In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference to standing order 6 in part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any 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 subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.
Decision:
[DETAILS OF QUESTIONS AND RESPONSE IN MINUTES]
Minutes:
Two public questions had been received for this meeting, details of which appear below.
In addition, a question had been received from Mrs C M M Apel, who was one of the two CDC Chichester West ward members and also the chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. Mr Dignum decided that Mrs Apel’s question should be asked at this stage rather than during agenda item 7 (Southern Gateway Masterplan - Adoption) to which it related. As this was not a public question it was not subject to the rules of the public question time scheme.
The text of the two aforementioned public questions had been circulated to members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr Dignum invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his question before an oral response was given by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).
The text of the question by Mrs Apel was not circulated in advance and the oral response was supplied by Mr Frost (Head of Planning Services).
The questions (with the date of submission shown with [ ] at the end of the text) and the answers given by the relevant Cabinet member were as follows.
Public Question (1) by Mr Richard Hutchinson
‘The level crossings and resulting congestion has been a huge barrier for car drivers, cyclists and pedestrians wanting to enter the City from the south for decades.
The Council’s masterplan is predicated on the basis that the crossings remain, because a brief early study carried out by their consultants showed that a crossing solution was not possible on Stockbridge road or Basin road. The consultants were told to not look at third party land, so other options could not be investigated. The whole masterplan was then built from that flawed premise, and the argument constructed that the resulting congestion from making all vehicles go through one crossing would assist in reducing the amount of traffic entering the city.
This is a completely flawed plan. There will undoubtably be more frequent train services in the future, and the number of vehicles requiring access to the City will also increase. Not to constructively plan for the eventuality is an abdication of responsibility by the Council. They are responsible for looking at infrastructure improvements where required, no other body can do this, and an improvement is desperately required here. Not to investigate all possible options for removing the crossings is neglecting their responsibilities and letting down Chichester. We all want a City centre that is pleasant for cyclists and pedestrians to use, but to try and achieve it by turning a blind eye to a situation that exasperates thousands of local residents is not the way to achieve it
Network Rail has stated that they want to remove all level crossings for safety reasons. There is not only the potential for train related accidents, but also the poor air quality caused by queuing vehicles is a serious issue to the health of the people waiting as well as to adjacent properties. We have estimated that about 20,000 working days are wasted every year by people queuing at the crossings, with a resulting effect on the local economy. The Manhood peninsular contributes hugely to the City’s economy and by freeing up access this could be dramatically increased.
Freeflow provides a potential solution to remove the level crossings and the resultant congestion and pollution by providing a new road bridge. This was presented to the Council planners and masterplan consultant team. They have responded that Freeflow would have a negative impact on the viability of the masterplan scheme by using up potential development land, and by the cost of the bridge structure.
We have looked again in more detail at the proposals, and believe that we can achieve 450 homes, a 70 room hotel, 100,000ft2 of retail and offices and a 100,000ft2 conference and exhibition centre, which could yield a developable value well in excess of £250m. This can cover the investment of a new road and bridge such as that proposed by Freeflow and create a truly vibrant and attractive new quarter to the City that development partners will want to invest in.
Given all of this, why would we want to proceed with a masterplan that we all know is fundamentally flawed? Whether you think Freeflow is the right solution or not, we should reject the masterplan, and carry out a fresh study with a new brief directed to looking at how the crossings can be removed and create a true accessible southern gateway. This is far too important to not get it right, and this is the last chance to do something about it. Chichester deserves better.’
[3 November 2017]
Response (1) by the Cabinet Member for Planning Services
‘Thank you for your e-mail of 3 November which raises concerns about the draft Southern Gateway masterplan and puts forward an alternative (and now revised) ‘Freeflow’ plan involving closure of the level crossings, provision of a bridge and new residential and commercial development.
I think it is important to make the point that the draft Southern Gateway masterplan is the culmination of 18 months’ work following the appointment of masterplanning and transport consultants in 2016. Its production has been guided by a member/officer steering group, including representatives of this Council, WSCC, the Homes and Communities Agency and Network Rail. The draft masterplan has therefore been prepared thoroughly and is supported by considerable technical transport, viability and feasibility evidence.
We are of course acutely aware of the problems caused by congestion during operation of the two level crossings. However, we were made aware by Network Rail early on in the masterplan preparation process that the crossings are not identified as a significant safety concern and so Network Rail has not identified them as a priority for closure. Feasibility work also identified that the cost of a bridge over the level crossings would be significant (at least £10m); that there would be a substantial land-take either side of the railway line to accommodate a bridge and that there would be a likely significant adverse impact on the character of the area and conservation area and the many heritage assets nearby, including views towards the cathedral. Other options such as tunneling were considered and ruled out on the basis that they would be prohibitively expensive.
The draft masterplan is not based on a flawed premise as suggested but is a considered response to objectives in the Chichester Vision which include creating a more accessible and attractive City Centre; calming and reducing traffic flows and reversing the priority from vehicles to pedestrians.
