Regional Investment Programme

Transcription

1 Regional Investment Programme A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements Report on Public Consultation April 2018 Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, GU1 4LZ Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number

2 A27 WORTHING AND LANCING IMPROVEMENTS REPORT ON PUBLIC CONSULTATION Highways England Project no: HE PIN Worthing and Lancing Prepared for Highways England Bridge House Walnut Tree Close Guildford Surrey GU1 4LZ ii

3 Table of contents 1 Executive summary Context... 1 Scheme background and objectives... 1 Report purpose... 2 Options considered... 3 Consultation arrangements... 3 Effectiveness of the public consultation... 4 Questionnaire response analysis... 4 Key stakeholder and other responses... 5 Conclusion and next steps Introduction Background... 7 Need for improvement... 8 Scheme objectives... 9 Proposed scheme Consultation approach Introduction Collaboration and engagement with key stakeholders Approach Materials Letters and s Brochure and questionnaire Background information Communication methods Public exhibition events Deposit points Highways England project website iii

4 3.6 Publicity and advertising Posters Newspapers Highways England contact details Response and analysis methodology Consultation effectiveness Introduction Questionnaire responses Letters and s Exhibition attendance record Highways England website visitors Effectiveness of communication methods Consultation awareness Type of respondent Travel behaviour and existing issues with the A Introduction Travel behaviour Frequency of use Mode choice Existing concerns and issues Biggest issue Local issues Views on the proposed A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme Introduction Need for improvements to the A27 at Worthing and Lancing Views on the proposed scheme Meeting the scheme objectives Comments on proposed junction improvements Support for the proposed scheme (Option 1) Alternative improvements iv

5 Other comments Provision for walkers, cyclists and horse riders Consultation process Stakeholder responses Introduction Stakeholder response by type Local authorities Political / elected members Parish councils Environmental groups Local businesses and business organisations Business organisations Businesses Education centre Emergency services Transport / user groups Residents group / associations Community group Summary Other responses Introduction Response analysis Exhibition comments Introduction Public exhibitions Material and event usefulness Topics / issues raised at exhibitions v

6 10 Press and social media Introduction Press coverage Social media Summary of results Introduction Effectiveness of the public consultation Travel behaviour and existing issues with the A Views on the proposed A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme Stakeholder and written response analysis Lessons learnt Emerging themes Next steps vi

7 T a b l e s Table 2.1: Summary of Option 1 improvements... 9 Table 2.2: Options not taken to public consultation Table 3.1: Communication materials and channels Table 3.2: Public exhibition events Table 3.3: Invite-only exhibition events Table 3.4: Deposit point locations Table 3.5: Advertising campaign - newspapers Table 4.1: Consultation responses & enquiries Table 4.2: Event attendance Table 4.3: Website visitor figures Table 5.1: What would you say is the single biggest problem currently affecting the A27 at Worthing and Lancing? Table 5.2: What specific local issues do you feel we should be aware of, in developing our proposals for the A27 at Worthing and Lancing? Table 6.1: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill Junction? Table 6.2: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Offington Corner Junction roundabout A24 Findon Road / Offington Lane (Durrington Cemetery)? Table 6.3: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Grove Lodge Junction? Table 6.4: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Lyons Farm Retail Part 1 Junction (Sompting Road) and Lyons Farm Retail Part 2 Junction (Lyons Ways)? Table 6.5: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane junction? Table 6.6: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Grinstead Lane / Halewick Lane Junction? Table 6.7: Do you have any comments on the proposals for all the junctions (1 to 6)? Table 6.8: Please provide details to illustrate your response to Question Table 6.9: Having read the brochure and taking into account the constraints and past studies conclusions, please share your views on any alternative improvements we should consider that would meet the scheme objectives Table 6.10: Do you have any other comments on the proposed junction improvements scheme? Table 6.11: How do you think we can improve the provision for people walking, cycling and horse riding as part of the proposed junction improvements scheme? Table 6.12: Do you have any comments about the consultation process? Table 7.1: Stakeholder by type, and percentage support / neutral / opposed to Option 1 43 Table 7.2: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councils Table 7.3: Summary of response from Arun District Council Table 7.4: Summary of response form Horsham District Council Table 7.5: Summary of response from Littlehampton Town Council Table 7.6: Summary of response from West Sussex County Council Table 7.7: Summary of response from West Sussex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority Table 7.8: Summary of response from Adur District Councillor vii

8 Table 7.9: Summary of response from Adur Green Party Table 7.10: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councillor (1) Table 7.11: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councillor (2) Table 7.12: Summary of response from MEP for the South East of England Table 7.13: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Councillor Table 7.14: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Councillor & Adur Councillor Table 7.15: Summary of response from West Sussex County Councillor (Cissbury Division) Table 7.16: Summary of response from West Sussex County Councillor (Storrington Division) Table 7.17: Summary of response from Worthing Borough Councillor Table 7.18: Summary of response from Worthing Green Party Table 7.19: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Council Table 7.20: Summary of response from Storrington & Sullington Parish Council Table 7.21: Summary of response from Washington Parish Council Table 7.22: Summary of response from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Sussex Table 7.23: Summary of response from Environment Agency Table 7.24: Summary of response from Historic England Table 7.25: Summary of response from Sussex Wildlife Trust Table 7.26: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Business Partnership Table 7.27: Summary of response from Coastal West Sussex Partnership Table 7.28: Summary of response from Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Table 7.29: Summary of response from Hargreaves Group of Companies Table 7.30: Summary of response from Lancing Business Park Table 7.31: Summary of response from Sussex Chamber of Commerce Table 7.32: Summary of response from Worthing Town Centre Initiative & Business Improvement District Table 7.33: Summary of response from Worthing & Adur Chamber of Commerce Table 7.34: Summary of response from Broadwater Medical Centre Table 7.35: Summary of response from Grove Lodge Veterinary Group Table 7.36: Summary of response from Inside Broadwater Table 7.37: Summary of response from New Monks Farm Development Table 7.38: Summary of response from Permisson Homes Plc Table 7.39: Summary of response from Ricardo Plc Table 7.40: Summary of response from Shoreham Port Authority Table 7.41: Summary of response from Sompting Estate Table 7.42: Summary of response from Lancing College Table 7.43: Summary of response from Sussex Police Table 7.44: Summary of response from the British Horse Society Table 7.45: Summary of response from Campaign for Better Transport Table 7.46: Summary of response from ChiCycle / 20's Plenty for Chichester / Green Party Table 7.47: Summary of response from Compass Travel Table 7.48: Summary of response from Freight Transport Association (FTA) Table 7.49: Summary of response from Road Haulage Association (RHA) viii

9 Table 7.50: Summary of response from Sustrans Table 7.51: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Residents' Alliance (AWRA).. 65 Table 7.52: Summary of feedback from Charmandean Residents Table 7.53: Summary of response from Findon Valley Residents' Association Table 7.54: Summary of response from High Salvington Residents' Association Table 7.55: Summary of response from Lancing Manor Residents' Network Table 7.56: Summary of response from Lancing Manor SE Residents Network Table 7.57: Summary of response from North Durrington Residents' Group Table 7.58: Summary of response from North Lancing Community Association Table 7.59: Summary of response from South Broadwater Residents' Association Table 7.60: Summary of response from A27 Working Group for Worthing & Adur Table 7.61: Summary of response from Arundel SCATE Table 7.62: Summary of response from Chichester Moves On Table 7.63: Summary of response from Friends of Lancing Manor Park Table 7.64: Summary of response from Friends of Sompting Church Table 7.65: Summary of response from Lancing Manor Cricket Club Table 7.66: Summary of response from Rev. Fr. Daryl George East Worthing Parish Diocese of Arundel & Brighton Table 7.67: Summary of response from Shoreham Society Table 7.68: Summary of response from Sompting A27 Rural Group Table 7.69: Summary of response from South Downs Society Table 7.70: Worthing Bypass not Throughpass Residents Action Group Table 7.71: Stakeholder responses by group and percentage of total Table 7.72: Stakeholder by type, and percentage support / neutral / opposed to the need for a scheme Table 7.73: Stakeholder positive statements Table 7.74: Stakeholder negative statements Table 7.75: Stakeholder suggestions Table 8.1: Other responses - most frequently mentioned comments Table 9.1: If 'No', how could the material available be improved? Table 9.2: Issues raised at exhibitions Table 10.1: Press coverage throughout the consultation period ix

10 F i g u r e s Figure 2.1: Scope of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme... 7 Figure 3.1: Residents letter distribution area Figure 3.2: Photograph from exhibition Figure 3.3: Screenshot of A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements consultation page. 18 Figure 4.1: Spatial distribution of exhibition visitors Figure 4.2: How did you find out about the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements consultation? Figure 4.3: Please comment if you are commenting as: Figure 5.1: What type of journeys do you use the A27 at Worthing and Lancing for most often? Figure 5.2: How often do you currently use the A27 through Worthing and Lancing? Figure 5.3: How do you usually travel through this area? Figure 5.4: How concerned are you about the following issues on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing? Figure 6.1: Do you agree or disagree that there is a need to improve the A27 (Worthing to Lancing)? Figure 6.2: How much do you agree or disagree that Option 1 will meet the scheme objectives? Figure 6.3: Overall, to what extent do you support the proposed option (Option 1) for the A27 Worthing to Lancing improvements? Figure 9.1: Have you found the consultation materials useful in answering your questions? Figure 9.2: Have you or do you intend to visit one of our public exhibitions? Figure 9.3: If you have visited an exhibition, how useful did you find it in terms of addressing your questions? x

