In accordance with Chichester District Council’s public questions scheme and with reference to standing order 6 in Part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, consideration will be given at this point in the meeting to questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The time allocated for public question time is subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend the period for each member of the public (five minutes) or the total time for public questions (15 minutes).
Minutes:
Mrs Hamilton said that four public questions had been received (the text of each of which had been circulated immediately prior to the start of this meeting) and she invited each person in turn to read out his question before a response was given by Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services).
The questions (with the date of submission in [ ]) and the answers are set out below.
Question (1) by Mr Martin Winch
‘Vision. Perhaps an over-used word which raises expectations? Not when it comes to successful regeneration. There are countless examples of projects where, with vision, areas have been transformed. From mega-projects like London Docklands to the regeneration of declining market towns, vision is the ingredient which creates the difference.
Commitment, confidence and creativity are also needed, alongside the practical need to secure funding. And master-planning is where it should all start. Creating a viable and visionary masterplan which can inspire communities and deliver both social and economic value. Public and private sector investors should see a tangible return. Key stakeholders want to manage risk. Communities want to see action and deliverables.
So how does this all relate to the Southern Gateway Regeneration in Chichester? For anyone who has managed to plough through over 300 pages of the master planning report prepared by the District Council’s appointed consultants, it can be summarised in one word. Frustration. Not just in the lack of commitment shown to effective public consultation, where the report should have invited comment and debate. Not even in the fact that the masterplan has cost over £200,000 to produce. No, the real frustration is in its conclusions.
For anyone living in the Manhood Peninsular and attempting to reach the centre of Chichester, those dreaded flashing lights at the level crossings, cause a similar frustration. And, with over 20,000 working days lost each year, local people expected a report which, at the very least, explored the option of closing the crossings. Whether a tunnel or a bridge, this surely deserved further evaluation within the costly master planning study?
Apparently not. All of which led us, two local people living in Birdham, to respond. Encouraged by a presentation to Councillors in the summer, the Freeflow concept entered the public realm. And that is where we still are. It is only a concept, but one which is at least being debated. Whether through the media or at a public meeting, people are being engaged to discuss the merits or otherwise of Freeflow.
Freeflow may or may not be viable but one thing it is not lacking is vision. When Chichester Vision was adopted by the Council on 25 July, we were told by the Council Leader no less that it “looks at what untapped opportunities there are in the City”. Well the Southern Gateway is an untapped opportunity and deserves a lot more vision than shown to date. Do the Council really believe that the recommended masterplan shows the vision required to unlock the potential without removing the level crossings?’
[16 November 2017]
Response (1) by Mrs Susan Taylor
‘Thank you for your question which asks whether the Council really believes that the recommended masterplan shows the vision required to unlock the potential without removing the level crossings.
The question appears to be predicated on a premise that unless the level crossings can be removed, the masterplan cannot be visionary. We disagree. The Council has only recently adopted the Chichester Vision – its objectives include creating a more accessible and attractive City Centre; calming and reducing traffic flows and reversing the priority from vehicles to pedestrians. We believe that the draft masterplan accords with these objectives. Importantly, the masterplan will provide the means to enable regeneration of this part of the city in a comprehensive and planned way, delivering a range of public realm improvements and significant alterations to the adjoining highway network. Without an adopted masterplan, development of this important area of the city will occur on a piecemeal and un-coordinated basis with opportunities for related improvements to the public realm likely to be missed.
The draft masterplan does not incorporate a bridge or tunnel over the level crossings. Our consultants feasibility work identified that the cost of a bridge would be significant (at least £10m); that there would be a substantial land-take either side of the railway line to accommodate a bridge and that there would be adverse impacts on the character of the area and conservation area and the many heritage assets nearby, including views towards the cathedral. Other options such as tunneling were considered and ruled out on the basis that they would be prohibitively expensive.
The process of preparing a masterplan that is based on real evidence is necessarily a costly exercise. The draft masterplan is the result of 18 months’ work by our masterplanning and transport consultants, working closely with the member/officer steering group which included representatives of this Council, WSCC, the Homes and Communities Agency and Network Rail. The draft masterplan has been prepared thoroughly and is supported by considerable technical transport, viability and feasibility evidence.
