Agenda item

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.

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 occurring on a piecemeal basis and probably only housing with limited infrastructure and public realm improvements.

 

During the ensuing debate members expressed opposing views on whether now was the right time to adopt the SGM and they considered an alternative proposal to the Cabinet’s recommendations. A summary of the debate appears below.

 

At the outset of the discussion Mr Shaxson intimated that he wished to propose an amendment to the Cabinet’s recommendations, namely:

 

‘That the Council:

 

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

 

(b)  Supports the concept of the Southern Gateway Masterplan, that the whole area should be developed as an integrated scheme.

 

(c)  Before proceeding any further will commission an independent review, which will not only scrutinise the proposed David Lock Associates scheme but consider all other details and options, including the feasibility of alternative ways of addressing the railway crossings.’

 

Mr Plowman seconded Mr Shaxson’s proposal.

 

Mr Shaxson said that his proposal sought to address the outstanding concerns expressed by members and the general public which were too important to be ignored. If carried, para (b) of his proposal emphasised the need to identify and provide ‘adequate new sites’ for Royal Mail and Stagecoach. Unless both businesses were relocated, Southern Gateway could not be built as an integrated whole site and the opportunity to reorganise the layout of buildings and infrastructure in that area in the way CDC desired could not be accomplished and the SGM would have lost its raison d’etre. His proposal did not say that there must be a railway bridge or tunnel but only that the feasibility of alternative ways of addressing the railway crossings should be examined and all other relevant facts taken into account eg the impact of projected population increases in order to develop this area for the long-term benefit of the city and the surrounding area. His proposal was intended to facilitate for justifiable reasons a constructive postponement in the implementation of this important project.

 

Mr Plowman said that it was apparent that the consultants appointed by CDC had not in fact examined all options for overcoming the traffic congestion caused by the city’s level crossings and the Freeflow 2 proposal was a viable option worthy of serious consideration as part of a review by experts.   

 

Members asked questions and made comments on points of detail. Where appropriate they received replies from Mr Carvell, Mr Over, Mrs Shepherd and the masterplanning consultants and transport planners, whose representatives were present for the entirety of this item. These points included the SGM’s status as a supplementary planning document, proposed changes to the current Southgate gyratory, improving bus services and resolving the current congestion at the Stockbridge roundabout.

 

Mr Carvell pointed out at the outset that a further review of the draft SGM would need to be justified in planning terms having regard to the time constraints governing the masterplan process, the delay which would be caused to commencing development on site and the fact that CDC possessed a satisfactory masterplan document. 

 

A majority of members expressed support for the SGM. Among the views expressed were:

  

·       The proposal for a review would cause further delay to no advantage and would be neither proportionate nor necessary.

 

·       The negotiations between CDC and both Stagecoach and Royal Mail had made pleasing progress during the previous 12 months in identifying alternative relocation sites for those two businesses. 

 

·       The SGM had been very well conceived and designed. It was an ideal and exciting opportunity to develop the city with much-needed houses and commercial sites and it should be adopted and implemented as soon as possible. A bridge would clearly have a deleterious impact on residents’ amenities, city views, the environment and the ability to develop the SGM site to its full potential. 

 

Some members did not favour adoption of the SGM in its current form and among the views they expressed were the following:

 

·       Rather than part (c) of Mr Shaxson’s proposal being put forward creating a risk of a piecemeal development of the SGM site, it would in fact facilitate a city-wide approach by analysing all details and options, which was very desirable. The Chichester Vision with its accompanying masterplans such as the SGM would not safeguard against a piecemeal development of the city. 

 

·       A review with a specific brief to address the feasibility of a road bridge (or tunnel) to circumvent the railway line need not cause serious or significant delay to the SGM and arguably some parts of it could proceed in any event during the review.   

   

·       Residents clearly wished to have the level crossing issue resolved and Mr Shaxson’s proposal would afford the opportunity for doing so.

