Issue - meetings

(See report at Agenda Item 7 (pages 67 - 89) of the Cabinet papers of 12 July 2016.)

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

(1)  That, because there are no adverse comments from the Statutory Bodies and for the reasons set out in the Criteria and screening opinion set out in Appendix 2 to the Cabinet report, it be determined that a Strategic Environmental Assessment is not required in respect of the proposed amendment to the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD); and

(2)  That the approach for securing A27 contributions proposed in the consultation be agreed, and that the amendments to the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) be formally adopted by including the additional wording set out in Appendix 3 to the Cabinet report.

Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.

She reminded the Council that Local Plan Policy 8 described a co-ordinated package of improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass junctions to mitigate the traffic impact arising from the major housing developments proposed in the Local Plan. She drew attention to the scale of the financial cost of the mitigation package set out in Appendix 3 of the Cabinet report and to the method of calculation in the table in paragraph 1.6 of that Appendix, which required each development of more than 50 dwellings to pay a contribution per dwelling based on the estimated number of trips generated that would use the A27 junctions. Developers would be required to enter into a Section 106 agreement requiring them to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with Highways England to pay the contribution. The scheme was intended to mitigate the impact of new development, not to remedy current difficulties. She pointed out that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) examination had found the proposed charge to be viable and that, in the consultation, the developers had raised no objections in principle.

Mr Cullen asked whether, before the introduction of CIL, there had been any developers’ contributions to trunk road improvements.

Mr Carvell explained that, before CIL, such requirements had been governed either by planning conditions or negotiated through Section 106 agreements. Under the arrangements now proposed, the contributions secured for the mitigation works on the A27 junctions would go directly to Highways England.

Members asked whether the developers’ contributions should be devoted to improvements on the local road networks, rather than the trunk road, for example the Selsey Tram roundabout on the A286 in Donnington. It was explained that the use of Section 106 agreements and separate CIL contributions could continue to be used for local road improvements required as a result of new development.

Members also referred to the Highways England consultation, which had just started, on a major improvement scheme for the A27 Chichester By-pass, and enquired whether, given that the mitigation package proposed under the Council’s scheme was to deal with improvements required as a result of new development, it was legitimate for these contributions to be used for the major scheme. They also enquired whether the £11m expected from the Council’s scheme met Highways England’s expectations.

Mrs Taylor explained that planning applications in relation to the new developments were being submitted and Section 106 agreements were being negotiated now, and could not wait for the outcome of the A27 consultation and route design. Mr Dignum added that the District Council and the County Council had committed to contribute £10m each to the A27 improvement scheme, and the developers’ contributions would cover the District Council’s contribution.

Mr Potter questioned whether the council should approve the recommendation when there were so many uncertainties about the future improvement of the A27. He also suggested that not all developers had responded to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 134