Agenda item

At its meeting on 20 July 2021 Full Council resolved:

 

That Council gives an administrative delegation to the Chief Executive to enact all decisions from the remote session of Councillors on 29 July 2021 and to report that enactment to the next Full Council.

 

Members are therefore requested to consider the report and its appendices and instruct the Chief Executive to enact the recommendations set out in sections 2.1-2.5 of the report or as amended following debate.

(Please note that the full debate can be viewed online: https://chichester.nucast.live/frontend/meeting/4105153)

 

The Chair explained that the Session is not a meeting being held under the Local Government Act 1972 meeting legislation and as such a resolution was passed at the Full Council meeting on 20 July 2021 for the Chief Executive to enact the exact recommendations agreed by members.

 

Cllr Taylor proposed the recommendations which were seconded by Cllr Sutton. Cllr Taylor then introduced the report.

 

Cllr Moss proposed amendments which were seconded by Cllr Brown which read in full as follows:

 

1.    That in the absence of significant external strategic infrastructure funding, the full scheme of improvements for the A27 Chichester Bypass prepared by Stantec consultants to support the Local Plan review including the proposed Stockbridge Link Road is undeliverable. Therefore the full package (and the Stockbridge Link Road) will not be progressed further as part of the Local Plan process barring a significant change in the availability and likelihood of securing public sector funding support.

 

2.    That on the basis of recommendation 2.1 above, the Local Plan Review is unable to meet full housing needs and the Plan strategy should therefore focus on delivering as much development as possible based upon the capacity of the plan area to accommodate development within an affordable and deliverable package of transport mitigation taking into account all sources of available funding.

 

3.    That discussions are held with Highways England and West Sussex County Council to agree a revised phased distribution of development for further testing of highways capacity within the Chichester Plan Area until any decision is confirmed regarding the A27 Chichester Bypass.

 

4.    That, notwithstanding the Council's commitment to securing national funding for improvements to the A27 through the RIS scheme, the opportunity must be taken to develop the district's sustainable transport infrastructure. The District's, County's and Country's climate change obligations cannot be met without a modal shift in the way we travel. The "deliverable package of transport mitigation" must therefore include sustainable travel options, such as walking, cycling and bus improvements, all of which will contribute to reducing the impact of development upon our local and national road network.

 

5.    That the Council undertakes to review the Local Plan within 5 years of the date of adoption of the emerging Local Plan Review once clarity regarding a national scheme for the A27 at Chichester has been obtained.

 

6.    That the Council’s position in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with other local authorities is updated to reflect that the Council is unable to meet the full housing needs of the Chichester plan area.

 

7.    That a Statement of Common Ground between Chichester District Council, the  Environment Agency (EA) and Southern Water (SW) is urgently published that clearly and unambiguously states the challenges and issues surrounding the limitations and restrictions affecting Waste water Treatment Works ( WwTWs) operated by Southern Water in the District.

 

8.    That the EA be urgently requested to formally recognise the need for development to be phased so that it aligns with infrastructure provision. Consequently the Council will liaise with the EA, Natural England and SW to agree a phased programme of WwTW capacity enhancements. This programme will assist in determining the location and phasing of future housing provision in the Local Plan Review. Furthermore, the Council, SW and EA will jointly prepare Position Statements for all WWTWs with insufficient headroom capacity at 2025, to ensure that decisions made prior to the adoption of the LPR will reflect the predicted cumulative effect of future development proposals.

 

9.    That the EA provides comprehensive, current data on the flood risks to the coastal and harbour areas by way of a Position Statement for the District, to support planning officers and developers working within this District.

 

10.That this Council requests the Secretary of State to now re-validate the policies on house numbers in the existing 2015-2029 Local Plan, given the new evidence on transport option costs and the absence of adequate wastewater treatment capacity now shown to have caused a serious deterioration to Chichester Harbour (resulting in a unprecedented £90million fine for Southern Water).

 

This relates to the Inspectors Report by Sue Turner 18th May of 2015, which requested the following modification to: Include a commitment to an early review of the Plan (5 years) in recognition of the limitations of the transport study and to enable full and detailed consideration of the potential offered through the proposed government funding for upgrading of the A27. We now have confirmation that the current Local Plan Review cannot rely upon government funding for upgrading the A27.