A total of 11 different options for changing the road network in the Southern Gateway area have been considered, ranging from small scale improvement schemes to more fundamental changes to the existing gyratory. The proposed option to restrict general traffic from using the Stockbridge Road level crossing and the rerouting of Basin Road will provide opportunities to bring suitable development forward and to achieve significant improvements to the public realm, especially in the area around the railway station, leading up to South Street and the main shopping area. Importantly, our consultant’s analysis shows that these proposals will result in a proportion of the existing traffic through the area using either the A27 or northern part of the inner ring road as alternative routes and that overall there would be no significant difference in impact on the wider highway network.
We have looked in detail at the feasibility and viability of the Freeflow proposal as originally put forward and our consultants have prepared a review paper which is attached as Appendix 4 to agenda item 7 on the Cabinet agenda. We believe (as summarised in the covering report) that the Freeflow proposal fails to meet many of the masterplan objectives due to its focus on motorised transport via a bridge into the area, which in turn is likely to have an adverse impact on the townscape character and setting of the many heritage assets nearby.
As a responsible authority, we should adopt a masterplan which is both technically feasible and likely to be deliverable. Our consultants advise that the Freeflow scheme fails these important requirements. Whilst it appears that the revised Freeflow plan includes a higher number of dwellings and greater commercial floorspace, the resulting density and scale of development appears contrary to the townscape guidance in the Council’s draft masterplan and is unlikely to be acceptable. Moreover, the revised Freeflow is not accompanied by any market evidence to support some of the key land uses or an assessment of cost and deliverability. Fundamentally, it appears that the Freeflow concept remains much as originally proposed and remains contrary therefore to the objectives for regeneration of this sensitive area.’
On being asked, Mr Hutchinson said that he did not have a supplementary question.
Public Question (2) by Mr Martin Winch
‘In the unlikely event a fresh start for Southern Gateway is pursued, the consultation process must be far more rigorous. The one carried out for the current masterplan has not had the breadth or depth to be classified as "meaningful public engagement". A definition which should help promote and include measured, tangible community involvement.
Indeed all current planning policy encourages plans to be drawn up with community involvement. This allows a shared vision and strategy of how an area should develop to achieve more sustainable patterns of development.
However, as far as we know, there was no public meeting held or a presentation by consultants or officers on the preferred masterplan option (unlike Freeflow). There were no community workshops held where local people could get involved. In brief there was little or no grass roots community consultation.
Without which, key issues could not be identified or addressed. And, as we all now know following the poll carried out by the Chichester Observer, the overwhelming majority want just one key issue resolved. The closure of the level crossings.
Considering the cost and time taken to get to this point, are all councillors comfortable with the consultation process carried out for such an important gateway to our City? If not, a fresh start may be the only option available.’
[3 November 2017]
Response (2) by the Cabinet Member for Planning Services
‘Thank you for your e-mail of 3 November which asks whether councillors are comfortable with the consultation process carried out for such an important gateway to our City.
Public consultation on the draft masterplan was carried out for a 6 week period between 29 June and 10 August. In order to promote public engagement in the consultation process, the Council provided two alternative means of responding to the consultation, firstly via an on-line questionnaire which asked residents a range of questions about different aspects of the masterplan proposals and secondly, the opportunity to make detailed comments on the specific text of the masterplan via the Council’s usual planning policy consultation IT system. There were also three public events to increase awareness of the masterplan with Council staff available to answer questions and the consultation was also widely promoted via local media and the Council’s social media channels.
A total of 350 responses were received to the on-line questionnaire and there were also a further 327 responses from statutory and other consultees as well as from members of the public to the detailed content of the masterplan. Comments received covered a wide range of matters including the proposed development opportunities and public realm proposals as well as the transport options and level crossings, amongst others.
I think it is evident from the ‘Public Consultation Analysis Report’ attached as Appendix 5 to Agenda Item 7 in the cabinet agenda and the level of interest in the consultation undertaken, that local people were able to get involved in the process and make their views and comments on the draft masterplan known and I believe therefore, that the consultation was effective, wide reaching and meaningful. I would also like to emphasise that the comments received have all been carefully considered and have informed the final masterplan.’
On being asked, Mr Winch said that he did not have a supplementary question.
Member Question by Mrs Clare Apel
‘The Southern Gateway is probably one of the most important possible developments in the city of Chichester for many many years. Amongst our papers was a document online of about 540 pages. Would it not have been possible to have a précis of this document? I defy anyone to be able to read 540 pages online.’
[6 November 2017]
Response by the Head of Planning Services
‘The 541 pages that you refer to are all background documents that provide evidence to the draft masterplan. We do not normally print background papers as a matter of course due to the cost in doing so and as the officer covering report and other documents printed as appendices are intended to provide the necessary summary of the key issues for members.
The vast majority of the background papers comprise technical environmental and traffic data and modelling information and I would suggest that you do not need to read them. However, if you do wish to look through them, can I suggest you read the short Non-Technical Summary of the Environmental Report on page 5 of the on-line second agenda supplement and the Non -Technical Summary of the Transport Appraisal on page 47.’
On being asked, Mrs Apel said that she did not have a supplementary question.
This marked the end of public question time.
[Note Minute paras 429 to 439 below summarises the consideration of and conclusion to agenda items 5 to 15 (item 15 being a confidential Part II matter) inclusive 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 ]