Agenda item

The report seeks authorisation to respond to National Highways (formerly Highways England) with a corporate response to the Statutory Consultation, regarding the Preferred Route for the Arundel section of the A27 Trunk Road improvements.

It sets how the issues raised by Arun District Council in the non-statutory consultation in 2019 have been addressed and raises other pertinent issues.

 

The Chair confirmed that this Special Meeting of the Council had been called to allow the Council to consider and respond to National Highways with a corporate response to the Statutory Consultation regarding the preferred route for the Arundel section of the A27 Trunk Road Improvements.

 

            The Interim Group Head of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer reminded Members that the purpose of this meeting was to provide a response to National Highways as part of its statutory consultation. It was not for the Council to consider a case for choosing a route, but to make comment  upon the National Highways’ preferred route. It was important for Members to take this point into account.

 

            The Chair then invited Councillor Gunner to propose the recommendations as set out in the Officer report.

 

            Before proposing these recommendations, Councillor Gunner made a statement about the situation in Ukraine.

 

            Turning to the Arundel Bypass he outlined how vital the improvements were to the Town of Arundel and to the district’s overall economy including West Sussex and the South of England. The economic benefits were clear; the bypass was needed; this was millions of pounds of investment for the area; the population of Arun had grown significantly over time and so road infrastructure was essential. The grey route proposed was the infrastructure that was required. It was highlighted that the residents of Littlehampton and Bognor Regis would not appreciate the Council turning down a brand new road in the district. Economic growth in Arun was essential along with more car movement, more visitors and tourists to assist regeneration and in bringing more investment into the district’s economy, stimulating growth, jobs and prosperity.

 

            The grey route had been chosen by National Highways (NH) to work around the National Park as the South Downs National Park had opposed the previously favoured Magenta route. The Grey route had been chosen to reduce impact on woodland and the South Downs National Park. Councillor Gunner reminded Members that tonight the purpose of the meeting was not to debate what Councillors saw as their favourite route, it was an opportunity to pass comment on the route selected by NH, the Grey route.

 

Councillor Gunner stated that he supported the need for an Arundel bypass, to not have a bypass was not a viable option. He supported the need to have a Ford Road junction and maintained that the Council had to continue to work with WSCC and NH to ensure this would happen. Councillor Gunner supported all works to reduce congestion at the Fontwell roundabouts; he shared the concerns of residents of some of the villages and supported all work to reduce rat-running through Walberton; a Ford Road Junction would help but other access points had to be considered. He supported all and any work to mitigate and challenge flooding on the flood plain at Arun and he expressed his deep frustration over NH’s inability to produce and provide up to date data and information to local communities.

He urged NH to urgently embrace greater transparency so that the most accurate information be made available.  He had difficulty in understanding that the Grey route was the option for consideration in terms of the many problems that would not be faced had the Magenta route been selected.  He did not understand why NH had ignored the information contained within the Local Plan and the projected housing growth which was substantially less than what the Council would be facing. Amongst all of this, there were strong messages being expressed by residents. Arundel wanted the bypass and this message needed to be made clear to NH whilst at the same time firmly expressing the concerns and views of residents in Walberton and other nearby villages.

 

Councillor Gunner therefore confirmed that he was happy to propose the recommendations but with slight amendments. He looked forward to NH’s response to the consultation and the council’s comments hoping that these would be taken on board. 

 

The Interim Group Head of Law & Governance and Monitoring Officer confirmed that the amendments to the recommendations in the report were largely technical additions which would allow Officers to respond to the planning inspectorate and to take part in the examination as required and to submit additional documents in relation to the adequacy of consultation and the local impact report. These were normal stages in such a process which had not yet been reached.  These additional actions would only be required if NH decided to submit the application. If this did not occur, the Council would not be required to submit an adequacy of consultation response or a local impact report.  The amendments gave authority and provided the appropriate delegations to allow officers to do that following tonight’s meeting.

 

            Councillor Pendleton then seconded the recommendations.

 

            In line with the Council’s Constitution [Council Procedure Rule 4.3 – Procedure for debates at Special Meeting] the Chair confirmed that before moving to a debate, where amendments could be made, he would be inviting Councillors to ask technical questions and to make statements first. 

 

The Chair then invited technical questions from Members and statements.

 

The questions asked are summarised below:

 

·         The Officer report referred to a study undertaken in 2013 suggesting an economic benefit to the district in excess of £700m but in a recent report from NH the economic benefit was £70m. Could this disparity be explained?

