Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD

FAO: Tony Whitty, Planning Policy Manager, Chichester District Council
Your ref: Draft Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Our ref: NH/26/15179
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your email of 20 February 2026, consulting National Highways on the above referenced draft SPD.
We are concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), in this case the A27.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. Our focus is on matters relating to the A27. Please find our comments below:
Context - A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (October 2024)
Your consultation portal sets out the relationship between the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (POAH SPD) and other Planning Documents. The portal confirms that the POAH SPD will apply to the geographic area covered by the Chichester Local Plan and that it will provide mechanisms for the achievement of objective 7: strategic infrastructure and the delivery of policy I1 “Infrastructure Provision”. It also references the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). It does not however refer to the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (A27 SPD), dated October 2024. The A27 SPD was published in order to update guidance contained within the 2016 POAH SPD in light of evidence that emerged during the review of the Local Plan. It is assumed that the intention of the new POAH SPD is to replace both the 2016 POAH and the 2024 A27 SPD to take account of the recently adopted Local Plan and other policy updates. We would be grateful if this could be confirmed.
Context – Local Government Reorganisation
We are mindful that consultation on proposals for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in West Sussex concluded on 11 January 2026. The proposals involve the replacement of the two-tier system of local government with a set of unitary authorities which will be responsible for planning and other matters including highways. The new system will take on full roles from April 2028, with transitional arrangements in place for 2027/28. We would like to understand the implications of LGR for the implementation of the SPD in terms of roles and responsibilities.
Purpose of SPD
It is noted that the purpose of the POAH SPD is to assist developers costing and inclusion of S106 planning obligations in their financial planning and to help reduce time required negotiating and agreeing obligations with the council, which we fully support.
Planning Conditions
Planning Conditions are referred to in section 1.2 and confirm that where the acceptability of a development proposal is dependent on the provision of site related transport improvements, a planning condition may be attached to a planning permission.
Highway Improvements – Section 278 Agreements
Section 1.3 highlights that where works are required to the Strategic Road Network (A27), section 278 agreements under the Highways Act 1980 will need to be entered into with National Highways. While this is correct, as set out below, mitigation works on the A27 will result from the monitor and manage approach and schemes will be funded through contributions collected by CDC. The requirement for S278 agreements will normally therefore apply only to schemes funded by contributions collected by CDC. This does raise the matter of which 3rd party will deliver the scheme, having regard to the development(s) that have generated the need for the mitigation. This is a matter for CDC to determine as the Local Planning Authority (LPA). National Highways will not deliver these schemes, with priorities for the Strategic Road Network set out in our route strategies and the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS).
Planning Obligations (s106)
Section 1.4 correctly sets out that planning obligations (s.106) should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through planning conditions, in accordance with NPPF para 56.
Transport and Highways
Transport and highways are covered in paragraphs 4.70 to 4.92. Paragraph 4.75 refers to the Transport Infrastructure Management Group (TIMG) and the monitor and manage framework adopted by CDC and the Highway Authorities to mitigate the impacts of the Local Plan on the transport network including the A27.
The total funding requirement for A27 mitigation as set out in paragraph 4.76 is misleading without further commentary.
The Local Plan Policy T1 clarifies that the total given is based on historic schemes which are no longer affordable and the subsequent introduction of Policy, such as the Department for Transport Circular 01/2022, means that the creation of new highway capacity should be considered alongside the provision of sustainable travel modes. This will lead to smaller scale highway interventions than those identified in the Chichester Transport Study 2024. The actual measures are yet to be identified, the necessary work being part of the monitor and manage process. This should be recognised within the SPD.
