highways agency & west sussex county council...
TRANSCRIPT
Highways Agency & West Sussex County Council
Chichester Area and A27 Transport Proposals Public Consultation Report
Appendices
August 2005 104C018:18:D
Chichester Area and A27 Transport Proposals
Public Exhibition Report
Appendices
Contents
Appendix A Correspondence with Statutory Environmental Bodies (SEB’s)
Appendix B A3 Exhibition Panels
Appendix C Chichester Area and A27 Transport Proposals Leaflet
Appendix D Response Form
Appendix E Question and answer sheet version.1
Appendix F List of organisations and support for the proposals
Appendix G List of alternative suggestions in relation to the proposals
Appendix H Standard Highways Agency response to correspondence
Appendix I Question and answer sheet version.2
Appendix J Manhood Peninsula Petition
Appendix A Correspondence with the Statutory Environmental
Bodies (SEB’s)
Appendix A:
Correspondence with Statutory Environmental Bodies With Regard To the
Proposals.
Consultation has been ongoing with the following four Statutory Environmental
Bodies (SEB's): Countryside Agency (CSA), Environment Agency (EA), English
Nature (EN) and English Heritage (EH).
The consultations have taken the form of Project Advisory Panel meetings at which
progress on the study has been reported, allowing SEBS to raise issues of concern,
and permitting these areas of concern to be addressed. Meetings have taken place in
October 2003, January 2004, April 2004 and November 2004. At the November
meeting the proposed options for the public exhibition were presented to the SEB’s.
Following the meeting, the SEB’s were invited to submit a written response
expressing their views in relation to the proposals.
The outcome of the consultations has been that all statutory environmental consultees
have raised no objection to the emerging strategy and the most feasible options. This
includes Stockbridge Link Road, where the SEB's have raised no objections in
principle, provided the link road is constructed as far away from the AONB as
possible and is an integral part of the proposed private and public transport ‘package’.
Principal comments raised by the SEBS are as follows:
Countryside Agency (CSA)
Concerned over the landscape effects of grade separation at Fishbourne Roundabout
on the Chichester Harbour AONB. The CSA have accepted that the proposal to carry
the local road over the A27, rather than the SoCoMMS proposal to take the A27 over
the local road on flyover, minimises landscape impact and is a less environmentally
damaging solution. Photomontage work has demonstrated that the landscape effects
of such grade separation are small and acceptable.
The grade separation at Bognor Roundabout remains as proposed in SoCoMMS, as it
is the most viable grade separation solution. The CSA accepted that the surrounding
industrial area is not a sensitive landscape and that the A27 flyover solution is
acceptable.
The CSA accept that the at-grade solutions at Stockbridge, Whyke, Oving and
Portfield are less damaging than those proposed by SoCoMMS, particularly at
Stockbridge and Portfield where previous proposals comprised A27 flyovers.
Environment Agency (EA)
The EA’s principal concern has been to safeguard the water resources in the
Chichester area, which feature a high ground water level. The EA has therefore stated
opposition to any proposals involving lowering ground levels, such as underpasses.
Given that no such schemes are proposed, the EA would not object.
The EA has stipulated a minimum road level for the Stockbridge Link Road and open
structures where the route crosses any watercourses, so as not to restrict channel
capacity and to accommodate any peak flood flows.
English Nature (EN)
EN has no specific concerns regarding Chichester proposals, provided that they are
online solutions. Given that solutions are on-line, EN are unlikely to object.
English Heritage (EH)
EH’s main concern has been the protection of the historic setting of Chichester.
Landscape photomontage work has satisfied EH that the Fishbourne grade separation
proposals are acceptable, particularly as they permit other junctions to remain at
grade. EH are unconcerned with the Bognor Road grade separation given the
surrounding industrial townscape.
General Summary
The most significant interest shown by each of the SEBS in developments at
Chichester has been the Stockbridge Link Road. This would be an infrastructure
greenfield development in the proximity of the Chichester Harbour AONB, which
may also be the site for new housing, and is clearly a sensitive issue with the SEBS.
The early indications are that the SEB's have no objections to the Stockbridge Link
Road in principle, provided that the road is implemented as part of the overall
transport strategy.
Al7 Stockbridge li road
SG!104018A12 Janua 2005
~ex
S&
;16
Ou refYourrefDate
2 TheD_ Countryside_Agency
-'
Siva GurparProject leader
Bulen Consultats185 London roadQ-oydon0\ 1PT
....,! South East Regiona OfficeDacre House, 19 Dacre Stret
London, SW1H ODH1 3 JAN Z005
......_ . :.. '_".".I
TelephoneSwihboardFax
02C 7340 2979
02C 7340 2900
02C 7340 2999
b.. . '. ~"J
~~~"S'-~ww.countryide.gov.uk
mIchaLcowsil countride.gov.uk
( RESPONSE TOAl7 STOCRIDGE JUCTION LINK ROAD STAGE 2 SCOPING REPORT
WI1HOUlPREDJUlCE
Than you for your letter of the 15th October 2004, invitig us to comment on the proposalabove. It is not the Countride Agencys policy to comment on the detaed desig of parcular
schemes uness they have the potenti to:
. Have aihijor impact on ru areas.
. Have a major impact on a Countride Agency intiative: or
. Have a major effect on local countride charcter, not only in National Parks, Areas of
Outstadi Natu Beauty or Heritage Coasts.
Th proposal has th impact in the followi areas:
Area of Outstadig Natu B-eauty (Chchester Haour)
New Roadside furuie
Off road sitesAi Quty and Noise
And so we would wih the followig comments to be considered:
AONBAs the proxity is only 50 m from the AONB, at its nearest point, we would be lily tofavour SLR2 over SLR1, subject to the inormtion whch emerges from the environmentalrepon substantiatig th.
Th option appear to keep the effects of the constrction farest from the AONB andalso near to the exitig Al7.We reserve our confintion of th subject to the results of theeffects on the Stockbridge propenies.
,'Ý-' ""~8 ~,~ ~~.. ,-i;-.--Working for people and places in rural England L\'VESTOR ~ PEOPLE
,
( )
\
"A
New Roadside Furtue.
We would ask tht consideration be given, with the design process, for the placement andarchitectue of SigaVSig gantres to be complememaryto the surundig Rur diarcter,
both in visua imact and lihtig effects.
"Wt not in an Area of outstadig Natul Beauty, the numer of proposed sig in totawi have an effect on the suroundig countride. By considerig the effect at the desigstage of their imac and mag such chages as are reasonably possible, it may be possibleto mitiate the effect of an increase in the numer of srrcuies.Alo, carefu comparon of the needs of non- motoried users accessibilty across themotorwy and Loal Trapon Pla miht provide imroved alternative routes.
Off road sites.
Du constrcton ca cause dituance, pollution and ladscape dae.We would ask tht consideration be given in any contrct let to the sighti andenvirnmenta contrls on the operators of such sites, to ensur best practce and protecton . (of suroundig countride.
Ai and noise quaty effect.We are keen to establih the effect of the proposal on the Stockbridge area.
We would ~h to be inormed of any fuer developments relati to th proposalFinaly may wé than you for the opponuty to be involved in the updti process.
~~~ -S~~~ __~~~~C=-~~lv a-L COWSIllCountride Advisor- Trapon Strtegy
¿;-~J- ~\1 'I\I ~~ rJ~.. ,-"----L\'YESTOR 1) PEOPLE
Chcheser by PassSG/1041804/04/05
v-~%Ou refYourrefDare
2 The_ Countryside_Agency
Siva GurparanProject Leader185 London RoadCroydonCR91PT
South Eas Regional Offce, Dace Hous, 19 Dacre StreetLondon, SWlH ODH
~---',_..~;;;-;~~:~~O
\ ~~" ~?R 1~\ -- 6 _ ~ _.'7'.'~\
Telephone 020 7340 2979Switchboard 020 7340 2900
Fax 020 7340 2999mich.cowsi~countrde gov.ukww.cowittide.gov.uk
... . \\. 0." . ,-" v"' ,.' ~; ..'--~~.._-\
CHICHESTER ARA-NORTHERN BYl ASS PROPOSAL.
Followig you letter of the 14th Februar and our request for an exension to reply of the 31stMarch, I am wrtig to request a fwher exension to the 10th of May.
We had origiil believed we had come to agreement on the alterations to the existg Al7as the preferréd route. .
We understand the nev presentation of 5 Norterly routes followig public consutation.
However we are cuentl stdyg these routes in detai a necessai process given theproxity of the AONB, SSSI's, historic buidis, sites etc. to these routes.
Intial thoughts lead us to believe we would retai our origial preferred route, however wecanot confi this to you without fuer time to study these alternative northerly options.
\I hope you -w be able to accommodate this request?Can you also please advie of the profile of the road? Wil it remai as is the cuent Al7, andwhat wi happen to the Al7 (old) if these routes were buit?
COUNYSIDE ADVISOR
æ Mark Chess ell, Countryside Agency( Land, Access and Recreation)
;
2
,,y~I': ~~ ~~ ,g~~~ ~.
Working for people and places in rural England L\'VESTOR IN PEOPLE
o
," ~.
)
-: ~0se,
o ENVIRONMENT..~. AGENCY
1
Our Ref:Your Ref:
FPIJN04fWCWC12002/GENSG/1 03C022A
Date: 6th May 2004
,Bul1en Consultants Ltd
185 London RoadCroydenCR9 lPT
-7 MAY ZC0
,~. ~ \. "- .I'"Rú\
. -----L. -~.~-.-For the attention of Siva Glimparan
(
Dear Mr Gumparan,
REVIEW OF SoCoMMS SCHEMES IN WEST SUSSEX - SCHEME OPTIONS.
