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:
Twelve public questions had been submitted for this special meeting, details of which appear below.
The text of the public questions had been circulated to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mrs Hamilton invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out his or her question.
The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text) and the oral responses given by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council) or Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services) were as follows:
(1) Question by Dr Linda Boize
In view of the final para of her question below, Dr Boize prefaced it by noting that at its special meeting which had immediately preceded this meeting the Cabinet had amended its anticipated recommendation to the Council (set out on the face of the agenda) by the deletion of the words ‘as being desirable’ from para (1).
‘My question concerns flyovers.
Does the Full Southern concept meet the BABA27 key feedback theme to avoid flyovers and would the proposed flyovers and extensive sliproads needed to allow all turning movements result in home demolition and land grab greater than last year’s Option 2?
And if the Stockbridge proposed underpass cannot be dug deep enough for high sided vehicles would the A286 need to be elevated resulting in 3 proposed flyovers becoming 4, and the concept insufficiently different from Option 2 as Highways England requires?
Is the Full Southern concept desirable, regardless, or is it rather that the technical appraisal is recommended to find out if the engineering challenges can be overcome?’
[Monday 4 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question.
The Full Southern Concept is identified by Systra as meeting most of the requirements of the BABA27 group noting that unanimous community consensus is unlikely to be achieved and that this concept comprises a combination of underpasses and flyovers at the junctions with the potential therefore to better mitigate the environmental and visual impacts in sensitive locations. Systra advise that in the time available they have not been able to develop detailed designs for the junctions and that significant further technical feasibility and engineering design work will be required by Highways England which will include reassessing road realignments and land take. Systra have also indicated that the concept for the Stockbridge junction is predicated on an A27 underpass to minimise community severance but again make it clear that further detailed design feasibility work will be required to assess whether the concept for this junction is achievable. As a concept, this option is considered to have strong merit but with a range of engineering and mitigation challenges that would need to be tested by Highways England.’
(2) Question by Mr Bob Marson
After making additional preliminary remarks not included in his submitted question below (details in the audio recording), Mr Marson put the following question:
‘On the assumption that the Full Council vote towards consensus with WSCC, my question is, therefore, one which is aimed at providing facts for our MP to help her position the case with the government to secure sufficient funding for Chichester in the RIS2 budget for a long term solution to the A27.
Events at national level have moved on since the RIS planning timeframe so it would be astute for councillors to take cognizance of (a) HE Road Design Principles published Jan 2018 and (b) the government plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations jointly published by DfT and DEFRA in July 2017.
Now with the availability of the tool developed for Public Health England by Imperial College (announced by Philip Hammond in May 2018), local authorities are enabled to estimate the economic impact of air pollution in their area. The government’s clean air strategy will be published in the summer, however Mr Gove’s comments in April 2018 gave a clear indication how seriously he viewed quote “the huge public health issue”.
The Air Quality/Public Health impact from traffic congestion during the probable 4+ year major engineering construction work required by the Full Southern Route was raised by many stakeholders at the BaBA27 meetings as a serious public concern.
While there is total compliance by CDC to meet their statutory duties on AQ monitoring, the government Air Quality Management Policy Guidance (April 2016) provided an option for district councils to declare Fast-Track AQMAs (Air Quality Management Areas). Public domain information from Sussex Air clearly shows the pollution level exceeds limits along the A27, feeder roads to the A27 and in the “rat runs” through the city.
QUESTION: In anticipation of the inevitable and increasing traffic congestion on the A27 in the RIS2 period to accommodate the full Southern Route Option”, is there value in CDC declaring fast track AQMAs based on the Sussex Air modelling work?
Under the two-tier authority system which we have in this constituency, WSCC, now armed with aforementioned tool, could work closely with CDC with both local authorities gathering data to help our MP articulate the need for a level of funding that could potentially enable the preferred WSCC option, ie the Mitigated Northern Route, to become reality. What is CDC’s view of this approach?’
[Monday 4 June 2018]
Response by Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services)
‘Thank you for your question. Firstly, I am pleased to note your acknowledgment that there is total compliance by CDC to meeting its statutory duties on Air Quality monitoring. We are of course aware of the option to declare fast track Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs) but having reviewed our current extensive programme of air quality work which includes air quality modelling, the possible declaration of a further AQMA and the refresh of our current Air Quality Action Plan, we are satisfied that our intended approach accords well with government guidance and our statutory duties.
