Agenda item

The report is at item 7 of the agenda for the Cabinet’s meeting on Monday 19 June 2017 and its appendix is in the agenda supplement.

 

It is anticipated that the following recommendations will be made by the Cabinet earlier in the day to the Council at this special meeting:

 

RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL

 

That the Council approves:

 

(1)  The Draft Southern Gateway Masterplan set out in the appendix to the agenda report for public consultation.

 

(2)  The delegation of authority to the Head of Planning Services following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to make minor amendments to the document prior to public consultation.

The Council considered the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet at its meeting earlier in the day as set out on the face of the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes), the details in respect of which were contained in the report on pages 25 to 29 of the agenda for that meeting and also in the appendix to the report on pages 133 to 212 of the agenda supplement. All CDC members had received a copy of the Cabinet agenda and agenda supplement.  

 

Mr Dignum (the leader of the Council) formally moved the recommendations of the Cabinet and this was seconded by Mrs Lintill (the Deputy Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member for Community Services). 

 

In addition to the relevant CDC officers who were in attendance for this item, Matthew Lappin of David Lock Associates, the town planning and urban design consultants engaged for the Chichester Southern Gateway Draft Masterplan (CSG DM) project (which included preparation of the Strategic Environmental Assessment), and Phil Brady of Peter Brett Associates, the development and infrastructure consultants engaged to produce the transport appraisal for the CSG DM, were present. Mr Lappin would give a PowerPoint presentation following Mr Dignum’s introduction, after which he and Mr Brady would reply to members’ questions.

 

Mr Dignum presented the report about the proposal to hold a public consultation on the CSG DM. He explained the relationship between the draft Chichester Vision process (he read out its theme) and the CSG DM (para 5.3 of the report). The CSG MP was not prescriptive but indicative. The Vision, which supported the enhanced role and function of the city centre as a leading visitor destination with a vibrant and growing economy that was also accessible and attractive, identified three major projects: CSG, the Northern Gateway and the West Street Piazza. The intention was to enhance the Southern Gateway area of the city, which was a key point of arrival, by developing parcels of land to produce a comprehensive mixed use of housing, retail and commercial development, the last of which might include a hotel. The Canal Basin was identified as an important component in the masterplan scheme and that area would be greatly enhanced. Key priorities included (a) reducing the dominance of road traffic and congestion and (b) improving safety in the Southgate Gyratory and design quality (no building to be higher than four storeys). CDC was working closely with its partners West Sussex County Council and the Homes and Community Agency and negotiations were taking place with Stagecoach and Royal Mail to explore the relocation of their operations. This scheme had clear potential for delivery and there was a strong local appetite for the proposed residential and mixed use development. Funding was addressed in section 7 of the report and funding options would include the Local Enterprise Partnership and other government sources.  

 

The slides in Mr Lappin’s aforementioned PowerPoint presentation (a colour copy of which is attached to the official minutes only) covered inter alia the following matters:

 

·       Context for Preparing the Masterplan

·       Project Stages

·       Baseline Review and Statistical Review

·       Opportunities and Constraints – Chichester

·       Southern Gateway Strengths - Chichester

·       Southern Gateway Weaknesses - Chichester

·       Draft Masterplan Objectives and Proposals

·       City Role and Function – Chichester

·       Key Concept Diagram – Chichester

·       Development Opportunities and Public Realm Priorities Composite – Chichester

·       1) The Law Courts and Bus Station

·       Option A and Option B (maps and photographs)

·       2) Basin Road Car Park and Bus Depot

·       3) Royal Mail Sorting Office (photographs)

·       4) Police Station and Land at the High School

·       Public Realm Priorities – Chichester

·       Option A and Option B

·       Level Crossings

·       Artistic impression of the development

·       Delivery Strategy

·       Viability Testing

·       Next Steps

 

During the ensuing debate (full details of which are available via the audio recording on CDC’s web-site) members made comments and asked questions about various matters and received where appropriate answers from Mr Brady, the Leader of the Council or CDC officers, namely Mr Allgrove, Mr Carvell and Mr Over. The subjects included:

 

(a)  The approach adopted to addressing traffic congestion issues in Options A and B Each option had undergone modelling and would have a different level of restraint on the road network; the principal differences between A and B were summarised; the key for the transport appraisal brief was to improve access for those who wished to come to the city and to encourage the use of alternative routes for those who sought to go through the city; the options aimed to remove congestion from key areas, rather than entirely, in order to improve for example pedestrian routes and bus connectivity; if the Southgate gyratory were to be retained the congestion would be relieved by diverting through city traffic onto other roads. 

 

(b)  The maps for Option A and B should use colour to aid comprehension and interpretation during the consultation Noted.  

 

(c)  The city faced the building of a significant number of houses and the opportunity to take full advantage of this by addressing how the city should be developed as a result could be missed if the focus was only on the one small area which was the subject of the CSG MP; there was a need for the CSG MP to be more ambitious than it was currently and should consider transport infrastructure across the city and surrounding area with a view to achieving considerably more The practical challenges and environmental/aesthetical considerations involved in constructing a bridge or tunnel to circumvent the railway line crossings were outlined; waste water capacity would be addressed as part of any proposed development and within the Local Plan Review process; the transport appraisal had a city-wide perspective and took into account the surrounding A27 and growth up to 2035. 

