Agenda item

To receive a report by the Cabinet Member, Environment and Transport and the Corporate Director of Growth, Environment and Transport thatupdates Members on the work undertaken  to date with Maidstone BC in seeking to agree a realistic and deliverable transport strategy. Despite KCC’s efforts, the draft ITS produced by Maidstone BC does not reflect KCC’s position so  the paper explains why an objection should be raised by KCC  on account of the unacceptably severe impact on the highway network evidenced by the traffic modelling work jointly commissioned by KCC and MBC.

1.            The Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport, Mr Balfour, introduced a report that explained the work undertaken to date with Maidstone Borough Council (MBC) in seeking to agree a realistic and deliverable Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS), as part of the Maidstone Local Plan.  He reported that the draft Integrated Transport Strategy produced by MBC;  and to which a response was necessary, did not reflect KCC’s position.

2.            Mr Balfour believed that work could still be done jointly between MBC and KCC to ensure that an improved document was produced in the future and therefore work continued to be undertaken to remedy the problems highlighted in the report and to secure a robust Local Plan for Maidstone Borough Council.

3.            The Head of Highway Transport, Mr Read, reported that MBC were undertaking a regulation 19 consultation on their draft Local Plan which included the draft integrated transport strategy to which Mr Balfour had referred in his introduction.  He informed members that the ITS had been produced by MBC unilaterally, despite the fact that it should be a jointly produced document and that as a result it did not reflect KCC’s position.  Furthermore, it did not reflect the position of the local Joint Transportation Board as agreed at its meeting in December 2015.   Therefore it would be necessary to voice an objection to the document at this stage, and for the reasons set out, on account of the unacceptably severe impact on     the highway network.

4.                He continued; KCC had been working with MBC on the draft document for 5 years during which time the number of proposed new houses had risen from 10,000 to 18,560 and this had caused concern for KCC that the impact on the highway network would be unacceptably severe.  National planning guidance required the local highways authority, KCC, to produce evidence where it was believed that the impact of a plan or proposal on traffic congestion would be severe and in this case this was evidenced by the traffic modelling work jointly commissioned by KCC and MBC.

5.            The JTB had considered this evidence in July 2015, which estimated that without mitigating measures traffic delays in the town would rise by 40% as a result of the impact of the Local Plan. Mr Read stressed that the Strategy put forward by MBC did not include measures to successfully mitigate the impact of over 18k houses.   In addition, the modelling work had found that the most severe impacts would occur at the south and south-east approaches to the town and that a relief road connecting the A274 to the A20, around the villages of Leeds and Langley, was shown to be the best way of mitigating these identified pressures.  The JTB agreed that MBC and KCC should work towards an interim housing strategy to 2022 including lower housing numbers and pursue the provision of the relief road as described. 

6.            Despite representations reflecting the concerns and recommendations of KCC and the JTB as detailed in paragraph 5.  MBC did not address the matters within the local plan and went further to produce a unilateral ITS.  As such neither document reflected KCC concerns regarding additional housing in these areas, nor the view that work toward an LLRR should be undertaken.  It also included what KCC believed were unrealistic proposals for bus services on the main radial routes, and a walking and cycling strategy not agreed in consultation with KCC.

7.            For the reasons set out Mr Read recommended that the committee endorse the intention to object to the draft strategy at this stage prior to the Examination in Public but he stressed that officers and members would continue to encourage MBC to work jointly toward an interim strategy that included reduced housing numbers and a commitment to an LLRR.

8.             Mr Balfour and Mr Read responded to comments and questions by Members as follows:

a)     Mr Chittenden, expressed concern regarding the contents of the report and comments made by Mr Read.  He read out a statement that included evidence of successful joint working between the two authorities and named Highway Improvement Options projects that had been agreed and progressed, and included the LLRR in this list as a project fully supported by both KCC and MBC.  He also defended the housing allocation numbers within the plan, and said that they had been based on government guidelines.  He welcomed Mr Balfour’s comments that discussions continued to take place with MBC but confirmed that he did not support the recommendations set out in the report and urged members to instead, support the plan in order that it could meet government deadlines and avoid the government taking over the process; a possibility that MBC had been alerted to.  

b)     Mr Balfour thanked Mr Chittenden for his comments but he expressed concern that the matters to which he had referred had been discussed and resolved many times over at various meetings such as the Maidstone JTB.  He believed now that the way forward must be to recognise that at present the Local Plan and ITS that KCC was responding to would not be achieved without severe congestion of the highways system.