I wrte fuer/to your letter dated 28th April 2004 and our recent meetig concerng the abovescheme options and would comment as follows:
A27 Chichester Options
I can confirm that the Agency has no objections in principle to the proposals for this length ofroad. We would however recommend that careful consideration be given to the proposed subwayon the Bognor Roundabout proposals, due to the high groundwater level in the area.
A27 Arndel Off-line Options( .
During our recent meeting it was suggested that off-line Option 2 would have a greaterenvironmental impact than Option 1, through Binsted Woods. Unfortnately, insufficientinformation has been supplied to the Agency for us ta comment on this opinon.
However, it is our understanding that Binsted Woods are Ancient Woodland. Although re-planted such woodland, and the associated soil and seedban are an irreplaceable environmentalasset which should be protected. Therefore, without signficant environmental justification, theAgency's preferred off-line option remains Option 2, although an on-line route would be morefavourable.
A27 Arndel On-line Options
The northern "on-line" options are underlain (E- W) by River Terrace Deposits, Tidal FlatDeposits, Head and possibly some Raised Storm Beach Deposits (all Minor Aquifers) overlying
Peter Midgley - Sussex Area ManagerEnvironment Agency, Saxon House, Litte High Street, Worthing; West Sussex. BNll 1 TF
Tel: 01903 215835 Fax: 01903 215884
2
(E-W) London Clay Formation (Non-Aquifer), Readig Formation (Mor Aquifer), UpperChalk (Major Aquifer), Reading Formation, Upper Chalk and Readig Formation agai.
These routes appea to ru with 45m to the south of the Source Protection Zone's 1, IT & II forthe Chalk Sprigs licensed abstrction borehole between NGR's TQ 00783 07342 and TQ 0038107399. However, this distace will need clarfyng, as this is a groundwater sensitive site/area.They also pass withn 400m to the south of the Source Protection Zone's 1, IT & II for theArdel public water supply borehole, which is situated at TQ NGR 01760777.
The Agency is extremely concerned that any tuel withn ths location may have a signficant
effect on the groundwater source and could potentially alter the curent groundwater regie withsubsequent effects on the abstraction boreholes.
In addition the Agency is concerned that any such proposal would have signficant groundand surace water flooding problems, pollution control issues, fluvial floodig issues from theculverted watercourse under the existing road and would be set well below the predicted tidalflood levels.
In view of the above the Agency could not support either of the tuel options.
The Agency has no objections in principle to Options 5A or 5E.
Environmental Mitigation
To date no information has been submitted as to the proposed environmental mitigation whichwill be proposed. As previously stated the Agency would be unable to support any route optionuntil a comprehenive package of envionmental mitigation/compensation meaes is submitted.
General Comments
\
For your information any works whatsoever in, over, or under the chanel of the River Arnand Tidal embanents or within 15 metres from the bottom oflandward toe oftheembanent, would require the prior wrtten consent of the Environment Agency underSection 109 of the Water Resources Act 1991 and/or Byelaws.
In addition any works in, over, or under an Internal Drainage Board (IDB) watercourse orwithin 5 metres from the top of bank, would require our prior wrtten consent. The inlling,
diversion or culverting of other (ordinary) watercourse would also require the Agency'sconsent.
If you wish to discuss any of the above please do not hesitate to contact me at this office on01903 703865.
Y o:¡us since ely
~.Gr nt of artDevelopment Control Engineer
Peter Midgley - Sussex Area ManagerEnvironment Agency, Saxon House, Little High Street, Worthing, West Sussex. BN111TF
Tel: 01903 215835 Fax: 01903215884
'i. -
G ENVIRONMENTAGENCY
Our Ref:Your Ref:
FPUPN04IWCWC/02/GENSGIl04C018
Date: 1 ih February 2005
r-Bullen Consultants
185 London RoadCroydenCR9 lPT
h
21 FES ZOOS
CL
.1
~~r,,..l-'~., /'~
--." -..----l~~. f)
.....;..~.~T~)
() For the attention of Siva Guruparan
Dear Siva,
Chichester Area and A27 Transport Proposals
I write further to your letter dated 14th Februar 2005 concernng the above.
I am some,what surrised at your comments concernng the Agency not yet providingcomment~ on the proposed Chichester route. An e-mail response to your letter dated15th October 2004 was sent to yourself on the 21 st October 2004. In addition thecontents of this e-mail were reiterated to a colleague of yours on the 14th Januar2005. Unfortnately, I am unsure of their surame however their e-mail address isgpn(aYbullen.co.uk. In addition to reiterating our previous e-mail to yourself we alsoattached a copy of correspondence between WSCC and the Agency concerning theproposed Stockbridge Bypass.
( )For your information I have attached copies of our previous e-mails and our letter toWSCc.
With regard to the potential Park and Ride Schemes the Agency's position on largeCar Parks should be considered.
It is not acceptable for List 1 Substances to enter groundwater as this wouldcontravene the Groundwater Regulations (1998). Drainage systems will have toensure that Controlled Waters are not impacted as a result of the Park and RideSchemes. For your information it is likely that interceptors will be required to protectgroundwater and surface waters from contamination. There is a shallow groundwatertable surrounding Chichester therefore groundwater is considered vulnerable in thisarea.
With respect to the possible northern routes I would comment as follows:.._.- -._--~""'_.-.'-
Rupert Clubb - Sussex Area ManagerEnvironment Agency, Saxon House, Little High Street, Worthing, West Sussex. BNll 1 TFTeI: 01903 215835 Fax: 01903 215884
(
All the proposed routes cross the River Lavant and its associated floodplai. As youmay be aware this paricular watercourse is a ground water fed ephemeral watercourse,
i- which only flows for approximately 6 months of
the year. As such it, and itsassociated floodplain, are extremely important and unque habitats supportingspecialised flaura and fauna, which require protection.
In accordance with PPG 25 "Development and Flood Risk" the Agency would expectthe road surface to be set above the predicted 1 in 100 year fluvial flood plain(including an additional allowance of 20% on flood flows in accordance with PPG25)or the highest recorded flood level, whichever is the greatest.
(
The Agency's consent, under the Water Resources Act 1991, would be required forany works in, over, under or with 8 metres from the top of the ban of the RiverLavant. In order to maitai the river corrdor at this location and to ensure thatexisting flooding problems are not exacerbated the Agency would expect any crossingof the River Lavant to be undertaken as a clear span strcture. This strctue should
not only be clear span over the river chanel but should also extend a mium 8metres landward from the top of each ban. Provision must also be provided to passthe 1 in 100 year flood flow without exacerbating existing flood levels upstream. Youshould note that it is extremely unlikely that the Agency would give consent for theculverting of this chaneL.
As part of the Agency's maintenance program we routinely underte works alongthis length of watercourse. Therefore, it will be necessar to provide safe accessacross th~'road for heavy machinery.
\
In addition the routes also cross other minor unclassified watercourses. If it wereproposed to culvert these watercourses then the prior wrtten consent of the Agency -.-would be required under the Land Drainage Act 1991. You should note that theAgency has a presumption against the culverting of any watercourse onenvironmental and flood risk grounds. As such the Agency would expect, at thedetailed design stage, that consideration is given to providing clear span structuresover these chanels. If such structures could not be provided then the Agency wouldrequire suitable environmental mitigation measures to be proposed to compensate forany culverting works.
As mentioned above the River Lavant is a unique river habitat, being dry for aconsiderable period of the year, which some of the more specialised flora and faunaspecies associated with it are reliant upon. Insufficient information is available onhow such species would adapt to surface water discharges being made it the channelthroughout the year.
Therefore, prior to the Agency agreeing to any surface water discharges beingallowed into the River Lavant or any of its tributaries, detailed investigations wouldneed to be undertaken by yourselves over a relevant period of time to ensure that thisunique habitat is not damaged.
\-/
It will be necessary for any surface water discharges to be attenuated prior to beingdischarged. AIy such attenuation will need to be designed to accommodate the 1 inJ 00 year storm, plus an additional allowance of20% on the stored volumes to account
Rupert Cliibb - Sussex Area ManagerEnvironment Agency, Saxon House, Little High Street, Worthing, West Sussex. BNll1 TFTcl: 01903215835 Fax: 01903 215884
~
for global waring and changing weather patterns. For your information the Agencywould promote the use of open balancing pond facilities, which will obviously haveland take implications on the scheme, paricularly as they will need to be set outsideof the identified floodplain. In addition, in order to address the water quality issues theAgency would expect some form of final "polishing" to be underten to thedischarges by means of a reed bed or similar system, which again will have land takeimplications.
The Agency will normally object in priciple to major roads which involve a high riskof contamination to controlled waters withi a Source Protection Zone One.
4-Route 1 does not pass through any Source Protection Zones. It is however located onthe Chalk, which is classified as a Major Aquifer and therefore is very sensitive topollution. It is not acceptable for List 1 Substaces, such as hydrocarbonS, to entergroundwater as this would contravene the Groundwater Regulations (1998).
(-'ì Proposed Routes 2,3 and 4 pass through Source Protection Zone One for theFishbourne Public Water Supply borehole and as such it is likely that the Agencywould object to these routes. The groundwater in this area is extremely sensitive andmust be protected from pollution. Potable supplies are at risk from activities at thssite.
