Page 313 - Eden Meadow 35 houses application as of 12 October

Land to the Rear of Eden Meadows, Newington
Ref: PL/GB/13776
6 Summary and Conclusion

6.1.1 This Transport Statement has been prepared on behalf of Esquire Developments
Ltd in relation to the proposed residential development at Land to the Rear of
Eden Meadows, Newington, Kent

6.1.2 This development comprises the construction of 35no. 1 to 5-bedroom dwellings,
with access taken from the existing priority junction with the A2 to the north. Each
unit will be provided with parking bays in accordance with the applicable Swale
Borough Council standards.

6.1.3 The proposed development has been shown to accord with all levels of transport
planning policy. It is located within a sustainable setting, near to Newington village
centre. From here, a number of everyday services can be accessed, including a
primary school, convenience store and public house. In addition, frequent bus and
train services can be accessed from the village, reducing reliance on private
vehicle ownership.

6.1.4 Highway safety within the site vicinity has been reviewed and it has been
demonstrated that there is no overarching theme to the recorded incidents within
the latest three-year period, with human error being the dominant causation
factor. Given this, it is considered that the proposed development will have no
adverse impact on in this regard.

6.1.5 Swept path analysis confirms that the internal site layout is sufficient to meet the
needs of the vehicles requiring access to the site.

6.1.6 Using the national TRICS trip rate database, it has been demonstrated that the
site has the potential to produce up to 160 vehicle trips across the 12-hour
weekday period, which equates to approximately three additional movements
every 15 minutes on average. Given the location of the site in relation to the local
highway network, these vehicles will quickly dissipate across the wider network.
As such, it is not considered that the proposed development will result in ‘severe’
residual transport impacts, in line with the NPPF.

6.1.7 Given the above, it is concluded that there should be no sound transport-based
objections to the proposals.

Page 21