The need for a revised approach to securing planning obligations

Why is the baseline 2023 surely you need to look ahead further than that? At present there is no more space for building between the Southdowns National Park and the AONB, Improving the Fishbourne roundabout would be nice (will there be traffic lights? or the once suggested flyover?) but the A27 needs widening too. The infrastructure is not sufficient to allow for present needs - sewage works, Doctors surgeries, hospitals, shops, cycle lanes etc etc. If you wait much longer to start work the cost will have doubled or more.

We welcome the lower level of development as part of the "infrastructure constrained approach" as a result of the lack of government funding for an A27 northern or southern bypass but until this is provided there cannot be a proper resolution of the problem. We would like to see more recognition of the destructive nature of excessive cumulative impact on the quality of life of existing residents as formulated in national and local policies.

Response to 2.13. The Council believes that it needs to propose a lower level of development within the emerging plan but has not challenged the housing need figure put forward by the government as being incorrect. In requiring the Council to deliver the unchallenged housing need for the district by 2039 the government would have already considered the cumulative impact on the A27 not only from the required developments in Chichester District itself but also from the required developments in the surrounding areas. Indeed, schemes along with funding to improve the A 27 have already been put forward by the government to address this acknowledged future residual cumulative impact but were rejected by the Council. It is the Councils rejection of these proposed schemes that has brought the delay and the prospect of only a reduced package of infrastructure improvements being deliverable over the coming Plan Period. The NPPF is very clear that “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.” If it is the opinion of National Highways as the Statutory Consultee that during any period of the Local Plan that an application for development would have an unacceptable impact on SRN safety or that the residual impact would be so severe then as a statutory consultee it can prevent that application from being decided/approved. It is the right of the applicant to present to National Highways as part of that application process any measures that would address the identified issues. Policy 23 of the Strategic Road Network and The Delivery of Sustainable Development policy paper states that: "Capacity enhancements such as modifications to existing junctions or road widening to facilitate development should be determined on a case-by-case basis."

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?

Introduction

1.1 This representation provides a response to the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Consultation on behalf of our client Barratt David Wilson. The representation is a general submission and is not site specific, although it is relevant to all sites promoted by BDW in the District.

1.2 This representation provides a written response in relation to the proposal to introduce a new charging schedule in respect of contributions towards improvements to the A27. The proposed charging schedule sits outside of the Council’s adopted CIL charging schedule and seeks to replace an existing adopted infrastructure SPD.

2. Background & Policy Guidance

2.1 The Council are looking to replace part of their existing Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (2016) specifically in relation to financial contributions towards A27 highway improvements. It is important to note that this results in deletion of part of the 2016 SPD and its replacement, which is confirmed at paragraph 1.4 of the consultation document.

2.2 As stated within the introductory section of the consultation draft SPD, it is noted that the technical evidence base covering the impact of new development in the south of the District on the A27 Chichester Bypass, and the mitigation required to address this, has been updated. As such, is it noted that Chichester District Council (CDC) takes the position that its previous approach to securing development contributions towards future mitigation of the A27 Chichester Bypass, in accordance with its 2016 adopted SPD ‘Approach for securing development contributions to mitigate additional traffic impacts on the A27 Chichester Bypass’, is no longer sufficient, which has led to the preparation of the new (consultation draft) SPD, to respond to the evidence base and update the approach.

2.3 The A27 Chichester Bypass is a Trunk Road, forming part of the national Strategic Road Network (SRN) which is managed by National Highways (NH) on behalf of the Secretary of State. Noting this, we are also aware of a recent letter from NH, to CDC in the context of a recent planning appeal and dated 11 September 2023, which provides some clarification on NH’s position with regards to the previous SPD.

2.4 The basis of the new SPD is the emerging Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039 and specifically the requirements of Policy T1 of this document. This is a document that is subject to a significant level of objection and is yet to be tested at Examination. A host of recent appeal decisions have confirmed that the emerging Local Plan carries limited weight given its stage of preparation. These decisions are summarised below:

 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3274502 – Hambrook – dated: 4 November 2021.

Paragraph 10 confirms that the allocation of 500 houses in the draft Local Plan can be given little weight at the present time. The Inspector didn’t expand on their
conclusion on this matter.

 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3284653 – Lavant – dated: 11 April 2022. The Inspector confirms at paragraph 2 that the Local Plan review is at an early stage and subject to further consultation and revisions. The Inspector therefore afforded it only minimal weight in the decision.

 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3286315 – West Wittering – dated: 22 April 2022. The Inspector concludes at paragraph 17 that the Chichester Local Plan Review is at an early stage of preparation, as the Regulation 19 had yet to be published and no fixed date for consultation.