 

Cllr Lintill then proposed that all recommendations on the report remain the same except two minor recommendations to add ‘from the date of adoption’ to recommendation 2.4 and to add the words in recommendation 2.5 ‘likely to be’ after the word is and before the word unable. This was seconded by Cllr Sutton. The Chair confirmed that these would be classed as minor amendments and therefore would be allowed.

 

Cllr Tim Johnson then proposed a minor amendment to recommendation 2.2 by inserting in brackets after ‘to accommodate development’ (demonstrating that prioritising brownfield sites and the re-designation of unused commercial land is our priority). This was seconded by Cllr Donna Johnson.

 

Cllr Sharp then proposed the following amendment if the amendments put forward by Cllr Moss were to not be carried. The amendment would read ‘that housing, sewage and transport developments are phased in a staged approach’. Cllr Sharp also put forward some minor amendments. Recommendation 2.2 and 2.5 to change the word ‘needs’ to ‘quota’ and add ‘improvements to alterations for the A27’ and recommendation 2.4 to add the words ‘measures to reduce the need to travel’.  All amendments were seconded by Cllr Barrie.

 

The Chair then invited Cllr Moss to speak on his amendment motion. Cllr Moss confirmed he was happy to include Cllr Sharp’s minor amendment to recommendation 2.4 to add the words ‘measures to reduce the need to travel’. Cllr Moss then outlined his amendment motion.

 

Cllr Moss then called for the Cabinet Member for Planning to step down from her role.

 

Cllr Lintill was then invited to respond. With regard to the call for the Cabinet Member for Planning to move on Cllr Lintill clarified that it is the Leader’s decision as to who the Cabinet Member is. With regard to the amendment motion Cllr Lintill outlined the reasons why she could not support the amendments.

 

Mrs Shepherd was then invited to outline advice fromThe Planning Inspectorate (PINS).

 

Mr Ayling was invited to speak. He wished to advise members that by not including the words ‘likely to not meet housing needs’ in recommendation 2.2 it will not demonstrate to PINS that we have done all that we can ato try and met housing needs. Mrs Shepherd clarified that to come to the conclusion that the housing need cannot be met without investigating all options would not provide evidence for the PINS. Cllr Moss confirmed that he would leave ‘likely to be’ in recommendation 2.2 and withdraw his proposed amendment on that point.

 

Cllr Taylor was then invited to speak. She explained the steps she had taken in working on the Local Plan as Cabinet Member for Planning. This included the challenges faced and the ongoing work.

 

The Chair then opened up for debate.

 

Cllr Plowman wished to comment on amendment 2.10. He wished the Leader to go back to the Secretary of State. Cllr Lintill confirmed that she had gone back to the Secretary of State.

 

Cllr Sharp wished to comment on the concerns and worries of residents.

 

Cllr Oakley commented on focussing on enabling officers to progress Highways work within the constraints. Cllr Taylor responded to Cllr Oakley’s question on funding for the current Local Plan mitigation. Mr Ayling added that £12.8 million mitigation costs package was from five years ago. To date £14 million has been collected to date. He clarified that it would not be enough to carry out all of the mitigation measures.

 

Cllr Apel wished to comment on Southern Water and contamination of Chichester Harbour. Cllr Taylor explained that sewage discharge into the contributed approximately 10% to contamination the main source was  from farmland.

 

Cllr Brown commented on the need to move forward with the Local Plan by putting pressure on the agencies that have yet to provide the information the council requires. He also wished to question the level of support given by the MP for the local area in relation to supporting progress with the Local Plan.

 

Cllr Briscoe raised concerns that adding additional amendments could cause further delays to the Local Plan.

 

Cllr O’Kelly wished to draw attention to the need for school places and doctors surgeries. She asked that the reason for the A27 delay be addressed. Mrs Shepherd reminded members that the discussion should relate to the infrastructure attached to the Local Plan.

 

The Chair used her discretion to move on to the next speaker.

 

Cllr Plant wished it to go on record that she did not agree with the Cllr Brown’s comments regarding the local MP. Mr Bennett reminded members of the Code of Conduct and speaking of others who are not present and able to respond to comments made.

 

Cllr Purnell raised concerns that the amendments put forward are less clear than the original recommendations.

 

Cllr Brisbane requested more detail on sewer water capacity re: amended recommendation 2.8.