Transport and Highways – Priorities for the A27
The methodology for calculating the level of contributions is similar to that contained within the A27 SPD and is based on a contribution level of up to £8,000 per dwelling, which is to be collected via S106 agreements by Chichester District Council. This is entirely in accordance with previous correspondence on this subject whereby National Highways withdrew from the mechanism of SPD related Section 106 agreements (Para 4.53 of the SPD) for developments with undetermined planning applications as of 6 September 2023.The monies collected by CDC will therefore remain with CDC. National Highways will not accept monies collected. Priorities for the Strategic Road Network (A27) are set in the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS). There cannot be a presumption that a future RIS will support infrastructure that is necessary to mitigate development taking place in Chichester.
On the basis that the impacts of the Local Plan allocations on the A27 are to be dealt with through the monitor and manage process, with all monies held by CDC, the first sentence of paragraph 4.84 is incorrect. Section 106 agreements will be used to collect contributions towards A27 mitigation rather than for requiring developers to provide the mitigation. This should be clarified.
Transport and Highways – Delivery of mitigation works to the A27
The mitigation will be led by CDC as part of the monitor and manage process. Mitigation, in terms of physical works to the A27, will be provided by 3rd parties, eg West Sussex County Council (or new unitary authority), developers, etc, to be determined by CDC as the LPA. In the case of improved or new sustainable travel solutions this will be provided by a combination of 3rd parties (physical changes to the A27) and public transport operators, eg bus companies. This process will be led by CDC and informed by the TIMG. As highlighted above, agreements, eg s.278 or s.6, will need to be entered by 3rd parties responsible for delivering the schemes with National Highways to govern physical works to the A27. To clarify, National Highways will not lead schemes necessary to accommodate the Local Plan, and legal mechanisms need to be identified so that CDC can use collected developer contributions for physical works on the A27.
Transport and Highways – National Highways engagement with planning
As set out in our letter of 6th September 2023, which responded to your proposals for the 2024 A27 SPD, amongst other things, NH will consider planning applications for development proposals on a case-by-case basis and if, as a result of traffic generated by the development there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the SRN would be severe, NH will either recommend that permission should be refused or recommend appropriate planning conditions to make the development acceptable. Such planning conditions could, as referred to above, restrict the development until such time as the highway works, on which the acceptability of the development was dependant, are in place.
Through the monitor and manage process, the developer would make relevant contributions but would still be restricted until such time as the relevant planning condition could be discharged. While the onus for delivery of those works would rest with CDC, the mechanisms of the monitor and manage process, administered through the TIMG, would seek to identify the need for and facilitate the delivery of the relevant works, which would be part of a coordinated package of transport measures and infrastructure improvements, in advance of any point of development restriction being reached. This may require top-up funding in some cases, where the money collected over time is insufficient for the necessary scheme. This is the basis of the monitor and manage process and it would be beneficial to explain this in more detail in the SPD so that developer expectations can be managed. To be clear, it cannot be the case that contributions give developers the ability to build and occupy unfettered by the requirement for necessary transport interventions as has been the case in the past. This message is not clear from the SPD.
We remain supportive of the ‘monitor & manage’ approach and support the Council revising and replacing the current SPD, including CDC leading the collection and governance of developer contributions to fund Local Plan mitigation measures, the collection of higher contribution levels, and CDC leading the mitigation of Local Plan impacts (noting that some mitigation measures/schemes may not directly include the SRN). We would, however, recommend a number of revisions/clarifications so that the SPD can better assist developers’ costings and inclusion of s.106 planning obligations in their financial planning (see above).
To assist CDC’s understanding of National Highways’ role in planning, please view and share our short explainer video that is available from our website (see link under ‘Our support for plan-making and decision-taking’): https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/planning-and-the-strategic-road-network-in-england/.
We look forward to being consulted on further iterations of the new SPD and would be pleased to discuss any of the points raised in this email with you and your colleagues.
Should you or any others have any queries regarding our response, please contact us via planningse@nationalhighways.co.uk.
Kind regards,
Nigel De Wit MRTPI, Spatial Planner
South East Region, Operations Directorate
National Highways

FAO: Tony Whitty, Planning Policy Manager, Chichester District Council
Your ref: Draft Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Our ref: NH/26/15179
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your email of 20 February 2026, consulting National Highways on the above referenced draft SPD.
