Policy E5 Retail Strategy and New Development

I think it inevitable that town centre shopping in a city like Chichester will continue to diminish and that therefore our planners have to allow for this and be thinking of alternative uses.

See attachment.

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments in the attached letter, in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN.
Our comments include issues to resolve, comments, requests for further information and recommendations. A brief summary of our main comments are:
- the reliance on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
- the requirements for new, additional, and adapted processes and assessments, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments.
- collaborative working between agencies in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy.
We hope our comments assist.
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders. We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.

Background

National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN).

National Highways is responsible for operating, maintaining, and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) i.e., the Trunk Road and Motorway Network in England, as laid down in Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022 (Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development).

The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

Our responses to Local Plan consultations are guided by relevant policy and guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (NPPF):

• Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals so that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed (para 104).

• The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth such that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. (para 105).

• Planning policies should be prepared with the active involvement of highways authorities and other transport infrastructure providers so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned. (para 106).

• In terms of identifying the necessity of transport infrastructure, NPPF confirms 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. (para 111).

• Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use. (para 124).

In relation to the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF, in the context of transport, these are interpreted as meaning:

a) Positively prepared - has the transport strategy been prepared with the active involvement of the highway authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils?
b) Justified – Is the transport strategy based on a robust evidence base prepared with the agreement in partnership, or with the support of the highway authorities?
c) Effective – Does the transport strategy and policy satisfy the transport needs of the plan and is it deliverable at a pace which provides for and accommodates the proposed progress and implementation of the plan?
d) Consistent with national policy – Does the transport strategy support the economic, social, and environmental objectives of the Plan and the NPPF/NPPG?

We will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN; in this case, the A27 trunk road (Chichester Bypass and its junctions) which is the main access route in the Chichester area. We have particular interest in any allocation, policy or proposals which could have implications for the A27 and the wider SRN network. We are interested as to whether there would be any adverse road safety or operational implications for the SRN. The latter would include a material increase in queueing or delay or reduction in journey time reliability during the construction or operation of the development set out in the plan.

National Highways is a key delivery partner for sustainable development promoted through the plan-led system, and as a statutory consultee we have a duty to cooperate with local authorities to support the preparation and implementation of development plan documents.

In accordance with national planning and transport policy and our operating licence, we are entirely neutral on the principle of development as it is for the local planning authority to determine whether development should be allocated or permitted; albeit it must comply with national policy on locating development in locations that are or can be made sustainable. Therefore, while always seeking early and fulsome engagement with local plans and/or developers, we will simply be assessing the transport and related implications of plans or proposals and agreeing any necessary transport improvements and relevant development management policy.

In progressing Local Plans, we will seek to agree the following:
• Assessment tools and methodology
• Baseline Assessment i.e., to demonstrate that the assessment tool accurately reflects current transport conditions
• Comparator case assessment i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would occur in the absence of the plan
• Forecast modelling i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would arise with the plan in place, this will include an assessment at the end of the Plan period; and, if required, at full build out if that occurs after the end of the Plan period
• Outputs and outcomes of modelling, demonstrating, as appropriate, what transport infrastructure is necessary to support the plan o It should be noted that a suite of transport modelling tools may be required. This includes strategic modelling covering an area at least one major junction beyond the district boundary, localised network modelling where several links/junctions are close together and/or individual junction modelling
o A DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) compliancy assessment may also be required for certain highway features, such as
Merge/Diverge assessment at Grade separated junctions, link capacity assessments, and others.
• The design of any necessary transport infrastructure, to an extent suitable for establishing deliverability during the plan period at the time that it becomes necessary for the purpose of ensuring that unacceptable road safety impacts or severe operational impacts do not arise as a result of development. This may be to at least General Arrangement design stage or preliminary design stage. Whichever degree of detail is agreed, the products must be in full compliance with the DMRB.
• Industry standard transport intervention costings.
• The delivery/funding mechanisms for necessary transport interventions. It should not be assumed that National Highways will have any responsibility to identify or deliver necessary transport interventions.
• If considered appropriate, a “Monitor & Manage” (M&M) framework, aimed at managing the pace of development in line with the pace of funding and delivery of necessary highway interventions in a manner which responds to the realworld impacts of development may be agreed for inclusion in the plan subject to the adequacy of risk control measures included therein. This can include the move from a ‘predict & provide’ style of delivery to ‘a vision & validate’ style. o Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. It must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.

