The following Motions have been submitted in accordance with Council Procedure Rules 15.1 and 15.2.
MOTION 1
Proposer: Councillor Gunner
Seconder: Councillor Greenway
Changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance and Protecting Pensioners from Fuel Poverty
Council Notes:
Council believes:
Council resolves to:
MOTION 2
Proposer: Councillor R Bower
Seconder: Councillor Andy Cooper
In July, the Government announced the cancellation of the proposed Arundel By-pass improvement scheme. The Government took the decision without consulting the relevant local authorities or businesses and did not offer any other compensation measures to alleviate the growing congestion at Arundel and the consequent increasing pressure on the local road network in Arun and our villages. Improvements to the A27 at Arundel have been frequently cited by
local businesses as their main priority in order to improve productivity and economic growth in our district. These issues will be compounded by Government proposals due to increased housing development targets.
This Council therefore agrees to request that the Leader, on behalf of the Council:
(1) Writes to the Prime Minister expressing the gravest concern of the Council and local businesses regarding the cancellation, including the lack of consultation and alternative measures to alleviate the issues caused by the lack of capacity on the A27 at Arundel.
(2) Requests a meeting between the District Council and other parties with the Highways Minister in order to discuss Government plans to provide real and lasting improvements to enable a long term resolution to congestion and safety issues on the A27 at Arundel and protect the character and environment of the villages and communities around the A27 from threats such as increased rat-running. This Council is to make it clear to the Minister and the Government that Arun District Council is open to any viable route that will alleviate the issues at Arundel.
Minutes:
The Chair confirmed that two Motions had been submitted for this meeting.
The Chair confirmed that with the approval of Council he wished for Motion 2 to be heard first. This was approved.
The Chair invited Councillor Bower, as proposer, to present his motion, which is set out below:
This Council therefore agrees to request that the Leader, on behalf of the Council:
(1) Writes to the Prime Minister expressing the gravest concern of the Council and local businesses regarding the cancellation, including the lack of consultation and alternative measures to alleviate the issues caused by the lack of capacity on the A27 at Arundel.
(2) Requests a meeting between the District Council and other parties with the Highways Minister in order to discuss Government plans to provide real and lasting improvements to enable a long term resolution to congestion and safety issues on the A27 at Arundel and protect the character and environment of the villages and communities around the A27 from threats such as increased rat-running. This Council is to make it clear to the Minister and the Government that Arun District Council is open to any viable route that will alleviate the issues at Arundel.
Councillor Bower outlined that Council had discussed the reasons and needs for the A27 Arundel Bypass on numerous occasions as the district’s economy was under tremendous strain due to severe congestion. Any incident on the A27 resulted in traffic redirecting onto the A259 causing significant delays. This overbearing volume of traffic was destroying Arun’s economy, which would steadily worsen without the enhancements to the bypass taking place. Councillor Bower explained how necessary his motion was and that this was because many people do not know that heavy goods vehicles travelling to and from the Ford area had an agreement with West Sussex County Council (WSCC) that their route should be via the A259 travelling east along that road and then moving up through Wick to reach the A27 or the A280 at Angmering. Much work had been progressed in passing the Local Plan in place precepting that the Arundel Bypass would be delivered. The Government’s decision to withdraw progression of the scheme had portrayed a message to West Sussex that it did not care about the future viability of the area. Of concern was the result of a survey which showed that driver’s perception was that the A27 was the second most dangerous road in the country after the A12 and so this provided additional evidence as to why the urgency of the enhancements needed to be urgently reinstated, especially as the congestion impacts were felt well beyond Arundel from Polegate through to Chichester. This meant that the Council had a duty of responsibility in ensuring that the Government were aware of the economic impacts for the district which could only be resolved by the bypass being reinstated within the roads programme. Councillor Bower stated that he had heard suggestions that active travel should be incorporated within this option, however, he had to disagree as active travel was a local and not a national issue and was funded by Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 contributions.
All the concerns and issues presented due to a lack of the bypass were issues that were much wider than this. The increasing amounts of traffic using villages around the A27 as rat-runs to avoid using the A27 around Arundel needed to be addressed. Councillor Bower stated that the Council had been fighting hard for the bypass for many years and he urged Councillors to continue in pushing this fight forward by supporting the motion.