We are concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), in this case the A27.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. Our focus is on matters relating to the A27. Please find our comments below:
Context - A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (October 2024)
Your consultation portal sets out the relationship between the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (POAH SPD) and other Planning Documents. The portal confirms that the POAH SPD will apply to the geographic area covered by the Chichester Local Plan and that it will provide mechanisms for the achievement of objective 7: strategic infrastructure and the delivery of policy I1 “Infrastructure Provision”. It also references the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). It does not however refer to the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (A27 SPD), dated October 2024. The A27 SPD was published in order to update guidance contained within the 2016 POAH SPD in light of evidence that emerged during the review of the Local Plan. It is assumed that the intention of the new POAH SPD is to replace both the 2016 POAH and the 2024 A27 SPD to take account of the recently adopted Local Plan and other policy updates. We would be grateful if this could be confirmed.
Context – Local Government Reorganisation
We are mindful that consultation on proposals for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in West Sussex concluded on 11 January 2026. The proposals involve the replacement of the two-tier system of local government with a set of unitary authorities which will be responsible for planning and other matters including highways. The new system will take on full roles from April 2028, with transitional arrangements in place for 2027/28. We would like to understand the implications of LGR for the implementation of the SPD in terms of roles and responsibilities.
Purpose of SPD
It is noted that the purpose of the POAH SPD is to assist developers costing and inclusion of S106 planning obligations in their financial planning and to help reduce time required negotiating and agreeing obligations with the council, which we fully support.
Planning Conditions
Planning Conditions are referred to in section 1.2 and confirm that where the acceptability of a development proposal is dependent on the provision of site related transport improvements, a planning condition may be attached to a planning permission.
Highway Improvements – Section 278 Agreements
Section 1.3 highlights that where works are required to the Strategic Road Network (A27), section 278 agreements under the Highways Act 1980 will need to be entered into with National Highways. While this is correct, as set out below, mitigation works on the A27 will result from the monitor and manage approach and schemes will be funded through contributions collected by CDC. The requirement for S278 agreements will normally therefore apply only to schemes funded by contributions collected by CDC. This does raise the matter of which 3rd party will deliver the scheme, having regard to the development(s) that have generated the need for the mitigation. This is a matter for CDC to determine as the Local Planning Authority (LPA). National Highways will not deliver these schemes, with priorities for the Strategic Road Network set out in our route strategies and the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS).
Planning Obligations (s106)
Section 1.4 correctly sets out that planning obligations (s.106) should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through planning conditions, in accordance with NPPF para 56.
Transport and Highways
Transport and highways are covered in paragraphs 4.70 to 4.92. Paragraph 4.75 refers to the Transport Infrastructure Management Group (TIMG) and the monitor and manage framework adopted by CDC and the Highway Authorities to mitigate the impacts of the Local Plan on the transport network including the A27.
The total funding requirement for A27 mitigation as set out in paragraph 4.76 is misleading without further commentary.
The Local Plan Policy T1 clarifies that the total given is based on historic schemes which are no longer affordable and the subsequent introduction of Policy, such as the Department for Transport Circular 01/2022, means that the creation of new highway capacity should be considered alongside the provision of sustainable travel modes. This will lead to smaller scale highway interventions than those identified in the Chichester Transport Study 2024. The actual measures are yet to be identified, the necessary work being part of the monitor and manage process. This should be recognised within the SPD.
Transport and Highways – Priorities for the A27
The methodology for calculating the level of contributions is similar to that contained within the A27 SPD and is based on a contribution level of up to £8,000 per dwelling, which is to be collected via S106 agreements by Chichester District Council. This is entirely in accordance with previous correspondence on this subject whereby National Highways withdrew from the mechanism of SPD related Section 106 agreements (Para 4.53 of the SPD) for developments with undetermined planning applications as of 6 September 2023.The monies collected by CDC will therefore remain with CDC. National Highways will not accept monies collected. Priorities for the Strategic Road Network (A27) are set in the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS). There cannot be a presumption that a future RIS will support infrastructure that is necessary to mitigate development taking place in Chichester.