11 A p p e n d i c e s A p p e n d i x A A p p e n d i x B A p p e n d i x C A p p e n d i x D Consultation brochure Consultation banners Code frames and frequencies Stakeholder responses xi

12 1 Executive summary 1.1 Context In December 2014, the Department for Transport (DfT) published the Road Investment Strategy 1 (RIS1) for , which lists the schemes to be delivered by Highways England over this period. In response to the Road Investment Strategy announcement, Highways England developed its Delivery Plan (Highways England Delivery Plan ) which details how the key strategic outcomes sought from the Road Investment Strategy will be delivered. The A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements is one of over 80 Road Investment Strategy schemes being progressed nationally as part of the delivery of the Highways England Delivery Plan Highways England s Project Control Framework (PCF) sets out the methodology for delivering a major highways scheme. The process is split into 8 stages, of which, the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme is currently in Stage 2: Stage 0 (Strategy, Shaping and Prioritisation) problem definition, scheme requirements and strategic business case Stage 1 (Option Identification) option identification and sifting out of options that are likely to perform less well compared with others Stage 2 (Option Selection) detailed option assessment and selection of the Preferred Option, including detailed public consultation of the options Stage 3 (Preliminary Design) scheme development including design of the Preferred Option in sufficient detail to produce draft orders and preparation of the Environmental Assessment Stage 4 (Statutory Procedures and Powers) gaining authority to construct the scheme through the normal statutory processes as laid down in legislation Stage 5 (Construction Preparation) procurement of the construction contractor and detailed design of the scheme Stage 6 (Construction) construction of the scheme Stage 7 (Handover and Close-Out) project close-out Scheme background and objectives The A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme is identified within the Government s Road Investment Strategy, which states that England s strategic road network requires upgrading and improving to ensure that it can deliver the performance needed to support the nation in the 21 st century. The scheme has an allocated budget of between 50 and 100 million, and forms part of a wider package of investment along the A27 corridor to increase capacity and conditions. The scope of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, as described in the Road Investment Strategy is: Improvements to the capacity of the road and junctions along the stretch of single carriageway in Worthing and narrow lane dual carriageway in Lancing. The extent and scale of the improvements, including the option of full dualling, are to be agreed in consultation with West Sussex County Council and the public. 1

13 The extent of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme is approximately 6 miles (9.5 kilometres) long, from Forest Lane (west of Worthing) to Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction (east of Lancing). The route passes through the northern parts of Worthing and Lancing and is bordered in part by the South Downs National Park. The A27 is the only east-west trunk road south of the M25, linking key coastal communities between Portsmouth and Eastbourne with each other and the rest of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It serves a population of over 750,000 people and a large number of businesses in the major towns and cities along the route. The A27 is subsequently used by both local traffic and through-traffic. The series of junctions on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing cannot handle existing traffic flows during peak times which often results in long queues of traffic. Due to traffic congestion on the A27, some longer distance traffic diverts to use less suitable routes to the north and south, some of which are through the South Downs National Park. These local roads are not suited to large volumes of traffic so their safety is compromised. There are also an above average number of accidents on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing. From 1 June 2010 to 31 May 2015, there were 224 collisions on the A27 between Hollyacres in the west and Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction in the east. There is a significant amount of development planned in the Worthing and Lancing area in the future, and without improvement, the congestion and delay on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing will increase in the future. The high-level objectives for the scheme were developed while working with the local authorities, the South Downs National Park Authority, other environmental bodies and the emergency services over a 2 year period prior to the non-statutory public consultation: Reduce congestion on the Worthing and Lancing section of the A27 Manage the impact of planned growth and support the wider economy Minimise impacts on, and where possible seek opportunities for, enhancing the environment Provide safer roads and more reliable journeys by reducing travel delays Improve accessibility for all users Report purpose The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the responses and feedback gathered during the non-statutory public consultation for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvement scheme, which ran from Wednesday 19 July to Tuesday 12 September The report details how the public were informed, how the proposal was presented, the responses received from members of the public, statutory stakeholders and other bodies, and how the responses have been analysed and considered. The key consultation responses will be used to inform Highways England s advice on the Preferred Option as well as design requirements as the scheme approaches statutory consultation and Development Consent Order (DCO) application (if applicable). 2

14 Options considered Prior to the non-statutory public consultation, a number of options were considered for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, from junction improvements to dual carriageway schemes with flyovers / underpasses. All of the options were subject to various traffic and environmental surveys and assessments. For an option to be taken forward to public consultation, the following criteria were considered: How much the options would cost, keeping within the allocated budget The benefits the options would bring to congestion, safety and other scheme objectives Local constraints and opportunities One option was taken to public consultation. Option 1 was the only option that was found to meet the scheme objectives, offer value for money and fall within the allocated budget. Option 1 improves the 6 key junctions along the A27 route through Worthing and Lancing. The scheme would provide significant extra capacity and would reduce delays. The proposed new junction improvements would also feature protected pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities which would help to reduce the community division currently caused by the road (see Section for more details). Consultation arrangements In preparation for the non-statutory public consultation, Highways England implemented a targeted Public Consultation Strategy, which clearly set out the aims of the consultation, target audiences, key messages and identified stakeholders of interest. Prior to the start of the consultation period, during the week commencing Monday 10 July 2017, over 153,000 letters informing recipients about the forthcoming public consultation were mailed out to residents living within a pre-defined boundary area of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. The 8 week consultation ran from Wednesday 19 July to Tuesday 12 September In total there were 13 events; 8 for the public and 5 for stakeholder groups, at venues across Worthing and Lancing. This provided the opportunity for people affected by the proposed option, both locally and from further afield, to gain access to display material and printed information as well as the opportunity to speak directly to a range of technical staff involved in the option development. In addition, brochures, questionnaires, posters and summary notes were made available throughout the consultation period at local public and community venues, enabling the public to review materials and collect brochures and questionnaires to assist in responding to the consultation. Information about the consultation was published on the Highways England project web page: with a link to the dedicated consultation page. In addition to the consultation brochure, a number of background reports were made available on the project website and at the exhibitions. The reports available included: Economic Assessment Report Environmental Study Report 3

15 Traffic Forecasting Report Effectiveness of the public consultation There was a good response to the consultation with a total of 1,722 questionnaire responses received during the consultation period. Just over one-third (36%; 627) were hard copy responses, with the majority (64%; 1,095) completed online. Local residents accounted for 88% of respondents (1,470 people). A far smaller proportion (8%) described themselves as travelling through the local area (142 respondents), while 3% (45 respondents) responded as local employees, and a further 2% (39 respondents) responded on behalf of a local business. The majority of respondents (51%; 880 respondents) found out about the consultation via the letter drop. Other popular means of communication were by word of mouth (27%; 458 respondents) and the local press (25%; 431 respondents). The exhibition events were well attended with a total of 2,707 attendees recorded across all the exhibition events. Visitors to the events included MPs / Councillors, key stakeholders, businesses, landowners, members of the public and the media. Of the respondents, 38% (640) found the consultation materials useful with a further 52% (866 respondents) finding the materials useful to a certain extent. Over one-half of respondents (51%; 858) had already attended a consultation event at the time of submitting feedback, while a further 21% (359 respondents) were planning to do so. Of the respondents who had already attended a consultation event, 39% (511 respondents) found the exhibitions useful to a certain extent. Conversely, 16% of respondents (202) said that they did not find the exhibitions useful in terms of answering their questions signifying that the exhibitions were a useful source of information to interested parties. Questionnaire response analysis There was a substantial level of support for the need of a scheme to improve the A27 at Worthing and Lancing, with 86% of respondents in agreement (75%; 1,273 strongly agree, 11%; 180 agree ). Only 10% of respondents did not believe that there is a need to improve the A27 at Worthing and Lancing (4%; 62 disagree and 6%; 106 strongly disagree ). Respondents were asked if they supported the proposed Option 1 solution for the A27 at Worthing and Lancing. There was a low level of support for the proposed scheme with 76% of respondents opposing Option 1 (63%; 1,062 strongly disagree, 13%; 219 disagree ), with 15% of respondents stating that they support the proposed option (7%; 118 strongly agree, 8%; 135 agree ). Asked to what extent the proposed option would meet the scheme objectives: 72% (1,205) of respondents do not believe the proposed option will reduce congestion, while 17% (284) of respondents felt that the scheme would ease congestion 71% (1,184) do not believe that the scheme will provide safer roads and more reliable journey times by reducing delays, while 16% (267) agree 69% (1,147) disagree that the scheme will improve accessibility for all users, while 16% (266) agree 76% (1,265) disagree that the scheme will manage the impacts of planned growth and support the wider economy, while 12% (200) agree 67% (1,116) disagree that the proposed scheme will minimise impacts on, and seek opportunities for, enhancing the environment, while 13% (217) agree 4

