PBA's report Table 7.1 states no right turns from A27. The directional arrows NSN on the A286 in Fig 7.3.5 are so indistinct they do not appear to agree with the Table statement. Linda Boize corresponded with PBA's Paul Gebbett who wrote 'Agreed, this is not clear on the figure, the nearside lane on the A286 in both directions is for straight ahead and right turn and offside lane for right turn only'. In response to her query 'The words at the RHS of the drawing are incomplete, but look as though they say the footbridge should be pulled down and replaced with a signal controlled at-grade pedestrian crossing. Is this correct?' he wrote 'The text referred to in the figure, should have been removed as it refers to the previous 2029 mitigation on which this mitigation was based. Our mitigation does not propose to remove the footbridge'.
Thus, PBA are acknowledging significant and misleading errors in their report and I think that CDC would not have to expect a local person to have to contact PBA direct to get clarification.
PBA are also acknowledging their reliance on and 'cut and paste' of previously produced A27 reports, which raises doubt about how much original, newly informed and up-to-date data has been used, which has been properly tested against current conditions for its relevance.

Consultation documents should be accurate and easy to read/understand. An Executive Summary which easily and clearly identifies the differences of the report from reports produced over the recent years is needed. This would have revealed exactly how much or how little account was taken of all the work that went into the BABA27/Systra exercise. That this is lacking raises the question of how 'desk top' PBA's study is and how much liaison and consultation with WSCC concerning Systra actually took place. PBA are also acknowledging their reliance on and 'cut and paste' of previously produced A27 reports, which raises doubt about how much original, newly informed and up-to-date data has been used, which has been properly tested against current conditions for its relevance. PBA's proof reading of their report is woeful. The lack of clarity with Fig 7.3.5 is repeated elsewhere in the report. Improvements = CDC insist that consultants produce accurate reports. How else can a properly informed consultation take place?

The PBA report states 'At this time, the study (Systra) is desk top only and no formal modelling or design has been progressed.' PBA thus appear to dismiss the Systra and BABA27 work in its entirety.
PBA have taken no account of all the background work leading to the 2 concepts of the Systra consultation, which identified key issues needing resolution eg separating through and local traffic. If these had been taken account of, the proposed unworkability of roundabout (rbt) mitigations would have become clear as traffic would have to use local narrow, residential roads within the City, with speed bumps, schools, residents' parking to compensate for inaccessible roundabouts.
For example, no right turns for westbound traffic from the A27 onto the A286 at the Stockbridge and Whyke rbts - traffic for the Southern Gateway and Whyke would have to leave the A27 at the Bognor rbt and use Quarry Lane and Kingsham Ave and Kingsham Road, both narrow residential roads. Or, would have to continue west on the A27 to the Fishbourne rbt into Ave de Chartres and then onto Terminus Road. But no right turn into Stockbridge road don't allow access to John Rennie Road, South Bank and Kings Ave, Lacy House and Byron Court.

Air quality at the A27/Stockbridge junction deteriorates year on year. Although monitoring of NO2 at the junction shows levels generally below the prescribed upper limit, adequate monitoring of particulates and NO2 for 200m from the junction on the A286 north and south is not done. Several blocks of student accommodation, apartments for retirement and health impaired people, most of whom are elderly, are located on these stretches of road. Residential dwellings line both sides of these stretches of road and form effective traps for vehicle emissions. It is difficult to conceive that bunching of idling vehicles at the A286 north/south traffic signals will not add to further deterioration in air quality and residents' health. No account is taken of the damaging effect recurring/constant air pollutants cause to people with alreadycompromised respiratory health, resulting in unnecessary health and well-being deterioration, reduced mobility, increased medication and reduced enjoyment of life.

The impact of air polluants is not a 'one size fits all'. The demographic of the population must be recognised. In addition to the elderly population on the Stockbridge Road from the railway lines to the junction, there are large schools with their playing fields immediately adjacent to the A27 between the Stockbridge and Whyke junctions. The foot/cyclepath alongside the A27 is used by schoolchildren and others to access the school. The Free School just south of the Whyke rbt will be affected by vehicle emissions from idling traffic queuing at the S-N lights on the Whyke B2145 junction. Signalising the Stockbridge and Whyke junctions for the benefit of through traffic does not benefit people. Air quality impacts argue for separation of through and local traffic.

Traffic noise on the A27 increases year on year as its volume increases. The further predicted increases will maintain this trend. Signalising the Stockbridge junction will result in bunched traffic accelerating away from the lights, with high-powered motorbikes particularly accelerating hard to get past traffic. This already is very noisy, especially in the evenings and at weekends (when motorbike convoys use the A27), and will get even more so. Even good quality double glazing does not exclude the noise and leaving south-facing windows open in good weather is impossible. Despite PBA's conclusion that noise will not be a problem, they acknowledge some roads merit further study. Since Appendix H 'Noise assessments' does not open on my computer, it is not possible to examine how noise was measured, what time of day etc.

Page 92, 6.5 states 'The strategic development locations will be planned and designed to be of a high standard as sustainable development, well integrated with existing settlements and neighbourhoods.' Compare this with the Chichester Gate Design Concept...'the proposed design will provide a high quality development that formalises a historic gateway into and out of Chichester. Located along the city's principle southern approach.....the development creates a strong and lasting impression as visitors travel along Stockbridge Road.' And look at what we got. Chichester Gate with its unused piazza and tawdry, empty premises is the template of how not to do it. The planned Southern Gateway development will be very visible to all, residents and visitors. Chichester Gate is a reminder of CDC's failure to deliver its aspirations. The Southern Gateway development may follow a similar trajectory, not meeting CDC's flagship project aspirations as developers/builders sacrifice quality to higher/denser buildings, poor and low cost design and build. Good design and use of good materials doesn't have to imply high cost. It implies imagination and flair. Across the Stockbridge Road is the John Rennie Road development whose design brief was 2 storeys with the occasional 3rd, but resulted in 3 storeys with the occasional 4th. Is this now the CDC ruling for building height and bulk?