The Senior Planner introduced the report which set-out the results of the Strategic Transport Modelling Evidence work which had been undertaken as part of the Local Plan Review, jointly undertaken with the Kent County Council (KCC) Highways team.  The Senior Planner advised that the modelling was highway focused and intended to give a broad overview of how the network would perform, with the level of development the Local Plan Review was expected to address.  The Senior Planner explained that the model tested the Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) for Swale, the 1054 dwellings per annum (dpa), and the 776 dpa which was the housing target in the adopted Local Plan 2017.

The Senior Planner referred to the virtual presentation provided by the consultant in May 2020, and the Member workshop held virtually the previous week on the Transport Strategy, which she explained had covered the importance of the modal shift.  She stated that the main question raised by Members had been, “why was the evidence showing different results to the evidence reported to Panel in 2019”?.  The Senior Planner explained that there were several reasons for this: the car trip rates had been reduced; mitigation measures were included in this model; and there was a different distribution of sites.  The Senior Planner reported that the key findings of the report were: there were no significant show-stopping challenges to overcome in addressing the traffic network; Swale could meet the 776 dpa with a reasonably clear network: and the 1054 dpa with the proposed mitigations and significant modal shift.  A final run of the model would be undertaken when the Panel agreed their preferred option later in the year.

The Chairman invited Members to make comments.

Councillor Alastair Gould stated that the Junction 7 improvements and A249 improvements were vital to the modelling.  The Senior Planner confirmed that they had been included in the runs.

Councillor Eddie Thomas asked where the Housing Infrastructure Fund schemes fitted into the four scenarios outlined on page 26 of the report?  The Senior Planner explained that they had undertaken four runs within the transport model and under the 776 scenario one run included the Brenley Corner junction improvement, the Key Street/A249 and Grovehurst junction improvements and the other did not.  There had been a 1054 do-minimum run which had included the Brenley Corner Junction Improvement and Key Street/A249 and Grovehurst junction improvements, and 1054 scenario which had mitigations to be identified for the trip reduction rates.

Councillor Eddie Thomas asked whether other schemes could be considered if appropriate?  The Senior Planner advised that the Transport Strategy would need to look at schemes to support Members preferred options and they would work with KCC to establish what the appropriate modal shift schemes would be.

Councillor Eddie Thomas referred to the two tables on page 52 to 55 of the report and asked what the differences were between the weighted junction and highest junction?  The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC Highways and Transportation) explained that the weighted junction provided details of the capacity flow of traffic for all arms of a junction, whilst the highest junction results identified the level at which the worst affected arm of a junction was over capacityand would need to be addressed and what mitigation measures might be required. 

Councillor Benjamin Martin referred to page 56 of the report and the two maps which outlined the anticipated congestion.  He raised concern that there was no reference to Ospringe which was particularly vulnerable if developments listed in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) at Teynham went ahead.  Councillor Martin also referred to paragraph 2.14 on page 9 of the report, and asked how discussions with Canterbury and Thanet Councils were progressing in relation to contributions to the Brenley Corner junction improvements?

The Chairman stated that with regard to sites put forward in the SHLAA report considered at a previous meeting of the Panel, the report only indicated which sites had been put forward by developers for consideration and it was unlikely that all the sites at Teynham would be included in the Council’s Local Plan. 

The Senior Planner advised that with regard to contributions for the Brenley Corner junction improvements, duty to cooperate meetings were underway at an officer level but would also need to be undertaken at a political level.  She explained that KCC Highways and Transportation officers were also liaising with other local authorities.  The Senior Planner explained that the Transport Strategy would look at air quality issues and air quality work was about to be commissioned by her colleague in Planning Policy.

Councillor Benjamin Martin advised that he was not just concerned about the Air Quality Management Areas at Bapchild, he was also concerned about overcapacity and its impact on the narrowing of the road along the A2 at Bapchild.  The Senior Planner explained that once preferred sites had been identified by the Local Plan Panel, if there were any planned for Teynham or Bapchild junctions, these areas would be considered further.

Councillor Ghlin Whelan raised concern about the “massaging” of the figures in the report.  He stated that investment in public transport was not happening and this was not recognised by the planners. 

The Senior Planner stated that increased use of public transport was an area that the Council’s administration was keen to pursue.  She explained that it was not just public transport but walking and cycling, and she acknowledged the Councillors concerns.  

Councillor Julian Saunders was supportive of incorporating more cycling and walking to mitigate but considered that the report evidence base in terms of the degree to which we could include a shift was based on a lot of assumptions and not evidence.  He stated that there was a lot of development to the east of Faversham and that was the most difficult part of Faversham to reach by foot or cycling.  The Senior Planner explained that the Transport Strategy would include evidence, in terms of the east of Faversham sites on the table at appendix I of the report, and the different trip rates for different parts of the Borough.  She explained that the larger developments provided more opportunities for the modal shift. 

Councillor Mike Whiting considered that Covid-19 would change the way people worked so there would be changes to the optimistic modal change shift.  He stated that he did not understand where the evidence for the modal change came from, and queried whether the modal shift assumptions had been stress tested by KCC?  Councillor Whiting referred to paragraph 1.2 of the report and stated that he did not understand how modelling identified ‘no show stopping challenges to overcome in addressing the traffic network along the A2” given the amount of potential housing at Teynham.  He asked how much the modelling work had cost? 

The Senior Planner stated that in terms of the increase of working at home, she felt that things would change but due to the positive mental health benefits of working as part of a team, some people would probably still want to go into an office a number of days a week.  No show stopping challenges on the A2 were caveated in the next paragraph of the report, and did not mean that there would be no congestion but no show stopping challenges which would stop the Local Plan being passed by an Inspector.  The Senior Planner reported that the cost of the modelling work had been budgeted for via the Local Plan process. 

The Principal Transport and Development Planner (KCC Highways and Transportation) advised that the latest modelling run had been completed by Swale Borough Council (SBC) and SWECO with full oversight from KCC, it had not been stress tested by KCC.  It would be usual for KCC to stress test the mitigations later in the process once the development sites were known. 

Councillor Mike Whiting considered that the mitigations would be development specific, so it was difficult to accept a transport model at this stage.  He did not believe there was a caveat included in paragraph 1.2 and did not consider it was an accurate description of how things were.         

Recommended:

(1)      That the strategic transport modelling results at Appendix I of the report be noted.

(2)      That the work be part of the evidence base used to inform the Preferred Option stage of the Local Plan Review.