16 Key stakeholder and other responses Prior to the consultation, 91 key stakeholders were identified using the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements stakeholder database. There were a total of 69 stakeholder responses received by , letter and by responding to the questionnaire. Stakeholder responses have been categorised into: Local Authority (6) Political / Elected Member (11) Parish Council (3) Environmental Group (4) Businesses (8) Business Organisations (8) Education Centre (1) Emergency Services (1) Transport / User Group (7) Residents Group / Association (9) Community Group (11) Responses from key stakeholders showed that over 80% of stakeholders agreed that there was a need for an improvement scheme. However, the proposed Option 1 received support from just 22% (15) of stakeholders, while 8% (6) of stakeholders expressed a neutral opinion, and 70% (48) of stakeholders objected to the proposed scheme. The biggest concern raised by stakeholders (57%; 39) was that the proposed scheme did not do enough to improve congestion and / or emissions. Almost one-half of all stakeholders (48%; 33) felt that the Option 1 was not future proof, and lacked the ability to support the future demand and proposed development. In addition, over one-third of stakeholders (35%; 24) stated that the Option 1 did not represent value for money or that the proposed budget was too low to meet the scheme objectives. Nearly one-third of stakeholders (29%; 20) raised concerns about lack of provision for non-motorised users. In addition to the above feedback from key stakeholders, an additional 49 responses to the consultation were received via letter or through the Highways England Customer Contact Centre. Conclusion and next steps Highways England recognises the importance of early engagement with members of the public in the local area, taking the opportunity to explore their views, suggestions and concerns at an early stage of scheme development through a non-statutory consultation. The non-statutory public consultation on the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme has provided the opportunity for local residents, businesses and stakeholders to put forward their views on the option presented. There has been a good response to the consultation, with over 1,700 questionnaires received. The analysis of the consultation responses has identified that: Over 80% of all respondents agreed that there was a need for a scheme to improve the A27 at Worthing and Lancing The proposed Option 1 was met with opposition. Only 22% of stakeholders and 15% of public respondents supported the scheme 5

17 Less than one-third of respondents felt that the proposed Option 1 would meet the scheme objectives The feedback from the consultation is being considered as part of the option development, and will influence the design of the Preferred Option as the scheme approaches statutory consultation and Development Consent Order (DCO) application (if applicable). 6

18 2 Introduction 2.1 Background The A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme is identified within the Government s Road Investment Strategy (RIS), which states that England s strategic road network requires upgrading and improving to ensure that it can deliver the performance needed to support the nation in the 21 st century. The scope of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, as described in the Road Investment Strategy is: Improvements to the capacity of the road and junctions along the stretch of single carriageway in Worthing and narrow lane dual carriageway in Lancing. The extent and scale of the improvements, including the option of full dualling, are to be agreed in consultation with West Sussex County Council and the public The extent of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme is approximately 6 miles (9.5 kilometres) long, from Forest Lane (west of Worthing) to Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction (east of Lancing), as shown in Figure 2.1. The route passes through the northern parts of Worthing and Lancing and is bordered in part by the South Downs National Park. The key junctions along the route are shown below. Figure 2.1: Scope of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme The A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme has an allocated budget of between 50 and 100 million. It forms part of a wider package of investments along the A27 corridor to increase the road s capacity and improve its condition. As a standalone project, the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme would improve traffic conditions and represent a value for money solution. 7

19 2.1.4 Other A27 schemes are as follows: A27 Chichester bypass: consulted upon from July to September 2016 the scheme is no longer proceeding due to the withdrawal of support from local councils for the options put forward in the public consultation A27 East of Lewes: consulted upon October to December The Preferred Route Announcement was published in late September 2017 A27 Arundel Bypass: consulted upon from August to October Need for improvement The A27 is the only east-west trunk road south of the M25, linking key coastal communities between Portsmouth and Eastbourne with each other and the rest of the Strategic Road Network (SRN). It serves a population of over 750,000 people and a large number of businesses in the major towns and cities along the route. West Sussex also attracts, on average, over 17 million visitor days per year worth approximately 508 million to the local economy 1. The A27 is used by both local traffic (69%) and through-traffic (31%) 2. The 2015 A27 Corridor Feasibility Study found that the A27 is already significantly over capacity during peak times at Worthing and Lancing, and due to population growth and increased economic activity in the region there will be even more traffic using the A27 in the future. The series of junctions on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing cannot handle the existing traffic flows during peak times which often results in long queues of traffic. On either side of Worthing and Lancing, the A27 is a dual carriageway so has better capacity to carry existing traffic and is more able to cope with future traffic growth. Due to congestion, some longer distance traffic diverts to use less suitable routes to the north and south, some of which are through the South Downs National Park. These local roads are not suited to large volumes of traffic. There is an above average number of accidents on the A27 3. From 1 June 2010 to 31 May 2015, there were 224 collisions on the A27 between Hollyacres in the west and Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction in the east. The car is an important means of transport in the area (63% of Worthing district residents in employment currently travel to work by car or van) 4. As there are no significant plans for bus or rail improvements in the area 5, there is no evidence to suggest that there will be any significant switch from road to other modes of transport which would meet the overall future demand for travel. 1 The GB Day Visitor Statistics 2015, Visit Britain 2 Based on the A27 between Offington Corner roundabout and Grove Lodge roundabout. Local traffic has an origin or destination within Worthing and Lancing. Through-traffic has an origin and a destination outside Worthing and Lancing. Based on 2015 data 3 Based on the national average for Urban A roads, from Reported Road Casualties for Great Britain (RRCGB) 4 Method of travel to work, 2011 Census, NOMIS 5 London and South Coast Rail Corridor Study, Department for Transport (March 2017) and Sussex Area Route Study (September 2015) 8

20 There is a significant amount of development planned in the Worthing and Lancing area in the future. Without improvement, the congestion and delay on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing will continue to increase. Scheme objectives The high-level objectives for the scheme were developed while working with the local authorities, the South Downs National Park Authority, other environmental bodies and the emergency services over a 2 year period prior to the non-statutory public consultation: Reduce congestion on the Worthing and Lancing section of the A27 Manage the impact of planned growth and support the wider economy Minimise impacts on, and where possible seek opportunities for, enhancing the environment Provide safer roads and more reliable journeys by reducing travel delays Improve accessibility for all users Proposed scheme Prior to the public consultation, a number of options were considered for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, from junction improvements to dual carriageway schemes with flyovers / underpasses. All of the options were subject to various traffic and environmental surveys and assessments. For an option to be taken forward to public consultation, the following criteria were considered: How much the options would cost, keeping within the allocated budget The benefits the options would bring to congestion, safety and other scheme objectives Local constraints and opportunities Only 1 option was taken to public consultation. Option 1 was the only option that was found to meet the scheme objectives, offer value for money and fall within the allocated budget. Option 1 improves the 6 key junctions along the A27 route through Worthing and Lancing. Table 2.1 summarises the proposed improvements at each junction: Table 2.1: Summary of Option 1 improvements NO. JUNCTION 1 2 Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill Offington Corner Junction roundabout A2 Findon Road / Offington Lane (Durrington Cemetery) 3 Grove Lodge Junction 4a 4b 5 Lyons Farm Retail Part 1 Junction (Sompting Road) Lyons Farm Retail Part 2 Junction (Lyons Way) Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane Junction DESCRIPTION Convert the existing priority junctions to a traffic signalled cross road junction. Widening on Durrington Hill and on the A27 to accommodate a 2- lane approach, which would require some land acquisition Convert the existing roundabout to a traffic signalled cross road junction. Widening on all approaches and some exits to accommodate extra slip roads and lanes, which would require some land acquisition. Access to the A24 from Fontwell Close remains but access to the A27 from Goodwood Road would be closed Widening of the approaches and circulation lanes to accommodate 2 lanes of traffic through the junction. Would require some land acquisition Widening of the existing junctions to accommodate more lanes. Provide new turning arrangements at both junctions. Right turns from the A27 eastbound into Sompting Road and from Pines Avenue onto the A27 would be banned. Dedicated left-turn lanes from the A27 eastbound into the retail park removed. Access to the A27 from Hadley Avenue closed. Widening would require some land acquisition Provide new junction the west of the existing junction for access to / from Halewick Lane. This would require some land acquisition, some of which is within the South Downs National Park 9