. I
tRoute TR Passes thro'ugh the Lavant Source Protection Zone One and the FishboumeSPZ One, therefore the Agency is likely to object to ths route. It also passes thoughthe Fishbirume Source Protection Zone Two. As well as Objecting to Major Roadsdraining in Source Protection Zones One the Agency have a presumption againtMajor Roads passing through Source Protection Zone Two. Additionally,contamination issues must be considered, the route may pass through land formallyused for waste disposal, this should be considered in the design~
If you wish to discuss any of the above or require further information please do nothesitate to contact me at this office.
Yours sincerely
g-Grant Moffatt
Development Control Engineer
Rupert C1ubb - Sussex Area Manager .Environment Agency, Saxon House, Little High Street, Worthing, West Sussex. BNll 1 TFTel: 01903215835 Fax: 01903 215884
£'2lQL Moffatt - _~Tra~ort Proeosals tg Chichester$.. .~¡,m,rm
:Z-=x..:=z ='= "":= :::-:~~_:J§g~_
From:To:Date:Subject:
Grant Moffattgpn~bullen.co. uk
1/14/05 11 :32amA27 Transport Proposals ~ Chichester
Gary,
Unfortunately our original e-mail to Siva has been automatically deleted, however, I have a card copyand the important text is as follows:
However, having had a brief look at the proposed routes we have two issues which immediately cometo light, namely, the width of the clear span crossing of the River Lavant and how this may affect theassociated floodplain and how surface water will be attenuated.
Other than the above issues the scoping report and preliminary design would appear to cover ourmajor concerns, subject to suitable mitigationlcompensation works being proposed.
/-For your information I have attached a copy of a letter to WSCC which covers our concems on the linkroad.(many regards
Grant MoffattDevelopment Control Engineer
('
~-
/---
Our Ref:Your Ref:
FPLIPN04/wCWC/02/GENPW.TC8/6/4
G ENVIRONMENTAGENCY
Date: 19th Februar 2004
r)
Highways & Tranportation - Engineerig
West Sussex County CouncilThe Grange
Tower StreetChichesterWest Sussex
P0191RH
For the attention ofMr Wreyford
Dear Mr Wreyford,,
POSSIBLE ALIGNMNT FOR A STOCKBRIDGE RELIEF ROAD
I wrte further to your letter dated 5th February 2004 concernng the above, addressed.to Mr Hopkins at this offce.
( ,. ~.)....:./
This proposal, due to it's proximity, has the potential to impact upon the ChichesterHarbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site and the coincident SolentMaritime can.didate Special Area of Conservation (cSAC). We advise you to be
. aware of your obligations under the Habitats Regulations 1994, which requires you asa competent authority to undertake an assessment of the implications for thedesignated sites under Regulation 48.
ì.
The following comments are the Agency's initial views and may be subject to changedependant on the outcomes of the above assessments:
As I am sure you are aware part of the proposed relief road crosses over the RiverLavant, and its associated floodplain, and through an area considered at risk to tidalflooding during extreme events.
In accordance with PPG 25 "Development and Flood Risk" the Agency would expectthe road surface to be set above the predicted I in 200 year surge tide level and/or the1 in 100 year fluvial flood level, whichever is the greatest. For your information thecurrent predicted 1 "in 200 year surge tide level at this location is 4.1 metres aboveOrdnance Datum Newlyn (ODN). The Agency has yet to model this length of
theRiver Lavant to predict the 1 in 100 year fluvial flood level, although it is likely to be
Peter Midgiey - Sussex An.:3 MailagerEnYironment Agency, S:.)wn House, Litte High Street, Worthing, Vi/est Sussex. BN11 1 TF
Teí: G19G3 215835 Fax: 01903 115884
considerably lower than the tidal event. As such the Agency would expect theproposed road surface to be set at a minimum of 4. Im ODN.
The Agency's consent, under the Water Resources Act 1991, would be required forany works in, over, under or within 8 metres from the top of the bans of the RiverLavant. In order to maintain the river corrdor at this location and to ensure thatexisting flooding problems are not exacerbated the Agency would expect any crossingof the River Lavant to be undertaken as a clear span structure. This structure shouldnot only be clear span over the river chanel but should also extend a minimum 5metres landward from the top of each ban. You should note that it is extremelyunlikely that the Agency would give consent for the culverting of this channeL.
/ )("
As par of the Agency's maintenance program we routinely underte manual worksalong this length of watercourse. Therefore, it will be necessar to provide safepedestrian access under any clear span crossing or, if this were not possible, then safeaccess up and over the road will be required.
In addition the road also crosses other minor unclassified watercourses. If it wereproposed to culvert these watercourses then the prior wrtten consent of the Agencywould be required under the Land Drainage Act 1991. You should note that theAgency has a presumption against the culverting of any watercourse onenvironmental and flood risk grounds. As such the Agency would expect, at thedetailed design stage, that consideration is given to providing clear span structuresover these chanels. If such structures could not be provided then the Agency wouldrequire sllitable environmental mitigation measures to be proposed to compensate forany culverting works.
In view of the environmental designations downstream the Agency is paricularly"
concerned over the quality and quantity of surface water run-off likely to be generatedfrom the proposed road. As such it will be necessary for any discharges to beattenuated prior to discharge to any watercourse. Any such attenuation wil need to bedesigned to accommodate the 1 in 100 year storm; plus an additional allowance of20% on the stored volumes to account for global warming and changing weatherpatterns. For your information the Agency would promote the use of open balancingpond facilities, which will obviously have land take implications on the scheme. Inaddition, in order to address the water quality issues the Agency would expect someform of final "polishing" to be undertaken to the discharges by means of a reed bed orsimilar system, which again will have land take implications.
If you wish to discuss any of the above or require further information please do nothesitate to contact me at this office.
Yours sincerely
Grant Moffatt
Development Control Engineer
\'-~
Pettr r\Jj~dg,ey - Sussex Are3 M£ìi12igerEn"'¡rmiiment Agency, Saxon House. UWe Jt1!ign Street, Ví1o¡-thing, West Sussex. B.Nll ITFTe!: 01903215835 Fax: 01903 21582';,
.-
Siva GuruparanSullen Consultants185 London RoadCROYDONCR91PT
Direct dial:Direct fax:E-mail:
01483-25205201483-252021steve.williams~english-heritage.org.uk
Your ref:Our ref:
SG/104C018HD/RJA2711 April 2005
Dear Siva
c. CHICHESTER AREA & A27 TRANSPORT PROPOSALS
I refer to your letter of 14 February and previous correspondence regarding theabove. Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying. I understand that youwill be reporting to the Highways Agency very shortly, prior to the scheme beingreported to the Secretary of State.
You will be aware that English Heritage has expressed concems previously inrelation to tlÍ.e potential impact of A27 schemes on the setting of Chichester and thepotential for direct impact upon archaeology. Following the Secretary of State'sdecision in July 2004, I am pleased to record that the Project Advisory Panel hasworked towards solutions that address some of these concerns. In particular,English Heritage welcomes the revised proposals at the Stockbridge roundaboutwhere grade separation would be achieved by taking the A259 over the A27, ratherthan the other way around as previously envisaged. We look to lighting proposalsthat minimise environmental impact while meeting safety requirements at this andother locations related to the schemes. We also welcome the 'Proposed conversionof the Stockbridge roundabout to traffc signal control with priority to public transport,rather than the SOCOMMS proposal.
Drawing 1 04C018/0009 illustrates altemative proposals for park and ride schemes inthe vicinity of the Fishbourne roundabout. Whilst accepting that park and ride canbring certain benefits, including reduced congestion within the City, there is thepotential for direct adverse impacts upon the local archaeology where undisturbedland is involved. We believe that the two sites off Terminus Road may be moresensitive from an archaeological point of view than either of those indicated outsidethe line of the bypass, although that is not to say they may not be without interestgiven the potential for significant archaeology around much of the City where theland has been left undisturbed.
Apart from a general concern in relation to development of undisturbed land in andaround the City, we consider the options to the south of the A27 have otherdrawbacks in that they would serve to extend the developed area further outside the
line of the bypass and increase the likelihood of a Stockbridge Link Road. We haveconcerns for such a scheme in advance of the outcome of studies to identify thestrategic development location(s) to serve the City as indicatea in the adoptedStructure Plan. We consider additional proposals at the Stockbridge junction shouldbe pursued in the interim in addressing the capacity issue, and that where evaluationindicates the likelihood of significant archaeology affected by park and rideproposals, then mitigation should be based upon designing out, rather thanexcavation.
(:.
We accept the proposals at the Whyke Road and Bognor Road junctions. Proposalsfor a park and ride at site ~D' may provide a better altemative than those atFishboume in that it would utilise previously disturbed land, although the fuel depotmay be of local historical interest justifying prior recording at least. Park and Rideproposal 'E' would appear to raise the least environmental concems. We have noobservations to make on proposals at Oving Road or the Porteld roundabout.
Insuffcient information is provided for proper assessment of northern bypassoptions, although damage to nationally important remains or their settings would notbe acceptable.
I hope that this is of assistance and thank you for consulting English Heritage.
Yours sincerely
Steve Williar:sRegional Planner
Appendix B A3 Exhibition Panels
Appendix C
Chichester Area and A27 Transport Proposals Leaflet
The Way Forward CHICHESTER AREA AND A27 TRANSPORT PROPOSALS
These proposals have been developed as a partnership between the Highways Agency and West Sussex County Council. We would like to know your views on these proposals. Please reply using the attached pre-paid response form, which should be returned by 28th February 2005 to the address given.