 Appeal Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3270721 – Westhampnett – dated: 27 May 2022. Confirmed early stages of production of the Plan and due to the need for extensive public consultation and likely to be subject of modifications before adoption, it carries limited weight.

 Appeal A Ref: APP/L3815/W/22/3295000 & Appeal B Ref: APP/L3815/W/22/3295004 –
Nutbourne & Chidham – dated 29 August 2023. This decision is post the January –March consultation on the pre-submission Local Plan and the inspector has
concluded that the emerging Local Plan can only be given very limited weight in paragraph 13 of the decision.

2.5 There is also a significant level of objection to the Plan generally and specifically in relation to Policy T1, which is the basis for the proposed new SPD. Contrary to the suggestions at paragraph 1.7 of the SPD document, the Local Plan Review is not at an advanced stage.

2.6 Whilst Policy T1 in the emerging Local Plan introduces the suggestion for an updated charging methodology, the SPD refers to existing policies in the out of date Local Plan
(2014-2029), in particular policies 8 and 9. The adopted policy relies on the 2013 Transport Study, however, the funding sought via the draft SPD relies upon the evidence base to the emerging Local Plan.

2.7 In light of the above, it is important to note the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) in relation
to how and where planning policies seeking planning obligations should be set. This confirms:

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. (my emphasis)

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

The above confirms that the Council’s approach is contrary national guidance. The SPD seeks to introduce a fixed charging schedule, which does not for example have to consider the tests at paragraphs 110 and 111 of the NPPF. In seeking financial contributions, the decision maker must ensure each obligation complies with Regulation 122 of CIL Regulations. If a fixed rate is set out, without any specific assessment of impact, or indeed
a specific mitigation scheme, the obligation posed would not meet the necessary Regulation 122 tests.

2.9 Whilst our client understands the Councils intentions, the mechanism sought is entirely inappropriate. It is clearly contrary to the PPG and should in fact by met through an
updated CIL charging schedule, but that would require much greater certainty on the costs of the associated works. The Council’s reason for disregarding the PPG and CIL receipts is set out at paragraph 3.4. This states:
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.

2.10 The failings of the Council to review their Local Plan and CIL charging schedule in a timely manner is not justification to bring forward an unlawful mechanism for securing infrastructure contributions. As confirmed above, the Council should in fact update their CIL charging schedule, which should follow appropriate Examination and adoption.

3. Proposed planning contributions

3.1 Section 4 of the draft SPD sets out the infrastructure improvements sought and potential costs of the works, albeit a very broad range of costs of between £28.9 - £43.3 million. Whilst the Council are yet to finalise those costs, or fully determine deliverability, the contributions sought are in line with the upper end of the range of costs, split between improvements of two roundabouts described at paragraph 4.4.

3.2 The draft SPD then goes on to confirm that a ‘target’ of £27,068,915 is to be secured. Whilst this is a very precise figure, this is not based on a specific scheme.

4. Proposed A27 Chichester Bypass Highway Mitigation

4.1 The consultation draft SPD (with specific reference to Paragraph 2.6, p. 6) states that, “Although the 2016 SPD has been successful in securing more than the target level of developer contributions for A27 improvement works, the remaining improvement works to the Fishbourne, Bognor, Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts have not been possible to deliver. The main reason for this is that the cost of delivering these improvement works has increased very significantly over the past decade, well beyond the level of funding that has been secured through planning contributions under the 2016 SPD.

4.2 As a result of the above, the consultation draft SPD continues (at Paragraph 4.1, p. 10) and states that, “Therefore, the Council [CDC] has had no option but to propose a reduced mitigation package which will focus on delivering the improvements works to both Fishbourne and Bognor junctions, as described within Section 7 of the Local Plan Transport Assessment (Stantec, January 2023). These junction improvements are also set out within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Infrastructure Business Plan.”

4.3 Paragraph 4.4 of the consultation draft SPD identifies what are understood to be latest available cost estimates for each of the above two junctions, which are stated as being between £9.5 and £12.9 million for the Fishbourne Roundabout (with the Terminus Road Link); and between £19.4 and £30.4 million for the Bognor Road Roundabout (with the Vinnetrow Road Link); a total cost range of between £28.9 million and £43.3 million. As discussed further on within this representation, the consultation draft SPD identifies (at Paragraph 4.23) a contribution rate for developments of £3,049.16 per bedroom. It is unclear how such a precise ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate can be identified, given the estimated costs of the works at the two A27 Chichester Bypass junctions prioritised for
improvements are so wide-ranging – indeed ranges of several million pounds per junction.

