Agenda item

The Council is requested to consider the agenda report and appendix for this item and to determine the position of the Council in respect of a scheme to improve the A27 at Chichester.

Mrs Hamilton introduced this item by referring to the agenda report with its appendix, which requested the Council to determine CDC’s position in respect of a scheme to improve the A27 bypass at Chichester.

 

The Council received and duly considered the report as set out below.

 

In response to Mrs Hamilton’s enquiry, Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) stated that he moved the recommendation in the report and Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) seconded Mr Dignum’s proposal.

 

Mr Dignum presented the issues in the agenda report by making the following statement:

 

‘Well today we are asked to make a choice between RIS1 and RIS2. We have had the community workshop on Monday evening [25 September 2017] and we have all had lots of e-mails from the public. So although I can’t answer them all personally I do thank all those who contacted me for your involvement in this huge issue for all the community.

 

From the 7 July 2017 meeting that Louise Goldsmith and I had with Highways England it is clear to me that Highways England has selected a variation on their Option 2 as their preferred route. Our MP confirms this is her understanding from her own more recent discussions with Highways England.

 

Gillian Keegan has now been advised that there can be no extension of time because of the rules relating to RIS1. With three days left to the Highways England deadline there can therefore be no local input into the preferred route prior to publication.

 

Any changes to secure mitigations would have to be advanced after publication of the route during the statutory consultation period with no guarantee of success. The only certainty is that the funds are definitely there in RIS1.

 

The alternative to the RIS1 choice is to opt for a place in RIS2. This would give time to agree a route with Highways England through working together. But Highways England is also stating that this route would most likely be an online route. In his 7 September 2017 letter Mr O’Sullivan states:

 

‘Ithink it iswidely acceptedthat themanner in whichthe northernroute wasdiscussedand handledwas notwell communicatedor managed.Sucha (northern) routewouldheavily contravenecurrent planningguidancedueto impactson thenationalpark,incurshighercost reducingthe Benefit to Cost Ratioand, contraryto popularbelief,has hadlimiteddevelopmentand designwork done. Againstall theotherschemes weare lookingat acrossthecountry this idea of (a northern route) has almost no probability of success.’

 

I will be making some further quotes from the same letter which is in your papers.

Highways England has this to say about choosing RIS2, and I quote, ‘Furthertimeto considerthe schemeand otherpossiblealternatives hasconsiderablebenefits.Active stakeholderengagementgenerally bringsgreater supportfor theschemeanda morerefined outcomethat deliversenhanceduser, community and environmentoutcomes’. However, Highways England states ‘anew schemefor Chichesterwouldmost likelystart in2023’. It also states there is a risk the project will not be included in RIS2. However this could be considered a low risk bearing in mind the Highways England statement that the A27 has ‘strategic importance (and) it is important national and regional infrastructure’.

The position now is that the Community workshop on Monday night opted by 32 to 22 organisations (59% to 41%) for the RIS2 approach rather than RIS1. The West Sussex County Council’s decision on whether to pursue a RIS 1 or RIS 2 solution for the A27 Chichester will be taken by Councillor Bob Lanzer, Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure. While Councillor Lanzer will have regard to the advice of the Environmental and Community Services Select Committee, which is meeting tomorrow, he has indicated that he is minded to support the RIS2 option.

 

Our MP also supports the choice of RIS2. In the circumstances our opting for RIS 1 will not achieve anything as Highways England is looking for both councils and the MP to be on the same page.

 

Some have suggested the workshop is unrepresentative but we do need to bear in mind the 2016 consultation results. There were 4,869 responses. We are all aware of the 47% who rejected all five options on offer. What is not widely realised is that the 47% were then asked what they did want. Eighty-five per cent responded that they wanted a northern route. So the local community divided as follows:

 

Northern route: 56%

Option 2: 31%

Other options on offer: 6%

No new route at all: 7%

So although only about 80 attended the workshops, the much wider 2016 consultation showed a similar result of majority opposition to the online options presented by Highways England.

 

Some might think we should go for RIS1 anyway and take the money and in this respect we have heard this very morning from Highways England that it has given preliminary consideration to the mitigation measures we put forward in the 2016 consultation to improve Option 2. Highways England has stated today that the main mitigations we proposed cannot be incorporated in its preferred route. These main mitigations were the lowering of roundabouts and flyovers, providing  a south to east flyover for cars and vans at the Portfield roundabout, and reducing the length of the Stockbridge Link Road to just the western section. Furthermore the choice of RIS1 would not achieve anything as Highways England will move forward only with agreement between the councils. We would incur widespread hostility for no benefit by striking out on our own.

 

So at the end of the debate, I will be minded to propose to you that we choose RIS2 in common with county and community. A common cause between our two councils and our MP will mean we can go forward with Highways England to achieve a solution that works for the community and for all the users of the A27.’

 

Mrs Hamilton invited members to indicate if they wished to speak in the debate and their names were noted. A summary of the contributions is as follows:

 

Mrs Purnell (Selsey North) said that it was very hard to decide given the different views expressed but on balance she believed that it was important to give the community the opportunity to develop a solution which commanded majority support. Accordingly she favoured RIS 2.

