Draft A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) Version 2 - May 2024

Object

Representation ID: 6550

Received: 04/06/2024

Respondent: Cassons Restaurant

I do not intend in this section to question the way the calculations have been arrived at. However, as part of this whole Strategic Plan is for an overall ‘economic’ strategy for Chichester I would like to point out the following. The average house price in the UK is £282,776. The average house price in Chichester is £454,000. The average salary in the UK is £29,600. The average salary in Chichester is £28,000. Therefore, is could be conjectured that if you are paying that sum for a house in Chichester then an additional £8k (or 1.7%) would not be a major issue. Or you could think that Chichester was becoming totally unaffordable and either move away of not bother moving in. It also brings to the fore the whole question of affordable housing in the Chichester area. This could have a detrimental effect on attracting staff for key jobs such as nurses, teachers etc.

There is an urgent need to review the provision of affordable housing in the light of attracting suitable staff to support the infrastructure of the area, which is already under pressure.

Object

Representation ID: 6551

Received: 04/06/2024

Respondent: Cassons Restaurant

Data being used as at 2021 post covid has to be of questionable validity.

The latest data should be used for modelling. The data mentioned in the draft is 3 years out of date. This has to bring into question the assumptions made in section 4.11.

Object

Representation ID: 6552

Received: 04/06/2024

Respondent: Cassons Restaurant

To apply any additional costs to affordable homes and retirement homes for those who could be classed as potentially ‘vulnerable’ in our society may be looked on as unfair. There appears to be an assumption that the additional costs to fund the A27 will be a ‘developer’ contribution. This additional cost will be added to the cost of the dwelling. Therefore, the buyer will be paying!

Remove the contribution from affordable homes and retirement homes.

Object

Representation ID: 6553

Received: 04/06/2024

Respondent: Cassons Restaurant

I have some sympathy for the issues of this draft document and the whole planning process. Trying to get imposed housing targets into a narrow coastal strip with the constraints of the SDNP and the English Channel has to be seen as a challenge. This against the background of lack of central government funds. A cursory search of the internet will show that this has been an issue for many years and documentation seems to be in some cases contradictory in its content and conclusions. However, there are several major concerns that are not addressed in this document, which I have identified in the comments in what I hope was the appropriate section. In summary:
• The funds will not provide a solid enough solution for the traffic issues going forward. Original estimates for improvements have in the past ranged from £280m to £47m.
• It is at best a ‘sticking plaster’ solution that will not keep pace with housing and other developments. Traffic levels will only increase over the next planning period.
• I have the question whether the most up to date information has been used in putting together this draft.
• Developments to the North of the A27 have not been considered. There is also no mention of industrial developments. Any development has to have an impact on the A27, whether to the North or South of the A27.
• By allowing developments to the South of the A27. Any option for a bypass to the South has now been in effect blocked.
• It would appear that any improvements to the A27, as yet undefined, will ‘follow’ housing developments. Not sure whether this is the ‘cart before the horse’ or vice versa!
• There is no mention at all I this draft of the environmental impacts of these mitigating measures. It appears to be recognised by CDC, by information in the public domain that CDC Environmental Health Officers have concerns over developments in close proximity to the A27 due to noise. It therefore must follow that concerns are evident for existing residents. Plus, there must also be increased concern for noise/air pollution if the amount of traffic increases for residents next to the A27 due to increased housing and traffic on the A27. Estimates seem to suggest that this may be up to 25% above current levels. It would be concern if these pollution issues were not considered in the short and medium term. Long term the advent of electric vehicles may lead to some noise reductions.
• It would be imperative to get the exact position of the CDC Environmental Health Department as to their exact stance on this issue. In effect – is living in close proximity to the A27 today and in the medium term are the living conditions acceptable?
• If the above is the case what is CDC proposing to alleviate those living conditions.
• There is no consideration in this document of a 50mph speed limit from Tangmere to Fishbourne junction.
• Unless there are some concrete proposals for the junctions concerned then the whole purpose of this consultation is open to question.

There must be a full environmental impact study conducted to assess what this large increase in traffic will have on properties that will be ‘at risk’. This will concentrate on both noise and air pollution. Also following this study consideration must be given to ‘at risk’ properties that will be affected and what measures are to be taken to safeguard residents from air and noise pollution. Until this is done, results reviewed by all parties and solid recommendations made I have to object to this draft proposal.