4.4 Furthermore, as discussed at the recent planning appeal for BDW Southampton’s proposed development for 300 dwellings at ‘Land at Highgrove Farm, Main Road Bosham, PO18 8EH (CDC planning application reference: 21/00571/FUL; The Planning Inspectorate appeal reference: APP/L3815/W/23/3322020) (heard by way of a public inquiry between 3 and 10 October 2023), it is noted that the technical evidence base that it is understood
underpins the consultation draft SPD remains a ‘work in progress’. The identification of such a precise ‘per bedroom’ contribution amount is therefore considered to be premature at this stage.

5 Contribution Rate Formula

5.1 It is further noted that the previous SPD set out a formula for calculating the required development contributions, based on the number of dwellings proposed. It is noted that the ‘per dwelling’ amount varied depending on where in the District the proposed developments were located, with proposed developments within geographical areas closer to the A27 Chichester Bypass generally attracting a higher ‘per dwelling’ contribution than proposed developments within geographical areas further away. It is our view that this previous approach was largely sufficiently robust and logical, accepting that proposed
developments located within closer proximity to the A27 Chichester Bypass are typically expected to have a greater ‘per dwelling’ traffic impact on it, compared with proposed developments located further away. However, we would add that any approach should also reflect the extent to which car trips from a development are shifted onto sustainable transport modes.

5.2 The consultation draft SPD identifies a ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate (£3,049.16 per
bedroom), which would therefore result in the contribution per dwelling varying depending on the number of bedrooms it comprises. However, it is noted that there is no variation in the contribution rate as a result of geographical location or proximity to the A27 Chichester Bypass, or indeed the role of sustainable travel.

5.3 Whilst it is accepted that the traffic impact of a dwelling may vary depending on the number of bedrooms it comprises, because in turn it could be assumed, for example, that the greater number of bedrooms a dwelling comprises, the more occupants it has and therefore the greater the level of car ownership and/or traffic generation (for example, the number of car trips per day), it is concerning that there appears to no longer be any variation in the contribution rate, due to the geographical proximity of the proposed development site to the A27 Chichester Bypass. It is surmised that the consultation draft SPD simply requires a certain size dwelling to pay the same contribution, regardless of its location within the District and proximity to the A27 Chichester Bypass – this omission, it is considered, is fundamentally flawed and unfair to proposed developments situated further away from the A27 Chichester Bypass, which would logically have a lesser traffic impact on it, compared with proposed developments situated further away.

5.4 Additionally, this ‘per dwelling’ approach does not account for different levels of traffic generation, determined by other factors including the promotion of effective sustainable (e.g. walking, cycling and public transport) transport measures at a development site.

6 Consideration of the Strategic Role of the A27 Chichester Bypass

6.1 As detailed with Section 9.9 ‘Apportionment of A27 Scheme Costs’ of the January 2023 Stantec Transport Study, a ‘SATURN’ area-wide strategic traffic model was used to estimate traffic demands impacting the SRN A27 Chichester Bypass, split into Local Planning Review and
committed development, and background traffic growth. Paragraph 9.9.4 states that, “an assessment was undertaken at each of Fishbourne, Bognor, Whyke and Stockbridge Roundabouts on the SRN. For each junction, the assessment (2 way by direction) was undertaken
for each approach arm in the 2014 Base Model and in the 535 DPA scenario Plan Year model (assumed to be 2039). This was used to estimate growth due to CDC proposed development and due to background growth. This also included an analysis of through traffic on the A27 by
undertaking the appropriate assessment.”

6.2 In order to circumvent modelling limitations such as suppressed trips in the more congested AM and PM peak hours, the flow analysis was undertaken at Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) flow level by converting model AM and PM peak flows accordingly.

6.3 The results of the model demonstrated that developments within Chichester District are forecast to contribute 28% of the growth at the A27 Chichester Bypass Fishbourne and Bognor Road roundabouts between base year 2014 and Local Plan year 2038. As
referenced in Paragraph 9.9.6, “The results indicate that at Fishbourne junction, Chichester development contribute only 28% of the growth at the junction between 2014 Base Year and 2038 Local Plan year. At Bognor Junction this figure is also estimated at 28%. The figures at Stockbridge and Whyke Roundabouts are 14% and 18% respectively. This will be proportionately less when considering only new development proposed by the emerging Local
Plan (i.e. that which is not already committed), which is approximately a third of the overall development envisaged by the Plan.”

