are also being proposed to provide additional capacity at this junction. These proposals were put forward as part of the outline application discussions.

1.12 The above measures have already been discussed at length with KCC Highways and MBC, discussions are still on going and further information will be submitted as part of both applications. The difference between the two applications is that the original submission was presented as an Outline application (apart from site access arrangements), whereas this latter application is a Full application.

1.13 The development proposal comprises of the erection of 421 residential dwellings, as well as ancillary landscaping and highway works. The development will be expanded onto a new internal street hierarchy, via two proposed priority junctions on Church Road along with existing and new pedestrian and cycle links.

Scope of this Report

1.14 The scope of a Transport Assessment is to summarise all transport related matters for consideration of the planning application. The methodologies and information included within this document have been discussed and agreed in principle with KCC.

1.15 The site has been the subject of formal Scoping discussion with KCC. As part of these discussions the methodology of this report has been agreed in advance as well as the extent of the trip generation impact study area has been agreed in advance. A copy of this Scoping Note and subsequent correspondence with KCC relating to transport is included as Appendix A2.

Structure of this Report

1.16 Following this section, the report is arranged as follows:

• Section 2 outlines the existing conditions including local transport networks and local population data;

• Sections 3 reviews the personal injury accident records on the local highway network;

• Section 4 provides an overview of relevant policy with regard to transport and considers how the proposed development complies with policy;

• Section 5 details the proposed development including access, servicing arrangements and parking provision;

• Section 6 includes a trip generation assessment between the existing use of the site and the development proposals;

• Section 7 analyses the impact of the proposed trips generated by the development onto the local highway network;

• Section 8 reviews the potential mitigation measures that are being proposed in line with the scheme; and,

• Section 9 completes the report within a summary and conclusions.

EXISTING SURROUNDING TRANSPORT CONDITIONS

2.1 The following section reviews the existing site and its surroundings from a transportation related perspective. This includes a review of the existing site context, sustainable travel infrastructure, the existing local highway networks and the surveyed traffic levels, highway safety record, local amenities and the local population characteristics.

Site Context

2.2 The site is located on the eastern edge of the town of Maidstone, located in the south-eastern parts of England.

2.3 The site is mainly surrounded by residential development to its north, south and west, and by Church Road to its east, being bounded by third-party dwellings fronting Longham Copse and Horton Downs to the north, The Beams and Chapman Avenue to the west and Woolley Road to the south.

2.4 Undeveloped land is existing across the road on Church Road. The grounds of St Nicholas Church are existing immediately to the north-east of the site, also fronting Church Road, with further residential areas existing further to the north-east.

2.5 Mote Park, a 440-acre multi-use public park is available within approximately 500m of the site, to its north-west. Previously this area was part of a country estate and was converted to landscaped parkland at the end of the 18th century before becoming a municipal park.

Existing Local Sustainable Travel Infrastructure

2.6 Various types of sustainable travel infrastructure are available nearby, including walking and cycling infrastructure as well as a variety of public transport networks. These are outlined within this section below.

Walking Infrastructure

2.7 The site fronts Church Road to its east with additional access points linking the site to The Beams via a Public Right of Way (PRoW) to its west and to Woolley Road to its south. As the site is currently an undeveloped parcel of land on the limits of the town, pedestrian facilities are limited, but are to be included as part of the proposed development.

2.8 Footways and footpaths are available close to the site, including on Church Road to the north of St Nicholas Church, on The Beams and on Woolley Road. These include 2m wide footways which include dropped kerbs and other facilities, as well as street lighting within proximity of the site.

2.9 The footway and street lighting stops along the frontage of the site on Church Road, and this will require extending as part of this scheme.

2.10 A pedestrian footway also links Church Road, next to St Nicholas Church to the River Len, which runs to the north of the site.

Cycling Networks

2.11 A number of cycling infrastructure elements are available around the area, including cycle routes and cycle parking infrastructure.

2.12 The National Cycle Network runs immediately to the north of the site, via Route 177, which links to Mote Park and Maidstone town centre via a traffic free route. Route 17 connects to this as an on- street cycle lane to the east of the site.

2.13 A map of the local cycle routes, as published by Maidstone Council is included as Appendix A3.

Public Rights of Way

2.14 Public Right of Way 86 also runs at the northern edge of the site, connecting the site to The Beams in the west and to Otham Street and caring Road to the east. This is shown in Plate 2.1 below:

Plate 2.1: Map of Public Rights of Way

Source: https://webapps.kent.gov.uk/countrysideaccesscams/standardmap.aspx

2.15 Plate 2.1 shows the various Public Rights of Way running within close proximity of the site, connecting the area through a variety of alleyways between cul-de-sac streets and other the rural areas nearby.

Public Transport Infrastructure – Trains

2.16 The nearest train stations to the site are Maidstone West and Maidstone East, both located circa 4.2km to the west of the site. These stations link the area to London Victoria, London St Pancras, Stroud, Ashford International, Tonbridge and a large number of other stations in the region via the Southeastern rail franchise.

2.17 A summary of the train services available from these two stations is included in Table 2.1 below:

Summary of Local Train Services Origin-Destination Peak Hour Frequency London Victoria – Maidstone East – Ashford Hourly service outside peak hours only International (fast service) London Victoria – Maidstone East – Ashford Twice hourly service during peak hours International (all-stop service) Strood – Maidstone West – Tonbridge Twice hourly service during peak hours Source: https: / / www.southeasternrailway.co.uk

2.18 The above shows that three train services an hour link the town to nearby centres, which provides an adequate level of accessibility to other regions of the country. A map of the Southeastern network is included as Appendix A4.

Public Transport Infrastructure – Bus Network

2.19 Closer to the site, a number of bus services connect the area to other local centres, including Maidstone town centre, Downswood and Senacre Wood. Special services for commuters into London and school pupils to Linton Cornwallis Academy are also available nearby.

2.20 A summary of these services is included in Table 2.2 below:

Summary of Local Bus Services Weekdays Saturdays Sundays Ref Origin - Destination Frequency Frequency Frequency Maidstone Town Centre to 2 hourly services 2 hourly services 2 hourly services 4 Downswood via Deringwood Dr during peaks during peaks during peaks Maidstone Town Centre to 6 hourly services 5 hourly services 3 hourly services 85 Senacre Wood via Woolley Rd during peaks during peaks during peaks Madingford Egremont Rd to Linton 1 daily school 641 No service No service Cornwallis Acad via Willington St service Grove Green Tesco to Linton 1 daily school 643 No service No service Cornwallis Ac via Willington St service Maidstone to Central London via 2 shuttle services 774 No service No service Deringwood Drive daily Source: https://www.arrivabus.co.uk; https://www.thekingsferry.co.uk

2.21 Table 2.2 notes that five regular bus services run from outside the site to the town centre and other local centres. Apart from these, school and commuter services are also available during peak hours. These therefore provide adequate accessibility to local centres nearby.

2.22 These bus services are located on Woolley Road, Deringwood Drive and Willington Street nearby, approximately 100m, 290m and 470m away from the site.

2.23 The full bus timetables and a map showing the local bus stops are included as Appendix A5, at the end of this report.

The Local Highway Network

2.24 The site is located to the west of Church Road, from where it gains vehicular access. Church Road links to the A20 Ashford Road to its north via Deringwood Drive, Mallards Lane and Spot Lane. In turn the A20 links to the M20 Junction 8 at its eastern end, approximately 3.4km away, linking the area to the M25 motorway around London and the South-east coast.

2.25 Church Road also continues south beyond the site, linking the site to the A274 Sutton Road via Gore Court Road. A274 Sutton Road links to A229 Loose Road and Maidstone town centre 2.4km to the west.

2.26 Church Road is restricted to 30mph at its northern end (within the urban area), Deringwood Drive, Mallards Lane and Spot Lane are also restricted to 30mph. The urban section of the A20 is also restricted to 30mph, which reverts to an unrestricted road to the east of the town.

2.27 The section of Church Road in front of the site and further south, as it continues to Gore Court Road, this road becomes unrestricted, i.e. to the national speed limit. It is however unlikely that vehicles achieve this speed on this road due to the limited forward visibility available along this road.

2.28 A274 Sutton Road is restricted to 40mph. Traffic volume and speed survey data for these roads is included below.

2018 and 2019 Automated Traffic Counter Surveys

2.29 Automated Traffic Counter (ATC) survey data for a number of locations in the area have also been obtained, whereby the directional classified vehicle flows in hourly intervals for a period of one week (seven days) were recorded by independent third-party surveyors.

2.30 Initially an exercise of the network area was carried out in October 2018 within the extended study area, as agreed with KCC Highways officers at Scoping stage. More recently, in February 2019, a survey of Church Road was also included in this analysis to review current traffic levels on Church Road itself.

2.31 Based on all the obtained Automatic Traffic Count survey data, the overall network peak hours were identified as:

• AM Peak – 7am-8am (0700-0800); and

• PM Peak – 4pm-5pm (1600-1700)

2.32 An ATC survey was undertaken outside the proposed northern site access on Church Road between the 8th and 15th of February 2019.

2.33 An ATC was also located at the bend in Church Road near to The Rectory / Little Squerryes during this time (8th and 15th of February 2019) however was damaged and therefore unable to capture suitable data. This ATC was then reinstalled between the 26th February to the 11th March 2019.

2.34 Unfortunately, a long-term period of roadworks is in place at Gore Court Road (south of the junction with White Horse Lane) between 25th February and 26th April 2019.

2.35 The results of the 2019 ATCs are shown in Table 2.3 below:

2019 ATC Traffic Flow Data Survey Location Direction AM PM Average 85th %ile peak hr peak hr speed speed (mph) (mph)

Church Road, outside proposed Northbound 151 196 31.5 37.2 northern site access Southbound 171 98 33.1 39.1

Church Road, near to The Rectory / Northbound 96 45 30.3 35.4 Little Squerryes Southbound 51 70 27.3 32.0 Source: MHC Traffic; posted speed limit is the changeover from 30mph to national speed limit

2.36 Table 2.3 shows that traffic outside the site is currently 151 and 196 northbound as well as 171 and 98 southbound trips recorded during the morning and afternoon peak hours respectively. Despite the national speed limit at this section of Church Road, vehicle speeds were generally recorded below 40mph.

2.37 Table 2.3 also shows that traffic on Church Road, near to The Rectory / Little Squerryes is currently 96 and 45 northbound as well as 51 and 70 southbound trips recorded during the morning and afternoon peak hours. However, we suspect that the traffic volume may have been lower due to the roadworks on Gore Court Road. Again, recorded vehicle speeds were below 40mph despite the national speed limit at this section of Church Road.

2.38 The survey data for the wider area covered the seven-day period between 29th October and 4th November 2018. Table 2.4 summarises the average weekday traffic flows over the respective peak hour:

2018 ATC Traffic Flow Data Survey Location Direction AM PM Average 85th %ile peak hr peak hr speed speed (mph) (mph)

A274 Sutton Road, 136m West of Eastbound 676 951 28.1 32.3 Wallis Avenue Westbound 913 1,001 29.1 33.3

A274 Sutton Road, 23m East of Eastbound 864 808 29.1 34.2 Wallis Avenue Westbound 640 858 29.2 34.4

Gore Court Road, 135m South of Northbound 67 187 28.9 32.8 White Horse Lane Southbound 162 94 28.9 33.4

Willington Street, 68m North of Northbound 786 942 25.9 29.6 School Lane Southbound 858 801 27.1 30.7

A20 Ashford Road, 214m West of Eastbound 867 946 30.3 35.9 Fauchon's Lane Westbound 979 1,037 30.3 36.0

A20 Ashford Road, 85m West of Eastbound 422 572 32.8 37.4 Cavendish Way Westbound 652 674 30.8 35.5

A229 Loose Road, 83m North of Northbound 1,089 963 26.3 31.2 North View Southbound 1,021 1,127 26.6 30.9 Source: MHC Traffic; posted speed limit at all sites 30mph, apart from Sites 4 and (national speed limit and 40mph respectively)

2.39 The above surveys indicate that the highest traffic volumes were recorded on the A274 Sutton Road, A20 Ashford Road, Willington Road to the west of the site (behind third-party dwellings on Chapman Avenue) as well as A229 Loose Road which links the A274 into the town centre. Gore Court Road, which links to the southern end of Church Road is rarely used by local traffic to reach the A274.

2.40 The ATC surveys also recorded the average and 85th percentile speed of vehicles passing through each surveyed location. The average and 85th percentile speed recorded at each location are also summarised in Table 2.4, showing that speeds are generally within posted speed limits or relatively close to this.

2.41 The full ATC surveys datasets from 2018 and 2019 are included as Appendix A6.

2015 Automated Traffic Counter Surveys

2.42 As part of previous nearby planning application the survey data for the wider area covered the seven- day period between 24th and 30th July 2015, as surveyed within the planning application at Land North of Bicknor Wood (MBC reference MA / 17 / 501449 / FULL).

2.43 Table 2.5 summarises the average weekday (Monday to Friday) traffic flows over the respective peak hour:

2015 ATC Traffic Flow Data Survey Location Direction AM peak hr PM peak hr 85th %ile speed (mph)

Site 1: A20 Ashford Road, 80m Eastbound 458 665 34.2 west of The Landway Westbound 644 552 35.6

Site 2: Willington Street, 110m Northbound 807 815 34.4 north of Otterbourne Place Southbound 751 672 34.7 Site 3: Church Road, near Northbound 79 125 36.9 proposed northern site access Southbound 142 52 38.5

Site 4: Woolley Road, 30m, east of Eastbound 39 77 35.6 Reculver Walk Westbound 70 58 33.6

Site 5: Church Road, 160m north of Northbound 79 123 36.9 White Horse Lane Southbound 139 53 38.5

Site 6: Gore Court Road, 120m Northbound 82 129 30.6 south of White Horse Lane Southbound 133 52 30.9

Site 7: A274 Sutton Road, 90m Eastbound 588 472 34.4 west of Bircholt Road Westbound 491 700 33.8 Source: MHC Traffic; posted speed limit at all sites 30mph, apart from Sites 4 and (national speed limit and 40mph respectively)

2.44 Based on the 2015 Automatic Traffic Count survey data, the overall network peak hours were identified as:

• AM Peak – 8am-9am (0800-0900); and

• PM Peak – 5pm-6pm (1700-1800)

2.45 The above surveys indicate that the highest traffic volumes were recorded on the A274 Sutton Road, A20 Ashford Road and Willington Street to the west of the site (behind third-party dwellings). Gore Court Road, which links to the southern end of Church Road and Woolley Road, to the south of the site are rarely used, apart from for access by local traffic.

2.46 The 2015 ATC surveys also recorded the average and 85th percentile speed of vehicles passing through each surveyed location. The 85th percentile speed recorded at each location are also summarised in Table 2.5, showing that 85th percentile speeds are generally within posted speed limits or relatively close to this.

2.47 The full dataset for the 2015 ATC surveys is included as Appendix A7 at the end of this document.

2018 Turning Counts at Site Access and Nearby Junctions

2.48 Additionally, Manual Classified Counts (MCC) were undertaken at the nearby junctions as agreed at Scoping. These surveys by third-party surveyors were held on Tuesday the 30th of October 2018.

