LAND NORTH OF STOKE ROAD, HOO ST WERBURGH, MEDWAY CLIENT: DEAN LEWIS ESTATES

P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

Document Control

Job Number P17052 Document Version Final N:\Projects 2017\P17052 – Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh, Medway\7. File Reference Reports\TS\Stoke Road Hoo St Werburgh Medway – FINAL Date January 2018 Client Dean Lewis Estates Ltd Name Position

Written By David Stoddart Associate

Checked & Approved By David Schumacher Director

P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 3 1.1 Purpose of Report ...... 3 1.2 Scope of Report ...... 3 2 TRANSPORT POLICY AND GUIDANCE ...... 5 2.1 Introduction ...... 5 2.2 National Planning Policy Framework ...... 5 2.3 Planning Practice Guidance ...... 6 2.4 Medway Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2026) ...... 7 2.5 Medway Local Plan 2003 (Saved Policies) ...... 7 2.6 Manual for Streets ...... 9 2.7 Summary ...... 10 3 EXISTING SITUATION ...... 11 3.1 Site Description ...... 11 3.2 Local Highway Network ...... 12 3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions ...... 12 4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL ...... 15 4.1 Development Description ...... 15 4.2 Access Strategy ...... 15 4.3 Additional Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists ...... 17 4.4 Parking ...... 17 4.5 Summary ...... 17 5 ACCESS BY SUSTAINABLE MODES ...... 19 5.1 Introduction to Sustainable Modes of Transport ...... 19 5.2 Access on Foot ...... 19 5.3 Access by Cycle ...... 21 5.4 Access by Public Transport ...... 23 5.5 Travel Plan ...... 24 5.6 Summary ...... 25 6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ...... 27 6.1 Introduction ...... 27 6.2 Traffic Growth ...... 27 6.3 Committed Developments ...... 27 6.4 Trip Generation ...... 28 6.5 Person Trip Rates ...... 29 6.6 Trip Distribution ...... 29 6.7 Impact Assessment ...... 30 6.8 Site Access Capacity Assessment ...... 30

1 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

6.9 Summary ...... 30 7 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS ...... 31 7.1 Introduction ...... 31 7.2 Summary ...... 33 8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ...... 35 8.1 Summary ...... 35 8.2 Conclusion ...... 36

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures Appendix B Technical Drawings Appendix C Traffic Flow Diagrams Appendix D 2011 Census MTW Modal Split Data Appendix E Site Access Capacity Assessment Report Output

2 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose of Report

1.1.1 This report considers the highways and transportation implications associated with Dean Lewis Estates Ltd’s (DLE) proposal for a residential development comprising up to 65 dwellings located on land to the north of Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh, Medway.

1.1.2 This is an “Outline planning application for demolition of all buildings and structures and development of previously developed land and undeveloped land for residential development (all matters reserved save for means of access).”

1.1.3 The document has been prepared in accordance with the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance: Transport evidence bases in plan making (October 2014) and Travel plans, transport assessments and statements in decision-taking (March 2014) as well as the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Guidance on Transport Assessment (GTA) (March 2007). It considers the accessibility of the site and safety for all modes of travel but specifically walking, cycling and public transport.

1.1.4 The conclusions and recommendations contained herein have been drawn based on information available and obtained in advance of the outline planning submission to which this report relates.

1.1.5 Reasonable checks have been carried out on any third party information used in the preparation of this report but, nonetheless, PRIME Transport Planning accepts no liability for the accuracy or otherwise of this data.

1.1.6 Third party rights are excluded for the use of information contained within this report.

1.2 Scope of Report

1.2.1 Whilst the above suggests that this document has been prepared in accordance with the DfT GTA we are aware that this document was withdrawn from circulation on the 22nd October 2014. The www.gov.uk website states that the document has been archived and superseded by ‘Transport evidence bases in plan making.’

1.2.2 The new document is not a like-for-like replacement for the GTA, providing no guidance on the production of Transport Assessments to accompany developments. The latest guidance instead helps local planning authorities assess strategic transport needs to reflect and, where appropriate, mitigate these in their Local Plan.

1.2.3 More relevant information is provided within the PPG under ‘Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision-Taking’ however this also does not provide the level of detailed guidance that was contained within DfT’s GTA.

3 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

1.2.4 Given that GTA was in place for 7-years, PRIME believes that assessment in-line with the document still represents industry best-practice, particularly for aspects where the current guidance lacks the necessary detail to form a robust assessment.

1.2.5 Following this introduction, the remainder of this report is structured as follows:

 Section 2 describes the relevant local and national transport policy and guidance;  Section 3 describes the existing situation in terms of the site, local highway network, traffic conditions in the vicinity of the site;  Section 4 details the development proposal including the access strategy and parking arrangements;  Section 5 details access to the site by sustainable modes of travel which includes walking, cycling and public transport;  Section 6 discusses the forecasting methodology, trip generation of the site and the ability of the proposed site access to accommodate the generated traffic;  Section 7 describes the existing safety of the local highway network adjacent to the site; and  Section 8 concludes the findings of the Transport Statement.

4 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

2 TRANSPORT POLICY AND GUIDANCE

2.1 Introduction

2.1.1 It is important that any new developments conform to and complement national and local planning policy. This section details the policies that are relevant to this development.

2.2 National Planning Policy Framework

2.2.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in March 2012 and sets out the Government’s current planning policies for England.

2.2.2 Section 4 of the NPPF, Promoting Sustainable Transport, outlines the important role that transport policies have to play in facilitating sustainable development. It states that:

‘The transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel.’

2.2.3 The document emphasises the need for developments to offer a choice of sustainable modes of transport which ‘support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion’ and provide ‘safe and suitable’ access for all.

2.2.4 Paragraph 35 of the NPPF states that plans for new development should:

 ‘…protect and exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes for the movement of goods or people. Therefore, developments should be located and designed where practical to:

 give priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, and have access to high quality public transport facilities;

 create safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians, avoiding street clutter and where appropriate establishing home zones; and

 consider the needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport.’

2.2.5 Paragraph 36 continues stating that a ‘key tool’ to facilitate the above will be a Travel Plan, one of which has been submitted in support of this planning application as a separate document, but is summarised in Section 5 of this TS given its pertinence to reducing the highway potential impact of the site and enhancing accessibility by sustainable modes of travel.

2.2.6 The NPPF calls for a ‘balance of land uses’ which will encourage people to minimise their journey lengths for employment, shopping, leisure, education and other activities.

5 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

2.2.7 With regards to making decisions related to new development, Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that such decisions should consider 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.’

2.3 Planning Practice Guidance

2.3.1 The theme of sustainable development runs throughout Planning Practice Guidance, with the detailed elements regarding transport being focussed in the following sections:

 Transport Evidence Bases in Plan Making and Decision Taking; and  Travel Plans, Transport Assessments and Statements in Decision Taking.

2.3.2 Both sections of the Guidance provide significant amounts of detail on the information types and sources that are appropriate for helping Local Planning Authorities to take forward their Local Plan with an appropriate evidence base. The guidance is also a useful reference for assessing schemes such as the development which this report accompanies.

2.3.3 The core components of the requirements for assessment, as set out in the guidance, can be summarised as:

‘The key issues, which should be considered in developing a transport evidence base, include the need to:

 assess the existing situation and likely generation of trips over time by all modes and the impact on the locality in economic, social and environmental terms;

 assess the opportunities to support a pattern of development that, where reasonable to do so, facilitates the use of sustainable modes of transport;

 highlight and promote opportunities to reduce the need for travel where appropriate;

 identify opportunities to prioritise the use of alternative modes in both existing and new development locations if appropriate;

6 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

 consider the cumulative impacts of existing and proposed development on transport networks;

 assess the quality and capacity of transport infrastructure and its ability to meet forecast demands; and

 identify the short, medium and long-term transport proposals across all modes’.

2.3.4 The principles set out in Planning Practice Guidance are consistent with the approach undertaken in the production of this report.

2.4 Medway Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2026)

2.4.1 Medway Local Transport Plan (2011 – 2026) sets out the transport strategy for Medway between 2011 and 2026, embracing the wider aspirations for Medway to be a centre of learning, culture, tourism and enterprise at the heart of the Thames Gateway.

2.4.2 It forms part of Medway Council’s policy framework documents and is a statutory function of Medway Council. The plan sets out the strategic policy for sustainable transport in Medway between 2011 and 2026.

2.4.3 The Medway LTP sets out a number of goals for transport for Medway including:

 ensuring highway infrastructure is maintained to the highest possible standard within the available resources;

 efficiently managing and improving Medway’s local highway network to ensure reliability of journey times;

 ensuring public transport becomes a realistic alternative choice to the private car;

 contributing to better health by encouraging walking and cycling and by improving access to key services; and

 ensuring that people can move around safely in Medway.

2.5 Medway Local Plan 2003 (Saved Policies)

2.5.1 The local plan is a document which forms part of the Development Plan and sets out what Medway Council plan to do with land in the Borough and how they will control development. Chapter 8 of the Local Plan deals with Transport setting out the following policies:

2.5.2 Policy T1: Impact of Development sets out how the impact of development will be assessed stating that proposals will be permitted provided that:

(i) the highway network has adequate capacity to cater for the traffic which will be generated by the development, taking into account alternative modes to the private car;

7 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

(ii) the development will not significantly add to the risk of road traffic accidents;

(iii) the development will not generate significant H.G.V. movements on residential roads; and

(iv) the development will not result in traffic movements at unsociable hours in residential roads that would be likely to cause loss of residential amenity

2.5.3 Policy T2: Access to the Highway deals with access to the highway stating that formation of a new access, or an intensification in the use of an existing access, will only be permitted where:

(i) the access is not detrimental to the safety of vehicle occupants, cyclists and pedestrians; or

(ii) can, alternatively, be improved to a standard acceptable to the council as Highway Authority.’

2.5.4 Policy T3: Provision for Pedestrians deals with provision for pedestrians stating that:

`Development proposals shall provide attractive and safe pedestrian access. In all cases, they should maintain or improve pedestrian routes related to the site. ‘

`New pedestrian routes should closely follow pedestrians’ preferred routes, should be designed to provide an attractive and safe pedestrian environment, and ensure they are accessible by people with disabilities wherever possible.’

2.5.5 Policy T4: Cycle Facilities deals with the provision for cyclists stating that:

‘Major trip attracting development proposals should make provision for cycle facilities related to the site. This may include, where appropriate, the Strategic Cycle Network, cycle priority measures and new or enhanced cycle routes that relate to cyclists’ preferred routes’.

‘Secure cycle parking and associated facilities will be sought in accordance with the council’s adopted cycle parking standards. Provision at public transport interchanges, buildings open to the general public (especially public institutions, leisure, educational and health facilities) and in Chatham town centre, District Centres and Local Centres will be particularly sought.’

Policy T5: Bus Preference Measures promotes the use of bus preference measures within Medway as follows:

`Within the bus corridors identified on the Proposals Map, preference measures to aid bus access, particularly on Park and Ride routes, will be developed. Such measures may include:

(i) dedicated bus lanes, including contra‐flow lanes where appropriate;

(ii) priority to buses at junctions;

(iii) priority within traffic management schemes;

(iv) enhanced waiting and access facilities and information systems for passengers, including people with disabilities.

8 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

2.5.6 Policy T6: Provision for Public Transport states that:

`Where of sufficient scale, new developments will be expected to make provision for access by public transport (for example, bus, rail or light rail).

