In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time and with reference to standing order 6 in part 4 A and section 5.6 in Part 5 of the Chichester District Council Constitution, the Cabinet will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by 12:00 on the previous working day. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the chairman’s discretion to extend that period.
Decision:
[FOUR PUBLIC QUESTIONS – DETAILS IN MINUTES]
Minutes:
Four public questions had been submitted for this meeting, details of which appear below.
The text of the questions had been circulated to CDC members, the public and the press immediately prior to the start of this meeting. Mr A Dignum (Leader of the Council) invited each person in turn to come to the designated microphone in order to read out the question before an oral response was provided.
The questions (with the date of submission shown within [ ] at the end of the text), any supplementary questions and the answers given by Mr Dignum or Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services) were as follows.
(1) Mr Mike Dicker
‘Please find enclosed a statement and three associated questions for the CDC special Cabinet to be held at 15:00 on 14November 2018.
On 21 September 2018 Councillor Potter at Boxgrove Village Hall announced that there is no point raising the A27 as councillors at CDC had been advised by officers that the RIS 2 money would not be forthcoming. I have been seeking this advice since then under FOI and the matter is currently the basis of a complaint to the Information Commissioner having exhausted CDC internal processes for relying on an exemption that the advice would be published at a later date. I now have three questions:
1. Why is CDC promoting a scheme which just 3% of respondents to the 2016 public consultation supported (option 3)? Should CDC not instead be working closely with the public, WSCC and our MP Gillian Keegan to get the RIS 2 funding to take the SYTRA work forward for a preferred mitigated Northern option as voted for by CDC and then propose plans for the local feeder road with sustainable transport options as part of any local planning?
2. What value does the Cabinet attach to the Peter Brett traffic study when the costs shown are around half those calculated by HE for option 3?
3. When will I receive the disclosure of my FOI request as you could not then and certainly not now rely on the publication at a future date exemption and have not, as promised, published the advice to councillors or provided it to me?’
[Monday 12 November 2018]
(1) Response
Mr Dignum provided the following response.
‘Thank you for your questions.
1. In answer to your first question, Chichester District Council (CDC), working closely with West Sussex County Council, remains focused on achieving improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass that will provide long term benefits and also address concerns about matters such as poor air quality and journey reliability. As part of the BABA27 initiative, the concept schemes developed by consultants Systra were reported to a special meeting of the full Council in June 2018 where it was resolved that in promoting a scheme to Highways England for inclusion in RIS2, our preference is for the Mitigated Northern route with the alternative Full Southern route put forward as a reasonable alternative. Highways England agreed to develop the concepts further to check they are technically viable and to establish a base cost for each option and we anticipate its response in the coming weeks. However, despite this important on-going work, there is, at this stage, no certainty that a scheme for Chichester will be included in RIS2 and the draft RIS will not in any case, be published by the DfT until late 2019.
As a consequence, we have always been clear that in preparing the review of the adopted Local Plan (which we must do to ensure our plan remains up to date), we must identify a scheme of mitigation that can be relied upon for the A27 which is not dependent on RIS2 funding. This amounts to comparatively small scale, at-grade improvements to the Bypass to mitigate the traffic impact of development in the Local Plan to ensure that the junctions continue to operate effectively. Without such a scheme, we will not be able to demonstrate that the Local Plan review is sound and could lose control over new development as it comes forward. Once there is more certainty about RIS2, we will be able to review our position on the necessary highway improvements required to mitigate the projected traffic growth arising from the provisions of the emerging Local Plan accordingly.
2. In answer to your second question, this can of course only be answered once the Cabinet has considered the Local Plan Review item later on the agenda. However, it should be noted that Peter Brett Associates are specialist consultants with extensive experience of designing major highway schemes and CDC has every confidence in their work and in the findings of the study. In terms of the relative cost of the schemes referred to, the consultants have advised that their estimate of the cost of the A27 mitigation scheme at about £25.2 m is based on the cost of construction only whereas Highways England (in relation to Option 3 of the public consultation in 2016) undertook a more detailed costs analysis to inform the ‘Benefit to Cost Ratio’ and so the identified cost is understandably higher. CDC is working with Highways England and the consultants to refine the cost estimate of the Local Plan mitigation scheme.
3. In answer to your third question, I can advise that CDC’s Divisional Manager for Democratic Services has received your question under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and will respond to it within the prescribed timescales.’
