Agenda item

(See report at agenda item 4 (pages 1 to 64) of the Cabinet papers of 20 September 2016)

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

1)          That the overall conclusions of this report set out in paragraphs 5.27 to 5.29, providing qualified support for Option 2, based on the information published by Highways England at this stage, be agreed; and

2)          That the comments set out in Appendix 3 for submission as Chichester District Council’s formal response to the Highways England consultation on options for the A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement scheme, be approved.

Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council), seconded by Mr Finch, moved these recommendations from the Cabinet.

He advised that in July this year Highways England (HE) published its long awaited consultation document on the proposed A27 Chichester Bypass improvement scheme.  The consultation period was for a ten week period from 14 July until 22 September 2016 and contained five online options. Officers had analysed the proposals in detail having regard to the Council’s corporate priorities, assessing the potential benefits and disadvantages of each of the options. They had concluded that Option 2, based on the evidence provided to date, appeared to offer the best outcome in terms of reduced journey times both for east-west through traffic as well as for local traffic, particularly to and from the Manhood Peninsula,  together with the greatest improvement in journey time reliability and reduction in accidents.  However, support for Option 2 was qualified and it was recommended that HE were asked to consider a number of further measures at recommendation 3.

Only the five options that are the subject of the public consultation had been considered as these were the only options being proposed by HE. The Council was asked to support these recommendations for submission as the Council’s formal response to HE.

We should recognise that whichever option was ultimately selected would have disadvantages as well as benefits and would not please everyone. But it was essential that the current levels of congestion on the A27, with the resultant adverse effects on journey times and reliability, which in turn impedes development and quality of life, does not continue. It was important therefore that the opportunity was taken to comment on the available proposals in a constructive manner to ensure that improvements to the A27 could be progressed.

Mrs Apel made a statement on behalf of the Fishbourne residents, who were not represented at this meeting, stating that Option 2 would destroy the AONB and the economy. The construction would take time and damage communities. The residents recommended that all options be ruled out and that true transparency was provided by HE in explaining why the northern route was discounted.

Mr Barrow was inclined to support officers’ recommendations as Option 2 provided the best way forward for Chichester in getting traffic through and on and off the Manhood Peninsula smoothly, however he had grave concerns regarding the southern link road damaging communities, the environment and historic buildings. He claimed that the Southern Link Road would not be sustainable and could, in future, become a dual carriageway.  HE had not done a particularly good job as the two northern options had got into the public domain which had raised false hope for residents of the Manhood Peninsula. He was taken aback by the massive support in the south for a northern option and suggested that HE be encouraged to look at this again and to explain the reasons why the northern routes had been rejected.

Mr Ridd commented on the huge turnout of local residents, including the views received from many in the Donnington and Appledram area. He was minded to reject Option 2 on the grounds that the overpass did not provide access to and from the A27 and required longer and more circuitous journeys, which would be compounded with further turnings from feeder routes onto the A27. He suspected that it would encourage traffic to end up in Fishbourne and then to take rat runs through the city. The ramp, which would start near shops, would have a devastating effect on residents, including the demolition of the Grade 2 Stockbridge House. The pollution as a result of this new bypass would blight the lives of residents living near it.

Mr Jarvis, Mr Barrett, Mr Connor and Mr Shaxson were also not in support of Option 2 and suggested either a ‘no option’ response, alternative options or a re-examination of the northern routes. Mr Jarvis concurred stating that the bypass separated the through traffic from the local traffic, building a damn around the city and cutting the city off from the peninsula. Mr Barrett was concerned that the contribution the economy made to the district would be severely disrupted during the construction process if Option 2 were to go ahead.