Further detail on the above can be provided by National Highways.

While ideally all the above should be agreed prior to the Submission of the Local Plan for examination, we recognise that this is not always possible. However, all parties should work towards all matters being agreed and reflected in a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) by the start of the Local Plan Examination at the latest. Ideally the SoCG between the Council and National Highways would be prepared well in advance of plan submission in order to guide resource input and to track progress towards final agreement on all relevant matters starting from the earliest plan iterations until the final version is agreed.

It is acknowledged that Government policy places much emphasis on housing delivery as a means for ensuring economic growth and addressing the current national shortage of housing. The NPPF is very clear that:
“Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period.”

However, new DfT C1/22 and the NPPF are equally clear that any development, including housing delivery, must be tempered by the requirement to ensure that the associated transport demand can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on the safety of the SRN or severe impacts on the operation of the SRN including reliability and congestion. Therefore, as necessary and appropriate, any plan and/or development must be accompanied by suitable mitigation in the right places at the right time, that is to the required design standards and is deliverable in terms of land availability, constructability and funding.

We would also draw your attention to the then Highways England document ‘The Strategic Road Network, Planning for the Future: A guide to working with National
Highways on planning matters’ (September 2015). This document sets out how National Highways intends to work with local planning authorities and developers to support the preparation of sound documents which enable the delivery of sustainable development. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/461023/N150227_-_Highways_England_Planning_Document_FINAL-lo.pdf

Responses to Local Plan consultations are also guided by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revised on 20 July 2021 which sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Updated Circular (01/2022)
It should be noted that since the start of the Local Plan consultation process, on the 23 December 2022, the Department for Transport released a new circular on the ‘Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development’ (Circular 01/2022), which replaces all of the policies in Circular 02/2013 of the same name. These representations take account of the new circular and the requirements in terms of the Local Plan evidence base and process.

We request that the Local Plan is prepared in line with all aspects of the new circular. Particularly, the principles of sustainable development (paragraphs 11 to 17), new connections and capacity enhancements (paragraphs 18 to 25), and engagement with plan-making (paragraphs 26 to 38).

Regulation 18 submission
In our Regulation 18 submission we noted several matters including:
• The need to mitigate the adverse impacts of strategic development traffic to the A27 Chichester Bypass and its junctions at Portfield Roundabout, Bognor Road Roundabout, Whyke Roundabout, Stockbridge Roundabout and Fishbourne Roundabout and Oving junction.
• The need to identify a mechanism to calculate contributions towards the delivery of the previously agreed Local Plan A27 improvements
• The need to confirm the number of dwellings needed within the plan period
• The need to establish National Highways acceptance of the traffic model reference and future case scenarios
• The need to confirm costs, viability, and funding associated with mitigating the safety and congestion impacts of the development included within the plan.

Local Plan context
This Local Plan (Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039), prepared by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) Chichester District Council, sets out the vision for future development in the district and will be used to help decide on planning applications and other planning related decisions including shaping infrastructure investments.

The draft sets out how the district should be developed over the next 18-years to 2039 including for the full Plan period (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039) the total supply of
- 10,359 dwellings
- 114,652 net additional sqm new floorspace
Minus the completions this is equivalent to around 530 dwellings and 6,150 sqm of floorspace a year.

National Highways Representations
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders.

We have undertaken a review of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 proposed submission version and accompanying evidence documents, our comments are set out in the tables below (following pages). [see table within attachment]