Supplementary Question
Mr Dicker did not ask a supplementary question.
(2) Mrs Charlotte Pexton on behalf of Bosham Parish Council
[Note This set of questions was, at the request of Mrs Pexton, taken as read and the response only was read out]
‘Q1 – We note that in the preamble to SA10 - Chidham/Hambrook and SA9 - Fishbourne statements are made about “protecting views to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings and creating opportunities for new views”. Criteria 5 of SA10 also states “Detailed consideration of the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, including the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB and their settings. Development should be designed to protect long-distance views to the South Downs National Park”.Should not the same statement be included in SA7 as exactly the same issues arise?
Q2 – The preamble to SA9 – Fishbourne references the importance of “the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne in relationship to surrounding settlements, including Chichester City”. Given the proximity between Bosham and Fishbourne should not the preamble to SA7 include the same criteria?
Q3 – Policies SA9 and SA10 both state: “and securing necessary off-site improvements (including highways) to promote sustainable transport options”. SA7 only refers to “provision of satisfactory means of access from the A259.” SA7 should give consideration to a pedestrian crossing to allow the north and south of the village to be better integrated and so should not SA7 be updated?
Q4 – Policies SA9 and SA10 say: “Demonstration that development would not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of identified sites and habitats” However, SA7 does not include the same criteria despite evidence of slow worms being present and the use of the site as a landing area for Brent Geese and so should not SA7 should be updated?
Q5 – Both SA9 and SA10 include mitigation for water quality: “…water quality issues relating to runoff into a designated site, and loss of functionally linked supporting habitat”. Policy SA7 does not have the same criteria despite the run off from the site potentially being able to impact on the Chichester SPA/SAC and Ramsar site and so should not SA7 be updated?’
[Monday 12 November 2018]
(2) Response
Mrs Taylor provided the following response.
‘Thank you for your questions that relate to the policy proposing allocation of land at Bosham for development in comparison to the proposed policies for Chidham and Hambrook and Fishbourne. There is some variation in the policy wording which arises from the nature of the site specific policy for Bosham, which actually allocates land for development, whereas the policies for Fishbourne and Chidham and Hambrook facilitate the identification of land through the neighbourhood planning process. However, Chichester District Council is open to reviewing the wording of the policy that allocates land at Bosham and would suggest that the questions raised today are submitted in response to the consultation on the Chichester Local Plan: Preferred Approach, should it be agreed by the Council next week, where they can then be given detailed consideration by officers and members.’
Supplementary Question
Mrs Pexton did not ask a supplementary question.
(3) Dr Linda Boize
‘My questionconcerns PBA'straffic report [thirdagenda supplement,Chichester LocalPlan Review:Preferred Approach- Consultation,para 4.4]:
One ofthe manyfailings ofthe HighwaysEngland consultationproposals wasthe inaccurateand inadequateanalysis ofrat-running throughChichester toavoid theA27.
ThePBA reportis similarlyinadequate. Item4.4 'Dealingwith CongestedNetwork' statesthat driverswill likelychange modeof transportor nottravel atall -but makesno mentionof rat-runningon residentialroads withschools, buses,residential parking,20 mphrestrictions etc.This rat-running iswhat happens at themoment andWILL happenin thefuture butI couldfind no evidence inthe PBAreport thatthey havelooked atthis. I wonder howmany of us haveeither walked,cycled ortaken thebus toget herethis morning, evidencing the'to further encouragechanges intravel behavioursproposed by PBA astheir solutionto dealingwith congestion.
My questionis: Doesthe reportsufficiently embraceand analysethe consequencesarising fromtheir A27scenarios proposed.Do you,like me, have noconfidence thatPBA's scenarioswill notjust clogup localresidential roads?’
[Tuesday 13 November 2018]
(3) Response
Mr Dignum provided the following response.
‘Thank you for your question.
The PBA Transport Study uses a methodology that has been approved by Highways England and West Sussex County Council and which is widely used in similar studies across the country. In simple terms, the study utilises computer modelling to understand the impact that additional traffic growth has on the highway network. It takes account of the existing travel patterns of drivers ie which roads they typically take in travelling from origin to destination. When additional traffic is expected to be generated from proposed development, the modelling seeks to predict routes that drivers will choose, taking into account the increased levels of traffic likely to be experienced on each route, and with the assumption that drivers will choose a route that minimises the costs involved (time and financial). The intention of this modelling is to predict as accurately as possible, the effect of additional growth on all roads within the area, whilst acknowledging that such long term modelling of traffic is inherently difficult to predict and in turn to enable appropriate highway interventions to be identified.