On the basis that the impacts of the Local Plan allocations on the A27 are to be dealt with through the monitor and manage process, with all monies held by CDC, the first sentence of paragraph 4.84 is incorrect. Section 106 agreements will be used to collect contributions towards A27 mitigation rather than for requiring developers to provide the mitigation. This should be clarified.
Transport and Highways – Delivery of mitigation works to the A27
The mitigation will be led by CDC as part of the monitor and manage process. Mitigation, in terms of physical works to the A27, will be provided by 3rd parties, eg West Sussex County Council (or new unitary authority), developers, etc, to be determined by CDC as the LPA. In the case of improved or new sustainable travel solutions this will be provided by a combination of 3rd parties (physical changes to the A27) and public transport operators, eg bus companies. This process will be led by CDC and informed by the TIMG. As highlighted above, agreements, eg s.278 or s.6, will need to be entered by 3rd parties responsible for delivering the schemes with National Highways to govern physical works to the A27. To clarify, National Highways will not lead schemes necessary to accommodate the Local Plan, and legal mechanisms need to be identified so that CDC can use collected developer contributions for physical works on the A27.
Transport and Highways – National Highways engagement with planning
As set out in our letter of 6th September 2023, which responded to your proposals for the 2024 A27 SPD, amongst other things, NH will consider planning applications for development proposals on a case-by-case basis and if, as a result of traffic generated by the development there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the SRN would be severe, NH will either recommend that permission should be refused or recommend appropriate planning conditions to make the development acceptable. Such planning conditions could, as referred to above, restrict the development until such time as the highway works, on which the acceptability of the development was dependant, are in place.
Through the monitor and manage process, the developer would make relevant contributions but would still be restricted until such time as the relevant planning condition could be discharged. While the onus for delivery of those works would rest with CDC, the mechanisms of the monitor and manage process, administered through the TIMG, would seek to identify the need for and facilitate the delivery of the relevant works, which would be part of a coordinated package of transport measures and infrastructure improvements, in advance of any point of development restriction being reached. This may require top-up funding in some cases, where the money collected over time is insufficient for the necessary scheme. This is the basis of the monitor and manage process and it would be beneficial to explain this in more detail in the SPD so that developer expectations can be managed. To be clear, it cannot be the case that contributions give developers the ability to build and occupy unfettered by the requirement for necessary transport interventions as has been the case in the past. This message is not clear from the SPD.
We remain supportive of the ‘monitor & manage’ approach and support the Council revising and replacing the current SPD, including CDC leading the collection and governance of developer contributions to fund Local Plan mitigation measures, the collection of higher contribution levels, and CDC leading the mitigation of Local Plan impacts (noting that some mitigation measures/schemes may not directly include the SRN). We would, however, recommend a number of revisions/clarifications so that the SPD can better assist developers’ costings and inclusion of s.106 planning obligations in their financial planning (see above).
To assist CDC’s understanding of National Highways’ role in planning, please view and share our short explainer video that is available from our website (see link under ‘Our support for plan-making and decision-taking’): https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/planning-and-the-strategic-road-network-in-england/.
We look forward to being consulted on further iterations of the new SPD and would be pleased to discuss any of the points raised in this email with you and your colleagues.
Should you or any others have any queries regarding our response, please contact us via planningse@nationalhighways.co.uk.
Kind regards,
Nigel De Wit MRTPI, Spatial Planner
South East Region, Operations Directorate
National Highways

FAO: Tony Whitty, Planning Policy Manager, Chichester District Council
Your ref: Draft Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)
Our ref: NH/26/15179
Dear Tony,
Thank you for your email of 20 February 2026, consulting National Highways on the above referenced draft SPD.
