Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence.

Apologies were received from Cllr P H D Hare-Scott.

To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.

All questions referred to item 5 Cullompton Relief Road

Sarah Cagney stated that bearing in mind that the HIF funding was originally to be used to improve Junction 28, can you please explain how the relief road is going to do this and why that funding should therefore go to that because the relief road is not going to make any difference to the junction of the motorway and the traffic build up.

Catherine Penharris stated,  first of all I am going to ask what is best because we keep hearing what is best for Cullompton. In one of your reports it says I think by one of the inspectors that Cullompton doesn’t have a bad queuing issue. It also says in the 2018 air quality stat report that where Tiverton Road meets Fore Street within Cullompton it recorded the largest decrease in the NO2 annual concentration. You have also used £132,000 for progress of the fund and you’ve allowed another £250,000 from S106 money, but this is currently considered at risk in an absence of a final decision on the HIF. If route A and B is flooded, the road will be closed and the traffic will go through the town centre, so I am assuming that this is a short term fix because in your report it also says ‘a failure to deliver the relief road will be an ongoing obstacle to the timely deliverance of housing allocated in the current and the emerging local plan beyond the numbers discussed’. So you have got 40% less traffic in the High Street with option B and option A, but with option C it would be better for the congestion at Junction 28.  You have already stated that Junction 28 is the one that is causing the problem and later on when the Garden Village comes along you will do more road infrastructure and do more work on Junction 28. Can you explain to me why option C is not a viable option? You’ve said you’ve chosen option B on the public consultation but when the Town Council gives you recommendations you don’t take any notice of those and when there are other recommendations coming through you don’t take any notice of those, but when a recommendation has come through for you to build a short term fix for a long term problem you take notice of it. I think a lot of it is because it’s going to make things easier for you to do the Garden Village. So can you explain to me the reasoning behind where you’ve got all these reports, that you have still chosen option B which granted for the CCA is better than option A but option C is better for your long term plan?

Ashley Wilce – Resident - No doubt this Cabinet is patting itself on the back for a job well done. The truth, however, is that the consultation is nothing more than lies and spin. How could there have  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Councillors are reminded of the requirement to declare any interest, including the type of interest, and reason for that interest, either at this stage of the meeting or as soon as they become aware of that interest.

The following interests were declared:

Members to consider whether to approve the minutes as a correct record of the meeting held on 3 January 2019.

The minutes of the previous meeting were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

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.