[Note This item is allocated a maximum duration of 40 minutes]
Minutes:
Mrs Graves invited members to indicate if they wished to ask questions of the Cabinet members and the names of those so desiring were noted. She reminded members that a maximum of 40 minutes was allocated for this item.
The questions asked and the responses given were as follows:
Question by Mrs Apel: The Short Agenda for this Council Meeting
Mrs Apel expressed her surprise at the short length of the agenda for this meeting with only one recommendation from the Cabinet and the fact that it had made the final decision on all of the other matters listed on the agenda for its meeting on Tuesday 5 September 2017.
Response by Mr Dignum and Mrs Shepherd
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) said that this merely reflected that there was only one item of business at the Cabinet’s meeting earlier in the month which required the approval of the Council, the remaining matters falling within the Cabinet’s jurisdiction as key or other decisions for executive determination. It should be remembered that with the August hiatus there was only one Cabinet meeting leading into this Council meeting. Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) pointed out that the respective decision-making functions were set out in CDC’s Constitution and that most decisions were in fact made by officers under delegated powers or the Cabinet. It was open to members to challenge a Cabinet decision by invoking the call-in procedure set out in the Constitution. The number of recommendations made to a Council meeting varied and on this occasion there happened to be only one.
Question by Mr Shaxson: Air Pollution in North Street and Rumbolds Hill Midhurst
Mr Shaxson referred to a question he had asked of Mr Barrow (who was then responsible for the environment portfolio) at the Annual Council meeting in May 2015 with regard to air pollution in Rumbolds Hill Midhurst. These concerns had been raised by other members since then including at the Annual Council meeting in May 2017. Air quality monitoring had revealed serious pollution issues. Further investigation was required before an air quality management area (AQMA), which in his view patently was needed, could be declared. He referred to the considerable concern in the town about the number of lorries travelling to and from the Pendean Sand Quarry. CDC could and should submit comments about this issue to the South Downs National Park Authority and he requested CDC to take appropriate action to address this pollution problem.
Response by Mr Connor
Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) said that he was aware of the situation and he had liaised with Mr S Ballard (Senior Environmental Protection Officer) recently and he would make available his advice to members and the press. There was not a great deal that CDC could do and it was unable to control or influence lorry movements.
[Note Here is the text of an e-mail from CDC’s Environment Services to Mr Connor sent shortly after the end of this meeting with respect to whether Midhurst could be declared an AQMA and whether it could be a priority for CDC’s Air Quality Working Group:
‘AQ Monitoring is undertaken by CDC at a site on Rumbold’s Hill, Midhurst - this site measures NO2 from all vehicles using Rumbold’s Hill, not just quarry traffic. The only part of Midhurst where CDC has evidence of non-compliant air quality is Rumbold’s Hill. Previous monitoring on Midhurst High Street suggested that it was very comfortably compliant with the UK Objective. As such, and subject to a more full consideration (to possibly include computerised air quality modelling), Rumbold’s Hill could be declared an AQMA. This can be a priority for discussion at the Air Quality Working Group on 29 September 2017 and was on the agenda. Any decision to declare an AQMA is supported with the appropriate evidence base including modelling, which would require further funding and therefore a report to the Cabinet to request this. It is a Full Council consideration to determine an AQMA after a report supported by the Cabinet. With any strategic piece of work, there are contributing factors to consider such as understanding the new Local Plan housing numbers. This matter was subsequently discussed at the Air Quality Working Group. Mr Ballard and Mr S Morley (one of the two CDC ward members for Midhurst) would also meet to discuss this further and to agree a briefing note. Mr Ballard was able to provide further information.’]
Question by Mrs Westacott: Noise Levels on the A27
Mrs Westacott raised the issue of future traffic noise levels in the event of further improvements works being carried out to the A27 Chichester bypass. It was her understanding that CDC did not routinely measure or map noise in the area and that when the A27 was previously improved the modelling produced figures which were out of date by ten years very shortly after the road opened. She wished to know if (a) CDC intended to participate in the provision of noise information and, if so, whether it would disclose that data and (b) if CDC did not intend to do so and it was done instead by Highways England (HE), whether HE’s data would be made available to the public in view of the important concerns about future noise levels which would inevitably give rise to complaints.
Response by Mr Connor
Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) undertook to make enquiries and provide a written reply.
[Note Here is the text of the written answer supplied by Mr Connor to Mrs Westacott and all CDC members on 3 October 2017:
‘Dear Cllr Westacott,
I am responding to your enquiry at Council on 19th September about traffic noise on the A27.
Following an EC Directive, the Environmental Noise (England) Regulations 2006 require the Government to map noise from major road, rail and urban sources, and devise plans to minimise the noise. DEFRA, through the Highways Agency (now Highways England) consulted with local authorities to produce maps showing areas of major noise, and CDC took part in this work in 2012. The main outcome was that LNRS (Low Noise Road Surface) would be installed at the next major road resurfacing scheme. The 2006 Legislation requires the information to be publicly available; to that end an inter-active map showing the “Important Areas” (IAs) is available at http://www.noiseactionplan.co.uk
Our Environmental Health Officers are consulted on all planning applications which may have noise implications; and that, of course, includes matters involving the Local Plan. EHOs will advise on suitable mitigation measures that should be taken in this respect.
CDC does not respond to complaints about traffic noise on the A27 or any other road, as traffic noise is specifically excluded by legislation from the list of matters which could be considered a statutory noise nuisance. Aircraft noise is similarly excluded. What few enquiries CDC receives about noise from traffic tends to be about specific vehicles with faulty exhausts, or where drivers are exhibiting anti-social driving behaviour. These complaints are directed to the Sussex Police “Operation Crackdown” website.
Yours sincerely
Cllr. John Connor
Cabinet Member for Environment Services’]
Question by Mr Oakley: Threat to the Chichester Local Plan by Government Housing Target
Mr Oakley referred to a recent planning appeal decision to allow the building of 100 houses at Shopwyke. The inspector had discounted quite a large part of CDC’s five-year housing land supply on the basis that many of the sites were not coming forward, although these were for legal/land ownership reasons over which CDC had no control. On Thursday 14 September 2017 the government had announced proposals to boost housing supply numbers, in the case of Chichester District 609 houses/dwellings per annum. In view of the appeal decision (permitting development outside the management of the Chichester Local Plan) and the projected higher housing target (which level had not previously been achieved in the area), he asked if there was now a significant threat to the Chichester Local Plan and the delivery of CDC’s strategic sites.
Response by Mrs Shepherd
Mrs Shepherd (Chief Executive) commented that officers would consider carefully the implications of the government consultation. CDC could not control when developers implemented planning permissions and 609 houses per annum was a high one compared with the figure in the Chichester Local Plan and what had been built previously. Local planning authorities were expected to make sites deliverable notwithstanding the targets being hard to achieve.
Question by Mr Brown: A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement Works Scheme Option 2
Mr Brown asked the Leader of the Council if, in view of the forthcoming special Council meeting on the A27 Chichester bypass improvement works scheme, members could expect any indication whether there might be modifications to the online option 2.
Response by Mr Dignum
Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) advised that the agenda papers for the special meeting of the Council would be published by the end of the afternoon and he preferred to defer any response to such a question until that special meeting, by which time members would have been able to read the papers.
[Note End of questions to the executive]