Summary

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments above in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN. We understand that other technical information is available, but this was not presented as part of this consultation.
Chichester, and the A27, are already heavily congested, infrastructure in the existing Local Plan remains undelivered and the growth set out in the new Plan will further increase travel demand.
As presented, satisfying the transport needs of the plan is clearly reliant on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. The A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is one of 32 pipeline schemes being considered for possible inclusion in National Highways third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) covering 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2030.
On 9 March 2023 the UK Transport Secretary ensured record funding would be invested in the country’s transport network, sustainably driving growth across the country while managing the pressures of inflation. The announcement cited the A27 Arundel Bypass as being deferred from RIS2 to RIS 3 (covering 2025-2030). The transport secretary also identified a number of challenges to the delivery of the road investment strategy and cited the benefit of allowing extra time to ensure schemes are better planned and efficient schemes can be deployed more effectively.
At present, there is no commitment by DfT to carry out the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. Until the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is published in the RIS3, consented and a decision to invest is made it cannot be assumed to be a committed project.
We note that the Plan does not address any uncertainty of delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project and we strongly recommend that there is either no reliance placed on RIS3 to realise capacity for growth in the Plan or that contingency measures are included to cover the eventuality that RIS3 funding is not forthcoming within the plan period. It is not clear that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed in the absence of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
Achieving net zero, reducing emissions reduction, acting on climate, and supporting thousands of new homes and new employment developments will be problematic with existing processes. New, additional, and adapted processes and assessments will likely be required, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments. We acknowledge that change is complex, expensive, and time-consuming, especially for smaller district level Councils. But the hard work will deliver benefits for the Council and residents in the longer-term.
National Highways seeks to continue working with the Council and WSCC to progress coordinated and deliverable packages of interim mitigation measures and alternative transport solutions while a long-term strategic solution is considered by government. This must however be in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy that appropriately manages the risk of unacceptable road impacts resulting from new housing
and other development over the Plan period.

We have been in discussion with Chichester District Council regarding their proposed Monitor and Manage Strategy. At present, we do not consider the current strategy to be robust and we seek further information and detail especially on who, when and when monitoring and management will be undertaken. Developments in the right places and served by the right sustainable infrastructure delivered alongside or ahead of occupancy must be a key consideration when planning for growth in all local authority areas. Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary transport mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. The M&M framework must set out that the alternative to mitigation not being delivered is that development does not proceed where that development would give rise to unacceptable road safety risk or severe cumulative impacts on the road network in the absence of that mitigation. The M&M framework must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.
As we have reiterated throughout our comments, we welcome the opportunity to work with you to address these outstanding matters and we will continue to liaise over submitted Transport Assessment, Travel Plan policy and Monitor and Manage Policy to help to work towards a viable plan.
We hope our comments assist.
We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions. Please do continue to consult us as the Plan progresses so that we can remain aware of, and comment as required on, its contents.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.

This consultation statement is submitted by Brookhouse Group Limited and provides a formal consultation response to the Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039 Proposed Submission Regulation 19 consultation. It follows earlier representations submitted in relation to the emerging Local Plan in relation to a site known as land at Barnfield Drive shown on at Drawing Reference 7054-P701-A – ‘Site Development Plan’ appended to this e-mail (the ‘site’).

The site is allocated in the adopted Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014 – 2029 (July 2015) (the ‘Local Plan: Key Policies’) for retail and business land uses. It is also designated for those uses in the adopted Sites in Chichester City North Development Brief (January 2012).

A summary of the site characteristics are provided as follows:
1. Located within the settlement boundary and urban area of Chichester, surrounded on all sides by existing development.
2. Previously developed or ‘brownfield’ land. The site was formerly a gravel extraction operation and has subsequently been landfilled.
3. Free from the presence of environmental, historic or infrastructural constraints.
4. Sustainably located, intimately situated within existing communities, adjacent to allocated growth areas, and well served by a variety of modes of transport, including public transport and cycle routes.
5. Allocated for development in the adopted Local Plan: Key Policies, by virtue of the Sites in Chichester City North Development Brief, adopted by the Council in 2012 as noted above.
6. Part of a wider regeneration site which has benefited from significant support from the Local Planning Authority and has been hugely successful in delivering 15,000 sq. m of new development at Barnfield Drive.

The land is owned by the Council, who have a development agreement with Brookhouse Group Limited to deliver development on the site.

However, as part of the emerging Local Plan, the Local Planning Authority intends to deallocate the site from its existing allocation for retail and business uses. No justification has been provided for the deallocation of the site, although discussions with the Planning Policy team has confirmed that it envisages that there will be a development that takes place on the site.

