The report seeks to update the Arun Transport Apportionment Methodology prepared jointly with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and obtain the Committee’s agreement that it be endorsed and be uploaded to the council’s evidence base website. This will help to ensure that the development of Arun provided for in the Adopted Arun Local Plan 2018 is sustainable and supported by necessary transport contributions that mitigate the impact of development.
The Chair, with the Committee’s consent, changed the order of the agenda to hear Agenda Item 7 [Arun Transport Apportionment Methodology Update] ahead of Agenda Item 6 [Local Plan Evidence Update - Biodiversity Net Gain Study] due to the presence of an external guest. The Chair then welcomed again Darryl Hemmings, Transport Planning and Policy Manager at West Sussex County Council, to the meeting. Upon the invitation of the Chair, the Planning Policy Team Leader presented the report which sought the Committee’s endorsement of the update to the Arun Transport Apportionment Methodology prepared jointly with West Sussex County Council, which would help to ensure that the development of Arun provided for in the adopted Arun Local Plan 2018 was sustainable and supported by necessary transport contributions that mitigated the impact of development. An increase in the scheme’s costs, driven by inflationary pressures particularly in the construction industry, was highlighted, as was a correction in paragraph 4.16 of the report [on page 30 of the Agenda Pack] with confirmation that, contrary to what it said in the report, a contribution from the Fontwell Strategic Development would go to the A29 Realignment project.
Members then took part in a full debate on the item where a number of points were raised, including:
· the dramatic decrease in the A259-Comet Corner Junction and increase in the A259-Oystercatcher Junction cost estimates and whether what was being proposed had significantly changed and would have any impact to the safety schemes at both junctions
· the impact of real and projected increases to interest rates on ensuring the appropriate levels of funding were received from developers and what flexibility there was to ensure contributions were proportionate to the final cost of a scheme
· questions about the relationship between schemes and lead developments, their lack of proximity to each other (for example, the Comet Corner junction and the West of Bersted development), and that for many schemes the lead development being Littlehampton Westbank over which there were question marks and whether it should therefore be removed completely from the list to avoid causing delays to road improvements
· the difficult position of wanting infrastructure improvements but them being dependent on planning applications that were viable to developers in terms of Section 106 contributions
· concern for the possibility that developers might try to increase housing numbers in order to fund the higher contributions and then being in the vicious cycle of more cars and even greater demand on infrastructure, thus challenging the notion of building our way out of congestion problems
· whether developers would be able to meet this extra cost which in some situations was significantly greater than previously estimated
· the policy context (low carbon transport, public transport) and infrastructure being and needing to be a lot more than roads
· the use of CIL funds for road improvements
· the need to ensure local infrastructure improvements were also made to mitigate for the impacts of the strategic sites in addition to those schemes identified in the traffic modelling and concern with ... view the full minutes text for item 451