 

(d)  The CSG MP was extremely ambitious and exciting: it was a 30-acre site and far greater in scope than the Northgate Gyratory and West Street Piazza proposals, the nature of each of which was less ambitious and they were currently far from being realised Noted.

 

(e)  The relocation of the bus station was essential to the success of the CSG MP and if not achieved the scheme would surely fail CDC had been in negotiation with Royal Mail and Stagecoach for about 12 months about relocation and it was believed that the needs of each organisation could be successfully accommodated in moving from their current sites; certainly the relocation of the bus station/depot was a challenge which was being actively addressed; the CSG MP contemplated short, medium and long-term opportunities. 

 

(f)    The CSG MP aimed, to quote the Leader of the Council, something major and ambitious but it would not achieve that objective unless a way could be found for traffic etc to traverse with ease the existing railway line The contrary view was that even if the funds were available to afford a bridge or tunnel, the aesthetical/environmental considerations militated against doing so.

 

(g)  The history since 2000 of the unrealised or only partially successful attempts to redevelop this area of the city meant that the opportunity presented by the CSG MP should not be lost but maximised to achieve the many housing and mixed-use benefits the scheme envisaged and the reality of having to live with and plan development around the level crossing gates had to be accepted and embraced positively A determination not to fail was essential to the success of the CSG MP.

 

(h)  The several references to the River Lavant in the CSG MP were very positive and the use of public art could enhance the Canal Basin entrance Chichester City Council was eager to take on responsibility for cleaning up the River Lavant.

 

(i)    The two major constraints which had been serious constraints on development in the city for 40 years were the A27 and the level crossings; the CSG MP was perhaps the last opportunity to be rid of the level crossings (a Victorian solution not fit for purpose today) and if it were not now grasped and exploited the problem would only deteriorate; it was imperative to explore all engineering options to see if a viable solution existed; a further option would be to lower the rail lines and build a new station; such options should be fully investigated before undertaking the consultation; the level crossing gates could be down for significant periods of time, as much even as 40 minutes in an hour-long period Fifteen options (including A and B which were recommended for bringing forward the CSG MP) had been considered with modelling taking into account existing railway signal timings and projected if these were altered eg by introducing bus priority and pedestrian use in Stockbridge Road; full closure of both level crossings had been shown to have a major impact on traffic congestion in and around the rest of the city including the A27; a bridge or tunnel would overcome the traffic queues at the railway line but in consequence traffic would be drawn into the area, whereas one aim of the transport appraisal was to restrain traffic entering the area thereby improving the public realm; in fact the level crossings actually helped to afford some respite for pedestrians and cyclists from vehicular traffic flows; there had been discussions with Network Rail about how the crossings were operated including down times for the gates and since the schemes in the draft CSG MP proposed bus priority and pedestrian routes along Stockbridge Road, this would enable the signal timings to be altered at both crossings and thereby reduce a little the current down-times for the gates; the transport appraisal consultant (an engineering firm itself) had not contacted engineering consultants but was fully aware of the cost and construction issues (logistics, amenity impact) involved in having a bridge (including a pedestrian crossing) or tunnel; the cost benefit analysis favoured the two options in the draft CSG MP; Network Rail had been asked about lowering the rail line and whilst acknowledging that it was a possibility, a considerable amount of land would have to be lowered and the line shut for a long period of time (up to two years – up to about a year for a bridge to be built), the cost of which would be very considerable.

 

(j)    The CSG MP gave rise to two concerns and a practical suggestion: (I) the Vision for Chichester City Centre document referred to attracting new businesses into the centre but this objective could be undermined by the CSG MP proposal for new business units at the CSG site (page 142), (ii) there appeared to be in the CSG MP remarkably little parking provision and the problems were wider than the masterplan area namely the unresolved issues with the A27 and (iii) the Option A and B diagrams on pages 210-211 should be made clearer by the better use of colour,  improved traffic flow explanations and the inclusion of before and after traffic flow diagrams As to: (I) the CSG MP recognised the lack within the city centre of new custom-built retail/business units, which was a constraint on attracting new business to Chichester, hence its commercial proposals for the site; (ii) parking provision varied according to the nature and location of properties, there was a proposal to make better use of currently zoned side streets in the city for parking while keeping the main highway arteries clear of parked vehicles and to extend the geographical reach of controlled parking zones, and the modelling had taken into account what the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) stipulated with regard to highways improvement works; and (iii) officers would be requested to implement those helpful suggestions for improvements.

 

(k)  The obligation to meet the CLP area’s housing requirement and to seek to do so by building as much as possible on brownfield sites meant that it was imperative to proceed expeditiously with the CSG MP notwithstanding many issues which would need to be addressed as the scheme was progressed Noted.                                       

 

Towards the end of the debate Mr Ransley proposed an alternative approach to the Cabinet’s recommendations and details of his motion appear below. He explained his proposal as follows.