The provision of facilities, such as safe and attractive passenger waiting areas, seating, information systems, signed safe and attractive pedestrian access routes and facilities for people with disabilities, related to the scale of the development will be sought by negotiation’.

2.5.7 Policy T11: Development Funded Transport Improvements discusses development funded transport improvements and how legal agreements with developers will be sought to secure:

`(i) off‐site improvements to transport infrastructure (which may include rail freight, public transport, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure) and/or public transport services, the need for which arises from the proposed development; and

(ii) improved accessibility by all modes of transport’

2.5.8 Policy T12: Traffic Management states that:

`In localities or on routes where traffic volumes or perceived dangers significantly interfere with movement by pedestrians or cyclists, and /or damage the wider environment, the Council will consider the need for traffic management/calming measures in consultation with local residents and businesses, the emergency services, public transport operators and others requiring essential vehicular access.

Road layouts within new developments will need to be designed with appropriate traffic management measures to help limit vehicle speeds and improve safety for all road users. Care will be needed in the design of traffic management measures so that they are appropriate to their surroundings, particularly in Conservation Areas

2.5.9 Policy T13: Vehicle Parking Standards

Development proposals will be expected to make vehicle parking provision in accordance with the adopted standard.

Provision for people with disabilities will be required to be made on site, consistent with the provisions of policy T22.

2.5.10 Policy T14: Travel Plans outlines the Council’s requirements for Travel Plans for all developments which require a Transport Assessment.

2.6 Manual for Streets

2.6.1 Manual for Streets (MfS) was published on behalf of the DfT and Communities and Local Government in March 2007 and provides advice for the design of residential streets in England and Wales.

9 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

2.6.2 The focus of MfS is to demonstrate the:

‘benefits that flow from good design and assigns a higher priority to pedestrians and cyclists, setting out an approach to residential streets that recognises their role in creating places that work for all members of the community. MfS refocuses on the place function of residential streets, giving clear guidance on how to achieve well-designed streets and spaces that serve the community in a range of ways’ (MfS page 7).

2.6.3 The guidance addresses many common design principles and discusses detailed design issues, often presenting recommended design criteria. Some of the key principles of MfS include:

 The need to shift from focusing on designing for motor vehicles to designing streets around the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users which in turn enhances safety;  Good design can help to create and strengthen a sense of place and community;  Creating streets that are permeable and offer good quality connections to main destinations for all road users;  Inclusive design that recognises the needs of people of all ages and abilities; and  Cost-effective construction often by avoiding over-designing.

2.6.4 In September 2010 a companion document Manual for Streets 2 – wider application of the principles (MfS2) was published. This document expands on some of the design principles of MfS and provides examples of places where designs based on these principles have been implemented.

2.7 Summary

2.7.1 This section has outlined national and local transport policies and guidance which are applicable to the development site. How the site conforms to and complements these policies and guidance will be discussed in the following sections of this report, where relevant.

10 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

3 EXISTING SITUATION

3.1 Site Description

3.1.1 The application site currently part developed part undeveloped in mixed use as a caravan storage/paddock facility. It is located to the east of the centre of the village of Hoo St Werburgh along Stoke Road. Stoke Road forms the southern boundary of the site, this highway frontage being circa 180m in length. Open countryside/farmland form the northern and eastern boundaries and a caravan/ trailer storage facility (Vidgeon A D) forms the western boundary on Whitehouse farm.

3.1.2 Hoo St Werburgh itself is a large village in Medway located circa 8km to the north-east of Chatham and some 14km to the south-east of Gravesend. The location of the site in the context of Hoo St Werburgh and the local highway network is illustrated in Figure 1 in Appendix A.

3.1.3 Image 3.1 below shows the various Public Rights of Way (PRoW) in the vicinity of the site, this being an extract of MC’s online mapping system with footpaths being highlighted in green. This shows that PRoW RS112 passes through the Street Farm development that lies to the west of the proposed development, providing a connection from Stoke Road to the south to Peninsula Way to the north. PRoW RS112 also provides connections to RS98 and RS99 which provides a connection between Ropers Lane to the east and Bell’s Lane to the west.

Image 3.1: Extract from MC’s Online Mapping System Depicting the Public Rights of Way

Source: http://www.medway.gov.uk/pdf/Medway%20Council's%20PROWs%20A3.pdf

11 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

3.2 Local Highway Network

3.2.1 As mentioned above, Stoke Road forms the southern boundary of the site. It provides a connection between the centre of Hoo St Werburgh to the west and Ropers Lane to the east. Ropers Lane then provides a connection to Peninsula Way to the north which provides connections to Strood and the M2 to the south-east.

3.2.2 Adjacent to the site, Stoke Road is circa 6m in width with footways being provided on both sides of the road. The footway in the southern verge provide for pedestrian access to the centre of the village with the footway in the northern verge being narrow and discontinuous. Adjacent to the site Stoke Road is also the subject of a 30mph speed limit with street lighting also being provided.

3.3 Existing Traffic Conditions

3.3.1 Existing traffic flows and speeds on Stoke Road were recorded via an Automatic Traffic Counter (ATC) located approximately 120m to the east of the proposed site access. This was installed between Wednesday 20th September 2017 and Tuesday 26th September 2017, these surveys being undertaken by the specialist traffic survey and data collection company 360TSL.

3.3.2 The utilisation of the results of these surveys in ascertaining the capacity of the site access is described in Section 6.

3.3.3 The observed peak hour traffic flows along Stoke Road in the vicinity of the site, based on the above mentioned survey are shown in Table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1: Link Flows along Stoke Road in the vicinity of the site

Link Flow Heavy Peak Direction Lights Heavies Total % Westbound 88 3 91 3% AM Eastbound 99 3 102 3% 2-Way 187 6 193 3% Westbound 79 3 82 4% PM Eastbound 102 4 106 4% 2-Way 181 7 188 4%

3.3.4 It should be noted that the morning peak flows were measured between the hours of 08.00– 09.00 and the evening peak flows were measured during the hours of 15.00 – 16.00. The information contained in Table 3.1 suggests that traffic flows in Hoo St Werburgh are generally low and the volume of HGV’s is also relatively low.

3.3.5 The observed traffic speeds on Stoke Road adjacent to the site are shown in Table 3.2

12 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

Table 3.2: Recorded Speeds along Stoke Road in the vicinity of the site Speed (mph) Direction Average 85th %ile Westbound 37.0 44.9 Eastbound 33.1 41.3

3.3.6 The results of the speed survey show that both the average and 85%ile speeds in the westbound direction i.e. entering Hoo St Werburgh are higher than those speeds measured for vehicles leaving the village. This is likely to be as a result of traffic heading from Ropers Lane or Stoke Road east of the Ropers Lane roundabout where the speed limit is 50mph.

3.3.7 The raw data from this survey can be made available on request.

13 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

This page has been left intentionally blank

14 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

4 DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

4.1 Development Description

4.1.1 As mentioned above, DLE is seeking outline planning permission for up to 65 dwellings on land to the north of Stoke Road which is located to the east of the village of Hoo St Werburgh. The nature of the application will mean that all matters will be reserved except for access.

4.1.2 A Development Framework Plan has been produced by FPCR and forms part of the supporting documentation for the planning application. The Development Framework Plan shows that the site is proposed to be accessed via a single priority controlled junction located onto Stoke Road.

4.1.3 It is proposed to provide a pedestrian connection to PRoW RS112 which passes through the Street Farm site that lies to the west of the proposed development, this PRoW provides connections to PRoW RS98 and RS99 which provides a connection between Ropers Lane to the east and Bell’s Lane to the west. There is also the opportunity to provide connections within the development to link the proposed development with other schemes to the west, thus helping the site to integrate with surrounding residential areas.

4.2 Access Strategy

4.2.1 Given the upper number of dwellings proposed as part of this scheme a, single access will be appropriate to serve the site, this being in the form of a priority controlled junction to be located on Stoke Road. The access has been based on guidance contained within MfS and provides for a 5.5m wide carriageway, 2 x 2m footway and 6m corner radii.

4.2.2 The dimensions suggested above will also ensure an allowance is made for the largest vehicles expected to regularly access the site, such as refuse collection vehicles, to do so in a safe manner without disruption to other road users and without over-designing (i.e. a wider carriageway or greater corner radii). 6m corner radii are generally considered to be pedestrian friendly without making turning movements difficult for vehicles.

4.2.3 In order to ensure that the proposed vehicular access is a safe design, the visibility splays have been calculated based on the stopping sight distance (SSD) for vehicles. MfS2 contains the following calculation for SSD:

SSD = vt + v²/2(d+0.1a) where: v = speed (m/s) t = driver perception-reaction time (seconds) d = deceleration (m/s²) a = longitudinal gradient (%)

15 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

4.2.4 Table 10.1 in MfS2 provides a recommendation of variable SSD criteria. For speeds of 60kph (37mph) and below, a reaction time of 1.5s and deceleration rate of 0.45g (equivalent to 4.41m/s²) should be used; for speeds above 60kph, a reaction time of 2s and deceleration rate of 0.375g (3.68m/s²) (absolute), or 0.25g (2.45m/s²) (desirable), should be used.

4.2.5 Paragraph 3.4 of DMRB TA 22/81 ‘Vehicle Speed Measurement on All Purpose Roads’ states that access design should be based on wet weather speeds and as such the correction factor of 4kph (2.5mph) should be used (deducted from the observed speeds) for All Purpose Single Carriageways where conditions are observed to be dry during the survey period(s).

4.2.6 It should however be noted that as the speeds measured via an ATC survey are to be used in the calculation of the visibility splays, there is no record that the road conditions remained dry throughout the survey period. The measured speeds may have already been influenced by wet road conditions, as such the wet weather reduction factor has not been applied to the recorded speeds.

4.2.7 Table 3.2 gives a westbound 85%ile speed of 44.9mph and an eastbound speed of 41.3mph for use in the derivation of the SSD. Applying these figures in the SSD calculation provided above, alongside the ‘above 60kph’ reaction time (2s) and deceleration rate (2.45m/s²) gives the appropriate stopping sight distance, otherwise known as the ‘y’ distance, of 125m to the left on exit and 109m to the right on exit.

4.2.8 In-line with MfS guidance, an ‘x’ distance of 2.4m will be used, which ‘represents a reasonable maximum distance between the front of the car and the driver’s eye’ (MfS2 paragraph 10.5.6). Collectively the ‘x’ and ‘y’ distances are referred to as the visibility splay

4.2.9 Visibility splays of 2.4m x 125m to the left on exit and 2.4m x 109m to the right on exit have therefore been shown at both access points on the Proposed Access Arrangement Drawing P17052-001D contained with Appendix B.

4.2.10 To ensure that the access and the associated visibility splays can be delivered within either the red line/highway boundary, the alignment of Stoke Road has been moved southwards into land under the control of the applicant.

4.2.11 To demonstrate that such an access will be safe and suitable to serve the site for larger vehicles, a swept path analysis using the industry approved AutoTrack software package has been undertaken for a typical non-commercial refuse collection vehicle (3 axle Dennis Eagle Elite) which is the largest vehicle expected to regularly access the site. The swept path analysis has been illustrated in Drawing P17052-002 also in Appendix B which demonstrates that the vehicle can safely access and egress the site in forward gear.

