Agenda and minutes

To confirm as a correct record

These were confirmed and signed as a correct record.

Upon examining the draft Local Plan, the Planning Inspector had issued correspondence to the Council (ID16 and ID19) which, among other things, sought a decision about how it wished to proceed. Until now, the Council’s ability to respond had been hindered by a lack of information and understanding regarding the capacity of Junction 6 of the M25. That information was now available in the form of findings of the capacity study undertaken by DHA Transport.

A report was submitted with DHA’s findings and responses from the statutory highway authorities (i.e. National Highways and Surrey County Council). The DHA study had concluded that:

(i)         all of the J6 improvement works shown on DHA Transport drawing A-1523-H-01 rev P3 would fully mitigate the impact of Local Plan growth to 2035, in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework; Surrey Highways make clear … that they consider the scheme (excluding the east-bound M25 off-slip which is dealt with below) should be delivered by 2030 to ensure a sufficiently long interval prior to the delivery of any further scheme for the benefit of cost effectiveness and to limit disruptions to the network

(ii)        the eastbound M25 off-slip would require upgrading to accommodate forecast traffic volumes by 2030, regardless of the Local Plan, to avoid unacceptable highway safety implications for users of the M25; the aim should be to try to achieve this upgrade, which will require acquisition of third party land, by 2027; no costings are yet available for these works, the need for which has been identified late in the study

(iii)      with respect to the other M25 merges and diverges, the westbound off-slip, westbound on-slip and eastbound on-slip are of a suitable standard to accommodate Local Plan growth to 2035 in their existing configurations

(iv)      the estimated cost of the improvement works (excluding the eastbound M25 off-slip upgrade) would be an estimated outturn cost of £5,009,900 (exclusive of VAT); no sources of funding for these works has yet been identified but, contrary to what is stated in National Highways e-mail of 20 December 2021, the Council has made its own response to the Department of Transport with respect to its Route Investment Strategies consultation.

Paul Lulham of DHA Transport attended the meeting (via Zoom) and responded to Members’ questions, including clarification that there were two aspects of the mitigation required, i.e.:

·           the roundabout itself and the immediate approaches, all achievable within the circa £5m cost estimate referred in (iv) above with no private land acquisition required (the extra land needed was already in the public realm, i.e. highway land); and

·           the additional element that had come to light within the last three months, namely the need to upgrade the eastbound off slip referred to in (ii) above – DHA’s assessment work had identified that the capacity of the slip road would fall short of National Highways’ safety standards by 2030 and would require an auxiliary lane to be provided along the M25 on the approach to the junction. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 218.

The Chair wished this matter to be dealt with as urgent business (item 6 of the agenda) in order for the Committee to review the draft consultation response prior to the submission deadline of 24^th January.

A report had therefore been circulated on the 4^th January. This explained that Mid Sussex District Council’s (MSDC) Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Sites DPD) sought to identify sufficient housing sites to provide a five-year housing land supply to 2031. MSDC was consulting on proposed main modifications to its Sites DPD and a recommended response was attached to the report.

Councillor Steeds, seconded by Councillor Farr, proposed an amendment that, “the draft response at Appendix A to the report be not supported and, instead, an alternative response be drawn up by local Members and Officers for consideration at the Committee’s next meeting on 20^th January 2022”. Upon moving this amendment, Councillor Steeds explained why, in her opinion, a more robust response should be made given the potentially adverse impact of the Mid Sussex Local Plan policies SA19 and 20 upon Felbridge. The amendment was discussed and agreed.   

            R E S O L V E D – that the draft response at Appendix A to the report be not supported and, instead, an alternative response be drawn up by local Members and Officers for consideration at the Committee’s next meeting on 20^th January 2022.