Consultants Systra have advised that both of their shortlisted conceptual options will require significant environmental mitigation, including to address matters such as the impact on air quality. Such considerations will need to be addressed within subsequent technical and feasibility work undertaken by Highways England, including, for example, preparation of a construction environmental management plan, in the event that either of these options are included in RIS2. We will continue to work closely with WSCC in respect of air quality matters but consider that it would be premature to take the course of action suggested at this relatively early stage in terms of scheme development.’
(3) Question by Mr Ian Milton – Chairman of the Chichester Ship Canal Trust
‘If the full southern route concept and Southern Gateway go ahead, there could be 4 or 5 years of construction that will discourage residents and visitors from coming to the canal. The Trust services would be disrupted. There would be a major decline in our income, reducing resources available to maintain the canal. What can Chichester District Council do to maintain visitor numbers to the canal and its environs if this building takes place?’
[Monday 4 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question. Systra were appointed by WSCC to provide high level technical advice and support to the BABA27 group. They have identified that an on-line solution to the A27 will result in significant transport and wider environmental disruption during construction and that the potential impacts on nearby residents, users of the A27 and the wider network including on business (which includes the Chichester canal) are likely to be substantial. Systra’s high level assessment regarding construction impacts, which draws on the earlier RIS1 economic assessment is set out in Section 8 of their report (pages 44-45). It explains that detailed construction management plans would need to be prepared to set out the approach to managing disruption during construction and that a future economic appraisal would also address this important issue in the event that this concept is developed further by Highways England.’
(4) Question by Mr James Pickford – Chairman of Lavant Parish Council
‘My question concerns the budget.
The average cost of a project in RIS1 was £100m and our budget was doubled to £250m. To accommodate this a project somewhere else was dropped as the total budget of RIS1 remained fixed. If you go forward with a mitigated northern route another 2-3 projects will be sacrificed elsewhere in the country. What is so special about the Chichester economy that Highways England (HE) will sacrifice two to three other projects elsewhere most of which are already far further ahead than Chichester's? To back an online development with a sunken road at Fishbourne would be a significant gain which would justify all the work of the Council over the past year. Anything else is a gift to HE to throw out and revert to the original Option 2a.’
[Tuesday 5 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Systra’s high level analysis has focused on the development of conceptual options only at this stage. They recognise that in order to overcome community concerns raised regarding previous options published by Highways England, likely costs will be higher for both the shortlisted options although they also note that benefits would potentially be similar or greater. Systra consider both shortlisted options to be potentially deliverable and Highways England have undertaken to examine them in greater detail and report their findings to the Councils later this year. It is recognised that the level of government funding for RIS2 is not yet known and matters relating to the size of the available budget for any Chichester scheme included in RIS2 will ultimately be for Highways England and government to determine.’
(5) Question by Mrs Carolyn Cobbold
The submitted text of Mrs Cobbold’s question appears below but additional remarks made and the order of some of her comments and the two questions asked were reversed (details in the audio recording).
‘Can CDC confirm whether they or any consultants or highway professionals have made an assessment of the likely impact and disruption cost of construction works associated with a full online southern scheme?
So far 135 businesses have called for a Northern Bypass to be selected as the preferred option, warning that any online scheme would result in years of disruptive road works that would cripple the local economy. Among the businesses that have signed a petition so far are 14 holiday parks operating a total of 4444 family holiday units, providing more than six million visitor nights of accommodation in the area. A wide range of businesses from tourism operators, engineering firms, retailers to restaurants to firms in the service sector have signed the petition in the past two weeks. The West Sussex Growers Association also believes the Northern Option is the only sustainable solution. Has CDC factored in this cost to our tourism, agricultural and retail businesses in its decision not to favour the route preferred by Systra and WSCC?
What routes will form the diversionary routes for traffic during construction of an online route or in the event of an accident, roadworks or severe congestion after completion of the scheme?
An online scheme would leave Chichester as the only section of the entire A27 without a diversionary route, meaning any future incident on a southern A27 would result in a return to gridlock and rat running through Chichester city, Lavant and surrounding villages.’