November 2004 (HA158/04) The Highways Agency is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport
You are invited to the Public Consultation Exhibition, which will explain the proposals in more detail. We will be available to answer your questions. This leaflet and response form will also be available at the Exhibition and at local public libraries, help points, major garages and most post offices. The Exhibition will be held at: The Assembly Rooms, North Street, Chichester on the following days:
Monday 29 November 5.30pm - 8.00pm Tuesday 30 November 10.00am - 8.00pm Wednesday 1 December 10.00am - 8.00pm Thursday 2 December 10.00am - 8.00pm Friday 3 December 10.00am - 8 00pm Saturday 4 December 10.00am - 4.00pm
Disabled access will be available on; •
•
Wednesday 1 December from 10.00am – 6.00pm. Friday 3 & Saturday 4 December between the times shown above.
The response forms, additional comments and views of interested parties will be analysed by Bullen Consultants Limited who are assisting in developing the strategy.
Following this, a report will be submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport and West Sussex County Council. A decision will then be made on the way forward and an announcement will follow. If you wish to receive a copy of this announcement, please provide your name and address on the response form, or you can e-mail us at [email protected]
We have also set up dedicated pages on the following websites; • Highways Agency (HA); www.highways.gov.uk/chichesterand a27proposals• West Sussex County Council (WSCC); www.westsussex.gov.uk Please send your completed response form by 28th February 2005 to; Major Projects Division, Room 2C, Highways Agency, Federated House, London Road, Dorking, Surrey, RH4 1SZ.
Contact Details If you would like additional copies of this newsletter or further information, please contact; HA Information Line – 08457 504030 Or email; [email protected]
Current Situation
Chichester is the focal point in the County for commerce, shopping and tourism. Many people commute into the City from Bognor Regis, the Manhood Peninsula and surrounding areas. This local commuter traffic competes with the through traffic using the A27 trunk road. The A27 is the only major east/west road along the South Coast linking areas such as Brighton, Worthing, Portsmouth, Southampton and beyond. Although the east/west through traffic is a relatively small proportion of the traffic using the A27 in this area, congestion regularly occurs. This is particularly disruptive when junctions on the A27 are congested, as it affects the flow of public transport into the City.
Traffic congestion at Bognor Roundabout The Secretary of State for Transport commissioned the South Coast Multi Modal Study which reported in 2003. However, in view of concerns over the impact of the proposals for the A27 on the environment, he instructed the Highways Agency to work with
the County Council, Local Authorities and environmental bodies to develop options that are environmentally acceptable and address regional and local issues, including public transport solutions. To take this forward, the main aims were identified and a joint local and regional strategy was developed.
Aims • Reduce congestion • Improve road safety • Respect the environment • Improve journey time reliability • Widen travel choice
How we will achieve these Local initiatives will support public transport, widen travel choice and encourage transport integration. A package of measures will be implemented to improve accessibility and enhance the local economy. The range of proposals considered is as follows: • Bus priority at some junctions • Limiting movements at some junctions • Park and Ride facilities • Revised car parking charges in the City
centre • Increased use of rail network • Highway improvements These proposals are explained further on the next page.
This leaflet outlines a package of proposals for transport improvement in the Chichester area and seeks your views.
If you would like a copy of this publication in another format (Audio, Braille, Large print, another language) please contact the Communications Officer, Environment and Development, West Sussex County Council, The Grange, Tower Street, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1RH, Telephone 01243 777544 or email [email protected]
Information you send us may be passed to colleagues within the Agency or the County Council, their agents and/or published in response to this consultation. We will assume that you are content for us to do this unless you expressly state otherwise in your response. If replying by email, disclaimers generated by the organisations’ IT systems will be disregarded in this respect. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
This document/leaflet has been prepared in accordance with the principles of the Cabinet Office Code of Practice on consultation. A copy of the criteria is available on request from the Cabinet Office or from their website at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/regulation/consultation/code.asp
The Proposals
Managing car access to the City underpins the proposals. Our proposals complement the strategy by improving public transport links including the provision of Park and Ride facilities near the A27. In order to improve traffic flow along the A27, the proposals concentrate primarily on the six junctions along the Chichester Bypass, which cross with routes into the City. There are currently five roundabouts and one traffic signal controlled junction along this section of the A27. Congestion regularly occurs at these locations and will worsen unless traffic is managed more effectively. The proposals provide improvements to local public transport and reduce congestion for traffic using the A27. There will be improved access at three of the A27 junctions, with restricted access except for public transport, at the remaining three junctions. These are shown on the plan above and are summarised as follows:
• Build two - level junctions with all traffic movements
permitted at:
- Fishbourne roundabout with A27 under (junction with A259 west)
- Bognor Road roundabout with A27 over (junction with A259 east);
• Minor improvements to increase capacity with all traffic
movements permitted at: - Portfield roundabout (junction with A27 east);
• Allow public transport to access the City across the A27 and
provide simple left in/left out access only for other vehicles at: - Stockbridge Road Junction (A286) - Whyke Road Junction (B2145) - Oving Road Junction (B2144)
• Provide possible park and ride sites at Fishbourne/
Stockbridge junctions (A, B and C), Bognor junction (D) and Portfield junction (E and F) along with revised parking charges in the City centre.
• At the junctions where traffic movements are restricted, traffic
signals will give priority to public transport.
• Segregated pedestrian and cycle crossings will be provided
across the A27 to enable safe and easy alternative access to the City.
• There will be a 50mph speed limit on the Bypass between
Fishbourne and Portfield junctions.
These proposals will be implemented in stages to minimise disruption and will be developed in conjunction with the local transport improvements. To cater for diverted traffic from Stockbridge and Whyke junctions two options are proposed as follows;
• Option 1 – Widen the A27 to three lanes in each direction
between Fishbourne and Stockbridge junctions.
• Option 2 – Provide a new single carriageway road, called the ‘Stockbridge Link Road’ linking the new two-level Fishbourne roundabout with the A286 south of Stockbridge.
The construction costs are approximately £40 million. This is subject to formal approval and statutory procedures and construction could commence in 2010.
Respecting and Protecting the Environment The area surrounding Chichester and the A27 is environmentally sensitive and includes the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (site of national and international conservation importance) to the south west and Sussex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty to the north. It also contains several watercourses and woodland areas of nature conservation importance. The proposals will take these into account and in particular the effect on the historic City of Chichester and the surrounding built up areas.
Implementing these proposals will improve aspects of the environment for residents, tourists, countryside users, recreation and road users. To minimise any possible adverse effects, for example, at the two-level junctions at Fishbourne and Bognor Junctions, careful planning will be necessary at the detailed design stage to avoid or reduce any impact. An important consideration will be to retain the views of Chichester Cathedral. Earth mounds, noise barriers, low noise surfacing and the planting of native trees and shrubs will be used to mitigate visual and noise effects. In addition, the length and height of structures, as well as lighting and signing will be carefully considered. Construction will be managed and drainage systems provided to avoid contaminating watercourses and valuable habitats for wildlife species will be safeguarded.
Appendix D
Response Form
Appendix E Question and answer sheet version.1
Question and Answer sheet.
Q1. What difference will these changes make?
A. The A27 Chichester bypass and many local roads are severely congested at peak periods. By 2025 this congestion will be intolerable and much of Chichester
and the local road network will be grid locked. There is a need to act now. The HA’s proposals aim to remove conflict and congestion at the bypass junctions and improve access to Chichester, the Bournes, the Manhood and the wider Bognor
Regis area, enabling other local transport improvements to be implemented.
Q2. What exactly is being proposed for this section of the A27?
A. The HA proposals affect five roundabouts and one traffic signal controlled junction. Split-level junctions are proposed for Fishbourne and Bognor
roundabouts. At Fishbourne it is proposed that the A27 should stay at its present level with the local road going over. At the Bognor roundabout, the local road stays at its present level with the A27 going over. Minor improvements to increase
capacity are proposed for the Portfield roundabout (junction with A27 east). Priority will be given to public transport at Stockbridge Road, Whyke Road and
Oving Road with other traffic restricted to left in/out access only. The proposals also include a new link road from the Fishbourne roundabout to the A286 and a speed restriction of 50mph between Fishbourne and Portfield.
Q3. Why don’t the proposals include a new Chichester bypass? A. Proposals for a northern bypass were examined and subsequently rejected
during the Public Inquiry into the A27 Havant to Chichester proposals in the 1990s. This option would be expensive and would impact significantly on the Sussex
Downs (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and candidate National Park). It would also be uneconomical due to the low levels of through traffic on the A27 at
Chichester (maximum 20%). For similar reasons, a new southern bypass could not be justified.
Q4. Why are three junctions to be downgraded?
A. None of the six junctions on the bypass cope with the current levels of traffic but improvements to the Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving junctions would make little or no impact on the traffic demands in future. Major improvements at these
junctions – routing the A27 either above or below the local roads – is not proposed, as they would have a severe adverse environmental impact. The proposals seek
instead to eliminate the traffic conflict by preventing right turns and crossover movements. These three junctions are more residential and two of them have level crossings
nearby and therefore do not provide such good access into Chichester.
Q5. Why are buses allowed to cross at these three junctions?
A. Currently buses have to queue with all other traffic to get into and out of Chichester and therefore do not provide an attractive alternative to travelling by car. By restricting all non-public transport vehicles to left-in left-out at these three
junctions the queues should be removed, or at least significantly reduced, resulting in more reliable bus services with priority access with little or no delay from
queuing.
Q6. In future, will I be forced to turn left at the A27 Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving junctions and travel longer distances?
A. An increase in journey length via these three junctions will be necessary if
you wish to take the same route. However, it may be quicker in future to use one of the split-level junctions at Stockbridge and Bognor Road or the improved roundabout at Portfield as they will provide better access to and from Chichester.