4.2.12 The vehicle will need to cross the southbound side of the site access road but this should be agreeable as such vehicles will only access the site once every week or two and MfS guidance states that good design should not cater for infrequent movements and vehicle types (over-designing).

16 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

Furthermore, egressing traffic flows on the minor arm will be minimal in the peak hours (see Section 6) so it is unlikely that there will be egressing traffic when the refuse collection vehicle is accessing the site and any delay incurred will be minimal.

4.2.13 The design speed of the access road will be 20mph. While the internal road layout would be subject to any future detailed Reserved Matters application, it would be expected that it will be based on MfS design guidance meaning that the layout will focus on the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport users, create a sense of place and community, create permeable streets offering good quality connections and will recognise the needs of people of all ages and abilities.

4.3 Additional Access for Pedestrians and Cyclists

4.3.1 Aside from being able to use the abovementioned vehicular access, which will include dropped kerbs at the crossing desire line to aid crossing for wheelchair and buggy users, an additional pedestrian/cycle connection will be provided to link into the residential development that lies to the west of the proposed development, allowing for a more direct connection for pedestrians/cyclists to Stoke Road from the western end of the site.

4.3.2 Additional pedestrian connections will also be provided to the PRoW RS112 that passes through the Street Farm site to the west of the proposed development. PRoW RS112 also provides a connection to PRoW RS98 and RS99. The complementary utilisation of the network of PRoW allows for direct, largely traffic-free pedestrian connections to Peninsula Way as well as Bell’s Lane and the centre of the village of Hoo.

4.3.3 Provision of such accesses will enhance the site’s permeability and connectivity by sustainable modes of travel. They will also help the site to integrate with the surrounding areas and is therefore compliant with the various goals of the LTP document and the various saved policies defined within the Medway Local Plan.

4.4 Parking

4.4.1 Where the final housing mix is not known and subject to future submissions, calculations relating to detailed parking provision have not been undertaken. Reserved Matters applications will be expected to provide sufficient parking to comply with the relevant standards at the time of submission.

4.5 Summary

4.5.1 As described in this section, the proposed vehicular and pedestrian accesses will conform to national and local policy guidance. The design of the access road will conform to the standards in MfS. As such the design will also conform to and complement several local and national policies.

4.5.2 The design reflects the MfS principles of inclusive design, shifting from focusing on designing for motor vehicles to designing streets around the needs of pedestrians, cyclists and public transport

17 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

users, controlling speeds, not overdesigning and creating permeable streets. These principles in turn help the site to conform to NPPF guidance including paragraph 35 in terms of giving priority to pedestrian and cycle movements, creating ‘safe and secure layouts which minimise conflicts between traffic and cyclists or pedestrians’ and considers the ‘needs of people with disabilities by all modes of transport’.

18 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

5 ACCESS BY SUSTAINABLE MODES

5.1 Introduction to Sustainable Modes of Transport

5.1.1 National and local transport planning policy centres on the importance of sustainable development meaning that new developments should be located in areas where realistic alternatives to car travel exist or can be implemented. These alternatives are walking, cycling and public transport. This section of the report will describe how accessible the site is by these sustainable modes of transport.

5.2 Access on Foot

5.2.1 The site is located adjacent to existing residential areas and close to the centre of the village of Hoo St. Werburgh. This location provides access to the existing footways that can be found particularly in the southern verge of Stoke Road. This footway provides a continuous route to the various facilities that exist in the centre of the village and beyond.

5.2.2 Research has indicated that acceptable walking distances depend on a number of factors, including the quality of the development, the type of amenity offered, the surrounding area, and other local facilities. The Chartered Institution of Highways and Transportation (CIHT) document entitled Providing for Journeys on Foot (2000) suggests walking distances which are relevant to this application. These distances are shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1: Suggested Acceptable Walking Distances Town Centres Commuting/School/ Elsewhere/Local Criteria (m) Sightseeing (m) Services (m) Desirable 200 500 400 Acceptable 400 1000 800 Preferred Maximum 800 2000 1200 Source: CIHT Document ’Providing for Journeys on Foot’ (2000)

5.2.3 In order to highlight the site’s accessibility on foot, an indicative walking isochrone has been produced using the Geographic Information System (GIS) software Visography TRACC. Figure 2 in Appendix A, represents the site’s walking catchment with the CIHT’s ‘Preferred Maximum’ distances of 1200m and 2000m for local service and commuting/school trips illustrated.

5.2.4 Shown within the figure is a selection of local schools, places of employment, amenities and bus stops. The village centre is also indicated as a point on the plan however this spans a large area and includes all of the facilities that would be expected within a village centre including supermarkets, hairdressers, a pharmacy, pubs and restaurants.

5.2.5 In order to provide an accurate representation of the future highway and PRoW network, the site’s proposed vehicular access has been manually added to the network used for the isochrone. The accessibility distance is based on an origin/destination point in the approximate centre of the developed portion of the site.

19 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

5.2.6 Table 5.2 below summarises the distance and the typical time it would take to walk from the centre of the site to the local amenities and centres of employment and education identified in Figure 2 of Appendix A via the road and/or PRoW network. It provides a comparison against those distances recommended in the CIHT’s Providing for Journeys on Foot. The time it takes is based on a walking speed of 4.8kph which corresponds with the TRACC default, which itself is based on advice in the DfT document Transport Connectivity Travel Time Indicators: Guidance Notes.

Table 5.2: Distance and Walking Time Taken from Site to Local Amenities

Distance Preferred Walk Employment/ Education/ from Max Walk Time Amenity Site (m) Distance (m) (mm:ss) Holy Family RC Church 791 1200 09:56 Village Centre 846 1200/2000 10:35 Hoo Village Institute 984 1200 12:21 The Chequers PH 1026 1200 12:51 Neighbourhood Centre 1046 1200/2000 13:07 Library 1083 1200 13:34 General Store 1270 1200 15:54 Recreation Ground 1284 1200 16:03 St Werburgh Church 1303 1200 16:19 Allotment & Playing Fields 1304 1200 16:25 The Elms Medical Centre 1306 1200 16:21 Bowls Club 1352 1200 17:00 Walter Brice Day Centre 1375 1200 17:14 Village Hall 1382 1200 17:19 HSW Primary School 1526 2000 19:10 The Hundred of Hoo Academy 1831 2000 23:04 Swimming Baths 1867 1200 23:22 Deangate Ridge Rec Ground 1912 1200 23:56 Hoo Marina 2099 1200/2000 26:15 Deangate Ridge Golf Club 2107 1200/2000 26:20 The Windmill PH 2128 1200 26:38 Kingsnorth Industrial Estate 2586 2000 32:20 Bus Stops opp Kingsnorth Close 652 - 08:10 adj Kingsnorth Close 661 - 08:16 adj Five Bell’s 865 - 10:50 opp Five Bell’s 904 - 11:19

5.2.7 The results in Table 5.2 show that many of the local amenities are within the preferred maximum walking distance of 1200m. These include the village centre, Hoo Village Institute, the library and The Chequers public house. Hoo St Werburgh Primary School and The Hundred of Hoo Academy are within the preferred maximum distance for school trips (2,000m). A number of other amenities are within a 2000m walk including a general store, recreational facilities, medical centre, village hall and swimming baths. Employment opportunities are likely to exist in the village centre but also at Hoo Marina which includes a small industrial estate at a 2099m walking distance and at Kingsnorth Industrial Estate a circa 32-minute walk away, both of which may still be accessible via walking for some future residents of the site.

20 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

5.2.8 Given the evidence presented in Figure 2 of Appendix A and Table 5.2, walking can be considered to be a realistic and viable method of travel indicating that the site’s location is accessible via this sustainable mode.

5.3 Access by Cycle

5.3.1 It is widely recognised that cycling can offer an attractive alternative to short car trips, particularly those under 5km, but also as part of longer journeys by public transport.

5.3.2 The DfT’s Local Transport Note 2/08 Cycle Infrastructure Design states that:

‘The road is the most basic (and important) cycling facility available, and the preferred way of providing for cyclists is to create conditions on the carriageway where cyclists are content to use it, particularly in urban areas.’

5.3.3 A cycling isochrone showing the site’s catchment has also been produced using TRACC and is shown as Figure 3 in Appendix A. The figure illustrates 2000m, 5000m and 8000m catchment ranges which equate to 10, 25 and 40-minute journey times respectively which are based on the somewhat conservative or leisurely cycle speed of 12kph. Anecdotally, commuting cyclists are generally thought to travel at speeds between 15-20kph so a greater catchment may be more realistic. The cycling distances and times to a selection of key local centres of education, employment and amenities, as well as neighbouring settlements, are shown in Table 5.3, although the cycle times detailed in the table are based on a cycling speed of 16kph which corresponds with the TRACC default, which the software developer has based on DfT advice. It should be noted that some of the cycle distances differ from the walking distances as cycling along PRoWs is typically not allowed unless designated as cycleways, bridleways or byways.

21 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

Table 5.3: Distance and Cycling Time Taken from Site to Local Centres of Employment, Education, Amenities and Neighbouring Settlements

Distance Cycle Employment/ Education/ from Time Amenity/ Settlement Site (m) (mm:ss) Holy Family RC Church 791 03:11 Village Centre 846 03:11 Hoo Village Institute 984 03:54 The Chequers PH 1026 03:58 Library 1083 04:10 General Store 1270 04:53 St Werburgh Church 1303 05:54 Allotment & Playing Fields 1304 05:23 The Elms Medical Centre 1306 05:01 Walter Brice Day Centre 1375 05:22 Bowls Club 1389 06:01 Recreation Ground 1428 05:32 Village Hall 1581 06:08 Neighbourhood Centre 1585 06:05 HSW Primary School 1585 06:22 The Hundred of Hoo Academy 1831 07:40 Swimming Baths 1867 07:08 Deangate Ridge Rec Ground 1912 07:19 Hoo Marina 2099 07:54 Deangate Ridge Golf Club 2107 07:55 The Windmill PH 2128 08:07 Kingsnorth Industrial Estate 2586 09:43 Chattenden 3622 13:36 High Halstow 3730 14:04 Lower Upnor 4944 18:38 Wainscott 5111 19:11 Medway City Estate 6891 25:52 Strood 7239 27:09

5.3.4 Figure 3 in Appendix A and Table 5.3 above illustrate that the majority of the local amenities mentioned in the Access on Foot section above are within the 2000m catchment of the site with Hoo Marina and industrial estate, the Kingsnorth Industrial Estate and the associated amenities in the neighbouring settlements of Chattenden, High Halstow and Lower Upnor being within the 5000m catchment. Outside of the 5000m catchment but within a 30-minute cycle time are the Medway City Estate employment area and the settlement of Wainscott and Strood. Connection can be made to national rail services in Strood.

5.3.5 The catchment plan and Table 5.3 suggest that cycling will be a viable mode of travel for access to a range of local amenities and places of employment and education.

5.3.6 Clearly the site location and the surrounding infrastructure will mean that travel on foot and by cycle will be realistic and convenient modes of travel for some future residents of the site. The potential numbers of walking and cycling trips that the site will generate will be discussed in

22 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

Section 6 of this report, but clearly the scale of the site is not such that it will disadvantage existing pedestrians and cyclists, moreover, the access enhancements to the existing PRoW network in the vicinity of the site should be of benefit to existing residents.

5.3.7 The proposed site access point and dedicated pedestrian accesses will complement the existing infrastructure and provide convenient routes that will follow natural desire lines for future residents of the site. Clearly the site location and the surrounding infrastructure will mean that travel on foot and by cycle will be realistic and convenient modes of travel for future residents of the site.

