Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

A27 Chichester Bypass Improvements: Submission to the Government's Roads Investment Strategy

The agenda report and its appendix in relation to this item appear on pages 1 to 92 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s special meeting which will take place immediately prior to this special meeting of the Council.

 

Having regard to para 3.1 of the agenda report but subject to the outcome of the Cabinet’s special meeting, it is anticipated that the Council will be asked to make the following resolutions:

 

(1) That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, Approach A be supported as being desirable without indicating a preference for either option ie promoting both the ‘mitigated northern route’ and the ‘full southern route’.

 

(2) That the ‘fall-back’ position if no approach is selected be noted.    

 

 

Minutes:

The Chairman introduced the single substantive item of business at this special meeting, namely to determine CDC’s position with regard to a scheme to be promoted to the government for inclusion within RIS2 for the improvement of the A27 Chichester Bypass.

 

She drew attention to the agenda report and its appendix for the Cabinet’s special meeting which had preceded this meeting, copies of which were available in the Council Chamber.

 

She also referred to an agenda supplement which had been published the previous day on CDC’s web-site for online viewing only, consisting of two documents: (a) the second background paper listed in the Cabinet agenda report (paras 9.4 and 13.2 on page 8) namely a note of the BABA27 meeting held on 18 May 2018 and (b) a letter dated 5 June 2018 written by Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of Highways England, to Louise Goldsmith, Leader of West Sussex County Council.

 

She stated that at its special meeting earlier in the day the Cabinet had considered this matter and made a slightly amended version of para (1) of the recommendation set out on the face of both the Council agenda and on the Cabinet agenda. The revised version appeared on a sheet circulated within the Council Chamber prior to the start of this special meeting namely:

 

(1)  That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, Approach A be supported without indicating a preference for either option ie namely both the ‘mitigated northern route’ and the ‘full southern route’.

 

(2)  That the ‘fall-back’ position if no approach is selected be noted.

 

In response to the Chairman, Mr Dignum moved the Cabinet’s aforementioned amended recommendation and Mr Connor duly seconded it.     

 

The report in the Cabinet agenda was presented by Mr Dignum.

 

He said that there was almost a complete consensus in favour of one thing: achieving improvements to the A27 to ease congestion etc issues for local and through traffic. Highways England (HE) had afforded the community the opportunity to put forward, on balance, the best route by choosing between the northern and southern concepts. The consultants, Systra Limited, had advocated an off-line mitigated northern route and an on-line full southern route, which sought to address the disadvantages of those two options. HE had so far neither restricted the nature and extent of improvements to on-line nor ruled out off-line routes and was prepared to consider two alternatives. The report by officers recommended Approach A ie both northern and southern concepts to be advanced with no preference. West Sussex County Council’s (WSCC) Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure had stated that the‘mitigated northernroute’ was WSCC’s preferredoption butthe ‘fullsouthernroute’ shouldalso be developedas areasonable alternative. Mr Dignum had asked HE’s Regional Sponsor for South East England, Paul Benham, if a different submission by CDC from WSCC would present any problem in terms of consensus and was advised: ‘In response to your question, I do not see it as an issue at this stage. It will be more important to achieve a level of consensus once we have carried out our assessment of both options and arrived at our conclusions.’ HE had recently been asked by WSCC and CDC leaders to evaluate both concepts as soon as possible and it had agreed to do so and report on the engineering feasibility and likely cost of both options by ‘late autumn’ 2018. Systra had identified advantages and disadvantages to both routes. The issue of affordability within the likely RIS2 budget was relevant to both routes and HE had twice emphasised to the leaders that many other schemes across the country were competing for inclusion in RIS2 and their combined cost was far greater than the likely total RIS2 budget. Of the various local surveys of opinion, the Build A Better A27 (BABA27) showed the highest support (but not a majority) for one concept only – however, respondents had not been asked to specify a preferred concept and so the balance between north and south could not be ascertained. Thus the community had not been able to agree a single choice. As Leader of the Council he was proposing that CDC should not make a single choice at this stage since it did not have all the relevant facts (which only HE could provide) and there was a risk that in choosing a single option now, which was not later accepted by HE, the A27 Chichester bypass would be excluded from RIS2. HE should fully evaluate both concepts equally and provide its analysis as soon as possible. If included within RIS2, HE would undertake detailed design work prior to a full public consultation. The eventual route announced by HE would be the subject of a development consent order for approval by a government inspector (the public would be entitled to comment), assuming of course that the route was included in RIS2. Construction would probably begin in 2023 or 2024. He acknowledged that there was a difference of opinion both within the Cabinet and obviously within the Council, as the democratic debate during this special meeting would demonstrate.

