Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Public Question Time

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme 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 time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).

 

Minutes:

One public question had been submitted for this meeting, details of which appear below.

 

The text of the question had been circulated within the Council Chamber for CDC members, the press and the public prior to the start of this meeting. The Chairman invited the member of the public to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his question before an oral response was provided.

 

The question (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary question and the answer given by the designated Cabinet member were as follows.

 

Question: Mr Andrew Relf

 

[Note The text of the question as formally submitted by Mr Relf is set out below, although (as can be heard in the audio recording) it was largely paraphrased while being asked]

 

The Chichester District Council Local Plan Review - Policy DM 8

 

This states that any development must minimize and not create or add to problems of highway safety, congestion, air pollution or other damage.

 

I have a long history on the planning and construction of Fishbourne roundabout as a Consultee, and the 40 year refusal by government to upgrade the A27 across East and West Sussex.  We are again met by the stubborn refusal of government to spend any money south of London.

 

Common sense predicts that the Fishbourne roundabout plans will not be able to cope with current traffic, the additional traffic from Whitehouse Farm whose access to the A27 is Fishbourne, the proposed new flow from the development south of the A27, Terminus Road, and future Manhood traffic together with the 2500 houses proposed for the A259.

 

I am told that the traffic assumption was 50 cars per 100 households, which is seriously flawed.  A study of the Flavian Fields development of 97 houses in Fishbourne revealed that there were two cars per household, and 64% of the residents were working.  Fishbourne already has the highest car dependency in Chichester District as we have no facilities even though designated as a service village under the plan.

 

There is little employment on the A259 corridor and so every worker has to leave the area, in addition to the mothers who have to drive to schools outside our area as the schools are full.

 

Now consider the 1000 homes planned for Fishbourne, Bosham and Chidham. Your planning assumption is 500 cars. The reality is at least 1000 cars moving at peak time.   Each car is an average of 4.8 metres long, with 1.5 metre gaps between them. At very best that is 6 metres of road space per car. One thousand cars at 6 metres joining already static queues.  Six kilometres is Fishbourne roundabout to Chidham.

 

I challenge the possibility of meeting any facet of Policy DM8 against this evidence.

 

My question is will the Council revisit the flawed assumptions with West Sussex and Highways England on the ability of the current road structure to handle the current and proposed traffic?

I predicted the mess that is Fishbourne roundabout in 1980, and I predict the mess if these plans are not upgraded.

 

[Friday 18 January 2019]

 

Response: Mr J Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services)

 

‘Thank you for your question. Chichester District Council (CDC) does not intend to revisit the conclusions of the Transport Study that supports the Local Plan Review as it considers that it is a robust piece of work.  There may be a need to add to this work or revisit the modelling if the distribution of development changes as a result of consultation on the Chichester Local Plan Review 2015 Preferred Approach – December 2018.  You refer to being told of a traffic assumption of 50 cars per 100 households and that this is flawed.  I have spoken to the officer who advised you at the Fishbourne public consultation event and he has confirmed that he had advised you that traffic generation is approximately 50 cars per 100 households during the peak hour.  West Sussex County Council and Highways England have both been consulted as part of the development of the Transport Study and there are no outstanding concerns or issues relating to the traffic modelling.  Should you consider this to be a flawed assumption you are welcome to make representations as part of the current public consultation and CDC will agree a formal response.  Should you still disagree with the traffic modelling assumptions you can make representations at the next stage of public consultation before the plan is submitted for examination and those would be considered by the planning inspector appointed to conduct the examination of the plan.’

 

Supplementary Comment: Mr Andrew Relf

 

The Chairman invited Mr Relf to comment if he wished on the response he had received.

 

Mr Relf said that the answer was as he had expected. The crucial matter was the quality of the evidence on which the assumptions had been formed. His independent extensive experience led him to say that the findings in the Transport Study must be challenged because they were flawed and had very serious implications for traffic congestion and pollution.

 

The Chairman thanked him for his contribution.

 

 

[Note End of Public Question Time]

 

 

Top of page