Q7. Will the proposals encourage greater use of minor junctions with the
A27 such as Vinetrow Road? A. This issue is being investigated in detail. One option would be to make road
improvements to the affected junctions, or alternatively to make access less attractive (although this would limit choice of access and increase demands on
other junctions.) Q8. Will the proposals result in an increase in traffic in Hunston and
North Mundham?
A. The proposals include a range of measures which together aim to offer travel choices at the same time addressing the problem of increased traffic throughout the region (currently increasing by about 3% per annum). If there is more traffic
around Hunston and North Mundham it is likely to flow better, with minimal delays and queues at the bypass junctions. Doing nothing would see significant queues in
this area, resulting in severe delays to journeys, noise and pollution. Q9. What transport proposals is West Sussex County Council (WSCC)
promoting to complement the HA scheme?
A. The bypass proposals complement the emerging transport strategy for the wider Chichester area. A number of initiatives, studies and proposals are being developed for improving sustainable transport in the Chichester area such as Park &
Ride (P&R), bus priority routes and improvements for cyclists, pedestrians and those with mobility difficulties. Together these are all part of the emerging
integrated transport strategy that will be in a new Area Transport Plan for Chichester.
Q10. How many P&R sites are proposed and where will they be located? A. Several possible P&R sites are being considered each accommodating about
500 cars. These are likely to be located beyond the A27.
Q11. How will these proposals help the congestion problems at the railway crossing gates at the train station & Whyke Road?
A. The proposals identify the main direct access points to the City at Fishbourne, Bognor Road and Portfield junctions with crossing of the
bypass at the other junctions restricted to buses only. This will have the effect of reducing traffic in Stockbridge Road and Whyke Road north of
the bypass. As a result, congestion at the railway crossing gates should also reduce.
Q12. Why a Stockbridge Link Road (SLR)?
A. Both the HA and WSCC are promoting the SLR as one of the options for the future transport strategy for Chichester. If built it will give a significant new access to the bypass from the Manhood and will be attractive to traffic from the Witterings
and Selsey. If Wophams Lane is also improved the SLR will likely attract more traffic from Selsey and thereby reduce traffic in Hunston and North Mundham. A
SLR will also significantly reduce traffic in Stockbridge Road south of the bypass thereby enabling local environmental improvements to be considered.
Q13. Is the SLR being built to enable future housing to be built in this area?
A No. This is an independent transport led strategy that has not been influenced by any specific sites that are or may have been promoted by prospective
developers. Chichester District Council (CDC), as the local planning authority, in partnership with WSCC is assessing these sites separately on merit.
However, given the links between land-use and transport planning, the new link road will be taken into consideration when identifying preferred sites.
Q 14. Will the proposals deter people from travelling into Chichester to
shop etc? A The scheme aims to improve traffic flow into and out of Chichester city
centre. The additional features of Park & Ride and bus priority should mean that Chichester is a more attractive option than alternative centres.
Appendix F
List of Organisations and support for the proposals
Appendix F: List of Organisations and support for the proposals
List of some of the organisations that responded to the consultation (A * marks those organisations that received a presentation of the proposals from
WSCC and the HA).
Organisation Support for the proposals Copy of letter available
Councils and government bodies Arun District Council Disagree with some aspects Yes Birdham Parish Council Disagree Yes Bognor Regis Town Council No definite view expressed Yes Bosham Parish Council* Agree - Chichester District Council* Agree with Option 2 Yes Donnington Parish Council* Agree with option 2 Yes Earnley Parish Council Disagree Yes East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council
Disagree Yes
Fishbourne Parish Council* Agree with Option 2 Yes Funtington Parish Council No definite view expressed Yes Hunston Parish Council Disagree Yes North Mundham Parish Council* Agrees with Option 2 with
limited concerns Yes
South East England Regional Assembly
Agree Yes
Tangmere Parish Council No definite view expressed Yes West Itchenor Parish Council No definite view expressed Yes West Wittering Parish Council* No definite view expressed -
Environmental groups Chichester Harbour Conservancy* Disagree Yes Countryside Agency Agree, but some concerns Yes Council for National Parks Need to see EIA first Yes Council for the Protection of Rural England
No definite view expressed Yes
English Heritage No definite view expressed Yes English Nature * Agree - Environment Agency Conditional agreement Yes Sussex Wildlife Trust* Agree, but some concerns Yes The National Trust Agree with Option 1 Yes
Business Groups Bognor Regis Regeneration Vision Group
Agree, but some concerns Yes
City Centre Business Forum Strongly agree Yes Industrial Estates Action Group* Agree, but some concerns - Manhood Peninsula Partnership* No definite view expressed Yes National Farmers Union Agree Yes
PEP (Planning for Economic Prosperity)*
Agree Yes
SEEDA* Agree - Tangmere consortium Agree Yes The Chichester Business Park Partnership
Agree Yes
West Sussex Economic Partnership* Agree - West Sussex Growers Association* Agree with Option 2 -
Local interest groups Chichester and Bognor Regis Cyclists Touring Club*
No definite view expressed Yes
Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee
Agree, with some concerns Yes
Chichester Primary Care Trust* No definite view expressed - Chichester Residents Association Disagree Yes Chichester Society* No definite view expressed - Itchenor Society No definite view expressed Yes Parklands Residents Association Disagree Yes Peninsula Community Forum* No definite view expressed - The Chichester Ship Canal Trust No definite view expressed Yes The Hornet and St Pancras Association
Agree with Option 2 Yes
Western Sussex NHS Primary Care Trust*
Agree with Option 2 Yes
Whyke Residents Association No definite view expressed Yes
Local Businesses Berkerley Community Villages No definite view expressed Yes Cathedral Medical Group Agree Yes Cowdry Farm (Birdham) Disagree Yes David Cover and Son Ltd Agree Yes Driving Standards Agency Agree Yes Golden Plain Marketing Ltd Agree Yes Goodwood Estate Company Ltd Agree Yes Hallam Land Managament Ltd No definite view expressed Yes Hi-Tech Steel Southern (Ltd) Agree Yes Hugh Brown (Donnington) Agree Yes Langmead Farms Ltd Agree Yes Mulberry Property Investment Management
Agree Yes
Natures Way Foods Disagree Yes Solent Wholesale Carpet Co Ltd Agree, but some concerns Yes Southern Water Services Agree Yes Stagecoach South Strongly supports Yes Steer, Davies, Gleave No definite view expressed Yes The Kitchen Sink Company Agree Yes Westgate Gardens Ltd Agree Yes Westerings Coaches Agree Yes West Wittering Estate PLC No definite view expressed Yes Wicks Farm Holiday Park Agree Yes
Other Sport England No definite view expressed Yes Sustrans Agree, but some issues Yes The British Horse Society No definite view expressed Yes
This list is not a comprehensive list of all the organisations that participated in the public consultation. Copies of the letters are available in this appendix. Letters are not always available for those organisations that expressed an opinion at a presentation.
Appendix G List of alternative suggestions in relation to the proposals
Appendix G : List of alternative suggestions in relation to the proposals and how those suggestions will be addressed Alternative suggestion How that suggestion will be
addressed Alternative junction and lane arrangement options:
Single carriageway flyovers taking the one lane of the A27 over local roads.
Assessed by BCL and deemed not feasible due to inadequate distance between junctions to allow for safe weaving length for traffic to merge or diverge.
Flyover taking Stockbridge road over the A27 and into the City.
Assessed by Bullen before Public Consultation. Deemed not feasible due to unacceptably high levels of visual intrusion. Grade separation at Stockbridge rejected by the SoS on environmental grounds.
Direct access to Chichester at Stockbridge, Whyke Rd and Oving Junctions and no access to the A27.
Could only be done by providing a flyover or underpass. These options have been assessed by Bullen and are not feasible due to inadequate weaving lengths and unacceptable environmental impacts.
Ban exit from the City onto Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts.
-
Totally close some of the junctions such as Oving and Whyke.
Proposed in SoCoMMS, not feasible due to a need to retain local access.
Two-way roundabouts. There is not enough space within the highway boundaries to accommodate two-way roundabouts. There would be insufficient capacity at Fishbourne and Bognor and there would be associated safety issues.
Widening of Stockbridge junction. Adjacent properties too close to the junction and there would be insufficient capacity to the design year.
Flow lanes for traffic at roundabout junctions, including:
• Link filter road from Selsey / Hunston to west on A27.
Flow / filter lanes are already proposed for a number of locations including:
• Flow lane for traffic turning left from A27 into Stockbridge Rd.
• Flow lane for traffic coming from west of Fishbourne roundabout, into Chichester.
• Filter lane to turn left at Bognor Rd roundabout.
• Filter lane at Whyke roundabout for traffic turning
left onto the A27 towards Stockbridge roundabout.
Install peak hour traffic signals on all junctions.
The issue of insufficient capacity at Fishbourne and Bognor Junctions would still remain. There are also safety issues.
Access to A27 should be at Fishbourne, Bognor and Portfield junctions only.
This would mean closure of Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving Junctions. This would impact upon proposed provision for public transport and would filter too much traffic to the remaining junctions.
Yellow box junctions on roundabouts to prevent blockage of through flow.
This could be a possible interim proposal.
Convert pedestrian underpass at Fishbourne into a traffic underpass.
This has been considered in the past but was rejected because it would pass extra traffic through a residential area that would then have to give way to traffic leaving the A27.
Alternative access onto the A27 from Shopwyke Road, on land to the south-east of the existing junction.
-
Reduce size of Portfield roundabout to reduce traffic speeds.
Possible interim proposal.
