Introduction

CLIMATE EMERGENCY ALERT

There are NO credible A27 Chichester Bypass 'mitigations' : more cars, more roads, more green gas polluting emissions, disregard COP 26.

I vehemently oppose A27 Chichester Bypass extensions : so-called 'mitigations' increase traffic-polluting cars and life-threatening respiratory diseases.

Investing in Green Public Transport is the only viable future for children's health, safety, and planet.

I just wondered if anyone has thought of an exit onto the A27 from the very busy A259 Fishbourne to Emsworth section of road. I fear not and this road is already dangerously busy and will get worse IF all the planning gets the go ahead. It’s unbearable as it is.

It makes no sense to build more houses to get the money to build a road that is suitable. It's not just the roads that are creaking.

The A27 is a disaster. The junctions have not been fit for purpose for around 20 years.
These proposals are probably very insufficient.
And there is insufficient proposals for bicycle use which is very important in this area.

1.2 add to final sentence "and on the villages along its feeder lanes and villages."

Support 1.2 that 2016 SPD was no longer sufficient to address the impact that the new developments would have collectively on the Chichesr Ring Road and it feeder roads and lanes. However, the provision in 2016 was aleady inadequate - hence the problems set out in detail in the Parish Council's report: "The Cumulative Impact of Increased Housing Development Surrounding the Parish of Fishbourne, Chichester 2022" (attached)

It seems a strange logic that suggests the solution to over-crowding is to substantially increase the volume!

See attached representations.

The Environment Agency has no comments to make on this A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation SPD. Thank you very much.

Whilst I largely support the principles and contents of the report ,I have the following observations.

The Proposed Document unless contained in other Policies does not identify the proposed levy and contributions to be sought from non residential uses,in particular the impact of proposed new employment developments during the Plan Period . I think the proposed SPD should specifically state what contributions are been sought from such uses as these
can significantly impact on the road capacity of the A27.

I am concerned that the document identifies a potential time lag between the implementation of planning permissions and date when sufficient funds have accumulated to undertake the necessary works to implement the A27 junction improvements .

**RECEIVED LATE**

I am trying to comment the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document - August 2023

These are my comments:

I get the impression that the money already collected to contribute towards these plans from the housing developers is insufficient. What makes you think this plan will deliver sufficient funds and not be too low again?

It seems crazy that in your words the junctions mentioned are already over capacity (your point 2.8) yet you are needing to build more houses and therefore generate more traffic in order to pay for some compromise scheme on a system that is already over capacity? Is this really the way we work?

How have you chosen the roundabouts to work on? By cost? It is with disbelief that you are not addressing the Stockbridge roundabout. This causes immense tailbacks throughout the day and causes a lot of local traffic (and in summer, traffic directed by apps such as google maps) to use other local unsuitable routes to get to the peninsular.

As someone who uses the Whyke roundabout there should at least by orange hashed junction boxes on it to stop cars going East and West preventing through traffic North and South.

I do hope that the departments which put these projects out to tender are capable of keeping a close eye not only on costs but on value for money. Certainly a lot of the road surfacing I have seen around the peninsular is very shoddy and short term.

Finally, to ask the public to comment on these documents is like asking us to learn a different language. I don't know how many times I have tried to read this document. We are meant to work backwards and forwards and understand legal jargon which makes no sense to the lay person. I suggest in future all documents of this kind should have a summary written in plain English.

Arun has the following observations to make, that
need to be clarified in the SPD:-

1. Clarification about the scheme costs for cross boundary purposes – for example, does the £43m assumed for the higher specification A27 Fishbourne and Bognor Regis roundabout improvements include the traffic impact of Arun’s developments (e.g. West of Bersted) on A27 Bognor Regis roundabout?

2. If the cross-boundary traffic impact from Arun’s Strategic Allocations has been included – what would be the appropriate apportionment method towards the £27m shortfall on funding?

3. If no, in answer to Question 1, can Arun assume that the £12m contributions from Arun earmarked for A27 Bognor Regis improvements (based on Aruns Transport evidence supporting the adopted Arun Local Plan) will still be needed, and at what timescale in Chichester’s Local Plan period (it would be helpful to have National Highways’ advice on this)?

4. Similarly, what is the intention for the Arun contributions towards the Whyke Road Junction,which now appear not to be included or needed (West of Bersted £2.073m; Pagham South £0.395m Pagham North £0.439)? Again, it would be helpful to have National Highways’
opinion on this.

As you may be aware, Arun is in discussion with the key developers of the Arun schemes listed
above, and they are seeking clarity on what their respective contributions should be and the above
SPD is silent on this matter.

These representations are submitted by Gleeson Land in response to Chichester District Council’s (CDC) A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation SPD Consultation. Gleeson Land has interests in the District. Nonetheless, this response is provided in an objective manner.

The current consultation seeks comments on a new supplementary planning document (SPD) providing detailed advice and guidance on the Council’s proposed approach for securing development contributions to mitigate traffic impacts on the A27 Chichester Bypass.

The principle of development funding mitigation required to accommodate planned growth is accepted. However, this should be done in a clear and transparent manner, underpinned by sound technical work. We consider this is not the case here and the SPD fails to provide an
appropriate mechanism for contributions to be secured in accordance with the CIL Reg 122 requirements, particularly those of ‘relatedness’ and ‘proportionality’.

This position is supported by a “A27 Contributions SPD Review” (October 2023) prepared by I-Transport (October 2023) submitted alongside this letter. This sets out our concerns with the approach taken by the Council, namely:

• The modelling evidence base, upon which the infrastructure is based, does not make
appropriate allowances in travel behaviour, nor does it seek to mitigate impacts
through sustainable travel initiatives;

• A 535 dwellings per annum (dpa) ‘cap’ artificially inflates the contribution per dwelling.
The proposed infrastructure is capable of accommodation a greater quantum of
development;

• The SPD penalises development coming forward towards the end of the Plan period;

• The relationship between number of bedrooms and trip generation is not linear.

It is therefore our view the adopted approach does not accord with CIL Reg 122 tests used to govern financial contributions. The contributions sought would not be ‘directly related to development’ nor ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale’.

We consider the following changes are necessary prior to the SPD being adopted:

• The artificial 535 dpa cap should be lifted and a greater quantum of development, of at least 700 dpa, be permitted;

• Further modelling of traffic impacts should be undertaken through the Transport Study, allowing for ‘Decide and Provide’ principles to trip forecasting, a greater emphasis on sustainable travel and for changes in travel behaviour following the pandemic;

• Reconsider the mitigation strategy, to allow for infrastructure only that is necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development, in line with the requirements of CIL Reg 122 and paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework;

• Consider alternative means of deriving financial contributions that reflect the impact of development, and does not utilise an arbitrary determiner, such as number of
bedrooms, that fails to reflect the traffic characteristics of a development; and

• Assess the impact that non-residential development traffic would have on the A27 and ensure other types of development provide proportionate contributions towards any mitigation identified to be necessary.

I am writing on behalf of Hallam Land Management (hereafter ‘Hallam’) and in response to the consultation on the above draft Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

Hallam control the land north of Gosden Green and have previously made Representations in response to both the Local Plan Review and the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Review. Hallam are promoting this land for new housing, including specialist accommodation, which would be consistent with Southbourne’s status as a Settlement Hub as part of the Spatial Strategy in the adopted Local Plan.

A27 JUNCTION IMPROVEMENTS

Hallam recognise the need for A27 mitigation contributions and consider these necessary to ensure there are limited delays to housing delivery in the District.

It is noted at paragraph 4.12 that the number of homes securing the funding will be updated prior to adoption to reflect an accurate estimation. However, this does not set out that the quantum per dwelling will be amended to reflect this potential change. This is critical to ensuring that developments are being required to provide fair and reasonable contributions to the A27 improvements in accordance with the CIL 122 Regulations, rather than a quantum which may change reflecting the number of homes being committed to in the emerging Local Plan.

The SPD does not include allowance for the changes in travel behaviour nor does it seek to mitigate
highways impacts through sustainable travel initiatives. Without consideration of these the SPD may not
represent a cost-effective means of mitigating impacts of development on the highway network.

It is recommended that the SPD is amended to set out how the contribution sought per dwelling will be updated to reflect any change in the supply of housing, the consideration towards travel behaviour and alternative mitigation measures using travel initiatives. There should be a monitoring mechanism embedded into the SPD to ensure that there is a review of committed housing delivering and travel behaviour in relation to the contributions sought.

Similarly, the SPD does not include allowance for any potential grant funding for improvements to the A27, which has previously been identified as a priority location in the Road Investment Strategy. There is a risk that should grant funding be made for these improvements the contributions sought through this SPD will be too high, risking the viability and delivery of housing schemes across the District.

The SPD sets out that all new housing developments, unless exempt, will be required to provide this contribution. However, it is concerning that other development such as employment uses are not required to pay these monies. These other developments would still use the A27 and should be required to provide this contribution. Again, this would reduce the cost to developers and distribute the payments towards infrastructure improvements across a wider range and number of development schemes.

HOUSING NEED IN CHICHESTER

Hallam have previously made Representations to the Local Plan Review, including to challenge the number of homes the District are identifying as the need in the emerging Local Plan.

Draft Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings within the Plan Period, amounting to 575dpa. With the majority of these to be delivered along the east-west corridor, consistent with the Spatial Strategy.

This is lower than both a. the standard method figure of 638 dpa; and, b. the Preferred Approach figure in the previous consultation, of 650 dpa which included accommodating some unmet need arising from the South Downs National Park area. This shortfall will amount to over 1,100 dwellings across the plan period, all of which would have provided A27 mitigation contributions.

It is highly germane that the current Local Plan also adopted a lower housing figure than the identified need of 505dpa, proposing instead to deliver 435dpa.

