In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme of public question 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 total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes but this is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).
Minutes:
Mrs Hamilton said that four public questions had been received (the text of each of which had been circulated immediately prior to the start of this meeting) and she invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his or her question before a response was given by either Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) or Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services).
The questions (with the date of submission shown with [ ] at the end of the text) and the answer given by the relevant Cabinet member were as follows.
Question by Mr Nick Reynolds read out his behalf by Mr Michael Tucker
Mr Reynolds was unable to attend and his question was, therefore, read out by his nominated representative, Mr Tucker.
‘Every single local, regional and national policy is predicated on an online upgrade solution to alleviate the problems of the A27 congestion.
In order to properly deliver the Local Plan will the Council confirm they will accept the first option referred to in HE letter addressed to GK dated 06 Sept. This will involve selection of a version of the current proposed on line upgrade scheme and to enter into detailed discussions with HE on mitigation measures and compensating measures to benefit the wider community.
Will the council also accept that what is on offer today may never happen in the foreseeable future?’
[24 September 2017]
Response by Mr Dignum
‘Thank you for your e-mail dated 24 September and which appears to raise two questions.
1. In order to properly deliver the Local Plan will the Council confirm they will accept the first option referred to in HE letter addressed to GK dated 06 Sept? and
2. Will the council also accept that what is on offer today may never happen in the foreseeable future?
The first point to make is that the Highways England A27 Chichester Improvement Scheme is not being proposed solely to enable the delivery of development identified in the Chichester Local Plan. A separate lower grade improvement scheme within the boundary of the existing A27 highway has been designed (and agreed by Highways England) to accommodate the traffic flows that will be generated by identified growth in the Local Plan. The district council is now collecting developer contributions to help fund these improvement works. The funding is held by Highways England and at an appropriate point they will decide when to implement the scheme.
The wider Improvement Scheme for the A27 goes beyond what is necessary to support the Local Plan. Whether Council Members will accept the first approach as set out in the Highways England letter dated 6 September, will only be known following the debate this afternoon.
Obviously we cannot say with complete certainty what will happen in the future and so in that respect, yes, there is a possibility that an improvement scheme of some description may not happen in the foreseeable future but, there is clear evidence from Mr O’Sullivan’s letter of 6 September to our MP that Highways England attach, and I quote “strategic importance” to the A27 and see it as, and I quote again, “important national and regional infrastructure”.’
Mr Tucker was asked if he had a supplementary question but he declined in view of the fact that he was only acting as Mr Reynold’s representative for the question just answered.
Question by Mr B Marson
‘I fail to understand why CDC, who are fully aware of the latest HE through traffic numbers (46%) and who are faced with Government housing targets which will further add to an increase in traffic movements, could even consider proceeding with RIS 1. We have had three AQAMs in the city for 7 years now and arguably if pollutants were monitored in other inner city roads eg Spitalfield Rd, Westhampnett Rd, Bradshaw Rd, St Pauls Rd the city would be more polluted than is reported. The RIS 1 Option on offer would exacerbate pollution levels during the 41 months of construction as mitigation diversionary routes will go through the inner city roads, affecting residents and school children in the area (think of Orchard Street!). This is acknowledged in the latest CDC AQ Plan.
My question therefore is in two parts:
[26 September 2017]
Response by Mr Connor
Thank you for your question which concerns future growth in Chichester and air quality.
You ask two specific questions:
1. Why are CDC not putting Air Quality at the forefront of their deliberations and coming up with an aggressive AQAP, with the support of WSCC Public Health , to leverage Chichester getting a share of the additional funding announced (£255m) in the Government July 2017 UK Plan for tackling roadside pollution in the shortest possible time, ie in the RIS2 timeframe?
2. Surely avoidance of an incremental public health issue from RIS1 makes sense, when during that period, CDC could invest from their reserves proactive additional pollution monitoring including PM2.5, such that a funding case for Chichester was based on facts, ahead of other councils and, could put Chi at the front of the queue for RIS2. Our LAs would however need to be innovative and capitalise on the Government’s direction articulated in Sections 15-25 of the aforementioned Government Plan. Is this an approach that CDC would be prepared to invest in for the benefit of the Public Health of Chichester City Residents?
By way of context the Council has nine air quality monitoring sites across Chichester city. The monitoring dataset for Westhampnett Road indicates that the air quality there is compliant with the UK air quality standards and objectives for Nitrogen Dioxide. Previous monitoring on Spitalfield Road indicated a similar situation such that air quality monitoring there was discontinued. CDC has a sensible number of monitoring locations that strike a good balance between providing us with a strong picture of local air quality and a prudent use public monies and officer time (to service the monitoring programme).
In answer to question 1: CDC is a member of the WSCC two-session elected member and officer task and finish group looking at air quality and the options for improving it. This group includes a representative from West Sussex Public Health. Likewise CDC’s member and officer Air Quality Working Group is meeting this week. It will look at CDC’s Action Plan and what actions are deliverable to tackle air pollution in the district with emphasis on the AQMAs. The additional government funding of £255M relates to the local authorities who are mandated by the government to formulate air quality plans which does not include CDC. CDC continues to seek monies from all relevant sources for the improvement of air quality. Air quality was a consideration in the formulation of the Vision for Chichester and we are working to maximise air quality’s policy presence in the Local Plan review. Likewise we will seek to maximise its place in the WSCC LTP review and the WSCC Parking Standards review.