5.4 Access by Public Transport

5.4.1 The CIHT document, Planning for Public Transport in Development recommends that developments should ideally be located within 400m of a bus stop. There is a set of bus stops that can accessed from the site on Bell’s Lane opposite and adjacent to Kingsnorth Close. Table 5.2 shows that these bus stops are located slightly greater than this ideal 400m distance from the site but are close to an 8-minute walk time and should therefore be seen as being accessible for future residents of the site.

5.4.2 Facilities at these stops include shelters, timetable information, seating and a raised boarding area to ease access for wheelchair and buggy users.

5.4.3 Table 5.4 below summarises the services that can be accessed via the set of bus stops on Main Road. A copy of the timetable information for all the services referenced at the time of writing are available on request or can be found via http://www.travelinesoutheast.org.uk.

Table 5.4: Summary of Key Bus Services accessed Main Road

Weekday Period Weekend Bus Route Inter Service AM PM Sat Sun Peak 1 Strood – Hoo St Werburgh 1/day 0 0 6/7/9/10 Hoo School to Isle of Grain 1/day each service 0 0 191/193 Chatham to Grain 3/hr 3/hr 3/hr 3/hr 3/hr Lower Stoke to Rochester 692 1/day 0 0 Grammar Schools Kingsnorth-Hoo-Finsbury- 762 1/day 0 0 Strood-London Kingsnorth-Allhallows- 765 1/day 0 0 Hoo-Strood Kingsnorth-Hoo-Strood- 766 1/day 0 0 London

5.4.4 The 191/193 operated by Arriva is the main service in Hoo St Werburgh and provides a 20-minute frequency service throughout the week linking the village to Chatham, Rochester, Strood, Wainscott, High Halstow and Allhallows. School services to the Isle of Grain and Rochester can also be accessed via the bus stops on Main Road together with a number of commuter coach services to London.

23 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

5.4.5 The NPPF, at paragraph 35, states that developments should be promoted in locations where they have access to high quality public transport facilities, also emphasises at paragraph 29, that ‘high quality’ in a rural location will not be the same as in urban locations. It is our opinion that the existing bus service provision in Hoo St Werburgh is appropriate and reasonable for the size of development proposed. The development, by providing good quality footway connections to the above mentioned bus stops, does ‘exploit opportunities for the use of sustainable transport modes’ (paragraph 35 NPPF).

5.4.6 To demonstrate the accessibility of bus services, an isochrone has been produced using TRACC and is shown at Figure 4 in Appendix A which highlights the destinations served by the regular daily bus services in Hoo St Werburgh. The calculation involved in producing the catchment plan includes only direct services to destinations within one hour’s journey time. A greater range of destinations will be available if passengers make connections to other bus services. The isochrone was produced for the typical commuter hours of 06.00-09.00 using the National Public Transport Data Repository (NPTDR) dataset from the third quarter of 2017 for a typical Monday.

5.4.7 Figure 4 in Appendix A demonstrates that the bus services adjacent to the site provide convenient connections to a number of destinations, including Strood and Rochester which can be reached within a 20-40 minute journey time; Chatham and Grain in a 40-60 minute journey time; Bexley within a 60-80 minute journey time, Canary Wharf and City of London within a 120-140 minute journey time and Central London, including Victoria Station, which can be reached within a 140- 160 minute journey time. Connection can also be made to national rail services in Strood and Rochester. Bus travel may therefore be a viable mode of transport and provides a reasonable choice for a number of residents of the site.

5.4.8 Strood and Rochester train stations provide access to High Speed 1 (HS1) services with two London- bound services per hour calling at Gravesend, Ebbsfleet International, Stratford International and London St Pancras International taking between 34-39 minutes to reach the final destination. Both stations also provide services to Gillingham, Ramsgate and Faversham with Strood offering services to Tonbridge and Maidstone and Rochester offering services to London Victoria and Dover Priory.

5.5 Travel Plan

5.5.1 In accordance with Saved Policy T14 of the Medway Local Plan an Interim Residential Travel Plan (TP) has been produced as part of the package of documents supporting the planning application. The document forms the start of an ongoing process to encourage and monitor the use of sustainable modes of travel. As many aspects of the TP will be applicable to this TA, a summary of the key points is as follows:

 Outlines the key local and national objectives of the TP process;  Sets targets for the reduction of car or van driver trips by between 5 and 10%;  Indicates potential measures that can be implemented to achieve these targets; and

24 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

 Provides details of how the TP will be managed, monitored and reviewed.

5.5.2 It should however be noted that in order to provide a robust assessment, the traffic impact assessment detailed in Section 6 of this TS, does not take into account any trip reduction as part of the TP.

5.6 Summary

5.6.1 This section of the report has demonstrated that the site is in a sustainable location where a range of local amenities and centres of employment and education are within nationally recognised acceptable walking and cycling distances. The local bus and coach services provide connections to some of the main urban centres in the area making bus travel a viable option for some of the residents of the site. High-speed rail services are available from Strood and Rochester stations.

5.6.2 Mentioned above is the fact that a TP will be also be produced in support of the development which will provide encouragement for potential residents of the site to use sustainable modes of transport. It is hoped that a combination of the site’s sustainable location and design and adoption of the TP will help to maximise the use of sustainable modes of transport.

5.6.3 A key theme of national and local transport planning policy is that development should be located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised. As detailed in Section 2 of this report, the NPPF states that the ‘transport system needs to be balanced in favour of sustainable transport modes, giving people a real choice about how they travel’ and developments should provide ‘safe and suitable’ access for all. It can be concluded that the proposed development accords to this NPPF guidance as well as the principles of Paragraph 35 in terms of exploiting opportunities for sustainable travel and it is located and designed to give priority to pedestrian, cycle and public transport movements. Furthermore, the production of a TP is seen by the NPPF as being a ‘key tool’ to facilitate the guidance in Paragraph 36. It is felt that, in relation to Paragraph 32 of the NPPF, ‘the opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up’.

5.6.4 It has been demonstrated that the site location, design and proposed improvements for pedestrians will complement the goals of the Medway LTP3 as well as Saved Policies T1, T2, T3, T4, and T5 of the Medway Local Plan.

25 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

This page has been left intentionally blank

26 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

6 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

6.1 Introduction

6.1.1 This section of the report details the methodology used to predict the demand associated with the development. It then provides an assessment of the impact that it is likely to have on the highway network including an assessment of the proposed site access and discusses whether any mitigation measures are required to accommodate the additional trips generated by the development.

6.2 Traffic Growth

6.2.1 In accordance with GTA the forecast year of assessment is 2022 which represents the year of application (2017) plus five years. It is expected that the site will be fully built-out and occupied by this forecast year.

6.2.2 The 2017 observed traffic flows, shown in Traffic Flow Diagram 1 in Appendix C, were factored to the assessment year using the DfT software TEMPro (Trip End Model Presentation Program) version 7.2. This package allows access to data used in the National Trip End Model (NTEM) and can be used to ‘provide summaries of traffic growth using data from the National Transport Model (NTM)’ (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tempro).

6.2.3 In order to derive local traffic growth factors, the Medway 003 (E02003316) Mid Layer Super Output Area (MSOA) was selected. Trip end growth factors for car drivers were derived and adjusted by NTM dataset AF15 for ‘Urban’ area types and ‘Principal’ road types.

6.2.4 Before applying the traffic growth factors derived from the above methods, the trips from local committed development have been considered.

6.3 Committed Developments

6.3.1 The following committed developments have been taken in to consideration:

 MC/15/3104 - Land North of Peninsula Way; and

 MC/16/2837 - Land to the south of Stoke Road.

6.3.2 We are aware of the recently consented (subject to S106 agreement) land south of Ratcliffe Highway junction with Bell’s Lane (MC/17/1884). However, the associated traffic flow diagrams do not appear to be available on the MC planning portal, therefore PRIME have been unable to include traffic generated by this development within the capacity assessment. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to assume that most traffic travelling to/from this development would use A228 Peninsula Way and Ropers Lane if travelling towards Kingsnorth Industrial Estate. Furthermore, the TEMPro growth to be applied is likely to account for an increase in traffic locally serving as a proxy for the development.

27 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

6.3.3 Whilst it is common practice to adjust the TEMPro planning assumptions to remove committed development and the double counting it would result in, the committed development site has not been removed in order to account for any other developments in the area and provide a robust assessment.

6.3.4 The subsequent growth factors derived from TEMPro and applied to the observed flows are shown in Table 6.1.

Table 6.1: Traffic Growth Factors 2017-2022 Local Growth Figure Level Area AM PM E02003316 Medway 003 1.0729 1.0711

6.3.5 The factored flows, referred to as the Base flows, are shown in Traffic Flow Diagram 2, with the committed development flows shown in Traffic Flow Diagrams 3-5. These elements have been combined to form the 2022 Without Development Flows and are shown in Traffic Flow Diagram 6. All Traffic Flow Diagrams are included in Appendix C.

6.4 Trip Generation

6.4.1 As per the Land to the south of Stoke Road (MC/16/2837) TA, the trip rates have been extracted from ‘Land to the West of Main Road Hoo (MC/14/3405) TA, the application of which was by Taylor Wimpey.

6.4.2 Paragraph 6.9 of the Taylor Wimpey TA states that MC provided trip rates locally derived from Toad Hall Crescent off Main Road Chattenden for comparison purposes. The associated trip rates were higher than the TRICS derived trip rates that were under consideration and were therefore chosen in order to provide a robust assessment. The same trips rates will be used in this assessment.

6.4.3 The vehicular trip rates derived from Toad Hall Crescent and the associated trip generation for the 65 dwellings proposed are shown in Table 6.2.

Table 6.2: Locally Derived Trip Rates and Associated Trip Generation Average Trip Rates Average Trip Generation Time Arrivals Departures Totals Arrivals Departures Totals 08:00-09:00 0.09 0.56 0.65 6 36 42 17:00-18:00 0.56 0.2 0.76 36 13 49

6.4.4 As the above table shows, the site is likely to generate in the region of 42 two-way trips in the AM peak and 49 in the PM peak. It should be noted that no allowance has been made for any future reduction in car travel based on any potential increased use of sustainable modes of travel, therefore the trip generation figures can be described as being robust for assessment purposes.

28 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

6.5 Person Trip Rates

6.5.1 The number of non-car trips likely to be generated by the site has been forecast using 2011 Census Method of Travel to Work (MTW) data. The super output areas Medway 003C and 003D have been selected as they are the two most local output areas and include the site location with the trip ends for each method of travel downloaded from Nomis (http://www.nomisweb.co.uk).

6.5.2 Several of the transport mode categories have been manually removed from the data for reasons including the observed census trips being very low (e.g. taxi), it being unrealistic that they will be used by residents of the site as the initial mode of transport (i.e. train and underground) or they will not generate a trip (i.e. not in employment and working from home).

6.5.3 As the vehicular trips were calculated using local trip rates, factors have been derived between them and the census car driver trips (1,345). The factors equate to 3.1% for the AM peak and 3.6% for the PM peak. They have then been applied to the other census modes to forecast the likely number of multimodal trips generated by the site. A summary of these multimodal trips is shown in Table 6.3 and the original census data from Nomis is included in Appendix D.