[Tuesday 5 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Systra were appointed by WSCC to provide high level technical advice and support to the BABA27 group. Consequently, whilst the two shortlisted conceptual options are considered to be potentially feasible and deliverable, Systra recognise that they both present a range of challenges with significant further detailed technical feasibility required. Systra identify that an on-line solution to the A27 will result in significant transport and wider environmental disruption during construction and that the potential impacts on nearby residents, users of the A27 and the wider network including on business are likely to be substantial. Systra’s high level assessment regarding construction impacts, which draws on the earlier RIS1 economic assessment is set out in Section 8 of their report (pages 44-45). It explains that detailed construction management plans would need to be prepared to set out the approach to managing disruption during construction and that a future economic appraisal would also address this important issue in the event that this concept is developed further by Highways England. The question of diversionary routes would again be a matter for Highways England to address as part of the construction management process and further feasibility analysis should this concept be taken forward.’
(6) Question by Mr Mike Dicker
Mr Dicker slightly varied the comments made in asking his question (details in the audio recording).
‘Background: It is now time for our elected officials to take a real leadership role and deliver the best solution to our traffic problems for the future. This is a once in a lifetime opportunity to get this right for now and the long term and not sit on the fence. I for one will find it very difficult to vote for our local politicians in 2019 if you do not show leadership today. In 2023 or 2024 I will find it equally difficult to vote where we are plagued by greater traffic issues as the canal is moved, the concrete carbuncles are being built and the Southern option costs go through the roof during construction of a series of upgrades that will fail to deliver our much needed infrastructure. The mitigated Northern option is the only option that will deliver the long term solution that we need whilst not causing pollution, delay and the death of our tourist and other fragile commerce on the Manhood peninsula and elsewhere in Chichester.
Q1. Will the leaders of our community drop Cabinet and party direction and vote on what really matters for all Chichester District Residents both North and South following the lead of the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee of West Sussex Council and vote to push for a Mitigated Northern route as part of RIS 2?
Q2. Can we please have a fully recorded vote on any motion on the A27 agenda item?’
[Wednesday 6 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question. You will have noted from the officers report that both of the conceptual options shortlisted by Systra are considered on the basis of their high level analysis to be deliverable but with different cost, benefit and risk profiles and a reliance on strong mitigation measures. Systra have not therefore recommended one concept over the other and on balance, recognising that more detailed feasibility work is required and that Highways England have confirmed they will undertake a technical assessment of both concepts, officers have reached the same recommendation. Your first question will of course be answered by the debate and decision to be taken by Council on the matter this morning. The second question is a matter for members to move, should they wish to, in accordance with the constitution prior to the vote taking place.’
(7) Question by Mr Richard Bramall - Summersdale Residents Association Committee
Mr Bramall made additional remarks in asking his question (details in the audio recording).
‘My name is Richard Bramall and I represent the 450 members of the Summersdale’s Residents Association, the committee of which has seconded me to ask this Council Chamber a question concerning the ecological vandalism that will result from the building of a second A27 Bypass, west - east across the Lavant Valley, one of southern England’s most famous landmarks and a vitally important recreational, environmental, ecological, cultural and historical, link through the Downs and National Park, directly to Chichester. This is a matter that has reverberations far wider than this chamber or for West Sussex but nationally.
My question is now of greater importance, since Louise Goldsmith informed The Parkland Residents Association on 2 June that a northern route is her preferred option, a calamitous decision, in the light that, despite SYSTRA identifying in their report two A27 options, of “a mitigated Northern route” and a ”full southern route” option, WSCC has voted for its preferred option to submit to Highways England the ‘mitigated Northern Route’, subject to the inclusion of important mitigation measures that are needed to make the scheme acceptable in environmental terms”.
Chairman there is no consensus, this whole process has confirmed that every resident’s representative body in the county to the west, east and the north, is for the full southern option and against any northern route.
I therefore ask that since every page of the SYSTRA report emphasises the importance of the “retention of place and settings”, illustrated examples of mitigation by green bridges, sunken roads, living walls and noise barriers, that they declare as essential to make a northern route even conceivably acceptable to the ecologists, environmentalists, walkers, cyclist, athletes and tourists not to mention the thousands of residents, when the West Sussex Record office shows there are 23 highways, bridle paths, footpaths, cycle paths and a famous river, all running north/south, crossing the two and a half mile stretch of route from Goodwood across to Lavant, that all have to be maintained across any carriageway by eco-corridors to create even the lowest level of mitigation. How then, is this council, going to ensure the necessary budget and how can this council, guarantee the stakeholders of Chichester that after the “value engineering” has be accomplished there will be any mitigation on the northern route available at all?
