Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5905

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.5 Development should not be built that requires additional road capacity accept as a last resort.

The Transport Study concludes that there are already junctions with road capacity issues that need improvements.
The strategy set out in Policy T1 will support the level of development that is proposed by the Plan by delivery of suitable mitigation through a monitor and manage process, including promotion of access to sustainable transport modes

Support

Representation ID: 5906

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

8.6 Fully support that development must in the most sustainable locations, but go further, if location unable to provide access via active travel and public transport, that location is unsuitable and should not be used.

The council is keen to work with transport and service providers promote alternatives to the use of private cars

Object

Representation ID: 5907

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.8 Increasing road capacity is not key to supporting growth, as increasing road capacity generates additional traffic that creates increased congestion in existing communities that stifles economic activity in those communities and tends to move economic activity away from local businesses out of town to locations that are good for road based activity fuelling a vicious circle.

The opening sentence of 8.8 is not compatible with Chichester District Council’s declared Climate Emergency or the rest of 8.8 which is the key to the long-term future of Chichester and the rest of the coastal plain for future generations.

It is critical that the mindset changes from a presumption of car use calling active travel and public transport alternatives to the car to a presumption of everyone requiring access with a hierarchy starting with access without transport, followed by walking, cycling and public transport and a presumption that if access only possible by bottom of the hierarchy motor transport the development is unsustainable and should not go ahead.

i) Many of the A27 Chichester Bypass junctions are already at full capacity and there is real concern that any additional housing development that comes forward without mitigation will lead to significant highway safety issues. The capacity improvements proposed by Policy T1 are the minimum that would be required to avoid these impacts whilst allowing at further housing development to come forward in the south of the plan area.
ii) Tackling the climate emergency is a key priority for the local authority and this is reflected in paragraph 8.8. However, this also needs to allow for the continuation of housebuilding within the area.
iii) The hierarchy set out in the four objectives at the end of paragraph 8.8 supports the change of priorities away from a presumption of car use towards the need to avoid and reduce the need to travel by car, followed by promoting access to sustainable modes of travel.

Object

Representation ID: 5908

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.11 is incompatible with Chichester District Council’s declared Climate Emergency.
Also, it does not make financial or economic sense. Active Travel infrastructure can be built at a fraction of the cost of motor vehicle infrastructure replacing the dominance of the car with people accessing what they need through active travel increases economic activity and provided active travel high enough quality continuous and direct to bus stops and railway stations, is key to increasing use of public transport.

The strategy set out in Policy T1 and supporting text is focused on ensuring that the Local Plan can continue to deliver new homes for the area whilst avoiding the severe highway safety issues that are anticipated if the development came forward without appropriate mitigation. Whilst this starts with the need to reduce and avoid travel and improve accessibility to non-car modes of travel, it must also involve addressing the specific highway capacity issues that are outlined in the council’s evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5909

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.12 the shift away from ‘predict and provide is welcome’, but monitor and manage is less bad, not good.as it still focuses on highway improvements with “(including enhanced walking, cycling and public transport)” an afterthought.
Stating “The reason for this approach is that the full cost of the A27 junction improvements cannot be funded through contributions from new development alone” is indicative of the financial and economic fallacy of increasing road capacity, when the developer funding would be enough to fund active travel infrastructure that will provide far more sustainable access for the things people need locally helping to increase economic activity and help ease the Climate Emergency as well as providing better access to bus stops and railway stations where the things people need to access are not available locally.

The strategy set out in Policy T1 and supporting text is focused on ensuring that the Local Plan can continue to deliver new homes for the area whilst avoiding the severe highway safety issues that are anticipated if the development came forward without appropriate mitigation. Whilst this starts with the need to reduce and avoid travel and improve accessibility to non-car modes of travel, it must also involve addressing the specific highway capacity issues that are outlined in the council’s evidence base.

Object

Representation ID: 5910

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.13 Will not get the best outcomes unless includes active travel representatives e.g. Sustrans, and more importantly TIMG needs people with an understanding of access and what people need and different innovative ways of providing that access to move the focus away from a presumption that road transport is required to provide access. Need to change the mindset from people need to travel to people need access, then focus on providing access within local communities and to public transport where people need access unable to be provided within their local communities.

The membership of the Transport Infrastructure Management Group (TIMG) includes representatives from Chichester District Council, West Sussex County Council and National Highways. The work will be supported as required by the Council’s professional transport planning advisers. Additional information will be provided regarding the TIMG as the Local Plan progresses.

Object

Representation ID: 5911

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.14 Package of measures described are a waste of money. For less investment cost greater accessibility can be achieved by investing in active travel infrastructure to increase viability of local businesses, reducing the need for people to travel out of their local communities, and introducing bus priority measures to facilitate more better bus reliability, including better connectivity with the railway.

The strategy set out in Policy T1 involves securing investment to be used to fund local sustainable travel options. This will include improvements to bus and train networks and improved pedestrian and cycle networks

Support

Representation ID: 5912

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

8.17 Very welcome, and the standard required of the proposed accessibility to railway stations is outlined elsewhere within this consultation response.

N/A

Object

Representation ID: 5913

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

8.18 Although GTR supports much of this policy, wording needs to change along to so mindset focuses on access by active travel to reduce motor vehicle use. The policy for a coordinated package of improvement on the A27 needs to be replaced with a coordinated package of active travel and public transport priority and improvements that will reduce traffic congestion and improve safety.

Policy T1 sets out a strategy based on an expectation that all new development will support and embody the four objectives set out in the policy text. These focus on reducing the need to travel by car, improving access to sustainable modes of travel, managing travel demand and mitigating the impacts of car use.

Object

Representation ID: 5914

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: GoVia Thameslink Railway

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Change wording to criterion 3, 4, 5 & 7.

i) Criterion 3 has been prepared to be consistent with the local transport and infrastructure plans referred to and with the wider strategy set out by Policy T1. The changes proposed do not go the ‘soundness’ of the Plan.
ii) The proposed changes would not be consistent with the overall strategy in Policy T1 which is to reduce demand on the A27 and to encourage non-car modes of travel, but also to secure the necessary infrastructure that is essential to avoid what would otherwise be unacceptable highway capacity and safety concerns, to which development within the Plan will inevitably contribute.
iii) Criterion 3 refers to the provision of new transport infrastructure which would include rail as well as road and other modes. The changes proposed to 3 to not recognise that some parts of the south of the plan area do not have and are unlikely to have favourable access to the rail network and so will continue to need to relay on the road network.
iv) Criterion 7 is consistent with the wider strategy, and when read alongside the previous criteria 1-6. The changes proposed would not address the need to secure funding for specific A27 Chichester Bypass improvements works as part of the wider overall strategy established by Policy T1.
v) The changes proposed would not be consistent with the wider strategy and are not required as the following paragraph within the Policy text covers the funding of other necessary transport infrastructure.