Ref section 5.25 In formulating the local plan authorities are required to consult with HE in advance of the plan production in accordance with https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-and-the-major-road-network-in-england as there seems to have been no such consultation then the whole transport study needs to be reconducted with HE involvement from the start. Equally as important the local authority (CDC) are required to engage with HE for the short medium and long term solution to ensure integration and value for money. No evidence is provided that this essential work has been conducted. This plan can not proceed on this vital point until this coordination has been conducted and the evidence reflects that position. Who is the named HE contact for the development of these strategic sites.

5.30 The CIL and 106 money will not be sufficient for these at grade improvements that have not been considered by HE. This plan needs to go back to the drawing board as the evidence is completely flawed and open to judicial review which will impact the whole presentation of the plan.

5.26 Working with HE prior to consultation is required. The transport study evidence is therefore irrelevant in this study as it is not integrated as laid down in statute. No evidence of having worked effectively with HE has been provided.

5.28 CIL and 106 will not fund the flawed proposals in the local plan transport study. As HE have not been involved (from the evidence presented) in the preparation of this plan it must be rejected as having not been through appropriate statutory requirements and is therefore not fit for consultation. Current transport issues will only be further impacted by this local plan. No measures I can see in the transport study alleviate the increased demand. CDC must push for a strategic mitigated northern route and then invest the CIL and 106 money into local route mitigation including sustainable transport options. The proposed link road has no detail and has not been considered in any of the other studies.

5.29 Park and ride is needed now for both consideration of events (Goodwood and beach days) and for normal activities including employees in Chichester including East Pallant house. I believe that the site allocated for employment space to the SW in level 2 and 3 floodplain is perfect for a park and ride. This is the only suitable use for this site which will not impact the views of the cathedral and will not necessitate unsightly link road as access will be direct onto the A27. It will also offer up space in the city for employment and residential needs as the car parking spaces in the city are no longer required. Contrary to "assumptions" many people park on the side streets into Chichester and walk to work (because of parking costs).

funding from development to improve junctions is a short sighted idea. The proposed junction improvements are unfunded and therefore strategic sites that directly impact the A27 are unaffordable and should not be part of this local plan. The land SW of Chichester at Apuldram will have a major impact on Stockbridge and Fishbourne roundabout. Therefore the strategic site should be removed as the improvements will not happen prior to the development, nor for that matter after as the proposed improvements are unaffordable. Other suitable land including the strategic site to the South South West of Goodwood race circuit meets the need of employment space and has good links to road infrastructure. The infrastructure levy should be utilised to provide alternate commuting infrastructure and simple connections to this proposed site in accordance with the guidance from Councillor Taylor

These schemes are a cynical ploy to implement Option 2 of the rejected public consultation from 2016. The council must not place this link road in the local plan. These junction improvements are unaffordable and a very short term view that will not solve the current problem nor for that matter the traffic problems caused by the selection of inappropriate strategic sites. We must review the transport study and implement a long term strategy (as required when dealing with the strategic network) so that we have a long term solution that provides the strategic transport infrastructure Chichester needs. All infrastructure funding must reflect a mitigated northern route and integrate with it when it is finally delivered. This does none of that. We voted against option 2 and 3 and it must now be removed from this plan.

No improvements as laid out in the adopted (current) plan have been delivered and we have no confidence in the Councils ability to fund these proposals let alone the flawed new proposals prior to building (despite assurances in this plan). The proposal in the adopted plan for road junction links to Westhampnett should be implemented which will support employment space in the strategic site in the adopted plan within the 400m noise buffer zone as this only affects residential property. The space is perfect for this use and must become a strategic employment site.