Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Public Question Time

Questions submitted by members of the public in writing by noon on the previous working day (for a period up to 15 minutes).

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Atholl Forbes to the table to read his public question:

 

Gatwick Airport recently announced its Master Plan which includes:

 

(1) Increasing the capacity of its main runway

(2) Turning its standby runway into a second runway and

(3) Safeguarding land for a potential third runway.

 

Should Gatwick’s plans proceed, they have confirmed that flight numbers would increase by almost 40%, passenger numbers by over 50%. The result will be devastating for the long-suffering communities of West Sussex already adversely impacted by Gatwick’s operations. Such growth would result in:

 

-       Even more intolerable noise for communities

-       More adverse health impacts for ourselves and our children

-       A reduction in the value of our homes

-       Additional strain on already fragile road and rail infrastructure 

-       Permanent environmental damage to our beautiful countryside and

-       An extra million tonnes of CO2 emissions pa, risking our planet’s future

 

With the above in mind, can the Council please confirm what action it intends to take in order to ensure the protection of its residents from Gatwick Airport’s opportunistic growth plans.

 

Mrs Taylor gave the following response:

 

Thank you for your question. The Council responded to the Government’s consultation on the Gatwick Airport Draft Master Plan in January 2019.  An analysis of potential impacts on Chichester District was provided (full details are available within Appendix 1 to the Cabinet report of Tuesday 8 January 2019 - Item 636) and the Council will make necessary representation through response to any further consultation on Gatwick expansion proposals.

 

The Chairman invited Katy Blunden to read her public question:

 

I recently became a resident (rental) of Russell street and noticing all the ‘zone O’ signs around the area dutifully went down to the council to purchase a permit. But No! I was informed that I was not eligible to apply for one as Russell street is not a permitted street, despite being slap bang in the middle of zone O and surrounded by permitted streets (Oving Road, Green Lane, Armadale road) this means that I have no option but to try and get a space down Russell street. This is becoming almost impossible due to a constant lack of spaces, partly obviously due to other residents with the same issue, but also from commuters who have worked out that it’s not permitted and are parking there all day whilst at work. Russell Street is a tiny little road which doesn’t even have room for very many residents cars let alone any others and we have no option to park elsewhere due to being surrounded by permitted roads. This seems very unfair and is becoming dangerous as people are parking in all sorts of wild ways just to squeeze in.  I would like to see Russell Street included in the Zone O banding for two reasons:

 

1.    It will discourage non-residents using it for “free parking”

2.    It will enable the residents to have the option of parking in the surrounding areas of zone O if there is none available in Russell Street.

 

Having spoken with other residents we all agree we would happily buy permits if it meant our options for parking increased.

 

Please could you consider recommending the inclusion of Russell Street in the Zone O permit banding?

 

Mr Bell gave the following response:

 

Thank you for your question. West Sussex County Council determine where the controlled parking zones should be allocated within the city centre, although Chichester District Council administer the provision of permits on WSCC’s behalf.  When the extension to Zone O was made a few years ago WSCC decided not to include Russell Street.  Chichester District Council cannot therefore sell a permit for this area as it is not included in the agreed zone from WSCC.  Please contact WSCC if you wish to seek additional information relating to the reason that Russell Street was not included or to suggest that this is included.  However, residents of Russell Street are able to purchase a non-resident permit for nearby Green Lane, Pound Farm Road and Bridge Road, should this be required. 

 

The Chairman invited Mr Weavis, the Chair of Chidham and Hambrook and Nutbourne East Housing Action Group to read his question:

 

With regard to the Chichester District Council Local Plan Review and the Governments imposed housing need for the District. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ Clause 60 states that an alternative approach to the Standard Method of housing needs assessment can be used under exceptional circumstances. This is further confirmed in the ‘Housing and economic needs assessment’ Guidance document page 2. Chichester District and other Local Councils on the South Coast have a number of considerable constraints to development including the South Downs National Park to the north and the AONB to the south which could justifiably be included in ‘exceptional circumstances’. My question is, given the NPPF also encourages cross Council dialogue on this matter, did Chichester District Council ever discuss with other Local Councils the possibility of a joint application to Government to reduce imposed housing numbers and, if not, why was this action not considered.