 

Cllr Evans read a statement on behalf of a number of northern parishes he represents. The statement outlined concerns relating to percentage growth rate, infrastructure provision and provision of foul water drainage. Cllr Taylor responded by explaining that when different areas of the district are considered the provisions will form part of the consideration.

 

Cllr Hobbs commented on the need for a simple, impactful and clear message from the resolution made.

 

Cllr Donna Johnson raised concerns about lack of support for the Local Plan, flooding and the delays caused by the A27.

 

Cllr Potter commented on Southern Water waste water capacity and raised concerns that there would not be capacity to support any further development.

 

The Chair called a 10 minute break.

 

Cllr Tim Johnson outlined his minor amendment. He explained that he felt it would help accommodate redevelopment such as creation of more affordable rent housing.

 

Cllr Rodgers raised concerns that Chidham and Hambrook had not been considered. Cllr Taylor explained that many of the issues raised are applicable for other areas.

 

In summing up Cllr Lintill agreed to include Cllr Tim Johnson’s amendment within her proposed amendments. Cllr Tim Johnson agreed to the approach.

 

In summing up Cllr Moss agreed to maintain recommendation 2.2 and also agreed the inclusion of Cllr Tim Johnson’s minor amendment.

 

In summing up Cllr Sharp explained her amendments sought to include neutral words.

 

Mr Ward asked Cllr Moss whether he accepted Cllr Sharp’s amendments to his amendments. Cllr Moss confirmed he would accept the amendment to his amendment to recommendation 2.4 only.

 

Cllr Tim Johnson confirmed his amendment could be included within Cllr Lintill’s amendment.

 

In summing up Cllr Taylor reminded members of the duty to have a Local Plan. She directed members to the PINs report, page 96 regarding the districts housing need being met. In that before reaching a conclusion that housing needs cannot be met, the Council  needs to determine:

 

• what level of housing could be achieved based on the required

improvements to the A27 without undermining viability, and thus

deliverability;

 

• whether the housing needs could be met in another way, which

includes taking a step back and reassessing the spatial strategy and

distribution of development in other parts of the district; and

 

• if not, then whether housing needs could be met elsewhere through

constructive, active and on-going engagement as part of the Duty

to Cooperate.

 

As requested a recorded vote was carried out.

 

Mr Bennett confirmed that Cllr Fowler had joined after the meeting and would need to decide whether she had heard the full debate. Cllr Lishman would be voting via the chat function due to technical issues. Cllr Fowler confirmed that she had watched the webcast from the start.

 

Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.1 and 2.2 which incorporated the amendment put forward by Cllr Timothy Johnson for clarity was as follows:

 

2.1      That in the absence of significant external strategic infrastructure funding, the full scheme of improvements for the A27 Chichester Bypass prepared by Stantec consultants to support the Local Plan review including the proposed Stockbridge Link Road is undeliverable. Therefore the full package (and the Stockbridge Link Road) will not be progressed further as part of the Local Plan process barring a significant change in the availability and likelihood of securing public sector funding support.

2.2 That on the basis of recommendation 2.1 above, the Local Plan  Review is likely to be unable to meet full housing needs and the Plan strategy should therefore focus on delivering as much development as possible based upon the capacity of the plan area to accommodate development demonstrating that prioritising brownfield sites and the re-designation of unused commercial land is our prioritywithin an affordable and deliverable package of transport mitigation taking into account all sources of available funding.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.1 and 2.2 which incorporated the amendment put forward by Cllr Timothy Johnson was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – For

Cllr Barrie – Abstain

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – For

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – For

Cllr Duncton – For  

Cllr Elliott – For

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – For

Cllr Hobbs – For

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – For

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – For

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – For

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – For

Cllr Plant – For

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – For

Cllr Purnell – For

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – Abstain

Cllr Sutton – For

Cllr Taylor – For

Cllr Wilding – For

 

The result of the vote was 32 For, 2 Abstain and 2 Absent. The motion was carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.3 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against, the Chairman used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.4 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill - Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.5 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.6 which incorporated the motion put forward by Cllr Eileen Lintill was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel - For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – For

