Agenda item
Public Question Time
In accordance with Chichester District Council’s scheme for public question time as amended by Full Council on 24 September 2019 the Cabinet 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.
Minutes:
The following public questions were received. The responses are indicated in italics below.
Mr Dicker asked the following questions:
1. 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.
2. In light of the changes to national planning and 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.”
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. When will this council make a decision on the unmet housing need from the SDNP?
6. 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.
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.
Mr Dicker was permitted to ask a supplementary question:
How many comments have been made and what is the council doing to address the concerns on the quality of consultation documents.
I was assured that the council would be making a decision on the unmet housing need from the South Downs National Park this month.
Mrs Taylor replied as follows:
I recall explaining that the South Downs National Park decision would be made next year.
Mr Frost replied as follows:
The number of responses is set out in the tables in the report. Further details on the specific point raised will be sent to Mr Dicker outside of the meeting.
Cllr Charlotte Pexton (Bosham Parish Council) asked the following question:
The Initial Council Response in respect of AL10 Chidham and Hambrook states (p112):
“In March 2019 the Revised Landscape Capacity Study was produced which confirmed the assessment in the November 2018 study regarding the capacity for landscape change in the east-west corridor. The Preferred Approach Plan notes the potential landscape sensitivities, including protecting views to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings.
Therefore further consideration will need to be given to the capacity of this service village area to accommodate development, particularly with regards to landscape capacity and proximity to the sensitive environment of the AONB.”
Bosham Parish Council considers that the same consideration must be given to AL7 Highgrove Farm, Bosham. Bosham Parish Council is concerned that the wording of the Councils “Initial Response” implies a more stringent assessment and appraisal of the landscape setting relating to the AL10 allocation than is the case with Policy AL7.
Bosham Parish Council therefore requests Chichester District Council to confirm that there will be no less stringent assessment and appraisal of AL7 than of any other potential allocation along the A259 corridor?
Mrs Taylor provided the following response:
Thank you for the question. I can confirm that all sites are and will be subject to the same stringent assessment and appraisal. The proposed allocation of 500 homes at AL10 - Chidham and Hambrook – is considered to be a significant number for a service village and that is why it is recognised in the report – however, these considerations are acknowledged to affect other parishes and will be taken into account.
Cllr Pexton was permitted a supplementary question as follows:
The council’s landscape study demonstrated that the area around Bosham has the same landscape sensitivity as Chidham so needs to be taken into account.
The comment was noted.
Mr Marson asked the following question:
QUESTION ON S12 INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION (p39 of Agenda Pack)
The narrative of the officer statement as documented is not a true reflection of either the Strategic Transport Meeting 15/11/17, nor the CDC Transport Consultancy Brief (sections 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5).
Is it not about time our Cabinet took a position that the Local Plan stated a dependency on adequate A27 funding from Government. In taking that stance, push back the onus on the CDC Director of the Environment and Planning to demonstrate that he, and his officers,deliver balanced narratives that enable our elected councillors to make informed decisions.
A balanced narrative for Infrastructure that would assist our councillors, and one which the public could readily accept, should contain integrated statements that take account of impact to Air Quality/Public Health from housing/transport numbers. The implications from the Court of Appeal judgement 12th Sept in Kent, where the refusal to grant planning approval for housing on the grounds of impact to Air Quality should not be underestimated given the current, and likely future AQMAs in Chichester.
My question is therefore…(a) Is this Cabinet prepared to declare a red line dependency for A27 Highways England funding to support our Local Plan? (b) will this Cabinet reject the S12 narrative as written and request Officers to provide a balanced narrative for our elected councillors to consider.
Mrs Taylor provided the following response:
Thank you for your question. In terms of part (a), a scheme of junction improvements for the A27 Chichester bypass is not at this stage funded via the Government’s Roads Investment Strategy (either RIS1 or RIS2) and whilst the Council will continue to press for government funding and support, this cannot be relied upon. In order to be able to submit a sound Local Plan for independent examination next year, the Council has no option therefore but to proceed with work (in conjunction with Highways England) on the Local Plan A27 mitigation scheme, which is likely to comprise smaller-scale, at-gradeimprovements to ensure the junctions will continue to operate effectively and to mitigate the impacts of new development. However the work to date does suggest that public funding support will be necessary as part of that strategy.
In terms of part (b) of your question, the representations received to Policy S12 which concerns infrastructure provision cover a wide range of infrastructure matters and so are not focused solely on transport issues. Appendix 1 to the Local Plan Review report on the Cabinet agenda explains that the Council has provided a summary of the comments received and an initial response to the matters raised; unfortunately, it is not possible for the Council to provide a unique or detailed response to every representation. Nevertheless, I would wish to reassure you that matters such as the impacts on air quality and human health are key issues for the District Council, West Sussex County Council and Highways England in assessing the effects of new housing and associated traffic arising from development in both the adopted and emerging Local Plans. Ultimately, the answer to this part of your question will of course be a matter for members of the Cabinet to determine when they consider the Local Plan agenda item.
Ms Towers asked the following question:
In the Responses to the Preferred Approach Consultation and Way Forward document Policy S30 Strategic Wild life corridors there were 18 responses in support and one against. Those in support represented large organisations and councils , the one objection was a developer representing land owners.
The first line of the Council’s response states “while there is a level of support, a number of objections and suggestions to amending the policy have been received”. This does not reflect the fact that there is a significant level of support and only one objection. The suggestions to amend the policy are to improve the corridors. The objection seems to be because the wild life corridor proposed in Fishbourne is on land that could be developed.
Can the Council assure me that there will not be equal weighting between the many supporting submissions and the one objection and that the objection will not be on an equal footing with the many organisations who are putting the crucial conservation of wild life and bio diversity in Chichester Harbour and the National Park before development?
Mrs Taylor provided the following response:
As a matter of clarification, the report refers to the number of objections not objectors. However, I can confirm that the responses received will be considered on an equal footing with reference to the issues raised within them.
Ms Towers was permitted a supplementary question as follows:
Will you treat the objections on an equal footing with the supporters
Mr Frost replied as follows:
There were a number of issues raised which would be treated with equal weighting.
Ms Towers then asked:
What assurances can the council make that once in place wildlife corridors will be protected in perpetuity?
Mrs Lintill requested the supplementary question be submitted in writing for a written response as it did not directly link to the initial question.
Mrs Lintill then concluded public question time.