The motion was then seconded by Councillor Cooper.
The Chair then invited debate. The first to speak was Councillor McAuliffe who confirmed his view that the motion proposed was not forward looking and did not address the needs of the district in the future. He outlined that the wards he represented did not want a dual carriage that would decimate the Binsted valleys and parts of other villages. His constituents were asking for realistically deliverable solutions that would keep traffic flowing at the well-known pinch points allowing residents to be able to access the A27 from villages without congestion and avoiding the need to use minor roads as rat runs. Councillor McAuliffe hoped that all Councillors could agree on that fact. He repeated the point that residents wanted alternatives to access villages; they wanted safe active travel; many were elderly with no access to a car and needed alternatives which this motion did not provide. More public transport was needed and more independent and active travel. In response to the points raised, Councillor McAuliffe confirmed that he wished to make some amendments to both parts of the motion to address these gaps and he hoped that their inclusion would assist in finding much needed solutions.
The amendments have been shown below with additions shown in bold and deletions shown using strikethrough :
(1) Writes to the Prime Minister expressing the gravest concern of the Council its desire to consult with Ministers and local businesses regarding the cancellation, including the lack of consultation and on alternative measures to that alleviate congestion the issues caused by the lack of capacity on the A27 at Arundel, including options that expand active travel and public transport.
(2) Requests a meeting between the District Council, local stakeholders, and other parties and with the Highways Minister, in order to discuss Government plans to provide real and lasting improvements on to the A27 at Arundel to enable that address congestion and safety issues and enable a long term resolution to congestion and safety issues on the A27 at Arundel whilst protecting the character and environment of the villages and communities around the A27 in Arun from threats such as increased rat-running, pollution and significant ecological harm. This Council is to make it clear to the Minister and the Government that Arun District Council is open to any viable route that will alleviate the issues at Arundel.
Councillor Wallsgrove then seconded the motion.
The Chair invited debate on the amendment. The first to speak was Councillor Bence who provided key background facts surrounding the A27 and moves for a bypass. Those supporting the amendment explained that it would push for a positive way forward for the A27 addressing the concerns expressed by residents that the original motion would not achieve. Other Councillors speaking in support agreeing that it sought to achieve what was needed with enhancements. Reference was made to the deferment of the A27 scheme from the highways programme with much needed funding being used to address other highways issues such as the repair of potholes and rectifying the state of highways. Areas that the public wanted to see improved to reduce spend on damage to vehicles as a result of potholes and making highways safer for all to use.
Other Councillors spoke confirming that they had some concerns with the changes proposed. This was because active travel was not a National Highways issue. It was a local issue supported by local councils. The concern expressed was that by removing the words ‘gravest concern’ watered down the strength of feeling and message to Central Government. The message that needed to be delivered was that the A27 Arundel Bypass be reinstated and plans to address the much needed improvements confirmed.
Following further debate, Councillor Gunner confirmed that he wished to make a small amendment to the first part of Councillor McAuliffe’s amendment to the motion as follows:
Additions have been shown using bold with deletions using strikethrough
(1) Writes to the Prime Minister expressing the gravest concern of the Council its desire to consult with Ministers and local businesses regarding the cancellation, including the lack of consultation and on alternative measures to that alleviate congestion the issues caused by the lack of capacity on the A27 at Arundel, including locally complemented optionsthat expand active travel and public transport where feasible.
Councillors McAuliffe and Wallsgrove confirmed that they were happy for this further change to be added to their amendment.
The Chair then returned to the substantive motion and invited debate.
Councillors confirmed that they were of the view that the changes made to the motion watered down its true meaning and that firmer language was required. The concern expressed by many residents in the district was that the A27 Arundel Bypass was needed urgently to ease congestion and to prevent over usage of the A259 which was the alternative route available. It was also highlighted that the motion was not just to address the concerns and needs of residents but also businesses in the district. It had to be accepted that the A27 scheme had not been deferred it had been cancelled. The words ‘gravest concerns’ in the original motion should have remained to reflect the strength of feeling.
Gunner then raised a Point of Order in relation to Part 5 – Rules of Procedure (Meetings), Section 1 – Council Procedure Rules – Rule 11 – Duration of Meeting in that as it was nearly 9.00 pm, he proposed to extend the meeting by 30 minutes to 9.30 pm. This was seconded by Councillor Tandy, and this being put to the vote it was declared CARRIED.