By consistently limiting the amount of housing there will be fewer developments contributing to infrastructure improvements, including the A27 works identified in this draft SPD. This creates two issues: firstly, there is a greater financial burden placed on a lesser amount of developments, compared to meeting the requirement in full; and secondly, with fewer schemes being delivered there is a higher risk that there is a severe delay in these infrastructure improvements being delivered, which again could delay housing delivery in the District.

Paragraph 4.26 of the consultation document sets out how the uncertainty of the precise housing mix that will come forward will require the Council to monitor the level of funding being secure and potentially require a review of the SPD. This again questions why a lower number of homes are being proposed when this raises uncertainty on infrastructure schemes coming forward.

Hallam consider that the proposal to reduce the overall housing supply for the plan period is not supported and that the evidence base should reconsider the delivery of the housing requirement in full. Without the identified housing requirement being met in full the problem of the younger population being unable to afford to remain in Chichester will continue, further growing the gap in workforce and an increasingly aging population.

Therefore, this SPD should consider the housing need in full and not a reduced quantum. This would see lower contribution figures and would support earlier delivery of A27 junction improvements. Through a reduction in the contribution number there would be a lesser risk to development viability of schemes and paragraphs 5.13 to 5.20 of the consultation document would be less likely to apply. Should these continue to apply there is a risk that elements of other contributions such as affordable housing could be underdelivered.

Specialist accommodation need

The consultation document sets out at paragraph 4.28 that there are some cases where the A27 mitigation contribution would not be sought. This includes some types of care homes and extra care facilities, unless they provide private parking for residents beyond that of a normal visitor space rate.

The provision of this type of development has lesser of an impact on the local highway network, and therefore Hallam support this reduced requirement for the contribution. However, it is vital that the need to upgrade these junctions does not delay development, including the identified need for specialist accommodation. Therefore, through seeking reduced contributions from the construction of these developments, it assists with providing the required A27 improvements but does not prevent the short term delivery of this type of accommodation.

CONCLUSION

The Council need to continue delivering housing in the short term whilst addressing these infrastructure
constraints, and the land under Hallam’s control is a suitable site to enable this.

Hallam disagree with the District lowering the housing supply target for the emerging Local Plan. This figure should be the identified housing requirement. With a higher figure the cost on developments would be lower, and the risk of viability consequences and potential delays to the infrastructure improvements would be reduced.

Similarly, the SPD should consider changes to travel behaviour and the introduction of travel initiatives as
differing mitigation measures.

The SPD does not include potential grant funding and the alteration this may have to the contribution sought from developments. These should be reviewed prior to adopting this SPD.

Finally, the SPD should be seeking contributions from other types of development which will be using the A27 and not focusing only on residential development.

Hallam recognise the requirement for the financial contributions as part of this draft SPD; however, the Council need to ensure that whilst the contributions are being received, development is still able to be delivered to address the identified housing and specialist accommodation needs.

We have read through the detail of the draft SPD and wish to make the following comments.

It is noted that this consultation focuses only on the A27 corridor and the stated need for highway capacity improvements, without a broader understanding of the land use and transport infrastructure requirements in the area.

In this context it is stated that the previously identified ‘full package of A27 improvements’ associated with the emerging local plan is undeliverable (for financial reasons). For this reason, we agree that a revised approach is needed to ensure the delivery of much needed housing.

We therefore understand the need for:

i. A revised set of A27 scheme proposals, which should come forward alongside an adopted growth strategy. It is unusual for the proposal to be predicated on an emerging Local Plan that has not yet been independently examined.

ii. A monitoring approach to establish when improvements are actually needed in the context of the above, and a mechanism to seek to ensure that housing delivery is not stalled.

iii. Appropriate contributions to be made from all applicable developments within the Chichester District Council administrative boundary south of the National Park. The current consultation relates solely to new homes, which needs to be reconsidered. In this context, it may be more appropriate to consider a review of CIL to secure appropriate contributions as opposed to a
formulaic approach via SPD, which will not be subject to examination.

In addition to the above however, we would also wish to highlight the uncertainty over future travel demands and the adopted national policy requirement to move towards a net zero transport system.

In this context, we would support the adoption of a more sustainable transport strategy approach, compared with that typically associated with a ‘car dependent’ predict and provide approach.

We note that the consultation refers to the revised A27 proposals as the ‘infrastructure constrained’
approach, thereby effectively placing a cap on potential housing numbers.

Whilst this ‘constraint’ may be the case for short periods of peak hour car trips at certain locations, we do not believe this phrase reflects that of the overall transport system, and would support the delivery of improvements to walking, cycling and public transport infrastructure, and other means to encourage modal shift away from car use in the future, and to ensure that housing can be delivered in parallel in a more sustainable manner

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Please see below the officer comments from WSCC. The comments highlight key issues and suggest changes to the SPD. We look forward to working with CDC officers in the preparation of this document.

Paragraph 1.2: Comment

The technical evidence base assesses the impact of new development on the transport network as a whole, not just on the A27 Chichester Bypass. Also, the mitigation package is likely to include interventions on A27 and local roads.

Change required: the SPD introduction section should acknowledge the impact on the transport network rather than focusing solely on the impact on A27.

Paragraph 2.2: Comment

National planning and transport policies place emphasis on reducing the need to travel and promoting use of sustainable modes of transport.

Change required: It is expected that a sustainable transport package would be provided to serve as part of the package to mitigate the impacts of development on the transport network. Within the City and on other local roads, it is expected that sustainable transport interventions will be prioritised to encourage use of active travel and shared transport and avoid encouraging more traffic into the City. The sustainable transport package should include schemes such as those being developed as part of the West Sussex Transport Plan. In general, these schemes are multi-modal and intended to improve the experience for all users of the transport network. These will help to mitigate the impacts of development from the adopted Local Plan and improve facilities for existing users so will attract funding from other sources.

Paragraphs 2.13, 3.3, 4.10, 4.24: Comment

The SPD makes various references to a ‘cap’ on the level of development that can come forward but it is unclear whether this approach is consistent with Paragraph 111 of NPPF as development should only be refused on transport grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety or the residual impacts on the road network would be severe.

Clarification requested: CDC should consider whether these references should be changed to comply with NPPF Paragraph 111.

Sections 2 and 4: Comment

The SPD currently places heavy reliance on highway capacity improvements at the A27 junctions to mitigate the impacts of development. Whilst the County Council acknowledges that improvements are needed to mitigate the impacts of development on the A27, the design of mitigation measures and the location of these measures should be influenced by a range of factors including, for example; the location of development, the effectiveness of measures to minimise traffic growth, and the timing of developer contributions towards mitigation.
Change required: We suggest that the SPD should be less specific about the nature and sequencing of the improvements. Instead of that, we suggest that CDC should be invested in a range of schemes, including local road improvements that improve sustainable transport facilities alongside A27 improvements. The rate and sequence by which these are brought forward should be under the overview and recommendation of the Transport and Infrastructure Management Group. That way the envisioned delivery will not only be focused on highway infrastructure and/or traffic control.

Section 4: Comment

Although cost estimates have been produced, it should be acknowledged that these schemes are at an early stage of development and may change in scope as schemes mature in response to further technical work on design and consultation with stakeholders. Therefore, the final cost of schemes is not fixed, as anything produced at this stage is only an outline design stage estimate (from low to highpoint) and general inflation is not the only feasible reason why costs could change over time.

Change required: We consider that the SPD should explain this. In particular, schemes requiring major earthworks or potential use of third-party land such as the diversion of Terminus Road from Fishbourne junction to Cathedral Way will require feasibility stage design to increase certainty over delivery cost and land take, which may affect the cost estimate.

Overall, there is a range of transport infrastructure improvements that could be used to mitigate the impacts of development and the County Council considers that a wider range of projects should be taken into account in the calculations for developer contributions. Other than those to be delivered directly by developments, the following multi-modal schemes should be considered when calculating developer contributions due to the role they could provide in mitigating the impacts of development. In general, the County Council aims to secure around 50% of the cost of these schemes from developer contributions with the remainder coming from other sources:

• A285 Chichester – Tangmere Sustainable Transport Corridor – cost £6,600,000
• City Centre to Portfield (via Oving Rd) Sustainable Transport Corridor - cost £3,500,000
• Northgate Gyratory Improvement – cost £7,300,000
• A259 Chichester to Bognor Regis Sustainable Transport Corridor Improvement Scheme - cost £45,103,000 (this scheme would include developer contributions from Arun District, as well as Chichester District)

Change required: As the cost of the improvements is likely to exceed what it is viable to secure through the planning system, the County Council requests that references to such potential improvements are referenced generically. This should also help to provide flexibility in how developer contributions are utilised.

Paragraph 2.12 – change required

In line with the above, it is best not to fix the implementation of an improvement at the Fishbourne junction as necessarily being ahead of the Bognor Road junction

1. Introduction

The proposed Draft SPD re A27Chichester Bypass Mitigation A27 relates to the presumption of future housing developments, their impact on the A27 and related developer contributions to pay for any (unspecified) mitigation measures as a consequence of those developments.

Is the intention of CDC to allocate 100% of Developer contributions for the partial upgrade of some A27
junctions impacted by those developments? How does this ensure that developers pay for a fairer share of affordable housing and other local infrastructure as the Government announced on 17 March 2023?

Setting to one side CDC’s (and WSCC) sorrowful track record of rejecting Central Government's inward investment despite WSCC’s announcement on 25 Jun 2015 (“£350m investment welcomed by WSCC” that
…”confirmed the existing commitment to upgrade the four junctions on the Chichester Bypass”) it was clear that the junction capacity and highway safety issues were known when the funding was on offer from Highways England. Since that time it has become clear that CDC need additional funding to deliver mitigations necessary for the development of a sound Local Plan.