21 NO. JUNCTION 6 Grinstead Lane / Manor Road Junction DESCRIPTION Widen the existing junction approaches and convert the existing roundabout to a new traffic signal controlled junction for traffic turning from Manor Road onto the A27. Would require some land acquisition from nearby properties. Traffic coming from the Brighton direction would not be able to make U-turns All proposed new traffic signals would incorporate toucan crossings (allowing pedestrians and cyclists to cross together), which would increase the provision for people walking and cycling The scheme would provide significant extra capacity and would reduce delays. The proposed new junctions would also feature protected pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities which would help to reduce the community severance currently caused by the road. Option 1 has a Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of Any scheme with a Benefit to Cost Ratio of 1.5 and above is considered medium value for money. The most likely cost of Option 1 is 69 million, although estimates range from 46 million (low P10' estimate) to 109 million (high P90 estimate). Details of the other options that have been investigated for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, but not taken forward for public consultation are provided in Table 2.2. Table 2.2: Options not taken to public consultation OPTION DESCRIPTION REASON FOR REJECTION Option 2 Option 3 Option 3A Option 4 Option 5 Hybrid New flyovers / underpasses at junctions, with direct access to the A27. Junction improvements with new layouts incorporating flyovers / underpasses but no road widening. All existing direct access points to the A27 retained, though restricted access to / from some local roads Junction improvements and upgrading to dual carriageway, with direct access to the A27. Widening of the A27 to dual carriageway. All existing direct access points to the A27 retained, though restricted access to / from some local roads Junction improvements and upgrading to narrow dual carriageway, with direct access to the A27. As per Option 3, but designed with narrower lanes New flyovers / underpasses at junctions and upgrading to dual carriageway, with direct access to the A27. Widening of the A27 to dual carriageway. Junction improvements with new layouts incorporating flyovers / underpasses. All existing direct access points to the A27 retained, though restricted access to / from some local roads New flyovers / underpasses at junctions and upgrading to dual carriageway with service roads. Direct access to the A27 not permitted. Widening of the A27 to dual carriageway. Junction improvements with new layouts incorporating flyovers / underpasses. All access points removed, and extensive additional work required to provide service roads from the local network A hybrid option that includes a mixture of junction improvements and flyovers (at Lyons Farm junctions and Grove Lodge roundabout). Includes some upgrading to dual carriageway standard to support the junction improvements Discarded early as well in excess of upper budget Up to 274 million Rejected due to cost and a low Benefit to Cost Ratio of 0.57 (poor value for money) Up to 238 million Rejected due to cost and a low Benefit to Cost Ratio of 0.52 (poor value for money) Discarded early as well in excess of upper budget Discarded early as well in excess of upper budget 250 million to 350 million Rejected due to cost 10

22 3 Consultation approach 3.1 Introduction Highways England, and their consultants, WSP, undertook a non-statutory public consultation on the proposals for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. This gave the public and stakeholders the opportunity to express their views and opinions on the early proposals. The public consultation ran for 8 weeks, from Wednesday 19 July to Tuesday 12 September The consultation exercise had the following objectives: Raise awareness and inform local residents, businesses and stakeholder organisations about the A27 Worthing and Lancing public consultation, in particular the scheme objectives, timescales, planning and design process, and the opportunities for input Raise awareness of the wider A27 improvements programme Encourage participation from all local groups Provide fully accessible public consultation events and materials so that people are able to understand the proposals and make informed comments on them Provide the public with the necessary information to understand the proposals and the process through which the scheme must follow. Present the proposals clearly including the perceived benefits and / or dis-benefits Provide sufficient opportunities for all people who may have an interest in, or may be impacted by, the scheme to provide feedback Facilitate feedback on the proposals by providing people with the opportunity to have their say Produce an informal non-statutory Public Consultation Report (this report) to provide timely feedback about the issues raised during the consultation, the level of support for the proposals, and other matters to consider when developing the scheme. The report will be used to help refine the design of the Preferred Option Collaboration and engagement with key stakeholders Stakeholders have been engaged throughout the development of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. The high-level scheme objectives were developed while working with the local authorities, the South Downs National Park Authority, statutory environmental bodies and the emergency services through the Key Stakeholder Liaison Group (KSLG). Highways England has worked closely with key stakeholders, through 3 separate forums: Key Stakeholder Liaison Group: comprised of officers from organisations including local authorities, the South Downs National Park Authority, statutory environmental bodies and emergency services. The group meets quarterly to discuss technical issues 6 The term Preferred Option is used even though only 1 option was consulted upon. The other options were discarded prior to the consultation exercise and the single option is not given preferred status until it is determined as such by the Secretary of State for Transport 11

23 Focus Group: comprised of officers from organisations including local authorities and the South Downs National Park Authority. The group meets quarterly to coordinate consultation and communication issues. The group was heavily involved in the consultation planning Key Stakeholder Steering Group: comprised of officers from local authorities. The group meets to discuss sensitive political and technical issues and matters that are unresolved and escalated from the Focus Group and Key Stakeholder Liaison Group. They also meet prior to key project development milestones Prior to the consultation period, a number of meetings and workshops were held with key stakeholders to discuss the proposals, and gather feedback on the consultation materials. These meetings took stakeholders through the development of the scheme and the reasons why other options were discarded prior to consultation. Approach In preparation for the non-statutory public consultation, Highways England implemented a targeted Public Consultation Strategy, which clearly set out the aims of the consultation, target audiences, key messages and identified stakeholders of interest. It was important that the approach enabled stakeholders to be meaningfully and continuously involved with the scheme from an early stage. Table 3.1 summarises the channels used. The stakeholder groups (Key Stakeholder Liaison Group and Focus Group) were invited to comment on the proposed approach for consultation. Table 3.1: Communication materials and channels COMMUNICATION TYPE Letters and s Brochure and questionnaire Public exhibition events Preview events Deposit points Highways England project website Press release Newspaper advertising Posters Highways England contact details Existing communication channels PURPOSE Inform residents, landowners, businesses, MPs / Councillors, key stakeholders and wider stakeholders about the public consultation Brochure provided concise information about the proposals. Questionnaire was the main method of gathering feedback Provided opportunity for interested groups, local residents, landowners and businesses to view the proposals and discuss them with members of the project team Provided opportunity for the media, MPs / Councillors and key stakeholders to view the proposals prior to the general public and discuss them with members of the project team Made consultation materials (brochures, questionnaires, posters and background information) available in local, publicly accessible locations Made consultation materials (brochures, questionnaires, background information, exhibition displays) available online. Anyone registered to receive updates about the scheme received an on the consultation launch date inviting them to take part Issued on the consultation launch day to secure widespread press coverage and raise awareness of the consultation Raised awareness of the consultation amongst the general public, including those from a wider area throughout the consultation period Displayed on council and local community notice boards, etc. to raise awareness of the consultation more locally Provided in case of queries or for those requiring the information in a different format Established communications channels (Chamber of Commerce, local authority distribution lists and wider stakeholder organisations including equalities groups) used to extend the consultation reach 12

24 3.4 Materials Letters and s Prior to the start of the consultation period, during the week commencing Monday 10 July 2017, over 153,000 letters were mailed out to residents living within a pre-defined boundary area of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. The distribution area followed postcode district boundaries (shown in Figure 3.1), and was agreed in consultation with the local authorities, via the Focus Group. The letter informed recipients about the forthcoming public consultation, in particular its purpose and the timescales. It listed the dates, times and locations of public exhibition events, and details of the locations where brochures and questionnaires were available, including the website. It also provided information about how to respond to the consultation, and the deadline for doing so. Figure 3.1: Residents letter distribution area Letters were also sent out to the following groups to make them aware of the consultation: Landowners those whose land may be impacted by the proposed scheme (160) Businesses and business groups (35) MPs / Councillors (36) Key stakeholders (91) Wider stakeholders (158) 13

25 Brochure and questionnaire Both the Key Stakeholder Liaison Group and Focus Group were given sight of the draft consultation materials and asked to provide comments, which were then incorporated where possible. A 28-page consultation brochure (shown in Appendix A) provided an overview of the project and the need for improvements. It presented the proposals for Option 1 with graphics showing the existing and proposed design for each junction. The brochure also explained the environmental constraints associated with the project and the likely benefits and impacts of Option 1. It gave details of the public exhibitions, deposit points and consultation process. An annex was included to provide further details on the history of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme and the rejected options. A separate questionnaire document sought respondents views on the existing issues and the proposed Option 1. It also gathered information on travel behaviour and the effectiveness of the consultation. A variety of both closed questions (where respondents select their answer from a pre-defined list) and open-ended questions (free-text format response) were used within the questionnaire. The questionnaire was the main source of feedback to the consultation and respondents were encouraged to complete the questionnaire and return it via Freepost or hand it in at one of the consultation events. Alternatively, respondents could submit their feedback via the online version of the questionnaire, found on the project web page ( worthing-and-lancing-improvement/). Chapter 5 examines respondents travel behaviours and views on the existing issues and local problems, and Chapter 6 presents the analysis of responses received in relation to the proposed scheme. Background information In addition to the consultation brochure, a number of background reports were made available on the project web page and at the exhibitions. The reports that were made available included: Economic Assessment Report Environmental Study Report Traffic Forecasting Report Further to this, a number of summary notes were created alongside the consultation brochure and the background reports. The summary notes provided greater information than the consultation brochure in a digestible format on a range of topics, including: Environmental Assessment Planning Policy Scheme Development Traffic Modelling Facilities for Walking, Cycling and Horse Riding Wider Economic Impacts 14