‘Green Wave’ of traffic lights. Synchronisation.
This will be looked at in the detailed design of the scheme.
Vinnetrow Road should link direct to the Bognor roundabout and not the A259.
Vinnetrow Road is being removed as a fifth arm on the Bognor roundabout because of the conflict it currently causes and associated safety issues.
Vinnetrow road should join on a slip road onto the A27.
Safety concerns would arise due to insufficient length for merges and diverges between the Bognor roundabout and a slip road from Vinnetrow road onto the A27.
Convert some sections of the A27 to three lanes.
Under option one of the scheme the section of the A27 between Fishbourne and Stockbridge is proposed to be three lanes in each direction. The other sections will operate with the current capacity of a D2AP.
Create express and service lanes – involving widening the carriageway to 4 lanes each way. Service lanes for local traffic.
There is insufficient land within the highway boundary to allow for 4 lanes in each direction and also the extra capacity is not needed.
Two additional lanes bypassing the Portfield roundabout.
There is insufficient land within the highway boundary and such a scheme would have a negative environmental impact.
Three lanes approaching the A27 junction from Hunston.
-
Alternative routes: Southern bypass. Options for a southern bypass have
been assessed by BCL. The option is deemed not feasible because it does not meet the Secretary of State’s terms of reference for an on-line improvement scheme. It would be too environmentally damaging and the cost would be too great.
New bypass from the A284 at Crossbush nr Arundel through Barnham, then south of the existing A27, to join the A27 at Fishbourne.
Does not fall within the scheme brief. Would be too expensive to deliver as one scheme. Environmentally too damaging.
A viaduct to carry a new stretch of route across the gravel pit lakes.
This would be environmentally unacceptable, and would take the improvements off-line which does not meet the Secretary of State’s terms of reference for an on-line improvement scheme. The proposal would also have noise and air pollution impacts on the Chichester Gravel Pits and Leythorne Meadow SNCI.
Bognor Bypass. This is being progressed through development opportunities.
Link road from Bognor to Selsey. The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
Coastal road to link Bognor, Selsey and the Witterings.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
Orchard Street as a ring road around the City.
Orchard road already acts as a aring road.
Link road from Barnfield drive to Wellington road and Broyle road.
The Graylingwell Link Road will provide this although it will be designed to provide access but not act as a north eastern bypass.
Proposed new route from Donnington to Whyke junction.
-
Remove road traffic from Oving lights and Portsfield by building the A27 directly from Bognor bridge roundabout to Tangmere.
This proposal would not meet the SOS’s terms of reference for an on-line improvement scheme; would be environmentally unacceptable; too expensive and would not maximise existing assets
Additional measures: A27: Remove lights on A27 west of Portfield roundabout.
Removal of traffic lights at Oving junction would impact upon proposed provision for public transport.
Install traffic lights on the raised roundabout proposed for Fishbourne roundabout.
This will be looked at in the detailed design stage. It may be necessary after the design year.
Add junction between Emsworth and Fishbourne.
This is outside the scheme brief area.
One-way flows across Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving junctions at peak times.
The conflict would still remain between the east/west and north/south traffic. There could also be safety issues caused by confusion.
Reduce approach speeds to roundabouts. A 50mph speed limit is being proposed as part of the scheme.
Closure of the junction of Church Road with the A27.
-
Widen all entry roads onto the A27. - Restrict heavy vehicle access onto and along the bypass during peak hours.
This is very difficult to enforce and would mean HGV’s on the local roads in the area, which would not be acceptable.
Longer turn left lane at the Whyke roundabout for traffic turning left from the Pagham direction.
As part of the scheme we are providing a left turn filter lane at Whyke Junction, which conforms, with our current designs standards.
Stockbridge Road: One way roads to stop rat running along Stockbridge Garden, St George’s Drive, Southfields, Belgrave and Grosvenor Road.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify a list of locations which suffer from rat running traffic. The A27 proposals should remove the need for any rat running traffic as there would be no queuing to avoid.
Change priority of traffic entering from the ‘B’ road at the Selsey Tram, or introduction of traffic lights on Stockbridge road / St Georges Drive junction to ensure fairness of traffic flow.
The A27 would change the volume on traffic on this junction and so a redesign of this junction may be needed as part of these works.
Alternate vehicle turning (‘Jersey’ system) at the Selsey Tram junction.
The A27 would change the volume on traffic on this junction and so a redesign of this junction may be needed as part of these works.
Open Stockbridge road back up to three lanes to reduce queuing.
Would not remove queuing as this would only be possible for a short section. A27 proposals would remove queuing, and encourage other forms of travel.
Closure of Stockbridge road to access only between Stockbridge roundabout and the Selsey Tram.
See A27 proposals
Move Stockbridge junction pedestrian lights further down to stop traffic jams.
The location of the crossing is chosen to reflect where pedestrians want to cross. Moving the crossing would not assist in reducing congestion.
Manhood Peninsula: Upgrade the Selsey Road, Bognor Road and Witterings to Class A. Possibly upgrade to two lanes in each direction.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
New road between Selsey and the A27. The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
Create roundabout on the Selsey road at Sidlesham to ease flow of traffic from Donnington area.
If the upgrading of Wophams Lane is progressed as part of the works then the junctions at either end will need to be redesigned.
Provide lights or roundabout at Sidlesham Common where B2201 joins the B2145.
If the upgrading of Wophams Lane is progressed as part of the works then the junctions at either end will need to be redesigned.
Changes to Wophams lane. Whophams Lane is proposed to be upgraded.
Upgrade Green Lane. - Get rid of the narrow road at Donnington.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
Changes to North Bersted to Chichester roundabout.
-
Widen B2145 to dual lanes from Hunston village to Stockbridge roundabout.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic congestion.
The private road to Drayton Food Park should be adopted, upgraded and extended to the Pagham Road.
Consideration is being given to the options for reducing traffic and improving safety along Marsh Lane. The provision of a Merston bypass would encourage traffic through Mundham and Hunston.
Widen B2145 from Hunston Convent to Whyke roundabout.
-
Prevent traffic from crossing from the B2145 to the A286 on country roads.
The upgrading of Wophams Lane as part of the proposals would provide an
improved access which would reduce the need for traffic to use alternative routes.
A259 to Bognor: Improvements on A259, including widening between Chichester and Bognor Regis.
This is still an approved scheme but is not programmed.
Improve Merston link to the A259. This would encourage more traffic to use this route which would be against local concerns and so will not be taken forward unless accident lead.
Stockbridge Link Road (SLR): Extend SLR across the A286, to connect up with the B2145 Whyke road at the roundabout where Selsey and Mundham roads meet.
This would be environmentally unacceptable and would also be too expensive.
Make SLR three lanes The single carriageway design for the SLR has enough capacity and three lanes would impact more on the environment in terms of footprint and mitigation.
Move junction with A286 southwards towards Dell Quay corner as currently it is too close to Stockbridge.
This would move the SLR too close to the Chichester Harbour AONB and would impact more on the surrounding area.
Vinnetrow Road: Improvements to Vinnetrow Road. Improvements to Vinnetrow Road are
being proposed as part of this scheme. We are moving the access onto the A259 via a roundabout, which will reduce conflict and safety issues at Bognor Roundabout.
Make Vinnetrow Road one-way. The future of Vinnetrow road is being considered as part of the A27 proposals.
Ban lorries from Vinnetrow Road. The future of Vinnetrow road is being considered as part of the A27 proposals.
City Centre: Restrict traffic in City Centre This is supported by measures
identified within the Chichester ATP. Cut out all HGV’s through City centre. A freight quality partnership which
would reduce the impact of HGVs is being considered for the City Centre.
Remove buses from the City centre. This would be against current policy as it would make access to the City Centre for those without a car extremely difficult.
Mini-roundabouts at Chichester Gate. -
Dual carriageway along Avenue de Chatres necessary to carry increased traffic.
The future of Ave De Chartres will have to be considered as part of the A27 proposals.
Direct access to Stockbridge Road from City Gate to lessen traffic at the Terminus Road traffic lights.
Any direct link would also need traffic signals, and this would not alleviate the existing problems that are generally caused by the A27 and Level Crossing.
Slip-road access out of terminus road for traffic turning left onto the A27.
-
Make Chichester centre one-way orbit. Making the inner ring road one way would not alleviate any existing congestion problems, and would increase the distance travelled by people moving around the City.
Add extra lane each way on Cathedral Way, over the railway to accommodate extra traffic.
-
Improvements to the entry and exits for bus services at Basin Road.
This is being considered.
Better co-ordination of traffic light timings.
Co-ordination of traffic signals would be improved through new software that is being brought into the County.
Put Chichester railway station underground to ease congestion.
There is very little funding available in the rail industry for such a scheme, although the County Council will continue to press the rail companies to minimise the level crossing down time.
Other: Improvements to road markings. Clear indication of lanes.
• Particularly at Bognor roundabout.
• Mark left hand land ‘Portsmouth Only’ at Stockbridge Road.
Possible interim improvements.
Remove spiral markings from Fishbourne/Portfield Roundabout.
Possible interim improvements.
Better signage to Bognor suburbs, to reduce traffic flow through Bognor.
-
Low Noise Surfacing. Parts of the A27 between Havant and Fishbourne are currently being resurfaced with low noise surfacing Low noise surfacing between Fishbourne and Portfield will be decided at detailed design stage.
Quieter road surfacing west of Fishbourne junction.
As above.
Ban on parking cars both sides of busy roads.
The Chichester ATP states the need to identify any future road schemes that may be needed to alleviate traffic
congestion. Competing demands often mean that parking on road is essential.