 

At the Chairman’s invitation Mr Barrow (Selsey South and Cabinet Member for Residents Services) proposed an amendment to para (1) of the Cabinet’s recommendation, against which he had voted during the preceding Cabinet meeting.

 

Mr Barrow first introduced his amendment proposal. As a Selsey South ward member he represented many residents who did not support the southern route option. As a Cabinet member he had a duty to make decisions with the best interests of Chichester District as a whole in mind. Accordingly he had faced something of a dilemma but hitherto he had kept an open mind. There was a considerably larger population in the south of the District than the north. However, it was clear that most of the many e-mails he had received about the issue of the alternative A27 routes were in favour of the northern route option; very few had favoured the southern route or even supported pursuing both options. He had some very grave concerns about the southern route eg serious disruption to businesses and residents during construction; air quality impact especially given the prevailing south/south-west winds; and the effect of traffic diversions on the city itself. These and other factors had led him to conclude that the mitigated northern route option should be CDC’s preference. He accepted that it was nonetheless right to get an expert engineering and feasibility assessment of both options so that a subsequent final decision could be made on a fully informed basis. Ideally, despite HE’s advice about consensus at this stage, it would be better for CDC at this point to be in line with WSCC’s position and so he advocated expressing a preference for the offline mitigated northern route with the online full southern route as an alternative.

 

Mr Barrow read out his amendment to para (1) of the Cabinet’s recommendation, namely:

 

‘(1)   That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, that CDC write to Highways England requesting that the A27 Chichester scheme is included in the second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2) stating that the ‘mitigated northern route’ is CDC's preferred option, subject to the inclusion of important mitigation measures that are needed to make the scheme acceptable in environmental terms, but that the ‘full southern route’ should also be explored as a "reasonable alternative" in order to mitigate the community consensus and policy fit risks associated with the "mitigated northern route”.’

 

Para (2) of the Cabinet’s recommendation was unaltered by Mr Barrow’s proposal.

 

Mr Hayes (Southbourne) duly seconded Mr Barrow’s proposal.

 

During the debate members expressed various views on the Cabinet’s recommendation, Mr Barrow’s proposed amendment and the competing merits of the two route options.

 

Among the points made were the following:

 

·       It was important for members to listen to and take into account the views of the residents in their wards, both individuals and community groups/forums.

 

·       In view of the conflicting views in the community, it was incumbent on members in this meeting to show leadership on behalf of the citizens and grasp a once in a lifetime opportunity which could be expressed as indicating at this stage a preference or adopting an independent position from WSCC. It was not necessarily a lack of leadership to decline to identify a preferred route and indeed the government was not expecting or requesting for that to happen now.

 

·       The contrasting views of the public in northern and southern wards was natural and understandable, thus the relevant issue was which route was in the interests of Chichester District as a whole.

 

·       It was essential that this time the northern route was not withdrawn by HE but fully assessed before a final decision could be expressed by the local councils and communities concerned, the achieving of which could be facilitated by expressing at this stage a preference for that option.

 

·       The southern route option during the protracted five-year period of engineering works would inevitably cause considerable serious disruption to residents and businesses (which needed to be encouraged to start up and thrive), with particular threats to the city centre from diverted traffic (as closures of the A27 Chichester bypass because of accidents vividly demonstrated) or an increase in rat-running, the construction of flyovers, the closure for two years of the Chichester Ship Canal, and implications for the Southern Gateway project, hindering tourism on the Manhood Peninsula and disturbing rural life. The southern route would not be a long-term one and this begged the question of what should be done then.