6.4 Paragraph 9.9.7 states, “All the junctions are shown to be over capacity without the Local Plan traffic added in. Therefore, it is clear that the issues seen at these junctions are not just a result of the Local Plan and committed development traffic, but other background and existing traffic also impact on performance of the junctions.”

6.5 CDC would be expected to contribute these proportions towards scheme mitigation costs, whilst the remaining funding should come from other sources. As noted, the A27 (including the Chichester Bypass) is a Trunk Road forming part of the national SRN. Given
the important role of the A27 Chichester Bypass in facilitating longer distance strategic journeys as well as more local ones, it is considered that funding for junction
improvements along the A27 Chichester Bypass should also come from Central Government level – it should not fall to CDC and developments in the local area to cover
more than their respective impacts.

7 Future Developments Proposed Dwelling ‘Cap’

7.1 The consultation draft SPD proposes the implementation of a ‘cap’ on future housing development in the south of the district, to 3,551 uncommitted dwellings (Paragraph 4.12). The SPD states “a ceiling or cap on the level of new homes coming forward. But that ‘cap’ does
not only apply once the new Local Plan has been adopted. National Highways has indicated that it considers that the ‘baseline’ for assessing the impact on development coming forward on the A27 should start in January 2023, when the Council’s modelling work on traffic impact was
published within the Local Plan Transport Assessment. This means that any new dwellings coming forward now within the south of the District, whether planned or otherwise, will count towards the overall ‘cap’ on new homes.”

7.2 The consultation draft SPD states that viability test has been undertaken which equated to £7,623 per dwelling (Paragraph 4.16). Arriving at this figure is considered to be premature, if impacts from outside Chichester District, including impacts from longer distance strategic journeys, have not been taken into account.

7.3 Furthermore, the very limiting number of dwellings (3,551) left to implement south of the district up to 2029 will have a significant and detrimental impact on housing supply in the district, exacerbating existing housing shortages at a local level.

7.4 The imposition of a cap on the number of dwellings that can be delivered is considered to be fundamentally flawed. This cap 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. It has also been proposed in the context of mitigation schemes that do little for sustainable travel and which are focussed on improving highway capacity. We would assert that 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 (including their ability to shift car trips onto
sustainable transport modes).

8 National Highways Position

8.1 A letter, dated 11 September 2023, was sent by NH to CDC, in the context of a recent planning appeal, setting out NH’s position with regards to the adopted CDC SPD. NH states that it is in agreement with “the Council’s [CDC’s] decision to revise and replace the current
SPD to reflect the current and future circumstances including the emerging Local Plan. We [NH] agree that the Council should now lead the collection and governance of developer contributions to fund mitigation measures, including the collection of higher contribution levels, as part of the delivery of the overall Local Plan and its supporting infrastructure and measures; (noting that
some mitigation measures/schemes may not directly include the strategic road network (SRN)).”

8.2 NH states within its letter that it will consider proposals on a ‘case-by-case’ basis and either recommend that planning permission should be refused, or recommend a set of appropriate planning conditions to make the development acceptable, as follows: “So far as future planning applications are concerned any responses from NH will consider proposals
on a case-by-case basis and if, as a result of traffic generated by the development there would
be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the SRN
would be severe, NH will either recommend that permission should be refused or recommend
appropriate Planning Conditions to make the development acceptable.”

8.3 It is understood, in light of the letter, that NH will continue to work with CDC “to identify measures necessary to mitigate the impact of the Proposed Submission Local Plan on the SRN. NH are supportive in principle of a Monitor & Manage approach that reflects the principles of current policies, including C1/22, subject to the technical and policy details.”

8.4 It is evident from NH’s letter that, whilst it agrees with CDC’s decision to revise and replace the current adopted SPD, it does not endorse the consultation draft SPD nor does it provide a position with regards to the proposed ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate. It remains unclear how NH’s proposed position going forwards, to consider proposals on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, is consistent with CDC’s proposals to continue collecting contributions, albeit at a new higher rate and, it is argued, with less technical robustness.

9 Emerging Draft Local Plan

9.1 The ‘Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 Proposed Submission (February 2023)’ has not yet been adopted and therefore the current CDC Local Plan still remains in force. It is accepted that the SPD formula for A27 Chichester Bypass mitigation contributions (cost per dwelling) as set out in the adopted SPD (which forms part of the adopted Local Plan) needs to be updated to account for cost inflation. However, without a proper formula that is robust and subject to examination (as would be the case with CIL), and which is based on the use of industry standard calculations, it is considered that the proposed formula put forward is premature and requires further scrutiny.

Summary and Conclusions

10.1 This representation has been prepared on behalf of BDW Southampton in respect of Chichester District Council’s (CDC’s) ‘Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029: A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation’ consultation draft SPD, which was issued for consultation in August 2023.