In addition to assessing the viability and feasibility of a bridge across the level crossings, a total of 11 different options for changing the road network in the Southern Gateway area have been considered, ranging from small scale improvement schemes to more fundamental changes to the existing gyratory. The proposed option to restrict general traffic from using the Stockbridge Road level crossing and the rerouting of Basin Road will provide opportunities to bring suitable development forward and, as already mentioned, to achieve significant improvements to the public realm, especially in the area around the railway station, leading up to South Street and the main shopping area.
This significant regeneration project will take a number of years. We believe that the draft masterplan provides the right vision to make this happen in a way that is appropriate to the sensitive context of this part of the city and importantly in a way that is both technically feasible and deliverable.’
Supplementary Question by Mr Martin Winch
Mr Winch said those involved in the Freeflow and Freeflow 2 proposals had spoken with Network Rail (NR), one of the stakeholders, and it had said that eventually all level crossings had to be closed and the decision as to when that should occur was based on the magnitude of the risk posed by a particular crossing. The city’s level crossings were currently assessed by NR as being a low grade risk. His question was whether Chichester District Council was waiting for an accident to happen.
Supplementary Response by Mrs Susan Taylor
Mrs Taylor replied that that was certainly not the case.
Mr Winch expressed his gratitude for being given the opportunity to ask his question at this meeting and thanked Mrs Taylor for her responses.
Point of Order
Mr Ransley remarked that Mr Winch’s question sought to explore the option of closure of the level crossings, an outcome which the original masterplan had proposed but which had, for an unexplained reason since, been set aside on the basis that it would have an adverse impact on the city’s adjacent highway network.
Mrs Shepherd replied that Mr Ransley’s point was noted and could be pursued in the subsequent debate.
Question (2) by Mr Trevor Tupper
Mr Tupper prefaced his submitted question as follows. He said that he was the chairman of the Brampton Court Residents Association and a Chichester City Council member for the South Ward. Although the Southern Gateway Masterplan proposals were supported the residents were very concerned about the impact on them if a bridge were to be built in the Freeflow area as some were advocating. He described how the amenity of his fellow resident, Roger Keyworth, who was present at this meeting as an observer, would be affected by such a bridge. He alluded also to (a) the noise which would be generated from the Basin Road direction as vehicles approached on an upward gradient and (b) the overhead electrification infrastructure. In short, a bridge would be a hideous intrusion and seriously detract from residents’ quality of life. There was an alternative location for a bridge, namely to the west crossing Terminus Road and Avenue de Chartres, affording incidentally a safe route for students to use. The point of his question was to secure reassurance that a bridge over the level crossing would be expressly and finally ruled out.
The text of his submitted question was as follows:
‘As Chairman of the Brampton Court Residents' Association and a Chichester City Councillor for South Ward, I would like to speak at the meeting on Tuesday about the Cabinet's recommendation to adopt the Southern Gateway Masterplan In general we support the proposals, but I would like to ask for confirmation that the Freeflow scheme with its bridge over the railway has been finally dismissed. This bridge would go within a few metres of the Brampton Court retirement apartments and at such a level that noise and nitrogen dioxide pollution would be totally unacceptable.
The main reason for supporting the adoption is that current pollution in Stockbridge Road outside our apartments is dangerously high, well in excess of EU limits and the removal of HGVs, in particular, and the absence of 3 lanes of stationary traffic at peak times all with engines running will benefit us all.’
[19 November 2017]
Response (2) by Mrs Susan Taylor
‘Thank you for your question which asks for confirmation that the Freeflow scheme with its bridge over the railway has been finally dismissed.
As you may be aware, the work undertaken by the Council’s consultants looked at the possibility of either a bridge or a tunnel over the level crossings in order to enable their closure. The technical work carried out demonstrated that a bridge would be neither technically feasible nor viable and that it would result in harmful impacts on both the surrounding area and the amenities of the occupiers of nearby property. The draft masterplan which is proposed for adoption (later in the Council agenda) does not, as a consequence, include a bridge over the level crossings.
Your question cannot of course be fully answered until Council has debated Item 6.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Tupper did not ask a supplementary question.
Question (3) by Mr Richard Hutchinson
‘The original masterplan brief for the southern gateway should have been open to ideas of how to resolve the problems of the Southern Gateway with imagination and technical solutions. Instead, the masterplan became focussed on maximising development space at the expense of finding a solution to the traffic problem. Basically the team didn’t have the vision, or the stomach for investigating what is a complex problem.