Table 6.3: Forecast Multimodal Person Trips

Medway Medway AM PM AM PM Method of Travel to Work 003C 003D Sum Trips Trips Mode % Mode % Bus, minibus or coach 46 30 76 2 3 3.8% 4.8% Motorcycle/scooter/moped 20 11 31 1 1 1.9% 1.6% Driving a car or van 880 465 1,345 42 49 80.8% 79.0% Passenger in a car or van 62 35 97 3 4 5.8% 6.5% Bicycle 8 8 16 0 1 0.0% 1.6% On foot 56 62 118 4 4 7.7% 6.5% All Modes 1,072 611 1,683 52 62 100.0% 100.0% Factors 3.1% 3.6% - -

6.5.4 Based on the results in Table 6.3, the site is forecast to generate 52 and 62 total people trips in the AM and PM peaks respectively. Following driving a car being the most frequent method of travel likely to be used by residents of the site, equating to 80%, walking trips will account for 4 trips in both peaks, equating to 8% of trips in the AM and 7% of trips in the PM. This will be followed by car passenger trips which will account for 3 and 4 trips equating to 6% and 6.5% of trips in the AM and PM respectively. The remaining 6-8% will be made up of public transport passengers, motorcyclists and cyclists.

6.6 Trip Distribution

6.6.1 Traffic Generated by the development proposal has been distributed on to the highway network in accordance with the directional split of flows on Stoke Road recorded via ATC. The shows that in the AM peak generated traffic will be distributed 53% to/from the east and 47% to/from the west. In the PM peak, generated traffic will be distributed 56% to/from the east and 44% to/from the west.

29 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

6.6.2 The distribution is shown diagrammatically in Traffic Flow Diagram 7, with the distributed development traffic shown in Traffic Flow Diagram 8. These development trips have then been added to the 2022 Without Development flows and are shown in Traffic Flow Diagram 9. These flows represent the ‘2022 With Development’ scenario.

6.7 Impact Assessment

6.7.1 Given the size of the development, it is considered necessary to assess the site access only. As such, the only scenario to be tested will be ‘2022 With Development’.

6.8 Site Access Capacity Assessment

6.8.1 The industry approved software package Junctions 9: Priority Intersection Module (version 9.0.1. 4646), formerly known as PICADY, has been used to model the junction. This module of the software is used specifically for modelling priority controlled junctions.

6.8.2 Table 6.4 provides a summary of the results of the capacity assessment of the proposed site access junction. This assessment has been based on the geometry shown in Drawing P17052-001D in Appendix E.

Table 6.4: Junction Capacity Assessment Results – Proposed Site Access 2022 With Development AM PM Arm RFC Q (PCU) RFC Q (PCU) 2022 With Development Proposed Site Access 0.07 0.1 0.03 0.0 Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 0.01 0.0 0.04 0.1

6.8.3 The results show that the proposed site access will provide sufficient capacity to serve the proposed development and operate with a considerable level of spare capacity.

6.9 Summary

6.9.1 This section has explained the traffic forecasting methodology and capacity assessment used to determine the suitability of the proposed site access. The results indicate that the proposed site access will operate with a considerable level of spare capacity and will therefore be able to accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the development.

30 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

7 ACCIDENT ANALYSIS

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 Injury accident data was purchased from MC for the period between 1st January 2012 and 31st December 2016. The covered the geographic area centred around the village of Hoo St. Werburgh. It also extends from the roundabout at the junction between the A228 (Peninsula Way) in the south- west, to the roundabout at the junction between the A228 (Peninsula Way) and Bell’s Lane in the North. The area also includes Main Road, from its junction with Peninsula Way, and Stoke Road, where the proposed development is located, up to the roundabout at the junction with Eshcol Road.

7.1.2 A summary of the accidents in terms of severity and the year in which they occurred is presented in Table 7.1.

Table 7.1: Summary of Reported Injury Accidents Severity Year Total Slight Serious Fatal 2012 10 1 0 11 2013 5 0 0 3 2014 9 1 0 8 2015 4 0 0 4 2016 1 2 0 3 Total 26 4 0 30

7.1.3 The above demonstrates that over the 5-year period, there has been a total of 30 reported injury accidents, of which 26 resulted in slight injuries being sustained and 4 resulted in serious injuries being sustained. There were no fatalities.

7.1.4 The following is a description of the accidents that have occurred in the study period.

Four Elms Roundabout (Junction between A228 and Main Road)

7.1.5 There were 8 accidents at the roundabout (Four Elms Roundabout) at the junction between the A228 (Peninsula Way) and Main Road, 6 resulted in slight injuries being sustained and 2 resulted in serious injuries being sustained, both of these involving motorcycles. The first serious accident was the result of a poor manoeuvre on behalf of the motorcycle rider who collided with the roundabout, both the rider and passenger were thrown from the vehicle seriously injuring the passenger. The rider subsequently failed a breath test. The other incident resulting in a serious injury occurred on Peninsula Way on the approach to Four Elms Roundabout, when the rider of a motorcycle who was exceeding the speed limit, fell from the bike and collided with a car. Other contributory factors are listed as the driver of the motorcycle failed to look properly and failed to judge the path and speed and of the other vehicle.

31 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

7.1.6 Of the slight injury accidents occurring at this junction 3 incidents involved a single car. The first occurred when the driver overshot the junction. The weather was foggy at the time and the driver failed to see the roundabout. There were also 3 separate incidents where a car mounted the roundabout and subsequently crashed. The first of which was most likely down to the driver having a medical episode prior to the collision and resulted in the car overturning, the other two incidents the contributory factor listed was a loss of control.

7.1.7 The other 2 incidents were vehicle to vehicle collisions. The first involved a bus and motorcycle and the police report states that the driver of the bus failed to look properly which resulted in the motorcyclist suddenly changing direction to avoid a collision. The road surface was icy at the time and the motor cyclist lost control causing the rider to fall from the vehicle. The other accident occurred when the driver of a goods vehicle, changed lane without indicating when exiting the roundabout, forcing a car off the carriageway and into a lamppost.

Main Road (Between Main Road Chattenden and Bell’s Lane)

7.1.8 There were 4 reported accidents along Main Road, between the roundabout junction of Main Road Chattenden to the west and the junction with Bell’s Lane to the east. It should be noted that one of these accidents resulted in a serious injury being sustained to a child pedestrian. An 8-year old pedestrian stepped into the path of a car travelling down Main Road, the driver took evasive action but the pedestrian was struck by the wing mirror of the car. The driver was said to be travelling in a considerate manner.

7.1.9 The other 3 accidents also involved child pedestrians being hit by cars but all resulted in slight injuries being sustained. One of the incidents was the fault of the pedestrian who stepped in front of a car, there is no police report detailing the second incident so it is unclear if the pedestrian was on in the carriageway or on the pavement and the last incident was the result of aggressive driving with the driver failing to stop at the scene.

Junction of Main Road and Bell’s Lane

7.1.10 There were 2 reported accidents at the junction between Main Road and Bell’s Lane both of which resulted in slight injuries being sustained. The first was a collision that involved a car and a bicycle and occurred after the driver of the car failed to look properly. The other incident occurred when the driver of a car, turning from Main Road into Bell’s Lane took the corner too fast, colliding with the traffic island and a lamppost. The driver was exceeding the speed limit, undertook a poor manoeuvre and was inexperienced.

Stoke Road

7.1.11 There were a further 2 accidents along Stoke Road, both resulting in slight injuries being sustained. The first took place at night when a pedestrian who was wearing dark clothes was hit by the wing mirror of a car. The driver failed to stop at the scene so may not have been aware the collision had

32 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

happened. The other incident occurred when a motorcyclist clipped the kerb causing the rider to lose control.

Bell’s Lane

7.1.12 There was a total of 6 injury accidents along Bell’s Lane, all of which resulted in slight injuries being sustained. 3 of these accidents were collisions between cars and pedestrians of which 2 were the result of pedestrians running into the path of vehicles travelling on Bell’s Lane, the other occurred when the driver failed to look properly when reversing and collided with a pedestrian. There were 2 vehicle to vehicle collisions, one involved a car and a motorcycle and was said to be the result of a poor manoeuvre on behalf of the motorcyclist, the other was a head-on collision between 2 vehicles when a fatigued driver swerved into the wrong lane. The final incident involved a single car hitting a lamp post and involved a 15-year old who was driving without a license or insurance was subsequently arrested.

Roundabout at Junction between Bell’s Lane and A228

At the roundabout at the junction between the A228 (Peninsula Way) and Bell’s Lane, there were 7 injury accidents of which 6 resulted in slight injuries being sustained and 1 resulted in a serious injury. The serious accident involved a single motorcyclist who lost control approaching the roundabout and collided with an advertising board next to the carriageway. Of the accidents that resulted in slight injuries, 3 were vehicle to vehicle collisions, 2 of which involved rear-end collisions approaching the roundabout and the other happened on the roundabout in foggy conditions. There were another 2 separate incidents where a car collided with the roundabout where conditions, be it fog or a slippery road surface played a role. The final incident occurred at the roundabout when a motorcyclist clipped the island and fell over. The rider was said to have undertaken a poor manoeuvre.

Ratcliffe Highway

7.1.13 The final incident took place on Ratcliffe Highway when a bus, on a driving lesson and heading towards Bell’s Lane, got too close to a works vehicle that was stationary at the side of the road, and clipped it.

7.2 Summary

7.2.1 Within the study area, there have therefore been a total of 30 injury accidents during the 5-year period between 1st January 2012 and 31st December 2016. The locations and severity proportions are not unusually high based on traffic flows, link and junction types. No observations were made during the site that suggested highway condition or layout was unsafe. Furthermore, it is important that no accidents occurred alongside the site frontage and there were no fatalities.

33 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

This page has been left intentionally blank

34 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

8.1 Summary

8.1.1 This TS accompanies the proposal to develop land to the north of Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh, Medway for up to 65 dwellings.

8.1.2 Access is to be provided via a priority controlled junction designed to conform to MfS standards with the visibility splays derived from the Manual for Streets 2 stopping sight distance formula based on recorded 85th percentile speeds measured on Stoke Road adjacent to the site frontage.

8.1.3 The main site access is to be supplemented by an additional pedestrian/cycle connection to the Street Farm scheme that lies to the west of the proposed development and to PRoW RS112 that runs through the Street Farm scheme.

8.1.4 A Residential Travel Plan has been prepared alongside this TA and forms one of the documents which supports this planning application.

8.1.5 The location of the site has been shown to be sustainable when considering access to and from the site by modes of travel other than the private car, particularly walking, cycling and public transport. It has been demonstrated that the local primary school, secondary school and local amenities are within nationally acceptable walking and cycling distances. The bus stops in the vicinity of the site provide connections to main urban centres in the area making bus travel a viable option for some of the residents of the site. High-speed rail services to a variety of destinations including central London are available from Strood and Rochester stations, accessible via bus and cycle. The access strategy maximises access via sustainable modes and the proposal includes measures to encourage travel by non-car modes.

8.1.6 An assessment of the capacity of the proposed site access has been undertaken, this confirming that the access will have ample capacity to accommodate the predicted traffic flows in 2022 with the development in place.

8.1.7 A review of personal injury accidents that have occurred on the local highway network has been undertaken for the most recent five year period that the data was available for. An analysis of those accidents showed that the locations and severity proportions are not unusually high based on traffic flows, link and junction types. No observations were made during the site that suggested highway condition or layout was unsafe. Furthermore, it is important that no accidents occurred alongside the site frontage and there were no fatalities.

