Agenda and minutes

The minutes of the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 22 May 2018 will, together with the minutes of this special meeting, be presented for approval at the Council’s next ordinary meeting on Tuesday 24 July 2018.

The Chairman welcomed everyone present including a large number of members of the public to this special meeting of the Council which had been convened to consider Chichester District Council’s (CDC) submission to Highways England on the schemes to be put forward for inclusion in the government’s Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2).

Mrs Hamilton explained the emergency evacuation procedure.

As stated on the agenda there were no minutes for approval at this special meeting. The minutes of the Annual Council meeting on Tuesday 22 May 2018 and those of this meeting would be presented for approval at the Council’s next ordinary meeting on Tuesday 24 July 2018. 

[Note Hereafter in these minutes Chichester District Council is denoted by CDC]

[Note This para and paras 2 to 6 below summarise the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 1 to 6 inclusive but for full details of the matters summarised hereunder reference should be made to the audio recording facility via the link below.

http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=923&Ver=4 ]

Members and officers are requested to make any declarations of disclosable pecuniary, personal and/or prejudicial interests which they have in respect of matters on the agenda for this meeting.

The Chairman reminded members of an e-mail which they had received on Wednesday 6 June 2018 from the Monitoring Officer Mr Bennett giving his detailed reasons for granting an all-member dispensation to enable them to participate fully in the debate and decisions at the special meetings of both the Cabinet and the Council on Friday 8 June 2018. The issue of the dispensation was confined to that day only.

The following members declared a personal interest in agenda item 5:

(1)  Mr Dunn (Westbourne) as a CDC appointed member of the South Downs National Park Authority

(2)  Dr O’Kelly (Rogate) as a member of West Sussex County Council

(3)  Mr Oakley (Tangmere) as a member of West Sussex County Council

(4)  Mr Plowman (Chichester West) as the vice-chairman of the Goodwood Motor Circuit Consultative Committee

(5)  Mrs Purnell (Selsey North) as a member of West Sussex County Council

Apologies for absence will be notified at this point.

The Chairman of the Council will make any specific announcements.

Mrs Hamilton said that the following apologies for absence had been received:

Mr Lloyd Williams (Chichester North), Mr Ridd (Donnington), Mrs Tassell (Funtington) and Mrs Taylor (East Wittering).

The Chairman acknowledged the presence of Mrs Lintill (Petworth and Cabinet Member for Community Services) notwithstanding the death of her husband very recently and thanked her for attending despite her bereavement.

Mrs Hamilton gave the following tribute to Steve Hansford, CDC’s former Head of Community Services who had also very recently died:

‘It saddens me to announce the death of Steve Hansford who died last week after a long illness. Steve joined the Council in December 2005 and was appointed Head of Community Services in 2014; he retired from the Council in March this year. Steve was highly thought of by his colleagues, members and partners for his kind and considered approach to work and was recognised as a person of high personal integrity. He always had a very positive outlook on life, even during his illness, and always tried to help resolve issues. Steve will be deeply missed by all, leaving behind fond memories. On behalf of all the members, I wish to send our condolences to his wife Jane and all his family.’

Mrs Apel (Chichester West and chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee) remarked that Mr Hansford was an incredibly special person, who was very supportive of scrutiny-related matters and he would be missed tremendously.

Members responded to the foregoing tributes with an audible assent and approval.   

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme and with reference to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, consideration will be given at this point in the meeting to questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).

Twelve public questions had been submitted for this special meeting, details of which appear below.

The text of the public questions had been circulated to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mrs Hamilton invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his or her question.

The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text) and the oral responses given by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) or Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) were as follows:

(1) Question by Dr Linda Boize

In view of the final para of her question below, Dr Boize prefaced it by noting that at its special meeting which had immediately preceded this meeting the Cabinet had amended its anticipated recommendation to the Council (set out on the face of the agenda) by the deletion of the words ‘as being desirable’ from para (1).  

‘My question concerns flyovers.

Does the Full Southern concept meet the BABA27 key feedback theme to avoid flyovers and would the proposed flyovers and extensive sliproads needed to allow all turning movements result in home demolition and land grab greater than last year’s Option 2? 

