Para 5.19. Has the PBA Transport Assessment (App G) appropriately taken into account, in its Air Quality and Emissions assumptions, enhanced peak time and traffic light controlled junction congestion which will reduce LGV and HGV movement along the A27 and within the City (note App E references "average drive cycles" and at p54/55 ref to speeds of 50kph) as well as the rate at which emissions from LGVs (approx 15% and increasing proportion of total traffic), as opposed to Light Duty Vehicles, will improve given lack of substantive Government actions and limited grid capacity to support Goods and other commercial Vehicle recharging points within the Plan period? Note it is not clear that assumptions regarding non fuel particulate arisings from vehicle movement have taken into account overall increase in volume of traffic.

Para 5.30. Given estimated scale of cost of the proposed A27 by-pass works will be beyond that obtainable via S106/S278 Agreements and those works are viewed as a critical priority, does this mean that the new Local Plan could fail the viability tests in NPPF paras 34 and 57? It also appears that as the NPPF requires a five year Local Plan review cycle, the proposed mitigation scheme for this LPR will be superceded before it is built as will any subsequent iteration of on-line mitigation schemes. This is likely to result in either nothing being built, or anything that is being replaced in a short timescale which would represent very poor value for money.

Overall it appears that the most appropriate long term strategic solution to the inadequate performance of the strategic and local road networks at Chichester is for there to be a Northern by-pass. If the Council's preferred scheme to resolve the issues associated with the A27 at Chichester is for it to be re-aligned to the North of the City (with the necessary environmental mitigation), then the supporting text for Policy S23 and the Policy itself would need to make clear that that is its primary aim and that the proposed on-line mitigation scheme is only put forward as a backstop. Any subsequent works to the existing line of the A27 to mitigate the effects of further development in the longer term would then be viable and hence deliverable via S106/S278 Agreements. A Northern re-alignment of the A27 would also considerably ease the transport and related environmental issues and pressures within the City and support the aims of Policies S13 and S14 and those Polices supporting text.

Line 2 (in printed doc.) - delete second "be" and after "S278" insert "Agreements" for clarity.

5.31. What (Local Plan) status will envisaged (in previous LP) changes to Northgate gyratory and Westhampnett Road (St James Rd and Spitalfield lane junctions) now have?