Thank you for listening.’
[Wednesday 6 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Systra were appointed by WSCC to provide high level technical advice and support to the BABA27 group. Consequently, whilst the two shortlisted conceptual options are considered to be potentially feasible and deliverable, Systra recognise that they both present a range of challenges with significant further detailed technical feasibility required. Highways England have nevertheless made it clear that they are prepared to undertake a technical assessment of the Systra shortlisted concepts including the ‘mitigated northern route’. Whilst this concept is predicated on extensive environmental mitigation, the level of government funding for RIS2 is not yet known and matters relating to the size of the available budget for any Chichester scheme will ultimately be for Highways England and government to determine.’
(8) Question by Mrs Catherine Ward-Penny
Mrs Ward-Penny made additional comments in asking her question (details in the audio recording).
‘I truly believe that if the 'Northern Route' is made, Chichester people, and visitors, will regret it forever.
However, I have been able to have no influence in the decision, apart from the "wonky" questionnaire.
I have seen many recent building projects in Chichester completed without the originally promised ‘extras’, (cycle paths, pedestrian pathways, cafe, etc) due to the money running out.
Can you guarantee that, once a 'Northern Route' choice has covered that beautiful area with concrete and Tarmac, the ‘mitigations’ - (very expensive ideas - with some possibilities shown on pages 30 to 34 of the SYSTRA document) - will actually be built, and that the money won't have run out?
Thank you.’
[Wednesday 6 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question. Systra were appointed by WSCC to provide high level technical advice and support to the BABA27 group. Consequently, whilst the two shortlisted conceptual options are considered to be potentially feasible and deliverable, Systra recognise that they both present a range of challenges with significant further detailed technical feasibility required. Highways England have nevertheless made it clear that they are prepared to undertake a technical assessment of the Systra shortlisted concepts including the ‘mitigated northern route’. This concept is predicated on extensive environmental mitigation as your question notes and we expect Highways England to review the concept on this basis. Nevertheless, the level of government funding for RIS2 is not yet known and matters relating to the size of the available budget for any Chichester scheme will ultimately be for Highways England and government to determine.’
(9) Question by Mrs Heather McDougall
‘Stockbridge roundabout was declared an Air Quality Management Area on 24 August 2006, this is over ten years ago. The effects of air pollution are known; it has an adverse impact on health and it costs lives. Public Health England suggests that 4.9% of deaths in the Chichester District are related to particulate pollution. The A27 at Chichester borders three schools, and many residences and businesses. It is time to do more.
The CDC 2008 Air Quality Action Plan states “at present there are no practicable options to bring forward air quality ahead of the proposed A27 improvements.” This is our chance to make a difference to this ongoing issue.
Whilst a north concept may be undesirable due to the impact on the countryside, there are well documented mitigations that can be put in place to reduce this impact. However, the opportunities to mitigate the air pollution for an online solution are limited.
Therefore, my question is: how can the two concepts for the A27 be recommended equally, when one presents a clearer benefit for the health and lives of the residents represented by CDC?’
[Wednesday 6 June 2018]
Response by Mr Connor (Cabinet Member for Environment Services)
‘Thank you for your question. Air quality and its effect on public health is a matter that is taken very seriously by the Council and we do already have plans to progress a refresh of our current air quality action plan over the next 12 months, recognising that it is, as you note, now several years old.
The work undertaken by consultants, Systra is a high level analysis of the options that appear to be available to resolve current problems of congestion, capacity and journey reliability on the A27. Consequently, Systra have made it very clear that should either of the two shortlisted options be put forward to Highways England for its consideration, they will need to be the subject of much more detailed feasibility work to assess the range of engineering and environmental mitigation challenges, including the effect on air quality, that they present. Officers have therefore concluded that at this stage and on balance, both concepts are worthy of more detailed assessment by Highways England and this of course is what will be considered carefully by Cabinet and Council this morning.’
(10) Question by Mr Ian Webster
‘For any significant infrastructure project such as the A27 improvements it is critical to conduct a Risk Assessment Study so that the decisions taken are made based on facts and well conducted research. This study would need to include: the funding risk – to establish if too much is asked for in the next round of government road investment which is already oversubscribed; a risk of impact on the South Downs National Park; a risk of land availability; a risk of legal challenges; a risk of non-compliance with any local or national policies and so on and so forth.
