a27 chichester consultation on options consultation ... · a27 chichester . consultation on options...

21 September 2016

A27 Chichester

Consultation on Options

Consultation Response by West Sussex County Council

1

Foreword The County Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation by Highways England on options for A27 improvements at Chichester which closes on 22 September 2016. For many years, the County Council has campaigned for a long-term solution to the daily problems on A27 at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing & Lancing which contribute to poor economic performance and pockets of deprivation on the West Sussex Coast. Consulting on options for improving A27 at Chichester is a positive step forward. Highways England are requested to have regard to the contents of this Consultation Response in making recommendations to the Secretary of State about the A27 Chichester scheme. Highways England have presented five options for consultation which include various improvements to existing junctions on A27 and the provision of a new link road in one option. The Consultation Response is based on a technical assessment of the evidence published by Highways England and is strictly confined to the options presented for consultation. To provide an understanding of the relative performance of the options, the technical assessment considered the performance of each option against the strategic objectives for the scheme. The option that is taken forward must fully meet the strategic objectives for the scheme. For this reason, we have decided not to indicate a preferred option at this stage, as, in our view, it is clear that each option requires further refinement to improve performance against the strategic objectives for the scheme. In particular, there is a need for improvements (over and above those being delivered by developers) to address capacity constraints at the Portfield roundabout. Highways England also need to give greater consideration to improving conditions on local roads approaching the junctions, to improving access to/from the Manhood Peninsula, and to reducing the impacts of rerouting traffic on less suitable local roads. There is also the need for a more detailed assessment of the environmental impacts of the options and design of suitable mitigation measures. Therefore, it is requested that Highways England engage all relevant stakeholders, including the County Council, to satisfactorily address these concerns before a preferred option is selected by the Secretary of State. In addition to addressing the concerns raised about the options themselves, it is essential that Highways England assess the cumulative impact of improvements to the A27 at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing and Lancing of these schemes before selecting a preferred option for Chichester. Furthermore, an assessment of the wider economic impacts of the options needs to be undertaken by Highways England, and discussed with key stakeholders (including the County Council), at the next stage of the project. I would like to take this opportunity to express disappointment with the handling of the pre-consultation engagement process that took place in late 2015/early 2016. From an early stage, Highways England gave strong indications that a range of options including, but not limited to, offline options to the north of Chichester, would be presented for consultation. This raised local expectations

2

which some stakeholders feel remain largely unfulfilled. It is important that Highways England learn lessons from this project and in future, take steps to avoid unnecessarily raising expectations by focusing early stakeholder engagement on issues, rather than options. The manner in which these options were withdrawn in March 2016 has contributed to the strength of feeling locally that this action was premature and that alternative options, that may fully meet the strategic objectives, have been dismissed without good reason. I hope that, as this scheme progresses, future decision-making will be more open and transparent in nature. In preparing this Consultation Response, a draft version was scrutinised by the County Council’s Environment and Community Services Select Committee. In keeping with the views of some local stakeholders, the Committee recommended that other options, including offline options to the north of Chichester, be re-examined. However, it is recognised by the County Council that other local stakeholders are strongly opposed to the reintroduction of other options. Therefore, before making a recommendation to the Secretary of State, Highways England should satisfy themselves that they have not discounted options that would perform better against the strategic objectives for the scheme. Thank you once again for the opportunity to comment on the proposed improvements. The County Council looks forward to building an effective working relationship with Highways England and key partners that supports the delivery of vitally important, long term improvements to the A27 at Chichester, and at Arundel, Worthing and Lancing.

John O’Brien Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport

3

Introduction 1. In June 2013, the Government made a commitment in the Spending

Review announcement to improve the A27 Chichester Bypass and in July 2016, Highways England began consulting on a set of five options for improving the A27 at Chichester.

Role of the County Council 2. The A27 is managed by Highways England on behalf of the Secretary of

State and decisions on the scheme, including selection of a preferred option and awarding development consent, will be taken by the Secretary of State. The County Council is a consultee in the decision-making process.

3. As local highway authority, the County Council, other local authorities and

statutory bodies have worked with Highways England to support the technical assessment of the options. This technical work has informed the development of the options but decisions about design and the selection of options for consultation have been taken by Highways England.

Preparing the Consultation Response 4. This Consultation Response has been prepared on behalf of West Sussex

County Council. In preparing the Consultation Response, it is understood that feedback from local stakeholders will inform decisions about how to proceed with the project but, there is no requirement to indicate a preferred option. The Consultation Response has been approved by the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport following scrutiny by the Environmental and Community Services Select Committee. It is requested that due consideration be given to its contents before a preferred option is selected by the Secretary of State.

5. In preparing this technical response, County Council officers have

assessed technical reports on the options, notably the Economic Assessment Report (EAR), Local Model Validation Report (LMVR), Traffic Forecasting Report (TFR) and Environment Study Report (ESR). The Consultation Response draws on evidence from these reports to inform the overall conclusions which also make reference to Highways England’s ‘strategic objectives’ for the scheme which are to:

• improve capacity and support the growth of regional economies; • improve road safety; • improve journey time reliability on the strategic road network; • reduce adverse environmental impacts; • facilitate timely delivery of the scheme to enable provision of

housing to meet demand, in line with the Chichester Local Plan and the Highways England Delivery Plan; and

• improve regional connectivity; and • improve accessibility to areas with tourist activity.

4

6. The following sections of the report address a range of transport, economy and environmental issues associated with the options. Comments on delivery issues and alternative options are included at the end of the response.

Transport 7. Highways England have used the Chichester Area Transport Model (CATM)

to assess the traffic and economic performance of the options. The current version of CATM is based on traffic data collected in 2014 and assumptions about permitted and planned development, including sites allocated in the adopted Chichester Local Plan 2014-29 and those identified in the Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 Publication Version. Assumptions about development outside Chichester and Arun Districts and beyond the period of Local Plans are taken from the National Trip End Model (i.e. TEMPRO). The CATM includes AM (8-9), PM (16-17) and inter-peak (9-16) periods and the assessment of options has considered the performance of the options in two forecast years; 2035 and 2041.

8. The CATM has been produced to comply with Department for Transport

(DfT) guidance on transport scheme appraisal (i.e. webTAG) and details of the validation are set out in a LMVR which shows that it performs to acceptable levels. Although every local road is not represented in the model network, the most significant local roads in Chichester City and the immediate surrounding area which could be affected by the A27 Chichester scheme are included. For these reasons, the County Council consider that, at this stage in the scheme development process, the CATM is an appropriate tool to use to assess the performance of the options, including impacts on the local highway network.

