Development link to traffic

Meryn Woodland took this photo on Marine Beach in Selsey. Want to share your own snaps? Email them to news@ chiobserver.co.uk

Much has been written about the A27 Arundel bypass. I have seen no reference this year to the Chichester A27 challenge.

I understand that there may be some high-level Highways England nonprocess. But the community silence is deafening as the traffic builds and roundabouts from some directions are becoming unnavigable. Let’s not talk about delay to journeys.

There is a link here to residential building. Whilst

there is clear concern about building on flood plains, destruction of countryside and demand on schooling, I would suggest the majority of public concern is over impacts on traffic and congestion.

If the road system were capable of carrying the additional residential traffic, plus rising through traffic, I bet there would be much less opposition to housing schemes.

Finally, having caught up with the recent accident at the Comet junction and the unacceptable answer that nothing will be done until 2023, can I suggest a simple interim fix?

Slow the traffic down either side of the junction(s) on the A259 to 30 mph with strict

guidance. Then the gaps in traffic will provide more thinking time, more leeway and reduce potential impact damage. Cost? Signage on the A259. Time? Six months.

Have they considered what the consequences would be for communities, the countryside, and the natural environment, if these draconian reforms were to be implemented?

Do they understand the workings of the Government’s proposed new method for calculating housing targets, which if adopted would result in huge and unprecedented housing targets across Sussex?

Mr Andrew Griffith MP (Arundel & South Downs) has examined the new method and found it to be fundamentally flawed – ‘a mutant algorithm cooked up in the wet market of Whitehall” (House of Commons adjournment debate: Housing

Developments: West Sussex, September 7), but has he examined the other proposals with equal care?

Are MPS including Mr Griffith, and Councillors aware that the Government’s proposals, if adopted, would reduce, not increase, the delivery of ‘affordable’ homes?

Are they aware that outside of ‘protected areas’ the proposals will undermine local democracy and marginalise councils?

That areas identified for ‘substantial development’ would be designated ‘growth areas’ with automatic approval for development, and placed under the control of ‘development corporations’ – governmentappointed quangos that would not be accountable to communities?

Have they considered that development without site specific surveys would have catastrophic consequences for flora, fauna, and biodiversity?

Would they agree that the proposals are fundamentally flawed because they neither acknowledge nor address the reality that developers and housebuilders will not build more houses than can be sold at an acceptableto-them profit, and in the event of diminishing sales will reduce build-rates regardless of targets set by the Government?

Are they not concerned that rather than challenge and call to account developers/builders when they reduce build-rates, the Government is blaming and seeking instead to punish councils and communities, on the totally false premise that they, not developers are responsible for shortfalls against targets– by disempowering them? Which is what the proposals will do, if adopted.

DR R. F. SMITH