 

Mr Brown (Southbourne) acknowledged that this was a difficult decision and that he had been very critical of the process hitherto and he continued to believe that the public had been let down and poorly served at all levels.  He would strive on behalf of residents to ensure that the chosen option worked but he endorsed RIS 2.   

 

Mr Hayes raised a point of order with respect to Mr Brown’s contribution, remarking that he should not have made a political statement during it but instead have confined himself to the A27.

 

In reply, Mr Brown pointed out that he was in fact taking into account the concern arising from a point made at the public meeting on 25 September 2017 about how national politics might affect the availability of funding for the A27.

 

Mr Barrett said that the quarterly meeting of the Manhood Community Forum which was attended by the local parishes on the peninsular, represented in the region of 26,000 residents. From the feedback he had received in the past two or three weeks all the parishes save one fully supported Mr Dignum’s statement. 

 

Mr Page said that to accept RIS 1 at this stage would completely cut across the community process established by West Sussex County Council and supported by CDC. By choosing RIS 2 there would be six to seven months to enable the community process to run its course, which would assist in contributing to the community’s acceptance of the eventual solution selected, perhaps even an outcome which everyone felt able to support.

 

Mr Plowman said that as a CDC and Chichester City Council member for the west of the city and a former mayor who cared for the city, he had no personal agenda with regard to the A27. On balance he felt the risk of an uncertain outcome should be taken by preferring RIS 2.

 

Mr Galloway indicated that he favoured the recommendation which Mr Dignum had already intimated he was minded to make at the close of this debate.  The choice to be made was akin to being between a rock and a hard place.

 

Mr Hobbs said that as a result of the workshops the various communities had been brought together and become so engaged in the process. As a result it was incumbent on CDC to follow through that process.

 

Mrs Apel spoke as a Chichester West ward member and said this was one of the most difficult decisions to have to make. There was far too little time to decide what Chichester needed and so it was important to embrace the opportunity presented by RIS 2 to identify the right scheme of improvement works for the A27 Chichester bypass.

 

Mr Hayes supported RIS 2. He could not see how RIS 2 would be stopped if the A27 schemes at Arundel, Worthing and Polegate were implemented since that would leave Chichester as the only bottleneck.

 

Mr Ridd said that he had briefly contemplated RIS 1 on the basis that there was money on the table which it would be a pity to lose. However he now favoured RIS 2.

 

Mr Martin said that the RIS 1 proposals were short-term measures based on out-of-date data in which a through traffic volume of 20% was cited when in fact it was now 46%. It was imperative to devise a long-term strategic solution. RIS 1 was incapable of achieving that but it was possible via RIS 2 with partnership working between West Sussex County Council, CDC, community engagement and collaboration with Highways England. RIS 2 was, therefore, the only way forward and accordingly he supported that approach.

 

Mr Oakley said that the RIS 2 opportunity that Highways England had presented was an opportunity not to be missed: it would enable work towards a long-term and transformational solution to the very poor performance issue of the national strategic road network at Chichester.

  

Mr Dunn stated that having listened to the debate with great care, he would abstain in the vote. It should be recognised that opponents of RIS 2 feared that RIS 2 would include a northern bypass option. It was extremely unlikely that by delaying the RIS 1 option making decisions would be any easier over time and indeed he feared they might become much harder.  He was unable to support the case for either RIS 1 or RIS 2 and would abstain.

 

Mr Shaxson commented that Highways England did not emerge very well from this situation. Earlier in 2017 the Council voted in favour of RIS 1’s Option 2 provided that certain very necessary mitigation measures were included. Highways England had now refused to countenance those measures and so effectively had made the decision the Council was being asked to take. He had not supported Option 2 during the previous debate and those reasons still applied. Accordingly he would have no hesitation in voting for RIS 2.

 

Mr Hall said that as the ward member representing the parishes of Lavant and Westhampnett, his concern had been to examine the online options in more detail and he supported RIS 2.          

 

There were no more contributions to be made to the debate, and Mrs Hamilton invited Mr Dignum to sum up and make a specific proposal. 

 

Mr Dignum observed that the debate had revealed how members had arrived by many different routes to the same conclusion in favour of RIS 2 being the right solution for the councils and community at this point. If the resolution he was about to propose was passed, it would be incumbent on CDC to work very closely together with Highways England, West Sussex County Council and the community and to identify a solution which everyone was able to endorse. Self-evidently it would not be easy but with RIS 1 there was no time and the unsatisfactory Option 2 with none of the mitigations which had been sought by CDC in September 2016 and July 2017. There was an absolutely clear choice to be made by the Council.

 

Mr Dignum then made the following proposal:

 

‘I propose that we adopt approach B with RIS 2as set out in paragraph  5.1 of the officers’ report.

 

Mr Connor seconded the foregoing proposal.

 

The Chairman invited members to vote on this proposal.

 

Decision

 

On a vote by a show of hands there was save for three abstentions unanimous support for the proposal. There were no votes against.

RESOLVED

 

That approach B namely RIS 2 (post 2020) for taking forward a scheme to improve the A27 at Chichester as set out in para 5.1 of the agenda report be approved.