Issue - meetings

To receive a report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the outcomes of the recent public consultation over route options for a town centre relief road for Cullompton and to update Members on the status and outcomes of further technical work undertaken or in the process of taking place. The report also makes recommendations over a preferred route subject to further technical verification work and next steps which lie principally with Devon County Council over the drawing up of a planning application, together with supporting material including environmental statement to meet the requirements of environmental impact assessment.

The Cabinet had before it a * report of the Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration considering the outcomes of the recent public consultation over route options for a town centre relief road for Cullompton and to update Members on the status and outcomes of further technical work undertaken or in the process of taking place.

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration outlined the contents of the report stating that there had been a long held aspiration for a relief road for Cullompton to combat poor air quality in the town centre by providing traffic relief and to support the town’s enhancement and future regeneration. He highlighted policy AL/CU/14 within the adopted Local Plan which referred to the provision of a relief road linking Station Road to Meadow Lane and that the policy had been assessed by an independent planning inspector who found the policy and the route to be appropriate. He explained the funding opportunity that was available through the Housing Infrastructure Fund and the technical work that had taken place and that a relief road would reduce traffic flowing through the town centre and improve the capacity of J28 of the M5.  The proposed relief road was seen as a first phase for wider highway works for Cullompton and the announcement of the funding following a  process of due diligence was expected soon.

He continued by explaining the technical work that had taken place to explore the potential routes for the relief road, the consultation process that had taken place and that further technical work would be required.  The recommendation within the report stated that Option B was the preferred option subject to further technical work and that a possible modification to the route towards the southern end in Duke Street be further investigated.  He then explained the process that would follow any decision of the District Council.

The Head of Planning, Economy and Regeneration explained by way of presentation the detail of the various route options A-C which were initially available and how each option would work potentially with an upgrade to J28.  She indicated the dismissal of Option D based upon Environment Agency advice. The work on the relief road had not taken place in isolation and that a second phase of highway works would see significant improvements either to the existing junction or to a new junction to the south.  She explained the consultation process that had taken place, the questions that had been asked as part of the consultation and consultation outcomes.  Flood risk assessments were being undertaken for each available option and further technical work would be required which would include further flood risk mitigation.  She explained that all options had a low heritage impact and that the least overall impact on the heritage assets was Option B.  She informed the meeting of the detail of traffic assessment report which indicated that a relief road would reduce the queuing in the High Street and also at J28. The modelling that had taken  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131