9. In its Roads Investment Strategy 2014, the Government has also

committed to improve the A27 at Arundel, Worthing and Lancing towards the end of Road Period 1 (2015-20). Although the proportion of traffic using A27 for long distance journeys may currently be relatively small, the County Council consider it is vital to understand the cumulative impact of improvements to the A27 at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing and Lancing which, in combination, could induce traffic and cause reassignment across a wide geographical area. It is requested that suitable transport modelling tests are undertaken to show how these schemes are likely to impact on each other and to inform the selection and design of the preferred option.

Traffic impacts 10. The traffic impacts of the options vary depending on the extent to which

they will change travel times and vehicle operating costs; i.e. travel distance. The CATM has been used to predict the traffic impact of the options and how users of the transport network will respond; for example by changing the route of their journey to minimise journey time. The outputs from CATM provide an indication of how traffic flows with increase or decrease on roads which are represented in the Model and also where this could lead to congestion on the network which may not already occur.

5

11. The County Council have assessed the information presented in the EAR,

LMVR and TFR in addition to supplementary traffic modelling data provided by Highways England during the consultation. The following observations on the traffic impacts are based on the comparison between each option and the ‘Do Minimum’ for the 2035 ‘Core Scenario’ traffic forecast.

Option 1 12. Option 1 is expected to generally reduce traffic flows on local roads in

Chichester City and to the north of the City, as more traffic is expected to use A27 rather than slower and less suitable residential and rural routes in the AM and PM peak periods. The option also results in traffic rerouting via less suitable residential and rural routes in southern parts of Chichester City (south of the railway) and in the area south of A27. This is understood to be a consequence of banning right turn movements at Stockbridge and Whyke junctions which mean that at least some traffic wishing to turn right to/from the Manhood Peninsula chooses to use these routes instead of A27 for part of their journey. This results in traffic flow increases on many local roads in excess of 100pcu/hr which may be a concern for residents and businesses in these areas. Some local traffic will also be subject to lengthy diversions.

13. Option 1 is expected to provide benefits to traffic using A27 and local

roads in the future, compared with the Do Minimum option. There are forecast to be positive benefits to traffic (which are given a monetary value in brackets) on journeys to/from Bognor Regis (£114.7m), Chichester District & routes to the north east (£90.1m), north of Chichester District (£90.8m), Hampshire & beyond (£155.4m), east of Arun District & beyond (£82.4) and Chichester City (£151.2m). This option is also expected to provide benefits to traffic on journeys to/from the Bourne area (£34.5m), the Witterings (£14.9m) and Selsey (£17.3m), although the benefits to these areas are relatively small.

14. By 2035, traffic flows are forecast to exceed the available highway

capacity, leading to congestion on A27 at Stockbridge (AM peak), Whyke (AM peak), Bognor (AM & PM peaks), Portfield (AM & PM peaks); and also on local roads approaching A27 at Fishbourne (AM peak), Stockbridge (AM & PM peaks), Whyke (PM peak), Bognor (PM peak) and Portfield (PM peak).

15. The performance of the Portfield junction is a concern this option, as it is

only being modestly improved by developers and is also likely to be affected by the changes to Oving junction which presently have the effect of moderating traffic flows on the A27 eastbound approach. As a consequence, the Portfield junction appears to be unable to cater for the forecast traffic flows and this is particularly evident in the PM peak where there will be delays on both the local road arms.

16. If option 1 is taken forward, consideration should be given to ways to

improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and reduce the impacts of

6

rerouting traffic on less suitable local roads. Consideration should also be given to ways to improve performance of the Fishbourne junction to reduce delays on A259 Fishbourne Rd and also further improvements to the Portfield junction beyond those being delivered by developers to reduce delays on the local road approaches.

Option 1A 17. Option 1A is expected to generally reduce traffic flows on local roads in

Chichester City and to the north of the City, as more traffic is expected to use A27 instead of slower and less suitable residential and rural routes in the AM and PM peak periods. As a result of reduced congestion at Fishbourne and Bognor junctions and congestion at Stockbridge and Whyke junctions, traffic is predicted to reroute via less suitable routes in southern parts of Chichester City and south of A27 resulting in traffic flow increases on many local roads in excess of 100pcu/hr during peak hours.

18. Option 1A is expected to provide benefits to traffic using A27 and local

roads in the future, compared with the Do Minimum option. There are forecast to be positive benefits to traffic on journeys to/from Bognor Regis (£88.9m), Chichester District & routes to the north east (£69.9m), north of Chichester District (£79.1m), Hampshire & beyond (£99.3m), east of Arun District & beyond (£55.4m) and Chichester City (£145m). This option is also expected to provide benefits to traffic on journeys to/from the Bourne area (£33.4m), the Witterings (£17.8m) and Selsey (£14.1m), although the benefits to these areas are relatively small.


capacity, leading to congestion on A27 at Stockbridge (AM & PM peaks), Whyke (AM & PM peaks), Bognor (AM peak), Portfield (AM peak); and also on local roads approaching Fishbourne (AM peak), Stockbridge (AM & PM peaks), Whyke (AM & PM peaks), Bognor (PM peak) and Portfield (PM peak).

20. As no improvements to the Stockbridge and Whyke junctions are included

in this option, the performance of these junctions and the impact this will have on access to/from the Manhood Peninsula is a particular concern in this option. The performance of these junctions during peak periods is already poor. Increasing capacity at the Fishbourne and Bognor junctions will increase traffic flows at these junctions, exacerbating the already poor level of service at Stockbridge and Whyke.

21. As with all the options, the performance of the Portfield junction is a

concern in option 1A as it appears to be unable to cater for the forecast traffic flows and this is particularly evident in the PM peak where there will be delays on both the local road approaches.

22. If option 1A is taken forward, consideration should be given to improving

access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and reducing the impacts of rerouting traffic on less suitable local roads. Consideration should also be given to ways to improve performance of the Fishbourne junction to reduce delays on A259 Fishbourne Rd and also further improvements to

7

the Portfield junction beyond those being delivered by developers to reduce delays on the local road approaches.

Option 2 23. Option 2 is expected to generally reduce traffic flows on local roads in

Chichester City and to the north of the City, as more traffic is expected to use A27 instead of slower and less suitable residential and rural routes in the AM and PM peak periods. This option is expected to cause the greatest reductions in traffic on local roads. However, it is also expected to cause some traffic to reroute via less suitable local roads in southern parts of Chichester City and south of A27 resulting in traffic flow increases on some local roads in excess of 100pcu/hr during peak hours.


roads in the future, compared with the Do Minimum option. There are forecast to be positive benefits to traffic on journeys to/from the Witterings (£98.7m), Selsey (£59.2m), Bognor Regis (£166.6m), Chichester District & routes to the north east (£119.2m), north of Chichester District (£130.1m), Hampshire & beyond (£240.3m), east of Arun District & beyond (£109.3m) and Chichester City (£194.3m). Option 2 is also expected to provide positive benefits to traffic on journeys to/from the Bourne area (£31.1m) although the benefits to this area are small relative to other areas.


capacity, leading to congestion on A27 at Portfield (AM peak); and also on local roads approaching A27 at Fishbourne (AM peak), Bognor (PM peak), Oving (PM peak), Portfield (PM peak).

