Questions submitted by members of the public in writing by noon on the previous working day (for a period up to 15 minutes).
Minutes:
Four questions about the improvement of the A27 were asked by Ms Heather McDougall, Ms Linda Boize, Ms Zoe Neal and Ms Emma Horton and answered by Mrs Susan Taylor (Cabinet Member for Housing & Planning) as follows:-
Question from Ms Heather McDougall:
Throughout this consultation, I have tried to read as much of the publicly available information as possible; I have attended the public exhibitions, where Highways England confirmed to me that Option 2 would drive more traffic into Chichester; I have emailed Highways England for more facts to help me understand, but this has yet to be answered; I have attended other Council meetings, where the options have been referred to as a bad bunch that won’t solve the problem; I have heard the overwhelming views of Donnington residents about the detrimental impact Option 2 will have, and as a Donnington resident myself, I find myself analysing all these facts and wondering if saving an average 5 minutes and 40 seconds really is worth all the pain to the residents, to the environment , to our local roads? Therefore my question to you is, can you clearly articulate the benefit to local communities that Option 2 will provide and can you, in weighing up the costs and benefits, truly support this as being a good option for the people of Chichester?
Answer:
The broad arguments which are considered to justify the Council giving qualified support to Option 2 are set out in the Cabinet report, and summarised at Paragraphs 5.27 – 5.28 of the report. Based on the information available, Option 2 is considered to offer the greatest long term benefits for the Chichester area. This option performs best in terms of travel and accessibility, providing the greatest reductions in journey times, the greatest improvements in journey time reliability and the best performance in reducing accidents. These benefits would occur not only along the A27 itself, but also to/from Chichester city, whilst the Stockbridge Link Road offers potential journey improvements to/from the Manhood Peninsula. Therefore, it is considered that Option 2 (or an amended version of it) offers the greatest potential to support economic growth and future development to meet the area’s needs.
It is accepted that Option 2, as currently proposed, would have some detrimental impacts (as would any option). The report and the proposed Council response to HE in Appendix 3 make clear that further assessment will be needed through additional studies and design work to avoid or mitigate the potentially significant impacts on the landscape, natural and historic environment, and the loss of land and property. However, it also needs to be emphasised that the A27 Bypass and the existing issues of traffic congestion and safety already cause substantial detrimental impacts for local residents and the environment and that these effects will only continue to worsen unless a scheme for significant improvements is brought forward.
Question from Ms Linda Boize:
'Do you think it acceptable to support Option 2 which focuses on cars and lorries when the impact on south Chichester people will be so damaging in loss of houses and trade, loss of connectivity including cyclist, pedestrian and electric buggy connectivity, loss of local green spaces, over 3 years of construction noise, reduced access and increased pollution especially of particulates, flyovers making a concrete ugly scar and to only ask for serious consideration to the seven mitigation points listed in red in the Agenda Supplement, when at the very least implementing these mitigation points is what is needed. And do you think it is acceptable to ignore the widespread call for reopening the case for a northern alternative.'
Answer:
There are two points raised in this question. In response to the first point about the disruption and potential adverse impacts resulting from Option 2, it should be emphasised that the proposed response to Highways England (which Council is being asked to endorse) does not only include the Cabinet report recommendations themselves, but also the very detailed comments in Appendix 3 of the report which set out a range of additional work which Council officers consider that HE should undertake to develop a better A27 scheme to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts.
With regard to a northern bypass route, the proposed Council response seeks to respond specifically to the options proposed in the current Highways England consultation. As indicated in Paragraphs 6.5 – 6.6 of the Cabinet report, it is not considered appropriate for the Council to seek to assess options that do not form part of the current consultation, and it is clear that the Department for Transport and Highways England are now only looking to bring forward an online scheme. In any case, it is not clear that alternative offline options would perform better than Option 2 in terms of benefits weighed against environmental costs.
Question from Ms Zoe Neal, represented by Mr Christopher Hunt:
With reference the
Officer’s report and the last minute amendments 2.1 points C
& D. What certainty do the District Council’s Officers
have that Highways England will deliver these uncosted amendments,
untested against Highways feasibility criteria? Especially
given that you would have already made it clear to Highways that
you prefer Option 2. Would it not be better to negotiate for better
conditions prior to settling on an option
first?
Answer:
The Council’s role is that of a consultee responding to the current Highways England public consultation on A27 options. The points in recommendation c) to Council, and detailed comments in Appendix 3, constitute the proposed Council’s response to Highways England, which sets out additional work which it is considered should be undertaken to develop a better A27 scheme, and to avoid or mitigate potential adverse impacts. However, it will be for Highways England to decide how to respond to these comments, and to comments made by other consultees. The Council is not in a position to “negotiate” with Highways England, although it is hoped that its views will carry significant weight in representing the local community.
The recommendation to Council is to give qualified support to Option 2, for the reasons set out in the Cabinet report (summarised in paragraphs 5.27 – 5.28), which indicate that this option appears to offer the greatest long term benefits to the Chichester area in terms of improving travel and accessibility, thereby supporting economic growth and future development to meet the area’s needs. However, the report makes clear that these advantages will need to be balanced against the potentially significant impacts on the landscape, natural and historic environment, and the loss of land and property and that further assessment will be needed through additional studies and design work by Highways England in developing a preferred scheme.
Questions from Ms Emma Horton:
1. Given that the Stockbridge roundabout area has been designated as an ‘Air Quality Management Area’ or AQMA since 2006, on account of the levels of nitrogen dioxide exceeding UK limits, how can you justify any of the options proposed by Highways England, when they will cause, according to HE, a ‘deterioration in air quality around the Stockbridge AQMA’?
Answer:
The methodology for assessing air quality impacts applied by Highways England considers the net effects of all positive and negative effects within and around Chichester city. In terms of overall impact on air quality, Option 2 shows the greatest potential benefit of the options tested, although with some potential negative effects in the immediate vicinity of the Stockbridge junction. However, Highways England has not as yet carried out detailed design work of any of the possible option schemes. Once a preferred option is selected, then this will inform a detailed air quality modelling exercise. In the detailed response to Highways England included in Appendix 3 of the Cabinet report, Council officers have highlighted additional work that should be undertaken by Highways England at the scheme design stage. The Council will comment on the detailed air quality modelling work when it is made available.
2. There is no mention in the Highways England’s proposals booklet of the effects and consequences of building a flyover at the Stockbridge roundabout (option 2) on air quality and travel disruption, other than it may take up to 4 years. Do councillors agree that there will be traffic chaos along the A27 for years, causing untold misery for thousands of people on a daily basis, if one of these options are chosen?
Answer:
All proposals to improve the A27 will create issues of travel disruption to a greater or lesser degree during the construction phase. Although Option 2 would require a substantial period for construction, it would provide greater long term benefit compared to the other options, which would therefore reduce the need for further improvements works in the future.
Although the consultation brochure itself provides limited information, a more detailed assessment of the potential impacts during construction is provided in Environment Study Report which has been published on Highways England’s consultation website. Highways England has indicated that it will seek to minimise the disruption created during construction by phasing the proposed highways works and that it will produce a detailed Construction Environmental Management Plan. The Council will expect to have the opportunity to comment on this when it is produced before the start of construction work.