2.49 The total number of vehicles surveyed passing through each junction as surveyed within the turning counts in the respective peak hours are presented in Table 2.6 below:

2018 MCC surveys data Survey Location AM peak hr PM peak hr (7-8am) (4-5pm) Junction 1: Willington Street / A274 Sutton Road / Wallis Avenue 2,452 2,732 Junction 2: Gore Court Road / A274 Sutton Road 1,757 1,835 Junction 3: White Horse Lane / Gore Ct Road / Church Road 389 304 Junction 4: Deringwood Drive / Church Road 753 570 Junction 5: Willington Street / Deringwood Drive 1,935 2,037 Junction 6: A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street 2,315 2,461 Junction 7: A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane 1,483 1,564 Junction 8: Buffkyn Way / A274 Sutton Road 1,589 1,615 Junction 9: A229 Loose Road / Cranborne Ave / A274 Sutton Road 2,756 2,905 Junction 10: Park Way / A229 Loose Road / Armstrong Road 2,779 2,897 Junction 11: A274 Sutton Road / St Saviours Road 1,737 2,122 Junction 12: New Cut Road / A20 Ashford Road 2,503 2,479 Junction 13: Sutton Road / Edmett Way 1,237 1,546 Junction 14: Esso Access / M20 J8 2,922 2,894 Junction 15: A20 Ashford Road / J8 Southern 3,073 3,033 Source: MHC Traffic MCC survey

2.50 Table 2.6 shows that a number of local junctions are quite busy during the peak hours including the junctions of the A274 Sutton Road with Willington Street, Gore Court Road, St Saviours and Loose Road, as well as the junctions of the A20 with the M20, New Cut Road and Willington Road being amongst the busiest local intersections. The junction of Park Way, A229 Loose Road (South) with Armstrong Road was also found to be quite busy.

2.51 It is pertinent to note that the two junctions at either end of Church Road, Junctions 2 and 3 above, are very low traffic junctions, highlighting the existing nature of Church Road, as a back road through the eastern edge of Maidstone.

2.52 The 2018 MCC surveys are included as Appendix A8 at the end of this document.

2018 Turning Counts at Site Access and Nearby Junctions

2.53 Manual Classified Counts (MCC) were also undertaken as part of previous applications at the nearby junctions. These surveys by third-party surveyors were held on the 25th of June 2015.

2.54 The total number of vehicles surveyed within the turning Counts at various junctions within the area during the peak hours are presented in Table 2.7:

2015 MCC surveys data Survey Location AM peak hr PM peak hr Junction 1: Willington Street / A274 Sutton Road 1,866 1,948 Junction 2: A274 Sutton Road / Gore Court Road 1,523 1,617 Junction 3: A274 Sutton Road / New Road 1,015 1,012 Junction 4: Gore Court Rd / White Horse Lane / Church Rd 274 246 Junction 5: Church Road / Deringwood Drive 558 512 Junction 6: Willington Street / Madingford Road 1,820 1,799 Junction 7: Willington Street / Deringwood Drive 1,847 1,884 Junction 8: Willington Street / Woolley Road (north) 1,172 1,207 Junction 9: Willington Street / Woolley Road (south) 1,211 1,246 Junction 10: A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street 2,420 n/a Junction 11: A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane 1,507 1,599 Junction 12: Spot Lane / Royston Road 724 624 Source: MHC Traffic MCC survey

2.55 Table 2.7 shows that a number of local junctions are quite busy during the peak hours including the junctions of the A274 Sutton Road with Willington Road and Gore Court Road, as well as the junctions of the A20 with the Spot Lane and Willington Road being amongst the busiest local intersections. The junctions of Willington Street with Madingford Road and Deringwood Drive were also found to be quite busy.

2.56 The 2015 MCC surveys are included as Appendix A9 at the end of this document.

Amenities within Nearby Areas

2.57 The site is located within walkable range of a number of local amenities. These have been classified by walking distance from the site, split in 400m walking isochrone ranges. It is pertinent to note that the maximum recommended walking distance is of 2000m, as described within Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (CIHT, 2000), Table 3.2 of the document, shown in Plate 2.2 below:

Plate 2.2: Recommended Maximal Walking Distance Ranges

Source: Guidelines for Providing for Journeys on Foot (CIHT, 2000)

2.58 A list of the nearest local amenities as well as the approximate distance from the site were found to be as follows in Table 2.8:

Walking Distance to Nearby Amenities Type of Amenity Name Approximate walking distance from site Place of Worship St Nicholas Church Immediately to the north Shopping area Spires 310m Pharmacy Spires Pharmacy 330m Doctors / Hospital / Opticians The Spires Medical Centre 335m Supermarket / Convenience Store Spires Minimarket 310m Restaurant / Café / Take-away Babo 320m Recreational Area Mote Park 500m Education Senacre Wood Primary School 600m Pub / Bar The Orchard 640m Post Office Willington Street Post Office 920m Dentist Kent Smile Studio 960m Library Shepway Library 1.0km Bank NatWest 1.4km Entertainment Cavendish Coffee & Gift Shop 1.6km Leisure Centre Maidstone Leisure Centre 2.1km

2.59 A map showing the local amenities as well as walking isochrones over the local area is included as Appendix A10.

The Local Population Characteristics

2.60 The local ward (Downswood and Otham) covers a small part of the area of Downswood, as well as the rural areas around the hamlet of Otham. The local MSOA (Maidstone 015) comprises of two small urban areas to, located to the east and south-east of Maidstone, as well as a large rural area to the south-east of Maidstone.

2.61 In this regard, the existing local area is considered to be a mix of urban and rural residents, and the local population characteristics indicate as such.

Travel to Work Modal Split

2.62 The ‘Travel to Work’ 2011 Census Data for the Downswood and Otham and Maidstone 015 have been obtained, along with the comparative data for the Maidstone, Kent, the South-east of England and England. The results are summarised in Table 2.9 below:

Travel to Work Modal Share (2011 Census Data) South-east Method of Travel to Downswood Maidstone Maidstone Kent of England England Work & Otham 015 Region Underground, Metro, Light Rail, 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% Tram Train 5% 6% 7% 10% 8% 6% Bus, Minibus or 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 8% Coach Taxi 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% Motorcycle, Scooter 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% or Moped Driving a Car or 78% 78% 69% 65% 66% 61% Van Passenger in a Car 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% or Van Bicycle 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 3% On Foot 4% 5% 12% 12% 12% 11% Note: 2011 Census Data taken from Office for National Statistics Website; Usual Residents Aged 16 to 74

2.63 It is evident from Table 2.9 that residents in the Downswood and Otham ward and Maidstone 015 MSOA generally use the car more than average. It is therefore calculated that only approximately 15% of travel to work is undertaken by sustainable modes (walk, cycle, bus, or train), which is significantly below national averages.

2.64 Further, 5% of commuters were found to be car passengers or travel by taxi, whilst around 79% of those travelling to work are car or van and motorcycle or moped drivers, which is significantly higher than regional and national averages.

2.65 The above notes that the vast majority of residents in the local areas do not use sustainable travel modes, and that the private car remains the most popular mode of travel in the area. It is pertinent to note that Table 2.9 omits the residents that do not commute to work, who are either not in employment, work from home or travel by other mode.

Car Ownership Levels

2.66 Car ownership levels, within the local ward (Downswood and Otham, E05004990) and middle super- output area (Maidstone 015, E02005082) were obtained from the 2011 Census data to analyse car ownership in the area.

2.67 A comparison of local, regional and national splits is presented within Table 2.10 below:

Car ownership statistics in the local area, region and country as a whole No of cars or vans in No 1 2 3 4 or Vehicle household vehicles vehicle vehicles vehicles more availability vehicles ratio Downswood & Otham Ward 6% 42% 38% 10% 4% 1.64 Maidstone 015 9% 35% 39% 12% 5% 1.71 Maidstone 16% 41% 32% 8% 3% 1.43 Kent 20% 43% 28% 7% 3% 1.31 South-east of England 19% 42% 30% 7% 3% 1.35 England 26% 42% 25% 5% 2% 1.16 Source: 2011 Census data (Nomis; www.nomisweb.co.uk)

2.68 Table 2.10 shows that car ownership levels within the ward are higher than the district, regional and national averages, and that only a small number of the local residents do not own at least one car and that more than half of dwellings own more than one car.

HIGHWAY SAFETY RECORD

3.1 A review of the highway safety record around the site has been undertaken based upon the Personal Injury Accident (PIA) data as supplied by KCC, covering the most recently available five-year period, between 2013 and 2018, framed in between the A20 Ashford Road and A274 Sutton Road.

3.2 The full PIA dataset and map are included as Appendix A11.

Church Road

3.3 No accidents were noted within close proximity to the proposed site access, with the only two accidents recorded over the past five years being one at each end of this street. One of these incidents was of serious nature, whereas the other was of a slight severity. For a study area of this extent, it is considered that the number of PIAs recorded over this period is low. The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.1:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Church Road Severity Oct -Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan-Sept Total 2013 2018 Slight 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Serious 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.4 The serious injury accident was noted at the junction of Church Road with Gore Court Road and White Horse Lane, in July 2018, whereby a vehicle carrying five persons swerved to avoid an animal, lost control and spun, hit a tree, which fell on top of the vehicle itself.

3.5 The slight injury accident, happened in September 2015, and included a driver exiting Church Road onto Deringwood Drive pulling out into the path of an oncoming vehicle.

Deringwood Drive

3.6 Only three slight injury accidents were recorded over the past five years on Deringwood Drive (apart from the one at the junction with Church Road mentioned above), being spread along the western part of this street.

3.7 It is considered that the number of PIAs recorded over this period for such a popular route is normal, with no clustering at junctions noted as such. The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.2:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Deringwood Drive Severity Oct -Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan-Sept Total 2013 2018 Slight 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 Serious 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.8 One of these incidents, accounting as a slight injury accident, happened in June 2014, and included a driver exiting Deringwood Drive onto Willington Street pulling out into the path of an oncoming vehicle. A similar incident occurred at the junction of Deringwood Drive with Longham Copse.

3.9 In another of the accidents, a bus driver reported that a passenger got slightly injured when they were leaving the bus after dropping their walking stick. The injured passenger went on their way after declining help.

Gore Court Road

3.10 Two slight injury accidents were recorded over the past five years on Gore Court Road (apart from the one at the junction with Church Road mentioned above).

3.11 The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.3:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Gore Court Road Severity Oct -Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan-Sept Total 2013 2018 Slight 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Serious 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.12 In one of these incidents a car overturned after swerving to avoid an animal on the carriageway and hitting the bank on the side. In another, two vehicles brushed each other, when running at speed along the length of this narrow road.

Willington Street

3.13 Willington Street is a busy local road and attract significant levels of traffic connecting between the A20 Ashford Road and the A274 Sutton Road. A total of 23 personal injury accidents were noted over the five-year period, including one serious accident and 22 slight injury accidents.

3.14 It is considered that the number of PIAs recorded over this period for such a popular route is normal, with slight clustering at the most popular turning junctions noted as such. These include the junctions

of Willington Street with the A20 Ashford Road, School Lane, Northumberland Road and the A274 Sutton Road. The number of collisions at each of the junctions is not considered significant over the five-year period.

3.15 The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.4:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Willington Street Severity Oct -Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan-Sept Total 2013 2018 Slight 1 7 3 6 2 3 22 Serious 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 1 7 3 6 3 3 23 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.16 The serious injury accident was noted at the junction of Willington Street with Northumberland Road and Whit Horse Lane, in July 2018, whereby a vehicle turned at speed out of Northumberland Road, lost control and hit the kerb, and then proceeded to hit another oncoming vehicle head on.

A20 Ashford Road

3.17 Only thirteen slight injury accidents were recorded over the past five years on the surveyed section of A20 Ashford Road, being spread along the surveyed length of this street.

3.18 It is considered that the number of PIAs recorded over this period for such a popular route is normal, with no significant clustering at junctions noted as such. The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.5:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Ashford Road Severity Oct -Dec 2014 2015 2016 2017 Jan-Sept Total 2013 2018 Slight 0 2 1 3 2 5 13 Serious 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 2 1 3 2 5 13 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.19 The majority of the incidents were noted at the junctions on this road, noting the higher potential for accidents at conflict points. The number of collisions at each of the junctions is not considered significant over the five-year period.

A274 Sutton Road

3.20 Seven serious accidents and 24 slight injury accidents were recorded over the past five years on A274 Sutton Road, being spread mostly along the western part of the search area on this street,

between the junctions with Wallis Avenue (eastern end) and Willington Street / Wallis Avenue (western end).

3.21 It is considered that the number of PIAs recorded over this period for such a popular route is normal, with no clustering at junctions noted as such. The accident breakdown by year and severity is shown in Table 3.6:

Date and Severity of Accidents – Deringwood Drive Severity 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total Slight 2 3 5 4 5 5 24 Serious 0 1 1 2 0 3 7 Fatal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 2 4 6 6 5 8 33 Note: PIA data range between 01/10/2013 to 30/09/2018

3.22 The 2014 serious injury incident included a car which was being cleaned within the BP PFS forecourt having released the electronic handbrake onto a pedestrian passing by.

3.23 In 2015, another serious injury was recorded whereby a car pulled into the path of an oncoming motorbike, throwing off the rider over the vehicle bonnet.

3.24 In 2016, a serious injury accident was surveyed when a motorcycle approaching the roundabout with Edmett Way lost control after overtaking a lorry after skidding, ending up sliding across the roundabout. In another serious injury incident in this year, a rear end shunt was recorded at the junction with Wallis Road (east), whereby a car waiting to turn right was shunted from the rear by an oncoming vehicle at speed.

3.25 A pedestrian was injured in 2018 after being hit by a car and thrown onto a light goods vehicle, when they crossed Sutton Road at the junction with Willington Street, near the bus stop. Crossing facilities at signal junction are available on both the other arms of the junction, but not in front of bus stop.

3.26 Further incidents in 2018 included another motorcycle serious injury accident, recorded at the junction of A274 Sutton Road with Gore Court Road, whereby a light goods vehicle pulled out into the path of the oncoming motorcycle, and a speeding vehicle losing control at the Edmett Way roundabout, and ending up at the next junction on Sutton Road with Laight Road, after going through the roundabout in the opposite direction.

Other Personal Injury Accidents of Note

3.27 Other Personal Injury Accidents of Note as relevant for the proposed scheme were recorded on Woolley Road and Spot Lane. These included three separate slight injury accidents on Woolley Road, spread along the length of this road, over the five-year survey period, and another two slight injury accidents on Spot Lane over the same period, also noted at different locations.

3.28 No clustering was noted elsewhere on the network, with all accident being located far apart from each other.

Summary

3.29 Overall the above discussed personal injury accidents recorded over the five-year survey period did not highlight any deficiencies to the local highway network.

3.30 No major clustering around junctions was noted, with an average of one accident a year recorded at the most popular turning points, being the junctions of Willington Street with School Lane, with Northumberland Road, A20 Ashford Road and with A274 Sutton Road and the junctions of A274 Sutton Road with Gore Court Road and Wallis Avenue (east).

3.31 Considering the extents of the search area, it is considered unlikely that many potential residents will walk any further than the surveyed area on a regular basis, and therefore the area is assumed to be safe for pedestrians and cyclists to access local facilities using sustainable travel modes.

NATIONAL & LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING POLICY

4.1 The following sections outlines the relevant policy applicable nationally in England, regionally within Kent and locally within Maidstone. Those directly pertinent to this site are set out below.

National Planning Policy Framework

4.2 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these should be applied. It provides a framework within which locally-prepared plans for housing and other development can be produced. Planning law requires that applications for planning permission be determined in accordance with local development plans and that the NPPF must be taken into account when preparing the development plan and is therefore a material consideration in planning decisions. The main objective of the NPPF is to achieve sustainable development.

4.3 The original NPPF was adopted in March 2012, however, a revised NPPF was published in February 2019, updating the July 2018 version, which has replaced the 2012 version.

4.4 The 2012 NPPF superseded PPG13 (Transport), which was formerly used as a basis for national transport policy. Whilst no longer policy, there are two key aspects within PPG13 which are still of relevance when determining a site’s level of sustainable travel access, as stated below:

“Walking is the most important mode of travel at the local level and offers the greatest potential to replace short car trips, particularly under two kilometres. Walking also forms an often forgotten part of all longer journeys by public transport and car.”

“Cycling also has potential to substitute for short car trips, particularly those under five kilometres, and to form part of a longer journey by public transport”

4.5 It is considered that the walking and cycling distances referred to in PPG13 remain valid and should not be overlooked when determining the walking and cycling accessibility of development sites.

