Chichester District Council
Issue

Issue - meetings

Southern Gateway – Adoption of Final Masterplan

Meeting: 21/11/2017 - Council (Item 6)

Southern Gateway Masterplan – Adoption

The report is at item 7 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 and its five appendices are in the first agenda supplement.

 

The Cabinet made the following recommendations to the Council at this meeting:

 

That the Council:

 

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

 

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

 

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

Minutes:

The Council considered the recommendation made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting on Tuesday 7 November 2017 as set out on the face of the agenda, the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 21 to 28 of the Cabinet agenda and in its five appendices on pages 53 to 242 of the first agenda supplement for that meeting.  

 

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Cabinet) formally moved the recommendation of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services). 

 

Mr Dignum provided a detailed introduction. He explained the aim of the Southern Gateway Masterplan (SGM) project, which would be the largest regeneration scheme in the city in living memory and was jointly backed by the three main partners: West Sussex County Council (WSCC), CDC and the Homes and Communities Agency (HCA). He summarised what the SGM area was expected to provide once fully developed. In order to commence the project a masterplan for the whole area was required and its detailedproposals would help to achieve the aims of the already approvedChichester Vision.Part of the SGM brief was to explore options for reducing traffic congestion and improving safety at the Southgate Gyratory. Once adopted the SGM would have the status of a supplementary planning document, which meant that it would possess significant weight inthe planning process as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and would provide a degree of certainty for potential developers. He addressed the case put by the Freeflow group for a bridge in place of the city’s two level crossings and listed the five main reasons given by the consultants for rejecting the feasibility of any kind of bridge, which equally applied he said to the Freeflow 2 proposal. There would also be additional viability issues as more land would be given over to highway, third party land would have to be acquired and the land available for development further reduced, and the amenities of nearby residents would be adversely affected. A planning application for a bridge would be most unlikely to succeed. The Freeflow proposals, if investigated, were very likely to demonstrate that by making access over the railway easier it would encourage an increase in traffic using and travelling through the city centre, which would have significant adverse traffic and environmental consequences for the city centre and the quality of life for those lived, worked and visited the city. This would conflict with the principles of the approved Chichester Vision which aimed to reduce city centre traffic. The proposed Freeflow bridge was not supported as a highways scheme by WSCC as highways authority. From all points of view a bridge was neither appropriate nor achievable nor affordable. If the SGM was not adopted at this meeting the prospect of securing the government funding needed to prepare some of the key sites for development would be prejudiced. This in turn would result in development in the area  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6


Meeting: 07/11/2017 - Cabinet (Item 431)

431 Southern Gateway Masterplan – Adoption pdf icon PDF 83 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its five appendices and to make the following recommendations to the Council and also the resolution below:

 

A – RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that it:

 

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

 

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

 

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

 

B – RESOLUTION BY THE CABINET

 

That the use of part of the residual budget from the now adopted Local Plan to meet the remaining cost (£51,000) of the Southern Gateway Masterplan project be approved.

Additional documents:

Decision:

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Council:

 

(a)   Approves the recommended responses to the representations made as part of the public consultation on the draft masterplan (set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report).

 

(b)   Adopts the Southern Gateway Masterplan (set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001.

 

(c)   Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to make minor amendments to the document prior to publication.

 

RESOLVED

 

That the use of part of the residual budget from the now adopted Local Plan to meet the remaining cost (£65,000) of the Southern Gateway Masterplan project be approved.

 

Minutes:

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its five appendices in the first agenda supplement.

 

The report was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost were in attendance for this item.

 

Mr Dignum commented as follows.

 

TheCabinet had approved the draft Southern Gateway Masterplan (SGM) for publicconsultation in June 2017. The responses to the public consultation had been analysed and various changes to the draft document had been made as a result. The SGM had been prepared within the context of the Chichester Local Plan (CLP) and the Chichester Vision (adopted in July 2017). The SGM had been endorsed by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and it featured in a Memorandum of Understanding with the Homes and Communities Agency and WSCC. The SGM enabled the councils to (a) identify the opportunities for development; (b) plan for new homes, jobs, retail and leisure facilities; (c) recognise key constraints such as listed buildings and conservation area restrictions; (d) co-ordinate the development of a number of different sites; (e) co-ordinate proposals which were the subject of different bids for funding to facilitate development; and (f) give clear guidance to assist in the preparation and assessment of planning applications.

 

The SGM proposals were designed to deliver sixkey objectives: (1) making sure first impressions count; (2) reinforcing a mix of city uses; (3) conserving and enhancing the historic environment; (4) contributing towards a sustainable movement strategy; (5) providing a flexible framework; and (6) achieving design quality.

 

The SGM proposed a range of different landuses and provided design guidance for development siteswithin the Southern Gateway area. It set out proposals for (a) significant changes to the highway network around the existing one-way gyratory; (b) the restriction of the Stockbridge Roadlevel crossing to pedestrians, cyclists and buses; (c) the re-routing of Basin Road to the rear of the Royal Mail sorting office site; (d)providing opportunities to bring development forward and  to co-ordinate that development; and (e) improving the public realm, not least in thearea around the railway station, leading up to South Street and the main city centre shopping.

 

Officershad given the Freeflow proposal careful consideration but were unable to recommend that it be pursued because from a detailed assessment carried out by the masterplan and transport consultants it (i) appeared to be neither technically feasible nor financially viable and (ii) would have a significant negative impact on the historic environment and conflict with the aimsof the Chichester Vision and the objectives of the SGM.  The updated version of Freeflow shared many of the same weaknesses as the original one: (a) cost: at least doubling the funding needed to prepare the site (from £10m to at least £20m); (b) loss of development value; (c) adverse amenity impact: the bridge with four-storey buildings over much of the site and bi-section of site; (d) additional car traffic brought into centre; (e) loss of north-south bus access; and (f) development delays  ...  view the full minutes text for item 431


 

Top of page