Turning to question 2: the DEFRA guidance for Local Air Quality Management that informs all LAs practice on air quality suggests that LAs should make use of national monitoring when considering PM2.5 concentrations. Furthermore the guidance is clear that DEFRA does not anticipate authorities will carry out monitoring for this pollutant. As such, at the current time, CDC does not intend installing PM2.5 monitoring (which is in any case likely to be a significant investment). CDC is engaging with WS Public Health and WS Highways, both as described above and via a pan- Sussex LA group ‘Sussex-air’.
Mr Marson thanked Mr Connor for his very full answer and was grateful that his many public health concerns were shared. He expressed the hope that the joint West Sussex/Chichester District Council Air Quality Working Group would ensure that its principal focus should be an analysis of what advice the government was giving on roadside pollution and of monitoring compliance therewith.
Mr Connor noted Mr Marson’s further remarks.
Question by Mr P Ladds
‘The investment potentially available through HE is naturally enough exclusively focused on A27 improvements. Previous debates have raised the wider issue of an integrated transport policy as well as concerns with the implementation detail of the options presented.
How would CDC (or WSCC) ensure that:
[26 September 2017]
Response by Mr Dignum
‘Thank you for your question and which raises the issue of an integrated transport policy and the local effects of an implemented improvement scheme. You have specifically asked two questions:
How would CDC (or WSCC) ensure that:
1. Any investment (RS1) takes account of concerns raised by the community with the option finally selected by HE
The first thing to say in response is that the Improvement Scheme for the A27 remains the responsibility of Highways England. That said, the district and county councils have listened carefully over a considerable period to the views expressed by the community particularly in terms of what can be done to mitigate the impacts of an Improvement Scheme. Indeed, the district council set out a number of points that it wished Highways England to address including roundabout improvements, better access to the A27 for those travelling east from the B2145, safe segregated crossings for cyclists, noise abatement screens, examining the possibility of lowering the proposed flyovers and importantly using the designated fund to finance mitigation measures.
So, you will see the District Council very much has in mind the measures that are required to address community concerns and is encouraged by the statement from Highways England that they will work with us to identify compensating measures that benefit the broader community and local area.
Concerning measures to reduce travel demand, these will be factored in to the transport modelling that the district council will commission to support the Local Plan Review. This work will be undertaken in partnership with West Sussex County Council as the highways authority and with responsibility also for bus services. The measures will form part of an integrated transport package as with the current Local Plan. Local infrastructure improvements and mitigation will be identified in the Infrastructure Development Plan prepared to accompany the Local Plan Review and will be funded through developer contributions collected through section 106 and CIL. You mention schools but these are a county responsibility.
Mr Ladds did not wish to ask a supplementary question.
Question by Ms H MacDougal
‘47% rejected the available options presented in Highways England 2016 consultation on the A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Scheme. These were poor options that did not fulfil the objectives of the project. In particular, the options failed to reduce adverse environmental impacts; four of the options would lead to deterioration in air quality at the Stockbridge AQMA and one option would provide no significant beneficial effects. A report assessing the impact of air pollution on public health, published by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, suggests outdoor pollution contributes to thousands of early deaths every year. The report makes recommendations including for regulators and local governments to ensure there is no inequality in exposure to pollutants between deprived and more affluent communities and that local authorities act in protecting public health where air pollution levels are high. Their expert panel states that “Real change will only occur when everyone accepts this responsibility, and makes a concerted effort." Therefore, when considering whether to re-examine the 2016 consultation options or to submit a proposal for RIS 2, can the District Council truly support any tweaking of the existing options that would continue to condemn Chichester residents to air that does not meet the national quality objectives, or will you accept your responsibility and make a concerted effort to fight for better air quality as part of a project in RIS 2?’
[26 September 2017]
Response by Mr Connor
‘Thank you for your question which concerns air quality. Your specific question is:
……. when considering whether to re-examine the 2016 consultation options or to submit a proposal for RIS 2, can the District Council truly support any tweaking of the existing options that would continue to condemn Chichester residents to air that does not meet the national quality objectives, or will you accept your responsibility and make a concerted effort to fight for better air quality as part of a project in RIS 2?
CDC had input from its air quality officers in formulating its overall response to the A27 consultation and supported the best overall option in terms of air quality. CDC is mindful that a decision by Highways England to bring forward any one of the potential options for improvement will be subject to a full air quality modelling exercise. CDC will review the outputs of such modelling and seek the best design possible for residents bearing in mind the practicalities of the situation.’
Ms MacDougal did not wish to ask a supplementary question.
This marked the end of the public questions and Mrs Hamilton emphasised that it was always appreciated when members of the public availed themselves of the opportunity presented by public question time.
[Note Minute para 261 below summarises the consideration of and conclusion to agenda item 6 but for full details please refer to the audio recording facility via this link:
http://chichester.moderngov.co.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=132&MId=998&Ver=4 ]