The Current NPPF (February 2019)

4.6 The current NPPF, issued in February 2019, updating the adopted July 2018 revision, reaffirms the main policy elements within the original NPPF, streamlining the definition of what may constitute as development generating severe impact, amongst other issues.

4.7 With regard to transport policy, the revised NPPF includes a chapter on ‘Promoting sustainable transport’ which includes the following text, relevant to this proposal:

Paragraph 102

“Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals, so that: a) the potential impacts of development on transport networks can be addressed; b) opportunities from existing or proposed transport infrastructure, and changing transport technology and usage, are realised – for example in relation to the scale, location or density of development that can be accommodated; c) opportunities to promote walking, cycling and public transport use are identified and pursued; d) the environmental impacts of traffic and transport infrastructure can be identified, assessed and taken into account – including appropriate opportunities for avoiding and mitigating any adverse effects, and for net environmental gains; and e) patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes, and contribute to making high quality places.”

4.8 As mentioned earlier in this report, the site is allocated within the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan as H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham for 440 dwellings and as such has been considered previously by an Inspector. Further consideration of the site has also been undertaken within cumulative assessment work approved by Maidstone Borough Council.

4.9 The scheme accords with the NPPF in providing sustainable travel opportunities, minimising of negative impacts generated by the development through consultation with the local stakeholders.

Paragraph 103

“The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. Significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, and improve air quality and public health. However, opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, and this should be taken into account in both plan-making and decision-making.”

4.10 As required within Paragraph 103, being based on an existing bus route, the development will support the economic viability of the existing bus services on Waltham Road, through the provision of increased potential patronage.

Paragraph 105

“If setting local parking standards for residential and non-residential development, policies should take into account: a) the accessibility of the development; b) the type, mix and use of development; c) the availability of and opportunities for public transport; d) local car ownership levels; and e) the need to ensure an adequate provision of spaces for charging plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles.”

4.11 The scheme also takes into account the local parking standards, in providing sufficient levels of car parking as required by the proposed residential units on site, both for future site residents and for visitors to the site.

Paragraph 106

“Maximum parking standards for residential and non-residential development should only be set where there is a clear and compelling justification that they are necessary for managing the local road network, or for optimising the density of development in city and town centres and other locations that are well served by public transport (in accordance with chapter 11 of this Framework). In town centres, local authorities should seek to improve the quality of parking so that it is convenient, safe and secure, alongside measures to promote accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists.”

4.12 The scheme is also in line with Paragraph 108 also notes that access to the proposed development is to be made safe and that this would not generate significant impacts on the local highway network, as shown in Section 5 below.

Paragraph 108

“In assessing sites that may be allocated for development in plans, or specific applications for development, it should be ensured that: a) appropriate opportunities to promote sustainable transport modes can be – or have been – taken up, given the type of development and its location; b) safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all users; and c) any significant impacts from the development on the transport network (in terms of capacity and congestion), or on highway safety, can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree.”

4.13 It is also pertinent to note that Section 5 below shows that any impacts on the local highway network are not significant, and certainly cannot be considered as severe.

Paragraph 109

“Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.”

4.14 In this regard it is understood that the proposed development is in line with national transport planning policy, and therefore the development should be consented on highway grounds.

Paragraph 110

“Within this context, applications for development should: a) give priority first to pedestrian and cycle movements, both within the scheme and with neighbouring areas; and second – so far as possible – to facilitating access to high quality public transport, with layouts that maximise the catchment area for bus or other public transport services, and appropriate facilities that encourage public transport use; b) address the needs of people with disabilities and reduced mobility in relation to all modes of transport; c) create places that are safe, secure and attractive – which minimise the scope for conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles, avoid unnecessary street clutter, and respond to local character and design standards; d) allow for the efficient delivery of goods, and access by service and emergency vehicles; and e) be designed to enable charging of plug-in and other ultra-low emission vehicles in safe, accessible and convenient locations.”

4.15 The proposals provide ample opportunity for sustainable travel, that are inclusive, safe and efficient designed, as required by Paragraph 110. Furthermore, Paragraph 111 requires the provision of incentives to encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel:

Paragraph 111

“All developments that will generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a travel plan, and the application should be supported by a transport statement or transport assessment so that the likely impacts of the proposal can be assessed.”

4.16 This TA is being presented as required by the NPPF, to review the potential opportunities and impacts of the development.

The Original NPPF

4.17 The original National Planning Policy framework (NPPF), published in March 2012, superseding all previous Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy practice (PPG) and setting out the Government’s core principles for the planning system in England, identifying that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development.

4.18 With regard to transport policy, the NPPF states in Paragraph 29 that:

Paragraph 29

“Transport policies have an important role to play in facilitating sustainable development but also in contributing to wider sustainability and health objectives” and that “The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel”.

4.19 Paragraph 32 goes on to state that:

Paragraph 32

“All developments that generate significant amounts of movement should be supported by a Transport Statement or Transport Assessment” and that “Plans and decisions should take account of whether: • The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure;

• Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and

• Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe”.

4.20 As demonstrated in Section 2 of this report, the site is well located to a number of PROW and also a National Cycle Route, with a number of residential estates within reasonable walking and cycling distance. The site is also located in an area with good public transport links and a potential new bus route.

4.21 The number of movements associated to the proposed use (as detailed in Section 5 of this report), is significantly less than the existing movements to the site and would therefore not affect the local transport and highway networks. Paragraph 14 goes on to state that:

Paragraph 14

“At the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking. … For decision-taking this means: • approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and

• where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

• any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or • specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.”

4.22 The site is also located within an area close to a mix of uses, with retail, leisure and commercial uses located within reasonable walking distance and it is therefore considered that the site accords well with NPPF.

National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) – March 2014

4.23 Information contained as part of the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG), provides advice for travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking.

“Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements are all ways of assessing and mitigating the negative transport impacts of development in order to promote sustainable development. They are required for all developments which generate significant amounts of movements.”

4.24 This report follows the advice within the guidance and accords with providing the information which should be included as part of a Transport Assessment.

4.25 The site is located in an area with public transport accessibility providing opportunities for users of the site to use modes other than the car.

4.26 The proposed development conforms with the NPPG policies being well located to the existing public transport facilities. The proposed development site is also well located to encourage cycle accessibility being adjacent to and linking with roads suitable for cycling.

Kent County Council

4.27 Kent County Council is the main authority responsible in managing the local highway network. The following section outlines their main policies in this regard.

The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3)

4.28 The Local Transport Plan 3 (LTP3) was prepared by Kent County Council (KCC) and runs from 2011 to 2016. The Plan includes details on how KCC will prioritise planned measures based around the themes set out by the previous Government’s National Transport Goals. The Plan lists the themes as follows:

“1. Growth without Gridlock 2. A Safer and Healthier County 3. Supporting Independence 4. Tackling a Changing Climate 5. Enjoying Life in Kent”

4.29 LTP3 also notes a number of other applicable policy documents, including Bold Steps for Kent (2010), Vision for Kent (2010), Unlocking Kent’s Potential: Kent County Council’s framework for regeneration (2009) and Growth without Gridlock: a Transport Delivery Plan for Kent (2010). These documents provide the visions and tools at directing development in the county in the formulation of the LTP3 document.

4.30 The Plan notes that KCC have not set formal targets within LTP3 but have chosen the following performance indicators which reflect the five themes listed above:

“1. Journey time reliability in Kent’s urban centres (Canterbury, Gravesend and Maidstone) 2. Principal roads where maintenance should be considered 3. People killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents 4. Local bus journeys originating in the authority area 5. Per capita reduction in CO2 emissions 6. Children travelling to school - mode of transport usually used 7. Net satisfaction with the condition of roads, pavements and streetlights”

4.31 The plan also notes a number of initiatives that are aimed at improving the existing highway networks and upgrading existing issues. Local policy is also informed within the regional context through this plan, which in Maidstone’s case, refers to the potential enhancing of existing integrated transport planning aimed at relieving existing congestion issues around Maidstone town centre.

Kent Design Guide

4.32 The Kent Design Guide (KDG) is designed as the local design manual to be included as the Supplementary Planning Document within Local Plans or Local Development Frameworks for the respective Borough Councils. This document is split over a number of chapters, on each of the various design steps in creating new developments.

4.33 The KDG includes various levels of elements detailing design issues throughout the county, including street design, finishing material palettes, highway standards, traffic calming tools and parking.

4.34 The KDG Creating the Design: Step 3 - Designing for movement notes the different road typologies available in drawing up site masterplans for new residential developments. These include Major Access Road for roads serving between 50 and 300 units and Minor Access Roads, serving up to 100 dwellings, or 50 dwellings if this is a cul-de-sac.

4.35 The KDG Interim Guidance Note 3 - Residential Parking (dated 20th November 2008) recommends the maximum levels of vehicular parking with new developments. These standards require that for Suburban Edge / Village / Rural areas suggest a maximum provision of 1 space per unit for each one and two-bedroom flatted dwelling. 1.5 spaces per dwelling are recommended for each one and two-bedroom houses and 2 spaces per unit are permitted for 3-bedroom or larger.

4.36 Spaces for houses may be allocated, whereas spaces for flats are to be pooled. One and two bed houses should only include one allocated space. Garages are not to be included within this calculation, whereas car ports would be included. Tandem parking is discouraged.

4.37 An additional one visitor space per every five dwellings is to be provided on-street but these may be reduced if the full parking allocation for residents is not provided.

4.38 Cycle parking standards are included with the Kent and Medway Structure Plan 2006: Mapping out the future - Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG 4: Kent Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006). Within this document, residential developments are required to provide one cycle parking space per bedroom for houses, either within the garage or within the curtilage of the dwelling. One cycle parking space per dwelling for flatted units, to be located within a secure communal facility.

Maidstone Borough Council

4.39 The main policy tool within Maidstone Borough Council’s planning arsenal is the Local Plan. This document outlines the vision for local growth and explains how the document functions in line with national and KCC’s planning policies.

Maidstone Local Plan

4.40 The current MBC’s Local Plan was adopted in October 2017. The plan identifies various areas of potential growth in the Borough, including residential development around the north-eastern areas of the town, with good access to the M20 and A20. It is noted that any existing capacity issues on the local network should be tackled jointly by the developer with the Borough Council, KCC and Highways England.

4.41 Policy SP3, identifies the site as allocated site H1(8), stating the following (relevant transport elements included only):

“Maidstone urban area: south east strategic development location As the most sustainable location in the settlement hierarchy, new development over the plan period will be focused at the Maidstone urban area. Land to the south east of the urban area is allocated as a strategic development location for housing growth with supporting infrastructure. 1. In addition to development, redevelopment and infilling of appropriate sites in accordance with policy SP1, approximately 2,651 new dwellings will be delivered on six allocated sites (policies H1(5) to H1(10)). … 3. Key infrastructure requirements for the south-east strategic development location include: i. Highway and transport infrastructure improvements including: junction improvements on the A274 Sutton Road incorporating bus prioritisation measures, the installation of an extended bus lane in Sutton Road, together with improved pedestrian and cycle access, in accordance with individual site criteria set out in policies H1(5) to H1(10); …”

4.42 Policy H1(8) of this Local Plan states the following:

“Policy H1 (8) West of Church Road, Otham West of Church Road, as shown on the policies map, is allocated for development of approximately 440 dwellings at an average density of 35 dwellings per hectare. In addition to the requirements of policy H1, planning permission will be granted if the following criteria are met. Design and layout 1. The tree line along the western boundary of the site will be enhanced, to protect the amenity and privacy of residents living in Chapman Avenue. 2. An undeveloped section of land will be retained along the western boundary of the site, to protect the amenity and privacy of residents living in Chapman Avenue. 3. An undeveloped section of land will be retained along the eastern edge of the site in order to protect the setting of St Nicholas Church and maintain clear views of the Church from Church Road. 4. The Church Road frontage will be built at a lower density from the remainder of the site, to maintain and reflect the existing open character of the arable fields on the eastern side of Church Road and to provide an open setting to St Nicholas Church. 5. The hedge line along the eastern boundary of the site with Church Road shall be retained and strengthened where not required for access to the site. 6. Retain non-arable land to the north and east of St Nicholas Church, to protect its setting. 7. Retain discrete section of land at the south east corner of the site to provide a 15 metres wide landscape buffer to ancient woodland (bordering site at this location), to be planted as per the recommendations of a landscape survey. Access 8. Access will be taken from Church Road only. Air quality 9. Appropriate air quality mitigation measures to be agreed with the council will be implemented as part of the development. Open space 10. Provision of approximately 2.88ha of natural/semi-natural open space consisting of 1.4ha in accordance with policy OS1(16), and 1.48ha within the site, together with additional on/off-site provision and/or contributions towards off-site provision/improvements as required in accordance with policy DM19. Community infrastructure 11. Contributions will be provided towards the expansion of an existing primary school within south east Maidstone to mitigate the impact of the development on primary school infrastructure. Highways and transportation 12. Widening of Gore Court Road between the new road required under policy H1(6) and White Horse Lane. … …

Strategic highways and transportation 13. Bus prioritisation measures on the A274 Sutton Road from the Willington Street junction to the Wheatsheaf junction, together with bus infrastructure improvements. 14. Improvements to capacity at the junctions of Willington Street/Wallis Avenue and Sutton Road. 15. Package of measures to significantly relieve traffic congestion on Sutton Road and Willington Street. 16. Improvements to capacity at the A229/A274 Wheatsheaf junction. 17. Improvements to frequency and/or quality of bus services along A274 Sutton Road corridor. Utility infrastructure 18. A connection is provided to the local sewerage system at the nearest point of adequate capacity, in collaboration with the service provider.”

4.43 This policy therefore states the following requirements for the proposed development:

• Vehicular access is to be taken only from Church Road;

• Widening of Gore Court Road between White Horse Lane and the residential development known as Imperial Park;

• The developer is to fund a number of local strategic transportation upgrades; and

• Connections to existing infrastructure to be made as part of the scheme.

4.44 Parking Standards are also set out in the Local Plan document, within Appendix B. This requires vehicular and cycle parking provision with residential developments:

“Parking Standards 1. Car parking standards for residential development (as set out in Appendix B) will: i. Take into account the type, size and mix of dwellings and the need for visitor parking; and ii. Secure an efficient and attractive layout of development whilst ensuring that appropriate provision for vehicle parking is integrated within it. … 3. Cycle parking facilities on new developments will be of an appropriate design and sited in a convenient, safe, secure and sheltered location. 4. New developments should ensure that proposals incorporate electric vehicle charging infrastructure.”

4.45 The parking standards identified are in line with those proposed by Kent County Council, within their KDG Interim Guidance Note 3, dated November 2008.

4.46 Finally, the Local Plan also identifies the KDG as a means at achieving principles of good design within new residential developments, within Policy DM1: Principles of Good Design:

“Policy DM 1 Principles of good design Proposals which would create high quality design and meet the following criteria will be permitted: … Account should be taken of Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Plans, Character Area Assessments, the Maidstone Borough Landscape Character Guidelines SPD, the Kent Design Guide and the Kent Downs Area of Natural Beauty Management Plan.”

Policy Summary

4.47 The proposal site can be seen to enjoy high levels of access to alternative modes to the private car and offer prospective future residents with access to a range of local services and amenities in close proximity to the site. Access to employment in Maidstone town centre and Park Wood can be reached by an 8-minute frequency bus service. The need to travel by car for the majority of everyday needs is therefore likely to be significantly reduced.

4.48 The proposal site has the capacity to provide improvements to assist existing non-car movement needs. In particular, the proposal site would be able to provide improvements to existing footpath routes by including enhancements to pedestrian desire lines, through the provision of upgraded and new infrastructure.

4.49 Consideration to the eastern expansion of Maidstone has been part of the local planning process for many years. Assessment of the proposal site against the core principles of the NPPF and Kent LTP3 shows that they are eminently suitable for residential development. The development is not expected to result in severe transport impacts and therefore is found to accord with the NPPF.