35 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

8.2 Conclusion

8.2.1 It is concluded that the proposed development would not have a severe impact on the operation of the highway network both in terms of safety and capacity. The impact could best be described as negligible and it is our view that no off-site mitigation measures should be required.

8.2.2 As the proposal complies with local and national planning policy and guidance with respect to sustainable accessibility, safety and impact on the highway network, there are no highways or transportation related reasons why planning permission should not be granted. Should the highway authority have any concerns, we are happy to consult further with them.

36 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

APPENDIX A

FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Location Plan Figure 2 Pedestrian Isochrone Figure 3 Cycling Isochrone

Figure 4 Bus Catchment Plan

SITE LOCATION

SITE LOCATION

Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2017) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf

Project Drawn by Issue date DJS 04 OCT 2017

LAND NORTH OF STOKE ROAD, Scale(s) HOO ST WERBURGH, MEDWAY NTS Rev Date By Revision notes

Status Title Drawing No

INFORMATION SITE LOCATION FIGURE 1

Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2017) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf Project Drawn by Issue date LAND NORTH OF STOKE ROAD, DJS 04 OCT 2017 * * * * HOO ST WERBURGH, MEDWAY Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS Status Title Drawing No

FINAL WALKING ISOCHRONE FIGURE 2

Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2017) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf Project Drawn by Issue date LAND NORTH OF STOKE ROAD, DJS 04 OCT 2017 * * * * HOO ST WERBURGH, MEDWAY Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS Status Title Drawing No

FINAL CYCLING ISOCHRONE FIGURE 3

Contains Ordnance Survey data (C) Crown copyright and database right (2017) http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf Project Drawn by Issue date LAND NORTH OF STOKE ROAD, DJS 04 OCT 2017 * * * * HOO ST WERBURGH, MEDWAY Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes NTS Status Title Drawing No

FINAL BUS & COACH CATCHMENT PLAN FIGURE 4

P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL DRAWINGS:

Drawing P17052-001D Proposed Access Arrangement Drawing P17052-002 Swept Path Analysis

19.59 19.48 19.57 19.56 19.13 16.70 16.54 15.04

15.01 CONCRETE PAVEMENT 19.70 16.41 14.90 14.85 14.82 17.72 15.04 19.80 19.81 COMMS 18.09 15.93 14.84 CABINET 15.61 18.72 16.49 14.85 19.25 14.99 19.76 PRF 1.40 m H 14.85 15.52 14.83 18.59 14.83 17.25 19.67 14.55

19.69 16.35

HEDGELINE 19.79 Suggested19.32 Dimensions 15.47 KEY: 19.69 GRASS 15.13 14.62 19.77 19.72 19.65 18.81 4 /4 /0.30 15.00 14.75 19.77 17.86 14.76 STN30 14.46 16.80 17.56 GRASS 16.15 14.21 19.86 15.30 18.47 14.11

15.67 14.53 14.31 14.61 19.96 14.59 Kerb 14.74 14.57 19.39 STN23 16.12 13.91 18.23 14.68 14.59 14.26 14.81 13.79 2.4m x 109m VISIBILITY SPLAY (@ DMRB 41.3mph) 14.08 GRASS 16.21 14.29 16.94 16.49 20.00 HEDGELINE 14.14 18.92 14.22 17.69 15.72 15.89 14.05 BUSHES 14.10 20.04 20.05 18.57 14.27 14.34 13.96 14.07 20.03 PRF 1.40 m H 14.21 17.23 15.26 20.05 GRASS 14.88 14.49

20.10 Kerb 12.16 19.55 PAVED PWF 1.40 m H 13.99 11.83 15.89 20.18 6m 15.56 11.88 13.88 12.32 2.4m x 125m VISIBILITY SPLAY (@ DMRB 44.9mph) 14.04 12.05 TARMAC 12.20 13.87 18.97 14.2114.13 20.18 20.22 13.84 12.20 20.20 14.27 20.25 14.95 14.36 20.76 16.34 14.15 12.25 17.86 MAST 14.02 12.25 20.14 16.70 14.51 13.91 radius GRASS STN21 18.65 GRASS 17.50 14.00 20.32 HEDGELINE Kerb 13.88 IL 19.875 PRF 1.40 m H 15.93 15.36 13.96 14.02 13.85 12.53 19.96 14.09 Gate1.50 15.51 Road Edge - no kerb 19.91 PWF 1.2m H BUSHES 12.55 20.31 14.26 Kerb 20.32 20.10 14.11 12.77 DITCH 20.35 17.96 13.95 12.42 14.00 12.25 EXTENT OF HIGHWAY BOUNDARY19.94 14.11 14.02 13.99 20.07 15.31 14.12 16.42 14.03 13.92 19.60 19.17 14.21 14.16 3/2/0.20 CO 16.93 12.99 UNABLEDENSE TO SURVEY TREELINE DITCHLINE Kerb Post And Rail1.50 m H 20.57 14.17 20.56 14.14 GRASS 20.50 15.88 12.15 20.55 20.52 19.88 12.23 20.62 14.01 12.10 15.50 12.17 20.60 20.55 20.42 19.87 14.14 12.10 3/2/0.20 13.52 CO 20.67 2m 18.75 13.59 12.19 EP GU_12.01 20.92 20.66 15.07 GRASS 14.07 12.10 20.94 20.91 20.80 5.5m 14.92 13.47 21.09 20.89 17.30 12.03 20.86 17.75 19.80 14.04 12.01 21.03 20.95 16.47 GU_12.03 21.08 13.44 13.33 21.13 13.29 10/18/0.40 12.18 EXTENT20.98 OF WIDENING20.47 GRASS REQUIRED INTO19.75 PARCEL 3 20.76 20.71 F.PATH/TARMAC /0.20 21.12 20.62 19.99 footway 17.53 13.00 21.01 19.36 3/2 12.02 21.16 20.40 10/18/3.00 Kerb Channel CO 20.48 carriageway 21.24 12.32 12.14 F.PATH/TARMAC 21.23 12.15 21.14 20.50 12.14 Fence - Railings1.10 m H GRASS 13.67 21.15 STN9 10/18 /0.25X7 20.87 12.11 20.40 12.02 /0.20 21.17 19.66 18.88 12.32 /2 PRF 1.40 m H 13.26 12.76 3 16.33 12.13 IC CL_12.20 CO 21.08 21.04 20.70 20.66 20.41 IC (sw) CL_12.13 21.19 21.08 20.75 20.31 17.81 12.23 21.10 20.83 19.58 13.47 20.49 UNABLE TO SURVEY DITCHLINE 16.69 21.08 18.10 GRASS 12.31 UNMADE PATH 17.11 15.21 11.94 20.74 20.15 17.50 PRF 1.40 m H 15.94 15.67 15.32 12.18 /0.20 12.42 12.01 /2 12.13 3 20.37 12.11 CO 21.23 20.86 20.12 DENSE TREELINE 19.53 21.34 HEDGE 1.6mH 21.27 20.76 Post And Rail1.50 m H 14.07 3/2 /0.20 20.15 16.51 14.76 12.12 21.27 12.52 11.97 21.11 TARMAC DENSE TREELINE PRF 1.40 m H HEDGELINE 14.46 21.32 20.91 UNABLE TO SURVEY DITCHLINE 11.96 STN8 19.06 12.28 12.20 21.39 GRASS 20.18 11.92 12.03 11.93 20.96 PRF 1.40 m H 12.11 /0.2021.46 12.15 5/2 20.99 11.99 11.97 20.86 20.00 17.19 CO 21.38 16.58 21.40 21.08 16.17 15.35 KIG 12.37 TMH 11.93 21.45 F.PATH/TARMAC 14.91 PROPOSED SITE ACCESS LOCATION 12.03 17.87 IC CL_11.94 Kerb Channel STN /0.20 18.16 /2 17.57 5 21.47 14.51 GRASS 12.49 2RC.A 21.15 EP CO 21.46 12.22 12.01 13.77 12.26 17.24 12.18 21.42 21.03 16.78 15.77 15.23 13.96 HEDGE 1.6mH 12.19 11.87 12.16 14.53 BT POLE 20.90 19.86 F.PATH/TARMAC 21.39 21.12 PRF 1.40 m H 12.02 21.04 20.26 20.04 19.53 21.42 UNMADE PATH 12.42 11.92 /0.20 20.79 21.19 PRF 1.40 m H 13.69 5/2 21.33 14.98 13.47 12.69 12.26 Kerb Channel 12.00 GRASS BKW 1.4m H CO 20.60 21.42 12.38 12.23 Kerb Channel

21.45 19.22 18.02 15.58 Notice Board 12.22 GAS 21.10 GRASS 12.27 /2/0.20 EP 5 20.70 18.31 12.48 11.93 TMH_11.99 19.81 12.23 NO ACCESS CO 21.18 16.24 13.29 GU_12.22 21.45 21.23 GRASS 18.47 STN20 21.49 21.16 15.87 14.09 21.56 17.69 11.98 19.91 13.58 12.07 /0.20 21.48 13.68 5/2 21.28 17.29 16.81 21.51 20.10 12.36 CO 18.29 12.47

21.60 19.12 21.24 14.93 21.29 GRASS BKW 1.4m H GRASS MH_CL 13.55 12.35 12.03 21.52 19.06 18.73 12.40 12.39 12.10 16.96 14.39 12.35 12.08 20.45 12.52 12.10 20.54 19.01 19.01 21.26 19.02 9 /10/0.75 14.24 21.25 18.98 18.41 18.43 F.PATH/TARMAC 12.65 18.06 13.64 STN7 18.35 16.79 Kerb Channel 18.89 12.16 BKW 1.4m H 21.28 17.76 16.32 12.59 12.51 HEDGELINE 15.67 15.07 21.26 19.52 CO STN 12.55 12.20 6 /3 PWF 1.20 m H 3RC /0.35 17.39 14.61 12.26 19.45 18.82 18.40 Kerb Channel 21.27 19.58 19.32 14.61 14.60 DITCH 17.01 14.16 TARMAC 12.26 20.28 19.31 18.90 12.75 15.90 F.PATH/TARMAC 18.86 12.62 19.32 13.31 12.32 12.31 12.69 BKW 1.4m H 21.18 19.31 18.79 SV IL 18.661 GRASS 19.19 18.74 12.66 12.38 12.32 UNMADE PATH 19.03 PRF 1.70 m H 21.13 20.29 GRASS 18.74 12.42 12.33 PRF 1.40 m H 16.60 15.30 GRASS 13.33 19.16 15.14 TMH CL_12.82 21.13 18.94 12.50 19.06 18.67 17.83 12.89 12.70 18.23 Kerb Channel 19.26 BKW 1.4m H 19.05 15.43 18.65 12.82 12.49 19.35 CO 14.04 12.45 19.00 F.PATH/TARMAC 6 16.27 20.04 /3 17.18 12.79 12.53 /0.35 21.07 19.11 12.48 12.52 12.53 19.07 14.35 12.60 BKW 1.4m H 19.03 18.44 F.PATH/TARMAC 20.94 18.89 14.87 13.27 18.72 12.62 12.62 6 /3/0.70 Kerb Channel 20.03 18.83 17.50 13.02 12.85 12.60 STN30A 12.61 PRF 1.70 m H 19.12 18.19 16.73 12.95 12.67 12.54 15.66 14.11 EP 12.91 12.67 17.46 20.96 PRF 1.40 m H PRF 1.40 m H CPF 1.20 m H 18.96 12.79