26. The construction of a Stockbridge Link Rd along with local road flyovers at

Stockbridge and Whyke are expected to significantly improve performance of the A27 in this option. However, the main routes of access to/from the Manhood Peninsula will be via the new Stockbridge Link Rd or Vinnetrow Rd. Due to the traffic flows expected to use the Stockbridge Link Rd, its junction with A286 Birdham Rd is expected to be approaching capacity by 2035.


concern in option 2 as it appears to be unable to cater for the forecast traffic flows and this is particularly evident in the PM peak where there will be delays on both the local road approaches.


improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and reduce the impacts on less suitable local roads; for example, through increasing the capacity of the Stockbridge Link Rd junction with the A286 Birdham Rd. Consideration should also be given to ways to improve conditions on local roads approaching the A27 junctions including further improvements to the Portfield junction beyond those being delivered by developers to reduce delays on the local road approaches.

8

Option 3 29. Option 3 is expected to generally reduce traffic flows in Chichester City

and to the north of the City, as more traffic is expected to use A27 instead of slower and less suitable residential and rural routes in the AM and PM peak periods. This option is expected to have much less impact on traffic flows on local roads than other options. The option is also expected to result in traffic rerouting via less suitable residential and rural routes in southern parts of Chichester City and in the area south of A27. This is understood to be a consequence of banning right turn movements at Stockbridge and Whyke junctions which mean that at least some traffic wishing to turn right to/from the Manhood Peninsula chooses to use these routes instead of A27 resulting in traffic flow increases on many local roads in excess of 100pcu/hr which may be a concern for residents and businesses in these areas. Some local traffic will also be subject to lengthy diversions.


roads in the future, compared with the Do Minimum option. There are positive benefits to traffic on journeys to/from Bognor Regis (£69.5m), Chichester District & routes to the north east (£47.1m), north of Chichester District (£44.3m), Hampshire & beyond (£99.5m), east of Arun District & beyond (£48.5m) and Chichester City (£72.9m). Option 3 is expected to provide very little benefit to traffic on journeys to/from the Bourne area (£3.3m), Selsey (£0.4m). The option is also expected to have a negative impact on journeys to/from the Witterings (-£10.8m), suggesting that access to/from this area will be worse as a result of the scheme.


capacity, leading to congestion on A27 at Fishbourne (AM & PM peaks), Bognor (AM & PM peaks), Portfield (AM peak); and also on local roads approaching Fishbourne (AM & PM peaks), Stockbridge (AM & PM peaks), Whyke (PM peak), Bognor (AM & PM peaks), Oving (PM peak) and Portfield (PM peak).


concern in option 3 as it appears to be unable to cater for the forecast traffic flows and this is particularly evident in the PM peak where there will be delays on both the local road approaches.


improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and reduce the impacts of rerouting traffic on less suitable local roads. Consideration should also be given to ways to improve performance of the Fishbourne junction to reduce delays on A259 Fishbourne Rd and also further improvements to the Portfield junction beyond those being delivered by developers to reduce delays on the local road approaches.

9

Option 3A 34. Option 3A is expected to generally reduce traffic flows in Chichester City

and to the north of the City, as more traffic is expected to use A27 instead of slower and less suitable residential and rural routes in the AM and PM peak periods. This option is expected to have much less impact on traffic flows on local roads than other options. The option is also expected to result in traffic rerouting via less suitable residential and rural routes in southern parts of Chichester City and in the area south of A27. This is understood to be a consequence of banning right turn movements at Stockbridge and Whyke junctions which mean that at least some traffic wishing to turn right to/from the Manhood Peninsula chooses to use these routes instead of A27 resulting in traffic flow increases on many local roads in excess of 100pcu/hr which may be a concern for residents and businesses in these areas. Some local traffic will also be subject to lengthy diversions.

35. Option 3A is expected to provide benefits to traffic using A27 and local

roads in the future, compared with the Do Minimum option. There are expected to be positive benefits to traffic on journeys to/from Bognor Regis (£110.4m), Chichester District & routes to the north east (£84.8m), north of Chichester District (£84.9m), Hampshire & beyond (£145.2m), east of Arun District & beyond (£80m), Chichester City (£146.4m). Benefits to traffic on journeys to/from the Bourne area (£24.4m), the Witterings (£13.7m), Selsey (£15.9m) are expected to be positive but relatively small.


capacity, leading to congestion on A27 at Fishbourne (PM peak), Whyke (AM peak), Bognor (AM peak), Oving (PM peak), Portfield (AM & PM peak); and also on local roads approaching A27 at Fishbourne (AM & PM peak), Stockbridge (AM & PM peaks), Whyke (PM peak), Bognor (PM peak), Oving (PM peak) and Portfield (PM peak).


concern in option 3A as it appears to be unable to cater for the forecast traffic flows and this is particularly evident in the PM peak where there will be delays on both the local road approaches.

38. If option 3A is taken forward, consideration should be given to ways to

improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and reduce the impacts of rerouting traffic on less suitable local roads. Consideration should also be given to ways to improve performance of the Portfield junction beyond those being delivered by developers to reduce delays on the local road approaches.

Road safety impacts 39. The impacts of the options on accidents have been assessed using DfT’s

COst Benefit Analysis – Light Touch (COBA-LT) programme. This uses the outputs from CATM for each of the options and assesses the impact on accidents based on empirical data about incidence of accidents on

10

different types of road and junction. The impacts are based on comparisons between each option and the Do Minimum for the 2035 ‘Core Scenario’ traffic forecasts and the outputs are presented as a monetary value in the EAR. This approach is consistent with current DfT guidance on transport scheme appraisal and is sufficient to provide an understanding of relative performance of the options so is considered to be appropriate for the current stage of the project.

40. Options 1A, 2 and 3 all result in an overall reduction in accidents over the

appraisal period. Option 2 (88) will provide the greatest reduction in the number of accidents followed by option 3 (53) and option 1A (47). Options 1, 1A, 2 and 3 all result in a reduction in the severity of accidents.

41. Options 1 and 3A result in an increase in accidents over the appraisal

period. Option 1 will result in 152 additional accidents and option 3A will result in 612 additional accidents. This is due to higher traffic flows and the introduction traffic signal controls in these options as signalised junctions typically have higher accident rates.

