Agenda item - Public Questions

Written Questions: to receive any questions submitted by the due of 12 noon on 26 November 2020.

79.1      There was one public question for the committee from Nigel Smith:

Question: "With congestion already exceeding the threshold set in the City Plan Part 1, for further development to be sustainable without transport interventions, does the chair agree that further developments without such interventions would be unlawful and by violating NPPF's sustainability requirement would be vulnerable to appeal or judicial review?"

Answer:Thank you for your question Mr Smith. A very similar point about the City Plan and levels of congestion was raised in a question asked at the Environment, Transport & Sustainability Committee last week. It wasn’t possible to respond to the question last week as the source of any references to congestion thresholds in work associated with the City Plan could not be identified. I would therefore welcome it if you could clarify this and I can then make sure you receive a written response to the question.

At a site level, supporting evidence is submitted with individual planning applications and this allows the impact of development to be assessed. This also takes account of the impact of nearby consented schemes. This information is then taken into account when applications are determined, at which time suitable measures to mitigate impacts are secured. 

The speaker asked a supplementary question.

Question: “Bearing in mind that DFT says 100% congestion is severe delays and transport intervention is needed, what level of congestion on A259 between Rottingdean and the city boundary would you regard as making further developments unlawful, and how close to that threshold is the A259 around Saltdean”.  

            Answer: The question will be referred back to officers and a written response will be given. Thank you for your questions.