They took the easy route which resolves nothing.
Having failed at finding a solution to the level crossings, the masterplan team decided that “well it’s alright because we don’t want cars in the City centre anyway”. The proposed masterplan states that it wants to encourage cyclists and pedestrians, but the level crossings stops them entering the city as well as cars.
Freeflow proposes not only a road bridge for cars and buses but also a dedicated pedestrian, cycle and mobility scooter ramped bridge which will provide a positive encouragement for people to use alternative means of transport. The current masterplan proposes that massive congestion will stop people using their
cars. This is not the way to plan cities.
Yes, Freeflow will be expensive, but we have shown that there is massive potential for development that will more than pay for the infrastructure improvements. Developers are queueing up to invest in Chichester, and so let’s be ambitious and go for the best, not just settle for a few housing estates surrounded by traffic gridlock.
The Southern gateway is an issue that has been ducked by the Council for decades, and each year the problem gets worse as there are more cars, trains, and the surrounding development sites are built on. The options narrow and this is the last chance to do something positive. If the council masterplan goes ahead the development will make it impossible to resolve the level crossing issue, and future generations will curse us for neglecting to grasp the nettle now and sort it out.
Isn’t this why we have councils and planning departments. They can look at the big picture and have powers to resolve major planning problems for the good of the overall community. To do that however they need vision, an open mind and the will to come up with something that will make the City a better place. Instead the plan proposes worse congestion and a few more housing estates.
Level crossings are a major safety issue and Network rail want to remove them wherever possible. The masterplan states that because these crossings are low priority for closure then it is OK to keep them. It isn’t, we’ve all seen chilling incidents of risks taken by schoolchildren and unwitting drivers caught in the mayhem of a closing barrier by a busy train station. It is regrettably only a matter of time before there is a serious incident. Why wait for that to happen before we do something?
Whether Freeflow is the right solution or not, we need to reject this flawed masterplan and look again at the options. While there is uncertainty over the A27 it would be prudent to wait until the proposed solution is clearer, as the design of the junctions and connections will have a critical bearing on how people from the peninsular enter the City.
There is pressure to push ahead as a lot of money and time has been spent so far. To implement the masterplan will cost millions, so we need to be sure that we are doing the right thing. The current masterplan is looking like a vanity project being pushed through in order to try and achieve SOMETHING, however flawed. It is a cut and paste plan derived from others prepared for countless county towns in the UK. Chichester is unique, and the plan should reflect this and resolve the specific problems. The masterplan is poorly conceived, based on lazy thinking, and Chichester deserves better.
My question is why don’t we reject this masterplan and instead commission a fresh study from a new team with the brief of how can we remove the level crossings and resolve the traffic issues of the southern gateway with vision, imagination and technical skill that has been sadly lacking so far?’
[20 November 2017]
Response (3) by Mrs Susan Taylor
‘Thank you for your question which asks for the masterplan to be rejected and a fresh study commissioned from a new team with the brief of how can we remove the level crossings and resolve the traffic issues of the Southern Gateway with vision, imagination and technical skill that has been sadly lacking so far?
Firstly, we do not accept that there is any justification for a new study. Our masterplanning and transport consultants are specialists in their fields and competent in such work. The draft masterplan is the result of 18 months’ work by them, working closely with the member/officer steering group which included representatives of this Council, WSCC, the Homes and Communities Agency and Network Rail. The brief included looking at all of the possible options for addressing the existing problems of congestion at the level crossings and we are satisfied that the draft masterplan has been prepared thoroughly and that it is supported by considerable technical transport, viability and feasibility evidence.
The draft masterplan does not incorporate a bridge or tunnel over the level crossings. That is because our consultants feasibility work identified that the cost of a bridge would be significant (at least £10m); that there would be a substantial land-take either side of the railway line to accommodate a bridge and that there would be adverse impacts on the character of the area and conservation area and the many heritage assets nearby, including views towards the cathedral. The Freeflow proposals would also result in significant additional costs in the acquisition of 3rd party land to accommodate the proposed bridge and access ramps which would further undermine deliverability. Other options such as tunneling were considered and ruled out on the basis that they would be prohibitively expensive.