Impacts on public transport 42. The options will affect existing bus routes on local roads which currently

cross A27 at the Fishbourne, Stockbridge, Whyke and Bognor junctions. Although buses do not currently use the Portfield or Oving junctions, as permitted development takes place at the Shopwhyke Lakes development, there is an expectation that buses will begin to operate in this area. In all options, there is a need to develop improvements, in conjunction with local bus operators, which will help to improve journey times and reliability for buses to encourage greater use of public transport for journeys to/from Chichester City.

43. Flyovers at Fishbourne junction in options 1, 1A, and 2, at the Bognor

junction in option 1, 1A, 2 and 3A and at Stockbridge and Whyke in option 2 will separate strategic and local traffic, which is generally expected to benefit buses. However, analysis of the junction models suggests there is expected to be congestion on some local road arms at Fishbourne in all options and at Stockbridge in options 1, 1A, 3 and 3A. Therefore, whichever option is taken forward, further consideration should be given to introducing measures at Fishbourne and Stockbridge junctions which will help to improve bus journey times and reliability. The introduction of signal control at Fishbourne in option 3 and 3A and at Stockbridge and Whyke in options 1, 2, 3 and 3A will provide opportunities to give priority to buses which should be explored at the next stage of the project.

44. The proposed Stockbridge Link Rd in option 2 will open up new potential

journey opportunities which could be beneficial and link to emerging development proposals for the Southern Gateway area of the City. If the Stockbridge Link Rd is taken forward, consideration should be given to how this could benefit bus routes, in conjunction with the emerging proposals for the Southern Gateway development.

11

45. In all options, the treatment of Portfield junction fails to separate strategic and local traffic which is likely to become problematic for buses as development takes place in this area due to delays on local roads approaching the junction. Therefore, whichever option is taken forward, further consideration should be given to introducing measures at Portfield which will reduce delays for buses at this location.

Impacts on Non-Motorised Users 46. The plans showing the options include some new facilities for Non-

Motorised Users (NMUs) at various locations and some annotations refer to facilities which will be provided but are not shown in detail. It is clear from some of the designs, that proposed improvements to the A27 junctions are also likely to affect some existing facilities.

47. In general, the provision for NMUs which has been presented in the

options appears quite inconsistent and suggests a need for much greater consideration about how NMUs will gain access to/from the City in each option and how facilities for NMUs can be maintained or enhanced by the scheme. In order to avoid exacerbating existing, or creating new severance issues, facilities for NMUs are needed in the vicinity of each junction on the bypass, along with connections to established facilities (including Public Rights of Way) and desire lines. These facilities must be designed to provide coherent connections and take account of the stress which NMUs experience in crossing the trunk road.

48. As each of the options will result in a degree of traffic reduction on roads

in the northern part of the Chichester City and routes north of the City, this is expected to give an overall benefit to NMUs, who will generally welcome lower traffic levels. This will also create opportunities to reallocate road space to NMUs in some locations, which could be beneficial and support increasing use of sustainable modes of transport for short journeys.

49. All of the options also lead to traffic increasing on some roads in the

southern part of Chichester City (south of the railway) and south of the A27 which will create more hostile conditions for NMUs in these areas which include established routes to education facilities. Consideration of the impacts on NMUs is required, in conjunction with the local authorities and facilities will need to be carefully designed for NMUs at the next stage of the project.

Fishbourne junction 50. The proposals to realign A259 Fishbourne Rd in options 1, 1A and 2 should

be designed to provide NMU connections between Apuldram Lane and the Fishbourne underpass which will provide a link to Salterns Way. There is also a need to provide facilities for NMUs to cross A259 Cathedral Way at the proposed new junction with Terminus Rd in options 1, 1A, 2, 3A. This will be particularly important due to likely levels of HGV traffic at this new junction.

12

Stockbridge and Whyke junctions 51. The existing footbridge at Stockbridge, which is proposed to be retained in

options 1, 1A and 3, is currently inadequate for cyclists due to the inadequate width and surfacing of the facility. The proposal to introduce traffic signal control in options 1, 3 and 3A is likely to mean NMUs will be more likely to cross at grade which is a safety concern.

52. The proposals to connect NMUs to the existing footbridge at Whyke are

not very direct. The proposal to introduce traffic signal control in options 1, 3 and 3A is likely to mean NMUs will be more likely to cross at grade which is a safety concern. As detailed designs are developed, consideration should be given to how measures such as signing can be used to encourage use of the grade separated crossings at Whyke and elsewhere.

53. The proposals to provide improved facilities for NMUs at Stockbridge in

option 2 and through the provision of a new footbridge in option 3A would be beneficial to cyclists, but there is a need to provide appropriately designed connections between these facilities and existing NMU facilities, including the popular permissive cycle track along the canal towpath. It is also unclear how footpaths 554/1 and 3027 and the existing cycle track along the northern side of the A27 will be accommodated in option 3A.

Stockbridge Link Road 54. The proposed Stockbridge Link Rd in option 2 will cross footpaths 176,

184, 190 and the permissive cycle path on the canal towpath. As part of the scheme, there is a need for facilities to cater for crossing NMUs and there is also potential to provide new facilities along the proposed Stockbridge Link Rd if this option is taken forward.

Bognor junction 55. The designs for Bognor junction do not show how NMUs will be catered for

in any of the options. Options 1, 1A, 2, 3A all result in grade separation of the roads which will presumably (as it is not shown on the plans) require the removal of the existing footbridge which crosses A27. It will be important to ensure that the degree of priority for NMUs provided by the existing facility is not degraded by upgrades to the capacity of the junction. The enlarged roundabout at Bognor junction in option 3 appears to encroach on the existing cycle track so there is a need to show how this facility will be maintained.

56. The proposal to realign Vinnetrow Rd in options 1, 1A, 2 and 3A and

create a new junction with A259 Bognor Rd will sever the existing cycle track. As part of the scheme, there will be a need to provide facilities for NMUs to cross Vinnetrow Rd at the new junction and also link to bridleways 192/1 and 2792.

13

Portfield & Oving junctions 57. As part of the permitted Shopwhyke Lakes strategic development, the

developers will provide two new foot/cycle bridges crossing A27 in the vicinity of the Portfield and Oving junctions and cycle track connections to the development. There is a need to consider whether the cycle track can be extended along the bypass to create a new connection between the junctions as part of the scheme; this would provide an alternative to using local roads in the southern part of the City where traffic flows are expected to increase in all options.