26 3.5 Communication methods Public exhibition events Within the 8 week consultation period, Highways England held 8 public exhibitions at venues across Worthing and Lancing. Venue selection was based on a number of criteria, including accessibility by all modes of transport, disabled access, capacity, layout, availability on required dates and location in proximity to the A27. The Focus Group was consulted on the suitability of proposed venues and their suggestions were taken into consideration. The exhibitions were held as drop-in sessions, hosted by members of the project team comprising of Highways England and consultant, WSP, staff. Experts on highway design, traffic modelling, economics, land and property, environment and consultation were on hand to ensure queries raised during the consultation events could be properly addressed. At each public consultation event, exhibition displays (shown in Appendix B) presented key information about the scheme including the work undertaken to date, details of the proposed improvements at each junction and their combined effects, and next steps in the implementation process. The material on display was similar to that presented in the consultation brochure. Summary notes, background technical reports and A3 laminated copies of the display materials were made available at a literature table. Copies of the brochure and questionnaire were offered to visitors on arrival. The digital version of the questionnaire could be completed by Apple ipad at the exhibitions. Table 3.2 summarises the schedule of public exhibitions held, with Figure 3.2 showing a photograph from an exhibition event. Table 3.2: Public exhibition events DATE TIME LOCATION Wednesday 19 July 4pm to 8pm Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall, Worthing Tuesday 25 July 1pm to 8pm Harriet Johnson Centre, Sompting Saturday 29 July 10am to 2pm Impulse Leisure Lancing Manor, Lancing Saturday 12 August 10am to 2pm Impulse Leisure Lancing Manor, Lancing Tuesday 15 August 1pm to 8pm Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall, Worthing Wednesday 16 August 1pm to 8pm Harriet Johnson Centre, Sompting Saturday 02 September 10am to 2pm Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall, Worthing Wednesday 06 September 1pm to 8pm Field Place Manor House, Durrington 15

27 Figure 3.2: Photograph from exhibition In addition, invitation-only preview events were held separately for the media, MPs / Councillors and key stakeholders on the consultation launch day (Wednesday 19 July). The previews enabled the media to interview members of the project team and gave elected members the opportunity to comment on the proposals and cascade information to their constituents, thereby helping to raise awareness of the consultation. Potentially affected landowners were invited to a separate session to discuss the proposals with a specific emphasis on the possible impact on their land. A separate session was organised for businesses, with the assistance of the Worthing Chamber of Commerce. Table 3.3 provides details of the invite-only exhibition events. Table 3.3: Invite-only exhibition events DATE TIME LOCATION AUDIENCE Wednesday 19 July 9am to 10:30am Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall Media briefing Wednesday 19 July 11am to 12.30pm Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall MPs / Councillors Wednesday 19 July 1pm to 3pm Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall Key stakeholder Thursday 20 July 4pm to 8pm Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing Landowners Thursday 17 August 8am to 10am Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing Businesses Deposit points Brochures, questionnaires, posters and summary notes were made available throughout the consultation period at the local public and community venues listed in Table 3.4. Highways England ensured the materials supplied at the deposit points were topped up throughout the consultation period. Table 3.4: Deposit point locations LOCATION Broadwater Library Broadwater Parish Rooms Durrington Library Ferring Library Findon Valley Library ADDRESS Dominion Road, Broadwater, Worthing, BN14 8JL 117 Broadwater Road, Worthing, BN14 8HT Salvington Road, Worthing, BN13 2JD The Street, Ferring, BN12 5HL Lime Tree Avenue, Findon Valley, Worthing, BN14 0DH 16

28 LOCATION Fishersgate Community Centre Goring Library Harriet Johnson Centre Lancing Library Shoreham Library Southwick Community Association Worthing Library ADDRESS West Road, Portslade, BN41 1QH Mulberry Lane, Goring-by-Sea, Worthing, BN12 4JL Old School House, Loose Lane, Sompting, BN15 0BG Penstone Park, Lancing, BN15 9DL St Mary s Road, Shoreham, BN43 5ZA 24 Southwick Street, Southwick, BN42 4TE Richmond Road, Worthing, BN11 1HD Highways England project website Information about the consultation was published on Highways England s project web page: with a link to the dedicated consultation page (Figure 3.3). This web address was included in all information released into the public domain. The website provided: Information on the scheme background Dates, times and venue information for the public consultation events PDF versions of the consultation materials including the information presented at the public exhibition events (exhibition display panels, brochure, questionnaire, summary notes, technical reports and more) A link to the online consultation questionnaire Contact details for queries about the consultation 17

29 Figure 3.3: Screenshot of A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements consultation page 3.6 Publicity and advertising Posters Posters containing full details of the public consultation events were distributed to local deposit points and council offices. These were then displayed on council and local community notice boards to raise awareness of the consultation. Newspapers Half-page colour adverts were provided in local and regional newspapers throughout the consultation period. Table 3.5 provides details of the advertising campaign that was undertaken: Table 3.5: Advertising campaign - newspapers NEWSPAPER DATES ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Argus Worthing Herald Thursday 20 July Thursday 27 July Thursday 10 August Thursday 31 August Thursday 20 July Thursday 27 July Thursday 10 August Thursday 31 August In addition to circulation along the south coast, on Thursdays 5,000 free copies of the Argus are distributed in Worthing town centre. Also included 40,000 online views which were geographically targeted at the consultation area. Weekly newspaper for the Worthing area Highways England contact details The following details were provided for members of the public to contact Highways England with any queries regarding the public consultation: 18

30 Telephone: (24 hours) All queries received via the Highways England Customer Contact Centre during the consultation period were recorded and responded to. Response and analysis methodology Before any analysis could take place, all data contained in the paper questionnaires required input to an electronic dataset (spreadsheet) which could subsequently be interrogated and merged with the online questionnaire data. Data entry adheres to a thorough and robust process which ensures maximum accuracy. The following quality checking procedures were employed: The data entry programme incorporates full range checks for each question making it impossible for any numeric values to be present outside the specified range 100% verification whereby data is input twice by 2 different operators and the files are subsequently compared. Where inconsistencies are identified, the entries are checked against the original questionnaire and the correct data is recorded Spot checks of data carried out by data processing staff The coded data was subject to rigorous quality control procedures, for example checking 20% of the coded data to ensure accuracy of code application The paper questionnaire data was combined with the online questionnaire data, to produce a single file containing all responses. The WSP team then conducted a series of logic and range checks on the data prior to analysis. The combined dataset was analysed using SPSS, a statistical software package designed for the analysis of questionnaire data, along with Microsoft Excel and the ArcGIS mapping software. The results of this analysis are presented in the series of tables, charts and maps which follow in subsequent chapters. 19

31 4 Consultation effectiveness 4.1 Introduction This chapter summarises the effectiveness of the public consultation in terms of the reach, number of responses and exhibition attendance. It then looks at the effectiveness of the communication methods used. Chapter 9 includes information on the public s impressions of the exhibitions and opinions on the consultation materials provided. Questionnaire responses There has been a good response to the consultation with a total of 1,722 questionnaire responses received during the consultation period. Just over one-third (36%; 627 responses) were hard copy responses, with the majority (64%; 1,095 responses) completed online. A further 28 paper responses were received after the consultation closing date (Tuesday 12 September 2017) which have not been included in the analyses presented in this report. Compared with the other A27 schemes that have undergone consultation, the number of responses can be considered good. Letters and s In addition to the questionnaires, other responses were received by the Highways England Customer Contact Centre in a variety of formats, including letters, s and telephone calls. Some of these contacts requested further information, while others sought to feedback their views on the proposals. The latter have been included in the analysis of responses presented in this report, whereas those contacts defined as enquiries only have not been included. Table 4.1 outlines how many questionnaires were completed online and returned as hard copy, and also the quantity of written responses (from stakeholders and members of the public) and enquiries. Table 4.1: Consultation responses & enquiries CONTENT FORMAT FREQUENCY Completed questionnaire Paper 627 Completed questionnaire Online 1,095 Written responses (public & stakeholder) / Letter 107 Enquiries / Letter / Telephone Exhibition attendance record At each public exhibition event, the number of visitors entering the venue was recorded using a manual tally clicker. A sign-in sheet was also located on the front desk at each exhibition, and visitors were asked to provide their name, address, postcode, address and role / organisation (if applicable). The exhibition events were well attended with a total of 2,707 attendees recorded across all the events, of which 1,572 provided postcode details that were used to plot the spatial distribution of visitors to the events. Table 4.2 presents the approximate number of attendees at each event, whilst Figure 4.1 indicates the spatial distribution of attendees per event. 20