We should adopt a masterplan that is both technically feasible and likely to be deliverable. Our assessment supported by evidence is that a bridge is not feasible or viable. We also consider a bridge to be contrary to the thrust of government advice in the NPPF concerning sustainable transport objectives and to be contrary to the recently adopted Chichester Vision. It would also be unacceptable in this sensitive location, with adverse impacts on the environmental qualities of the area and the amenities of nearby occupiers.’
Supplementary Question by Mr Richard Hutchinson
Mr Hutchinson said that none of the original 11 Southern Gateway options included closure of the level crossings. He wished to know if studies had been carried out prior thereto and, if so, whether they examined locations other than Stockbridge Road/Basin Road.
Response by Mr Phil Brady
One of the consultants present for the following agenda item (Southern Gateway Masterplan - Adoption), Phil Brady of Peter Brett Associates, the transport consultants engaged to advise with respect to the Southern Gateway Masterplan, responded. He confirmed that some of the options had looked at the closure of the Stockbridge Road and Basin Road level crossings.
Question (4) by Mr Peter Evans
Mr Evans, who was the Mayor of Chichester, said that the text of his question had undergone slight grammatical amendments since its submission. His question was:
‘On the question of the Chichester Freeflow propositions.
Back in August of this year I, as the Mayor of the City of Chichester, chaired a public meeting in the Assembly Rooms to look at the Freeflow proposals and to discuss options that had been put to me in my role as Mayor.
The output from that meeting was that the majority of attendees wished to progress the idea of a road Bridge spanning the railway line and obviating the need for two vehicle level crossings, delivering traffic into an already congested area of the city. A road bridge would allow vehicles to pass into and through the city with minimal impact on pedestrians, cyclists and the environment and at the same time improve traffic wait times and resulting pollution at these existing pinch points.
Bearing in mind the Observer newspaper’s poll of 357 people that produced a 85% return in favour of a road bridge, followed by the public meeting of around 130 residents which produced a similar result.
Therefore would the Council please explain the outcome of the feasibility study that was promised looking into both the economic cost and build viability of the Chichester Freeflow?’
[20 November 2017]
Response (4) by Mrs Susan Taylor
‘Thank you for your question which asks that the Council explains the outcome of the feasibility study that was promised, looking into both the economic cost and build viability of a bridge across the railway line to enable closure of the level crossings.
As part of the Council’s brief for the Southern Gateway study, the appointed consultants carried out feasibility work into the options to address congestion caused by the level crossings. They identified a number of significant constraints to a bridge which included that the cost of a bridge would be significant (at least £10m); that there would be a substantial land-take either side of the railway line to accommodate a bridge and that there would be adverse impacts on existing heritage assets, including the conservation area and views towards the cathedral and on the amenities of nearby residents as a result of the bridge structure.
It was concluded as a result of this assessment that a bridge would be neither technically feasible nor viable and it has not therefore been considered further as part of the masterplan. The assessment is set out at paragraphs 2.78-2.82 of the draft masterplan document.
We have also looked in detail at the feasibility and viability of the Freeflow proposal as originally presented and our consultants have prepared a review paper which is attached as Appendix 4 to agenda item 7 on the November cabinet agenda. We believe (as summarised in the covering report) that in addition to the technical concerns and harmful impacts already raised, that the Freeflow proposal would result in significant additional costs in the acquisition of third party land to accommodate the proposed bridge and access ramps which would undermine deliverability of the masterplan.
Fundamentally, we also consider that:
firstly, the Freeflow proposal would be contrary to the objectives of the recently adopted Chichester Vision which include creating a more accessible and attractive City Centre and calming and reducing traffic flows; and
secondly that it also fails to meet many of the masterplan objectives and the thrust of government advice in the NPPF concerning sustainable transport objectives, due to its focus on motorised transport via a bridge into the area.’
Supplementary Question by Mr Peter Evans
On being asked if he had a supplementary question, Mr Evans said that it was interesting to note the reference to the loss of third party land and the cost of acquiring land to build a bridge when in fact the maps showed that much of the land was already in local authority control and so he doubted that the cost would be that great. He exhorted that a further opportunity be taken to think carefully again how to construct a bridge which avoided the concerns expressed about run-ups etc.
Supplementary Response by Mrs Susan Taylor
Mrs Taylor said that she did not share Mr Evans’ opinion and pointed out that the sites of the former magistrates court, the crown court and the county court were in third party ownership, namely the Home and Communities Agency.
[Note The immediately foregoing response by Mrs Taylor marked the end of Public Question Time]