4.50 In terms of sustainability, it is clear that the site benefits from having good accessibility to existing and potentially new bus services providing access to a wide area of Maidstone and surrounding towns.

4.51 The site benefits from good walking and cycling facilities and is located within easy distance of public transport facilities, the town centre and other local facilities and amenities. The parking provision for cars and cycles is designed in line with the KDG and is be appropriate for the development proposed.

4.52 The site is also identified within the Maidstone Borough Council Core Strategy for housing development and the proposals have been developed to achieve the aims of the Policy SP3. Further, the site is allocated for housing development within the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan, site reference H1(8).

4.53 As such, the site location is considered to accord to the relevant Local and Central Government Policy Guidelines in terms of being in a suitable location and accessible by modes other than the private car.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

5.1 The following section outlines the proposals for the site which are in accordance with the local plan allocation. This includes a review of details of the proposed unit mix, the site access points, servicing and parking provision on the site.

The Proposed Development

5.2 The proposed development is for 421 residential units, as shown within the Masterplan drawing as prepared by architects OSP in drawing 16206 / P101M, included as Appendix A12.

5.3 The application proposed a unit-mix as follows: • 53 x one-bedroom flatted dwellings;

• 45 x two-bedroom flatted dwellings;

• 2 x three-bedroom flatted dwellings;

• 1 x one-bedroom houses;

• 78 x two-bedroom houses;

• 161 x three-bedroom houses; and

• 81 x four-bedroom houses.

5.4 These units are set around an internal spine road that loops to and from and back Church Road to the east of the site, as well as a variety of other major and minor access roads that link back to this spine route. All proposed dwellings on site are designed to be accessed from within the site.

Site Access Arrangements

5.5 The proposals show that the site will include a number of access points into the site. These include two vehicular access points to the east of the site on Church Road, potential pedestrian access points to the north of the site and St Nicholas Church linking to Church Road and to Deringwood Drive via a footpath and another to The Beams and Longham Copse to the north and west of the site, via another footpath. There is also the potential for a pedestrian access to the south of the site onto Woolley Road. These are identified within Appendix A12.

Proposed Vehicular Access Arrangements

5.6 It is proposed that two priority site access junctions with Church Road will link the spine road looping within the site. The spine road is designed as a 6.0m wide street, that would include localised widening up to 6.5m locally allow for two-way access by buses. The junctions are designed using compound curves to allow buses to turn in and out of the site, using 9m radii at the corners.

5.7 Junction visibility is also available at both site access points, with an x-distance of 2.4m and a y- distance of 45m achievable, as required by the KDG. The proposed layout for both access points is included as Appendix A14, at the end of this TA.

5.8 It is also being proposed to relocate the existing speed limit restriction on Church Road, currently located on the site frontage, further to the south. This is discussed further in Section 7 of this TA.

5.9 The design of the accesses has retained as much hedgerow as practicably possible but where hedgerow is to be removed, as identified within the layout for the proposed development new planting will be incorporated to overcome any loss without affecting visibility requirements.

Sustainable Travel Links Around the Site

5.10 The site also currently includes an informal footpath, known as PRoW 86, running along its northern edge. The footpath will be formalised with a shared footpath / cycleway within the site.

Connection into Woolley Road

5.11 The southern footpath and potential connection to Woolley Road will also provide access to the bus services on this road. It is proposed that this link will also be retained available for emergency vehicles to the southern part of the site, as an alternative site access in case any issues arise on Church Road.

5.12 The land in question is owned by MBC, and forms part of a local residential development. The path is already formed as a vehicular access, which could potentially be used as an access into the site, if this is opened up at the site border, and practically it would not be an issue to allow the access to be shared by cyclists as well.

5.13 It is being proposed to limit the use of this path to pedestrians and emergency vehicles only, to avoid impact the local residents and to side-step transferring any vehicular traffic onto the junction of Willington Street with Woolley Road.

Bus Route into Site

5.14 It is also proposed that the proposed spine road is designed as a 6.0m wide major access road, to allow this to operate as a bus route, improving access to sustainable travel to future residents. Discussions with the local bus operator have confirmed that this would be feasible.

5.15 Swept Path Analysis drawing showing the potential bus services accessing the site are shown within Iceni Projects drawings 16-T114_28.3 and included as Appendix A15.

Site Servicing

5.16 The site will be fully serviced from within and all movements into and out of the site will be made in forward gear.

5.17 The proposed site access shall be designed to allow Kent County Council’s waste management vehicles to service the site as within Building Regulations and MBC’s Requirements for Developers, by limiting reversing to a minimum.

5.18 All dwellings shall be able to include waste container storage space within 30m of the main point of access and the storage space shall be located within 25m of the respective waste collection point, as required by chapter H6 of the Building Regulations.

5.19 Access to the site by refuse vehicles is shown within Iceni Projects drawings 16-T114_18.7B-18.13B, included as Appendix A16.

Emergency Access

5.20 Furthermore, all buildings shall comply with chapter B5 of the Building Regulations which require vehicle pump access to within 45m of every point within the building. Any reversing manoeuvre by emergency vehicles shall be limited to a minimum as required by these national regulations:

“There should be vehicle access for a pump appliance within 45m of every dwelling entrance for single family houses, flats and maisonettes.”

5.21 Emergency vehicles such as Fire Appliances will therefore be able to adequately access the development from Church Road. A Swept Path Analysis exercise of a fire tender accessing the site, is shown within Iceni Projects drawings 16-T114_18.2B-18.6B, included at Appendix A17 of this report.

5.22 The proposed development scheme therefore provides two points of vehicular access, which provides suitable arrangements in the event of an emergency, whilst there is also the potential for access from Woolley Road. Further review by Kent Fire and Rescue will also be undertaken as part of the detailed design of this scheme.

Car Parking

5.23 In respect of parking standards, siting and dimensions vehicle parking will be provided in accordance with ‘Kent Design Review: Interim Guidance Note 3. 20 November 2008’. With regards to KCC’s parking standards for Suburban Edge / Village / Rural areas, this guidance states that the following minimum standards that are replicated as shown in Table 5.1.

Minimum Car Parking Standards for Suburban Edge/Village/Rural (KCC)

C3 Residential Parking Standard 1 & 2 Bed Flats 1 space per unit 1 & 2 Bed Houses 1.5 spaces per unit 3 Bed Houses 2 spaces per unit 4 + Bed Houses 2 spaces per unit Visitors 0.2 spaces per dwelling Note – KCC IGN3 - Guidance Table for Residential Parking

5.24 New residential development in Kent therefore requires the minimal provision of one car parking space for each flat, one and a half spaces for each one or two-bedroom houses and two spaces for houses larger than two-bedroom. One visitor space for every 5 dwellings is also required within each development.

5.25 Therefore, the development proposals aim to provide the following minimum standards for residential development, as shown in Table 5.2:

KCC Minimum Parking Requirements No. of units Minimum Number Dwelling Type Minimum Standards Proposed of Spaces 1, 2- and 3-Bedroom Flats 100 1 space per dwelling 100 1- & 2-Bedroom Houses 79 1.5 spaces per dwelling 119 3 Bedroom Houses 161 2 spaces per dwelling 322 4 Bedroom Houses 81 2 spaces per dwelling 162 Visitors - 0.2 spaces per dwelling 84 Total 421 - 787

5.26 To ensure that an appropriate car parking ratio is provided, which complements the overall tenure mix for the site, the proposals will comprise in the main garages for the houses and at grade parking spaces for the flats. It is proposed that 703 resident car parking spaces in total (including 114 garage spaces) will be provided along with 84 visitor parking spaces, totalling 787 car parking spaces across the site.

5.27 An assessment of the likely parking demand has been undertaken for this site, using the Car Ownership data for the ward extracted from the results of the 2011 Census. This dataset takes into account the different dwelling types and number of bedrooms, which is in turn applied to the proposed development.

5.28 The results of this assessment are presented within Table 5.3, with the full calculations provided within Appendix A18:

Schedule of Accommodation and Estimated Car Ownership Housing Type and Tenure No. of Dwellings Estimated Car Ownership 1-3 bed Flat 19 24 Private 1-3 bed House 203 280 4 bed House 73 133 1-3 bed Flat 63 79 Rented 2-3 bed House 18 26 4 bed House 8 14

Shared 1-3 bed Flat 18 23 Ownership 1-3 bed House 19 27 Total 421 605 Note: Car Ownership based on Tenure as per 2011 Census Data

5.29 Table 5.3 shows that by applying the car ownership levels for the Downswood and Otham Ward to the 421 dwellings proposed as part of the development, there would be a demand for circa 605 resident spaces.

5.30 It is therefore concluded that the 703 resident spaces plus 114 Garage spaces proposed would be expected to be sufficient for accommodating the generated car ownership levels by the proposed development.

5.31 Parking bays are generally 2.4m by 4.8m except when parallel to the road when they are 2.4m by 6m. Where there is tandem parking adjacent to an obstruction the parking space is 3.2m wide. Garages are designed to be a minimum of 3.5m by 6.3m in size.

5.32 It has already been alluded to that with private drives provided throughout the development site for individual dwellings, the number of parking spaces will be a combination of spaces provided adjacent to houses and those provided as parallel parking bays. With regards to the parallel parking bays the intention is to provide them directly off the primary street at a dimension of 6m by 2.5m, with appropriate taper.

5.33 A Swept Path Analysis (SPA) exercise has been undertaken for the proposals and this demonstrates that the parking spaces are all accessible and will work in an efficient manner.

Cycle Parking

5.34 Cycle parking will be provided according to specific needs whether that be a house or a flat. This will be in accordance with Kent Vehicle Parking Standards for Residential Cycle Parking as per Table 5.4.

Minimum Cycle Parking Standards - KCC

C3 Residential Cycle Parking Standard Individual residential dwellings (1) 1 space per bedroom Flats & maisonettes (2) 1 space per unit Notes: 1. Cycle parking provision should normally be provided within the curtilage of the residential dwelling. Where a garage is provided it should be of a suitable size to accommodate the required cycle parking provision. 2. Parking provision should be provided as a secure communal facility where a suitable alternative is not available. Note: KMSP SPG4: Vehicle Parking Standards (July 2006)

5.35 With regards to residential cycle parking standards, the minimum is 1,064 spaces. In total, the number of cycle parking spaces proposed is 1,088 which is in accordance with the minimum KCC standards for residential cycle parking.

5.36 Cycle parking will be provided according to specific needs whether that be a house or a flat. It has been established that each dwelling will either have a garage or a shed within each back garden which will be sufficient and secure to store cycles and there will be a separate cycle storage for the flats provided on site, as shown on the site layout.

5.37 The Travel Plan provides the opportunity to constantly monitor the cycle parking spaces and cycle hire scheme, adding additional numbers as necessary to meet any growing demand, without the provision of excessive unnecessary spaces from opening. As such, the mixture of spaces and hire bikes can be tailored to the development. The scheme should be monitored every 6 months over the life of the Travel Plan.

5.38 It is considered that an appropriate level of car and cycle parking will be provided as part of the scheme which will comfortably accommodate expected demand and avoid any overspill onto the surrounding roads.

TRIP GENERATION & DISTRIBUTION ON HIGHWAY NETWORK

6.1 The following section reviews the trip generation by the proposed residential development. The trip generation figures were discussed with KCC at Scoping stage and were therefore updated to reflect a more recent TRICS dataset than what was presented within the applications quoted in the discussions with KCC.

6.2 Notwithstanding this it should be reiterated that this site is allocated within the local plan and has previously been considered within cumulative assessments which were undertaken and subsequently approved alongside other developments and highway improvement schemes.

Trip Generation by the Proposed Development

6.3 It is assumed that the existing field does not attract currently attract any trips within the peak hours, and as such no trips are being assigned to the existing land-use.

6.4 As the site allocation accounts for a total of 440 units, this number is being modelled, as compared to the 421 dwellings being proposed above. This allows for robust verification of the network impact by the potential development allocation as permitted on the site by the MBC Local Plan.

TRICS Methodology

6.5 The TRICS database is a national dataset incorporating a large number of traffic surveys which are used as an estimation model for trip generation, based on evidence of similar developments elsewhere throughout the country. The TRICS database allows the filtering of sites by land use type, location, size and a variety of other parameters to generate a trip generation model by the proposed land use development.

6.6 The TRICS database search was based upon the parameters used within a database query made on the nearby site at Bicknor Wood, as requested by KCC officers. This search was updated using the latest iteration of the database, to bring these result up to date.

6.7 In this case, the latest iteration of the TRICS model at time of Scoping, version 7.5.4, was used for this analysis. In order to understand the proposed changes to trip generation, a Vehicular Trip Generation calculation to understand the number of person trips being undertaken to the site.

6.8 The sites were filtered to include only sites in the South-east of England excluding Greater London. For the purpose of this exercise the 85th percentile result was used, as requested by KCC. Within this methodology the database results are ranked by the total vehicular trip generation, and the 85th percentile result adopted as the selected trip rate. This would account for the highest potential trip generation what could be generated by such a development, as is being used to maximise the robustness of the junction modelling.

Trip Generation by the Proposed Dwellings

6.9 With regards to trip impacts, the following trip generation was extracted from TRICS database for similar developments. This is based on a TRICS search for the 03M – Mixed Private / Affordable Housing land-use category.

6.10 The trip rates shown in Table 6.1 below are therefore being adopted for the calculation of person trips and traffic during the peak hours:

Trip Generation factors for the Proposed Dwellings Trip Rate Total trips (440no. units) Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures AM Typical Peak hour (0800-0900) 0.149 0.445 66 196 PM Typical Peak hour (1700-1800) 0.338 0.255 149 112 Note: Trip rates per dwelling unit, as extracted from the 85th percentile in TRICS v7.5.4

6.11 Table 6.1 above shows that 66 arrivals and 196 departures would be generated in the typical morning peak hour by the development respectively. In the afternoon peak hour, the development would account for 149 arrivals and 112 departures respectively.

6.12 This level of vehicle movements during the peak hours equates to circa four vehicle movements per minute, however it is considered that this is a robust estimate based on the allocated 440 dwellings and that there is an aim to reduce car use and encourage trips by sustainable modes.

6.13 The full 85th percentile TRICS reports for mixed private and affordable dwellings are included as Appendix A18.

Multi-Modal Assessment

6.14 To accurately forecast travel modes by future residents is to utilise the ward specific ‘travel to work’ modal share data for the resident population, available from the 2011 Census. This has been used and combined with data obtained from the TRICS database for vehicle trips.

6.15 Although ‘travel to work’ data does not encompass all trips undertaken to and from the site, this is considered the most reliable data available for modal share within peak hours as most trips undertaken at this time will be to and from work or linked trips using the same mode via schools, shops and leisure uses.

6.16 The 2011 ‘Travel to Work’ census data for the surrounding ward datasets of Park Wood and Downswood & Otham Ward have been used which provides a more accurate representation of modal share for the proposed development.

6.17 By applying the percentage splits in Table 2.9 to the total trip rate numbers in Table 6.1 it is possible to achieve predicted trip numbers for each travel mode which are deemed more appropriate for the site. These are shown in Table 6.2:

Multi-Modal Trip Generation using 2011 Ward Census Data (Two-way trips)

85th Percentile (Average) Percentage Method of Travel to Work Splits AM Peak PM Peak (Two-Way) (Two-Way) Underground, Metro, Light Rail, Tram 0.1% 0 0 Train 4.4% 16 16 Bus, Minibus or Coach 6.4% 23 23 Taxi 0.3% 1 1 Motorcycle, Scooter or Moped 0.9% 3 3 Driving a Car or Van 73.7% 262 261 Passenger in a Car or Van 5.8% 21 21 Bicycle 1.3% 5 5 On Foot 6.7% 24 24 Other Method of Travel to Work 0.5% 2 2 Total 100.0% 355 354 NOTE: Trips based on 440 allocated units

6.18 In terms of sustainable travel, it can be seen that the residential development as a whole is forecast to generate 39 journeys by public transport in the AM and PM peak hours. Walking is forecast to generate 24 trips in the AM and PM peak hour. It is further predicted that around 5 journeys will be made by cyclists in each peak hour period.

