Agenda item

The Environment, Community and Fire Select CommitteeBusiness Planning Group has agreed to call in the proposed decision by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure concerning the A29 Realignment Scheme - decision published on the Executive Decision Database on 18 February 2019 and in the Members’ Information Service on 18 February 2019 HI20 18.19.

The decision report asked the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure to agree to:

(1) Approve the identified route for the A29 Realignment set out at

paragraphs 3.4 and 3.6;

(2) Approve the A29 Realignment Business Case (Appendix to the report)

for submission to Coast to Capital LEP for its approval;

(3) Delegate authority to the Director for Highways and Transport, in

consultation with the Director for Finance, Performance and

Procurement, to enter into a Funding Agreement with Coast to Capital

LEP for the whole scheme once approved;

(4) Commence public consultation on the proposed scheme for the A29

Realignment described in section 3 of the report in Feb/March 2019;

(5) Authorise, subject to business case approval, the commencement of a

process to procure and award a ‘design and build’ contractor for Phase 1

of the A29 Realignment scheme from the approved list of contractors on

the Highways and Transportation Framework;

(6) Delegate authority to the Director for Highways and Transport to award

the design and build contract following the outcome of the procurement

process; and

(7) Delegate authority to the Director for Highways and Transport to submit a planning application for Phase 1 of the scheme.

a) Decision report by Executive Director of Economy, Infrastructure and Environment and Director of Highways and Transport – attached.

The call-in was initiated by Michael Jones supported by Brian Quinn, Chris Oxlade and Brenda Smith. The decision has not previously been previewed by the Environment, Communities and Fire Select Committee

b) Call-in request – attached.

Michael Jones has been invited to outline the reasons for the call-in request to the Committee.

Mr Roger Elkins (Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure) has been invited to address the Committee and answer questions.

72.1 Mr Jones introduced the request, to call-in the decision by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure concerning the A29 Realignment – HI20 18/19; (call-in request appended to the signed minutes) and highlighted the following points:-

72.2 In his view, previous costs on Local Enterprise partnership (LEP) projects had spiralled out of control and there was potential that any works could result in huge disruption as this scheme involved a major road, believing that there were already questions that needed further examination.

72.3 He also queried what the County Council commitments would be, given that it would be required to underwrite any costs and demonstrate its commitment to delivering Phase 2 of the scheme. He also believed that the strategy could be risky in the event external events affected the project and it could take a long time to recover the costs.

72.4 He also noted that there was no action in the Business Case (BC) for adequate transport links if there was to be an increase in demand for public transport and whether there would be an improvement on journey times. He was also concerned over the welfare of local residents affected by the scheme and the potential impact on those with mobility issues accessing local health services.

72.5 In his view, it wasn’t clear whether the indicative route in the Arun Local Plan (ALP) was the same as was being put forward now and was concerned that if not consulted upon properly then it could increase the chance of legal challenge. He further believed the scheme appeared to facilitate only the ALP rather than look at the bigger picture in the county. 

72.6 Roger Elkins, Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure addressed the Committee, highlighting the following points:

72.7 In his view, this was a major scheme approved through the Local Plan making process, of which the County Council were delivering the preferred route and which he believed would improve jobs and businesses in the area.

72.8 Moving forward, there were unlikely to be any substantial changes to the proposed route, although the Southern Spur/Lidsey bends area may be subject to some change, pending consultation with residents in the area.  He further believed that the scheme would improve transport routes and traffic congestion, as well as provide a much needed link to the Bognor Regis area.

72.9 The Committee made comments including those that follow. It:

·        Welcomed the greatly needed  improvements to the A29 road in particular to encourage economic growth for Bognor Regis and the coastal strip, but raised concerns over the current infrastructure deficit in the county, the growing congestion that needed to be addressed and queried what was being done to ensure the impacts of development hadn’t been under reported. Mr Matt Davey, Director of Highways and Transport advised that in terms of traffic modelling a standard approach had been used in respect of estimated traffic and development growth. During the detailed design phase there would be safety audits carried out and the County Council would be obliged to address any issues. This would include mitigation against noise, drainage and other issues arising. The consultation was seen as an opportunity for comment on the proposals and to address any major elements that were flagged.

·        Raised concerns that the engagement and consultation process had not been proper and meaningful, with short notice given for the public meetings along with the lateness and quality of documents available. Also that there had been a lack of public exhibitions in the Bognor Regis area.  Mr Davey advised that the consultation period of 8 weeks was adequate enough to look at the information and to comment and respond. There had been a good response from a number of the public exhibitions and events in conjunction with developers had also been well attended.  The County Council website had all the detailed colour maps available to view.

·        Raised concerns over Capital costs and the cost estimate process, requesting that the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure investigate and report back to the Committee on the cost estimate ability. Noting that there was a possible large risk element to the project and the potential for rising costs, also requesting an outline of the full financial impact if the project were to run over schedule.  Mr Davey advised that if project delivery over-ran then it might not necessarily have a significant impact on costs.

·        Raised concerns over the large number of additional roundabouts in the proposals and whether the best possible route had been chosen. Mr Davey advised that roundabouts were taken into account through the traffic modelling in the BC and that further detailed elements would also be looked at in the planning process. As part of the Local Plan process the County Council had been a key consultee and the route had already been subject to studies and technical work to get the scheme to this point. The Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport added that the preferred route had been selected through the planning process.

·        Raised concerns over the effect on the Southern end of Shripney, suggesting an alternative route to by-pass the village; and that the northern end of the route could be possibly be subject to increased traffic pollution levels. Also raised concerns that the road wouldn’t be linked to the Rolls Royce roundabout. Mr Davey advised that these points would have been looked at through the Local Plan process and that although not part of this scheme, there may be future opportunities to address these concerns. 

·        Queried what the actual housing numbers were likely to be in the new development and how affordable these would be; and requested reassurances that S106 contributions would be sufficient to provide funds for other needs such as school places and impact on drainage. Mr Davey advised that housing numbers were the responsibility of the district and borough councils. The County Council was confident there was enough S106 funding to fill requirements and that developers were comfortable with contributions towards other infrastructure elements within this. Further details such as drainage and blight would be addressed during the planning application.

72.10 The Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure summed up by saying that he believed there was absolute support for the scheme and that the A29 road improvement was much needed, especially to enhance economic growth in the area and provide infrastructure for business growth in the county.

72.11 A lot of discussion on the alignment and the preferred route was established a few years ago and the County Council was delivering on the scheme put forward by Arun District Council and their Local Plan process. It was a detailed programme going forward, leading to a planning application and another opportunity to comment. It was important to hear the views of residents and take them into account and he noted the comments over presentation of the scheme to the public and would take them on board.

72.12 Mr Jones summed up by saying that during the Local Plan process there had only been a consultation on the indicative route and clearly the public felt they hadn’t been consulted properly. He was not convinced over the effectiveness of the scheme and didn’t support it. He proposed that the decision be paused and reconsidered given its impact and value and should be subjected to an extended and meaningful consultation.

72.13 Mr Jones made the following proposal, seconded by Mr Baldwin which the Committee considered: -

72.14 That the Committee:

Supports, in principle, the need for the A29 realignment Scheme and calls on the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure to withdraw this decision and reconsider it in light of the concerns expressed by members today, and that any further decision which commits the County Council to any course of action relating to this is not published until after the current public consultation takes place, in which all contributions are given close consideration.

72.15 A vote was held and the proposal was carried.

72.16 Resolved – That the Committee:-

1)   Supports, in principle, the need for the A29 Realignment Scheme.

2)   Calls on the Cabinet Member for Highways and Infrastructure to withdraw this decision and reconsider it in light of the concerns expressed by members today, and that any further decision which commits the County Council to any course of action relating to this is not published until after the current public consultation takes place, in which all contributions are given close consideration.

3)   Agrees for the BPG to look into the current process surrounding the initial costing of major projects.