Agenda item

To receive an update from Chrissy Lamb regarding the Future Chippenham Project; the proposed HIF ring road on the eastern side of Chippenham.

Wiltshire Council officers, Chrissie Lamb (Programme Specialist in Major Project Services) and Simon Hendey (Director of Housing & Commercial), presented an update on the Housing Infrastructure Fund Bid (HIF). This update included information regarding the opportunities associated with the HIF, points of focus in the 13 October 2020 meeting of Wiltshire Council’s Cabinet, long term engagement and consultation plans, and an indicative timeline of the next steps.

Members of the public were then given the opportunity to ask questions of the officers. The Chairman reminded the public of the time constraints of the meeting and noted that due to the considerable interest generated by this topic, not all questions/comments from members of the public would be asked and answered. Therefore, he encouraged the public and elected members to direct any further questions/comments to the FutureChippenham@wiltshire.gov.ukemail address.

The first set of questions, asked by Melanie Moden, concerned the processes and next steps if the HIF bid was unsuccessful, particularly during the current climate, when recuperating costs. Additional points of focus were the concerns around investing £5m of taxpayers’ money without the certainty of the bid’s outcome and the lack of a Local Plan or public consultation on the matter. In response, Simon Hendey clarified the following:

·       In relation to the costs, it was noted that the Council had provided a capital allocation in the event that they were minded to enter into the Grant Determination Agreement (GDA). This provided the opportunity to drawdown HIF funds to cover any costs incurred to date. As long as the Council proceeded and there was not a general default that could not be remedied, then the Council would have the ability to not repay the HIF funding already drawn.

·       In relation to the Local Plan, it was confirmed that a Local Plan timetable would be drawn up over the next calendar year. It was noted that this was completely independent and separate from the HIF process; there was no relationship between the two and one did not determine the other.

·       In relation to public consultation, it was reiterated that the Council was looking to secure the funding as an opportunity only. Access to the funding would not determine any future plans and the statutory consultation would take place and would determine if any development would take place. In the event that development proceeds, then the Council would have the opportunity to draw on the funding, not vice versa.

Councillor Nick Murray commented upon the consultation for the Local Plan review in 2019 and asked for reassurance that the HIF bid would not predetermine the Local Plan and would consider all relevant and appropriate potential development sites. In response Simon Hendey stated that his colleague Sam Fox, Director of Economic Development & Planning, would be contacted to provide a response to Councillor Murry, as he would be better equipped to provide a more detailed and knowledgeable response.

Susan McGill was then called upon to speak and referred to the Cabinet meeting scheduled for 13 October 2020. Questions were raised as to the level of predetermination on the site of the proposed 7,500 housing development and where the details of the reasons behind the proposed sites were publicly available. Simon Hendey and Councillor Richard Clewer reiterated that the proposals and sites were not predetermined. The Council was bidding for funding that the Council could draw upon if the development took place; the HIF process did not determine the development, which would only be determined as a result of the Local Plan and subsequent planning applications. It would then be at that stage that sufficient evidence would need to be provided to justify the site allocations, which would be why there was not any evidence publicly available at that time. It was established that the Local Plan must be approved by an Inspector independent from the Council. It was noted that the previous time a Local Plan went before an Inspector, further development was ruled out due to a lack of infrastructure in place to support it. It was clarified that should be site go forward, the HIF bid could enable the infrastructure to be put in place as one, as opposed to smaller and separate unrelated developments, which would mitigate the risk of developers dictating the layouts and sites which could ultimately negatively impact on the Chippenham community area.

Councillor Clare Cape cited concerns surrounding the way the proposed road was being described which she felt was confusing for residents and other members of the public; she asked for clarity on whether it was a relief road or a distributor road and the subsequent layouts such as the number of roundabouts. Further concerns were raised such as the existing traffic problems and how a distributor road could exacerbate these issues. Simon Hendey clarified that it was proposed as a distributor road, not a bypass, and that the design and route would determine the layout but that it would be part of the consultation process to consider the options and subsequent feedback.

Isabel Ross was then called upon and asked how the building of new roads supported the national Government’s commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008 to carbon neutrality and reductions in emissions. A supplementary question was asked as to whether the consultation could provide an outcome of no road being built. In response, Simon Hendey confirmed that the Local Plan process would determine the site allocations and that conversation topic would take place at the point at which discussions are undertaken around the Local Plan and planning applications. It was also established that the road infrastructure would need to be undertaken in order to ensure that the housing development proceeds but that in the event that it did not, there would be no road as there would be no need for one; each was reliant on the other.

Councillor Ashley O’Neill commented upon the scheme being proposed in order to reduce the traffic congestion in and around Chippenham but that the long-lasting impacts of COVID-19 could mitigate this. As Portfolio Holder for Climate Change he expressed his inability and unwillingness to support the proposal.

Myla Watts reaffirmed Councillor O’Neill’s statement and noted the proposed reduction of traffic congestion but cited that more roads, more homes and more cars led to higher levels of pollution and asked how it justified and promoted a disruptive and pollutive road despite acknowledging the climate emergency. Councillor Richard Clewer noted that Wiltshire Council were provided with housing targets from the national Government which must be met, and to decide to not meet these targets could lead to developers having more autonomy over the sites and land, therefore it was more pertinent for the Council to be involved. The nature of the County as more rural was noted and it was additionally confirmed that if these houses and subsequent roads were to be built in line with national targets then they would be as built as ‘green’ as possible.

The Chairman suggested that officers collaborate and publish a FAQ page that would answer common questions and provide responses to give members of the public and elected members a degree of reassurance. 

A set of supplementary asked and answered questions from a James Bradbury was submitted by officers to be included within these minutes, as attached.