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden - For

Cllr Briscoe – For

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – For

Cllr Duncton – For   

Cllr Elliott – For

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent 

Cllr Hamilton – For

Cllr Hobbs – For

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – For

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – For

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – For

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – For

Cllr Plant – For

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – For

Cllr Purnell – For

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – Abstain

Cllr Sutton – For

Cllr Taylor – For

Cllr Wilding – For

 

The result of the vote was 33 For, 1 Abstain and 2 Absent. The Motion was carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.7 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.8 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.9 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For 

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent 

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent 

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.10 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel - For

Cllr Bangert – For

Cllr Barrett – Against

Cllr Barrie – For

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – Against

Cllr Brown – For

Cllr Dignum – Against

Cllr Duncton – Against

Cllr Elliott – Against

Cllr Evans – For

Cllr Fowler – For

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – Against

Cllr Hobbs – Against

Cllr Brisbane – For

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – Against

Cllr Lishman – For

Cllr McAra – Against

Cllr Moss – For

Cllr Oakley – Against

Cllr O’Kelly – For

Cllr Page – Absent 

Cllr Palmer – Against

Cllr Plant – Against

Cllr Plowman – For

Cllr Potter – Against

Cllr Purnell – Against

Cllr Rodgers – For

Cllr Sharp – For

Cllr Sutton – Against

Cllr Taylor – Against

Cllr Wilding – Against

 

The result of the vote was 17 For and 17 Against. The Chair used their casting vote to vote against the recommendation. The Motion was not carried.

 

A recorded vote for the report recommendations 2.3 and 2.4 was as follows:

 

The vote for Cllr Moss’s amendment on 2.9 was as follows:

 

Cllr Apel – Abstain

Cllr Bangert – Abstain

Cllr Barrett – For

Cllr Barrie – Abstain

Cllr Bell – For

Cllr Bowden – For

Cllr Briscoe – For

Cllr Brown – Abstain

Cllr Dignum – For

Cllr Duncton – For

Cllr Elliott – For

Cllr Evans – Abstain

Cllr Fowler – Abstain

Cllr Graves – Absent

Cllr Hamilton – For

Cllr Hobbs – For

Cllr Brisbane – Against

Cllr Donna Johnson – For

Cllr Timothy Johnson – For

Cllr Lintill – For

Cllr Lishman – Abstain

Cllr McAra – For

Cllr Moss – Abstain

Cllr Oakley – For

Cllr O’Kelly – Abstain

Cllr Page – Absent

Cllr Palmer – For

Cllr Plant – For

Cllr Plowman – Abstain

Cllr Potter – For

Cllr Purnell – For

Cllr Rodgers – Abstain

Cllr Sharp – Against

Cllr Sutton – For

Cllr Taylor – For

Cllr Wilding – For

 

The result of the vote was 21 For, 1 Against and 12 Abstain. The Motion was carried.

 

RESOLVED

 

1.    That in the absence of significant external strategic infrastructure funding, the full scheme of improvements for the A27 Chichester Bypass prepared by Stantec consultants to support the Local Plan review including the proposed Stockbridge Link Road is undeliverable. Therefore the full package (and the Stockbridge Link Road) will not be progressed further as part of the Local Plan process barring a significant change in the availability and likelihood of securing public sector funding support.

 

2.    That on the basis of recommendation 2.1 above, the Local Plan Review is likely to be unable to meet full housing needs and the Plan strategy should therefore focus on delivering as much development as possible based upon the capacity of the plan area to accommodate development (demonstrating that prioritising brownfield sites and the re-designation of unused commercial land is our priority)within an affordable and deliverable package of transport mitigation taking into account all sources of available funding.

 

3.    That discussions are held with the highway authorities seeking to agree a basis for delivering growth in the Chichester Plan Area until any decision is confirmed regarding a national road scheme for the A27 Chichester Bypass, to inform (along with waste water and other constraints) a revised distribution of development for further testing.

 

4.    That the Council undertakes to review the Local Plan within 5 years from date of adoption, or earlier if a national scheme of improvements for the A27 Chichester Bypass is agreed by government via the Roads Investment Strategy 3 (RIS).

 

5.    That the Council’s position in respect of the Duty to Cooperate with other local authorities is updated to reflect that the Council is likely to be unable to meet the full housing needs of the Chichester plan area.

 

*Cllr Page left the meeting at 10.15.

*Cllr Fowler joined the meeting at 11.15.