Agenda item

In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time as amended by Full Council on 24 September 2019 the Council will receive any questions which have been submitted by members of the public in writing by noon two working days before the meeting. Each questioner will be given up to three minutes to ask their question. The total time allocated for public question time is 15 minutes subject to the Chairman’s discretion to extend that period.

The following public questions were received. The responses are indicated in italics below.

 

Mr Dicker asked the following questions:

 

1.    Cabinet met this morning and may have made changes to the fundamental recommendations to this council this afternoon without time for public scrutiny due to the 2 day submission of public questions rule.  The public therefore request that in support of transparency any fundamental changes from this morning’s decisions should allow questions to this council on the agenda?  The question/s cannot of course be prepared in advance.

 

2.    Under issues raised no comment is made about the quality of the consultation document and in particular the different standards for assessing land suitability for the development including proximity to SDNP and Harbour boundaries.  How many comments were made and what are the council doing to address these valid concerns.

 

3.    In light of the changes to national planning policy how will the changes be reflected in the plan prior to the next round of consultation and specifically: “This guidance, along with other Government initiatives such as the emerging National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England will need to be reflected as appropriate in the ongoing technical work for the Local Plan Review.”

 

4.    Can the council please explain why the housing numbers have increased in line with this comment: The first new option (Option 1B) was developed from the Preferred Approach Option 1A, but sought to maximise numbers at the locations East of Chichester and South West of Chichester. With a small increase in the Parish numbers, this leads to an increase in housing provision from 4,900 to 5,625 (c.700 dpa).

 

5.    Why is there no identifiable option that looks at land around Goodwood for both employment and residential space.  Yet later in the document it states that further investigation is required around employment space near Goodwood. 

 

6.    When will this council make a decision on the unmet housing need from the SDNP

 

7.    The Peter Brett Report is very detailed.  From a scanned reading prior to the submission of questions I can see no mention of the modelling and policy excluding the link road that Councillor Taylor stated would be undertaken.  Where is this in the PB report or when will it be conducted if it is not in the report.  (This question is likely to change in light of the response from the cabinet)

 

Mrs Taylor provided the following responses:

 

Thank you for your questions.  Answering each in turn –

 

1. The list in section 8 of the report, of significant issues is not intended to be exhaustive and members are asked to consider the full range of responses.  Section 5 of the report outlines the consultation process, and section 6 of the report reflects on the consultation process and how it may be improved.  With regards to the assessment of the suitability of land for development, the covering report highlights that further consideration will be given to landscape capacity and proximity to the sensitive environment of the AONB and confirms that the availability of suitable sites will be reviewed in an update of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment.

 

2. Any changes in government policy will be reflected upon and where necessary the plan updated.  The government has stated that the National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England will be published in 2020 and members will be updated accordingly. 

 

3. In line with national planning policy, the plan should be informed by the consideration of options and alternatives through the sustainability appraisal process. The outcomes of that testing is set out in Appendix 4 to the Local Plan way forward report.  However the total number of dwellings referred to is the sum of all the potential locations for development which are included in that option – it does not represent the target for development in the emerging plan. Ultimately the next iteration of the plan will set out a new housing target justified with reference to the evidence of need, infrastructure and environmental constraints and ensuring the certainty of delivery.

 

4. The refresh of the  Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment, which is referred to in sections 11 and 12 of the report will be considering all available land including that around Goodwood. 

 

5. The unmet need from the South Downs National Park will be considered next year as this council finalises its proposed submission draft plan.  That consideration will need to be based on factors including - confirmation of the position of the national park authority; the availability of sites within the Chichester Plan area; environmental and infrastructure constraints; and sustainability and habitats regulations assessment. 

 

6. Further work to consider the transport implications of a mitigation strategy which excludes the Stockbridge Link Road is underway and the initial results are being discussed with West Sussex County Council as Highway Authority and Highways England.  The outcomes of this work will inform the Plan and the results reported back to Members and interested parties in due course.

 

With regard to question 1 Mr Bennett replied as follows:

 

I do understand the concern.  Whilst it is never the Councils preference to hold several meetings on the same day, it is sometimes forced upon us by other statutory procedural timelines and that is the issue here to achieve the requirements of the consultation.  There is no legal restriction upon doing this but we will continue to try to avoid doing so wherever we can.

 

The Chairman then permitted Mr Dicker to ask a supplementary question as follows:

 

How many comments were made on the Preferred Approach Plan and what is the council doing to address these valid concerns?