So why in ?2017 did CDC/WSCC inexplicably request the A286 South of Chichester to be removed from available funding from the Major Road Network MRN? Indeed there is no convincing evidence within this SPD which confirms that the Department for Transport has been requested by CDC/WSCC for the A286 South of Chichester be once again included in the MRN funding scheme. By so doing WSCC would play their part in assisting CDC in delivering a robust Local Plan for the benefit of the whole Chichester
Community.

Without any evidence of seeking and securing alternative funding sources the Chichester community are now being asked to accept that additional funding for infrastructure upgrade is to be funded by future housing developments but only in respect of the impact of those developments. The impact of course will simply add to the infrastructure deficit that has now reached its nadir in the Chichester area.

There needs to be a clear correlation between the capacity of the landscape to absorb new housing numbers, certainty from National Highways, MRN and others in relation to funding improvements to alleviate the current congestion and certainty from Southern Water as to when their improvements are to be completed to the sewerage infrastructure.

We object to the proposed draft SPD because the infrastructure remains deficient to support more housing
and secondly CDC would forever be indebted to the commercial vagaries of developers set against a moving target of viability tests with new more affordable housing models. It is entirely dependent on the granting of planning approvals and potential developer funding.

This is not a sustainable solution and the draft mitigation SPD should therefore be dismissed.

OTHER RELATED MATTERS

1. Ministerial comments from the Secretary of State for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities (Housing Today 27 June 2023) and the letter sent to MPs state that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would be amended to abolish local mandatory house building targets as
"there is no truly objective way of calculating how many new homes are needed in an area".

2. This change makes the centrally determined target a "starting point", with councils able to propose building fewer homes if they faced "genuine constraints" or would have to build at a density that would "significantly change the character of their area”.

3. The Secretary of State has also been quoted as saying that the planning system is "not working as it should" and that new development must have "the support of the local communities" and added that it must be accompanied by the right infrastructure.

4. Constraints to more housing development are manifest and include the erosion of the character of our erstwhile rural Sussex and losing some of the most productive and versatile land for agriculture.

5. Some development allocations in the draft Local Plan do not meet the criterion of being remotely acceptable to the local population who despair regarding infrastructure deficit whilst housing proliferates. Further depletion of our green fields coupled with new housing adding to the already outdated and failing sewage system detract from the area as a tourist destination and the discharges of raw sewage into our rivers and sea are hitting the local economy.

6. The draft SPD provides no funding for upgrading the A27 junctions to alleviate the current congestion. Such future developments as proposed should therefore be disallowed until such time as the A27 upgrade has been implemented to cater for the existing traffic issues.

7. There is a lack of certainty that the developer contributions sums will not be adjusted downwards as the result of developers contesting the viability studies. At the very least the quantum of affordable houses are likely to be reduced.

8. With the uncertain UK economic environment due in part only to climate change which will affect what and where we build there is no guarantee that this proposal will be realised as envisaged. The proposed SPD is not therefore a sound basis for the upgrading of the
infrastructure to meet any agreed future housing needs.

9. Local residents in general feel there needs to be a moratorium on large scale development that do not address local housing needs until the sewage and roads issues are resolved. In terms of future housing, we need to prioritise social housing and low-cost starter homes as these are needed by local people in a low wage economy. It would help greatly to have a housing target that is both realistic and recognises local need.

1.7 The logical approach to mitigation of the traffic congestion at the SRN Chichester A27 junctions is firstly
for National Highways and others to fund and to carry out such work to normalise the current congestion. In addition for CDC with WSCC to source additional funding other than the SRN/ MRN. A “cocktail of funding sources” was promised by WSCC). Developer contributions would then be available for other mitigation issues where developments impact on existing infrastructure.

This “new approach to A27 mitigation” means CDC propose to fund the mitigation of the impact of future
development whilst leaving the current congestion untouched. This ‘kicking the can down the road’ is not a
solution and neither is granting further permissions for housing without dealing with the current infrastructure
deficit.

2. Background

2.6 The improvement works to the Fishbourne, Bognor, Stockbridge and Whyke junctions were all included in the HE funding offer rejected by CDC and WSCC in ?2018 Thus there was not an “absence of Government funding” (ref4,1). It would never (despite inflation and cost escalation) have been affordable from developer contributions.

2.7 It is an egregious error to claim that no funding was available from central government over the past decade. The absence of Government funding was due to the decision by CDC and WSCC not to accept what was on offer.

Have CDC/WSCC followed funding from the MRN programme. It is understood that this was also turned
down by WSCC in?2018. Can it be rejuvenated for the A286 south of Chichester? Is the Bognor road junction a candidate?

2.15 The viability was presumably based on the historical housing models so favoured by developers to maximise their profits. In future the housing models need to change because affordability will become a major criterion for purchasers. This will lead to different types of housing that are affordable and therefore challenge the historical viability studies.

4. Planning Contributions

4.1 There is little evidence to provide confidence that funding sources from Government and others have
been robustly pursued.

Have CDC/WSCC fully explored funding via the MRN (funding stream remote from RIS) which they had
previously rejected despite being available for the A286?

1. Introduction

The proposed Draft SPD re A27Chichester Bypass Mitigation A27 relates to the presumption of future housing developments, their impact on the A27 and related developer contributions to pay for any (unspecified) mitigation measures as a consequence of those developments.

Is the intention of CDC to allocate 100% of Developer contributions for the partial upgrade of some A27
junctions impacted by those developments? How does this ensure that developers pay for a fairer share of affordable housing and other local infrastructure as the Government announced on 17 March 2023?

Setting to one side CDC’s (and WSCC) sorrowful track record of rejecting Central Government's inward investment despite WSCC’s announcement on 25 Jun 2015 (“£350m investment welcomed by WSCC” that
…”confirmed the existing commitment to upgrade the four junctions on the Chichester Bypass”) it was clear that the junction capacity and highway safety issues were known when the funding was on offer from Highways England. Since that time it has become clear that CDC need additional funding to deliver mitigations necessary for the development of a sound Local Plan.

So why in ?2017 did CDC/WSCC inexplicably request the A286 South of Chichester to be removed from available funding from the Major Road Network MRN? Indeed there is no convincing evidence within this SPD which confirms that the Department for Transport has been requested by CDC/WSCC for the A286 South of Chichester be once again included in the MRN funding scheme. By so doing WSCC would play their part in assisting CDC in delivering a robust Local Plan for the benefit of the whole Chichester
Community.

Without any evidence of seeking and securing alternative funding sources the Chichester community are now being asked to accept that additional funding for infrastructure upgrade is to be funded by future housing developments but only in respect of the impact of those developments. The impact of course will simply add to the infrastructure deficit that has now reached its nadir in the Chichester area.

There needs to be a clear correlation between the capacity of the landscape to absorb new housing numbers, certainty from National Highways, MRN and others in relation to funding improvements to alleviate the current congestion and certainty from Southern Water as to when their improvements are to be completed to the sewerage infrastructure.

We object to the proposed draft SPD because the infrastructure remains deficient to support more housing
and secondly CDC would forever be indebted to the commercial vagaries of developers set against a moving target of viability tests with new more affordable housing models. It is entirely dependent on the granting of planning approvals and potential developer funding.

This is not a sustainable solution and the draft mitigation SPD should therefore be dismissed.

OTHER RELATED MATTERS

1. Ministerial comments from the Secretary of State for Levelling-up, Housing and Communities (Housing Today 27 June 2023) and the letter sent to MPs state that the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill would be amended to abolish local mandatory house building targets as
"there is no truly objective way of calculating how many new homes are needed in an area".

2. This change makes the centrally determined target a "starting point", with councils able to propose building fewer homes if they faced "genuine constraints" or would have to build at a density that would "significantly change the character of their area”.

3. The Secretary of State has also been quoted as saying that the planning system is "not working as it should" and that new development must have "the support of the local communities" and added that it must be accompanied by the right infrastructure.

4. Constraints to more housing development are manifest and include the erosion of the character of our erstwhile rural Sussex and losing some of the most productive and versatile land for agriculture.

5. Some development allocations in the draft Local Plan do not meet the criterion of being remotely acceptable to the local population who despair regarding infrastructure deficit whilst housing proliferates. Further depletion of our green fields coupled with new housing adding to the already outdated and failing sewage system detract from the area as a tourist destination and the discharges of raw sewage into our rivers and sea are hitting the local economy.

6. The draft SPD provides no funding for upgrading the A27 junctions to alleviate the current congestion. Such future developments as proposed should therefore be disallowed until such time as the A27 upgrade has been implemented to cater for the existing traffic issues.

7. There is a lack of certainty that the developer contributions sums will not be adjusted downwards as the result of developers contesting the viability studies. At the very least the quantum of affordable houses are likely to be reduced.

8. With the uncertain UK economic environment due in part only to climate change which will affect what and where we build there is no guarantee that this proposal will be realised as envisaged. The proposed SPD is not therefore a sound basis for the upgrading of the
infrastructure to meet any agreed future housing needs.

9. Local residents in general feel there needs to be a moratorium on large scale development that do not address local housing needs until the sewage and roads issues are resolved. In terms of future housing, we need to prioritise social housing and low-cost starter homes as these are needed by local people in a low wage economy. It would help greatly to have a housing target that is both realistic and recognises local need.

1.7 The logical approach to mitigation of the traffic congestion at the SRN Chichester A27 junctions is firstly
for National Highways and others to fund and to carry out such work to normalise the current congestion. In addition for CDC with WSCC to source additional funding other than the SRN/ MRN. A “cocktail of funding sources” was promised by WSCC). Developer contributions would then be available for other mitigation issues where developments impact on existing infrastructure.

This “new approach to A27 mitigation” means CDC propose to fund the mitigation of the impact of future
development whilst leaving the current congestion untouched. This ‘kicking the can down the road’ is not a
solution and neither is granting further permissions for housing without dealing with the current infrastructure
deficit.