32 Table 4.2: Event attendance DATE LOCATION AUDIENCE ATTENDEES Media Wednesday 19 July Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall MPs/Councillors Key stakeholders General public 581 Thursday 20 July Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing Landowners 24 Tuesday 25 July Harriet Johnson Centre, Sompting General public 392 Saturday 29 July Impulse Leisure Lancing Manor General public 319 Saturday 12 August Impulse Leisure Lancing Manor General public 378 Tuesday 15 August Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall General public 405 Wednesday 16 August Harriet Johnson Centre, Sompting General public 123 Thursday 17 August Chatsworth Hotel, Worthing Businesses 28 Saturday 02 September Richmond Room, Worthing Assembly Hall General public 237 Wednesday 06 September Field Place Manor House General public 220 Figure 4.1: Spatial distribution of exhibition visitors Figure 4.1 shows that exhibition attendees were concentrated along the proposed upgrade route, largely within the letter drop area. This is to be expected given the considerable local interest in the scheme. There are concentrations of attendees found in High Salvington, Durrington, Broadwater Worthing, Sompting and Lancing. Other clusters of respondents away from the proposed works area can be found in, Steyning, Goring by Sea and Shoreham by Sea. Some attendees were recorded from wider afield including Bognor Regis and Crawley. As would be expected, it is evident that the postcode locations of attendees correlate with the exhibition venue that they attended. 21

33 Highways England website visitors Table 4.3 presents the number of visitors to both the project webpage and consultation webpage, with the average time spent on the webpages during the consultation period. Table 4.3: Website visitor figures WEBPAGE TOTAL WEB HITS TOTAL UNIQUE VISITORS AVERAGE TIME ON WEBPAGE Project page 10,806 8,654 3 minutes 24 seconds Consultation page 8,070 5,978 2 minutes 35 seconds Nearly 6,000 unique visitors were recorded on the consultation page, spending an average of 2 minutes 35 seconds on the page. Effectiveness of communication methods Consultation awareness Question 14 of the questionnaire asked respondents to state how they found out about the consultation. It is noted that respondents could select multiple answers meaning that the sum total of percentages exceeds 100%. There were 3,686 responses to this question in total. Figure 4.2 demonstrates the responses. Figure 4.2: How did you find out about the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements consultation? Letter through door Word of mouth Local newspaper article Local community group Social media Highways England website Local radio Local newspaper advert Other Public notice West Sussex County Council websire or Adur & Worthing District Council website or Poster Other website 27% 25% 22% 17% 14% 11% 10% 10% 8% 8% 5% 4% 3% 51% Base = All respondents (n=1,722) 0% 20% 40% 60% The majority of respondents (51%; 880) found out about the consultation via the letter drop. Word of mouth (27%; 458 respondents) and the local press (25%; 431 respondents) also proved popular means of communication. Type of respondent Question 15 of the questionnaire asked respondents to state the capacity in which they were responding to the consultation (for example, as a local resident or representing a local business). 22

34 4.6.4 Respondents were asked to tick the 1 that applies most, but it was possible to tick all that applied. Subsequently 1,674 respondents gave 1,769 responses to this question, whilst 48 did not provide an answer. As such the sum total of percentages is based upon the number of respondents and exceeds 100%. Figure 4.3 summaries the findings. Figure 4.3: Please comment if you are commenting as: A local resident 88% Someone who travels through the area 8% Other Someone working in the area On behalf of a local business Visitor to the area 3% 3% 2% 1% On behalf of a local community organisation 1% Base: n=1674 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Figure 4.3 shows that the vast majority of respondents are local residents, with 88% of respondents (1,470 people) describing themselves as such. A far smaller proportion (8%; 142 respondents) described themselves as travelling through the local area, while 3% (45 respondents) responded as local employees, and a further 2% (39 respondents) responded on behalf of a local business. While the vast majority of questionnaire responses were from the general public, it should be noted that they also included a number from stakeholders, including: 2 responses from local authorities 8 responses from political / elected members 1 response from a parish council 1 response from an environment group 4 responses from businesses / business organisations 1 response from the emergency services 2 responses from transport user groups 3 responses from residents associations 8 responses from community organisations Responses from these stakeholders have been included within the main analysis of questionnaire responses presented in Chapters 5-6 but are also discussed in more detail in Chapter 7 Stakeholder Responses. 23

35 5 Travel behaviour and existing issues with the A Introduction This chapter analyses respondents travel behaviour (in order to understand the existing usage of the A27 through Worthing and Lancing), before going on to investigate respondents opinions on the current problems affecting the A27 and the specific local issues that need to be considered whilst developing the proposals for the scheme. The analysis presents the findings of both the closed-response ( tick box ) and open-response (free-text) questions. Open-ended verbatim data is complex to analyse, and to do so, the comments have been coded (grouped thematically). Many respondents made multiple coded comments within their answers. The codes have been analysed to identify the number of times (frequency) a particular issue or comment has been raised. Due to the large number of codes in some categories, it would be impractical to present and provide commentary on the results of every code (for example, if only 1 person had mentioned an issue in response to a question). Therefore, the codes that have been presented in this chapter are those that were the most common and amassed a proportionate percentage (1% or greater) of the overall coded responses. A full frequency table including all codes and the coding framework used for this analysis is given in Appendix C. Analysis of the responses and opinions on the proposed option are presented in Chapter 6. Travel behaviour Frequency of use Respondents were asked about how they currently use the A27 between Worthing and Lancing, to provide an understanding of how respondents use the road, and whether frequency of use has an impact on attitudes towards the proposals. Firstly, respondents were asked whether they mainly use the A27 between Worthing and Lancing for local journeys (up to 10 miles in length), or predominantly for longer distance trips (over 10 miles distance). Respondents to the online survey were limited to 1 response but some of those who completed the paper version selected both answers. Figure 5.1 indicates the responses received. Figure 5.1: What type of journeys do you use the A27 at Worthing and Lancing for most often? 24

36 3% Local (up to 10 mile trips) 30% Longer distance (more than 10 mile trip) Both 67% Base: n= The results show that two-thirds of respondents (67%; 1,122) mainly use the A27 between Worthing and Lancing for local trips, while nearly one-third (30%; 505) use the road as part of a longer distance journey. The remaining 3% (51 respondents) use the road for both types of journey in approximately equal proportions. It is therefore important to note the level of local interest in the proposals and the importance of this section of road for trips being made within the local area. Respondents were then asked how often they use the A27 between Worthing and Lancing at certain times of the day; these results are shown in Figure 5.2. Figure 5.2: How often do you currently use the A27 through Worthing and Lancing? 08:00-09:00 Morning peak (n = 1,518) 19% 11% 12% 18% 8% 6% 13% 13% 17:00-18:00 Evening peak (n = 1,499) 17% 12% 14% 21% 10% 7% 11% 9% Weekdays (off peak) (n = 1,606) Weekends (any time) (n = 1,603) Holiday periods (n = 1,227) 23% 21% 32% 14% 5% 8% 10% 12% 23% 13% 31% 5% 4% 22% 16% 4% 7% 5% 2% 4% 13% 5% 2% 19% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Every day 5-6 days a week 3-4 days a week 1-2 days a week Once a fortnight Once a month Several times a year Less often / never Peak hours (mornings 08:00-09:00 and evenings 17:00-18:00) Around one-fifth of respondents who use the A27 in the morning peak do so every day (19%; 284), while three-fifths of respondents (60%; 920) make a journey during this time at least once a week. One-quarter (26%; 390) of those who use the A27 during this time period do so several times per year or less often. 25

37 5.2.6 Usage during the evening peak is similar, with 17% of those who use the A27 during the evening peak doing so on a daily basis (250 respondents), and 64% (946) making a journey during this time period at least once a week. One-fifth of those who use the A27 during this time period do so several times per year or less often (20%; 300 respondents). Off-peak hours (weekdays, weekends and holiday periods) Respondents make greater use of this stretch of the A27 off-peak than during peak hours. Almost one-quarter of respondents (23%; 375) use the road every weekday during the off-peak, while 82% (1,325 respondents) use the road during the weekday off-peak period at least once a week. Three-quarters of respondents (76%; 1,223) reportedly use the A27 every weekend. During holiday periods, 21% (262 respondents) use the A27 every day, with 56% (693 respondents) using it at least once a week. Mode choice Respondents were asked what mode of transport they usually used in order to travel through the Worthing and Lancing area. Respondents were able to select all modes that applied to them, so it was possible for more than 1 answer to be selected. The results in Figure 5.3 are shown for each mode as a proportion of all 1,722 respondents, so the sum total of percentages exceeds 100%. Figure 5.3: How do you usually travel through this area? Car/van driver 89% Walk 42% Car/van passenger 31% Cycle Bus Train 17% 22% 21% Motorcycle Other 4% 3% Base = All respondents (n = 1,722) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% By far the greatest proportion of respondents travel through the area as car or van drivers (89%; 1,529). Around one-third (31%; 533 respondents) travel as a passenger in a motor vehicle. However, respondents also walk (42%; 728) and cycle (22%; 386). Around one-fifth of respondents (21%; 367) travel through the area by bus, and 17% (287) travel by train. A small percentage of respondents are motorcyclists (4%; 76). The results indicate that respondents comprise a large proportion of car / van drivers, but also a good representation of people who walk and cycle (non-motorised users). 26