·         Confirmation was sought that this meeting was to only focus on the preferred route, the Grey route.

·         Why had an up to date analysis outlining the economic benefit not been provided?

 

The statements made are summarised below:

·         Councillor Roberts’ statement referred to applying ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ to the consideration of the Grey route based on the evidence provided within the consultation document. His Ward of Arundel & Walberton had divided views on the preferred route option. In deliberating it, he had based his views on consensus; focused on proper mitigation and the need to have openness and transparency in all communications.  Had the consultation undertaken by NH been adequate and was their trust in NH to undertake the mitigation needed? Why had the Arundel alternative not been investigated further as a viable option? The cost benefit rationale represented low value for money and not high as confirmed by NH. Where would funding be found for the viaduct at a cost of £302m? The Ford Road Junction was an important aspect which appeared to not be accepted by NH and there was no business case available to confirm this need. The traffic figures used by NH were massively out of date in terms of confirmed houses to be built per annum in the district. The missing details for mitigation for Walberton were also missing for Arundel. NH had failed to identify and account for unreliable Stage 2 traffic assessments; failed to consult on options to prevent traffic diverting from the A29 and A27 at Fontwell to avoid congestion; failed to consult on options to prevent rat-running in Walberton; failed to correct misleading and Stage 2 advocacy material; failed to prevent misleading use of Stage 2 advocacy material at Stage 3; failed to update key stakeholders with the most recent BCR; and had failed to provide options appraisals or business cases for traffic modelling at the ford junction. Councillor Roberts outlined that he supported an offline bypass but that the evidence before him was questionable in the absence of a lot of information.

·         Councillor Dendle referred to the history surrounding previous preferred routes for the A27 leading up to this point. He outlined that a mix of his constituents supported this by-pass and some opposed it. The arguments for not accepting the preferred route were difficult to accept as there was desperate need for this infrastructure to be delivered. NH had offered the only route left; the Grey route. The threat of not accepting this route was the real possibility that the Government could withdraw its funding. Economically the arguments to refuse were difficult to challenge as the areas of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton had been strangled by insufficient infrastructure for too long. If the district wanted economic vitality for its communities, then there was need to vote for a bypass  and to support this route.

·         Councillor Thurston’s view was that the consultation provided by NH was flawed and she felt that the council should not accept it without more challenge and scrutiny. She outlined her reasons why the council should not endorse the recommendations stating that they did not fully reflect the views of Councillors and as there was inadequate traffic data making it difficult to reach a fully informed decision. The issues to consider were the effects that induced traffic would have on the entire western part of Arun. NH needed to provide a more robust and transparent evidence base across a number of areas already outlined earlier, including the traffic modelling to allow for environmental impacts to be better understood. A more robust response to the lack of a Ford Road junction needed to be given. Instead, a new transport hub at Ford Railway station should be considered to encourage new residents to the area to use other methods of public transport. The impacts on habitats; wildlife; cultural heritage and the destruction that this route would cause had to be taken more seriously with the council being encouraged to challenge the untold harm to local communities. 

·         Councillor Walsh also referred to the history covering the A27 and referred to past routes. He outlined that the A27 was the major transport corridor for the South-East and had been scheduled to be a constant dual carriageway north of Newhaven and as far south as north of Bournemouth but there were 2-3 missing links in West Sussex, Arundel being one of those. There was undoubted interest for the district to ensure that the A27 improvements went ahead for residents, businesses, commuting, tourism, regeneration and the wider national economy – the improvements needed to be completed. As moves to phase out fossil fuels and electric vehicle usage increased, to cite a climate emergency could not be used as an excuse to oppose the bypass as electric and hydrogen powered vehicles would still need it. The South Downs National Park’s attitude towards this road building scheme from the start had been regrettable. Councillor Walsh referred to the increasing benefits to formulating the need to get the bypass built and to relieve the A259, currently used as a rat run between Worthing and either Walberton and Fontwell to avoid current blockages at Crossbush and Arundel.

 

 

The Interim Group Head of Law & Governance provided advice reminding Councillors that the pre-application consultation had been conducted by NH and not by the Council. Councillors had to respond to the consultation based on the information provided by NH. If NH had provided figures on the economic benefits that was the figure that Members needed to be addressing, it was not a Council decision on whether to build the A27 bypass or not it was for the Council to confirm to NH its response to the preferred route option announced by NH.