UNABLE TO SURVEY MORE LEVELS 19.05 13.12 12.80 12.66 CARAVANS PARKED 12.98 HEDGE 1.6mH 19.83 15.20 12.80 17.92 14.95 14.10 13.09 GRASS 13.05 Kerb Channel 12.84 PRF 1.40 m H GRASS RS 20.73 16.92 13.86 13.04 STN10 17.96 16.02 19.82 TMH CL_12.94 17.46 GRASS 12.92 12.87 F.PATH/TARMAC TARMAC 12.97 12.92 18.81 18.20 12.96 13.13 14.91 HEDGE 1.6mH GRASS 13.15 CPF 1.20 m H GRASS 13.04 13.13 18.80 16.45 13.50 IC (sw) CL_13.12 13.07 20.72 PWF 1.20 m H 13.11 21.14 13.13 19.58 GRASS 17.66 13.09 UNABLE TO SURVEY DITCHLINE 17.13 13.13 15.11 13.30 F.PATH/TARMAC 20.54 13.10 19.07 Kerb Channel DENSE TREELINE 13.22 PRF 1.20 m H 13.21 19.59 16.03 13.19 18.61 13.19 17.84 17.42 13.21 15.75 13.18 13.23 13.67 13.28 16.65 20.54 13.21 13.20 PRF 1.70 m H UNABLE TO SURVEY MORE LEVELS 18.58 13.21 CARAVANS PARKED 17.86 13.24 13.24 13.28 19.30 18.16 13.26 13.29 PRF 1.40 m H 13.38 13.24 Kerb Channel GRASS 17.21 15.05 13.35 GRASS 13.34 13.21 20.19 17.44 13.32 GRASS 16.16 TARMAC F.PATH/TARMAC 19.35 13.69 13.23 19.80 18.36 13.25 13.25 HEDGE 1.6mH 13.89 16.81 13.31 EP 13.24 STN6 Post And Rail1.50 m H 20.21 15.53 13.29 18.77 18.43 15.30 13.49 13.27 20.64 STN1 13.32 3.85m 15.76 19.13 13.24 13.31

14.47 13.92 17.56 13.21

16.33 13.26 13.57 13.44 19.92 13.24 19.17 17.51 F.PATH/TARMAC Kerb Channel 13.37 UNMADE PATH 13.26 PRF 1.20 m H 13.36 18.10 13.35 Kerb Channel 13.35 PRF 1.40 m H 17.00 GRASS 14.14 13.32 19.97 13.29 13.24 20.11 F.PATH/TARMAC 15.93 13.75 13.25 13.67 19.01 GRASS 18.86 13.28 18.13 13.40 13.31 16.48 15.26 13.45 13.35 17.52 13.41 13.37

17.16 13.40 20.35 19.55 17.88 CO6/3/0.40 17.14 15.51 13.27 CO6 /3/0.40 17.75 HEDGE 1.6mH 18.82 17.87 PWF 1.20 m H 13.31 17.96 CO 5/3/0.25 13.26 17.44 GRASS 17.44 CO6/3/0.40 CO5/3/0.25 PRF 1.20 m H 16.06 13.45 13.30 GRASS 17.80 CO6/3/0.40 13.52 19.62 GRASS 13.36 16.38 13.47 18.53 17.44 16.61 20.06 13.44 PWF 1.2m H

17.85 13.62 13.30 19.07 PRF 1.40 m H 15.65 13.30 19.33 17.82 UNMADE PATH F.PATH/TARMAC 14.98 13.81 13.30 CULVERT 17.69 OUTLET Kerb Channel 300mm Ø 17.77 13.52 13.32 IL_12.29 16.15 18.51 13.58 16.93 Kerb Channel 13.41 17.35 PRF 1.50 m H 13.53

17.63 GRASS 19.42 13.38 13.52 17.28 17.17 14.53 16.76 5m STN11 15.22 13.37 17.61 F.PATH/TARMAC

17.69 17.26 13.40 17.57 15.78 HEDGE 1.6mH GRASS 13.68 13.36 18.81 PRF 1.50 m H EP 15.91 13.61 18.15 17.21 PRF 1.50 m H 13.57 OVERGROWN 13.37 17.64 13.54 17.60 IC (sw) CL_13.50 17.23 16.34 13.53 13.42 18.97 19.20 18.08 17.23 13.41 18.19 14.74 GRASS 17.61 13.38 18.64 17.64 IL_16.19 16.66 15.36 PWF 1.20 m H 16.27 16.63 13.44 17.48 17.43 15.79 GU_13.37 18.12 16.62 F.PATH/TARMAC 13.39 15.80 Kerb Channel 13.58 19.41 17.30 13.64 16.40 GRASS 13.39 17.62 17.57 16.74 DITCH STN 17.56 13.58 16.93 13.43 GRASS 4RC 18.96 14.96 13.56 13.48 17.92 13.74 UNMADE PATH 17.48 16.67 15.44 17.08 13.84 13.63 TARMAC 13.43 17.66 3 /4 /0.25 13.67 13.37 HEDGE 1.6mH 17.79 17.45 UNABLE TO SURVEY 13.39 17.04 14.82 Gate1.50 17.56 DENSE VEGETATION 17.94 17.71 13.58 18.62 18.11 Drop kerb Channel PWF 1.20 m H 18.78 STN5 18.30 CPF 1.20 m H TMH_13.42 18.70 13.76 13.46 13.47 18.55 17.81 16.98 17.61 16.02 13.59 13.45 13.40 17.78 BKW 2.5 m H 13.64 F.PATH/TARMAC 17.94 13.58 13.51 18.48 GRASS 16.83 13.43 GRASS 13.64 17.60 13.45 15.04 13.53 18.64 17.33 13.49 Gate1.50 18.81 PRF 1.50 m H 14.34 18.06 PRF 1.50 m H 13.62 17.55 18.35 13.46 18.08 13.52 13.55 18.20 18.14 17.82 UNMADE PATH 13.63 18.27 17.86 GRASS PWF 1.20 m H 17.97 STN4 17.77 13.53 18.48 15.22 13.50 18.42 17.67 18.02 13.48 17.11 IC (sw) CL_13.53 13.47 18.93 17.38 17.67 18.04 13.69 16.85 18.42 17.52 13.67 17.07 13.64 13.51 17.81 17.68 17.17 18.06 17.63 14.95 IC CL_13.55 HEDGE 1.6mH 17.89 18.78 18.31 13.65 18.12 18.02 17.57 17.45 18.24 17.28 13.52 15.56 13.67 IC_CL 17.27 PRF 1.50 m H 13.59 17.30 14.46 14.04 17.35 Road Edge - no kerb 13.59 17.49 17.19 CONCRETE 17.65 17.33 17.83 17.12 3.27m 15.00 UNMADE PATH 13.76 13.58 13.70 PRF 1.20 m H 18.10 13.66 17.33 13.75 17.33 15.10 PRF 1.20 m H 17.85 17.29 14.98 17.27 13.60 17.25 17.09 17.24 PWF 1.20 m H GU_13.64 13.68 17.22 14.83 13.70 GRASS 17.21 13.66 13.67 17.83

GRASS 17.27 CPF 1.20 m H 17.13 Kerb Channel 13.76 17.18 17.08 13.74 17.38 17.22 HEDGE 1.6mH 18.13 STN3 13.70 F.PATH/TARMAC MH_CL 17.26 13.71 18.28 14.48 13.58 PRF 1.20 m H GRASS EP 17.21 13.58 13.75 13.86 13.70 13.99 13.76 18.10 17.26 1.2H 14.64 17.38 Kerb Channel Notice Board F.PATH/TARMAC 13.91 17.22 17.10 14.02 14.06 13.62 210m 17.25

PRF 1.50 m H 13.65 17.52 13.74 13.90 17.12 13.81 13.97 13.77 3m 17.91 CONCRETE 17.26 17.71 17.39 13.85 17.86 GRASS 13.89 13.91 13.89 13.85 XX12 /18/0.55 17.32 17.28 17.27 14.01 14.01 17.32 BUSH 0.7m H

17.34 17.28 17.26 13.93 13.78 MH_CL 17.35 13.87 BKW 1.2m H 13.82 TARMAC 13.96 17.25

13.92 CPF 1.10 m H 17.26 F.PATH/TARMAC 17.26 13.94 13.94 14.01 17.24 Kerb Channel 13.94 17.41 14.01

17.27 13.91 PRF 1.20 m H 14.06 17.27 13.97 BKW 1.2m H CULVERT 14.12 F.PATH/TARMAC 13.92 300mmINLET Ø 17.27 IL_13.52 14.00 17.30 WM 14.06 14.06 14.09 14.57 BUSH 0.7m H 14.06 TOW 14.43 14.08 13.99

TMH_14.08 14.26

13.99 14.12 14.20 14.14 14.14

13.97 14.00 14.06

14.08 14.17

14.07 14.12 TARMAC 14.24 14.07 14.15

Gate1.50 14.20 TMH_14.32 14.25 Road Edge - no kerb 14.20 TMH_14.30 F.PATH/TARMAC 14.27 Kerb Channel

14.26 14.18 14.18 F.PATH/TARMAC GRASS HEDGE 1.6mH 14.13 14.40

14.23

14.40 14.23 14.28 14.45

14.24 IC CL_14.30 14.23 14.20 Gate1.50 WV_14.34 14.43 HEDGE 1.6mH

14.30 Drop kerb Channel 14.30 14.39 14.30 STN2 14.36 Road Edge - no kerb 14.26 14.36 GRASS

BKW 1.2m H 14.27

14.35 14.53 F.PATH/TARMAC F.PATH/TARMAC Kerb Channel 14.47

14.49 14.36 14.52 14.42 14.45 14.42 14.32 5RC 14.44 14.52 14.36 TARMAC 14.41 14.47 14.59

14.39 14.45 14.47 14.57 14.47 14.58 14.43

BKW 1.2m H 14.37

14.54 14.50 HEDGE 1.6mH

14.50 14.56

14.67 14.41 14.57 Lighting Columns Under 6m 14.66 14.56 14.65 14.68 14.52 IC (sw) CL_14.53

14.54 14.65 14.59

14.57 14.59 Road Edge - no GRASSkerb

F.PATH/TARMAC 14.71 Kerb Channel F.PATH/TARMAC 14.47

14.73 14.69 14.60 14.59 BKW 1.2m H 14.57 14.61

14.73 14.63

14.62 GRASS

14.77

14.78 WM 14.54

HEDGE 1.6mH 14.52

14.68 14.59 14.67 14.66 14.84

14.82 14.70

F.PATH/TARMAC 14.77 F.PATH/TARMAC Kerb Channel 14.81

14.58 14.75 BKW 0.6m H 14.67 14.72 TARMAC 14.73 Lighting Columns Under 6m 14.86 14.86

14.77 Kerb Channel

14.65 WM 14.74 14.89 14.85 14.79

14.83 14.96 14.92 IC CL_14.68 SV 14.94 14.94

14.89 14.98 HEDGE 1.6mH

15.06 15.06 14.76 F.PATH/TARMAC 14.86 15.04 14.90 PICKET 1.0 m H TARMAC 15.01 14.99

14.96

F.PATH/TARMAC14.99 Kerb Channel 14.99 15.04 SV

WM 15.74 Kerb Channel 15.01 HEDGE 1.6M H 14.92 15.01 CBF 1.80 m H 15.01 Bollard 15.07 15.76 15.22 HEDGE 2.0mH PLANTER Bollard 15.16 15.13 Gate1.50 EP 15.35Gate1.50 15.28