Councillor Cooper then spoke as seconder to the amendment. He confirmed that as the motion had now been watered down, it was important to ensure that the Council did all it could to get the A27 enhancements back on track for the benefit of the entire district. Urgent action was needed to get traffic moving around the district to enhance economic growth. If this meant that it would be necessary to look again at route options again, then so be it, the point being strongly made was that action was required now and so he hoped that all Councillors would support the motion.
Councillor Bower, as proposer of the motion, outlined that he was delighted that the sentiment of the motion which was for the council to continue to push as best it could for an enhanced A27 bypass would be supported, having listened to the debate. This scheme needed to be reinstated, discussed and considered by national government. As a district the Council could not afford to see this not being delivered. All Councillors had a responsibility to listen to residents and their pleas to improve the district’s economy. Councillor Bower pledged that he would continue to bring this matter before council until action was forthcoming.
The Council
RESOLVED – That
(1) It writes to the Prime Minister expressing its desire to consult with Ministers on alternative measures that alleviate congestion on the A27 at Arundel, including locally complimented options that expand active travel and public transport where feasible;
(2) It requests a meeting between the District Council, local stakeholders and the Highways Minister, in order to discuss real and lasting improvements to the A27 at Arundel that address congestion and safety issue whilst protecting the character and environment of the villages and communities around the A27 in Arun from threats such as increased rat-running, pollution and significant ecological harm.
(During the course of the debate Councillor Bence redeclared his interest made at the start of the meeting.)
(Councillors Elkins declared their Personal Interests as Members of West Sussex County Council).
The Chair then invited Councillor Gunner to present his motion. The wording of the motion is set out below:
Council Notes:
Council believes:
Council resolves to:
Councillor Gunner presented his motion stating that it was with great sorrow that he had felt the need to present and propose it to Council. He outlined that everyone knew that results of the General Election would result in changes being made by the new Government, however, the decision to restrict winter fuel payments to only pensioners in receipt of means-tested benefits like Pension Credit had too much of an impact that could not go unchallenged. This change had been unforeseen, and it would have devastating impacts with Age UK and other charities already reporting that millions of pensioners who were badly needing to receive the payments would no longer receive them and would struggle to not only stay warm but to stay fed. Such charities had reported an unprecedented increase in enquiries where pensioners were looking for support to offset their increasing cost of living.
Councillor Gunner reminded Members of the district’s large elderly population out of which many would be losing this much needed income. He hoped that the Council could come together to provide support and help and enhance its promotion of alerting eligible pensioners on how to apply for Pension Credit which would provide a step forward in claiming the winter fuel allowance.
The motion was then seconded by Councillor Greenway.
The Chair then invited debate on the motion. Mention was made of the work already undertaken by the Council in promoting pension credit and how this could be applied. Media releases had been issued and benefits staff had all received training to assist with increases in applications and the help that would need to be given to those that required it.
Partnership work was also taking place with Age UK and the Citizens Advice Bureau to further promote this work. Debate also focused on the previous Government who could have enhanced its approach to addressing winter fuel allowance issues. Fuel poverty had been in existence for many years it was confirmed that this was not a new issue.
Although this motion and the last had been well intended and the issues raised could be generally supported, there were Councillors who confirmed concern that both motions were draped in national politics. The point was made that motions before Council should be reserved to areas that the Council was responsible for.
Councillor Greenway, as seconder to the motion, emphasised that some good discussion points had been raised and especially in terms of the good work that the Council was already doing to promote pension credit and in assisting those that needed it in applying for it. He asked if the Council’s communications could include reference to the West Sussex Community Hub that administered the Household Support Fund as part of the Council’s overall awareness campaign. Councillor Greenway urged Councillors to support what he saw as a factual motion that did affect a large part of the district of Arun.
Councillor Gunner, as proposer of the motion, referred to the need to protect Arun’s overwhelming elderly population which had been massively and negatively affected by the changes. In concluding Councillor Gunner stated that the Motion was directed to protecting this sector of the community within Arun.
The Council
RESOLVED – To
(During the course of the debate on this item, Councillor Greenway declared a Personal Interest as a Member of West Sussex County Council).