 

            The Chair then returned to the recommendations in the report. An adjournment was called to allow amendments to be prepared to share to the meeting.

Councillor Gunner then proposed the following amendments – as shown below – additions have been shown in bold.

         

 

(1)  To authorise the Chief Executive to respond specifically in respect of the Grey Route proposal Statutory Consultation as follows:

(a)  Welcome the opportunity to comment upon the proposals for the off-line ‘Grey Route’ bypass proposals.

(b)  Notwithstanding the Council’s preferred option: the Magenta route, not being taken forward, support is given to the Grey route subject to the following (c) & (d)

(c)  The current discussions regarding inclusion of a south facing Ford Road Junction with the new A27 road continue between all relevant partners.

(d)  National Highways strive to further mitigate to reduce rat-running and increased traffic in local villages, especially Walberton

(e)  Suggest that a high-level deck is the most appropriate form for the viaduct across the River Arun valley and flood plain providing there is no compromise in respect of a Ford Road Junction

(f)   In regard to the Yapton Lane options, to take forward the option that has the less risk and greater constructability but suggest that this should be balanced by the views of the immediately affected residents and businesses

(g)  Encourage National Highways to continue dialogue with the Littlehampton Harbour Board in respect of utilising the port of Littlehampton in the construction phase of the project

(h)  Reiterate the Council’s comments made in respect of the previous consultation (October 2019), to consider all potential opportunities, which would further reduce the impact on residents and the environment.

2 That Full Council

(a) authorises the Director of Place, where the Director considers it necessary, to respond to any further stages of pre-submission consultation, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee in support of the formal response approved under Recommendation 1.

(c) if an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted, authorises the Director of Place where the Director considers necessary, to:

(i) approve the Council’s ‘adequacy of consultation’ response;

(ii) prepare and submit the Council’s written representation and Local Impact Report; to negotiate with the applicant on the DCO requirements, any S106 Agreement, and the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground; and to comment on the written representations of third parties – all in support of the formal response approved under Recommendation 1;

(iii) attend the examination hearings and answer the Examining Authority’s questions in support of the Council’s position; and

3.      That representation be made to Government (Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), to urge a resolution to the mis-match in guidance and methodologies for traffic modelling thus cost benefit analysis, for new road schemes and development projections.

and

4       Note that a business case is being developed in partnership with West Sussex County Council and encourage the continuation of partnership working with National Highways in addressing the Council’s concerns over the Ford Road Junction

 

Councillor Pendleton  then seconded these amendments.

           

The Chair then invited debate on this amendment.

 

            Councillor Dixon confirmed that he wished to make an amendment.  This is shown below with additions shown in bold  and deletions shown using strikethrough:

 

(1)  To authorise the Chief Executive to respond specifically in respect of the Grey Route proposal Statutory Consultation as follows:

(a)   Welcome the opportunity to comment upon the proposals for the off-line ‘Grey Route’ bypass proposals;

(b)   Notwithstanding the Council’s preferred option: the Magenta route, not being taken forward, support is given to the Grey route subject to the following (c) & (d);

Notes that none of the Council’s Members supported the Grey Route and regrets that the National Highways decision to proceed with the Grey Route has, in essence, usurped local democracy;

(c)   Notwithstanding the Council’s The current discussions regarding inclusion of a south facing Ford Road Junction with the new A27 road continue between all relevant partners; support for an offline A27 Arundel bypass the Council believes that the very considerable damage that will be caused to the local environment and biodiversity and in particular to the communities of Binsted, Fontwell and Walberton by the Grey Route renders it unacceptable

 

 

 

(d)   National Highways strive to further mitigate to reduce rat-running and increased traffic in local villages, especially Walberton; are required to constructively reconsider in detail all remaining alternatives

(e)   Suggest that a high-level deck is the most appropriate form for the viaduct across the River Arun valley and flood plain; the current discussions regarding inclusion of south facing Ford Road junction with the new A27 road continue between all relevant partners

(f)     In regard to the Yapton Lane options, to take forward the option that has the less risk and greater constructability but suggest that this should be balanced by the views of the immediately affected residents and businesses; If National Highways persists with pursuing the Grey Route there must be an undertaking not to proceed until the problems of rat running and increased traffic in local villages, especially Walberton, have been fully discussed and agreed with representatives of those villages and this Council. Also a scheme acceptable to local villages and this Council to solve the bottlenecks at the East and West Fontwell roundabouts is in hand for prompt completion.