Notice Board 15.34 WM 15.22

Gate1.50 15.31 15.21 HEDGE 1.6mH IC CL_15.72 15.30 15.11 15.28 15.71 15.21 15.27

15.72 15.65 15.36 15.33 Gate1.50 STN WM 5RC.A 15.22

15.39 15.40

15.60

PICKET 1.0 m H

15.31 15.45 15.41

15.75 15.44 TARMAC 15.65 15.47 15.42 15.46 15.65

Kerb Channel

15.52 F.PATH/TARMAC BKW 2.1m H D 30.10.17 MF PARCEL 3 LAND REQUIRED ADDED Project Drawn by Issue date C 27.10.17 MF ACCESS RELOCATED EAST MF 02.10.2017 B 26.10.17 MF STOKE STREET REALIGNED A 11.10.17 MF ACCESS RELOCATED CIRCA 17m EAST STOKE STREET, HOO ST WERBURGH Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes 1:1000 @A3 Status Title Drawing No

FOR INFORMATION PROPOSED SITE ACCESS P17052-001D

This page has been left intentionally blank VEHICLE PROFILE VEHICLE PROFILE

INSET A - LEFT IN INSET B - LEFT OUT

VEHICLE PROFILE VEHICLE PROFILE

INSET C - RIGHT IN INSET D - RIGHT OUT

Project Drawn by Issue date VB 02.11.2017

* * * * STOKE STREET, HOO ST WERBURGH Scale(s) Rev Date By Revision notes 1:500 @A3 Status Title SWEPT PATH ANALYSIS - PROPOSED SITE ACCESS Drawing No FOR INFORMATION ALL MOVEMENTS P17052-002

This page has been left intentionally blank P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

APPENDIX C

TRAFFIC FLOW DIAGRAMS

Traffic Flow Diagrams Reference Scenario Peak Derivation 1 Traffic Flow Diagram 1 - 2017 Observed Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Raw Data 2 Traffic Flow Diagram 2 - 2022 Base Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) 1 * TEMPRO 3 Traffic Flow Diagram 3 - Committed Development Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) (MC/15/3104 Peninsula Way) 4 Traffic Flow Diagram 4 - Committed Development Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) (MC/16/2837 Stoke Road) 5 Traffic Flow Diagram 5 - Total Committed Development Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) 3+4 6 Traffic Flow Diagram 6 - 2022 Without Development Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) 2+5 7 Traffic Flow Diagram 7 - Development Distribution AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Observed turning proportions 8 Traffic Flow Diagram 8 - Development Traffic Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) 7*TRICS 9 Traffic Flow Diagram 9 - 2022 With Development Flows AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) 6+8 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 1 - 2017 Observed Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red

AM Site Access

102

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

91

PM Site Access Site

106

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

82 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 2 - 2022 Base Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles Light Vehicles (cars & LGVs) in black Heavy Vehicles (HGVs & buses) in red

AM Site Access

109

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

98

PM Site Access Site

113

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

87 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 3 - Committed Development Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles (MC 15 3104 Peninsula Way)

AM Site Access

4

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

3

PM Site Access Site

4

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

4 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 4 - Committed Development Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles (MC/16/2837 Stoke Road)

AM Site Access

7

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

1

PM Site Access Site

3

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

7 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 5 - Total Committed Development Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles

AM Site Access

11

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

4

PM Site Access Site

7

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

11 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 6 - 2022 Without Development Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles

AM Site Access

120

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

102

PM Site Access Site

120

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

98 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 7 - Development Distribution Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles

AM Site Access

47% 47% 53%

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

53%

PM Site Access Site

44% 44% 56%

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

56% Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 8 - Development Traffic Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles

AM

6 Arrivals Site Access 36 Departures

3 17 19

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

3

PM

36 Arrivals Site Access Site 13 Departures

16 67

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

20 Project: Stoke Road, Hoo St Werburgh Scenario: Traffic Flow Diagram 9 - 2022 With Development Flows Peak AM (0800-0900) & PM (1500-1600) Notes: All flows are in vehicles

AM Site Access

31719

120

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

3

102

PM Site Access Site

16 6 7

120

Stoke Road W Arm Stoke Road E Arm

20

98 P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

APPENDIX D

2011 CENSUS MTW MODAL SPLIT DATA

QS703EW - Method of Travel to Work (2001 specification) ONS Crown Copyright Reserved [from Nomis on 9 June 2016] population All usual residents aged 16 to 74 units Persons date 2011

Original Data Medway Medway Method of Travel to Work 003C 003D Combined All categories: Method of travel to wo 1,785 1,063 2,848 Work mainly at or from home 86 32 118 Underground, metro, light rail, tram 2 1 3 Train 69 21 90 Bus, minibus or coach 46 30 76 Taxi 5 0 5 Motorcycle, scooter or moped 20 11 31 Driving a car or van 880 465 1,345 Passenger in a car or van 62 35 97 Bicycle 8 8 16 On foot 56 62 118 Other method of travel to work 6 0 6 Not in employment 545 398 943

Unlikey/Non-travel Modes Removed Medway Medway AM Mode PM Mode Method of Travel to Work 003C 003D Sum AM Trips PM Trips % % Bus, minibus or coach 46 30 76 2 3 3.8% 4.8% Motorcycle/scooter/moped 20 11 31 1 1 1.9% 1.6% Driving a car or van 880 465 1,345 42 49 80.8% 79.0% Passenger in a car or van 62 35 97 3 4 5.8% 6.5% Bicycle 8 8 16 0 1 0.0% 1.6% On foot 56 62 118 4 4 7.7% 6.5% All Modes 1,072 611 1,683 52 62 100.0% 100.0% Factors 3.1% 3.6% - -

P17052 – Land North of Stoke Road, Hoo St. Werburgh, Medway Transport Statement

APPENDIX E

SITE ACCESS CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT OUTPUT

Generated on 02/11/2017 12:09:06 using Junctions 9 (9.0.2.5947)

Junctions 9 PICADY 9 - Priority Intersection Module Version: 9.0.2.5947 © Copyright TRL Limited, 2017 For sales and distribution information, program advice and maintenance, contact TRL: +44 (0)1344 770558 [email protected] www.trlsoftware.co.uk The users of this computer program for the solution of an engineering problem are in no way relieved of their responsibility for the correctness of the solution

Filename: J1-Site Access-Stoke Road.j9 Path: N:\Projects 2017\P17052 - Stoke Street, Hoo St Werburgh, Medway\6.Technical\Models Report generation date: 02/11/2017 12:08:46

»1 With Development 2022, AM »1 With Development 2022, PM

File summary

File Description

Title Site Access/Stoke Road Location Hoo St Werburgh Site number 1 Date 12/10/2017 Version Status Final Identifier Client Dean Lewis Estates Jobnumber P17052 Enumerator GHC\B.Gaze Description Checked by D. Stoddart

Units Distance units Speed units Traffic units input Traffic units results Flow units Average delay units Total delay units Rate of delay units m kph PCU PCU perHour s -Min perMin

Analysis Options Calculate Queue Percentiles Calculate residual capacity RFC Threshold Average Delay threshold (s) Queue threshold (PCU) 0.85 36.00 20.00

Demand Set Summary ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 1 With Development 2022 AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15 D2 1 With Development 2022 PM ONE HOUR 14:45 16:15 15

Analysis Set Details ID Network flow scaling factor (%) A1 100.000

1 Generated on 02/11/2017 12:09:06 using Junctions 9 (9.0.2.5947)

1 With Development 2022, AM

Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description HV% is zero for all movements / time segments. Vehicle Mix matrix should be completed whether working in Warning Vehicle Mix PCUs or Vehs.

Junction Network

Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 Site Access/Stoke Road T-Junction Two-way 1.01 A

Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown

Arms

Arms Arm Name Description Arm type A Stoke Road (Western Arm) Major B Site Access Minor C Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) Major

Major Arm Geometry Width of carriageway Has kerbed central Has right turn Visibility for right turn Blocking queue Arm Blocks? (m) reserve bay (m) (PCU) C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 6.00 100.0 ü 0.00 Geometries for Arm C are measured opposite Arm B. Geometries for Arm A (if relevant) are measured opposite Arm D.

Minor Arm Geometry Arm Minor arm type Lane width (m) Visibility to left (m) Visibility to right (m) B - Site Access One lane 2.75 120 100

Slope / Intercept / Capacity

Priority Intersection Slopes and Intercepts Slope Slope Slope Slope Intercept Junction Stream for for for for (PCU/hr) A-B A-C C-A C-B 1 B-A 553 0.101 0.255 0.160 0.364 1 B-C 670 0.103 0.259 - - 1 C-B 632 0.245 0.245 - - The slopes and intercepts shown above do NOT include any corrections or adjustments. Streams may be combined, in which case capacity will be adjusted. Values are shown for the first time segment only; they may differ for subsequent time segments.

2 Generated on 02/11/2017 12:09:06 using Junctions 9 (9.0.2.5947)

Traffic Demand

Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D1 1 With Development 2022 AM ONE HOUR 07:45 09:15 15

Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00

Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) ü 123 100.000 B - Site Access ü 36 100.000 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) ü 105 100.000

Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) B - Site Access C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) 0 3 120 From B - Site Access 17 0 19 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 102 3 0

Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) B - Site Access C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) 0 0 0 From B - Site Access 0 0 0 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 0

Results

Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.07 6.87 0.1 A C-AB 0.01 5.47 0.0 A C-A A-B A-C

3 Generated on 02/11/2017 12:09:06 using Junctions 9 (9.0.2.5947)

1 With Development 2022, PM

Data Errors and Warnings Severity Area Item Description HV% is zero for all movements / time segments. Vehicle Mix matrix should be completed whether working in Warning Vehicle Mix PCUs or Vehs.

Junction Network

Junctions Junction Name Junction Type Major road direction Junction Delay (s) Junction LOS 1 Site Access/Stoke Road T-Junction Two-way 0.81 A

Junction Network Options Driving side Lighting Left Normal/unknown

Traffic Demand

Demand Set Details ID Scenario name Time Period name Traffic profile type Start time (HH:mm) Finish time (HH:mm) Time segment length (min) D2 1 With Development 2022 PM ONE HOUR 14:45 16:15 15

Vehicle mix source PCU Factor for a HV (PCU) HV Percentages 2.00

Demand overview (Traffic) Arm Linked arm Use O-D data Average Demand (PCU/hr) Scaling Factor (%) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) ü 136 100.000 B - Site Access ü 13 100.000 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) ü 118 100.000

Origin-Destination Data Demand (PCU/hr) To A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) B - Site Access C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) 0 16 120 From B - Site Access 6 0 7 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 98 20 0

Vehicle Mix Heavy Vehicle Percentages To A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) B - Site Access C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) A - Stoke Road (Western Arm) 0 0 0 From B - Site Access 0 0 0 C - Stoke Road (Eastern Arm) 0 0 0

4 Generated on 02/11/2017 12:09:06 using Junctions 9 (9.0.2.5947)

Results

Results Summary for whole modelled period Stream Max RFC Max delay (s) Max Queue (PCU) Max LOS B-AC 0.03 6.60 0.0 A C-AB 0.04 5.64 0.1 A C-A A-B A-C

5