 

Mrs Taylor provided the following response:

 

Thank you for your question. The Council is a member of the West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Planning Board, which includes all authorities in the West Sussex and Greater Brighton area.  The Board did submit a combined response to the most recent government consultation on this matter (December 2018) which included the following points –

 

      Collectively, it is already acutely challenging for the West Sussex and Greater Brighton authorities to currently meet their unmet housing need, given the significant areas of nationally protected landscapes including the South Downs National Park.

      The proposed change would increase the authorities collective unmet housing need.

      The 300,000 Government annual target is not evidenced based and the West Sussex and Greater Brighton authorities consider that there needs to be a robust evidential base to justify this target.

      There may be many non-methodological reasons for the new projections to be lower – reduced migration for example, so they should be taken into account.

 

However the Government did subsequently confirm their position in the national policy.  National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 60 states that to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach which also reflects current and future demographic trends and market signals. The council has also written to the local MP to request a meeting with the Department of Homes, Communities and Local Government requesting a meeting which has since been arranged with the Leader, Chief Executive and a senior member of that department.

 

The Chairman allowed Mr Weavis to ask a supplementary question. Mr Weavis asked with reference to South East England Council’s Partnership whether there is a possibility that feedback could be given via that group. Mrs Lintill confirmed that she is the council’s representative on the group. She assured Mr Weavis that the group continues to lobby the Government on a number of key areas.

 

The Chairman invited Mr Dicker to read his question:

 

I have asked this question/s from Councillor Taylor and at full council.  I will do so again as I still have not had a concrete response:

 

The SDNP authority claim that they have an unmet housing need of circa 51 houses per year through the life of the plan.  Neither they nor CDC know where this unmet housing need comes from.  Can this council explain:

 

When the decision on accepting or rejecting the unmet housing need will come for a decision at this council?

 

Whilst we accept that there is a need to cooperate can this council explain why the metric of land suitability includes land in flood plain 3 with iconic views in the preferred approach yet the SDNP are excluding land that is in flood plain 2 with iconic views in their local plan thus leading to the unmet housing need?

 

Whilst I can see that we are to get our next opportunity to comment on the preferred approach when will we expect to see the associated amended evidence base and in particular the completed (not draft) transport study and the alternate transport study as quoted in the minutes and the other incomplete documents that where presented at the last terrible consultation?

 

Mrs Taylor provided the following response:

 

Thank you for your question. The unmet housing need is a result of the difference between the assessments of housing need prepared in accordance with national planning policy, and the level of development set in the South Down Local Plan, which was adopted in July of this year following a public Examination by a Planning Inspector.  Further detail is set out in the Council’s Housing Background Paper dated January 2019 which is available on the Council’s website under Supporting evidence - Local Plan review. 

 

In March 2018 the Council considered the request from the National Park Authority for unmet housing needs derived from the part of the National Park within Chichester District should be addressed through the Chichester Local Plan Review.  The report acknowledged there was unmet need.  The Council resolved that subject to the completion of on-going work Chichester District Council will assess its ability to meet some or all of the unmet housing needs arising from the part of the South Downs National Park within Chichester District via the Chichester Local Plan Review.

 

Therefore the work to determine if unmet needs can be resolved in the Chichester Local Plan review is ongoing.  The Preferred Approach Plan included an additional 41 dwellings per annum in recognition of this unmet need.  Ultimately, the Council, in the final draft Proposed Submission Plan will propose the level of housing development, including factors including the unmet need from South Downs National Park are, for testing through Examination. The process by which the National Park Authority assessed the suitability of sites for development has been through an Examination and found sound by an Planning Inspector.  The District Council can only assess the suitability of sites within its area according the national planning policy.

 

The Local Plan timetable to be considered at this Council meeting proposes that is the subject of public consultation starting in March 2020.  The proposed submission Plan will be supported by further evidence on transport and other matters.  It should be said that the Local Plan is an iterative process and the document itself, and the supporting evidence, evolves and is informed by the responses from public consultations before a final position is reached.

 

The Chairman allowed Mr Dicker to ask a supplementary question. Mr Dicker asked when the decision relating to unmet housing need would be made by Full Council. Mrs Hamilton confirmed that it would be March 2020.

 

Top of page