2. Background

2.6 The improvement works to the Fishbourne, Bognor, Stockbridge and Whyke junctions were all included in the HE funding offer rejected by CDC and WSCC in ?2018 Thus there was not an “absence of Government funding” (ref4,1). It would never (despite inflation and cost escalation) have been affordable from developer contributions.

2.7 It is an egregious error to claim that no funding was available from central government over the past decade. The absence of Government funding was due to the decision by CDC and WSCC not to accept what was on offer.

Have CDC/WSCC followed funding from the MRN programme. It is understood that this was also turned
down by WSCC in?2018. Can it be rejuvenated for the A286 south of Chichester? Is the Bognor road junction a candidate?

2.15 The viability was presumably based on the historical housing models so favoured by developers to maximise their profits. In future the housing models need to change because affordability will become a major criterion for purchasers. This will lead to different types of housing that are affordable and therefore challenge the historical viability studies.

4. Planning Contributions

4.1 There is little evidence to provide confidence that funding sources from Government and others have
been robustly pursued.

Have CDC/WSCC fully explored funding via the MRN (funding stream remote from RIS) which they had
previously rejected despite being available for the A286?

Instructions & Introduction

i. Instruction

1.1 Nova Planning Limited has been instructed by Metis Homes Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘Metis’) to prepare and submit representations on Chichester District Council’s ‘A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

1.2 The Metis land is shown at Figure 1 below and comprises two adjoining parcels - an eastern parcel
(shown edged red) known as ‘Harris Scrapyard & Oaks Farm’ (HSOF) and a western parcel (shown edged
blue) known as ‘Land East of Inlands Road’ (LEOIR).

ii. Introduction

1.3 The Metis land is identified in the Southbourne Broad Location for Development (BLD) under Policy A13 and within the proposed Strategic Wildlife Corridor under Policy NE5.

1.4 The land edged red in Figure 1, known as ‘Harris Scrapyard & Oaks Farm’ has planning permission for 103 no. dwellings and a Children’s Nursery (granted at appeal under Ref. APP/L3815/W/23/3318548).

1.5 The land edged blue in Figure 1, known as ‘Land East of Inlands Road’, is sustainably located and represents a suitable location for development. It is physically well related to the existing pattern of development to the north of the A259, located directly between the recently built out housing allocation at Priors Orchard and the recently approved development at HSOF.

1.6 The site is visually well contained by a thick band of mature trees on the eastern and southern boundaries,
and the railway line to the north, which provides a clear physical barrier to the remainder of the land within the wider BLD.

1.7 The Highway Authority (West Sussex County Council) have confirmed through a pre-application enquiry that the site is a sustainable/accessible location for development; and that a proposed access to Inlands Road is capable of accommodating circa 100 dwellings. The site is unconstrained in all other respects.

Procedural Issues

2.1 Whilst we understand the context for the planned mitigation and the associated increase in costs, as set
out in the draft SPD, fundamentally, the Council should not be seeking to introduce new financial contributions outside of the Local Plan process. This approach directly conflicts with the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), and in particular Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901 as follows (my underlining for emphasis).

“Where should policy on seeking planning obligations be set out?

Policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. Policy requirements should be clear so that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land.

Such policies should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a
proportionate assessment of viability. This evidence of need can be standardised or formulaic (for example regional cost multipliers for providing school places. See the guidance from the Department for Education on ‘Securing developer contributions for education’. However, plan makers should consider how needs and viability may differ between site typologies and may choose to set different policy requirements for different sites or types of development in their plans.

It is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination. Whilst standardised or formulaic evidence may have informed the identification of needs and costs and the setting of plan policies, the decision maker must still ensure that each planning obligation sought meets the statutory tests set out in regulation 122. This means that if a formulaic approach to developer contributions is adopted, the levy can be used to address the cumulative impact of infrastructure in an area, while planning obligations will be appropriate for funding a project that is directly related to that specific development.

Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of development which benefits local communities and supports the provision of local infrastructure. Local communities should be involved in the setting of policies for contributions expected from development.

See related guidance: Viability and Plan-making
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901
Revision date: 01 09 2019 See previous version”

2.2 This view has been endorsed in a recent appeal decision under Ref. APP/L3815/W/21/3280933, where
the Inspector commented at paragraph 12 (my underlining for emphasis):

“12. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) makes clear that policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. It additionally states that it is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination.

The approach advocated by the Council therefore directly conflicts with that set out in the PPG”.

2.3 A copy of the decision is attached at Appendix 1.

2.4 The obligations set out in the draft SPD are a direct consequence of the highways assessment work and viability testing that has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan Review – this is made clear in the draft SPD. However, none of this evidence has been subject to examination.

Until this evidence has been fully tested at examination, it is inappropriate to rely upon it for the purposes of setting new financial obligations. This is made clear in the PPG and the Inspector’s comments above.

ii. Technical Issues

2.5 Looking beyond the procedural issues highlighted above, there are also concerns regarding the highways
evidence that underpins the draft SPD. These concerns were highlighted in the previous representation by Metis on the Local Plan Review (Regulation 19), and they have not been fully addressed by draft SPD.

2.6 The Council’s strategy for transport infrastructure is based primarily on the findings of the Stantec Transport Study (January 2023). Separate representations were provided by Paul Basham Associates (PBA) in relation to this evidence and its application in the draft Local Plan policies. Section 4 of the PBA representations is equally relevant to the draft SPD, which is based on the same evidence. A copy of these representations is attached at Appendix 2. The following issues are particularly relevant in the context of the draft SPD.

• Traffic modelling – the Transport Study uses a base year of 2014, which pre-dates the COVID
pandemic and the significant changes in work-travel patterns in subsequent years. This is likely
to result in a significant over-estimation of traffic flows, which is acknowledged in the report itself;

• Trip generation – this has no regard to the varying sustainability/accessibility merits of locations
within the district. This would have been acceptable for a generic ‘predict and provide’ approach but the mitigation strategy is based on a bespoke ‘monitor and manage’ approach. Once it became apparent that that the ‘predict and provide’ approach could not be viably mitigated, a
new assessment should have been undertaken to look in more detail at the specific characteristics of traffic generation from various locations within the Southern Plan Area, and the interrelationship with specific junctions on the A27. This would have provided a more accurate
account of trip generation. The draft SPD acknowledges that the impact of an individual development on the A27 will vary depending on its characteristics, including dwelling sizes and location. Whilst the contributions set out in the SPD do vary according to dwelling size, no
account is made for the variations in location and existing land uses, which means that the contributions being sought are not derived in a proportionate manner. The approach set out in the draft SPD would therefore fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

• Mitigation proposals - the planned mitigation schemes at Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts are to be funded exclusively by residential development, despite Local Plan Review Policy E1allocating 28,000sqm of new business floorspace at ‘Land South of Bognor Road’. Consequently, the contributions being sought for residential development would fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”. Secondly, the Transport Study confirms that the planned mitigation could accommodate a further 2,970 dwellings in the Southern Plan Area, which would reduce the per dwelling contribution. At best, this means that the cost of mitigation could be reduced in the interests of viability and affordable housing delivery. At worst, it means that the cost of mitigation would fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

2.7 These are exactly the type of issues that paragraph 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901 of the PPG is seeking to avoid, where concerns regarding the evidence underpinning planning obligations need to be properly tested through a Local Plan examination. The draft SPD should follow the Local Plan process only after the evidence base and subsequent policies are properly set. Paragraph 4.19 of the draft SPD outlines the adoption process for the current SPD and why it was successful in delivering a proportionate approach to contributions (my underlining for emphasis).

“The 2016 SPD was adopted soon after the adoption of the current Local Plan. It was therefore possible to assess the proportionate impact of the various developments allocated in the Local Plan by reference

to the anticipated number of vehicle trips that would be generated in each case. This was then used to derive a ‘contribution per dwelling’ based on the trip generation modelling as a proxy for the likely impact on the A27 Bypass of each site allocation.”

2.8 The Council’s justification for not repeating this logical process is the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan. That is a failure on the Council’s part and the premature adoption of an SPD is not an appropriate solution. The appropriate solution is to get an up-to-date Local Plan in place as soon as possible,whereby contributions can be sought on a sound and proportionate basis.

2.9 With the above considerations in mind, it is clear that the evidence base for the draft SPD is unsound and untested. It is premature and should not be adopted unless and until the Local Plan Review is found sound at Examination. The draft SPD should then be updated as necessary to reflect the terms of the adopted Local Plan Review.

Instructions & Introduction

i. Instruction

1.1 Nova Planning Limited has been instructed by Metis Homes Limited (hereafter referred to as ‘Metis’) to prepare and submit representations on Chichester District Council’s ‘A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation’ Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

1.2 The Metis land is shown at Figure 1 below and comprises two adjoining parcels - an eastern parcel
(shown edged red) known as ‘Harris Scrapyard & Oaks Farm’ (HSOF) and a western parcel (shown edged
blue) known as ‘Land East of Inlands Road’ (LEOIR).

ii. Introduction

1.3 The Metis land is identified in the Southbourne Broad Location for Development (BLD) under Policy A13 and within the proposed Strategic Wildlife Corridor under Policy NE5.

1.4 The land edged red in Figure 1, known as ‘Harris Scrapyard & Oaks Farm’ has planning permission for 103 no. dwellings and a Children’s Nursery (granted at appeal under Ref. APP/L3815/W/23/3318548).

1.5 The land edged blue in Figure 1, known as ‘Land East of Inlands Road’, is sustainably located and represents a suitable location for development. It is physically well related to the existing pattern of development to the north of the A259, located directly between the recently built out housing allocation at Priors Orchard and the recently approved development at HSOF.

1.6 The site is visually well contained by a thick band of mature trees on the eastern and southern boundaries,
and the railway line to the north, which provides a clear physical barrier to the remainder of the land within the wider BLD.