c)      Mr Read advised that the Maidstone Borough Council’s Integrated Transport Strategy, prepared with KCC’s logo on it although it had not been subject of KCC approval, would not mitigate the impact of 18,560k new houses in the borough until 2031 and that it was his professional duty to advise members present that that was unacceptable.

d)     Mr Bowles stated that Members should take the professional advice of officers and rely on it when making their judgements.  He expressed concern that this would delay the approval of Maidstone’s Local Plan, leaving them open to speculative development, but felt that this consequence was unavoidable.

e)     Mr Baldock expressed concern that the meeting had not heard from MBC officers as well as those from KCC and stated that he disliked the process by which Local Plans were agreed in general, which should, he felt, avoid interference from parties other than the Borough Council.  As a result he could not support recommendations, such as those contained within the report for consideration, which would cause considerable difficulty for MBC.  In response Mr Balfour stressed that this was not interference by the County Council but a professional response to a problem.  Members of the Cabinet Committee were being asked to comment on the issues to be included in that response by KCC to MBC’s draft Integrated Transport Strategy.  Mr Read commented; and stressed that it was a legal duty of KCC as the Local Highways Authority to comment and give advice on the draft Integrated Transport Strategy and that the one before them for consideration had no evidence to support the conclusions within it.

f)       Mr Brazier highlighted all of the services and facilities that the County Council was responsible for provided within the boroughs and that as such the County Council needed to be involved in the Local Plan building process; without a joint approach there would be no local plan agreed and the matter would be decided by government or the courts which was not in the interests of the County.

g)     Mr Chittenden spoke again to reiterate in response to comments from Mr Read that MBC had only just received the modelling to which he had referred.  He also explained that the government, and not MBC, had over time increased the proposed new housing allocation to over 18k and the only way this could have been avoided would have been through the modelling being available, which it was not.  He stated that if the ITS was not submitted the number of proposed new houses could rise again. He was aware of options that were being discussed with officers and councillors of KCC and MBC to find a way forward and supported those but could not support the recommendations within the report.  In conclusion he refuted allegations that the process had been political and assured members that the submission of the plan as drafted had cross-party support.    

h)     The Corporate Director of GET spoke to the item; she reiterated that the modelling had been commissioned jointly by MBC and KCC and that each of the scenarios had been agreed by the JTB and that as soon as the evidence had become available to support concerns regarding severity KCC had voiced concerns and made objections.  She was concerned that MBC had now unilaterally procured another highway consultant to question the results of the jointly procured work, all of which involved public expenditure.  She assured members that no party to the process wished to derail the process or the plan.  It was important that MBC saw that the objections to the plan as drafted were properly considered by the appropriate members of the council but that ultimately it would be officers who would have to defend the Plan and ITS at the enquiry in public and that this was not possible at this time.  It was, she argued, unfortunate that what had been perceived as an agreed way forward; a pause to 2020 and work toward an LLRR, had not been reflected in the plan but assured members that despite the difficulties and objections reported to them today, both parties wanted a successful local plan to emerge.

i)       Mr Caller urged members and officers of both KCC and MBC to move quickly to address the situation so that the ultimate, and negative, consequence of MBC losing control of the process did not come to fruition. 

9.            RESOLVED that:-

(a)       the comments and responses to questions by Members be noted; and

 By 9 votes to 2 with 1 abstention that:

(b)       the Cabinet Committee endorsed the proposed KCC response to the Regulation 19 consultation on the draft Integrated Transport Strategy (ITS) that: the level of development would have a severe impact particularly on key transport routes in South and South East Maidstone which would not be mitigated by the measures contained in the draft ITS and that MBC and KCC should work together to develop a jointly agreed ITS in accordance with the resolution of the Maidstone JTB on 07/12/15 that:

“in the absence of an agreed transport strategy and in light of the evidence presented to this Board demonstrating Maidstone’s significant highway capacity constraints, this Board recommends that a transport strategy be taken forward urgently by the Borough and County Councils covering the period of the Local Plan, with a further review completed in 2022.

The aim of this strategy will be to mitigate the transport impact of future growth, in the first instance up to 2022. The strategy should comprise of the key highway schemes and public transport improvements agreed by the Board, and further traffic modelling will be required to identify its impact. It is proposed that the £8.9 million growth fund monies identified for transport be used to accelerate the delivery of these improvements. Existing developer contributions may then be used to support further measures.

The agreed transport strategy should also develop the justification for a relief road between the A20 to the A274 (the Leeds and Langley Relief Road), along with a preferred route, in order to allow testing with other strategic transport options and identify all source of potential funding to enable the schemes to be implemented at the earliest opportunity.”