We recently received a circular from Donnington Parish Council highlighting what they consider are key issues within the 2035 plan that significantly affect us, as residents of Donnington / Stockbridge. Whilst I do agree with a number of points that they make, this is a very extensive and far reaching plan that, if implemented, will take many years to achieve (how long have we been talking about the A27 improvements with no actual action ever taken).

No town or city is ever going to stand still and, in order to ensure that Chichester remain a prosperous area (and to comply with ever increasing demands for new housing), both commercial and residential property WILL need to be built, but does virtually ALL of this need to be on or below the A27 corridor??

Continued development below or along the A27 corridor, without the inclusion of supporting infrastructure, especially adequate provision for the vast number of additional vehicle movements that will result, just does not make sense. In addition, our local education system and our health services are at breaking point, but there does not appear to be any provision within your plans to not only provide additional facilities, but also to provide reasonable and sensible access to them.

I know that for many years, the debate about whether to include a northern bypass route has raged on and it is interesting to see, within your plan, that this has NOT been completely ruled out. The inclusion, even of a simple route (similar even to that which has been put in at North Bersted), would SIGNIFICANTLY improve traffic flow around our City and allow easy access to the North of the City, Goodwood Motor Racing Circuit, Goodwood Horse Racing Circuit, the South Downs, Midhurst and all points North. Even if the consideration remains for further changes to the existing A27, this is still likely to take over 15 years to complete and will cause gridlock for the whole duration of that time. An alternative route must be put in place before consideration is given to further changes to the existing A27. Simple repairs / upgrades to a footbridge at Donnington recently caused chaos for much of the past year.....

One of the points of note from the Parish Council circular is that you are proposing that traffic will not be permitted to either cross the A27 (North or South) nor will right hand turns be permitted either onto, or off of, the A27 at three key junctions. Whilst, in theory, this might improve the general flow along the A27, this will also HUGELY increase the number and volume of traffic movements along the stretch from Portfield to Fishbourne as the thousands of vehicles based South of the A27 attempt access to our City and also East / West of it. Each vehicle will be forced to cover significantly more miles than currently required and all that will happen will be the gridlock points will refocus elsewhere along the A27.

I would add, that no thought has been given at all to the residents of Watery Lane, Queens Avenue and Queens Gardens, whose existing access to ANYWHERE is already directly onto the A27. To get into the City we already have to cross three lanes of busy traffic and to return to our homes means an additional two mile trip to the Selsey roundabout and back. During the bridge repairs, and at times when the Free School is finishing for the day, delays can add over 20 minutes to our return trip home. If there are accidents or other incidents on this stretch of road we are effectively blocked from access to our homes. The proposal to close access across the A27 would mean an additional TEN MILE round trip for the 30-40 residents vehicles that would be affected daily. This is an additional 100,000 miles of unnecessary road miles (based on only 30 vehicles, each day at 10 miles per day) just for those few vehicles. What does that equate to when multiplied by the 1000's of vehicles already on, or proposed to be added to, the Donnington area and Manhood peninsular? Just adding 5 miles to 1,000 vehicles each day adds an additional 1,825,000 unnecessary miles (and emissions) in the immediate area each year.

Much better public transport links, cycle paths and footpaths would greatly improve access to our City Centre and reduce vehicle movements. Whilst the footbridge was being repaired, a tarmac footpath was put in place between Queens Avenue and the canal (this is a route that, albeit a mud path, has been used for over 20 years by local residents) giving improved access to the canal, the High School, Kingsham Primary and the Free School. Perfect.. finally something of benefit to local residents.. but no.. it was dug up again this week because (according to The Highways Agency) no one would take responsibility for its future upkeep and repairs.... The cycle route from Donnington to the centre of town for example now runs along a pavement, get off at the bridge (no cycling!!), back onto pavement, cross the busy traffic, back onto the pavement, get off at the traffic lights at Terminus Road back on the busy pavement, onto the road at the railway crossing, before being squeezed off your bike up through South Gate and South Street by busy traffic (there is no clear, unambiguous return route)!! The cycle route to the High School, Kingsham and the Free School is now (again) restricted by no cycling on the bridge(??) before joining a narrow, busy, footpath past the petrol station. This does not encourage safe cycling so we use the car...

Between The Ministry for Transport, Highways England, The Highways Agency, WSCC, Chichester District Council and all of the parish councils and individuals involved in this process, is it any wonder that nothing actually ever gets done. There are simply too many factions involved.

Flyovers across the A27 from Donnington and the peninsular still remain a good idea, but only if they also permit easy access to / from the A27 by residents living south of the A27. I believe the process previously failed due to lack of proper consideration for the residents living south of the A27 and this will remain the case again unless further / better consideration is given as part of your '2035' proposals. Please, bite the bullet and do this properly, not piecemeal because of ineffectual politicians and bureaucrats arguing about which budget this might be funded from or other political considerations.