1.7 The Highway Authority (West Sussex County Council) have confirmed through a pre-application enquiry that the site is a sustainable/accessible location for development; and that a proposed access to Inlands Road is capable of accommodating circa 100 dwellings. The site is unconstrained in all other respects.

Procedural Issues

2.1 Whilst we understand the context for the planned mitigation and the associated increase in costs, as set
out in the draft SPD, fundamentally, the Council should not be seeking to introduce new financial contributions outside of the Local Plan process. This approach directly conflicts with the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), and in particular Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901 as follows (my underlining for emphasis).

“Where should policy on seeking planning obligations be set out?

Policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. Policy requirements should be clear so that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land.

Such policies should be informed by evidence of infrastructure and affordable housing need, and a
proportionate assessment of viability. This evidence of need can be standardised or formulaic (for example regional cost multipliers for providing school places. See the guidance from the Department for Education on ‘Securing developer contributions for education’. However, plan makers should consider how needs and viability may differ between site typologies and may choose to set different policy requirements for different sites or types of development in their plans.

It is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination. Whilst standardised or formulaic evidence may have informed the identification of needs and costs and the setting of plan policies, the decision maker must still ensure that each planning obligation sought meets the statutory tests set out in regulation 122. This means that if a formulaic approach to developer contributions is adopted, the levy can be used to address the cumulative impact of infrastructure in an area, while planning obligations will be appropriate for funding a project that is directly related to that specific development.

Planning obligations assist in mitigating the impact of development which benefits local communities and supports the provision of local infrastructure. Local communities should be involved in the setting of policies for contributions expected from development.

See related guidance: Viability and Plan-making
Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901
Revision date: 01 09 2019 See previous version”

2.2 This view has been endorsed in a recent appeal decision under Ref. APP/L3815/W/21/3280933, where
the Inspector commented at paragraph 12 (my underlining for emphasis):

“12. The Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) makes clear that policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. It additionally states that it is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to planning obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination.

The approach advocated by the Council therefore directly conflicts with that set out in the PPG”.

2.3 A copy of the decision is attached at Appendix 1.

2.4 The obligations set out in the draft SPD are a direct consequence of the highways assessment work and viability testing that has been undertaken as part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan Review – this is made clear in the draft SPD. However, none of this evidence has been subject to examination.

Until this evidence has been fully tested at examination, it is inappropriate to rely upon it for the purposes of setting new financial obligations. This is made clear in the PPG and the Inspector’s comments above.

ii. Technical Issues

2.5 Looking beyond the procedural issues highlighted above, there are also concerns regarding the highways
evidence that underpins the draft SPD. These concerns were highlighted in the previous representation by Metis on the Local Plan Review (Regulation 19), and they have not been fully addressed by draft SPD.

2.6 The Council’s strategy for transport infrastructure is based primarily on the findings of the Stantec Transport Study (January 2023). Separate representations were provided by Paul Basham Associates (PBA) in relation to this evidence and its application in the draft Local Plan policies. Section 4 of the PBA representations is equally relevant to the draft SPD, which is based on the same evidence. A copy of these representations is attached at Appendix 2. The following issues are particularly relevant in the context of the draft SPD.

• Traffic modelling – the Transport Study uses a base year of 2014, which pre-dates the COVID
pandemic and the significant changes in work-travel patterns in subsequent years. This is likely
to result in a significant over-estimation of traffic flows, which is acknowledged in the report itself;

• Trip generation – this has no regard to the varying sustainability/accessibility merits of locations
within the district. This would have been acceptable for a generic ‘predict and provide’ approach but the mitigation strategy is based on a bespoke ‘monitor and manage’ approach. Once it became apparent that that the ‘predict and provide’ approach could not be viably mitigated, a
new assessment should have been undertaken to look in more detail at the specific characteristics of traffic generation from various locations within the Southern Plan Area, and the interrelationship with specific junctions on the A27. This would have provided a more accurate
account of trip generation. The draft SPD acknowledges that the impact of an individual development on the A27 will vary depending on its characteristics, including dwelling sizes and location. Whilst the contributions set out in the SPD do vary according to dwelling size, no
account is made for the variations in location and existing land uses, which means that the contributions being sought are not derived in a proportionate manner. The approach set out in the draft SPD would therefore fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

• Mitigation proposals - the planned mitigation schemes at Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts are to be funded exclusively by residential development, despite Local Plan Review Policy E1allocating 28,000sqm of new business floorspace at ‘Land South of Bognor Road’. Consequently, the contributions being sought for residential development would fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”. Secondly, the Transport Study confirms that the planned mitigation could accommodate a further 2,970 dwellings in the Southern Plan Area, which would reduce the per dwelling contribution. At best, this means that the cost of mitigation could be reduced in the interests of viability and affordable housing delivery. At worst, it means that the cost of mitigation would fail the CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”.

2.7 These are exactly the type of issues that paragraph 004 Reference ID: 23b-004-20190901 of the PPG is seeking to avoid, where concerns regarding the evidence underpinning planning obligations need to be properly tested through a Local Plan examination. The draft SPD should follow the Local Plan process only after the evidence base and subsequent policies are properly set. Paragraph 4.19 of the draft SPD outlines the adoption process for the current SPD and why it was successful in delivering a proportionate approach to contributions (my underlining for emphasis).

“The 2016 SPD was adopted soon after the adoption of the current Local Plan. It was therefore possible to assess the proportionate impact of the various developments allocated in the Local Plan by reference

to the anticipated number of vehicle trips that would be generated in each case. This was then used to derive a ‘contribution per dwelling’ based on the trip generation modelling as a proxy for the likely impact on the A27 Bypass of each site allocation.”

2.8 The Council’s justification for not repeating this logical process is the absence of an up-to-date Local Plan. That is a failure on the Council’s part and the premature adoption of an SPD is not an appropriate solution. The appropriate solution is to get an up-to-date Local Plan in place as soon as possible,whereby contributions can be sought on a sound and proportionate basis.

2.9 With the above considerations in mind, it is clear that the evidence base for the draft SPD is unsound and untested. It is premature and should not be adopted unless and until the Local Plan Review is found sound at Examination. The draft SPD should then be updated as necessary to reflect the terms of the adopted Local Plan Review.

SECTION 1 Introduction and Overview

1.1 Introduction

1.1.1 This note provides a transport response to the Chichester District Council (CDC) Planning Obligations
and Affordable Housing (July 2016) Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) and associated A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation (August 2023).

1.1.2 It has been prepared on behalf of Henry Adams LLP in respect to the promotion of land interests in the Chichester District (Land at Maudlin Farm, Westhampnett – Site A10), and focusses on whether the proposed approach to contributions, and the methodology used to calculate its value, is appropriate.

1.2 Overview

1.2.1 The principle of development funding mitigation required to accommodate planned growth is accepted, and the development of an SPD providing a clear means to calculate site specific contributions is welcomed.

1.2.2 However, there are some significant concerns with the approach taken within the SPD to calculate the
contributions, and the approach does not accord with CIL Reg 122 tests used to govern financial contributions – the contributions sought would not be ‘directly related to development’ nor ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale’. The following points are of particular note:

• The modelling evidence base upon which the infrastructure is based does not make appropriate allowance for changes in travel behaviour nor seeks to mitigate impacts through sustainable travel initiatives – thus, the extent of the mitigation may not represent a cost-effective means of mitigating the impacts of development.

• A 535 dwelling per annum (dpa) ‘cap’ artificially inflates the contribution value per dwelling – the infrastructure identified by the Transport Study accompanying the Local Plan is capable of accommodating a greater quantum of development.

• No allowance is made for any potential funding grants – improvement of the A27 has been identified historically as a priority location in the Road Investment Strategy (RIS).

• The SPD penalises development coming forward towards the end of the plan period.

• The relationship between number of bedrooms and trip generation is not linear.

SECTION 2 Transport Evidence Base

2.1 Overview

2.1.1 Land at Maudlin Farm in Westhampnett has been identified in the Chichester Local Plan (2021 – 2029):
Proposed Submission under Policy A10, which allocates the land for the development of:

• 265 dwellings, including 4 serviced self/custom build plots.
• Specialist accommodation for older persons, to include a component of care or support.
• Provision of on-site public open space and play area.
• 3 gypsy and traveller pitches

2.1.2 A review has been undertaken of the Reg 19 consultation on the 2021 – 2039 Proposed Submission
version of the Chichester Local Plan and, in particular, the Transport Study supporting this work upon which the proposed SPD is based. There is considerable disconnect between the proposed mitigation strategy and the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework and contemporary guidance on how development should be mitigated. For example:

• The transport strategy places little emphasis on the role that sustainable travel has to play in mitigating the traffic impacts of development. This includes the impact of behavioural change arising post-pandemic; the delivery of large strategic sites with the ability to accommodate
trips within the development site through the provision of internal services and facilities; andthe potential for strategic scale sustainable travel improvements being delivered alongside planned development.

• A blanket ‘predict and provide’ is taken to trip derivation, with trip generation forecasts significantly greater than that used in other authorities across the West Sussex area – by comparison, the Mid Sussex District Council study recognises the opportunity for sustainable travel behaviours and incorporates a ‘Decide and Provide’ methodology into the assessment. This consequence of this rigid approach to assessment is that it significantly overestimates the likely traffic impact of planned development, by potentially as much as traffic equivalent to that of an additional 1,900 dwellings.

Modelling scenarios tested whether the proposed package of local plan mitigation could cater for a greater quantum of development, with the outputs indicating that a 700dpa strategy could be accommodated. Potentially, an even greater quantum of development beyond 700 dpa could also be accommodated but this remains untested. Capping the number of dwelling means that the proposed mitigation strategy goes beyond mitigating the impacts of
development and provided capacity in excess of that required to accommodate development.