 

Mr Frost replied as follows:

 

A further written response will be provided.

 

Ms Boize asked the following question:

 

At a time of commitment to tree retention and planting, my question relates to the Southern Gateway development.

 

For context, the Southern Gateway’s Chichester Gate piazza shows us what can go wrong. It has not become ‘an important meeting and circulation space, carefully detailed with good quality materials and furniture’. It is grey and bleak.  The couple of planted trees has long gone. There is no shade. The piazza is scorching hot in summer sun.

 

The Managing Agent CBRE said that all expenditure proposed to the tenant businesses is scrutinised.  It appears to me with no acknowledgement of the piazza’s contribution to visitors’ well-being, enjoyment and to the environment. The County Council sold the former Girls’ High School playing fields to a private company and as Chichester Gate is privately owned (nowadays by the GE empire) none of our councils has any influence, authority or enforcement over the piazza. Have I understood the situation correctly? Does this Council agree with this? Can this Council get the two trees replanted?

 

My question is this – At a time of commitment to tree retention, planting and landscaping, my question relates to the Southern Gateway development.

As the development process gets underway, will this Council's policy be to retain for future decades enforceable influence and authority over landscaping, including parcels of land that have been or might be sold now and in the future to private companies or bodies which may wish to have independent control?

 

Mrs Taylor responded as follows:

 

Thank you for your question.  Your question appears to be in two parts.  The first asks whether the District Council has any influence, authority or enforcement over the Chichester Gate piazza and specifically the trees planted therein.  The District Council has no land ownership powers it can influence over the Chichester Gate development.  As you correctly identify this was WSCC land and you should contact them direct to see if they retained any control when they sold the land.  The District Council’s powers in this instance would therefore relate to the use of the Council’s planning powers as the Local Planning Authority as part of the determination of planning applications for the development. In this respect, I would expect the Council to consider the use of both suitable planning conditions and/or section 106 planning obligations to secure the provision and retention of new trees and other vegetation as part of an agreed landscape scheme(s). The Council’s planning enforcement powers can be used to secure replacement planting where necessary and expedient to do so. Unfortunately, it is not reasonable for the LPA to require trees that die or become diseased to be replaced indefinitely but I will ask relevant officers to investigate the position regarding the two trees at Chichester Gate that you refer to.

 

Mr Bell then responded as follows:

 

The second part of your question relates to Southern Gateway.  Specifically it asks whether the District Council will retain influence and authority over landscaping.  In this instance the District Council will retain its enforcement control described in my response to your first question above.  However, as scheme promotor (and part land owner) it will also enter into a development agreement with a development partner and through that agreement we will exercise influence over the nature of the development to ensure that it conforms to the requirements of the adopted masterplan and approved development brief.  However, as the development progresses the developer will draw down ownership of the land (to enable the development to be funded) and future control will revert to those contained within the planning acts.”

 

The Chairman then permitted Ms Boize to ask a supplementary question as follows:

 

Having already consulted WSCC would you agree that passing over responsibility of the piazza was a mistake and assuming there is no enforcement authority available what can be done next to ensure the two trees that were destroyed are reinstated?

 

Mrs Taylor deferred to officers and Mr Frost replied as follows:

 

As this Council was the local planning authority, we will arrange for the planning permission, including any relevant Section 106 agreement and planning conditions to be checked to see whether there is any scope to require replacement trees to be planted.

 

Ms Gaskin asked the following question:

 

Why has CDC failed to implement the revised Planning Policy Guidance on climate change with a resultant (estimated) 40,000 addition tonnes of carbon being released from new housing in the district.

Colin Medland's letter to Diane Shepherd relates to this issue 'New homes in climate emergency'.

 

Mrs Taylor provided the following response:

 

We last consulted on the Local Plan Preferred Approach in December 2018 – Feb 2019 - although this predated the latest changes to  the Planning Practice Guidance in March 2019, the preferred approach already proposed challenging targets for the sustainable design of new development, in draft Policy DM16, as one example.   As we continue work on reviewing the plan we will of course have full regard to the content of both the Planning Practice Guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework, and any new relevant evidence in relation to climate change.  Development Management also have regard to these when considering planning applications.

 

The Chairman then permitted Ms Gaskin to make a supplementary comment as follows:

 

Since May 2019 there have been a number of new district councillors and it is important that they consider the Climate Emergency in making decisions particularly those who sit on Planning Committee.

 

The Chairman then concluded public question time.