Economy 58. Highways England have set out the economic benefits of the options

through an assessment of the monetised travel time and accident savings, change in vehicle operating costs, indirect taxation, air quality, noise and delays due to construction and maintenance over a 60 year appraisal period. This approach is consistent with current DfT guidance on transport scheme appraisal but, at this stage in the scheme development process, does not take account of the wider economic impacts of the options. Although it is recognised that wider economic impacts are only likely to improve the economic case for the options, the County Council consider that the absence of this analysis has missed a significant opportunity for this to inform views on the options. Therefore, it is essential that Highways England undertakes the assessment and discusses it with key stakeholders (including the County Council) at the next stage of the project.

59. The impact of the options on the economy will depend on the extent to

which they can successfully address existing structural deficiencies in the economy which reduce productivity, limit access to customer and labour markets, create competitive disadvantages and limit business growth/entrepreneurship. The options have potential to do this through; travel time saving and improving journey time reliability; helping to increase the supply of housing and commercial floorspace; and supporting regeneration in areas which suffer from locational disadvantages.

60. The following comments are based on the TUBA analysis for the Core

Scenario presented in the EAR. Productivity 61. Improvements in productivity will be achieved through travel time savings

and improving journey time reliability. The option which provides the greatest monetised value of travel time savings and improvements to journey time reliability is likely to offer the greatest productivity gains.

62. The EAR calculates the economic benefits of each of the options by

calculating the monetary value of savings to travel time and distance which are incorporated into a calculation of the economic benefits. The majority of the benefits of each option are from travel time savings. However, the total Present Value of Benefits (PVB) in the Core Scenario

14

shown in Table 1 varies considerably between the options, as each option is expected to have a different impact on travel times. The option which is expected to have the least impact on travel times is option 3 and the option which is expected to have the greatest impact is option 2.

63. Journey time reliability improvements for each option have been

calculated by assessing the day to day variability of journey times and presenting this in a monetary value. Journey time reliability benefits shown in Table 1 are excluded from the calculation of PVB and BCR (due to double counting), but they are still likely to be significant and vary between the options. The option which will provide the least journey time reliability benefits is option 1A and the option which is expected to have the greatest impact is option 2.

Table 1. Summary of Economic Benefits

Option

1 1A 2 3 3A

Present Value of Benefits (PVB)

£349.4m £279.1m £551.3m £184.9m £308.0m

Reliability benefits

£227.7m £85.9m £249.8m £165.5m £208.2m

Cost £182m £139m £280m £47m £172m

Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR)

2.5 2.5 2.7 4.1 2.3

64. The greatest improvements in productivity are likely to be achieved by

option 2, followed by options 1, 3A, 1A and 3. Access to markets 65. Improving access to labour and customer markets will be achieved

through travel time savings between centres of population and economic activity which tend to be larger settlements as these have the greatest population and employment density. Due to the importance of the tourism sector to the local economy, the scheme could also support the economy through travel time savings for journeys to/from the Manhood Peninsula.

66. The EAR presents analysis of the travel time savings for journeys between

different geographical areas for each of the options which demonstrates how they will help to improve access to labour and customer markets. The analysis is presented for each of the following geographical areas:

• Bourne area (Bosham, Nutbourne, Southbourne and Emsworth) • The Witterings • Selsey area • Bognor Regis area

15

• Chichester and routes to the North East • North of Chichester (South Downs) • Hampshire, West Midlands and the North of England • East of Arun and beyond • Centre of Chichester

67. The EAR shows that the benefits of the options vary considerably by

geographical area, as some areas will experience significant benefits, while others will experience a negative impact overall in some options. To summarise how the options perform for the different geographical areas, each of the options is ranked in table 2.

68. The worst performing option for access to/from all areas except

Hampshire, West Midlands and the North is option 3 which is also the fourth best option for access to/from all areas except Hampshire, West Midlands and the North. The best performing option for all areas except the Bourne area is option 2 which is the third best option for access to/from the Bourne area although it is only marginally worse than options 1 and 1A.

Table 2. Ranking of performance of the options by geographical

area – based on sector analysis (Time+VOC) Core Scenario

Option

Geographical area 1 1A 2 3 3A

Bourne area (Bosham, Nutbourne, Southbourne and Emsworth) 5 4 3 1 2

The Witterings 3 4 5 1 2

Selsey area 4 2 5 1 3

Bognor Regis area 4 2 5 1 3

Chichester and routes to the North East 4 2 5 1 3

North of Chichester (South Downs) 4 2 5 1 3

Hampshire, West Midlands and the North of England 4 1 5 2 3

East of Arun and beyond 4 2 5 1 3

Centre of Chichester 4 2 5 1 3

Ranking (5 most beneficial, 1 least beneficial) 69. While ranking the options helps understand their performance relative to

the other options, the scale of the benefits also varies considerably between them. In general, most geographical areas will see a positive benefit as a result of the options but there are some notable exceptions

16

including very small benefits to the Bourne area and an overall disbenefit to the Witterings in option 3.

70. The benefits to the Witterings and Selsey areas are also very small in

options 1, 1A and 3A suggesting that these options currently perform poorly for access to/from the Manhood Peninsula. This is significant as this is area is important to the horticultural and tourism sectors and experiences significant increases in traffic during the summer peak period.

71. The option which will be most beneficial overall in terms of improving

access to customer and labour markets is option 2 and the least beneficial is option 3. If options 1, 1A or 3A are taken forward, consideration should be given to ways which will improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula to support the important tourism and horticultural sectors.

Regeneration 72. Regeneration is a key priority for coastal towns such as Littlehampton,

Bognor Regis and Selsey which are disadvantaged by their coastal locations and limited accessibility on the transport network. Access is consistently identified as one of the problems which inhibits plans to regenerate these areas. Improving the A27 at Chichester has the potential to help address this issue provided that the improvements also improve access to/from these areas.

73. Option 2 is likely to be the best performing option for access to/from

Selsey, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton suggesting this option is likely to be most beneficial to regenerating these areas followed by options 1, 3A, 1A and 3. It is worth noting that the benefits to Selsey and Bognor Regis in option 2 are also significantly higher than in the other options suggesting that this option is most likely to bring about a step change in access to/from these areas.

Supply of housing and employment floorspace 74. Local Plans prepared by the Local Planning Authorities sets out plans to

supply new homes and allocate sites for development. The benefits of the A27 Chichester scheme are most likely to be to Chichester District and the western section of Arun District.

75. The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 states that there is an

objectively assessed housing need of 505 dwellings per annum in the Plan area. Due to infrastructure and environmental constraints, the Plan does not provide sites to meet this need in full. The adopted Plan therefore makes provision for 435 homes per year and strategic sites are also expected to provide additional commercial floorspace. It is acknowledged in the Local Plan that housing provision could be increased if a number of matters are addressed, including the existing congestion issues on A27.