2.2 Outcomes

2.2.1 As a consequence of the deficiencies in the modelling base, an unnecessarily large burden is being
placed upon planned development – the proposed mitigation can accommodate a much greater rate
of growth. An increase in the level of planned development would enable the cost per dwelling to be reduced accordingly, and the direct mitigation of development impacts only, as opposed to the provision of additional capacity beyond that required, would reduce the infrastructure costs placed upon planned development.

2.2.2 In addition to this, a greater emphasis on mitigating the impacts of development using means of encouraging sustainable travel may result in a more cost-effective approach to managing the impacts of development. This would enable greater investment in other infrastructure (both transport and nontransport) improvements.

2.2.3 It is apparent that the contributions identified in the SPD would not satisfy the following CIL Reg 122 tests:

• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development – the scale of the contribution far exceeds what is necessary of the planned development. The burden created by the artificial capping of growth and by requiring mitigation that extends beyond mitigation
of development traffic could be reduced by a more cost-effective approach to the mitigation strategy or by spreading the cost of the improvements across a greater quantum of development.
• Not directly related to the development – the SPD requires funding of mitigation that goes above and beyond direct mitigation of the traffic impacts of planned development.

SECTION 3 SPD Methodology

3.1 Number of Dwellings

3.1.1 The emerging CDC Local Plan (2021 – 2039) has placed a development cap on providing a total of 9,630 homes across an 18-year period, equating to 535 homes per year.

3.1.2 Of these, approximately 6,000 are committed, having an extant planning permission or a ‘resolution to grant’. There are now only 3,551 homes left before the development cap is reached.

3.1.3 The remaining unfunded £27m for the two proposed junction improvement schemes has been divided by the remaining number of homes (3,551) to calculate a per-dwelling contribution. At a ‘per dwelling’ ratio, this equates to £7,600 approximately per dwelling. There are no known mechanisms within existing consents to secure ‘top up’ contributions, and thus any committed developments have a much lower level of burden placed upon them. It is reasonable to assume that committed development will
not have provided additional contributions towards other mitigation required to mitigate the impacts of planned growth, and thus planned development that has yet to come forward will be required to pay full contributions towards these aspects as well as the uplifted A27 contributions.

3.1.4 The result of this is that there will be a disproportionate impact on development at the ‘tail end’ of the plan period, which is required to make up a significant proportion of the cost of the infrastructure required to mitigate the entirety of the planned growth, of which some two thirds is already permitted.

3.1.5 Therefore, it is not in keeping with the ‘fairly and reasonable related in scale and kind”, as required by
CIL Reg 122, as the remaining development is expected to mitigate the impact of development that has already obtained consent. Similarly, it also fails to adhere to the ‘necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms’ – the level of the contribution is actually necessary to make already permitted development acceptable in planning terms, not the development to which it will be applied.

3.2 Ratios

3.2.1 CDC acknowledges the outcomes of the viability testing and recognises that dwellings do not all have
the same impact on the A27. Paragraph 4.19 of the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation (August 2023)SPD states:

‘Smaller dwellings generally have fewer occupants who drive and own a car and therefore have a generally smaller impact than is the case with larger dwellings where the larger number of occupants would, on average, own and drive more cars.'

3.2.2 Using guidance on the future mix of dwellings within the district contained within the latest Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA), CDC has employed a scaled approach when considering the range of dwelling sizes that may come forward. This equates to a contribution rate of £3,049.16 per bedroom (£7,623 / 2.5) which would provide the following contribution scale:

• 1 bedroom - £3,049
• 2 bedroom - £6,098
• 3 bedroom - £9,147
• 4+ bedroom - £12,197

3.2.3 The number of trips generated by a dwelling does not have a linear relationship to the number of bedrooms it comprises (i.e. a four bedroom dwelling will not result in double the number of trips compared to a two-bedroom dwelling). Larger family homes are typically occupied by families where the children are not of driving age or have access to their own vehicle. However, in using a linear
relationship, the methodology in the SPD assumes that a family of 5 that includes three school age children will generate four times the number of vehicular movements than a professional couple living in a 1-bedroom property.

3.2.4 The TRICS database has been filtered to calculate a generic trip rate based upon surveys comprising
of just two-bedroom dwellings and filtered again for just four-bedroom dwelling surveys, shown in
Table 4.1 [within attachment].

3.2.5 The TRICS assessment identifies that a four-bedroom dwelling will generate an additional daily vehicle
trip rate of 0.174 per dwelling compared to a two-bedroom dwelling. This represents an increase of just 5%, and not double as outlined by CDC, demonstrating that factoring the level of A27 contributions on a per bedroom basis does not result in a contribution that would be ‘directly related to the development’ nor ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind’.

3.3 Additional Funding

3.3.1 Even though the proposed improvement package goes beyond the mitigation of development impacts and addresses existing issues / introduces additional network capacity, the SPD makes no indication that further alternative means of funding the improvements will be sought and introduces no mechanism to reduce the level of contribution sought from development should further funding awards be made.

3.3.2 National Highways has included the A27 Chichester By-pass in their current RIS 3 funding review. It is
acknowledged that there is no certainty at this time for inclusion of any scheme within the RIS3. However, funding was previously identified (c. £100m) towards improvement of the Chichester Bypass, which was subsequently lost as consensus could not be reached between the local authorities as to the preferred approach. Having previously been recognised as a location where intervention is
necessary, it is not unreasonable to assume that a funding award will be made.

3.3.3 Similarly, the SPD focusses solely on residential development, and it is unclear as to whether similar
contributions will be sought from other use classes which have the potential to increase usage of the A27. Clarity should be provided in respect to the level of contribution that may be sought from other floor space, to ensure fair and equitable mitigation of impacts consistent with the requires of CIL Reg 122.

SECTION 4 Conclusion

4.1 The principle of development funding mitigation required to accommodate planned growth is accepted, and the development of an SPD providing a clear means to calculate site specific contributions is welcomed.

4.2 However, the SPD fails to provide an appropriate mechanism for contributions to be secured in accordance with the CIL Reg 122 requirements, particularly those of ‘relatedness’ and ‘proportionality’.

4.3 To ensure that this can be achieved, the following recommendations are made:

1 Further modelling of traffic impacts should be undertaken through the Transport Study, allowing for ‘Decide and Provide’ principles to trip forecasting, a greater emphasis on sustainable travel and for changes in travel behaviour following the pandemic – some means
of sustainable mitigation are commented upon briefly within the Study, but it fails to build upon this.

2 Reconsider the mitigation strategy, to allow for infrastructure only that is necessary to mitigate the impacts of development and more cost effective means of mitigating the impacts of development, in line with the requirements of CIL Reg 122 and paragraphs 57 and 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The artificial 535 dpa cap places an undue burden on planned development at the ‘tail end’ of the plan. The cap should be lifted and a greater quantum of development, of at least 700 dpa, be permitted.

4 Consider alternative means of deriving financial contributions that reflect the impact of development, recognising that there is not a linear relationship between the size of a dwelling and its trip generating properties.

5 Encourage, and make allowance for, the award of further funding streams to assist with delivery of the project. Provide clarity as to the level of contribution that may be sought from use classes other than residential.

Introduction

We can agree with the general aim of undertaking improvements to the A27, given the existing poor condition of the road, which could become worse over time with future growth and development. The principle of new development making proportionate contributions to these improvements is also agreed. However, we are concerned that the Bypass Mitigation SPD is based on numerous assumptions:

• that the projects set out in the document are appropriate and desirable;
• that it is appropriate to fund the projects largely from residential development;
• that charges against homes are calculated from growth levels in a draft Local Plan;
• that an SPD is an appropriate means for collecting those contributions;
• that the proposed charging approach will be effective in delivering the road projects.

Having considered the above we believe the Bypass Mitigation SPD is wholly inappropriate and should not be continued with. Fundamentally this is for two reasons:

(1) it proposes inappropriate projects, inconsistent with sustainable development, which fail to take a sufficiently strategic approach;
(2) it employs an inappropriate source and inappropriate process to secure the funding;

Individually either of the above issues are serious and indicate the need for major review. In combination, they suggest the need to pause the process and to integrate it into the Local Plan process itself.

Issue 1: Appropriateness of the projects

We have instructed specialised highway consultants to thoroughly review the Bypass Mitigation SPD proposals against local and national policy in terms of sustainable transport infrastructure. Having undertaken this review, we consider it is fundamentally at odds with the thrust of sustainable transport policy promoted by National Highways, WSCC Highways, and Chichester District Council and is therefore unacceptable, and should not be pursued.

Consideration against existing Chichester Local Plan

Section 3.0 of the Bypass Mitigation SPD sets out National and Local Policy and Guidance. Paragraphs 3.5-3.7 include information relating to Policy 8 and Policy 9 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029. The Bypass Mitigation SPD refers to the below part of Policy 8 (Transport and Accessibility):

“integrated transport measures will be developed to mitigate the impact of planned development. This will include a coordinated package of improvements to junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass, that will increase road capacity, reduce traffic congestion, improve safety, and improve access to Chichester city from surrounding areas.”

However, the Bypass Mitigation SPD does not refer to the further wording of Policy 8 that as well as mitigate the impact of development on the highways network, integrated transport measures will:

i. Promote more sustainable travel patterns
ii. Encourage increased use of sustainable modes of travel, such as public transport, cycling and walking


The SPD also does not refer to the wording of Policy 8 which sets out that the transport measures will target investment to improve local transport infrastructure, focusing on delivery of improved and better integrated bus and train services, and improved pedestrian and cycling networks. Hence the SPD does not duly consider policies relating to provision of sustainable travel.
 
From plans publicly available, it also appears that the existing pedestrian and cycle overbridge infrastructure may be removed, worsening the availability of infrastructure for walking and cycling, which is unacceptable.