Speed restrictions; speed humps; more speed cameras and traffic police. Variable speed limits. Peak hour speed limits.
A 50mph speed limit on the A27 is being proposed as part of our scheme. The Chichester ATP supports the continuing development of measures to reduce the speed of traffic on certain roads.
Safety humps on Brandyhole Lane. Alternatives to speed humps are generally considered due to the quick response times needed by emergency services.
Sort out Drayton level crossing. There is very little funding available in the rail industry for such a scheme, although the County Council will continue to press the rail companies to minimise the level crossing down time.
Only apply ‘left turn only’ policy at peak times.
BCL has assessed the possibility of off-peak right turns at the proposed restricted junctions. There are serious safety implications, with a high potential for confusion and conflict in an area of relatively high speeds.
Roundabout needed at junction of Norwich Road and St Paul’s Road.
A proposal already exists but this is not a high priority and so will come forward as and when funds become available.
Arundel Bypass. This is outside the scheme brief. Complementary measures: Cycling: More cycle routes. The Chichester ATP supports this. As
part of our proposals we are providing walkway/cycleway bridges over or under the A27 at all six junctions, which will provide a vital link between walk/cycle routes north and south of the A27.
Better links between cycle crossings and bridleways.
As above.
Improvements to existing cycle lanes, including lighting and maintenance.
The Chichester ATP supports this.
Safe cycle storage in City. The Chichester ATP supports this. Schemes to encourage cycling. The Chichester ATP supports this. ‘Park and Cycle’ schemes. Park & Cycle could be integrated at
our Park & Ride sites. To be considered at detailed design stage.
Widen existing cycling routes to make them safer.
The Chichester ATP supports to continual improvement of existing
routes where needed. Cycle lane along A27 bypass. To be discussed further and decided at
detailed design stage. New cycle path from West Wittering, to Chichester via Itchenor Road, Westlands Farm, Birdham and Appledram.
The Chichester ATP supports the principle of the cycle routes identified within the Manhood Cycle Network Report although further work needs to be carried out before these can be implemented.
Dedicated cycle lane from Selsey to Chichester.
The Chichester ATP supports the principle of the cycle routes identified within the Manhood Cycle Network Report although further work needs to be carried out before these can be implemented.
Divert cycleway extension away from the A27 and along Tangmere Road to emerge at Oving Road junction.
The identified cycle route between Chichester and Tangmere is along Westhampnett Road as Shopwhyke Road is too narrow to provide any dedicated facilities.
Use hatched areas (width restrictions) on the Pagham Road as an ‘in-road’ Cycle Lane.
This would be unsafe.
Pedestrians: More footpaths, and pedestrian crossings / overbridges for both pedestrians and cyclists.
The County Council policy is to provide more crossings at the same level as the road as people are afraid of their personal safety when using bridges and subways. The Chichester ATP supports the further development of the walking and cycling networks. These are being provided as part of our complimentary measures for the scheme.
Covered stops for pedestrians. Will be looked at during the detailed design stage.
Pedestrianisation of parts of the City centre.
The redesign of the pedestrianised area within the City Centre is being considered.
Path for walking and cycling between Whyke Roundabout and Bognor Roundabout.
Will be looked at during the detailed design stage.
Public Transport: Better public transport. (bus and rail) The Chichester ATP supports this. More reliable public transport services. The Chichester ATP supports this. Better information on public transport services.
The Chichester ATP supports the further development of real time passenger information.
Free public transport for over 60’s mid-week.
The Chichester ATP supports the need to have a fare structure for public transport that encourages its use by everyone.
Greater integration of bus and rail services.
The Chichester ATP supports this through the ongoing development of the Chichester Bus and Rail Interchange.
‘Free’ park and ride. The Chichester ATP supports the principle of Park and Ride although the details, including fares, have to be carefully examined.
Park and Ride further out of the City at Sidlesham or Birdham; or further out at Witterings, Selsey and Bosham.
The Chichester ATP supports the continuing development of high quality public transport services. This would provide the same level of access.
Park and Ride to the north of the City. The Chichester ATP supports the principle of Park and Ride although the locations of any sites have to be considered further.
Park and Ride at Bognor. The Chichester ATP supports the principle of Park and Ride although the locations of any sites have to be considered further.
Bus lanes. ie: along the A259 from Merston roundabout into Chichester.
The Chichester ATP supports the principle of providing bus priority measures, a number of which will be considered alongside the A27 proposals.
More frequent buses between Bognor and Chichester.
The Chichester ATP supports increasing the frequency of bus services throughout the District.
Frequent service of small buses. The Chichester ATP supports increasing the frequency of bus services throughout the District.
More bus stops The Chichester ATP supports improving such facilities.
Reduced bus fares. The Chichester ATP supports the need to have a fare structure for public transport that encourages its use by everyone.
Better quality of bus. The Chichester ATP supports improving such facilities.
Extension of services to earlier in the morning and later at night.
The Chichester ATP supports this.
Conductors on buses to help the elderly and mothers with prams.
This will be passed onto the bus companies for consideration.
Improvements to Chichester bus station. The Chichester ATP supports this through the Chichester Bus and Rail
Interchange improvements. Subsidised bus fares for people working in the City.
The Chichester ATP supports the need to have a fare structure for public transport that encourages its use by everyone.
Make public transport more accessible for the disabled through raised kerb access etc.
The Chichester ATP supports improving such facilities, as well as encouraging bus companies to provide more accessible vehicles.
More community transport. The Chichester ATP supports extending the services on offer throughout the District
Reinstate trams particularly the Selsey tram.
The Chichester ATP supports the continuing development of high quality public transport services, with better cleaner vehicles. Tram systems are not the only option for achieving this.
Tram line or train line between Bognor and Chichester.
The Chichester ATP supports increasing the attraction of public transport between the two locations. A rail chord at Barnham linking two existing lines would provide this. Although this is the responsibility of the rail industry the County Council will continue to press for this.
Increased frequency of rail services between Bosham and Chichester.
This is the responsibility of the rail companies although the Chichester ATP supports the overall aim to increase the frequency of public transport services.
Move the railway to the north of the City.
This would not be supported as this would reduce the attraction of rail as a form of transport into the City and would increase the volume of vehicles entering instead.
Mini mono-rails. This is not supported within the Chichester ATP, although all opportunities for improving public transport in future will be considered.
Rapid light rail transit system. This is not supported within the Chichester ATP, although all opportunities for improving public transport in future will be considered.
Cable cars connecting towns This is not supported within the Chichester ATP.
Schools and travel: School buses (mandatory or voluntary) Reducing the volume of traffic
associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
Free school bus fares. Reducing the volume of traffic associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
Staggered school start times. Reducing the volume of traffic associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
Park and Ride arrangements for school. Reducing the volume of traffic associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
Rota systems for escorting small groups of children to school.
Reducing the volume of traffic associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
Charge for parents taking children to school.
Reducing the volume of traffic associated with the school run is a key issue within the Chichester ATP, and many issues are being considered.
New school on peninsula to cut traffic in school terms.
This is something to be considered through the development of the new Chichester District Local Development Framework.
Work and travel: Encourage high car occupancy at peak times. Promote car sharing.
A car sharing directory exists. The use of high occupancy vehicle lanes will continue to be considered in future.
Stagger business working hours Flexi time systems are encouraged as part of Business Travel Plans.
Change shop hours, to stagger the amount of traffic leaving Chichester in one go.
Shop opening times are dependent on commercial activities.
Parking: Reduce long-term street parking within the City.
The only long term on street parking within the City Centre is for local residents with permits. The residents parking scheme may be expanded once DPE is introduced.
More short-term parking. There is sufficient car parking capacity within the City Centre at present for most of the year. The Chichester ATP supports the implementation of alternative measures to reduce the all day parking that takes place to free up spaces for short term parking.
Higher parking charges in the City. The Chichester ATP supports the concept of a parking strategy that discourages all day car parking in favour of walking, cycling, public
transport and Park and Ride. Increased car parking in the City. Increase capacity of multi-storey car parks.
This is against County and District Council policy to reduce the volume of traffic within the City and so is not supported.
More disabled parking spaces. The Chichester ATP supports this. Make all residential streets residential parking only.
The Chichester ATP states that the residents parking scheme may be expanded once DPE is introduced.
Limit households to one car per house. This can not be supported. Other: Road tolls / road pricing. This is not being considered at this
time, as alternative forms of travel have to be improved first.
Congestion charge at peak hours. This is not being considered at this time, as alternative forms of travel have to be improved first.
High occupancy priority lanes. The Chichester ATP supports measures to reduce the volume of traffic on the road, and this may be developed further.
Motorcycle lane. It is being considered whether motorcycles would be allowed to use bus lanes and High Occupancy vehicle lanes.
Provide safe, secure motorcycle parking. The Chichester ATP would support this.
Restrict house building in the area. Possibly stop all new development until road programme is completed.
The Structure Plan Local Development Framework supports the view that the green field developments should only progress if the A27 proposals go ahead.
Keep tractors off roads during peak hours.
-
Make local businesses give a financial contribution to compensate for damage done, and congestion caused, by their lorries etc. This money could be put back into improving cycle routes etc.
-
Air ambulance service for emergencies on the Manhood Peninsula.
This will be passed onto the Emergency Services.
Please note, this list aims to address all the alternative suggestions raised during the course of the Public Consultation exercise, but may not be totally comprehensive.
