Friday’s session continued the expert evidence of Bruce Bamber, highways consultant for the Teynham and Highsted Community Action Group. His testimony challenged the applicant’s assumptions on traffic impact and sustainable transport — raising serious doubts about how this development would function in reality.
Key concerns raised by Mr Bamber:
The applicant’s transport modelling is based on optimistic aspirations, not evidence. They claim the development will achieve double the level of sustainable travel seen in similar areas around Sittingbourne — but provide no proof to support it.
Walking to Sittingbourne from Highsted Park isn’t realistic. At over 2km away, it’s simply too far for most people. Estimates for non-car use (walking, cycling, public transport) are around 7% — far lower than the applicant’s inflated figure of 65%.
The Northern Relief Road would push hundreds of HGVs onto the already strained A2 through Teynham, particularly eastbound toward Faversham and Canterbury.
The A2 in Teynham is already at or over capacity, made worse by on-street parking that often forces vehicles to queue — especially when HGVs are coming the other way.
Lower Road in Teynham, which has a collision rate five times the national average, would also see increased traffic — despite being earmarked as a future national cycle route.
The plans ignore the effect of induced traffic — the increase in car journeys that comes when new roads are built. As Mr Bamber put it: “If you increase supply, demand increases too.”
Cross-examination
In cross-examination by the applicant’s barrister, Mr Bamber was told he was focusing too much on the past – as opposed to taking a ‘vision-led’ approach as required by the NPPF.
His response: “We can’t abandon our understanding of the past. That’s not the same as being stuck in it. You can’t build the future by assuming people will change their behaviour — without any evidence to support that assumption.”
Bottom line:
Friday’s evidence exposed major flaws in the developer’s modelling. Promises of sustainable travel and reduced car use aren’t backed by facts. Existing routes like the London Road and Lower Road in Teynham simply can’t cope with what’s proposed.