38 Existing concerns and issues Respondents were asked to consider the existing A27 through Worthing and Lancing in its current condition and layout. A list of potential issues was provided in the questionnaire, and respondents were asked to express their level of concern with each of these using a fixed point scale from very concerned through to not concerned. The results are shown in Figure 5.4 in order from the issue of greatest concern to the issue with the smallest proportion of very concerned respondents. Figure 5.4: How concerned are you about the following issues on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing? Congestion or delays at junctions (n=1699) 83% 13% 4% Impact of future housing and economic development creating extra traffic on the A27 (n=1696) 81% 14% 4% Journey time of journey reliability (n=1688) 74% 20% 5% 1% The displacement of traffic onto local roads to avoid the A27 (n=1692) 71% 23% 6% 1% Connections along the coast and to other parts of the country (n=1683) 64% 25% 10% 1% The effects of A27 traffic on the environment (n=1685) 62% 30% 7% Ease of turning on to or off the A27 from local roads (n=1691) 61% 26% 12% 1% Road safety (n=1678) 61% 32% 7% Crossing the A27 on foot or cycle (n=1671) 49% 29% 18% 4% Community divisions / severance caused by the A27 (n=1660) 46% 33% 20% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% Very concerned Slightly concerned Not concerned Not applicable The results shown in Figure 5.4 indicate that respondents are concerned about most of the potential issues suggested. The proportion of concerned respondents vastly outnumbers the proportion of unconcerned respondents for each of the potential issues listed in the questionnaire. 27

39 Congestion or delays at junctions is the biggest concern for respondents, with 83% (1,414) being very concerned, and a further 13% (216 respondents) being slightly concerned about this issue. Only 4% (63) are not concerned. Traffic growth is also a big concern among respondents, with 81% (1,381) being very concerned about the impact of future housing and economic growth on A27 traffic levels and 14% (245 respondents) being slightly concerned. Just 4% (63) are not worried about this in relation to the A27 between Worthing and Lancing. Respondents are also concerned about journey time reliability (74%; 1,250 respondents very concerned, 20%; 343 respondents slightly concerned ) and the displacement of traffic on to local roads (71%; 1,195 very, 23%; 385 slightly). As before, few describe themselves as not concerned with these issues (5%; 81 respondents, and 6%; 103 respondents respectively). Connectivity is clearly an issue, with 64% (1,083 respondents) being very, and 25% (413) slightly, concerned about having good connections along the coastline and to other parts of the country. Similar proportions of respondents are concerned about the environmental effects of traffic on the A27 (62%; 1,052 very concerned and 30%; 509 slightly concerned ) and road safety on the existing A27 route (61%; 1,017 very and 32%; 533 slightly concerned). Access to the A27 is also a concern (61%; 1,029 are very concerned and 26%; 441 have slight concerns about the ease of turning onto and off the A27 from local roads). The final 2 issues are related, as they consider how the existing A27 acts as a barrier between communities and prevents crossing from one side of the road to the other. Around one-half of all respondents (49%; 824) are very concerned and a further 29% (491) are slightly concerned about being able to cross the A27 on foot or by bicycle. Just under one-fifth of respondents (18%; 297) are not concerned about this. Finally, the majority of respondents are concerned (46%; 759 very and 33%; 542 slightly) about severance and divisions between communities caused by the A27. It is noted that one-fifth of respondents (20%; 333) are not concerned about severance the largest proportion for all of the issues listed in the questionnaire. To summarise, the responses to this question clearly demonstrate that there is a great deal of concern about the A27 between Worthing and Lancing in its current format, particularly in regard to levels of congestion and delay at junctions, and the impact of future economic and housing growth on creating additional traffic on the A27. Of greatest concern (over 80% of respondents) is congestion and delays, closely followed by the impact of future economic and housing growth creating additional traffic on the A27. Also, in all issues above, the level of concern is much greater than the proportion that are not concerned indicating that these are all significant issues for the respondents. Biggest issue Question 2 then asked respondents: What would you say is the single biggest problem currently affecting the A27 at Worthing and Lancing? In total, 4,437 comments were coded in response to Question 2. Table 5.1 outlines the most frequently occurring codes and the associated percentage. Full details of the code frame used within the analysis can be seen in Appendix C. Table 5.1: What would you say is the single biggest problem currently affecting the A27 at Worthing and Lancing? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Traffic / congestion / queues (general) % Traffic lights cause congestion / delays 282 6% Need a bypass instead 194 4% Dual carriageway to single carriageway 191 4% The A27 is not suitable for the current volume of traffic 189 4% 28

40 DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Peak time congestion 166 4% Existing layout - bottlenecks / choke points cause congestion 126 3% Too many cars / commuters / need to encourage sustainable transport 125 3% Concerns over current pollution problems 123 3% Concerns about the existing junctions 112 3% Increasing journey times 94 2% Delays for local traffic (non- A27) 93 2% Roundabouts cause congestion / delays 90 2% Single carriageway sections 80 2% Through traffic concerns 71 2% The most frequently mentioned comment, demonstrates that traffic / congestion and queues in general is perceived to be the biggest problem currently affecting the A27 at Worthing and Lancing (870 comments; 20%). A further 166 comments (4%) specifically mentioned congestion at peak times, with a proportion of comments (189; 4%) expressing that the A27 is not suitable for the current volume of traffic. Subsequently 123 comments (3%) mentioned the existing levels of pollution as a key problem. A number of comments (125; 3%) feel that there are too many cars, creating a need to encourage greater use of sustainable transport methods, whereas 194 comments (4%) express the need for a bypass. Traffic lights (282 comments; 6%) and roundabouts (90 comments; 2%) causing congestion and delays were also frequently mentioned. A number of comments (126; 3%) feel that within the existing layout there are too many bottlenecks and choke points, whilst there is concerns about the existing junctions in 112 comments (2%). The A27 going from dual carriageway to single carriageway (191 comments; 4%) and the single carriageway sections (80; 2%) were also key themes in response to the current A27 issues at Worthing and Lancing. The current delays for local traffic was mentioned in 93 comments (2%) which competes with comments expressing through traffic concerns and increasing journey times on the A27 (71 comments; 2% and 94 comments; 2% respectively). Local issues Question 3 sought to gather information on what respondents felt are the local issues that should be taken into consideration whilst developing the proposals for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. A total of 5,660 comments were coded in response to this question, with the most frequently mentioned outlined in Table 5.2. The full code frame and associated frequencies are shown in Appendix C. Table 5.2: What specific local issues do you feel we should be aware of, in developing our proposals for the A27 at Worthing and Lancing? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 388 7% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 260 5% Need a bypass instead 203 4% Congestion will worsen 197 3% Increasing new developments being built (housing / retail) 169 3% Concerns about residents / impact on residents / community 149 3% Concerns about pollution / air quality 124 2% Concerns about changes to access 114 2% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % No segregation between local & through traffic 98 2% Rat-running / using other unsuitable roads 97 2% Proposals will increase rat-running on local roads 95 2% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 89 2% 29

41 DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Concerns over current pollution problems 89 2% Suggest removal / turning off of traffic lights 86 2% As with the previous section, the most frequently mentioned comment relates to traffic / congestion and queues (388; 7%), with 197 comments (3%) expressing that congestion will worsen. A proportion of comments (98; 2%) expressed that there is no segregation between local and through traffic with an additional 97 comments (2%) mentioning rat-running as a significant local issue. A number of comments (97; 2%) express concern about the existing rat-running and use of unsuitable roads as a significant current local issue, whilst an additional 95 comments (2%) are concerned about increased rat-running as a result of any proposals. School concerns (i.e. safety and term time traffic) were mentioned as a specific local issue in 260 comments (5%), with a number of additional comments relating to increasing new developments (169; 3%). A proportion of comments were received in relation to the impact on the local community and residents (149; 3%) with specific emphasis put upon current pollution (89; 2%), the worsening impact of pollution and air quality in the future (124; 2%) and changes to access (114; 2%). A number of comments (203; 4%) feel that there is a need for a bypass instead of any improvements to the existing A27, whilst a further 104 comments (2%) expressed that the scheme is a waste of time and that it will not improve the A27 despite the local issues. In addition 95 comments (2%) felt that the solution proposed is short-sighted, in regard to the local issues, and only tinkering with a large problem. 30