(g)   Encourage National Highways to continue dialogue with the Littlehampton Harbour Board in respect of utilising the port of Littlehampton in the construction phase of the project Suggest that a high level deck is the most appropriate form for the viaduct across the River Arun Valley and flood plain.

(h)   If National Highways persists with pursuing the Grey Route and in regard to the Yapton Lane options, to take forward the option that has the less risk and greater constructability but suggest that this should be balanced by the views of the immediately affected residents and businesses.

(i) Encourage National Highways to continue dialogue with the Littlehampton Harbour Board in respect of utilising the port of Littlehampton in the construction phase of the project.

2.       That representation be made to Government (Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), to urge a resolution to the mis-match in guidance and methodologies for traffic modelling thus cost benefit analysis, for new road schemes and development projections; and

3        Note that a business case is being developed in partnership with West Sussex County Council and encourage the continuation of partnership working with National Highways in addressing the Council’s concerns over the Ford Road Junction

         

          Councillor Coster seconded this amendment.

 

Councillor Dixon then explained his amendment and his concerns over the intolerable pressure this route would inflict onto other village areas. Binsted would be destroyed and the village of Walberton would become an unbearable rat-run. The Council also needed to receive assurances about the impacts for the Fontwell roundabouts before the project should proceed.  The main argument for not accepting his amendment seemed to be a fear over what NH or the Government might do next.  It was vital for the council to make decisions for the right reasons not over concerns that the funding for the bypass might be withdrawn, as had been the case for Chichester. Councillor Dixon was sure that this would not be repeated in this situation and so the council needed to fight for what was right and needed to ensure that it would make the right decision for the district. There was a complete lack of transparency in terms of the consultation conducted by NH and the message to NH was that it should rethink its proposals.

 

The Chair then invited debate on this amendment.

 

Although there were Councillors that agreed with much of what Councillor Dixon had said in proposing his amendment, they questioned the statements made and the evidence that went with it. The key thread in speeches made opposing the amendment was that the district needed a bypass. The whole of the economy of the district relied upon its provision to support employment, regeneration and tourism. The risk of what happened at Chichester could not happen here.

 

There were Councillors who stated that they could not support the amendment as the purpose of this meeting was not to redesign a preferred route, that proposal had been made by NH.

 

Others thought that the amendment was negating the original motion because it was confirming that although the Council wanted a bypass, it wanted one on different terms. This was not possible as there were no other route options. It was necessary for the Council to make the right decision for the whole of the district and the fact was that this was about accepting the overwhelming need for the bypass.

 

Other Councillors pointed out that the matters of concern expressed did need to be addressed and that this would be covered by the Planning Inspector, this was still a very early stage of the process. There was no alternative proposal. Councillors understood the passions in presenting alternative proposals; and the implications for all residents in Arun and businesses in the Southeast were not fully understood, however, the risk of the scheme not being delivered had far greater implications.

 

Some Councillors confirmed that they were sympathetic to some elements of the amendment such as addressing rat-running in nearby villages. The biggest risk was the fear of NH withdrawing from this scheme. The proposals were better than no options and Councillors needed to be mindful of what had happened at Chichester. Other Councillors were of the view that this decision should not be made based on fear, this would not happen. This decision was not about saying that a bypass was not wanted or needed but about the need to better the whole economy, ensuring that the right mitigation was undertaken and the need for a Ford Road junction accepted. The council had to stand hard and had to ensure that the proposals were right for the district. The environmental damage and biodiversity impact also had to be considered and it was strongly felt that the council had to express support to the residents that would be affected and should have the courage to say what it was not prepared to tolerate. An argument was made for the provision of a Fontwell flyover.

 

Councillor Coster, as seconder to the amendment, urged Councillors to support it as it represented supporting residents that would be adversely affected. The Council could not accept the damage the bypass would do by destroying residents’ homes and communities and to the environment and biodiversity. Irrepairable damage would be done to the western villages due to rat-running which could not be accepted to just save 6 minutes of journey time. This did not justify the damage that would be made. The congestion that would occur at the Fontwell roundabouts could not be accepted, there were many disbenefits that the Grey route would bring to the district. There were alternatives and the amendment proposed called for closer consideration of these alternatives. 

