Agenda item

Removal of conditions 9 and 11 from planning permission O/11/05283/OUT which require the closure of the Oving Traffic  Lights and to retain the junction as it currently functions.

Refuse

Mr Bushell reminded members of the Secretary of State’s decision to direct an indefinite non-approval of the planning application to retain the traffic controlled junction at the A27 and Oving Road crossroads functioning as it currently does.  He referred to the Committee’s previous decision at its meeting held on 11 January 2017 to defer making a decision on the application for a period of 12 months or until the Government announcement on the A27 preferred route if before that date.  He explained that the officer recommendation to refuse remained the same and this was due to the severe adverse impact to the A27 that would result from the removal of conditions 9 (A27 Oving crossroads Interim Measures) and 11 (A27 Oving Crossroads Full Measures) for planning application reference O/11/05283/OUT.

The following information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to the receipt of two additional third party objections.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

-       Mrs L Smith – Supporter; and

-       Mr S Schuyleman - Agent

Officers replied to members’ questions and comments, as well as providing advice on the determination of the application:

Mr Bushell explained the proposals for the B class categorised spine road in more detail and advised that this road would be 7m wide and designed to take a higher level of traffic.   The proposal to direct people travelling in their vehicles through the Spine road would not cut people or communities off, but would result in changed patterns of behaviour.  Officers and the Highways Authority were satisfied that the Spine road would be engineered to the required standards to enable free flow of traffic.    The concern with removing conditions 9 and 11 was that it would result in a long period of uncertainty both for the developer and local residents about what would happen to the traffic lights as there was potentially a five year period before the point where the Shopwyke Lakes development at its current build rate would trigger the necessary first changes to the junction.  He referred to the pre-preparation work required as part of the lead in period to the junction changes which the Committee should bear in mind when making their decision.

Mr Frost advised that since the Committee’s previous resolution on this matter nothing had changed in terms of the evidence the applicant was required to submit.   It was acknowledged that the evidence would require the recruitment of specialist consultants which would be costly to provide and the applicant had indicated that it was unlikely that they would be able to.  Because the applicant for the Shopwyke Lakes development proposed a new junction on the north side of the development to the A27, Highways England expected that in order to permit that new junction a quid pro quo was required, i.e. another junction to be closed so there was no adverse impact (on safety primarily).  Highways England was opposed, in principle, to additional accesses on the A27 unless there were very good economic or other reasons why not.  The Committee had previously been shown the various routing diagrams, which demonstrated the revised traffic flows that were acceptable to Highways England. The Committee in approving the Shopwyke Lakes planning application had, therefore, accepted the different routing arrangements.  It was not possible to undo the planning permission and in any case the developer was building out the permission, the trigger points for the alterations to the Oving Road access would occur over the next few years and the developer would be obliged to meet them.  Whilst it was understood that the applicant and some sections of the community had concerns, there was no mechanism in the planning application for that to happen.  Therefore, if the application was deferred for a third time, there would be two outcomes 1) If there is no Chichester scheme in RIS2 the developer would continue with the development and have no option but to comply with the conditions requiring the closure of the junction and 2) If a Chichester scheme is included in RIS2 there would not be any consultation on potential scheme options until mid-2020. There would not be a preferred route announcement until a year or two later.  Officers could not see any benefit to the Planning Authority, Oving Parish Council or the community if the application was held in abeyance for a further long indefinite period.  If the Chichester scheme was included in RIS2 there would be the potential for further work with the applicant and others with Highways England who would be looking for community consensus.     

Miss Golding reminded the Committee about their duty to act fairly and consistently to all applicants.  The applicant had not undertaken the necessary technical highways assessment required by the Planning Authority and the Highways Agency to enable assessment of the application to see if it could be recommended for permit.  Therefore the applicant was recommended for refusal due to the receipt of insufficient information.

The Committee discussed the application in depth during which a number of differing views were expressed on the merits of the proposal. 

Some members considered the proposal to retain the traffic lights was acceptable in light of their concerns about the amount of traffic already using the Portfield roundabout and the impact that the closure of the traffic lights would have in terms of the additional traffic that would be generated at this roundabout; the large number of people within the community that were in favour of the retention of the traffic lights; and were of the view that the application should not be determined at present due to the continuing uncertainty surrounding the future A27 improvements.  Whilst other members were content with the requirements imposed by conditions 9 and 11 for redirection of traffic through the new Spine Road.

However the majority of members, whilst some still having concerns as outlined above, in light of the advice provided to them by officers, considered that the application should be refused, as per the officer recommendation. 

A vote on a proposal not to determine the application until further clarity was available on the Government’s second Roads Investment Strategy 2 process was not carried.

Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

(Mr Oakley left the meeting during an adjournment and did not return for the remainder of the meeting)