 

He said that in common with most members he had had little time to read through the CSG MP published very recently as part of the Cabinet agenda papers or the online transport appraisal or any background detail. He remained of the same opinion as he had expressed at CDC’s Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel on 15 June 2017 when he and other CDC members received a CSG MP PowerPoint presentation, namely that in his view the CSG MP was extremely disappointing and had not been considered in the context of the city-wide area. Whilst the site was the most important one to shape the city centre that would come forward for a decade or more, the driving force behind the production of the CSG MP appeared to be focused on speed of delivery rather than quality, members having insufficient opportunity to consider and debate it. Although he had been advised by Mr Dignum that ‘a resolution of the long standing traffic congestion and delays caused by the level crossings have been a focus of the work’, the CSG MP did not incorporate a proposal for this; option 8 in the transport appraisal achieved that objective but it was not being pursued. The Transport Assessment Options and Modelling summary (page 80) stated that any option that had a material (un-quantified) impact on local or regional network had been set aside resulting in the only options for consideration being those which did not meet the objective or focus of the work. The development capacity being proposed was a potential of 390 to 450 residential units and about 380,000 square feet of mixed commercial/office space and 72,000 square feet of retail space; the commercial space alone was equivalent to seven football pitches. He could not find any reference to the provision of parking for that large new commercial space or what the resultant increase in worker/visitor vehicle trips to that new commercial area in the city would have on the transport modelling or even its potential economic consequence. The CSG MP recognised that this volume of development would also need to demonstrate ‘no net increase in flow’ to the Apuldram waste water treatment works and so the scheme might not be deliverable until either a long-term solution was found for Apuldram or an on-site sewage facility was utilised. This delay could be put to good effect by working further on the CSG MP.

 

In his view, the CSG MP was a quickly assembled proposal which was likely to be financially attractive for speculative developers (the viability appraisals were still being updated and had yet to be reviewed by the steering group) but delivering very little benefit to the residents of Chichester City and potentially reducing rather than improving the existing city-wide quality of place that was currently enjoyed. In his view, as to which he said he was not alone, the correct process would be for the City Vision to be finalised first before the CSG MP consultation draft was in turn completed and he favoured a pause in the CSG MP process and to use that time (a) to improve it by placing it in the wider city context, along with the Northern Gateway and other initiatives which were being planned and (b) to undertake a more meaningful briefing of and consultation with members and others including residents.

 

Accordingly he proposed the following motion:

 

‘The public consultation on the Draft Southern Gateway Master Plan be delayed until after the City Vision has been adopted by the Council and that the Master Plan is expanded to incorporate other significant city-wide scheme proposals such as the Northern Gateway, and that all city-wide beneficial transport options be considered by members for inclusion in the public consultation draft.’

 

Mr Ransley’s motion was seconded by Mr Plowman.

 

Mr Dignum responded by pointing out that the CSG MP had not been rushed but had been developed over many months by CDC, West Sussex County Council and the Homes and Community Agency, with extensive consultations with Network Rail, Royal Mail and Stagecoach. As to sequencing, the final version of the Vision for Chichester City Centre would be presented to the Council at its meeting on 25 July 2017 and so would in fact precede the CSG MP, the consultation for which had yet to start and during which members were entitled of course as part of the democratic process of a consultation to submit their comments and proposals eg for alternative solutions for the level crossings and they were not, therefore, in any less favourable position than the stakeholders. As had been pointed out earlier in the debate, there had been since 2000 various abortive attempts to develop a scheme for this area of the city and this ought not to be allowed to be yet another instance of those failures. In his opinion Mr Ransley’s proposal was a delaying tactic which would benefit neither CDC nor the community and if it succeeded it would show that CDC was avoiding the big issues which needed to be confronted.     

 

Mrs Apel expressed concern that since the CLP Plan Review Issues and Options consultation would run simultaneously with that for the CSG MP this would be confusing for the public. Mr Dignum commented that there was a week’s difference in the two timetables and those consultations related to two very different geographical areas.

 

There were no questions asked with regard to Mr Ransley’s proposal.  

 

A vote by a show of hands was taken on Mr Ransley’s proposal and the outcome was as follows: ten members were in favour, 23 were against and there were no abstentions. The proposal was not therefore carried.

 

The Council was then asked, the debate having ended, to vote with respect to the recommendation in section 2 of the agenda report and the following decision was made.

 

Decision

 

The Council voted with respect to the recommendations made to it by the Cabinet and on a show of hands 24 members were in favour of making the resolutions set out below; some members voted against or abstained, but those were not counted. 

 

RESOLVED

 

1)          That the Draft Southern Gateway Masterplan (as set out in the appendix to the agenda report) be approved for public consultation.

2)          That authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the document prior to public consultation.

 

 

[Note At the end of this item Mrs Hamilton announced that there would be a short adjournment in proceedings before the final agenda item was considered and this break lasted between 16:27 and 16:37]