 

 

Councillor Dixon, as proposer of the amendment, confirmed that the Grey route was the most damaging environmentally. It was longer than the other route options and would destroy more habitat. The priority was protecting local communities not conifer plantations. Ancient woodland was being destroyed to make way for other forms of infrastructure around the country and so why was this plantation so sacrosanct?  There was no answer to this question. The council was being asked to give its retrospective approval to the Grey route. Councillor Dixon felt that this should not happen and that the council should standby residents and seek a route that did not damage communities. He felt that NH and SDNP were not acting on behalf of their communities and so the council needed to stand up and support its residents. Councillor Dixon was keen to see an offline bypass but was not prepared to see a bad option.

 

            A recorded vote had been requested on this amendment. 

 

Those voting for it were Councillors Buckland, Coster, Dixon, Hamilton, Haywood, Northeast, Thurston and Worne (8). Those voting against were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chace, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, Mrs English, English, Gunner, Hughes, Madeley, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton, Rhodes, Roberts, Staniforth (20). Councillors Blanchard-Cooper, Brooks, Gregory, Jones, Lury, Oppler, Stainton, Stanley, Walsh and Yeates abstained from voting (10).

 

            The amendment was therefore declared LOST.

 

 

            Councillor Walsh confirmed that he wished to make an amendment. He confirmed his wish and support for the Magenta route to be reconsidered and confirmed his reluctance in supporting the Grey route, but this was the only remaining option. It was his view that for Recommendation (1) Parts, (b), (c) and (d) these needed amending because many Councillors believed strongly and had spoken to support the inclusion of a junction at Ford Road. This needed to be stated more forcibly, the recommendations should leave the option open to impress upon NH for a junction with Ford Road was essential for local residents and by the business community.  Looking at (d), he supported the concerns of residents at Walberton along The Street which would be met by huge congestion along a narrow road with no proper pavements. Councillor Walsh also referred to the roundabout capacity at the top of Fontwell Avenue and eastern junction coming down from Slindon, they were crucial to the A27 delivering its benefits. Balancing this, there was threat that NH might walk away and take its funding elsewhere. The council therefore needed to reflect the mood of this meeting in that it was not entirely happy but subject to the rest of the amendment and the other conditions proposed it could support his amendment which would enable the motion to give qualified support.

 

            The wording of this amendment is set out below – with additions shown using bold and deletions shown using strikethrough:

 

(1)  To authorise the Chief Executive to respond specifically in respect of the Grey Route proposal Statutory Consultation as follows:

(a)   Welcome the opportunity to comment upon the proposals for the off-line ‘Grey Route’ bypass proposals;

(b)  The Council re-states is previously expressed overwhelming support for Notwithstanding the Council’s preferred option: the Magenta route. It reluctantly gives qualified support for the less satisfactory , not being taken forward, support is given to the Grey route, subject to much more detailed information from National Highways on environmental considerations for local residents and natural habitat and to the following (c) & (d);

(c)  The current discussions regarding inclusion of a south facing Ford Road Junction with the new A27 road continue between all relevant partners; inclusion of a junction with Ford Road and the new A27

(d)  Further mitigation National Highways strive to further mitigate to reduce rat-running and increased traffic in local villages, especially Walberton; and also traffic management, including roundabout capacity, at the Fontwell A29 junctions.

(e)  Suggest that a high-level deck is the most appropriate form for the viaduct across the River Arun valley and flood plain;

(f)   In regard to the Yapton Lane options, to take forward the option that has the less risk and greater constructability but suggest that this should be balanced by the views of the immediately affected residents and businesses;

(g)  Encourage National Highways to continue dialogue with the Littlehampton Harbour Board in respect of utilising the port of Littlehampton in the construction phase of the project

Councillor Jones seconded this amendment confirming that he did not support any route that did not have a Ford Road Junction. He strongly believed that the Council needed to be steadfast stipulating certain assurances otherwise the strength of support and need for a junction and proper mitigation for Walberton would be lost.

 

Councillor Gunner as proposer to the substantive recommendations confirmed that he would be prepared to accept this amendment subject to some minor tweaking. The Chair allowed a few minutes for rapid consultation within the Chamber amongst Councillors. The finalised wording to the suggested amendments to Recommendation 1 (b) was then agreed. 