Appendix H Standard Highways Agency response to
correspondence
Our ref: HA 1/73/52
2C Federated House London Road Dorking RH4 1SZ Direct Line: 01306 878184 Fax: 01306 878366 4 April 2005
Dear CHICHESTER AREA AND A27 TRANSPORT PROPOSALS Thank you for your response to the recent Public Consultation Exhibition on the above proposals. The Highways Agency has received over 9,000 responses to the proposals and is therefore unable to answer everyone’s individual concerns. However, please find enclosed a Questions and Answers sheet that covers the main areas of concern highlighted during this consultation. We hope that any questions you have are answered in this Q&A, but if you are still unclear about the proposals please do not hesitate to contact me on the above number. Yours sincerely Richard Osborne MP South TPI Team 5 Email: [email protected]
Appendix I Question and answer sheet version.2
Appendix I – Frequently asked questions
Q1. What difference will these changes make?
A. At present, the A27 Chichester bypass and many local roads are severely congested at
peak periods. By 2025 this congestion will be intolerable and much of Chichester and the
local road network will be grid locked. There is a need to act now. The Highways
Agency’s (HA) proposals aim to remove conflict and congestion at the bypass junctions
and improve access to Chichester, the Bournes, the Manhood and the wider Bognor Regis
area, enabling other local transport improvements to be implemented.
Q2. What exactly is being proposed for this section of the A27?
A. The HA proposals affect five roundabouts and one traffic signal controlled junction.
Split-level junctions are proposed for Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts. At
Fishbourne it is proposed that the A27 should stay at its present level with the local road
going over. At the Bognor roundabout, the local road would stay at its present level with
the A27 going over. Minor improvements to increase capacity are proposed for the
Portfield roundabout (junction with A27 east). Priority would be given to public
transport at Stockbridge Road, Whyke Road and Oving Road with other traffic restricted
to left in/out access only. The proposals also include a new link road from the
Fishbourne roundabout to the A286 south of Stockbridge and the introduction of a speed
restriction of 50mph between Fishbourne and Portfield.
Q3. Why don’t the proposals include a new Chichester bypass to the north?
A. Proposals for a northern bypass were examined and subsequently rejected during the
Public Inquiry into the A27 Havant to Chichester proposals in the 1990s for two
reasons1. It was considered to be expensive and 2. It would impact significantly on the
Sussex Downs (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and designated National Park –
pending confirmation by the Secretary of State).
In his announcement of 9th
July 2003 about the South Coast Multi Modal Study
(SoCoMMS), the Secretary of State rejected on environmental grounds, proposals for
upgrading the A27 at Chichester, Arundel, Worthing, Selmeston and Wilmington in the
form they were presented. In his letter to the Regional assembly he said:
‘To take these schemes forward in the form proposed would not be consistent with our
policy presumption against new or expanded transport infrastructure that adversely affect
environmentally sensitive areas and sites, except where there is an overriding public
interest in the development proceeding’.
In the same letter he asked the Highways Agency ‘to work with the Local Authorities and
the Statutory Environmental Bodies to identify less damaging options (including
management measures), which reduce the need for major road construction,’ and report
back to him.
The Secretary of State’s terms of reference to the HA are clear in that any proposed
improvements to the A27 should not be environmentally damaging and should not
require major road construction. If a northern bypass was adopted such a route would
have a major effect on the landscape. It would cut through a large network of minor roads
and footpaths that link Chichester and the Downs and have a substantial effect on
property and other interests. If a northern bypass was built it is estimated to cost upward
of £130m and improvements would still be necessary to the Fishbourne, Stockbridge,
Whyke and Bognor junctions on the existing A27 as they could not cope with traffic
demand up till the design year of 2025. For similar reasons, a new southern bypass could
not be justified.
Q4. Why are three junctions to be downgraded? Why not two-levels at all junctions?
A. None of the six junctions on the bypass cope with the present levels of traffic but
improvements to the Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving junctions would make little or no
impact on their capacity to accommodate traffic demands in future. These junctions are
more residential and two of them have level crossings nearby and therefore do not
provide such good access into Chichester. Also, major improvements at these junctions –
routing the A27 either above or below the local roads would have a severe adverse
impact on the environment and would affect properties in the area. Drainage problems
would be likely too if underpasses were built and the spacing requirements between
junctions to allow safe weaving distances would not be satisfactory. The proposals seek
instead to eliminate the traffic conflict by preventing right turns and crossover
movements.
Q5. Why are buses allowed to cross at these three junctions?
A. Currently buses have to queue with all other traffic to get into and out of Chichester and
therefore do not provide an attractive alternative to travelling by car. By restricting all
non-public transport vehicles to left-in left-out at these three junctions the queues should
be removed, or at least significantly reduced, resulting in more reliable bus services with
priority access with little or no delay from queuing.
Q6. In future, will I be forced to turn left at the A27 Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving
junctions and travel longer distances?
A. An increase in journey length via these three junctions will be necessary if you wish to
take the same route. However, it may be quicker in future to use one of the split-level
junctions at Fishbourne and Bognor Road or the improved roundabout at Portfield as they
will provide better access to and from Chichester.
Q7. Will the proposals encourage greater use of minor junctions with the A27 such as
Vinetrow Road, Wophams Lane, Green Lane and Apuldram Lane?
A. This issue is being investigated in detail. One option would be to make road
improvements to the affected junctions, or alternatively to make access less attractive
(although potentially this would limit choice of access and increase demands on other
junctions).
Q8. Will the proposals result in an increase in traffic in Hunston and North Mundham?
A. The proposals include a range of measures which together aim to offer travel choices at
the same time addressing the problem of increased traffic throughout the region
(currently increasing by about 3% per annum). If there is more traffic around Hunston
and North Mundham it is likely to flow better, with shorter delays and queues at the
bypass junctions. Doing nothing would see significant queues in this area, resulting in
severe delays to journeys, noise and pollution.
Q9. What transport proposals are West Sussex County Council (WSCC) promoting to
complement the HA scheme?
A. The bypass proposals complement the emerging transport strategy for the wider
Chichester area. A number of initiatives, studies and proposals are being developed for
improving sustainable transport in the Chichester area such as Park & Ride (P&R), bus
priority routes and improvements for cyclists, pedestrians and those with mobility
difficulties. Together these are all part of the emerging integrated transport strategy that
will be in a new Area Transport Plan for Chichester.
Q10. How many P&R sites are proposed and where will they be located?
A. Several possible P&R sites are being considered each accommodating about 500 cars.
These are likely to be located beyond the A27.
Q11. How will these proposals help the congestion problems at the railway crossing gates
at the Chichester Railway Station & Whyke Road?
A. The proposals identify the main direct access points to the City at Fishbourne, Bognor
Road and Portfield junctions with crossing of the bypass at the other junctions restricted
to buses only. This will have the effect of reducing traffic in Stockbridge Road and
Whyke Road north of the bypass. As a result, congestion at the railway crossing gates
should also reduce.
Q12. Why a Stockbridge Link Road (SLR)?
A. Both the HA and WSCC are promoting the SLR as one of the options for the future
transport strategy for Chichester. If built it will give a significant new access to the
bypass from the Manhood area and will be attractive to traffic from the Witterings and
Selsey. If Wophams Lane is also improved the SLR is likely to attract more traffic from
Selsey and thereby reduce traffic in Hunston and North Mundham. A SLR will also
significantly reduce traffic in Stockbridge Road south of the bypass thereby enabling
local environmental improvements to be considered.
Q13. Is the SLR being built to enable future housing to be built in this area?
A No. This is an independent transport led strategy that has not been influenced by any
specific sites that are or may have been promoted by prospective developers. Chichester
District Council (CDC), as the local planning authority, in partnership with WSCC is
assessing these sites separately on merit.
However, given the links between land-use and transport planning, the new link road will
be taken into consideration when identifying preferred sites.
Q 14 Will the proposals deter people from travelling into Chichester to shop etc?
A The scheme aims to significantly improve traffic flow into and out of Chichester city
centre. The additional features of Park & Ride and bus priority should mean that
Chichester is a more attractive option than alternative centres.
Q15 Why can’t the proposals be implemented now? Why do we have to wait until 2010.
A. The time scale for implementing the proposals is dictated by statutory procedures, the
availability of funding, and the views of the Regional Transport Board and others. If the
Government decides to progress the strategy, the next stage in the statutory process
would be the preparation and publication of draft Orders and an Environmental Statement
for the scheme. This may lead to a public inquiry.
In the meantime, the Highways Agency and West Sussex County Council intend to
progress other improvements to the transport network around Chichester. These could
include low cost measures such as better road markings and improved facilities for
pedestrians and cyclists.
Q16 Why can’t traffic control signals be installed at all existing junctions?
A. Previous studies investigating the option of traffic control signals at all junctions found
the benefits to be relatively limited in reducing queuing times.
Q17 Would emergency vehicles still be permitted to travel straight across at Stockbridge,
Whyke and Oving junctions?
A. Yes. All emergency vehicles would be fitted with transponders that would be recognised
by the traffic signals. This would allow them to travel straight across at these three
junctions.
Q18 Who are the intended users of the P&R Sites?
A. The P&R sites are primarily intended for the use of peak time commuters into the City,
however, it is also hoped that they will be of beneficial use to shoppers, tourists and to
provide alternative transport facilities for school runs.
Q19 Do the proposals take into consideration additional pressures on the road network
as a result of proposed future residential development in the area?
A. The proposals do take account of assumed growths in population in the area; however,
these predicted growths are generally not location specific. The only exception is the
predicted growth in residential development in Selsey, which has been taken into account
in predicting traffic growth at those junctions that feed into the A27 from this location.
Appendix J Manhood Peninsula Petition