76. The Arun Local Plan 2011-2031 Publication Version makes provision for

the delivery of 580 homes per year in the Plan area which has been taken into account by Highways England. Following a recent hearing session as

17

part of the Examination in Public (EiP), the Inspector concluded that an objectively assessed housing need of 845 dwellings per annum was a more robust figure that should be tested by Arun District Council. The Inspector also recommended that the Arun Local Plan EiP should be suspended for a period of 15 months. During this suspension period, Arun District Council is undertaking technical work on the evidence base and preparing main modifications to the Plan to demonstrate how to meet the need for housing.

77. The EAR includes details of how the options perform when excluding and

including ‘dependent development’. The dependent developments used in the analysis are the strategic developments at Tangmere, North East Chichester and West of Chichester. The analysis shows that none of the options has a significant beneficial impact on dependent development because the number of trips from these developments only make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of trips using A27. However, congestion levels on A27 are such that as development takes place, without improving A27, this will result in a gradual deterioration of an already poor level of service on A27, particularly during peak hours.

78. The EAR shows that the benefits to dependent development (i.e. the

difference between including and excluding dependent development) shown in table 3 range from -£4.6m in option 3A to £14.3m in option 2. The effects of including dependent development in options 1A and 3A are negative which indicates there will be a slight adverse impact in traffic conditions as a result of these developments taking place. However, it is worth noting that the total user benefits from each of the options is still substantial, both including and excluding dependent development, which suggests that conditions will be improved compared with doing nothing. The option which will provide the greatest benefit to dependent development is option 2.

Table 3. User benefits including and excluding dependent

development – Core Scenario

Total user benefits

Option

1 1A 2 3 3A

(a) Excluding dependent development*

£375.8m £301.7m £574.5m £187.3m £353.0m

(b) Including dependent development*

£383.0m £299.7m £588.8m £190.3m £348.4m

(b-a) Difference £7.2m -£2.0m £14.3m £3.0m -£4.6m

* Dependent developments are the strategic developments at Tangmere, North East Chichester and West of Chichester

18

79. The Local Plans for Chichester and Arun do not currently Plan to fully meet the objectively assessed need for new housing in the area. Failing to meet the need for new housing results in; upward pressure on the housing market; reductions in living standards; increasing the cost of the housing benefit bill and difficulties accessing the housing market. Addressing these issues requires Local Planning Authorities to increase the supply of land for new housing.

80. Future decisions about the location and scale of new housing and

commercial floorspace rest with the Local Planning Authorities, taking into account all relevant planning issues including the capacity of infrastructure to support growth. Congestion on A27 will not prevent new development from coming forward in the future and unless the A27 is improved, this will result in a gradual worsening of conditions over time. Building greater highway capacity on A27 is likely to mean there are more possibilities around the location and scale of development which will offer greater flexibility to decision-makers about how to plan for future growth.

81. The option which provides least highway capacity and scope for

accommodating growth beyond currently planned development is option 3. Options 1, 1A and 3A all provide some additional highway capacity to accommodate growth beyond currently planned development without this necessarily leading to a worsening of conditions on A27. Option 2 provides the most highway capacity and scope for accommodating growth beyond current currently planned development without this leading to a worsening of conditions on A27.

Environment 82. The EIA Directive (2011/92/EU) (as amended) requires that an EIA should

be completed for certain types of development that may result in a significant impact upon the environment. The EIA Scoping Report identifies that some topics may require detailed assessment, however, due to the level of design information available and the number of options being considered, only ‘simple level’ assessments have been carried out for all options and the results are presented in the ESR.

83. The ESR assesses the environmental impacts of the options but, at this

stage in the scheme development process, does not include detailed assessment of the environmental impacts of the options, or design of mitigation measures. As the ESR shows, the options are expected to have varied and wide ranging environmental impacts. Some of the adverse impacts in some of the options could be significant. It is therefore disappointing that more detailed assessment of the environmental impacts and design of mitigation measures, particularly those affecting Chichester Harbour AONB and South Downs National Park, have not been carried out at this stage, as this information could have usefully informed views on the options. It should be recognised that the level of information about the design of mitigation measures, particularly for the most severe impacts, may not be sufficient to meet the expectations of all stakeholders and this issue should be addressed before a preferred option is selected.

19

84. The options are expected to have various impacts on the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) which is established through Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. AONBs were originally established under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. An AONB is a statutory designation and the legal framework for AONBs is provided by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. The Act confirms that the purpose of designating AONBs is the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area. Section 85 of the Act contains a general duty on all relevant authorities, including Highways England and the County Council to; “have regard to the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty”, of AONBs when coming to any decisions or carrying out activities relating to or affecting land within these areas. Activities and developments outside the boundaries of AONBs that have an impact within the designated area are also covered by the ‘duty of regard’. It is therefore necessary for Highways England to demonstrate how it proposes to discharge its duty under Section 85 of the Act.

85. The following sections include comments on the environmental impacts of

the options and makes recommendations for further work and the development of mitigation measures which should be taken forward as the project progresses.

Landscape 86. Whichever option is taken forward, detailed visual assessment should be

undertaken to assess the impacts of the scheme on “priority views”, particularly at Fishbourne and Bognor junctions where proposals for grade separation are likely impact on these views. Mitigation at the Fishbourne junction will need to be carefully designed as simply using a planting screen could affect views to the Cathedral.

87. Currently, all options will negatively affect the landscape (to varying

degrees) and would require mitigation. The existing A27 landscape features have, in places, provided mitigation to the visual effects of the operational route. In developing the options, there appears to have been an objective to focus development within the highway estate with only restricted points and junctions apparently necessitating additional land take (the exception being the Stockbridge Link Road). However, in order to mitigate the loss of current screening planting/bunding, additional land take is likely to be required. It is important that at this stage, recognition and commitment is given to the principle of providing substantial space to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of the scheme.

88. In order to integrate the proposals into the landscape, screening

vegetation will be required to reduce the visual impact of the scheme. However, this should also seek to connect and enhance the existing green infrastructure of the area. The scheme should seek to offset the degree of change to the landscape through development and implementation of a Green Infrastructure Strategy. This should set out plans to integrate the scheme into the landscape through public accessibility, routes for NMUs,

20

open water attention ponds and Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SuDS), informal open space and mitigation planting.

Ecology 89. It is disappointing not to see greater emphasis on seeking opportunities

for ecological enhancement through the design of the options, such as the provision of green infrastructure (green/wildlife corridors and linking the people of Chichester with the surrounding countryside). There are opportunities to enhance watercourses, including the River Lavant which is currently culverted in the vicinity of the A27 crossings which should be considered at the next stage of the project.

90. Detailed ecological surveys will be required at the next stage of the

project to better understand the impacts on ecology and to produce a comprehensive package of mitigation and compensation measures to address habitat loss and severance, and species conservation issues which must include legally protected species and notable or locally important populations of other species. Whichever option is taken forward, it will require a robust package of mitigation and compensation measures to reduce the ecological impacts to an acceptable level. Given the nature and scale of the impacts associated with options 2 and 3A, this may require both on-site and off-site compensation.