    

(b)  The Council re-states its previously expressed overwhelming  support for Notwithstanding the Council’s preferred option: the Magenta route. It reluctantly gives in principle conditional qualified support in principle for the less satisfactory , not being taken forward, support is given to the Grey route subject to much more detailed information from National Highways on environmental considerations for local residents and natural habitat and to the following (c) & (d);

This further amendment was seconded by Councillor Pendleton as the seconder to the substantive recommendations. Councillors Walsh and Jones confirmed that they supported these further changes.

 

 

            The Chair then invited debate on the amendment. This achieved support from most Members as it provided a stronger request to resolve the environmental concerns and seek detailed mitigation.

 

            Following further debate, Councillor Gunner proposed that “the question be now put” and this was seconded by Councillor Edwards. The Chair confirmed that he felt that the matter had been adequately discussed and put this Motion without Notice to the vote.  This was declared CARRIED.

 

            The Chair then invited Councillor Pendleton, as seconder to the substantive recommendations, to speak. She confirmed that she very much welcomed the cross party debate and support showing that Councillors were working together for the benefit of the district’s residents. She believed that  the proposed new road was essential to support the district’s economy, even though Grey was not this council’s preferred option. It was the only option and so Councillors now had to work hard to resolve all of the issues raised. She therefore urged Councillors to support the substantive recommendations. 

 

 

The Chair invited Councillor Gunner, as proposer of the substantive recommendations, to speak.  He thanked Members for the debate and for their full and detailed reviews and urged Councillors to support the recommendations.

 

            A recorded vote had been requested on the substantive recommendations.  Those voting for were Councillors Bicknell, Blanchard-Cooper, Bower, Caffyn, Chace, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, Mrs English, English, Gregory, Gunner, Hughes, Lury, Madeley, Northeast, Pendleton, Stainton, Staniforth, Stanley, Walsh and Yeates (25).  Those voting against were Councillors Coster, Dixon, Hamilton, Haywood, Thurston and Worne (6). Councillors Brooks, Buckland, Oliver-Redgate and Roberts abstained from voting.

 

The Council

 

            RESOLVED – That

 

(1)  The Chief Executive be authorised to respond specifically in respect of the Grey Route proposed Statutory Consultation as follows:

           

(a)  Welcomes the opportunity to comment upon the proposals for the off-line ‘Grey Route’ bypass proposals;

(b)  The Council re-states its previously expressed overwhelming  support for the Magenta route. It gives in principle support for the less satisfactory Grey route subject to much more detailed information from National Highways on environmental considerations for local residents and natural habitat and to the following (c) & (d);

(c)  Inclusion of a junction with Ford Road and the new A27;

(d)  Further mitigation to reduce rat-running and increased traffic in local villages, especially Walberton and also traffic management, including roundabout capacity, at the Fontwell A29 junctions;

(e)   Suggest that a high-level deck is the most appropriate form for the viaduct across the River Arun valley and flood plain;

(f)     In regard to the Yapton Lane options, to take forward the option that has the less risk and greater constructability but suggest that this should be balanced by the views of the immediately affected residents and businesses;

(g)      Encourage National Highways to continue dialogue with the Littlehampton Harbour Board in respect of utilising the port of Littlehampton in the construction phase of the project;

(h)      Reiterate the Council’s comments made in respect of the previous consultation (October 2019), to consider all potential opportunities, which would further reduce the impact on residents and the environment.

(2) That Full Council

(a) authorises the Director of Place, where the Director considers it necessary, to respond to any further stages of pre-submission consultation, in consultation with the Chair of Planning Committee in support of the formal response approved under Recommendation 1.

(b) if an application for a Development Consent Order is submitted, authorises the Director of Place where the Director considers necessary, to:

(i) approve the Council’s ‘adequacy of consultation’ response;

(ii) prepare and submit the Council’s written representation and Local Impact Report; to negotiate with the applicant on the DCO requirements, any S106 Agreement, and the preparation of a Statement of Common Ground; and to comment on the written representations of third parties – all in support of the formal response approved under Recommendation 1;

(iii) attend the examination hearings and answer the Examining Authority’s questions in support of the Council’s position; and

3)  That representation be made to Government (Department for Transport (DfT) and Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC), to urge a resolution to the mis-match in guidance and methodologies for traffic modelling thus cost benefit analysis, for new road schemes and development projections; and

4   Note that a business case is being developed in partnership with West Sussex County Council and encourage the continuation of partnership working with National Highways in addressing the Council’s concerns over the Ford Road Junction.