6.19 The level of existing public transport services in the vicinity of the site is likely to provide adequate spare capacity to cater for the number of estimated public transport movements detailed above and would not be perceived from daily fluctuations on their individual networks. As a consequence, no further assessment has been undertaken as to the impact on sustainable travel.

6.20 However, given the aspiration to encourage travel by sustainable modes, with the provision of footway connectivity, bus services to and from the site and the provision of a Travel Plan and Residential Travel Packs, it is the intention that vehicle trips would be reduced and an increase in the number of trips by other modes.

Traffic Distribution and Assignment onto the Local Highway Network

6.21 To assess the impact of the proposed development, the trip generation as outlined in Table 6.1 above has been distributed and then added to the base case. This provides a total traffic flow at the stated junctions within the study area, which has then been used within the specific assessment models.

6.22 The proposed trip distribution is based upon the Origin-Destination information as extracted from DataShine Commute website (https://commute.datashine.org.uk/), based on persons commuting to work from home when driving by car.

6.23 The distribution is therefore assigned onto the network, using a route choice as predicted by directions generated during peak hours within third-party mapping and navigation suppliers (‘Google Maps’). ‘Google Maps’ has been used to predict the assignment of trips across the local highway network based on a neutral weekday during the AM peak. ‘Google Maps’ uses local traffic news data and ‘crowd-sourced’, anonymised traffic data from people using the ‘Google Maps’ app on their smartphones.

6.24 ‘Google Maps’ combines the driver’s speed with the speed of other phones on the road, across thousands of phones moving around an area at any given time, ‘Google Maps’ can then get a realistic picture of live traffic conditions. By selecting peak hour time periods, the most efficient routes are predicted based on the average traffic conditions for that day/time.

6.25 The predicted development traffic is therefore assigned along the vehicle routes identified by ‘Google Maps’ broadly in accordance with 2011 Census Travel to Work Origin and Destination (O-D) data for the local residential population who drive to/from work.

6.26 On occasions where there is more than one vehicular route to a specific Census output area, a review is undertaken to determine the most likely routes to employment areas, i.e. if half of a Census output area is made up of open fields and the other half is an industrial estate, routes to the employment area will be considered the most likely for distributed development trips.

Assessment Methodology

6.27 Junctions within the agreed study area have been assessed, utilising industry standard modelling software packages as identified, for the AM and PM peak hours. The assessments have been based on the following scenarios:

• 2018 Observed (utilising the traffic survey data obtained);

• 2029 Base Case (applying growth rates to the observed data, and add committed development); and

• 2029 Development Case (adding the proposed trip generation to the Base Case data).

6.28 In order to assess the impact of the predicted traffic generated by the proposed development of the site, it is necessary to consider the operation of the local highway network under both the Base and Development scenarios and undertake a comparison of the performance in each scenario.

6.29 Both scenarios consider the future assessment year and include the traffic associated with committed developments in the area, in addition to the standard allowance for the growth of existing background traffic, based on the National Trip End Model (NTEM).

6.30 The development traffic has been assessed in the Weekday AM and PM peak hours for an assessment year of 2029 (ten years after application date), when the development is expected to be completed.

6.31 Given the housing growth assumed within TEMPRO and the development of the site being in accordance with the MBC Local Plan it is reasonable to assume that there is an element of double counting within the assessment.

6.32 Based on the above it is considered that the traffic flow data included within this TA is extremely robust and allows for residential growth in the area. In summary:

• Traffic generation has been based on 440 residential dwellings, rather than the 421 dwellings being proposed. As such, if modelled on the proposed 421 dwellings the vehicle movements would decrease.

• The flows used in association with the residential use are extremely high given the use of 85th Percentile Rates and mixed private housing, therefore excluding lower trip rates generated from any affordable provision.

• Given the use of TEMPro NTEM growth rates whereby the housing growth has been assumed in accordance with the MBC Core Strategy and likely includes the proposed development site it is reasonable to assume that there is an element of double counting. Further, the higher growth rate figure has been used for the assessment of both the AM and PM peaks. As we were asked to undertake this approach by officers it can be assumed the modelling is both robust and provides for a sensitivity test. In reality careful consideration of TEMPro would normally be undertaken to ensure there is no double counting when the growth is effectively the additional development sites we are adding.

• Although not directly a traffic generation issue, it should also be noted that the provision of residential travel packs along with other transport measures being proposed within the local area, these will help to encourage trips by sustainable modes and minimise the number of car trips associated with the site. As such, the number of trips could be lower than those identified in Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

2018 Observed Network Flows

6.33 The existing flow diagram network was built upon surveyed data. The collection of this data, as extracted from the Manual Classified Counts undertaken as part of this exercise, are explained in Section 2 above. As these junctions were surveyed in 2018, this is designated as the 2018 Observed Case.

6.34 The flow diagram is therefore extended as agreed within the Scoping discussions with KCC to include the following junctions:

• Junction 1, A274 Sutton Road / Willington Street / Wallis Avenue signal-controlled junction;

• Junction 2, A274 Sutton Road / Gore Court Road priority junction;

• Junction 3, Gore Court Road / White Horse Lane priority junction;

• Junction 4, Church Road / Deringwood Drive priority junction;

• Junction 5, Willington Street / Deringwood Drive priority junction;

• Junction 6, A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street signal-controlled junction;

• Junction 7, A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane priority crossroads;

• Junction 8, Sutton Road / Imperial Park Site Access priority junction;

• Junction 9, A274 Sutton Road / A229 Loose Road / Cranbourne Avenue (Wheatsheaf) signal- controlled junction;

• Junction 10, A229 / Armstrong Road / Park Way signal-controlled junction;

• Junction 11, A274 Sutton Road / St. Saviours Road signal-controlled junction;

• Junction 12, A20 Ashford Road / New Cut Road signal-controlled junction;

• Junction 13, A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane priority junction;

• Junction 14, M20 J8 roundabout; and

• Junction 15, A20 Ashford Road / M20 J8 roundabout.

6.35 The diagrams showing existing flows over the peak hours and every 15-minute quarter is included as the 2018 Observed Case within Appendix A19.

6.36 Of the above it is pertinent to note that the following junctions are in the process of being upgraded through other schemes, including:

• Junction 3, Gore Court Road / White Horse Lane – This junction is being diverted via the proposed North of Bicknor Wood application, changing priority from straight ahead onto Church Road, into straight into the Bicknor Wood scheme, with a side arm continuing north towards Gore Court Road / Church Road into the diverted White Horse lane. The westernmost section of this road is therefore being stopped up in the process.

• Junction 6 - A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street – This junction forms Phase 1 of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package – This is fully approved with the design in progress and a planned completion date of Autumn 2020. The scheme will improve the existing signalised junctions of Willington Street with the A20 and the A274 in order to maximise the efficiency of the network and reduce queueing and delays. It is assumed that this junction improvement scheme will fully take into account growth within this part of Maidstone and the allocated development sites, particularly as H1(8) was to contribute towards the improvements at this junction as set out within the MBC Highways Mitigation Apportionment Table.

• Junction 12 - New Cut Road / A20 Ashford Road – Improvements to this junction are proposed as part of planning application (and subsequently approved planning appeal) MA / 17 / 501471 / FULL (Erection of a three-storey secondary school with associated access, car parking and landscaping for Land at Valley Park School New Cut Road Maidstone Kent ME14 5SL). This involves the upgrading of the junction to incorporate an Urban Traffic Control (UTC) capability and a Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) mode of control. These features will improve the effectiveness of the signal operation, thereby helping to negate any worsening of congestion caused by the proposed development. The assessment for this junction improvement scheme has taken into account growth within this part of Maidstone and the allocated development sites.

6.37 As proposals for the above are still yet to be finalised and published, these junctions are not considered within the junction capacity modelling analysis.

2029 Base Case

6.38 The 2029 Base Case is based upon the expected completion date for the development. Due to the scale of the site, as well as other residential developments coming forward nearby, it is not expected that the whole development will be completed until around this time. The Observed Case traffic was therefore ‘growthed’ from 2018 to 2029.

6.39 The 2029 Base Case therefore includes growth rates as extracted from TEMPRO of the NTEM model, as well as the addition of new trips generated onto the highway network by the new consented developments (also known as committed developments) coming forward around the site.

Committed Developments

6.40 Committed developments in the area have been taken into account, as noted by KCC, included within Appendix A2. The following applications were considered relevant to be taken into consideration with the scheme:

• MA / 09 / 1784: Offices / Hotel, Eclipse Park

• MA / 12 / 0986: Kent Police Training (H1-28)

• MA / 12 / 0987: Kent Police HQ (H1-27)

• MA / 13 / 0951: North of Sutton Road (H1-6)

• MA / 13 / 1149: Langley Park (H1-5)

• MA / 13 / 1163: Maidstone Medical Campus

• MA / 13 / 1523: West of Bicknor Farm Cottages (H1-6)

• MA / 14 / 500290: Maidstone TV Studios, New Cut Road

• MA / 14 / 503167: Cripple Street

• MA / 14 / 506264: Bicknor Farm (H1-9)

• MA / 14 / 506738: Barty Farm, Roundwell

• MA / 15 / 509015: Land South of Sutton Road (H1-10)

• MA / 15 / 509251: Land North of Bicknor Wood (H1-7)

• MA / 16 / 508659: Redwall Lane, Linton

• MA / 17 / 502331: Woodcut Farm, Ashford Road

• MA / 17 / 501471: Maidstone School of Science & Technology, New Cut Road

• MA / 18 / 502144: M&S Store, Eclipse Park

• MA / 18 / 502683: Lyewood Farm, Boughton Monchelsea

6.41 Each of the above Committed Development traffic was therefore included into the Committed Developments Flow Diagrams, which are included on the network, and shown within Appendix A20.

6.42 The Committed Developments and the ‘growthed’ Observed flows therefore were combined together to form the 2029 Base Case scenario. The full 2029 Base Case flows are therefore included as Appendix A21.

6.43 The proposed development will require the completion of the proposed highway works on the Church Road / Gore Court Road corridor (as part of permission MA / 17 / 501449) prior to any occupations on the site, to allow the safe operation of the site by the potential future residents.

Development Flows

6.44 The development traffic flows which were generated by the site and outlined above in Table 6.2 were therefore distributed onto the local network, based upon Origin-Destination datasets available within the 2011 Census. The dataset considered within this distribution was based on Travel to Work data from the local Lower Super Output Area (LSOA), Maidstone 015B for local traffic and using the Middle Super Output Area (MSOA), Maidstone 015 for traffic destined outside the local LSOA.

6.45 An element of variation from the Scoping Note submitted originally to KCC in this regard is the assignment routes of trips between the site and the M20 in the north-west. Originally it was suggested within the Scoping Note that traffic driving to and from the north-west of the Site onto the M20 would use Junction 7 of this motorway.

6.46 Following the interrogation of ‘Google Maps’, it was noted that due to the existing congestion at the junctions on the route toward this junction during peak hours, an alternative route via Junction 8 of the motorway would prove a quicker, albeit longer, option.

6.47 As the site lies to the eastern edge of the town of Maidstone, it is faster to drive out of town, against the flow of traffic, than into town during the morning peak hours. The same applies in reverse during the evening peak hours, avoiding the traffic driving out of the town centre.

6.48 Whilst undertaking this route adds typically 5.7km to the trip, a good proportion of the drivers would prefer driving the additional distance to avoid sitting in traffic and driving in traffic in low gears. As local residents would be expected to learn of such alternative route, a significant portion of these would potentially use it.

6.49 It was therefore concluded that 50% of this traffic would use Junction 7 of the M20, whereas 50% would use Junction 8 of the M20 motorway.

6.50 These distributed flows are therefore shown within Appendix A22 of this document and have been agreed with Highways England.

2029 Development Case

6.51 The 2029 Development Case therefore was generated, by adding the proposed development flows on top of the 2029 Base Case flows, to calculate the impact percentage on each junction included within the reviewed network.

6.52 The full 2029 Development Case is included as Appendix A23 of this report.

6.53 A comparative analysis of each junction, relating the 2029 Base and 2029 Development will therefore be undertaken in the next section for junctions which are considered to be discernibly impacted by the proposals.

JUNCTION CAPACITY ASSESSMENTS

7.1 Given the allocation of this site, the impact of the allocated development for up to 440 dwellings, rather than 421 dwellings as proposed, has been considered and approved as part of cumulative assessments previously undertaken. Nonetheless, the following section details the methodology used to assess the impact of the predicted traffic associated with the proposed development on the local highway network.

Assessment Methodology

7.2 In order to assess the impact of the predicted traffic generated by the proposed development of the site, it is necessary to consider the operation of the local highway network under both the Base and Development scenarios and undertake a comparison of the performance in each scenario.

7.3 Both scenarios consider the future assessment year and include the traffic associated with committed developments in the area, in addition to an allowance for the growth of existing background traffic, as noted within the previous section.

7.4 The impact of the development traffic has therefore been assessed in the weekday AM and PM peak hours for an assessment year of 2029 (ten years after application date). A comparative analysis of the with and without development cases could therefore be undertaken.

7.5 The models for the impacted junctions are therefore modelled through junction analysis software Junctions 9 and LinSig v3.2, which are the accepted industry-standard junction modelling software, thereby providing output data in the form of overall junction capacity and predicted queue lengths during each peak hour.

Traffic Impact

7.6 An increase of +10% in peak hour traffic is widely regarded as material in terms of the impact on highway capacity and represents typical day-to-day variation in traffic flows. Such an increase has historically been taken as the threshold for determining whether or not the impact of development traffic on highway capacity should be assessed. This is reduced to +5% in areas already subject to congestion or expected to be within the timescale considered. The 5% and 10% thresholds were set out in the 1994 Guidelines for Traffic Impact Assessment published by the IHT.

7.7 The 1993 Guidelines for the Environmental Assessment of Road Traffic, published by the Institute of Environmental Assessment (IEA), also refer to the + / -10% daily variation and state that: projected changes in traffic of less than 10% create no discernible environmental impact. The IEA Guidelines go on to state that an increase of 30% in traffic flows has a “slight” impact on severance. These

guidelines are adopted as best-practice tools in quantifying traffic impact on nearby junctions by the proposed development.

7.8 Table 7.1 below sets out the predicted flows through junctions on the local highway network in the weekday AM and PM peak hours for both the 2029 Base and 2029 Development (Base + Proposed) scenarios, and also the result change / percentage impact.

Junction Impact Table 2018 2029 Junction Peak Hour Ref. Observed Base Trip by Dev. %age Case Case Dev. Case Impact Junction Willington Street / A274 AM 2,452 4,433 12 4,445 0.3% 1 Sutton Road / Wallis Av PM 2,716 4,865 20 4,885 0.4% Junction Gore Ct Road / A274 AM 1,741 3,316 83 3,399 2.5% 2 Sutton Road PM 1,835 3,551 81 3,632 2.3% Junction White Horse Lane / Gore AM 389 641 83 724 13.0% 3 Ct Road / Church Road PM 304 626 81 708 12.9% Junction Deringwood Drive / AM 753 942 178 1,120 18.9% 4 Church Road PM 561 821 179 1,000 21.8% Junction Willington Street / AM 1,915 2,888 112 3,000 3.9% 5 Deringwood Drive PM 2,037 3,117 110 3,227 3.5% Junction A20 Ashford Road / AM 2,314 3,352 103 3,455 3.1% 6 Willington Street PM 2,461 3,681 90 3,771 2.4% Junction A20 Ashford Road / Spot AM 1,456 1,847 66 1,913 3.6% 7 Lane / Roseacre Lane PM 1,559 2,126 70 2,196 3.3% Junction Buffkyn Way / A274 AM 1,589 3,089 36 3,125 1.2% 8 Sutton Road PM 1,597 3,224 21 3,245 0.6% Junction A229 Loose Road / A274 AM 2,756 3,801 4 3,805 0.1% 9 Sutton Rd / Cranborne Av PM 2,905 4,162 2 4,164 0.1% Junction Park Way / A229 Loose AM 2,779 3,798 4 3,802 0.1% 10 Road / Armstrong Road PM 2,897 4,098 2 4,101 0.1% Junction A274 Sutton Road / AM 1,737 2,560 4 2,564 0.2% 11 St Saviours Road PM 2,122 3,028 2 3,031 0.1% Junction New Cut Road / A20 AM 2,490 3,491 103 3,594 3.0% 12 Ashford Road PM 2,448 3,594 90 3,684 2.5% Junction Sutton Road / Edmett AM 1,206 3,075 48 3,123 1.6% 13 Way PM 1,527 3,324 48 3,372 1.4% Junction Esso Access / M20 J8 / AM 2,922 3,385 44 3,430 1.3% 14 A20 Ashford Road PM 2,857 3,475 46 3,521 1.3% Junction A20 Ashford Road / M20 AM 3,073 3,564 60 3,624 1.7% 15 J8 Link PM 3,033 3,644 62 3,706 1.7%

7.9 Table 7.1 shows that the predicted increase in traffic, as a result of the development proposals, during the weekday peak hours in the 2029 assessment year is well below the +10% typical day-to- day variation at the majority of junctions within the study area and all but two of the junctions, traffic impacts within the AM and PM peak hours, variation is below +5% variation threshold.