The Bypass Mitigation SPD refers as below to Policy 9 (Development and Infrastructure Provision)

“development and infrastructure provision will be coordinated to ensure that growth is supported by the timely provision of adequate infrastructure, facilities and services. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be used to identify the timing, type and number of infrastructure requirements to support the objectives and policies of the Plan as well as the main funding mechanisms and lead agencies responsible for their delivery”

However, the Bypass Mitigation SPD overlooks additional wording of Policy 9 that all development will be required to meet further criteria relating to the accessibility of facilities and services by a range of transport modes. Again, this is unacceptable.

Planning Contributions

Section 4 of the Bypass Mitigation SPD refers to the Local Plan Transport Assessment (Stantec, January 2023) which includes the mitigation proposals at the A259/A27 roundabout, with an extract shown at Figure 1 below. We would note that this plan is from 2018.

Figure 1 [see attached representation]

Paragraph 7.2.4 of the Chichester Transport Study confirms that the modifications to the A259/A27 roundabout include providing a 4-arm “hamburger” signalised junction, with the removal of the Vinnetrow Road link and a replacement link onto the A259 Bognor Road at a new signalised junction.

There is no mention of any sustainable infrastructure, such as footways or cycleways to be included in the proposals.

Chapter 6 of the Chichester Transport Study refers to consideration of sustainable mitigation measures which includes reference to walking and cycling, and public transport. However, the proposed mitigation at the A259 Bognor Road/A27 junction and Vinnetrow Road does not include any sustainable transport infrastructure, and although all works at the A259/A27 roundabout are within the public highway, it appears that there is insufficient space within the public highway to provide any form of standard footways and/or cycleways and it appears that the existing pedestrian and cycle overbridge may be removed.

Paragraph 11.2.2 of the Chichester Transport Study sets out that:

“It is generally now considered that potential sustainable mitigation measures should have priority over highway capacity mitigation and hence a need to shift away from a ‘Predict and Provide’ approach towards a ‘Monitor and Manage’ approach”.

In addition, paragraphs 4.8 to 4.12 of the CDC SPD sets out that the ‘infrastructure constrained approach’ is based on a Local Plan which is not yet adopted, with paragraph 4.9 of the SPD setting out that as the new Local Plan has not yet been subject to Examination, it is not possible to confirm how much residential development will be acceptable to 2039 on the basis of the reduced level of mitigation proposed.

Given this, the SPD cannot be relied on to confirm whether the mitigation at the A27/A259 roundabout is appropriate. We offer further commentary on this matter under Issue (2) below.

Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission Document (‘Draft Local Plan’)

Chapter 8 (Transport and Accessibility) of the Draft Local Plan states transport is a key issue for the area. Paragraph 8.8 sets out that increasing the capacity of the road network is key to supporting growth, but it also sets out the CDC’s Climate Emergency Action Plan, in which CDC target a 10% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions year-on-year from 2019-2025 and support the Government’s aims of road transport achieving net zero GHG by 2050.
 
The Draft Local Plan expects developments to achieve the following key aims:

i. Avoiding or reducing the need to travel by car
ii. Enabling access to sustainable travel, including public transport, walking and cycling
iii. Managing travel demand
iv. Mitigating the impacts of travel by car

It also requires development to create an integrated transport network which will alleviate pressure on the road network, improve highway safety, encourage sustainable travel behaviours and help reduce transport related impact on air quality.

It is noted that the proposed works at the A259/A27 roundabout are primarily designed to improve capacity on the A27, and give priority to vehicular movement on the A27. Paragraph 8.11 of the Draft Local Plan sets out that the A27 junction improvements at the A259/A27 roundabout are recommended to be provided within the Local Plan period, via developer contributions arising from housing growth, subject to the ongoing monitor and manage process and funding.

Paragraph 8.12 details the ‘monitor and manage’ approach; based on identifying a package of potential highway improvements (inc. enhanced walking, cycling and public transport) which alongside schemes identified through the development management process, may be implemented following a process which will monitor the actual demand on the network and the requirement for the scheme.

The draft Bypass Mitigation SPD does not adequately identify potential highway improvements such as enhancing the walking, cycling and public transport provision at the A27/A259 roundabout, and is not focussed on sustainable travel, and is therefore unacceptable. CDC’s priority be to maximise the potential for sustainable travel, therefore reducing traffic demand in the first place, particularly for shorter local journeys.

West Sussex Transport Plan (‘WSTP’), adopted April 2022

This sets out how WSCC intends to address key challenges by improving, maintaining and managing the transport network in the period up to 2036. It states the transport strategy for the Chichester area includes:

i. upgrade the A259 between Chichester and Bognor Regis including infrastructure for active travel and shared transport modes.

ii. improve active travel facilities within existing communities and between towns such as Chichester, Selsey, Bognor Regis and the Bourne area, particularly on priority routes and corridors where strategic development is planned

No specific detailed schemes are provided within the WSTP, but the intention is to dedicate space for shared transport priority on the A259. It states infrastructure will support new frequent shared transport services, such as fixed bus routes or potentially a Digital Demand Responsive Transport (DDRT) service connecting Littlehampton and Bognor Regis with Chichester. The A259 Chichester-Bognor Regis corridor is included in the following priorities for WSCC:

i. Short term (2022-2027) active travel priority, i.e. improving and developing a coherent network of active travel facilities that connects places of importance, such as transport hubs, shops, schools and community facilities.
ii. Short term (2022-2027) shared transport priority i.e. focusing on improving the bus network.
iii. Short term (2022-2027) road priorities, specifically a A259 Chichester to Bognor Regis corridor enhancement package, although no further detail of what is included in the corridor enhancement package is provided.
iv. Medium term (2027-2032) priorities for the Arun area relating to the enhancement of the corridor, including shared transport and active travel.
v. Short term (2022-2027) priorities for the Chichester area, relating to the enhancement of the corridor, including shared transport and active travel.
In relation to the above, WSCC are particularly likely to prioritise proposals entailing improvements to the A259 that focus on sustainable transport, including bus travel. The Bypass Mitigation SPD proposals do not include infrastructure for sustainable transport, i.e. no footways or cycleways, or bus lanes, and hence they fundamentally conflict with WSCC’s priorities.

From the figure above, beyond the failure to provide improvements for pedestrians, cycles or buses, no land within the public highway has been safeguarded for such measures. In this respect, the Bypass Mitigation SPD not only fails to deliver sustainable transport, but could actively work against future achievement of these goals, by occupying land that could be used in that more positive way.

Therefore, the Bypass Mitigation SPD contradicts WSCC’s priorities and is unacceptable.

Draft West Sussex Active Travel Strategy 2023-2036 (currently under consultation)

This Active Travel Strategy sets out a vision and goals for active travel in West Sussex for the next decade and beyond. The vision of the strategy is that the transport network will be:

“characterised by high-quality active travel infrastructure, focused on connecting people with places and activities via safe, direct, attractive, and coherent routes. People across the county will be informed and aware of their options for walking and cycling locally. Active travel will be increasingly commonplace for everyday journeys, delivering greater economic prosperity, improved quality of life for all those who live and work within the county, and supporting our pathway to net zero carbon”

Section 7 of the report provides the Strategy Delivery, with paragraph 7.2.2 setting out that:

“For active travel there is a clear commitment that all our major road schemes will include facilities for cycling”.

Given that the Bypass Mitigation SPD and the proposed major road scheme does not include facilities for cycling and is not characterised by high-quality active travel infrastructure, it is contrary to the principles of sustainable development and therefore unacceptable.

Draft West Sussex LCWIP

Section 9 of the draft West Sussex LCWIP includes information on the A259 between Chichester and Bognor Regis, identified as Corridor 4. The Proposed Improvements Plan includes:

i. A259 Drayton Lane roundabout to A27 Chichester bypass:
a. Construct wider cycle infrastructure between Drayton Lane and Green Lane with improved surface quality
b. Redesign vehicle accesses, including with raised tables and priority given to people cycling where feasible
c. Cut back vegetation and/or consider realignment path to provide greater separation from the encroaching hedge

The mitigation works proposed in this Bypass Mitigation SPD as shown above do not safeguard land to provide cycle infrastructure as set out in the draft West Sussex LCWIP. Hence the proposed Bypass Mitigation SPD is contradictory and unacceptable.

Consideration against Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022

This Circular sets out how National Highways engage in plan-making and decision-taking to support sustainable development. Paragraph 13 sets out that the following documents set out that walking, wheeling, cycling and public transport must be the natural first choice for all who can take it:

i. Transport Decarbonisation Plan,
ii. Gear Change,
iii. Bus Back Better
iv. the second Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy

Paragraph 17 sets out that National Highways will support local authorities who ensure priority is given to pedestrian and cycle movements.

Paragraph 23 sets out that Capacity enhancements such as modifications to existing junctions or road widening to facilitate development should be determined on a case-by-case basis. However, proposals should include measures to improve community connectivity and public transport accessibility, and this will be weighed against any negative safety, traffic flow, environmental and deliverability considerations, impacts on the permeability and attractiveness of local walking, wheeling and cycling routes, and alternative options to manage down the traffic impact of planned development or improve the local road network as a first preference.

Given that the proposed mitigation at the A259/A27 junction does not include measures to improve community connectivity, as the proposals give priority to vehicles on the A27, and not those who use the strategic route between Chichester and Bognor Regis, the proposed SPD is unacceptable.

Furthermore, as the proposed mitigation at the A259/A27 junction also does not include measures to improve public transport accessibility, with no mitigation included to provide bus priority measures, again counter to the draft Bypass Mitigation SPD.

It is considered that to provide a junction which aligns with the local and national policy in terms of sustainable transport infrastructure, the A259/A27 junction should include a package of multi-modal highway improvements, including pedestrian, cycle and public transport infrastructure. This would promote more sustainable travel patterns and encourage increased use of sustainable modes of travel.