Mrs Tull stated that the methodology and data used by the HE appeared to be flawed and therefore the consultation was ultimately flawed. No meetings had been held by the HE with Donnington, Stockbridge, North Mundham and the other affected villages. There was no acknowledgement of the peak summer traffic or of Goodwood event traffic and the gridlock which normally occured on the A27 and surrounding feeder roads which could be solved by access from the north. Option 2 encroached on the Harbour and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) trapping 25,000 residents on the peninsula. Consideration of the present population should take preference over any housing which was not yet built. She stated that Option 2 should be ruled out. Mrs Tull moved that a recorded vote be taken, which was supported by more than four members. On a vote being taken, it was declared carried.

Mr Connor, representing Selsey, had met with HE and consultants in 2014 to discuss the A27 improvements and at that time had suggested a grade separated route on the existing lines which would resolve the overcapacity issues. This had been turned down as the route did not have enough space at each junction to create the access slip roads. As through traffic only accounted for 20% of the total it was considered too costly. Since then the through traffic figures had been adjusted to 42% of all users. The A27 route was currently operating at about 50% over design capacity. He proposed an alternative option which offered a lower cost, lower environmental impact northern route with a two way single carriageway northern bypass  for through traffic with grade separated roundabouts at Lavant and at Goodwood and built to the same standard as the Bognor relief road.

Mr Oakley questioned the aim of spending thousands of taxpayers money on a bypass which would need to be reviewed in 2035. None of the options include the significant upgrade of Portfield roundabout which would become a bottleneck with the increase in housing in Chichester and Arun. HE’s ambition to remove the Oving lights would exacerbate the problem. The uncosted shopping list of additional recommendations would push this project above the funding costs. However cheaper options could be suggested by saying to Government that the northern options needed to be looked at in full. The northern options also came with environmental impacts however the bypass could run on the edge of Goodwood and be buried in the landscape. It was evident that Goodwood Estate's case was built on sentiment that would not merit the status of material considerations in planning applications. The northern options represented a long term solution for the district, county and regions road transport networks.

Mr Hall, in response to the request for reconsideration of the northern bypass, commented that this option had been removed by the Secretary of State on a number of sound policy reasons, namely Section 85 of the Countryside Act 2000 - Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Beauty in AONBs. The proposed northern routes would run from the existing A27 new interchange just west of Boxgrove to Lavant, creating noise and light pollution along the entire length of the South Downs National Park’s southern boundary. The compensation to the Goodwood Estate with the loss of its motor sport events, had been estimated to be in excess of £30m because the proposed route ran through their car park. This would have been far greater than the building of the road, therefore exceeding the budget that HE had for upgrading the A27. He called upon the Council to protect its own policies and to protect its own AONBs and the thriving rural economy in the district. Mr Hall supported Option 2.

Mr Budge advised that the area was suffering due to the lack of progress on a bypass at the last consultation in 2003 and supported Option 2. He was concerned that in following the northern route the Council may not then be able to build the houses which had been committed for development.

Mr Dunn stated that the Council was one of many consultees to this proposal; part of a hierarchy of consultees. He was concerned that if an option was not supported fully at this time that the proposal would be put to the back of the queue and that other road schemes would come forward and take precedence as had happened in the past. He supported Option 2 and approved the comments set out in point 3, however he proposed an additional recommendation that the Council request the Secretary of State to explain in more detail the reasons for the rejection of the northern route.

Mr Hobbs, Mr Barrow and Mr Plowman supported Mr Dunn stating that the Council needed to understand why the northern routes had been dismissed.

Mr Oakley proposed that this Council’s response to the consultation be as follows:

1.     Takes the form of a commentary on the proposed options, enhancing concerns and highlighting risks.

2.     Does not implicitly or formally support any of them.

3.     Recommends a re-examination of the northern options given the magnitude of their additional benefits and the need to provide high quality road transport connectivity to support growth for all over the long term, hence fully meeting all strategic objectives. 

4.  Given the short timescale for response, retain Cabinet recommendation D, so that amendments commensurate with the above can be made in time.

Mr Cullen seconded Mr Oakley’s proposal, which was also supported by Mr Connor.