7.10 The largest predicted impact expected is at the two nearest junctions; the White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road priority junction and the Deringwood Drive / Church Road priority junction. The impact is predicted to be of around 13% in the both the AM and PM weekday peak hour within the former and between 19% and 22% at the latter junction.

7.11 The junctions that exceed the 2.5% threshold are the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive priority junction (3.9% in AM, and 3.5% in PM peak hours), the A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street signalised junction (3.1% in AM and 2.4% in PM peak hours), the A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane priority junction (3.6% in AM and 3.3% in PM peak hours) and the New Cut Road / A20 Ashford Road signalised junction (3.0% in AM and 2.5% in PM peak hours).

7.12 Table 7.1 also shows that the largest impact in terms of the number of vehicle trips is around three vehicles per minute at the Church Road / Deringwood Drive junction, whilst seven of the junctions are impacted by less than one vehicle every minute. This is considered to be a minimal impact.

7.13 The remaining junctions not discussed above are forecast to be impacted by less than 2.5% and are not considered within the junction modelling analysis.

7.14 This level of impact is not considered to be severe on the local highway network. Furthermore, the junction of A274 Sutton Road / Gore Court Road (with an impact of 2.5% in AM and 2.3% in PM peak hours) has changed significantly in nature since the opening of Buffkyn Way, which is a wider and safer alternative route between the site and the A274 Sutton Road.

7.15 Furthermore, the impacts generated by the various allocated developments within the area on the other junctions have previously been considered as part of the cumulative assessment work undertaken as part of previous planning applications and approved by MBC. Each of the allocated sites are providing separate contributions to upgrade key parts of the network as part of the agreed highway mitigation strategy.

Impacts on Strategic Road Network

7.16 Following the above, the impact on the Strategic Road Network (‘SRN’) was quantified, being the traffic on Routes 1, 2 and 3 of the Distributed traffic, as discussed in Section 6 above, which reach the M20 motorway via Junctions 7 and 8.

7.17 It is expected that the proposed additional 38 (AM peak hour) and 40 (PM peak hour) two-way trips on J7 of the M20, and extra 44 (AM) and 46 (PM) two-way trips on J8 of the M20 respectively would

constitute the addition of less than one trip a minute through the whole junction, and would therefore not be perceivable on the operation or safety of the motorway junctions.

7.18 It is noted that within the Outline planning application (MBC reference MA / 19 / 501600) submitted for this site, using similar modelling numbers and flows, Highways England comment in October 2019 that the proposed development would not materially affect the SRN, stating as follows:

“Consequently, we offer no objection provided that any planning permission granted under 19/501600/OUT reflects and carries across the previous agreements and commitments regarding the contribution towards the M20J7 mitigation scheme: as on this basis we would satisfied that the proposal will not materially affect the safety, reliability and/or operation of the strategic road network (the tests set out in DfT Circular 02/2013, particularly paragraphs 9 & 10, and HMCLG NPPF particularly paragraph 109) in this location and its vicinity.”

7.19 Considering the above, it is concluded that no potential safety impacts arise to the SRN from the proposed development and therefore these junctions are not considered any further as part of this assessment.

Junction Modelling Methodology

7.20 The industry standard Transport Research Laboratory’s (TRL) modelling software Junctions 9 have been used to model the operation of the existing junctions within the study area as well as the proposed access junctions.

7.21 The PICADY module within Junctions 9 demonstrate results by the maximum Ratio of Flow to Capacity (RFC) value predicted in association with each give-way manoeuvre during each modelled period, together with the maximum average queue (in vehicles) and the average overall delay incurred by every vehicle passing through the junction.

7.22 An RFC value of 0.85 is usually taken as indicating that the manoeuvre is operating at around practical capacity, while a value of 1.0 indicates that it is operating at around theoretical capacity. Once a manoeuvre is operating at an RFC above 1.00 it can become sensitive to any increase in traffic, often providing excessive queuing results which do not correspond with the ‘actual’ additional traffic forecast through the junction itself. The DIRECT profile option in the PICADY (priority junctions) module of Junctions 9 have been utilised.

7.23 The proposed signal junctions are modelled using JCT LinSig v3.2, which represent the results as a Practical Reserve Capacity (PRC), a value over 0% denotes extra capacity within a junction. A PRC value under zero therefore concludes that the junction is expected to operate aver capacity. LinSig calculates the saturation capacity of each arm entering the signals, by balancing allocated green time to each arm between the required flows.

7.24 LinSig started life as a design and modelling tool for individual traffic signal junctions, but this has been extended as modelling tool for networks of signals as well as retaining the ability to model single junctions. It models traffic signal junctions in a similar way to how a real traffic signal controller actually works, which means that LinSig takes account of the features and constraints of the controlling equipment, thereby ensuring that all modelling accurately reflects how junctions work.

Modelled Scenarios

7.25 The operation of the junctions has been assessed based on the following scenarios in the AM and PM peak hours identified from the traffic surveys. The traffic flow diagrams are included at Appendices A19, A21 and A23. The analysed scenarios constituted as follows:

• 2018 Observed – Existing network traffic flow counts;

• 2029 Base Case – 2018 / 2019 Observed data factored by the 2029 TEMPRO Growth scenario plus relevant committed development trips; and

• 2029 Development Case – 2029 Base scenario plus the Proposed Development trips.

7.26 The existing junction models have been developed using Topographical Survey (where available) and Ordnance Survey mapping, supplemented by on-site observations and measurements where possible.

7.27 The following junctions will be modelled, which includes the two new site accesses and the existing junctions that are currently not under review by third-parties which are being impacted by 2.5%:

• Northern Site Access onto Church Road;

• Southern Site Access onto Church Road;

• Junction 3 - Church Road / Deringwood Drive;

• Junction 4 - Church Road / Gore Court Road / White Horse Lane (approved layout is modelled);

• Junction 5 - Willington Street / Deringwood Drive; and

• Junction 7 - A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane.

Proposed Northern Site Access

Traffic Profile

7.28 As described in Section 4, it is proposed to provide a new northern site access onto Church Road to link into the site. In order to provide a robust model of the proposed access junction, ONE HOUR / ODTab has to be used to synthesize a ‘peak within a peak’ scenario. It is considered that this function within PICADY is valid for ‘new’ junctions to ensure a robust assessment and demonstrate delays, if any, on the main road, in this case, Church Road.

Modelling Results

7.29 The results in Table 7.2 below demonstrate that the junction will operate within capacity in both peak periods with both the local committed developments and proposed development fully occupied.

Proposed Northern Site Access Priority Junction AM Peak PM Peak Test Scenario Manoeuvre Max Q RFC Max Q RFC

2029 Northern Site Access to Church Road 0.3 0.22 0.1 0.13 Development Case Church Road to Northern Site Access 0.1 0.09 0.3 0.20

7.30 A maximum RFC of 0.22 is calculated on the northern site access arm in the AM peak based on the 2029 Development Case scenario; this is significantly below the practical capacity RFC of 0.85. Full PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24. The modelling parameters drawing 16-T114_21 is included within Appendix A25.

7.31 The results demonstrate that the proposed site access junction will operate within practical capacity in the 2029 future year in both weekday peak hour periods. No residual queuing is predicted on any arm and therefore there is not perceived to be any capacity or safety concerns at this junction. Clearly the junction will have little impact on the existing through traffic on Church Road.

Proposed Southern Site Access

7.32 As described in Section 4, it is proposed to provide a new southern site access onto Church Road to link the site. In order to provide a robust model of the proposed access junction, ONE HOUR / ODTab has to be used to synthesize a ‘peak within a peak’ scenario. It is considered that this function within PICADY is valid for ‘new’ junctions to ensure a robust assessment and demonstrate delays, if any, on the main road, in this case, Church Road.

Modelling Results

7.33 The results in Table 6.3 below demonstrate that the junction will operate within capacity in both peak periods with both the local committed developments and proposed development fully occupied.

Proposed Southern Site Access Priority Junction Test AM Peak PM Peak Manoeuvre Scenario Max Q RFC Max Q RFC

2029 Southern Site Access to Church Road 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.08 Development Case Church Road to Southern Site Access 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00

7.34 A maximum RFC of 0.15 is predicted on the southern site access arm in the AM peak based on the 2029 Development Case scenario; this is significantly below the practical capacity RFC of 0.85. Full

PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24. The modelling parameters drawing 16-T114_22 is included within Appendix A25.

7.35 The results demonstrate that the proposed site access junction will operate within practical capacity in the 2029 future year in both weekday peak hour periods. No residual queuing is predicted on any arm and therefore there is not perceived to be any capacity or safety concerns at this junction. Clearly the junction will have little impact on the existing through traffic on Church Road.

Junction 3 - White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road Priority Junction

7.36 The White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road priority junction is being upgraded as part of the proposed Bicknor Wood scheme, currently being developed to the south east of the existing junction. The proposed redevelopment includes the realignment of White Horse Lane into that site and changing of the straight ahead from the current arrangement, with Church Road becoming the minor arm of this priority junction.

7.37 The redundant part of White Horse Lane will be stopped up and developed as a pedestrian path into Church Road. The proposed realignment is not expected to generate significant changes to local traffic patterns, since this junction is only used for local access, considering the observed numbers.

Traffic Profile

7.38 This priority junction has been modelled in the PICADY module within TRL’s Junctions 9 software package using a DIRECT profile. When using the DIRECT profile type, traffic demand is entered for each 15-minute period over a 60-minute model time. This allows for an accurate assessment for operation of the junction in both the existing and future year scenarios.

Modelling Results

7.39 The results in Table 7.4 provide a summary of the modelling assessment undertaken at this junction for all scenarios. Full PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24. The modelling parameter drawings are extracted from the Transport Assessment that was submitted as part of the planning application for this development (MA / 15 / 509251).

White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road Junction – PICADY Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Test Scenario Manoeuvre Max Q RFC Max Q RFC Church Road to Gore Court Road 1.5 0.62 0.7 0.42 2029 Base Case Gore Court Road to Church Road 0.2 0.16 0.1 0.09

2029 Development Church Road to Gore Court Road 1.5 0.62 0.7 0.42 Case Gore Court Road to Church Road 0.3 0.17 0.1 0.09

7.40 The results demonstrate that the White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road priority junction is forecast to operate well below practical capacity in both the 2029 Base and Development AM and PM Peak hours.

7.41 The results demonstrate that the White Horse Lane / Gore Court Road / Church Road priority junction will operate well within theoretical capacity in the 2029 Base Case and Development Case within future year in the AM and PM weekday peak hour periods at maximum RFCs of 0.62 and 0.42 respectively. No change is anticipated between the Base and Development Case scenarios.

7.42 Therefore, the proposed development is not expected to have any noticeable effects on this junction. The slight increases within the delay, shown within the full junction model report are not considered perceivable.

Junction 4 – Deringwood Drive / Church Road Priority Junction

Traffic Profile

7.43 The Deringwood Drive / Church Road priority junction has been modelled in the PICADY module within TRL’s Junctions 9 software package using a DIRECT profile. When using the DIRECT profile type, traffic demand is entered for each 15-minute period over a 60-minute model time. This allows for an accurate assessment for operation of the junction in both the existing and future year scenarios.

Modelling Results

7.44 The results in Table 7.5 provide a summary of the modelling assessment undertaken at this junction for all scenarios. Full PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24. The modelling parameters drawings for the existing and proposed junctions are included within Appendix A25, referred to drawing references 16-T114_11 and 16-T114_20 respectively.

• Deringwood Drive / Church Road Priority Junction – PICADY Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Test Scenario Manoeuvre Max Max RFC RFC Q Q Church Road to Deringwood Drive 0.9 0.48 0.8 0.44 2018 Observed Deringwood Drive to Church Road 0.1 0.13 0.1 0.10 Church Road to Deringwood Drive 2.6 0.74 2.2 0.71 2029 Base Case Deringwood Drive to Church Road 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.12

2029 Church Road to Deringwood Drive 16.4 1.02 6.0 0.89 Development Case Deringwood Drive to Church Road 0.3 0.20 0.3 0.23

7.45 The results demonstrate that the Deringwood Drive / Church Road priority junction is forecast to operate well below practical capacity in both the 2029 Base AM and PM Peak hours.

7.46 The results also calculate that the Church Road arm will operate just above theoretical capacity within the 2029 Development Case within future year in the AM and PM weekday peak hour periods at maximum RFCs of 1.02 and 0.89 respectively, with the existing arrangement.

7.47 Having said so, this junction will need to be amended to allow for the introduction of a bus route along the northern section of Church Lane, as expanded upon below in Section 8 of this TA.

Junction Realignment and 2029 Development Case including Mitigation

7.48 To allow for the introduction of the bus route, the kerb lines on Church Road are being amended in order to widen the carriageway and provide a central hatched area for 12m buses to run over and widening the initial 20m of this road. The existing arrangement of Deringwood Drive is being retained as is. The proposed amendments to the kerb radii on Church Road would naturally enhance the capacity of this junction. These amendments are shown within drawing 16-T114_34.1, being included within Appendix A26.

7.49 Table 7.6 below shows the 2029 Development Case, including the proposed mitigation measures amendments:

Deringwood Drive / Church Road Priority Redesigned Junction – PICADY Results Test AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Manoeuvre Scenario Max Q RFC Max Q RFC 2029 Church Road to Deringwood Drive (E) 0.7 0.43 0.4 0.31 Development Church Road to Deringwood Drive (W) 3.9 0.83 2.1 0.69 Case + Mitigation Deringwood Drive to Church Road 0.3 0.20 0.3 0.23

7.50 The proposed mitigation measure would therefore limit the increase in RFC between the 2029 Base Case and the Mitigated 2029 Development Case from 0.74 and 0.71 RFC within the AM and PM peak hours to 0.83 and 0.69. This would retain the junction operations within the practical capacity limits and would therefore be considered an adequate measure in line with the proposed scheme.

The proposed realignment of this junction is designed to limit land uptake within the green area immediately to the north of the existing junction. Extending this junction to avoid overrun by buses would require additional land uptake to improve corner radii between Church Lane and Deringwood Drive.

Junction 5 – Willington Street / Deringwood Drive Priority Junction

Traffic Profile

7.51 The existing Willington Street / Deringwood Drive priority junction arrangement has been modelled in the PICADY module within TRL’s Junctions 9 software package using a DIRECT profile. When using the DIRECT profile type, traffic demand is entered for each 15-minute period over a 60-minute model time. This allows for an accurate assessment for operation of the junction in both the existing and future year scenarios.