If no risk assessment work has been conducted by the CDC then it is imperative that the members of the Council submit both concepts with no preference so that Highways England can use their expertise to create an independent Risk Assessment Study and thoroughly evaluate the options to provide a solution that is best for our community as a whole.
So my question is: Is there a CDC Risk Assessment Study for either concept? If there is then will the Council guarantee that they will disclose it to the public immediately in the interests of transparency?’
[Thursday 7 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question. Systra were appointed by WSCC to provide high level technical advice and support to the BABA27 group in order to inform the assessment as to whether a scheme concept could be identified that might achieve greater community consensus and thereby increase the possibility of inclusion of a scheme for the A27 at Chichester in RIS2. Systra’s full report identifies key risks with both of the shortlisted conceptual options throughout the document. Highways England have confirmed that the level of detail in the current work is reasonable and that they will undertake a detailed technical assessment of the two concepts and report their findings to the Councils. The Council has not commissioned a separate study and it is our view that the Systra document contains sufficient information for the Council to come to a decision on the recommendation before it.’
(11) Question by Mrs Zoe Neal
As a preface to her submitted question below, Mrs Neal referred to the fact that there had been a slight change in the recommendation made by the Cabinet at its immediately preceding special meeting and also said that a CDC Conservative member who was present for this meeting had earlier in the week said in an e-mail to a local resident that ‘The opponents to the northern route have hardly begun to fight. And they include powerful and national interests - with very widespread public support on a national, rather than local level’. She said that if that were so, then the purpose of local democracy and what it was hoped to achieve in this meeting had to be questioned and showed the need for strong, local political leadership.
‘The agenda for the 8th June meeting of the Full District Council item 5 in relation to the A27 at Chichester, shows the recommendation as follows:
1.That in promoting a scheme to the government for inclusion in RIS2 Approach A should be supported as being desirable, without indicating a preference for either option, i.e. promoting both the ‘mitigated northern route’ and the ‘full southern route’.
2.That the ‘fall-back position’ if no approach is selected be noted”.
In the event that this recommendation is agreed by Chichester District Council, can it give an assurance that, once this has been communicated to Highways England, CDC will continue to promote both options equally?’
[Thursday 7 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Thank you for your question. Systra have identified two concepts for improvements to the A27 which they consider have strong merit but given the high level nature of their assessment, they have not been able at this stage to recommend to the Councils one option over the other. Highways England have confirmed that that they are prepared to undertake a technical assessment of both shortlisted concepts and report back their findings to the Councils. We do not of course know whether either of these concepts will be included in RIS2 but if one or both are, then Highways England have advised that public consultation on their scheme options would then take place, possibly in 2020. At that stage, I think it is likely that the Council would be expected to indicate a preference and that Highways England would also wish to assess whether or not there was greater consensus between the Councils to enable a scheme to go forward in RIS2.’
(12) Question by Mr Gavin Barrett
Mr Barrett made additional comments in asking his question below (details in the audio recording).
‘Highways England (HE) reports that demand for funding for schemes across the UK under the RIS2 call for proposals is expected to be unprecedented and that many schemes, however deemed worthy by their sponsors will not, in fact, make it to the short-list. What is the fall-back position of CDC in the event that HE does not adopt any scheme in respect of the A27 at Chichester? Do we wait until RIS3 or, more wisely, make a renewed effort to adopt practical, innovative and proven “modal” improvements to local transport management including public transport timetable integration, appropriate prioritisation at peak times, park-and-ride schemes and strong incentives to reduce car-usage in the urban area?’
[Thursday 7 June 2018]
Response by Mr Dignum (Leader of the Council)
‘Should we be unsuccessful in securing a scheme of improvements for the A27 at Chichester within RIS2, then we expect that the ‘fall back’ positon as set out in paragraph 6.4 of the Council’s covering report will need to be adopted. That is, that improvements to the junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass will still need to be delivered to mitigate the impact of development in the adopted Local Plan. These comprise small-scale, at-gradeimprovements to ensure the junctions will continue to operate effectively. These improvements are intended to be partly developer-funded and so are likely to be delivered incrementally as development comes forward over the Local Plan period to 2029. Systra’s view is that modal measures alone will not be sufficient to address the existing problems on the A27 although, subject to identifying funding sources, it may be possible to develop a wider transport package including modal suggestions, to build on any future investment in the A27.’
[Note End of Public Question Time]