The Local Planning Authority has a long-standing position of supporting planning applications for retail development at the site and surrounding area and has granted planning permission to Brookhouse for retail uses on a number of parcels of land surrounding the site, including the Homebase, Home Bargains, Iceland Food Warehouse, Halfords, Aldi (the now completed phase one) and Lidl uses that form the boundaries of the site between Barnfield Drive and Westhampnett Road and have been developed by Brookhouse Group Limited as part of its development agreement with the Council for developing the site and its surrounding. As the Local Planning Authority is aware, outline planning permission was granted for retail development on this specific site under Reference CC/13/03775/OUT on 26 January 2016; this was phase two of the wider development. Subject to market conditions, the only element of this phase of retail development that was able to be delivered pursuant to that permission was the Lidl store, which was always intended to be the first element of development on the parcel of land that the site forms part of, with the site itself being the final phase of the ‘Barnfield Drive’ retail development area that forms part of the development agreement with the Council and the final phase that has always been envisaged by the Local Planning Authority to be delivered for retail development.

Given that long-standing position by the Local Planning Authority to support retail development on the site, there has therefore been no justification provided to remove the site allocation for the site and place a barrier to the delivery of the development of the final phase of development, which has had long-standing support from the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority is aware that the applicant will shortly be progressing a planning application for retail development at the site, consistent with the site’s existing allocation for retail purposes.

The Council has prepared an evidence base to support the Local Plan that indicates that in the City, there will be a comparison goods and convenience goods need of 6,100 sq. m (gross) by 2039; which is the end of the emerging Local Plan period. Emerging Policy E5 indicates that that need will be met through the reoccupation of existing floorspace, but doesn’t provide any evidence as to how that would be the case and whether that floorspace is even appropriate to meet modern retail use needs. Further, the Council’s evidence in the Chichester Retail and Main Town Centre Uses Study Update Report published on 23 March 2022 identifies a need of 3,700 sq. m (gross) of food and beverage floorspace, which itself could ensure the reoccupation of vacant floorspace. It follows that there is no empirical evidence that the need for additional retail floorspace would be met through existing town centre units and it may very well be the case that the vacant units may be occupied for alternative town centre uses, principally within Use Class E, as is the current trend for the reoccupation of vacant units in centres.

It follows that the site still presents the opportunity to meet latent need for retail floorspace in the City, consistent with the vision for the site in the adopted development plan, the Development Brief and the Local Planning Authority and Council’s long-standing objective to see the site developed for retail purpose consistent also with the numerous planning permissions that have been granted for the development of the site and surrounding area for retail purposes. The site, as mentioned above, would be the completion of the final phase of development of the area for retail purposes as envisaged by the Local Planning Authority in its long-standing land-use planning strategy that dates back almost 20 years since the Homebase was developed, but for at least ten years since the Development Brief was issued earmarking the site and wider immediate area as a location that is suitable for retail development.

Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires Local Plans to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy. Whilst it is the case that the Local Planning Authority has an evidence base setting out a need for additional retail floorspace, the emerging Local Plan is not positively prepared, justified or effective in terms of how that need will be met – there is no clear evidence that a nebulous view that the need could be met through the reoccupation of vacant floorspace is either justified or effective; particularly as vacant floorspace is a characteristic of that space being a failed retail outlet, and nor is it a positively prepared strategy to meet modern retail requirements.

Conversely, by maintaining the allocation of the site for retail purposes will ensure that the emerging Local Plan is positively prepared, justified and effective in terms of meeting that need as:
1. It provides a location where there is market demand to meet that need, as evidenced by the forthcoming application for retail development on the site that will meet modern retail requirements, and the long-standing position of the Local Planning Authority to support retail development in that area through the grant of numerous planning permissions, including permission on the site. The allocation of the site will therefore meet the requirements for the emerging Local Plan to be positively prepared to meet objectively assessed needs.
2. It is justified and positively prepared as it will ensure that the completion of the development in that area for retail purposes through the development of the last parcel of land that has long been earmarked for retail development in the area, including through the support of applications to develop the site for retail purposes.
3. Given the market demand for retail development on the site, such an allocation is effective in meeting the need for additional retail floorspace in Chichester. Such an allocation will also represent positive preparation to meet the identified need.
Against that background, we request the continued allocation of the site for retail purposes for the reasons outlined above and we further request a meeting to discuss matters further.

See attachment.

Uses proposed outside of all existing centres “must also satisfy all the following criteria
1 Service traffic yes, customer traffic no, so delete
2 delete and replace with “The proposal is primarily accessed by active travel integral to new housing development or continuous, direct, safe, attractive, comfortable link with existing housing and or public transport

See attached.