Issue 2: Appropriateness of funding source and mechanism


‘In principle’ appropriateness of SPD approach

As set out in Section 1 of the draft SPD document, the purpose of the new process is to replace the existing Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing SPD (2016), which is deemed no longer sufficient to address the impact on the A27 of new development coming forward. Whilst that may be the case, it does not follow that the solution is to continue with an SPD-type approach. As the Council itself concedes in paragraph 3.3 of the SPD document,

“It is acknowledged that the PPG also advises that it is not appropriate for plan-makers to set out new formulaic approaches to Planning Obligations in supplementary planning documents or supporting evidence base documents, as these would not be subject to examination.”

Hence CDC accepts their approach runs counter to national planning guidance. The SPD document further continues by stating the following (emphasis added):

The Council has considered this guidance carefully and is in the process of preparing a new Local Plan which will set out a clear policy basis for seeking A27 mitigation contributions.

As the above quotation makes clear, whilst the intentions of the SPD are fairly clear, they do not amount to an effective policy basis for the contributions.

Specific problems with SPD approach

The proposed SPD takes a highly formulaic approach, which fixes numerous reference points. As outlined below, each one of these is challengeable:

i. The total cost of the A27 works. These figures are liable to change, particularly as the individual project designs are at such an early stage. As set out above, the projects as conceived currently are not appropriate in terms of design/sustainability policy, and therefore require review. This may entail increased costs.

ii. The amount of contributions already collected. This can be expected to increase as further schemes come through the application process.

iii. The total amount of funding still needed. Due to uncertainty on (i) and (ii) above, this residual amount of funding is an even more uncertain quantity.

iv. That the upgrades should be funded solely based on Chichester development. Traffic arising from Local Plan sites will comprise only one fraction of the total on the A27, which is part of the UK’s Strategic Road Network and is the responsibility of National Highways. As such, rather than imposing costs solely on development in a part of Chichester District, it would be preferable to take a more strategic approach, including central government funding, and recognising the wider role of the A27 across Sussex and beyond. Central government funding was previously envisaged, and developments elsewhere have already contributed in part towards A27 upgrades.

v. That only housing development should contribute. The draft SPD pre-supposes that only residential development should contribute to the A27. However, this overlooks the potential impact of other types of development or activity that can be expected to have an impact, including industrial, commercial, retail, tourist and other types of development that will further evolve over the plan period.

This runs directly counter to CIL Regulation 122 (b) “directly related to the development”, because it incorrectly assumes that no other types of development are directly related.

vi. The total number of homes. Even if it were justified to levy A27 charges solely on residential development, the proposed number of homes in the Local Plan is not fixed as it has not been subject to Examination. Potentially this number could go up or down dramatically, which again fundamentally affects how much each individual home is charged.

vii. The bedroom-type approach. The consultation pre-supposes a ratio of homes to bedrooms, which again determines the chargeable costs. CDC points to 2.5 homes as an average in previous years, but there is little information available to examine this baseline figure. In paragraph 4.26 of the draft SPD, the Council itself identifies that this process is unclear, stating the following (emphasis added):

Due to the uncertainty on the precise housing mix that will come forward, the Council will monitor the level of funding being secured and if, due to the actual mix coming forward, the funding falls below the required target, this could trigger a review of this SPD.”

Points (i)-(vii) above run directly counter to CIL Regulation 122 , (c) “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”, because it creates a situation where the amount paid by individual development will be liable to arbitrary fluctuation, due to external factors rather than what is fair and reasonable to the individual development.

viii. Uncertainty on delivery and timing. As set out in paragraph 5.12 of the draft SPD, development will not be able to commence until “a sufficient quantum of funding has been collected for any given project”. This, it is acknowledged, could take “multiple years”, with a long-stop date given of 20 years for repayment of S106 contributions. This is a wholly unsatisfactory approach, because it suggest the money paid by individual developments might not be used for A27 improvements until (potentially) decades after homes are occupied, if ever.

This runs counter to CIL Regulation 122 (a) “necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms”, because it sets up a scenario where the Obligation claimed to be necessary for the development to be acceptable, is indefinitely delayed.

ix. Finally, the consultation SPD effectively imposes a ‘cap’ on future housing development in the south of the district, in a way that does not take account of the varying levels of traffic generation that can come from a development, influenced e.g. by the site’s location and potential for sustainable travel. No such housing cap should be put in place and, instead, planning applications for developments should continue to be determined based on residual traffic impact and proposed mitigation.


Alternatives to SPD approach

Despite accepting that the SPD approach directly contradicts national guidance, the Council offers very little rationale beyond the urgency of improving the A27. Brief consideration is given in Paragraph 3.4 to the possibility of using CIL, but this is discounted very straightforwardly, as follows (emphasis added):

3.4 The Council has also considered the guidance within the PPG stating that if a formulaic approach to developer contributions is adopted, the levy can be used to address the cumulative impact of infrastructure in an area. The Chichester Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been in place since 2016. However, the funding raised through CIL is not sufficient to fund the required A27 mitigations works and, in any case, this funding is required for other essential infrastructure and facilities that are needed to mitigate the impact of development, as set out within the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

In effect, the reason CDC gives not to use CIL, is that this does not produce enough money. However, this is a good reason to avoid using CIL: rather it suggests the need to review CIL and ensure that it is effective in delivering infrastructure to match planned growth.

Whilst a review of CIL would be a more complex process than introducing a SPD, this is precisely the point: a CIL charging schedule would be thoroughly examined to ensure that it produces a sound and viable approach.

Paragraphs 2.10 and 4.8 of CDC’s document set out that following Local Plan viability testing, and the absence of any alternative sources of funding, the full package of A27 improvements is undeliverable, and an ‘infrastructure constrained approach’ towards the delivery of the new Local Plan would be used going forward. The basis of this approach has been to investigate what level of development could be brought forward with the maximum level of junction mitigation that would be affordable through developer contributions alone. However, again this suggests the need for comprehensive review of the whole issue via the formal Examination of the Local Plan in tandem with a CIL review.

Pause this SPD process, and undertake the following:

1. Fully review and redesign the proposed A27 works to ensure a sustainable multi-modal approach in line with policies at national, county and local level.
2. Establish a clearer policy footing for the projects under the draft Local Plan (Policy T1)
3. Fully review the mechanism for delivering the projects in line with the Local Plan, and would be subject to due Examination. This review should consider the option of employing CIL towards road improvements, as alluded to in policy T1 of the draft Local Plan.

Viability Testing

Paragraph 2.15 of the draft SPD identifies that CDC have tested various levels of contribution ranging from £3,000 to £8,000 per dwelling and the outcome of that testing was that the majority of development scenarios were found to provide the required level of funding. The draft SPD then proceeds to explain at paragraph 4.16 that, factoring in the
proposed number of dwelling to come forwards under the emerging Local Plan, this would equate to £7,623 per dwelling. However, it is noted in paragraph 4.18 that this level of contribution was not viable for scenarios comprising solely of flats on brownfield sites, nor for ‘Extra Care’ schemes nor older persons sheltered housing. The details of the viability testing have not been provided for review and SUEZ believe it is critical that the viability
testing methodology and outcomes are made available for review.

Paragraph 4.19 then proceeds to present the case for applying a sliding scale of contributions based on the number of bedrooms. It is stated that, “Smaller dwellings
generally have fewer occupants who drive and own a car and therefore have a generally smaller impact than is the case with larger dwellings where the larger number of
occupants would, on average, own and drive more cars.” SUEZ fundamentally disagrees with this statement; there is no evidence presented with the draft SPD to support this assertion and SUEZ requests that the Council’s evidence to support this statement is made available for scrutiny. This assertion doesn’t acknowledge that larger homes accommodate families with children occupying separate bedrooms; Section 325 of the Housing Act 1985 (the ‘room standard’) states that a household may be statutorily overcrowded where children of the opposite sex over the age of 10 have to share a room. Larger homes are therefore required for larger families to prevent overcrowding.

The evidence that larger homes equates to greater car ownership is not presented and it is SUEZ’s view that without supporting evidence, the proposed sliding scale of
contributions presented in paragraph 4.23 is not justified.
In addition, no viability testing has been carried out for contributions above £8,000 per dwelling (paragraph 2.15 expressly states that viability testing was carried out to a
maximum of £8,000 per dwelling).

In summary, SUEZ objects to the concept of a bedroom-based contribution scale and we object to the contribution figures presented in paragraph 4.23 because:
- Figures above £8000 have not been reviewed through CDC’s viability testing.
- No Viability Testing methodology or outcomes are presented for review.
- No justification is provided to support CDC’s assertion that larger homes result in a greater vehicle ownership.

Finally, it a bedroom-based sliding scale of contributions provides uncertainty for land owners and for developers which may hinder the development of future housing.

SUEZ suggest that further information should be made available during a further round of consultation; specifically to include details of CDC’s Viability Testing methodology and justification for proposed contributions.

Paragraph 1.1

Paragraph 1.1 provides the reasoning that the 2016 Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing SPD is being updated due to emerging evidence associated with the preparation of the emerging Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039.

CDC’s current Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted in 2016; notably after the Examination and Adoption of
CDC’s current Local Plan (adopted in July 2015). CDC’s proposal to amend this SPD based on emerging technical evidence prepared for the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 appears to be premature; the evidence has not yet had the opportunity to be reviewed through the Plan Examination process.

SUEZ suggest that CDC awaits the completion of the Examination in Public for the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 before adopting a new level of contributions.

Paragraph 2.13 and 4.9

Paragraphs 2.13 and 4.9 both reference a limit of 9,630 dwellings. It is SUEZ’s view this should be amended to read, “…approximately 9,630 dwellings.”

Thank you for consulting Surrey Country Council.

Please note that we have no comments to raise.

Historic England does not wish to comment on the above consultation which deals with matters beyond our remit.