Air quality & noise 91. The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 implement the EU’s Directive

2008/50/EC on ambient air quality for the UK. The National Air Quality Strategy (AQS) establishes the UK framework for air quality improvements. The air quality objectives in the AQS are a statement of policy intentions and policy targets and although there is no legal requirement for Highways England to meet these objectives, authorities are required to work towards achieving the Strategy’s objectives.

92. In Chichester, Air Quality Management Areas have been designated at

Stockbridge, Orchard St and St Pancras due to exceedance of air quality standards for NO2, principally due to traffic. The options will directly affect the Stockbridge AQMA and also have indirect effects on the Orchard St and St Pancras AQMAs by affecting traffic flows in these areas, although it is recognised that air quality in the Orchard St AQMA is expected to be compliant in the Do Minimum and all options.

93. It is positive that all options are expected to cause reductions in traffic in

the St Pancras AQMA, which will improve air quality and that options 1, 3 and 3A will result in an improvement in air quality at some receptors in the Stockbridge AQMA, although the air quality threshold is still expected to be exceeded on the south side of westbound approach to the junction. The greatest improvements in air quality are expected to be achieved by option 2 which is expected to result in the removal of the Stockbridge AQMA and improvements at the St Pancras AQMA.

21

94. Option 1A is expected to result in a deterioration of air quality at the Stockbridge AQMA. Therefore, if this option is taken forward, there will be a need for greatest consideration of how air quality could be improved at this location through the design of mitigation measures.

95. Each of the options is expected to have a negative impact on noise as

shown by assessment of benefits in Table 4. To ensure the scheme does not result in a deterioration of conditions for those living alongside the bypass, there is a need to develop mitigation measures which minimise noise issues.

Table 4. Air Quality and Noise Benefits – Core Scenario

Benefits

Option

1 1A 2 3 3A

Air quality £2.9m £0.6m £2.2m £2.8m £1.0m

Noise -£5.7m -£5.3m -£4.0m -£3.3m -£9.6m

96. Detailed noise surveys and identification of mitigation measures is

required in all options, with particular focus on the Fishbourne Conservation Area (including Listed Buildings) and ‘Noise Important Areas’. It will be important to understand the scope for noise mitigation measures and the extent of residual impacts including on the Fishbourne Conservation Area (including Listed Buildings) and Noise Important Areas.

Historic environment 97. The ESR includes a simple level assessment of the impact of the options

on the historic environment which makes use of data provided by Chichester District Council and the County Council. The assessment has identified that the options have the potential to impact on a range of designated (i.e. Scheduled Monuments, Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas, Registered Parks and Gardens) and non-designated (i.e. Locally Listed Buildings, Chichester Cathedral spire and Bell Tower, Areas of known Archaeological Potential) heritage assets in close proximity to the scheme and some assets further field such as Chichester Cathedral.

98. In all options, detailed assessment of construction impacts on the historic

environment is required at the next stage of the project. This should include detailed visual assessment with particular focus on views of Chichester Cathedral from sensitive locations such as the Chichester Harbour AONB and Chichester Canal and impacts of the options on the Fishbourne and Chichester conservation areas (including Listed Buildings).

99. In all options, the below-ground archaeological impacts of new

construction may adequately be mitigated by means of archaeological investigation and recording before and during construction works.

22

100. It should also be noted that the Chichester Conservation Area, its character and boundaries, have recently been the subject of public consultation (July 2016). It is possible that the current southern boundary of the Conservation Area may be extended in the near future, which could increase the visual impact of the options upon the Conservation Area. If the Conservation Area is extended, the assessment of impacts will need to be revisited.

Fishbourne 101. Options 1, 1A and 2 are likely to have the most adverse effect on the

historic environment at the Fishbourne junction due to the proximity of the extended A27 elevated section and realigned A259 Fishbourne Rd. These proposals will encroach on the Fishbourne Conservation Area and require removal of a belt of mature trees on the south side of the A259 which currently provides screening to the Fishbourne Conservation Area and the three Grade II Listed Buildings within it, especially the Church of St Peter and St Mary. Detailed visual and noise assessment should be carried out, and mitigation measures proposed which seek to minimise the impact of upon these historic assets.

102. Options 1, 1A and 2 are also likely to affect views of the crossing tower

and spire of Chichester Cathedral, including the Bell Tower and Cathedral nave roof, which can currently be seen from the fields within the Chichester Harbour AONB and edge of the Chichester Channel, to the rear of houses on Apuldram Lane. The impact of construction upon these views, which connect the medieval city with its harbour, should be assessed in detail.

Stockbridge junction 103. In option 2, the proposed flyover at Stockbridge will require the

demolition of the Grade II Listed Building; Stockbridge House (William and Mary period) which is a designated heritage asset and also adversely impact the Chichester Conservation Area which could increase in severity if this area is extended, as proposed. As the listing description has not been revised since listing in 1971 and due to its grade (Grade II, local significance) it should be reassessed by Historic England if this option is taken forward.

Stockbridge Link Rd 104. In Option 2, construction of the Stockbridge Link Rd on the alignment

proposed would require construction of a new bridge across the Chichester Canal which would impact upon the priority view of the Canal and Chichester Cathedral, portrayed in WM Turner’s painting “Chichester Canal” (1828-1829), traditionally and feasibly considered to have been painted from the bridge over the Canal at Hunston. It is difficult to see how this impact could be mitigated adequately, although some compensation could be provided by means of footways over the new Canal Bridge, on each side, opening up new distance views from an elevated position. As the Stockbridge Link Rd would be largely at grade,

23

views to and from the AONB would be only slightly affected, except at the Canal Bridge. If the Stockbridge Link Rd is taken forward, detailed visual modelling should be carried out to assess the impact on this view with the aim to minimise the impact of the scheme on these priority views.

105. Two Grade II Listed Buildings; Donnington Manor and Ivy Cottages, in

Donnington, are situated within 250 metres of the proposed Stockbridge Link Road which could affect the setting of the Listed Buildings. Therefore, consideration should be given to mitigating any visual impact on these buildings.

106. Non-Designated Heritage Assets which would be adversely affected by the

route of the Stockbridge Link Rd include the buried former rail bed of the Selsey Tramway (a little to the west of the proposed new Canal Bridge), the projected ‘lost’ south-westward continuation of the Stane Street Roman road (west of Stockbridge), and the Chichester to Selsey Roman road (south of Stockbridge) which should all be assessed if the Stockbridge Link Rd is taken forward.