And if the Stockbridge proposed underpass cannot be dug deep enough for high sided vehicles would the A286 need to be elevated resulting in 3 proposed flyovers becoming 4, and the concept insufficiently different from Option 2 as Highways England requires?

Is the Full Southern concept desirable, regardless, or is it rather that the technical appraisal is recommended to find out if the engineering challenges can be overcome?’

[Monday 4 June 2018]

Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)

‘Thank you for your question.

The Full Southern Concept is identified by Systra as meeting most of the requirements of the BABA27 group noting that unanimous community consensus is unlikely to be achieved and that this concept comprises a combination of underpasses and flyovers at the junctions with the potential therefore to better mitigate the environmental and visual impacts in sensitive locations. Systra advise that in the time available they have not been able to develop detailed designs for the junctions and that significant further technical feasibility and engineering design work will be required by Highways England which will include reassessing road realignments and land take. Systra have also indicated that the concept for the Stockbridge junction is predicated on an A27 underpass to minimise community severance but again make it clear that further detailed design feasibility work will be required to assess whether the concept for this junction is achievable. As a concept, this option is considered to have strong merit but with a range of engineering and mitigation challenges that would need to be tested by Highways England.’    

(2) Question by Mr Bob Marson

After making additional preliminary remarks not included in his submitted question below (details in the audio recording), Mr Marson put the following question:

‘On  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

The agenda report and its appendix in relation to this item appear on pages 1 to 92 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s special meeting which will take place immediately prior to this special meeting of the Council.

Having regard to para 3.1 of the agenda report but subject to the outcome of the Cabinet’s special meeting, it is anticipated that the Council will be asked to make the following resolutions:

(1) That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, Approach A be supported as being desirable without indicating a preference for either option ie promoting both the ‘mitigated northern route’ and the ‘full southern route’.

(2) That the ‘fall-back’ position if no approach is selected be noted.    

The Chairman introduced the single substantive item of business at this special meeting, namely to determine CDC’s position with regard to a scheme to be promoted to the government for inclusion within RIS2 for the improvement of the A27 Chichester Bypass.

She drew attention to the agenda report and its appendix for the Cabinet’s special meeting which had preceded this meeting, copies of which were available in the Council Chamber.

She also referred to an agenda supplement which had been published the previous day on CDC’s web-site for online viewing only, consisting of two documents: (a) the second background paper listed in the Cabinet agenda report (paras 9.4 and 13.2 on page 8) namely a note of the BABA27 meeting held on 18 May 2018 and (b) a letter dated 5 June 2018 written by Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of Highways England, to Louise Goldsmith, Leader of West Sussex County Council.

She stated that at its special meeting earlier in the day the Cabinet had considered this matter and made a slightly amended version of para (1) of the recommendation set out on the face of both the Council agenda and on the Cabinet agenda. The revised version appeared on a sheet circulated within the Council Chamber prior to the start of this special meeting namely:

(1)  That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, Approach A be supported without indicating a preference for either option ie namely both the ‘mitigated northern route’ and the ‘full southern route’.

(2)  That the ‘fall-back’ position if no approach is selected be noted.

In response to the Chairman, Mr Dignum moved the Cabinet’s aforementioned amended recommendation and Mr Connor duly seconded it.     

The report in the Cabinet agenda was presented by Mr Dignum.

He said that there was almost a complete consensus in favour of one thing: achieving improvements to the A27 to ease congestion etc issues for local and through traffic. Highways England (HE) had afforded the community the opportunity to put forward, on balance, the best route by choosing between the northern and southern concepts. The consultants, Systra Limited, had advocated an off-line mitigated northern route and an on-line full southern route, which sought to address the disadvantages of those two options. HE had so far neither restricted the nature and extent of improvements to on-line nor ruled out off-line routes and was prepared to consider two alternatives. The report by officers recommended Approach A ie both northern and southern concepts to be advanced with no preference. West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure had stated that the‘mitigated northernroute’ was WSCC’s preferredoption butthe ‘fullsouthernroute’ shouldalso be developedas areasonable alternative. Mr Dignum had asked HE’s Regional Sponsor for South East England, Paul Benham, if a different submission by CDC from WSCC would present any problem in terms of consensus and was advised: ‘In response to your question, I do not see it as an  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

There are no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.

There were no restricted items for consideration at this special meeting and accordingly it was not necessary to pass a Part II resolution.