We are concerned about the safety, reliability, and operational efficiency of the Strategic Road Network (SRN), in this case the A27.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Planning Obligations & Affordable Housing Supplementary Planning Document. Our focus is on matters relating to the A27. Please find our comments below:
Context - A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (October 2024)
Your consultation portal sets out the relationship between the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD (POAH SPD) and other Planning Documents. The portal confirms that the POAH SPD will apply to the geographic area covered by the Chichester Local Plan and that it will provide mechanisms for the achievement of objective 7: strategic infrastructure and the delivery of policy I1 “Infrastructure Provision”. It also references the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). It does not however refer to the A27 Chichester Bypass Mitigation Supplementary Planning Document (A27 SPD), dated October 2024. The A27 SPD was published in order to update guidance contained within the 2016 POAH SPD in light of evidence that emerged during the review of the Local Plan. It is assumed that the intention of the new POAH SPD is to replace both the 2016 POAH and the 2024 A27 SPD to take account of the recently adopted Local Plan and other policy updates. We would be grateful if this could be confirmed.
Context – Local Government Reorganisation
We are mindful that consultation on proposals for Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) in West Sussex concluded on 11 January 2026. The proposals involve the replacement of the two-tier system of local government with a set of unitary authorities which will be responsible for planning and other matters including highways. The new system will take on full roles from April 2028, with transitional arrangements in place for 2027/28. We would like to understand the implications of LGR for the implementation of the SPD in terms of roles and responsibilities.
Purpose of SPD
It is noted that the purpose of the POAH SPD is to assist developers costing and inclusion of S106 planning obligations in their financial planning and to help reduce time required negotiating and agreeing obligations with the council, which we fully support.
Planning Conditions
Planning Conditions are referred to in section 1.2 and confirm that where the acceptability of a development proposal is dependent on the provision of site related transport improvements, a planning condition may be attached to a planning permission.
Highway Improvements – Section 278 Agreements
Section 1.3 highlights that where works are required to the Strategic Road Network (A27), section 278 agreements under the Highways Act 1980 will need to be entered into with National Highways. While this is correct, as set out below, mitigation works on the A27 will result from the monitor and manage approach and schemes will be funded through contributions collected by CDC. The requirement for S278 agreements will normally therefore apply only to schemes funded by contributions collected by CDC. This does raise the matter of which 3rd party will deliver the scheme, having regard to the development(s) that have generated the need for the mitigation. This is a matter for CDC to determine as the Local Planning Authority (LPA). National Highways will not deliver these schemes, with priorities for the Strategic Road Network set out in our route strategies and the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS).
Planning Obligations (s106)
Section 1.4 correctly sets out that planning obligations (s.106) should only be used where it is not possible to address unacceptable impacts through planning conditions, in accordance with NPPF para 56.
Transport and Highways
Transport and highways are covered in paragraphs 4.70 to 4.92. Paragraph 4.75 refers to the Transport Infrastructure Management Group (TIMG) and the monitor and manage framework adopted by CDC and the Highway Authorities to mitigate the impacts of the Local Plan on the transport network including the A27.
The total funding requirement for A27 mitigation as set out in paragraph 4.76 is misleading without further commentary.
The Local Plan Policy T1 clarifies that the total given is based on historic schemes which are no longer affordable and the subsequent introduction of Policy, such as the Department for Transport Circular 01/2022, means that the creation of new highway capacity should be considered alongside the provision of sustainable travel modes. This will lead to smaller scale highway interventions than those identified in the Chichester Transport Study 2024. The actual measures are yet to be identified, the necessary work being part of the monitor and manage process. This should be recognised within the SPD.