Bognor junction 107. Brick Kiln Farm is a historic farmstead (Non-Designated Heritage Asset);

construction of the elevated section and realigned Vinnetrow Lane may have an impact upon its setting which should be considered if options 1, 1A, 2 and 3A are taken forward.

Construction issues 108. Highways England have outlined a high level construction schedule in the

EAR which sets out the duration and order of works to construct each option. It is recognised that this schedule is likely to change as the project develops and a contractor is appointed to construct the scheme. While it is recognised that only a high level construction schedule is available at this stage, the County Council will wish to review the detailed build programme as early as possible to ensure it is achievable. The construction duration for each option is shown in table 5 below.

Table 5. Construction durations

Option

1 1A 2 3 3A

Construction duration

41 months

23 months

41 months

15 months

27 months

Construction benefits

-£14.8m -£13.7m -£26.0m -£11.6m -£12.9m

109. As the A27 already operates over capacity during peak periods and the

options all include improvements to the existing junctions, the delay and disruption likely to be caused by construction of the scheme for a lengthy

24

period of time is a concern as this could have a detrimental effect on the economy. There are very few alternative routes to bypass sections of the A27. Therefore, the construction schedule should seek to minimise the amount of traffic routeing through Chichester City centre, especially in the vicinity of Spitalfield Lane where access is required to St Richards Hospital and the St Pancras and Orchard St AQMAs. Although this is likely to be of concern to the local community, these effects will be temporary and the effects of construction shown in Table 5 are significantly outweighed by the long term benefits in each option. Therefore, the duration of construction should not influence the selection of a preferred option which will deliver long term benefits.

Other options considered 110. In developing the options for A27 Chichester, Highways England identified

a wide range of options including those which have been previously considered. Highways England initially planned to undertake consultation on a range of options, starting in March 2016. In preparing for the consultation Highways England discounted new route options; “after detailed consideration of these options, the available budget and the criteria set out in the Government’s 2015 Road Investment Strategy.”

111. It is recognised that some local stakeholders would have liked to see other

options presented in the consultation. Although options for a northern bypass of Chichester were examined earlier in the process, they were subsequently discounted by Highways England “after detailed consideration of [the] options, the available budget and the criteria set out in the Government’s 2015 Road Investment Strategy”. Therefore, this Consultation Response is limited to consideration of the five options published for consultation by Highways England.

Conclusions 112. The County Council’s West Sussex Transport Plan 2011-26 identifies

improvements to the A27 at Chichester, Arundel and Worthing as its highest priority. The poor performance of A27 disrupts businesses, residents and visitors to West Sussex on a daily basis. Traffic levels are forecast to grow in the future due to economic and population growth, increasing car ownership, income levels and the price of fuel. Without improving the A27 at Chichester, this will increase congestion at peak times and result in greater ‘peak spreading’; i.e. peak periods will become longer, extending peak period conditions into other parts of the day. Accessibility to coastal areas which are important for tourism and in need of regeneration in some places, will also continue to deteriorate as queues on the local roads approaching A27 become longer.

113. The five options which Highways England have been presented for

consultation will have wide ranging transport, economic and environmental effects. The options will have both positive and negative effects on users of the A27 and the local road network as in most options, the benefits will not be equally distributed across the area. The options also have the potential to; affect the way that Chichester and surrounding

25

areas develop in the future; influence choices about where to live and work; and influence how and when we choose to travel.

114. Although a significant amount of technical work has been published by

Highways England, there is a great deal of further work required to; assess the cumulative impact of improving the A27 at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing and Lancing; to show how the options will cater for all users of the transport network; and to understand the wider economic impacts of the options. While, it is considered to be in the best interest of the West Sussex community to identify and deliver a set of improvements to the A27 at Chichester, some of this work should take place before a preferred option in selected.

115. While it is in the best interest of the community to improve the A27 at

Chichester, this cannot come at ‘any’ cost. The local environment is one of the area’s greatest qualities which attracts visitors and is highly valued by residents. Therefore, in drawing conclusions about the options, there is a need to balance the transport and economic benefits of the options with the environmental consequences, which could be significant.

116. Highways England have stated the ‘strategic objectives’ for the scheme

are to:

• improve capacity and support the growth of regional economies; • improve road safety; • improve journey time reliability on the strategic road network; • reduce adverse environmental impacts; • facilitate timely delivery of the scheme to enable provision of

housing to meet demand, in line with the Chichester Local Plan and the Highways England Delivery Plan;

• improve regional connectivity; and • improve accessibility to areas with tourist activity.

117. The County Council’s assessment of the options indicates that while

options 1, 1A and 3A have the potential to bring benefits overall, they are only likely to meet some of the strategic objectives for the scheme. This is because these options do not adequately improve accessibility to areas with tourist activity and by 2035, some of the A27 junctions will be over capacity which will affect regional connectivity. Options 1A and 3A also will not meet the objective to improve road safety. If either of these options are taken forward, consideration must be given to ways to improve access to/from the Manhood Peninsula to ensure this area benefits from the scheme. Options 1, 1A and 3A could provide some long term benefits which could support local aspirations for economic growth although the benefits reduce in options 1A and 3A as a result of dependent development.

118. The County Council’s assessment of the options indicates that option 3 is

only likely to meet some of the strategic objectives for the scheme. This is because the option will have a negative impact on access to/from the Manhood Peninsula and the additional highway capacity which will be provided will be quickly filled up as planned development takes place.

26

Also by 2035, some of the A27 junctions will be over capacity which will affect regional connectivity. This option is unlikely to provide the type of long term benefits needed support local aspirations for economic growth although the benefits of the scheme improve as a result of dependent development.

119. The County Council’s assessment of the options presented indicates that

the greatest benefit to journey time reliability, road safety, regional connectivity and accessibility to areas with tourist activity will be achieved through option 2. Option 2 will also provide the most support to delivery of currently planned development and scope for accommodating growth beyond planned levels, without this necessarily leading to a worsening of conditions on A27. Option 2 is likely to achieve most of the strategic objectives for the scheme although by 2035 some of the A27 junctions will be over capacity which will affect regional connectivity. However, it is also clear that option 2 will also have the greatest environmental consequences. The success of the scheme in meeting its strategic objective to; “reduce adverse environmental impacts” is unclear at this stage due to the limited information which has been provided about the design of environmental mitigation measures.

120. It is considered that much greater detail about the design of

environmental mitigation measures, particularly for the most severe adverse environmental impacts is needed. The County Council consider that this work should take place before a preferred option is recommended to the Secretary of State, building on the assessments carried out to date and involving all relevant environmental stakeholders in the design of the option and environmental mitigation measures.

West Sussex County Council 21 September 2016

a27 chichester consultation on options consultation ... · a27 chichester . consultation on options...

Documents