10.2 BDW Southampton is currently promoting a number of residential developments within both Chichester District and neighbouring local authority areas, and therefore has an interest in the status and content of the consultation draft SPD.

10.3 This representation highlights a number of issues and concerns with the consultation draft SPD, as follows:

i. The consultation draft SPD identifies what are understood to be latest available cost estimates for each of the Fishbourne and Bognor Road roundabouts on the A27 Chichester Bypass, which are between £9.5 and £12.9 million for the Fishbourne Roundabout; and between £19.4 and £30.4 million for the Bognor Road Roundabout; a total cost range of between £28.9 million and £43.3 million. However, the consultation draft SPD identifies a contribution rate for developments of £3,049.16 per bedroom. It is unclear how such a precise ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate can be identified, given the estimated costs of the works at the two A27 Chichester Bypass junctions are so wide-ranging – indeed ranges of several million pounds per junction.

ii. It is noted that the technical evidence base that it is understood underpins the consultation draft SPD remains a ‘work in progress’. The identification of such a
precise ‘per bedroom’ contribution amount is therefore considered to be premature at this stage.

iii. The previous SPD set out a formula for calculating the required development contributions, based on the number of dwellings proposed, which varied depending on where in the District the proposed developments were located. It is our view that this previous approach was largely sufficiently robust and logical, accepting that proposed developments located within closer proximity to the A27 Chichester Bypass are typically expected to have a greater ‘per dwelling’ traffic impact on it, compared
with proposed developments located further away. However, we would add that any approach should also reflect the extent to which car trips from a development are shifted onto sustainable transport modes.

iv. Proposal is contrary to the clear Planning Practice Guidance. This states that the approach to affectively create a separate CIL tariff outside of any examination is
appropriate. The correct mechanism, as described above is to review the current CIL charging schedule and up date the associated levy payment.

v. The consultation draft SPD identifies a ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate (£3,049.16 per bedroom), which would therefore result in the contribution per dwelling varying
depending on the number of bedrooms it comprises. However, it is noted that there is no variation in the contribution rate as a result of geographical location or proximity to the A27 Chichester Bypass, or indeed the role of sustainable travel.

vi. The A27 (including the Chichester Bypass) is a Trunk Road forming part of the national SRN. Given the important role of the A27 Chichester Bypass in facilitating longer distance strategic journeys as well as more local ones, it is considered that funding for junction improvements along the A27 Chichester Bypass should also come from Central Government level – it should not fall to CDC and developments in the local area to cover more than their respective impacts.

vii. The consultation draft SPD suggests the implementation of a ‘cap’ on future housing development in the south of the district, to 3,551 uncommitted dwellings. The imposition of cap on the number of dwellings that can be delivered is considered to be fundamentally flawed. This cap 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. It has also been proposed in the context of mitigation schemes that do little for sustainable travel and which are focused on
improving highway capacity. We would assert that no such housing cap should be put in place and, instead, planning applications for developments should continue to be
determined on a case-by-case basis, based on residual traffic impact and proposed mitigation (including their ability to shift car trips onto sustainable transport modes).
It also fails to take account of windfall sites that will occur over the planning period, or for example rural exception housing to meet specific needs.

viii. A letter, dated 11 September 2023, was sent by NH to CDC, in the context of a recent planning appeal, setting out NH’s position with regards to the adopted CDC SPD. NH states within its letter that it will consider proposals on a ‘case-by-case’ basis and either recommend that planning permission should be refused, or recommend a set of appropriate planning conditions to make the development acceptable. It is evident from NH’s letter that, whilst it agrees with CDC’s decision to revise and replace the current adopted SPD, it does not endorse the consultation draft SPD nor does it provide a position with regards to the proposed ‘per bedroom’ contribution rate. It
remains unclear how NH’s proposed position going forwards, to consider proposals on a ‘case-by-case’ basis, is consistent with CDC’s proposals to continue collecting
contributions, albeit at a new higher rate and, it is argued, with less technical robustness.

ix. The 'Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 Proposed Submission (February 2023)' has not yet been adopted and therefore the current CDC Local Plan still remains in force. It is accepted that the SPD formula for A27 Chichester Bypass mitigation contributions (cost per dwelling) as set out in the adopted SPD (which forms part of the adopted Local Plan) needs to be updated to account for cost inflation. However, without a proper formula that is robust and subject to examination (as would be the case with CIL), and which is based on the use of industry standard calculations, it is considered
that the proposed formula put forward is premature and requires further scrutiny.

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.”