 

·       The protection of the environment was very important and the mitigation measures for the northern route must be acceptable and would have to be very carefully scrutinised. These measures could include the introduction of wildlife corridors. The northern route would also help to secure significant improvements in air quality along the extant southern route.

 

·       From an engineering point of view there was an obvious advantage to constructing a new northern route rather than upgrading the existing online southern route, which would present significant engineering challenges and uncertainties. The strength of the case for the northern route would be best exemplified and then be able to command majority support if both options were assessed.

 

·       It was very difficult if not impossible to express a preference at this stage without knowing the full details and facts of each route, including the route for the northern option and how the southern route would be upgraded. Systra had identified two alternative routes and CDC did not need currently to go beyond submitting both of those routes to HE for a full assessment to be undertaken. On this basis the Cabinet’s recommendation should be supported.

 

·       The issue to be resolved in this meeting was a preliminary one and CDC should retain an unfettered discretion as to its final position and the preferred route it would choose once it had all the relevant evidence available to it. Both options should be left open and members should in the meantime engage meaningfully with their communities while the routes underwent a full design and feasibility assessment. It was premature to express a preference at this stage.

 

·       In its report Systra had advised that a mitigated northern route could offer the best long-term solution for the A27 as it best fitted the criteria and wider considerations and would add capacity and resilience to the strategic road network. A true strategic route for the A27 could only be realised by constructing a new route. 

 

·       It should be noted that HE had given a clear indication that a lack of consensus at this stage between WSCC and CDC would not be prejudicial to the prospects of the A27 Chichester bypass improvement scheme being fully assessed with a view to the route eventually chosen being recommended for inclusion in RIS2. On the other hand a broad agreement between the two councils could only enhance the case for the A27 being included in RIS2 and presenting a united front was essential to avoid the appearance of divisiveness and risking the jeopardy of losing a second time the opportunity for being included in the government’s RIS. The sending of an unambiguous message to HE and the government by expressing a preference at this stage could do no harm.

 

During the debate there were a few points of clarification raised and these were answered by Mr Frost and Mr Dignum.

 

Towards the end of the debate Mrs Tull requested that there should be a recorded vote and this was supported by a number of other members, a total of more than four, which satisfied the requirements of standing order 9.4 in CDC’s Constitution for a recorded vote to be conducted.

 

At the end of the debate the Chairman announced that members would by way of a recorded vote consider first of all Mr Barrow’s amendment proposal. If that was supported by a majority it would be carried and there would be no need to proceed to vote on the Cabinet’s recommendation.

 

Mr Barrow read out his amending proposal and it was again seconded by Mr Hayes.

 

The Chief Executive conducted the recorded vote. As shown in the table below, the 39 members present voted as follows:

 

·       For: 22

·       Against: 17

·       Abstain: 0

 

Nine members were absent.

 

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 Kilby

X

 

 

 

Mrs Lintill

X

 

 

Mr Lloyd- Williams

 

 

X

Mr Macey

X

 

 

 

Mr Martin

X

 

 

 

Mr McAra

X

 

 

Mr Morley

X

 

 

 

Mr Moss

 

 

X

Caroline Neville

X

 

 

Mr Oakley

X

 

 

 

Dr O’Kelly

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

 

 

 

Mr Wilding

X

 

 

TOTAL (48)

22

17

0

9

 

Decision

 

In accordance with the aforesaid recorded vote, the Council supported by a majority Mr Barrow’s amending proposal and so the Cabinet’s recommendation was not subjected to a vote. The resolution is set out below.  

 

 

 

RESOLVED

 

(1)  That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2, that CDC write to Highways England requesting that the A27 Chichester scheme is included in the second Roads Investment Strategy (RIS2) stating that the ‘mitigated northern route’ is CDC's preferred option, subject to the inclusion of important mitigation measures that are needed to make the scheme acceptable in environmental terms, but that the ‘full southern route’ should also be explored as a "reasonable alternative" in order to mitigate the community consensus and policy fit risks associated with the "mitigated northern route”.

 

(2)  That the ‘fall-back’ position if no approach is selected be noted.

 

Mr Barrow thanked members for supporting his proposal and expressed the hope that everyone would work together on this issue. Mr Dignum assented to that sentiment.

 

Top of page