Modelling Results

7.52 The results in Table 7.7 provide a summary of the modelling assessment undertaken at this junction for all scenarios. Full PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24. The modelling parameters drawings for the existing priority and proposed signalised junction arrangements are also included within Appendix A25 and referred to drawing references 16-T114_42 and 16-T114_43 respectively.

Deringwood Drive / Church Road Priority Junction – PICADY Results Test AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Manoeuvre Scenario Max Q RFC Max Q RFC

2018 Deringwood Drive to Willington Street 1.6 0.63 0.6 0.37 Observed Willington Street to Deringwood Drive 0.5 0.32 0.5 0.32

2029 Base Deringwood Drive to Willington Street 103.3 3.35 74.9 99999 Case Willington Street to Deringwood Drive 0.7 0.43 0.9 0.49 2029 Deringwood Drive to Willington Street 148.6 6.45 106.5 99999 Development Case Willington Street to Deringwood Drive 0.8 0.45 1.2 0.56

7.53 The results demonstrate that the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive priority junction is forecast to operate well above practical capacity in both the 2029 Base and Development AM and PM Peak hours, with the models breaking on the Deringwood Drive arm in both the future PM peak hours (Base and Development Case).

7.54 The results also demonstrate that the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive priority junction will operate significantly above theoretical capacity within the 2029 Base and Development Case in the AM weekday peak hour periods at maximum RFCs of 3.35 and 6.45 respectively.

7.55 Considering the above, it has been concluded that the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction cannot remain to operate within its existing arrangement over the next few years with the various committed development schemes currently in planning or under construction in South-east Maidstone. It is proposed that this junction is signalised, to enhance its practical capacity, in particular through linking with nearby junctions to the north of Willington Street with Madginford Road and with the A20 Ashford Road.

Junction Signalisation and 2029 Development Case including Mitigation

7.56 The proposed signalisation of the junction of Willington Street with Deringwood Drive would be expected to retain a similar geometric arrangement to the existing junction, with one northbound and one southbound lanes on Willington Street, and a right-turning lane on the northbound arm of Willington Street. With regard to the Deringwood Drive arm, the proposed arrangement shows two formal entry lanes, which replaces the single wide lane in the existing arrangement.

7.57 It is assumed that the existing issues with the existing arrangement even within the 2029 Base would require this junction to be signalised, even without the proposed scheme. The 2029 Base Case was therefore also modelled for comparative basis.

7.58 The proposed Willington Street / Deringwood Drive signalised junction arrangement has been modelled within JCT LinSig v3.2 software package. This software analyses junction operation with pedestrian phases on the signals being called within every cycle (worst case) and at every other cycle (likely case).

7.59 Table 7.8 below shows the 2029 Base Case (assumed that this will be implemented at the site, even without the proposed scheme) and 2029 Development Case, both including the proposed mitigation measures amendments:

Willington Str / Deringwood Drive Redesigned Signal Junction – LINSIG Results AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Test Scenario Pedestrian Crossing activation PRC PRC No Pedestrian cycle 33.1% 37.3% 2029 Base Case Pedestrians crossing at every other cycle -7.8% -16.9% Pedestrians crossing at every cycle -18.1% -38.4% No Pedestrian cycle 27.0% 21.1% 2029 Dev Case Pedestrians crossing at every other cycle -15.7% -20.0% (Mitigation) Pedestrians crossing at every cycle -25.6% -42.0%

7.60 The proposed mitigation measure compares much better than the priority junction arrangement, whereby the priority junction is expected to saturate, in particular during the weekday PM peak hours.

7.61 The proposed realignment of this junction is designed to limit land uptake within the surrounding areas around the existing junction. These amendments are shown within drawing 16-T114_35.1, being included within Appendix A27.

7.62 The above table demonstrates that the proposed signal junction will manage the operation of the junction to cater for future growth and traffic associated with the proposed development. Whilst additional traffic will have a negative impact at this location it should be borne in mind that the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction in its current ‘non-signalised’ form will reach its capacity with the level of committed development already approved.

7.63 It is also pertinent to note that various element of overcounting traffic has been included within these models, including modelling the full allocation of 440 dwellings instead of the proposed 421 units, modelling a number of committed development schemes that were partially developed at the time of surveys and adding then TEMPro growth on top of the latter (which therefore includes an element of double counting).

7.64 Therefore, it is concluded that the introduction of signals will help to manage traffic growth in the area, provide safer opportunities for Deringwood Drive traffic to exit and improve the safety of pedestrian crossing facilities. Additionally, with further refinement of the traffic flows and junction layout, linking the signal timings with other junctions on Willington Street and potentially the introduction of MOVA (a responsive traffic control system which adjusts timings according to traffic demand), the operation of the junction could be further improved upon than the results shown in Table 7.8.

7.65 An improvement scheme at this junction would conform with the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package (‘MITP’) proposals and the Adopted Local Plan which suggests the following for many of the allocated sites:

“Strategic highways and transportation

15. Package of measures to significantly relieve traffic congestion on Sutton Road and Willington Street.”

7.66 As identified previously, this junction improvement scheme would, as such, assist with managing the traffic from the numerous development schemes in the East of Maidstone, and not just only the proposed development.

7.67 As outlined above, the double counting of trips arising from the background growth and significant number of committed developments is likely overestimating the impact on the junction and in reality, the cumulative number of trips will not arise.

Junction 7 – A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane Staggered Priority Junction

Traffic Profile

7.68 The A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane staggered priority junction has been modelled in the PICADY module within TRL’s Junctions 9 software package using a DIRECT profile. When using the DIRECT profile type, traffic demand is entered for each 15-minute period over a 60-minute model time. This allows for an accurate assessment for operation of the junction in both the existing and future year scenarios.

Modelling Results

7.69 The results in Table 7.9 provide a summary of the modelling assessment undertaken at this junction for all scenarios. Full PICADY results are provided at Appendix A24.

A20 Ashford Rd / Spot Ln / Roseacre Ln Staggered Junction – PICADY Results Test AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Manoeuvre Scenario Max Q RFC Max Q RFC A20 Ashford Road (east) 0.4 0.27 0.2 0.15 2019 Spot Lane 0.5 0.31 0.4 0.29 Observed Case A20 Ashford Road (West) 0.4 0.28 0.2 0.19 Roseacre Lane 0.3 0.21 0.2 0.16 A20 Ashford Road (east) 0.5 0.33 0.2 0.19

2029 Base Spot Lane 2.1 0.70 1.9 0.70 Case A20 Ashford Road (West) 0.5 0.34 0.4 0.27 Roseacre Lane 0.3 0.25 0.3 0.20

A20 Ashford Road (east) 0.5 0.33 0.2 0.19

2029 Spot Lane 11.3 1.05 5.4 0.91 Development Case A20 Ashford Road (West) 0.5 0.35 0.4 0.29

Roseacre Lane 0.3 0.26 0.3 0.21

7.70 The results demonstrate that the A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane staggered junction is forecast to operate within practical capacity in both the 2019 Observed and Base AM and PM Peak hours.

7.71 The model also demonstrates that the proposed development will push the 2029 Development Case just over theoretical and practical capacity limits RFCs of 1.0 and 0.85 in the AM and PM weekday peak hour periods respectively. It is pertinent to note that queuing is limited to 11 vehicles in the morning peak and just 5 vehicles in afternoon peak hours.

7.72 The drawing 16-T114_37 attached at Appendix A28 shows the vehicular routes available to the A20 from the application site and whilst the route via Willington Street is more direct, the route via Spot Lane / Mallards Way is clearly more arduous particularly given the traffic calming measures along its length.

7.73 Table 7.10 provides a summary of the traffic distribution and highlights the small proportion of traffic being generated by the proposed development on these parts of the road network.

Proposed Vehicle Trips for Land West of Church Road (440 dwellings) To / From AM Peak PM Peak Arrivals Departures Arrivals Departures

North West (Maidstone, M20 J7) 27 85 61 48 North East (Bearstead, M20 J8) 19 47 42 27 South (Boughton, Loose, Langley) 20 63 45 36

7.74 The suggested improvements to the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive identified above will clearly make that the more attractive route for vehicles to use and should be encouraged as being the more appropriate route to take.

7.75 Whilst the proposed development is expected to generate a small number of vehicles queuing at this junction, it is expected that this would help promote drivers to stick with main roads when driving in and out of the site.

7.76 Given that the capacity of the junction is only slightly exceeded with the committed and proposed development trips it is considered appropriate to retain the existing priority junction and monitor this as further developments come forward.

Summary of Impacts

7.77 From the above one can conclude that the impact on the local junctions is limited to three junctions in particular:

• Deringwood Drive / Church Road junction;

• Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction; and

• A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane.

7.78 The impact at the Deringwood Drive / Church Road junction is being mitigated through the proposed widening of this junction, which would bring the 2029 Development Case within practical capacity limits.

7.79 It is also proposed to upgrade the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction into a signalised junction, allowing a significantly improved junction capacity in both the 2029 and 2029 Development Cases.

7.80 The existing priority junction of Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane operates adequately with the additional traffic anticipated up to a future year of 2029. If at a time in the future the junction capacity is an issue, then CIL money will be available to seek an appropriate solution and implement mitigation at that time.

7.81 Both site accesses will operate significantly within the practical junction capacity, and as such no queueing is expected at either location.

7.82 The Church Road / Gore Court Road / White Horse Lane junction, being redesigned as part of a neighbouring scheme is also expected to remain operating within practical capacity limits, within any noticeable change between the 2029 Base and the 2029 Development Case scenarios.

7.83 It is understood that the impacts generated by the allocated developments within the area on the other junctions are considered within the strategic models that were developed as part of the allocation of these sites. Each of the allocated sites are providing separate contributions to upgrade this part of the network.

Capacity of Willington Street and Potential ‘Rat Run’ Issues

7.84 The modelling does not take into account any additional road users on the network that might divert onto alternative ‘rat runs’, such as Spot Lane to get to the A20 to avoid Willington Street. It is understood that the various junctions on this latter street will run into issues with or without this scheme within the 2029 Base Case.

7.85 It is therefore expected that ‘rat running’ will occur nonetheless at some point in the near future, and it assumed that this corridor will require either additional capacity through investment at particular junctions (such as signalisation and MOVA), or alternative routes opened up.

7.86 As part of proposed development, mitigation at the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction is being proposed to alleviate the issues on Willington Street, and promote the flow of traffic. This would nonetheless help limit drivers resorting to ‘rat runs’ to avoid congestion spots.

7.87 Furthermore, in conjunction to the above proposals to the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction, removing potential bottlenecks on side roads, such as Spot Lane would promote the alternative route via Willington Street for the existing ‘rat running’ as well as the proposed site traffic.

MITIGATION MEASURES

8.1 The development traffic impact has been assessed and reviewed, and alternative proposals have been prepared to mitigate the development impact. This mitigation is in addition to the highway improvements proposed by Maidstone Borough Council as part of the wider strategy to assist with growth in accordance with the Local Plan.

8.2 The following development impacts arising from the proposals include:

• Church Road, whereby the development site is not linked to pedestrian footway availability (footways available further to the north on this the road);

• The development extends to urban extents of Church Road, beyond the existing derestriction near the location of the proposed northern access;

• The existing footpath running on the northern edge of the site is located within the area of the proposed works;

• Increasing the RFC of Junction 4 (Deringwood Drive / Church Road junction);

• Increasing the RFC of Junction 5 (Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction) - this junction is above ‘practical’ capacity in the 2029 Base and Development Cases; and

• Increasing the RFC of Junction 7 (A20 Ashford Road / Spot Lane / Roseacre Lane junction) - this junction is above ‘practical’ capacity in the 2029 Development Case.

Contributions of the Maidstone Integrated Transport Package

8.3 The MITP has identified a strategy for mitigating impact from the allocated development sites as set out within the Adopted Local Plan. As part of Maidstone Borough Council’s Local Plan Inquiry’s Statement of Common Ground, which included the site allocation, it committed the council to bringing forward the ‘Managed Approach’ to delivering the mitigation at M20 J7 and on the Kent County Council network.

8.4 This package includes various application schemes contributing towards a Highway Mitigation Strategy for the South East of Maidstone, to which Maidstone Borough Council have already received financial contributions from other application schemes to progress the infrastructure as set out within the MITP.

8.5 It is standard practice, especially when these measures have been identified as part of the EiP proposals that mitigation measures and contributions are specifically sought and provided. The developer has already confirmed their willingness to provide measures and costs for their proportion of the mitigation.

8.6 As per the previous position following planning consent of their sites at H1(6) Land North of Sutton Road and H1(7) Land North of Bicknor Wood, Bellway Homes have and still are in agreement with

contributing towards the MBC led apportionment as part of the mitigation measures identified within South East Maidstone.

8.7 Given the contributions Bellway Homes have already signed up to as part of their other sites, it is our understanding that all mitigation measures identified by MBC as part of the ‘Managed Approach’, including the M20 J7 signalisation proposals, are still being delivered, except for the A274 bus prioritisation measures.

8.8 Significant consideration has been given to the document ‘Transport Business Case Report - Maidstone Integrated Transport Package – Phase 1 (amended) for Willington Street January 2019’ in order to align with the proposals for the improvement of the A20 Ashford Road / Willington Street junction. The document was produced by Pell Frischmann who were commissioned by KCC to develop a business case for proposed improvements to Willington Street, part of the MITP.

Potential Mitigation Measures

8.9 Further to the above impacts to the highway network, a number of mitigation measures have been studied, and a number of improvements to the public highway are considered below.

Linking of Pedestrian Infrastructure in the Site locale

8.10 As discussed in Section 4 above, the proposed access arrangements are designed to link into the pedestrian and public transport infrastructure links nearby. These improvements are designed to facilitate the safe walking and cycling between the site and the village, and other nearby areas through public transport services.

8.11 The proposed works include a new footway on the west side of Church Road down to the northern site access, running along the site frontage and connecting the site to other footpaths and footways in the area.

8.12 The proposed scheme is for the northern site access to be connected to the footway to the north, whereas the southern access would link into this via the footway network within the site. This would avoid extending the footway network (and thereby the 30mph speed restriction) beyond the northern site access.

8.13 Considering that all people walking between the southern site access and the footway outside St Nicholas’s Church would be emanating or accessing the site, they should be encouraged to walk within the site, where vehicle speeds are more likely to be lower than on Church Road. This would therefore avoid for the need for a footway running between the two vehicular site accesses.

8.14 The existing footpath running on the northern edge of the site will be formalised as part of the scheme and linked to a potentially new St Nicholas Church car park to be provided within the site. The proposed upgrading of PRoW KM86, which runs along the northern edge of the site is being slightly

diverted to the proposed footways within the site, extending the surfaced section of the existing footpath.

8.15 It is also proposed in Section 5 above that an existing path to the side existing dwellings on Wooley Road, linking to the south of the site is developed as a footpath and emergency vehicle access, providing alternative walking routes to the southern areas of Willington Street.

8.16 All works within the site are to be provided and paid for by the applicant and handed over to KCC once completed through a Section 38 agreement. It is accepted that if required, street lighting can be installed along the footpath between the site and The Beams, which is approximately 20m away.

Linking of Public Transport Infrastructure to the Site

8.17 Bus services are currently located on Woolley Road, Deringwood Drive and Willington Street nearby, approximately 100m, 290m and 470m away from the site. However, the proposal enables bus services to be accommodated within the development to provide improved public transport accessibility levels from the site.

8.18 Initial discussions with local bus operators Arriva have been undertaken on the potential diversion of an existing bus route into the site. The spine route of the site is also designed to accommodate the 12m long buses which are operated by this service provider.

8.19 Whilst the exact details of this arrangement have not been finalised with the local bus operator, given the application is outline and has not been determined, it has been discussed that there are two potential options for buses to serve the site.

8.20 The first option would be to provide a pedestrian link from the site through to Woolley Road, allowing residents at the southern end of the site to use the no.85 bus service. The second option would be for Arriva to divert the service no.4 from Deringwood Drive via Church Road to access the site, and to serve the site instead of the Pennine Way stop on Deringwood Drive.