42 6 Views on the proposed A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme Introduction This chapter presents respondents opinions on the need for improvements to the A27 at Worthing and Lancing, before analysing the comments made on the proposals (including alternative improvements, provision for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders). Section 6.7 interprets respondents comments on the consultation process. The analysis presents the findings on both closed-response ( tick box ) and open response (freetext) questions. Open-ended verbatim data is complex to analyse, and to do so, the comments have been coded (grouped thematically). Many respondents made multiple coded comments within their answers. The codes have been analysed to identify the number of times (frequency) a particular issue or comment has been raised. Due to the large number of codes in some categories, it would be impractical to present and provide commentary on the results of every code (for example if only 1 person had mentioned an issue in response to a question). Therefore, the codes that have been presented in this chapter are those that were the most common and amassed a proportionate percentage (1% or greater) of the overall coded responses. A full frequency table including all codes and the coding framework used for this analysis is given in Appendix C. Need for improvements to the A27 at Worthing and Lancing Respondents were asked whether they consider there to be a need for a scheme to improve the A27 at Worthing and Lancing. Figure 6.1 shows that there is a substantial amount of support, with 86% of respondents in agreement (75%; 1,273 strongly agree and 11%; 180 agree ). Conversely, only 10% of respondents do not believe there is a need to improve the A27 through Worthing and Lancing (4%; 62 disagree and 6%; 107 strongly disagree ). The remaining 4% of respondents (71) expressed a neutral opinion. Figure 6.1: Do you agree or disagree that there is a need to improve the A27 (Worthing to Lancing)? 11% 4% 6% Strongly agree 4% Agree Neutral or undecided Disagree 75% Strongly disagree Base: n=1,693 31

43 6.3 Views on the proposed scheme Meeting the scheme objectives Respondents were asked to what extent they believe that the proposed option (Option 1) would meet the 5 scheme objectives. The results are shown in Figure 6.2. Figure 6.2: How much do you agree or disagree that Option 1 will meet the scheme objectives? Minimse impacts and seek opportunities for enhancing the environment (n = 1,666) Manage the impact of planned growth and support the wider economy (n = 1,665) 5% 6% 8% 6% 10% 18% 18% 18% 58% 49% 3% 3% Improve accessibility for all users (n = 1,663) 7% 9% 13% 17% 52% 2% Provide safer roads and more reliable journey times by reducing travel delays (n = 1,668) 8% 8% 10% 18% 53% 2% Reduce congestion on the A27 Worthing to Lancing (n = 1,673) 9% 8% 9% 18% 54% 1% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Strongly agree Agree Neutral or undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Don t know The majority of respondents (more than two-thirds of respondents in each case) feel that the proposed Option 1 will not meet the scheme objectives: 72% of respondents (1,212) do not believe that the proposed Option 1 will reduce congestion on the A27 between Worthing and Lancing, while 17% (290 respondents) feel that the proposed option will have this effect 71% (1,194 respondents) do not believe that the scheme will provide safer roads, more reliable journey times by reducing delays (while 16%; 278 agree) 69% (1,147 respondents) disagree that the scheme will improve accessibility for all users (16%; 261 agree) 76% (1,251 respondents) disagree that the scheme will manage the impacts of planned growth and support the wider economy (while 12%; 201 agree) 67% (1,105 respondents) disagree that the proposed scheme will minimise impacts on and seek opportunities for enhancing the environment (13%; 215 agree) 32

44 Comments on proposed junction improvements The questionnaire provided the opportunity for respondents to provide any specific comments on each of the junctions, before going on to ask for comments on the proposal as a whole. The following section goes through the comments for each junction in order before reviewing the remarks made on all of the junctions as a proposal. Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill Junction In total, respondents gave 2,238 comments on the Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill junction. Table 6.1 shows the most frequently mentioned coded comments. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. Table 6.1: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill Junction? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 207 9% Congestion will worsen 128 6% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Safe / improvements in road safety 85 4% Too many traffic lights proposed 60 3% Proposals will increase rat-running on local roads 59 3% Need a bypass instead 54 2% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 52 2% Good idea / agree with the proposals 46 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 45 2% Will be a much needed improvement /good result 42 2% Traffic lights regulate traffic flow / eases congestion 42 2% Do not perceive / see any problems here/ not needed in this area 40 2% Concern about dual carriageway to single carriageway 39 2% Concerns that will result in extended journey times 39 2% The most frequently mentioned comment in relation to the proposals at Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill Junctions relates to the perception that the proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion (207 comments; 9%). A further 60 comments (3%) feel that there are too many traffic lights proposed. In addition a number of comments (128; 6%) believe that congestion will worsen, with 39 comments (2%) concerned that the proposals will result in extended journey times. A proportion of comments (59, 2%) believe the proposals will cause increase rat-running on local roads. Subsequently, 110 comments (5%) believe that the proposals for Durrington Hill / Salvington Hill junction are a waste of time. An additional 52 comments (2%) feel that the proposals are a short sighted solution, whilst a number of other comments (54; 2%) express the need for a bypass. A proportion of comments did not perceive there to be any problems at this junction (40 comments, 2%). On the other hand 85 comments (4%) expressed that the proposals would result in improvements in road safety. In addition there were comments in support for the proposals generally (46; 2%) with 42 comments (2%) feeling that the proposals are a much needed improvement. Also, 42 comments (2%) believe that the proposed traffic lights will regulate the traffic flow. Offington Corner Junction roundabout A24 Findon Road / Offington Lane (Durrington Cemetery) Respondents gave 1,778 comments on this junction. Table 6.2 shows the comments that were frequently mentioned, and that represent a proportion of the results. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. 33

45 Table 6.2: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Offington Corner Junction roundabout A24 Findon Road / Offington Lane (Durrington Cemetery)? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion % Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Congestion will worsen 89 5% Need a bypass instead 54 3% Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 52 3% A roundabout would be more preferable 52 3% Need flyovers / overpasses 51 3% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 39 2% Traffic lights cause congestion / delays 36 2% Concern about dual carriageway to single carriageway 35 2% Suggest removal / turning off of traffic lights 34 2% Good idea / agree with the proposals 32 2% Disagree with the proposals 31 2% Concerns about cycling (not safe, improvements needed) 28 2% Concerns that will result in extended journey times 27 2% As with the previous junction, the most frequently mentioned comment (183; 10%) is that the proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion. An additional 36 comments (2%) believe traffic lights in general cause congestion / delays. Traffic and congestion worsening were also frequently mentioned comments (52 comments; 3% and 89 comments; 5% respectively). A number of comments (27; 2%) feel that journey times will increase as a result of the proposals. In addition 28 comments (2%) also expressed concern over cycling and the need for safe improvements to be implemented. Whilst 32 comments (2%) believe the proposals are a good idea, there are a number that disagree with the proposals (31 comments; 2%). A proportion of comments (98; 6%) feel that the proposals are a waste of time and that they will not improve the A27. A further 39 comments (2%) believe the proposals are a short sighted solution, with a number of alternatives being suggested for this junction, including: a bypass (54 comments; 3%), a roundabout (52 comments; 3%), flyovers / overpasses (51 comments; 3%) and removing / turning off the traffic lights (34 comments; 2%). Grove Lodge Junction In total, respondents gave 3,317 comments on Grove Lodge junction. Table 6.3 shows the most frequently mentioned coded comments. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. Table 6.3: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Grove Lodge Junction? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Suggest removal / turning off of traffic lights % Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Concern about dual carriageway to single carriageway 136 4% Disagree with widening at junctions 117 4% Pedestrian / cycle bridges / underpasses should be introduced 111 3% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 106 3% Congestion will worsen 105 3% The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 79 2% Traffic lights cause congestion / delays 71 2% Disagree with the proposals 69 2% Need a bypass instead 63 2% Need underpasses 55 2% The A27 should be dual carriageway not single carriageway 54 2% Good idea / agree with the proposals 52 2% Concerns about students / college (ignore crossings, not safe) 52 2% 34

46 The most frequently mentioned comment in relation to Grove Lodge junction suggest the removal / turning off of the traffic lights (461 comments; 14%). A number of comments (79, 2%) believe the proposed traffic lights will cause congestion, whilst 71 comments (2%) believe traffic lights cause congestion. Subsequently 105 comments (3%) believe that congestion will worsen as a result of the proposals. A number of comments 234 (7%) feel that the proposals for this junction are a waste of time as they will not improve the A27. Comments were also received suggesting alternatives, including: the need for a bypass (63 comments; 2%), and the need for underpasses (55 comments; 2%). A proportion of comment are concerned about the constriction from dual carriageway to single carriageway (136; 4%), with an additional 54 comments (2%) expressing that the A27 should be dual carriageway. An additional 117 comments (4%) disagree with widening at the junction. A number of comments expresses concerns about the students / college, in terms of crossings being ignored and creating an unsafe environment (52; 2%). A further 111 comments (3%) suggested that pedestrian / cycle bridges / underpasses should be introduced. Lyons Farm Retail Part 1 Junction (Sompting Road) and Lyons Farm Retail Part 2 Junction (Lyons Way) Respondents gave 3,270 comments on these junctions. Table 6.4 shows the comments that were frequently mentioned, and that represent a proportion of the results. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. Table 6.4: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Lyons Farm Retail Part 1 Junction (Sompting Road) and Lyons Farm Retail Part 2 Junction (Lyons Ways)? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Concerns about proposed prohibited right hand turn 277 8% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Congestion will worsen 134 4% