To invite questions from the public present at the meeting on subjects other than those on the agenda. The Committee would encourage members of the public with more complex issues to submit their question before the meeting to allow a substantive answer to be given.
Minutes:
27.1 The Chairman introduced the item and advised that the open forum was an opportunity for comments and questions to be raised on items not already on the agenda, and over which the County Council has a reasonable interest. The following issues were raised and responses made.
· A resident raised concerns with the accessibility issues at Wivelsfield train station and highlighted government funds that were available for access improvements. The resident queried who would be able to take the request for funds forward. – Mr Barrett-Miles explained that the Burgess Hill Growth plan included elements for sustainable transport; and resolved to raise the mentioned source of funding to the relevant project manager. The growth plan was a joint project with the County Council and Mid Sussex District Council and the public consultation on the plans would begin in April. Mr Hillier reported that he had heard that Wivelsfield station could be allocated £1m on this work as part of the Northern Arc work.
· A resident raised concerns with the condition of the roads in Burgess Hill; the time taken to repair faults; and the quality of the repairs. – Mr Speller encouraged people to report any highway faults on Love West Sussex and reported that the contractor was currently addressing 100 potholes a day. It was explained that potholes needed to be addressed with 28 days of reporting, but it was up to the contractor to determine the level of repair that was undertaken. The contractor covered the liability of carriageway repairs.
· A resident highlighted the increased danger potholes caused for cyclists and asked if ones of particular concern for cyclists could be prioritised. – Mr Speller explained that the new highways contractor would be using a risk-based approach and so cyclist data could be included in this consideration.
· A resident spoke on his consideration that the highways budget would be more appropriately spent if roads were well laid to begin with. Consideration needed to be given to the point of economical repair for roads.
· A resident noted a recent appeal court ruling that Heathrow expansion is unlawful in terms of UK Climate policies and queried if the A2300 plans should be reconsidered in favour of cycle infrastructure improvements. - The question had been submitted in advance and so officers were able to provide a detailed response which explained that the Court of Appeal ruled that the Airports National Policy Statement (2018) was not produced lawfully due to a failure to take account of the Government’s commitment to the provisions of the Paris Agreement on climate change. As the Airports National Policy Statement did not provide the policy basis for the A2300 corridor enhancement, the scheme was not affected by the ruling. There was a need for new cycle routes and bus service enhancements to facilitate major strategic development north west of Burgess Hill to ensure that sustainable travel options are available in the new community; this was part of a package of infrastructure and service improvements that also included the A2300 corridor enhancement that is needed to accommodate the increase in traffic that is expected once the development and the associated infrastructure is complete. Mr Barrett-Miles commented that the plans would be available as part of a public engagement exercise and were ambitious for sustainable transport. The public felt that bus subsidiaries were required to encourage change.
· A resident raised concerns with proposed housing in High Beech Lane, Lindfield, and the impact from excavations. – Mr Speller resolved to liaise with the resident on this issue. Members requested that an update on this be included within the Committee’s next progress statement.
· A resident questioned when the stakeholder activities would begin for the Burgess Hill road space audit. – Mr Speller responded that this was due to begin in the spring and resolved to look into the details.
· A resident commented on the parking issues in Norman Road, Burgess Hill, and that a petition had shown that the majority of residents would support a parking scheme. Plans in the area for hotel and leisure complex would increase the impact of parking. – Mr Speller commented that parking schemes for individual roads was unlikely to be installed and needed to be part of a larger town scheme. Mr Barrett-Miles confirmed that the road space audit would be looking into this, but resolved to look into the issue further.