Developer must include cycle path and toucan crossing
Chichester District Council has refused to give permission for a developer to drop an agreement to build a cycle path and toucan crossing.
In 2018, as part of the development of the Graylingwell Hospital Site, in College Lane, a S106 legal agreement was drawn up between the council, West Sussex County Council and Linden/downland/graylingwell LLP.
This required the installation of a toucan crossing on Oaklands Way, providing a link from Northgate Car Park to Franklin Place and North Street. And a cycle route was to be built from the junction of St James Road and Westhampnett Road to the existing footpath east of Swanfield Park.
The latter would include the widening of the existing footway along Westhampnett Road, upgrading a road crossing, and realigning the bridge over the River Lavant.
But, in an application to remove those requirements, the LLP felt they were ‘unnecessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms’. They aired the view that there were suitable alternatives using the area’s existing cycle network and that there was a lack of demand for cycling.
The LLP also felt that neither the crossing nor the cycle path would be directly related to the development, given their distance from the site. And they stated the work would not be ‘fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the impacts arising from the development’.
The council received a number of objections to the application.
One from Chichester City Council said the work was ‘important for active travel provision and for the safety and amenity of the residents of the Graylingwell Park development’.
And the county council, as highways authority, said ‘nothing fundamental’ had changed since the original proposals were considered. They added that to remove the schemes at Oaklands Way and Westhampnett Road would run contrary to both National and Local Planning Policy. Signing off on the decision to refuse the application, the case officer said: “The Local Planning Authority has determined that the planning obligation shall continue to have effect without modification as the evidence provided with the application does not demonstrate that the obligations no longer serve a useful purpose or would serve that purpose equally well if it had effect subject to modifications.”