The effect of the highway improvements identified in the PBA Transport Study will be to ensure that the level of traffic experienced in the plan area would be similar to that which would otherwise be expected to be experienced without such additional growth as now being planned for. Indeed, the proposed mitigation to the A27 junctions could have the effect of ensuring that as much traffic as possible utilises the A27 for through trips, rather than rat-running through the city centre.’
Supplementary Question
In the light of the response just delivered, Dr Boize remarked that her reading of the Peter Brett Associates (PBA) report was at variance with what seemed to be the officers’ understanding of it. She said that she would be very surprised if anyone could find in the report a full appraisal of the issue of current and future rat-running. She was concerned that A27 improvements works would cause drivers to use the city’s roads to avoid the inevitable congestion and disruption. This was not addressed by PBA in what was a very difficult document to read. She awaited the officers’ response with interest.
Response
Mr Dignum said that officers would look into this point.
Mr M Allgrove (Planning Policy Manager)said that he was not able instantaneously to identify the reference to this issue in what was a very large document. Neither the transport study nor the Chichester Local Plan Review; Preferred Approach said at any point that existing traffic congestion would be addressed; the emphasis was correctly that the Local Plan Review would mitigate the extra traffic caused by additional development.
(4) Mrs Joan Foster – Chairman of Hunston Parish Council
‘Hunston Parish Council would like to question the new proposals for development of 200 houses in Hunston contained in the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 – Preferred Approach December 2018.
At a meeting on 23 July 2018 between CDC, Hunston and North Mundham Parish Councils, we were told that 250 houses would be allocated between the two parishes. The split was left to us. Both Hunston and North Mundham decided to produce their own Neighbourhood Plans, so that they could consult with residents as to how many houses should be built and where. This work has started.
Some 14 weeks later we were then advised that the Officers had decided to recommend individual allocations to the parishes of 200 to Hunston and 50 to North Mundham.
This conflicts with the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) published in August 2018, which demonstrates deliverability of 176 houses in Hunston and 375 in North Mundham. Planning Officers have been unable to justify to the Parish Council why, when clearly North Mundham parish could accommodate the entire allocation on its own, Hunston Parish Council is being told it will have to take the Lion’s share of the proposed housing.
Additionally, we are being warned that if our Neighbourhood Plans are not a draft stage by June 2019 then the District Council will allocate the designated land for development. This would render the work that the Parish Council is undertaking as irrelevant.
Hunston Parish Council’s question is as follows:
Will the Cabinet please agree to reject the officers’ recommendations and recommend to the Council meeting on Tuesday 20 November 2018 that a fairer housing split be allocated between the two parishes?’
[Tuesday 13 November 2018]
(4) Response
Mrs Taylor provided the following response.
‘Thank you for your question regarding the relative proposed allocations of development requirements for Hunston and North Mundham. Firstly, the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment needs to be updated with respect to land at Hunston that is being promoted on behalf of the land owner, the Church Commissioners. It is the availability and, in the view of officers, suitability of this land that has informed the officers’ recommendation with regard to the numbers of dwellings proposed for Hunston and North Mundham. I would emphasise however, that the HELAA is only part of the evidence base when considering land availability and its main purpose is to demonstrate that there is sufficient land available to meet the development needs of the plan area.
I note your concern about the timing of the neighbourhood plan. However, if Chichester District Council (CDC) is to be able to put forward a convincing case as to how development needs can be met and facilitate neighbourhood planning, then rapid progress on those plans will need to be made, or CDC may not be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply and development will take place in an unplanned way through the appeals system.
The Cabinet will consider the content of the Plan today, before it is considered by the full Council on 20 November 2018 and will determine whether the split of housing between the two parishes as proposed is appropriate. I would suggest that Hunston Parish Council makes formal representations on the plan if the recommendations are agreed so that this matter can be given further detailed consideration.’
Supplementary Question
Mrs Foster did not ask a supplementary question.
The immediately foregoing response concluded public question time.