 

·       The SGM was an example of facilitating developers’ aspirations to create dysfunctional urban sprawl with scant regard for the best interests of its residents, workers and visitors and how this historical cathedral city should plan holistically for growth in a changing world. The prospects of attracting private sector funding were aspirational at best and lacked any meaningful assessment of potential economic, conservation or sustainability issues resulting from this proposed development. The SGM had not been considered in the context of the wider city area and was not fit for purpose.

 

Mr Ransley made a proposal that ‘the Council takes pause to reconsider the process and methodology utilised to develop the SGM and clarify its objectives for the Southern Gateway in the context of the Vision for Chichester and a related city-wide plan, yet to be developed, for the growth of the city as a whole and defers the SGM until a city-wide plan based on Chichester has been adopted’. However, his proposal was not seconded.

 

Mr Dunn proposed that members should vote first on the Cabinet’s recommendations. Mr Potter seconded Mr Dunn’s proposal. There was no vote on that proposal.    

 

In the light of the debate and following advice from Mrs Shepherd and Mr Carvell about the wording of his original proposal, Mr Shaxson proposed the following amended proposal, which was seconded by Mrs Apel:

 

‘That the Council:

 

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

 

(b)  Supports the Southern Gateway Masterplan (as set out in appendix 2 to the Cabinet agenda report) as a Supplementary Planning Document, thereby replacing the existing Southern Gateway Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001 subject to commissioning work to further study the feasibility of alternative ways of addressing the railway crossings.

 

(c)  Following consideration of the work commissioned by the Council, 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.’

 

Mrs Shepherd said that if the amended proposal was carried adoption of the SGM would be deferred until the results of the further commissioned work were known.

 

Prior to the start of the voting process, Mr Plowman, with the requisite degree of support in accordance with standing order 9.5 in CDC’s Constitution, requested that a recorded vote be taken.

 

As shown in the table below, members voted in respect of Mr Shaxson’s amended proposal, which was not carried  as follows: for: 7; against: 33; abstain: 3; absent: 5

 

MEMBER	FOR	AGAINST	ABSTAIN	ABSENT
Mrs Apel	X
Mr Barrett				X
Mr Barrow				X
Mr Brown	X
Mr Budge		X
Mr Collins		X
Mr Connor		X
Mr Dempster		X
Mr Dignum		X
Mrs Dignum		X
Mrs Duncton		X
Mr Dunn		X
Mr J F Elliott		X
Mr J W Elliott		X
Mr Galloway		X
Mrs Graves		X
Mr Hall		X
Mrs Hamilton			X
Mrs Hardwick		X
Mr Hayes		X
Mr Hicks		X
Mr Hixson		X
Mr Hobbs		X
Mrs Keegan				X
Mrs Kilby		X
Mrs Lintill		X
Mr Lloyd- Williams		X
Mr Macey		X
Mr Martin		X
Mr McAra	X
Mr Morley	X
Caroline Neville		X
Mr Oakley		X
Mr Page		X
Mrs Plant		X
Mr Plowman	X
Mr Potter		X
Mrs Purnell				X
Mr Ransley			X
Mr Ridd				X
Mr Shaxson	X
Mrs Tassell			X
Mrs Taylor		X
Mr Thomas		X
Mrs Tull		X
Mr Wakeham		X
Mrs Westacott	X
Mr Wilding		X
TOTALS	7	33	3	5

 

The Council then voted on the Cabinet’s recommendations as set out on the second and third pages of the agenda, without a recorded vote being taken.

Decision

 

On a show of hands, which were counted by Mrs Shepherd, a clear majority of the members present voted in favour of the Cabinet’s recommendations. Nine members voted against and there was one abstention.

 

The Cabinet’s recommendations were, therefore, carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

That:

 

(a)   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) be approved.

 

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

 

(c)   Authority be delegated 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.

 

Mrs Hamilton announced that there would a short adjournment of the meeting before agenda item 7 was considered.

 

 

[Note The Council meeting was adjourned between 16:09 and 16:18]