To receive questions from the public (for a period of up to 15 minutes)
Minutes:
The Chairman invited questions from members of the public who had submitted their questions in advance of the meeting in accordance with the rules of the Council’s Constitution.
The Chairman announced that six questions had been received and that all questions were for the Leader of the Council, Councillor Dr Walsh to respond to. All of these questions related to Agenda Item 8 – A27 Trunk Road – Improvements at Arundel.
Question One outlined concern about the viability of the route options throughout the consultation and referred to an email that Highways England (HE) had sent to a Member of Arun District Council confirming that it had “not yet formulated any conclusions on the planning likelihood of any route” and that “it was too early and inappropriate for HE to conclude the ‘consentability’ of any route”. The questioner asked if the Council had been made aware of this guidance and if it would be taken into account when the route options were ranked against the Council’s stated objective of improving the social and environmental wellbeing of Arundel and Walberton, Storrington and surrounding communities.
Councillor Dr Walsh responded confirming that he was not aware of the email referred to. However, he stated that there was a subtle difference between viability and consentability. The Council’s Officers had worked on the basis that the six options were viable and would not have been put forward by HE if this was not the case.
Members of the Council tonight would debate the issues and would be invited to vote for or against or abstain on each of the six options. The options would not be ranked, however, a ranking could be discernable once the votes had been cast for all six of the options.
Question Two outlined that the Magenta option would result in Walberton and Slindon Parishioners facing the sum of all fears with the monstrous multi-directional motorway interchange that would cover at least the size of the Crossbush junction. Great concern was expressed over the increase in traffic for surrounding areas and the threat that ‘rat runs’ would be created too. The Magenta route would sever two parts of the area permanently and so the Council was asked it could please oppose options that achieved one Arundel by creating two Walbertons.
Councillor Dr Walsh responded stating that the reason why this Special Council meeting had been called was to debate the very important issue of a proposed by-pass of Arundel and so to provide a basis upon which HE could be provided with the Council’s corporate response to its consultation. As part of the debate, Councillors would have regard for the likely effects on local routes and for junction arrangements. Councillor Dr Walsh confirmed that he was confident that severance would be in Members’ mind when casting their votes for/against each of the options.
Question Three outlined that the Crimson route was now said to be ‘viable’ by HE and would cause the least damage to any residential properties by taking a route through the South Downs National Park (SDNP) which was only slightly longer than the online options. In light of environmental concerns surrounding Crimson and the fact that it had the second-best benefit to cost ratio and was the cheapest of all routes, the Council was asked why it could not consider Crimson instead of Magenta?
Councillor Dr Walsh outlined that all six route options were viable. A substantial portion of the Crimson route was within an area classified as “replanted ancient woodland”. He re-emphasised that Councillors would consider all of the six options and that each option would be voted on.
Question Four remarked upon the fact that local residents had initially been persuaded by HE not to support the Crimson route as this would pass through ancient soil and so there would be associated environmental offsetting costs. HE had since confirmed that all routes were viable and had admitted that Crimson was the shortest, cheapest offline route. As halfway between Arundel and Walberton a covered Crimson would be the ideal solution and would unite all communities. Taking this into account the questioner asked the Council to please support Crimson.
Councillor Dr Walsh stated that he could not comment on the assertion of HE persuading local residents towards or away from any particular route option. He reconfirmed that Members would consider all of the six options and that they would be voting for or against or abstaining on all of the six options.
Question Five focused on the cost of all of the route options and the questioner asked that in light of the Climate Emergency, could these vast sums of money be spent on public transport in the Arun District instead which would achieve reduced congestion; less air pollution and reduced CO2 emissions.
Councillor Dr Walsh stated that he understood the questioner’s concerns in terms of the environment and that the Council was addressing the matter of climate change in a number of ways. He reminded those present that the reason why this Special Council meeting had been convened was to debate the very important issue of a proposed bypass for Arundel and to be able to provide HE with the Council’s corporate response to its consultation.
Question Six outlined the questioner’s viewpoint that all six route options had their advantages and disadvantages but that the Magenta option was the least worst option due to varying points of view, it would effectively deal with traffic problems on the A27 and would create the significant benefit of reducing the amount of east-west traffic using the current A27 through the SDNP. The downside of this option was that it, along with four of the other options, would have a negative impact on both local people and their houses. The questioner outlined why he felt that the Crimson route was not a practical runner and he set out the reasons for this. He urged the Council to make a decision to support one of the six HE options and preferably that this be the Magenta option which was the best route for this essential and long-awaited A27 bypass of Arundel.
Councillor Dr Walsh in responding stated that the format of the officer recommendations had been changed to enable Councillors to cast a vote for or against (or to abstain from voting) on each of the six route options. It was felt that this presented the most transparent way of reaching a position that could be relayed to HE as the Council’s corporate response to its consultation.
As no supplementary questions were asked, the Chairman then drew Public Question Time to a close.
[To view the full detail of the questions submitted and the answers provided in writing – please refer to the Council’s Public Question Time page on its web site - https://www.arun.gov.uk/public-question-time]