The A27 Chichester Bypass infrastructure to be funded

If an improvement to the A27 junction at Whyke roundabout/B2145 raises the junction above the A27 an underpass could be incorporated south of the junction to allow an extension of the waterways and Greenway into Chichester. In the medium term this would help to mitigate any expected increase of local motorised traffic from new developments south of Chichester by allowing non motorised users (NMUs - cyclists, riders, pedestrians, mobility aided) to travel to Chichester and beyond (bus and train stations)without motorised vehicles. Furthermore if this was extended to N Mundham/Merston and Greenway beyond this would fulfill Active Travel plans east/west through the district and provide additional flood relief on joining the Chichester Flood Relief Channel at Merston via the old canal route. The route would propose to pass beside Whyke fishing Lakes across School Lane and Vinnetrow Rd to Marsh Lane, N Mundham.

This document is only dealing with improving the junctions on the existing bypass.
To undertake work on the existing bypass would be fraught with difficulties.
The main difficulty in carrying out work in the future is dealing with the traffic. There would likely be numerous unforeseen circumstances encountered including uncharted services.
There would be massive congestion for many years.
The obvious solution is a new bypass constructed to the north of the city. Our MP, WSCC and CDC should be pressing the DfT to get this done. Then 106 monies can be used for other much needed facilities.

The higher specification (para 4.2) is necessary as the original specification does not meet the capacity problems anticipated in the 2023 Transport Assessment modelling. Consequently the increased cost and lack of government funding will be covered by a reduced mitigation package focussing on improvements to the Fishbourne and Bognor junctions. This will only exacerbate the capacity and traffic flow problems at the Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts where the only two roads (A286 & B2145) enter/leave the Manhood Peninsular and cross/join the A27 (para 4.13). These junctions cannot be ignored and improvements must be funded.

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?

Background Section 2.11

Mention is made of the need for ‘sustainable Transport measures’ being part of improvements required to the two junctions and ancillary works; however nowhere in the policy does it specify the type of sustainable measures required. The policy needs to amended.

The policy needs to be amended to require that at least 25 % of the financial contributions should be used for sustainable and active travel measures, including mitigation measures to reduce the number of private vehicle trips. See also my objection to submitted Local Plan in relation to Policy 8a, section 8.

Planning Obligations Section 4.1

In quoting from the STANTEC Jan. 2023 no reference is made, other than trip generation, as to how Sustainable and Active travel will be encouraged and provided for in the use of the financial contributions sought. The ‘monitor and manage’ approach seems to assume that the current modal split of use of these junctions and associated roads will continue and be perpetuated when the improvements take place. This in turn will give even greater preference to current road vehicle use. How will modal shift be achieved?

As with my previous objection this requires a clear policy requiring at least 25% of contributions to be spent on sustainable and active travel improvements which will result in reduced trip generation and greater longevity to the necessary improvements. This will, et al, provide better value for money.

Background Section 2.11

Mention is made of the need for ‘sustainable Transport measures’ being part of improvements required to the two junctions and ancillary works; however nowhere in the policy does it specify the type of sustainable measures required. The policy needs to amended.

The policy needs to be amended to require that at least 25 % of the financial contributions should be used for sustainable and active travel measures, including mitigation measures to reduce the number of private vehicle trips. See also my objection to submitted Local Plan in relation to Policy 8a, section 8.

Planning Obligations Section 4.1

In quoting from the STANTEC Jan. 2023 no reference is made, other than trip generation, as to how Sustainable and Active travel will be encouraged and provided for in the use of the financial contributions sought. The ‘monitor and manage’ approach seems to assume that the current modal split of use of these junctions and associated roads will continue and be perpetuated when the improvements take place. This in turn will give even greater preference to current road vehicle use. How will modal shift be achieved?

As with my previous objection this requires a clear policy requiring at least 25% of contributions to be spent on sustainable and active travel improvements which will result in reduced trip generation and greater longevity to the necessary improvements. This will, et al, provide better value for money.