Agenda item

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.

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.

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 dealing with Network Rail.

Budgetaryprovision of £50,000 was originally agreed by the Cabinet in June 2016to fund the cost of preparation of the SGM and this was subsequentlyincreased through a virement of £46,000 from the now adopted CLP budget. With additionalcosts arising due to the need to commission a transportstudy, consultants’ attendance at meetings that were not part of their original quotations, the consultation and the further work to analyse the Freeflow representations, the total cost for the entire project was now £177,000.WSCC had contributed £30,000 towards the transport study. The outstanding cost of £65,000 (erroneously stated to be £51,000 in paras 3.2 and 8.1 of the agenda report) could be met from the CLP residual budget. The following agenda item would address the resource and legal implications for the SGM’s implementation.

The main themes raised in the representations were:(a) insufficient consultation process; (b) lackof detail on what was being proposed; and (c)theretention of the level crossings.

Inresponse thereto it must be said that (i) the consultation received good publicity and a large number of commentswere made and questionnaires completed; (ii)theamount of detail was appropriate for a masterplan, proposals would bedeveloped in line with the SGM and there would be further opportunities to comment on the detail through publicity and consultation at the planning application stage; (iii) there was a significant amount of residential development within theSGM and this would help to generate land value to contribute to theprovision of some of the non-residential uses and also potentially to access other public funding streams; and (d) bus interchange facilities would be re-provided in Stockbridge Road; theSGM had been developed partly in response to the decision to close the courts; the Royal Mail sorting office did not need to be in a prime location overlooking the canal basin and other facilities for posting lettersand collecting parcels were available.

Themain proposed amendments to the SGM for adoption were: (a) selectionof Option A for changes to the Basin Road/Southgate gyratory; (b) further explanation of the approach to the provision of open space in relation to new development; (c) additional references to waste water treatment issues; (d) removal of the building to the north of Avenue de Chartres from development opportunity site 6; and (e) detailed changes to the text as requested by Historic England, Highways England, Sport England and WSCC.

Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost did not seek to add to Mr Dignum’s introduction.

Prior to the start of the discussion, Mr Plowman (a CDC Chichester West ward member) addressed the Cabinet having in advance secured Mr Dignum’s permission to do so.

Mr Plowman said that this was an once-in-a-lifetime decision. If CDC erred, the impact on the city could be serious and its residents would be badly served. He advocated the undertaking of further independent studies to be sure that the proposal before the Cabinet was indeed the best one for Chichester in order to deliver the Vision and do no harm. He supported the Vision and the principle of the holistic approach to developing the Southern Gateway. As he had previously said in a Council meeting, he and many others had waited for more than a generation to achieve the single objective of securing the removal of the level crossings and this should be assiduously pursued.  The Cabinet had already heard from the public questions posed by two residents, each of whom were experts in their own professional fields, the suggestion of an alternative concept, Freeflow and now Freeflow 2, which could achieve this objective and produce a more exciting prospect for the Southern Gateway. They appeared to have overcome most of the issues of initial Freeflow (para 7.4 of the agenda report: (a) and (b) were dubious and (c), (d), (e), (g), (i), (j) and (k) were no longer valid, and the conclusions in para 7.5 were out of date).  Freeflow 2 would have a better impact on the historic environment by retaining the local listed bus depot. Officers and David Lock Associates had not done the detailed factual studies needed to indicate that it was not feasible; a proper independent evaluation was required. Even without Freeflow, the current SGM did not deliver a traffic solution to the level crossing. In fact it gave rise to three major concerns on the grounds of (a) traffic (the aim to deflect traffic to use the Fishbourne roundabout rather than Stockbridge Road to enter the city would be circumvented by many drivers as the roundabout was viewed as dangerous and even if used would result in congestion), (b) air quality/pollution (caused by traffic queues at the Basin Road level crossing by drivers avoiding Fishbourne roundabout), and (c) economic impact (Southern Gateway was not part of the city centre and it could be in competition with the four main retail and commercial streets and thereby seriously affect the Vision - no economic assessment had been undertaken to address that prospect). The consultation had been considered poor but there was a firm endorsement of the concept of Freeflow and a great deal of criticism of the SGM for being unimaginative and not offering anything new to Chichester in line with (a) the Vision’s objectives with regard to welcoming more people to Chichester, ensuring the city was open for business or (b) the SGM objectives of making sure first impressions  count, reinforcing (not merely duplicating) a mix of city uses, conserving and enhancing the historic environment by losing some locally listed buildings, and contributing to a sustainable movement strategy. Further work was required and there was time for this as the relocation of the Royal Mail sorting office and bus depot would take longer than predicted and the future of the A27 Chichester bypass was far from being resolved, an issue which could have a profound effect on traffic flow for the Southern Gateway.

Mr Dignum and Mr Frost responded to Mr Plowman’s statement.

Mr Dignum acknowledged that the bridge was the key dividing line in the debate, in which there was a difference of approach as to traffic and cost. High cost options and outcomes should not be countenanced. The objective was to have a city where traffic was no longer dominant, yet the proposed bridge would encourage more traffic to enter the city and result in greater congestion and it was designed to keep out buses.

Mr Frost said that there needed to be a very good reason for CDC to question its own consultants’ work, which had been undertaken very thoroughly over a long period. Insofar as the transport appraisal was concerned, Peter Brett Associates were professional consultants in their field of expertise and had collaborated closely with WSCC to assess the transport/traffic effects of developing the Southern Gateway area and had concluded that the development would not have a severe impact, which was the relevant test. With regard to economic impact, the SGM did not promote a significant retail use which would compete with the city centre’s main retail area but instead a mixed use development, which should be very welcome.

The consensus during the short discussion was in favour of making the recommendation to the Council. Whilst the argument in favour of a bridge had been recognised at an earlier stage and there was sympathy for the case advocated by Mr Plowman and those who had asked public questions earlier, the detailed work undertaken by the consultants had clearly demonstrated that it was not a viable aspiration and would militate against the objective of freeing the city centre from the predominance of traffic (it should be remembered that the houses to be built would increase the traffic and so it was vital to minimise the number of other vehicles as much as possible). The ability to achieve modal shift should not be seen as fanciful. Deliverability and cost had to be borne in mind. The resultant need for four-storey buildings and the impact on views of the Cathedral if a bridge were to be built were adverse outcomes which must not be ignored.   

Decision

The Cabinet voted unanimously on a show of hands in favour of making the recommendation and the resolution (which included the amendment to the figure in para 3.2 of the agenda report from £51,000 to £65,000) set out below.

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.