Agenda item

1.  That the Committee note the schedule of issues and responses to the consultation on the Integrated Transport Strategy as set out in Appendix One.

2.  That the Committee agree that revised versions of the Integrated Transport Strategy and separate Walking and Cycling Strategy be prepared and reported to a future meeting of the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transportation Committee, and then, if approved by this Committee, presented to the Maidstone Joint Transport Board recommending that the relevant Kent County Council Cabinet Member approve the Integrated Transport Strategy and separate Walking and Cycling Strategy.

3.  That following the meeting of the Maidstone Joint Transport Board the ‘final’ versions of the documents will then be reported to this Committee for approval for publication.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.  The Committee was informed, that as a result of consultation carried out on the Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS), in conjunction with the Local Plan Regulation 19 Consultation, between 5 February and 18 March 2016, a total of 84 representations were made from various interested parties. A schedule of representations was included in the report.

The main recommended change, agreed with Kent County Council (KCC), was that the Walking and Cycling Strategy be published and adopted as a standalone strategy separate from the ITS.  It was reported that, if agreed, the amendments would be made to both documents and the revised documents presented to the Maidstone Joint Transport Board (JTB) at their next meeting in July.  If agreed by JTB, the documents would then come back to this committee for final approval for adoption and published later in 2016.

It was confirmed that the ITS and the Walking and Cycling Strategy were in support of the allocations in the Maidstone Local Plan.

Councillors Harper, Adkinson and Clark addressed the Committee as Visiting Members.

The Committee was informed that the separation of the two documents related to reaching an agreement with Kent County Council (KCC) and to produce a joint ITS, which was an important document providing evidence for the Local Plan.  The Committee was advised that it was common practice throughout the country for the two documents to be separate.

The Committee heard that references to the Walking and Cycling Strategy would remain in the ITS, with more detail included in the Walking and Cycling Strategy.  The Committee was assured that the two documents would remain synergised.

The Committee was informed KCC undertook strategic VISUM modelling.  In order to assess the likely impact of development and suggest mitigation is was necessary to carry out micro simulation modelling.  KCC did not do this, leaving a gap in the data that Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) filled as it was faced with planning applications to consider which needed detailed highways mitigation.  These studies were available to all Councillors on the MBC website.

It was confirmed that there was ongoing dialogue with the Maidstone Cycling Campaign Forum with officers from both KCC and MBC attending meetings of the forum.

In response to questions the Committee heard that:

·  In the Local Plan, set out on pages 245-246, there was a detailed list of junction improvements. The gap in transport improvements at a detailed local level, as opposed to the VISUM modelling, which was a strategic level model, was dealt with through detailed junction capacity assessment work carried out for the Council by Mott MacDonald and Transport Assessments submitted by developers with planning applications.  These addressed the cumulative impact of development on the local highway network.  Where appropriate mitigation was justified and required, this was secured through Section 106 agreements with developers.  MBC’s strategy was focussed on junction improvements, which also helped public transport operators.

·  The VISUM modelling carried out picked up transport movements between the RSCs and Maidstone town centre but did not pick up on journeys to other destinations outside the borough.  At planning application stage developers were asked for s106 contributions for transport improvements such as increasing the frequency and ease of use of bus services serving the RSCs and improvements to train stations, for example, where this was proven necessary as mitigation.

·  KCCs objections to the Local Plan and planning applications on transport reasons have been based on their VISUM modelling.  MBCs research had involved more detailed research on the impact of developments on junctions.  In response to KCC MBC had assembled micro modelling and established potential mitigation to congestion. 

·  MBC and KCC have secured £8.9m of Local Growth Fund 1 money for the improvement of 5 priority junctions which was approved by JTB in November 2015.

·  Each transport assessment carried out by developers should take into account all development in the area when suggesting transport mitigation.

The Committee were reminded that the Inspector would decide if the Local Plan provided sufficient transport mitigation.

The Committee agreed to note the schedule of issues and responses to the ITS consultation and agreed the revised ITS and Walking and Cycling Strategy should come back to the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transportation Committee before going to JTB.

RESOLVED:

1.  That the Committee note the schedule of issues and responses to the consultation on the Integrated Transport Strategy as set out in Appendix One.

2.  That the Committee agree that revised versions of the Integrated Transport Strategy and separate Walking and Cycling Strategy be prepared and reported to a future meeting of the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transportation Committee, and then, if approved by this Committee, presented to the Maidstone Joint Transport Board recommending that the relevant Kent County Council Cabinet Member approve the Integrated Transport Strategy and separate Walking and Cycling Strategy.

3.  That following the meeting of the Maidstone Joint Transport Board the ‘final’ versions of the documents will then be reported to this Committee for approval for publication.

Voting:  For – 8  Against – 0  Abstentions – 1