The Chairman turned to Mr Oakley’s motion. The result of the recorded vote was as follows:

For the recommendations: Mrs Apel, Mr Barrett, Mr Connor, Mr Cullen, Mr J W E Elliott, Mr Galloway, Mrs Hamilton, Mr Jarvis, Mr Macey, Mr Morley, Mr Oakley, Mr Ridd, Mr Shaxson and Mrs Tull (14)

Against the recommendations: Mr Barrow, Mr Budge, Mr Dempster, Mrs Dignum, Mr Dignum, Mrs Duncton, Mr Dunn, Mr Finch, Mrs Graves, Mr Hall, Mrs Hardwick, Mr Hayes, Mr Hicks, Mr Hixson, Mr Hobbs, Mrs Keegan, Mr Lloyd-Williams, Mr McAra, Ms Neville, Ms Plant, Mr Plowman, Mrs Purnell, Mr Ransley, Mrs Tassell, Mrs Taylor and Mr Wakeham (26)

Abstained: None

The motion was declared not carried.

Mr Ransley then moved, duly seconded that Option 2 be supported with an additional recommendation: That for the purpose of transparency and community cohesion the Secretary of State provides this Council with the justification for discounting the previously prepared two offline routes to the north of the city.

The Chairman then asked the Council to consider the Cabinet’s recommendations with the addition of the further recommendation from Mr Ransley. The result of the recorded vote was:

For the recommendations: Mr Barrow, Mr Budge, Mr Dempster, Mrs Dignum, Mr Dignum, Mrs Duncton, Mr Dunn, Mr Finch, Mrs Graves, Mr Hall, Mrs Hardwick, Mr Hayes, Mr Hicks, Mr Hixson, Mr Hobbs, Mrs Keegan, Mr Lloyd-Williams, Mr McAra, Ms Plant, Mr Plowman, Mrs Purnell, Mr Rnasley, Mrs Tassell, Mrs Taylor and Mr Wakeham (25)

Against the recommendations: Mrs Apel, Mr Barrett, Mr Cullen, Mr Elliott, Mr Galloway, Mrs Hamilton, Mr Jarvis, Mr Macey, Mr Morley, Ms Neville, Mr Oakley, Mr Ridd, Mr Shaxson and Mrs Tull (14)

Abstained: Mr Connor (1)

RESOLVED

1)          That the overall conclusions of this report set out in Paragraphs 5.27 – 5.29, providing qualified support for Option 2 and based on the information published by Highways England at this stage, be agreed.

2)          That the comments set out in Appendix 3 (including the Annex) for submission as the Council’s formal response to the Highways England consultation on options for the A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement scheme be agreed.

3)          That Highways England be advised that the Council is only minded to support Option 2, provided that Highways England gives serious consideration to the following:

a)          Strategic improvements to the Portfield roundabout to increase east-west capacity, possibly including an eastbound flyover for cars and light vans only using the A27;

b)          The provision of good access for traffic going from the B2145 to the east of Chichester without impeding through east-west traffic (possibly by a slip road from the Whyke Road flyover down to the A27 or a right turn from the flyover down to the A27);

c)           The reduction of the length of the Stockbridge Link Road, either to only a section from the A286 to the Fishbourne roundabout or to the two sections from the B2201 via the A286 to the Fishbourne roundabout;

d)          The provision of safe, segregated crossings of the A27 for cyclists and pedestrians at the Bognor Road, Whyke Road, Stockbridge Road and Fishbourne Roundabout junctions;

e)          The installation of noise abatement screens on the flyovers;

f)                  The examination of the scope for lowering the roundabouts and flyovers at the Bognor Road and, especially, Fishbourne junctions to reduce visual impact; and

g)          The use of Highways England’s Designated Fund to finance the mitigation measures listed above.

4)          Delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning Services, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Housing, to make any consequential amendments to Appendix 3.

5)          For purposes of transparency and community cohesion that the Secretary of State be requested to provide this Council with the justification for discounting the previously prepared two offline routes to the north of the city.