A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document - August 2023

Instructions & Introduction

i. Instruction

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

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

ii. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii. Technical Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Instructions & Introduction

i. Instruction

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

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

ii. Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

Procedural Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ii. Technical Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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