Transport and Highways – Priorities for the A27
The methodology for calculating the level of contributions is similar to that contained within the A27 SPD and is based on a contribution level of up to £8,000 per dwelling, which is to be collected via S106 agreements by Chichester District Council. This is entirely in accordance with previous correspondence on this subject whereby National Highways withdrew from the mechanism of SPD related Section 106 agreements (Para 4.53 of the SPD) for developments with undetermined planning applications as of 6 September 2023.The monies collected by CDC will therefore remain with CDC. National Highways will not accept monies collected. Priorities for the Strategic Road Network (A27) are set in the government’s Road Investment Strategy (RIS). There cannot be a presumption that a future RIS will support infrastructure that is necessary to mitigate development taking place in Chichester.
On the basis that the impacts of the Local Plan allocations on the A27 are to be dealt with through the monitor and manage process, with all monies held by CDC, the first sentence of paragraph 4.84 is incorrect. Section 106 agreements will be used to collect contributions towards A27 mitigation rather than for requiring developers to provide the mitigation. This should be clarified.
Transport and Highways – Delivery of mitigation works to the A27
The mitigation will be led by CDC as part of the monitor and manage process. Mitigation, in terms of physical works to the A27, will be provided by 3rd parties, eg West Sussex County Council (or new unitary authority), developers, etc, to be determined by CDC as the LPA. In the case of improved or new sustainable travel solutions this will be provided by a combination of 3rd parties (physical changes to the A27) and public transport operators, eg bus companies. This process will be led by CDC and informed by the TIMG. As highlighted above, agreements, eg s.278 or s.6, will need to be entered by 3rd parties responsible for delivering the schemes with National Highways to govern physical works to the A27. To clarify, National Highways will not lead schemes necessary to accommodate the Local Plan, and legal mechanisms need to be identified so that CDC can use collected developer contributions for physical works on the A27.
Transport and Highways – National Highways engagement with planning
As set out in our letter of 6th September 2023, which responded to your proposals for the 2024 A27 SPD, amongst other things, NH will consider planning applications for development proposals on a case-by-case basis and if, as a result of traffic generated by the development there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the SRN would be severe, NH will either recommend that permission should be refused or recommend appropriate planning conditions to make the development acceptable. Such planning conditions could, as referred to above, restrict the development until such time as the highway works, on which the acceptability of the development was dependant, are in place.
Through the monitor and manage process, the developer would make relevant contributions but would still be restricted until such time as the relevant planning condition could be discharged. While the onus for delivery of those works would rest with CDC, the mechanisms of the monitor and manage process, administered through the TIMG, would seek to identify the need for and facilitate the delivery of the relevant works, which would be part of a coordinated package of transport measures and infrastructure improvements, in advance of any point of development restriction being reached. This may require top-up funding in some cases, where the money collected over time is insufficient for the necessary scheme. This is the basis of the monitor and manage process and it would be beneficial to explain this in more detail in the SPD so that developer expectations can be managed. To be clear, it cannot be the case that contributions give developers the ability to build and occupy unfettered by the requirement for necessary transport interventions as has been the case in the past. This message is not clear from the SPD.
We remain supportive of the ‘monitor & manage’ approach and support the Council revising and replacing the current SPD, including CDC leading the collection and governance of developer contributions to fund Local Plan mitigation measures, the collection of higher contribution levels, and CDC leading the mitigation of Local Plan impacts (noting that some mitigation measures/schemes may not directly include the SRN). We would, however, recommend a number of revisions/clarifications so that the SPD can better assist developers’ costings and inclusion of s.106 planning obligations in their financial planning (see above).
To assist CDC’s understanding of National Highways’ role in planning, please view and share our short explainer video that is available from our website (see link under ‘Our support for plan-making and decision-taking’): https://nationalhighways.co.uk/our-roads/planning-and-the-strategic-road-network-in-england/.
We look forward to being consulted on further iterations of the new SPD and would be pleased to discuss any of the points raised in this email with you and your colleagues.
Should you or any others have any queries regarding our response, please contact us via planningse@nationalhighways.co.uk.
Kind regards,
Nigel De Wit MRTPI, Spatial Planner
South East Region, Operations Directorate
National Highways