8.21 In terms of the both options, the appropriate infrastructure has been taken into account as part of the application scheme. Firstly, with the potential footpath at the southern end of the site linking to Woolley Road. Secondly, the junction improvements, access arrangements and widening of Church Road capable of accommodating the diverted bus service.

Geometric Improvements to Upgrade Safety of Church Road

8.22 The existing Church Road is currently a rural road at the limits of Maidstone. The proposed development is expected to extend the urban boundary of the town on Church Road and increase the usage of this road.

8.23 Whilst widening to a 5.5m carriageway width along the full length of Church Road has been investigated, to achieve this width would require third party land, significant impact to ancient

woodland and the clearing of vegetation. As a consequence, it is not considered either necessary or feasible to pursue this further.

8.24 Therefore, a potential improvement on this road is proposed through the installation of a traffic calming feature, which could be added at a location of existing restricted forward visibility along this stretch of road are being recommended as part of the scheme. The proposed feature, known as a ‘Give Way to Oncoming Traffic’ includes build outs to force drivers to give way to oncoming traffic. This allows adequate forward visibility around an existing sub-standard bend on Church Road, where this narrows down to circa 4.4m. Such a road feature will not allow for two vehicles to pass each other concurrently, and thereby that the carriageway width at the build out is to be 3.1m wide.

8.25 The improvement would allow vehicles travelling north on Church Road to have priority on oncoming southbound vehicles, who have to give way. Both directions will include a small buildout (one on each side), and including a lit bollard, to warn vehicles passing through this section of this traffic calming feature.

8.26 Such a feature will require the installation of street lighting as part of the proposed mitigation measure and this would be conditioned within any potential planning consent. It is understood that the clients would pay for such a mitigation measure, as part of the highway improvement costs.

The proposal would require further consultation with Council, since this is a KCC road, and would be developed by the Clients through a Section 278 agreement. The potential arrangement for this mitigation measure is shown within Iceni Projects drawings 16-T114_03C and 16-T114_10, included as Appendix A29 of this document.

Amendments to Speed Restriction on Church Road

8.27 Church Road (including Gore Court Road), is currently derestricted. This runs a total of approximately 1.9km from the A274 Sutton Road to the south of St Nicholas Church, where the speed limit changes to 30mph in line with the speed limits within the rest of the residential area of Deringwood.

8.28 As part of this scheme it is proposed that the existing 30mph speed restriction is extended by approximately 500m to the south along the site frontage, to include the area containing the potential traffic calming feature discussed above.

8.29 This proposal will require further consultation with KCC and the local highway teams and would be processed through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO), which is published by Council. It is agreed that the client will pay for this undertaking and it is understood that such a requirement will be included as a planning condition within any potential planning consent.

8.30 Further, the whole of Church Road could be included within the Maidstone 30mph zone, to include additional new developments coming forward at the southern end of this road, but this is not considered essential with the proposed development.

Additional Improvements as part of other Schemes

8.31 MBC planning permission reference MA / 17 / 501449 requires the widening of Gore Court Road into a 5.5m carriageway as part of the implementation of that planning permission, being developed on a parcel of land known as ‘North of Bicknor Wood’.

8.32 We can confirm that this parcel of land is also owned by the clients, who are currently undertaking development works for that site and are implementing the widening of the Gore Court Road carriageway in order to fulfil their obligations as part of the approved planning application.

Geometric Improvements to Upgrade Capacity to Deringwood Drive / Church Road Junction

8.33 The proposed development is designed to accommodate the diversion of bus routes into the site, along the spine route. For a bus to access the site off the northern part of Church Road, the existing Deringwood Drive / Church Road junction will require slight amendments to allow for buses to turn into the minor arm.

8.34 As discussed within Section 7 above the proposed amendments to this junction would also improve the capacity of this junction, allowing it to operate within ‘practical’ capacity limits when including the traffic generated by the proposed development.

8.35 These proposals are shown within Appendix A26, and a swept path analysis exercise was undertaken showing a bus turning within this junction. This is included as Appendix A30.

Signalisation of Willington Street / Deringwood Drive Junction

8.36 The junction of Willington Street with Deringwood Drive is expected to suffer a significant level of increase of traffic running between the Eastern and the South-eastern areas of the town. Willington Street is currently the only main road between the A20 Ashford Road and the A274 Sutton Road.

8.37 Due to the growth in local traffic, mainly arising from the various developments already committed to the local network, it is expected that this priority junction completely reaches saturation point within the 2029 Base Case, as shown within the junction modelling in Section 7 above.

8.38 It is therefore being proposed that this junction is signalised as part of the proposed development mitigation schemes, to help residents on the site turning at this junction, as well as alleviate the local highway network from an existing issue which is expected to growth significantly over the next few years.

8.39 A proposed alternative signalised arrangement is shown within Appendix A27, at the end of this document. A swept path analysis exercise undertaken for the proposed junction arrangement is included as Appendix A31.

8.40 The suggested improvements for signalisation of the Willington Street / Deringwood Drive junction would complement the MITP proposals for the Willington Street corridor. At present there are no proposals to improve this junction in order to address future capacity issues expected at this location. The proposed signalisation of this junction would help to manage traffic at this location and accommodate traffic associated with the application scheme for Land West of Church Road.

8.41 It should also be noted that, given that certain committed development schemes requested by KCC as part of the Transport Assessment analysis were already occupied or partially occupied at the time of baseline data being obtained, it is clear that the capacity analysis undertaken is overly robust with some ‘double counting’ of traffic likely.

8.42 Paragraphs 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 of the MITP document discussed above should be referred to as follows, as these highlight the need to consider various aspects associated with junction improvements and providing betterment over the existing arrangement:

“4.3.3 Having established that the existing junction would operate significantly over its design capacity in the 2029 horizon year, several potential improvement schemes were identified, including two signalised options and a roundabout scheme. Option 2, comprising of a signalised left turn filter from Willington Street, an extended right turn lane on the Ashford Road (W) approach and a dedicated left turn lane on the Ashford Road (E) approach, was found to be the best performing option in highway capacity terms.

…

4.3.5 Whilst the junction is forecast to continue operating over its design capacity with the Option 2 scheme in place, it nevertheless offers significant betterment relative to the existing layout and latent congestion. This option has therefore been carried forward for economic assessment.”

8.43 Therefore, similar to the MITP for Willington Street, whilst the proposed signal junction arrangement scheme for Willington Street/Deringwood Drive is forecast to operate over its design capacity, the proposals nevertheless offer significant betterment relative to the existing layout and potential congestion at the junction. Further, there are benefits to be had with a signal-controlled junction at this location in terms of Travel-time improvement, Air Quality improvement, Impact on accidents and safety, Growth (housing, jobs) and Wider economic benefits.

Stage One Road Safety Audits

8.44 The proposed highway improvements on Church Road have been independently audited as part of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. Minimal points have been raised by the auditors, all of which can be addressed as part of further detail design in advance of the Stage 2 Road Safety Audit. A copy of the Stage 1 Road Safety Audit and the Designers’ Response are attached at Appendix A32.

8.45 The proposed improvements to the Willington Street Deringwood Drive junction is also reviewed as part of a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit. This audit and the respective Designer’s Response document are included as Appendix A33.

Summary

8.46 Mitigation measures expanding existing pedestrian and cycle infrastructure and linking these to the proposed development, as well as the provision of bus services and resident travel packs will help the development to be more accessible in terms of offering greater travel opportunities by non-car modes. This follows local and national guidance to encourage sustainable travel, particularly Kent’s aims for growth to occur without gridlock.

8.47 Permeability across the site will also enable greater connectivity on foot and by cycle between Downswood to the north and areas to the south, providing an alternative to Church Road where footways aren’t present, whilst the creation of two vehicular access points (from Church Road as per Policy H1(8)) and a sufficient width spine road through the development will help to accommodate bus services, providing measures which not only benefit the proposed development but also those within the existing surrounding area.

8.48 The widening of the northern part of Church Road to a minimum of 5.5m, improvements at the Church Road / Deringwood Drive junction and the introduction of traffic calming features have been proposed to overcome local capacity concerns. Such measures also enable improved access to the proposed development and surrounding areas for bus services and large vehicles associated with refuse collections and deliveries.

8.49 It is considered that development of the allocated site H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham has been appropriately assessed as part of this application and previous cumulative assessments, in terms of highways impact across the immediate and wider network, and also includes various mitigation measures explained above to support the proposal and address the concerns which have been raised in regards to access by sustainable modes such as foot, cycle and bus, as well as access by relevant vehicle types from Church Road and within the surrounding area.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

9.1 Iceni Projects have been commissioned by Bellway Homes (Kent) Ltd to prepare this Transport Assessment to support the planning application for the allocated development of 421 dwellings on Land to the West of Church Road in Maidstone.

9.2 In preparing this TA consideration has been given to the relevant transport policies and guidance documents along with the previous outline application and the subsequent dialogue with the planning authority Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) and highway authority Kent County Council (KCC).

9.3 The proposed development site is allocated as part of the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan – Preparation (Regulation 18) – 2014, adopted 25th October 2017, identified as Site H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham, for the development of up to 440 dwellings.

9.4 In addition to the allocated sites, the Maidstone Borough Council Local Plan includes various highway improvements that have been consulted upon and, more importantly, assessed and confirmed to be sound by an independent Inspector to accommodate growth in Maidstone.

9.5 Further, a holistic package of highway improvements was put forward previously by Officers at Maidstone Borough Council as part of an Apportionment Table, which included this site at Church Road, Otham, as well as allocated sites at Land North of Bicknor Wood and Land North of Sutton Road. This was consulted upon, independently assessed, and Maidstone Borough Council Councillors resolved to approve the highway solutions in respect of previous applications.

9.6 This application for Land West of Church Road, Otham is made in accordance with the Maidstone Borough Local Plan and the cumulative assessment previously undertaken. Consequently, the measures proposed are and have already been accepted and approved. This application is made in accordance with the assumptions assessed at that time and therefore the same conclusions must apply.

Existing Site

9.7 The site is located on the eastern limits of the town of Maidstone in Kent. The site is surrounded by residential developments to its north, south and west. Church Road is half urban / half rural road, with its northern edge terminating into the urban area of Downswood and continues south into Gore Court Road and terminates in the new urban area known as Imperial Park.

9.8 The site is well situated with regard to the strategic highway network, including proximity to the M20 which feeds onto the M25 and wider motorway network. There are excellent links into London, to the Kent ports and the wider region. More locally the site benefits from the A20 and A274. Maidstone offers frequent rail services into London and to other local centres and there are a range of bus services in the local area.

9.9 The site is connected to existing local centres and sustainable travel networks, via existing footway network, including footpath connections from the site to Willington Road (via The Beams) and Woolley Road, as well as a footpath behind dwellings on Frithwood Close, and bus services on Woolley Road, Willington Road and Deringwood Drive.

9.10 Maidstone has three train stations; Maidstone East giving access to mainline trains to London and Ashford via intermediate stations, and Maidstone West and Barracks providing access to the Medway Valley Line running between Paddock Wood and Strood. Maidstone West also provides access to High Speed 1 trains to London St. Pancras.

9.11 Cycle access to the site is also good with a number of on and off-road cycle routes linking with other recommended/leisure routes and quieter roads within Maidstone meaning that there are a number of safe routes for cyclists to access surrounding towns and villages. It should also be noted that Maidstone Town Centre is within 5km of the site and as such all local facilities and amenities are within a reasonable cycling distance.

9.12 The safety of the surrounding highway network has been assessed, taking into account personal injury accidents which have occurred in the last five years within a large study area surrounding the site. The data has been analysed in detail, which showed that there are no underlying patterns or particular locations that raise particular safety concerns and there is nothing to suggest that the proposed development will lead to an increased risk of accidents occurring on the surrounding highway.

9.13 Traffic surveys have been undertaken around the area, confirming that Church Road attracts limited levels of vehicular traffic, with the busier routes nearby being the A20 Ashford Road and A274 Sutton Road, in particular the sections to the west of the site (towards the town centre) and Willington Street which link these two arterial roads.

9.14 A review of the local population characteristics shows that the majority of local residents’ commute to work through the use of the car, with a small proportion using the train or travelling to work on foot. It is also noted that most local residents have access to one or two cars.

9.15 A review of the national and local planning policy with respect to transport showed that the site, established that the proposed development is in line with policy, including the acceptability of the development, the proposed internal road hierarchy, on-site parking and conforms to the goals of the South-east Maidstone Strategic Development. The site is allocated for development by MBC as parcel H1(8), is designated as land for residential development.

Proposed Development

9.16 The proposed development for 421 is to consist of a mix of dwellings that will be accessible by vehicles via Church Road only, and on footpaths and cycle paths from other directions. Site access

and servicing will be undertaken fully from within the site, and emergency access is being provided from the site access points on Church Road, and via a footpath access on Woolley Road.

9.17 Vehicular access to the site will be provided from Church Road in the form of two simple priority junctions providing a suitable vehicular route including appropriate footway/cycleway links assisting with the requirements of local policy

9.18 Within the proposed development the layout will be a mix of Shared Surface Roads, Mews Courts, Home Zones and Private Drives. These internal roads have been designed in consideration of the guidance set out within the Kent Design Guide and Manual for Streets documents, the principle of which has been discussed and agreed with officers.

9.19 An appropriate level of resident and visitor parking will be provided as part of the scheme which will comfortably accommodate the expected demand and avoid any overspill onto the surrounding roads.

9.20 The permeability of the site and surrounding highway will be enhanced by providing high quality routes for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists, linking the development with the surrounding areas by providing direct routes into and out of the site at a number of locations.

9.21 The trip generation by the proposed development has also been reviewed in line with Scoping discussions with KCC officers, based upon the 85th percentile TRICS methodology.

9.22 It has been shown that the proposed development has the potential to generate up to 355 two-way person trips in the AM weekday network peak hour and up to 354 two-way person trips in the PM weekday network peak hour. In terms of vehicle movements, the proposed development has the potential to generate up to 262 two-way traffic movements in the AM weekday network peak hour and up to 261 in the PM weekday network peak hour.

Mitigation

9.23 In line with the above, a number of mitigation measures within the immediate site are being proposed, including a new footpath between the northern part of Church Road and the site, formalising the existing footpath running on the northern edge of the site, extending the local 30mph speed limit restriction on Church Road, as well as widening of the Deringwood Drive / Church Road junction to accommodate a bus running into the site. It is also proposed that the junction of Willington Street / Deringwood Drive is signalised to provide increased capacity at this junction. There is also the potential for pedestrian access to be accommodated to Woolley Road at the southern boundary of the site.

9.24 Further to the above mitigation measures, the provision of residential Travel Packs to residents of the development will also be provided, helping to reduce the impact further.

Traffic Impact

9.25 A robust traffic impact analysis of the local highway network has previously been undertaken and has demonstrated that the existing highway network in the vicinity of the site will continue to operate at an acceptable level with the committed development traffic and associated package of mitigation measures outlined within the MBC Highway Apportionment Table.

9.26 Nonetheless, the traffic modelling within this report has robustly assessed the impact of up to 440 dwellings at the application site, whilst traffic growth has been applied to assess the future years of 2029.

9.27 In addition, other developments such as Land North of Bicknor Wood, Bicknor Farm site and the site south of Sutton Road, Langley, have also been included within the localised modelling so as to undertake sensitivity testing of the highway network and ensure that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the application scheme along with other potential developments proposed within the immediate area.

Summary

9.28 The development of site H1(8) Land West of Church Road, Otham has previously been assessed in terms of highways impact across the wider network and therefore this report focuses on the impact immediately surrounding the site and appropriate localised mitigation measures to support the proposal.

9.29 In conclusion the proposed redevelopment of the site is compatible with and supports national and local transport policies and would not give rise to any adverse transport impact which cannot be mitigated. It is therefore considered that there is no highway related reason why the development proposal should not be granted planning permission.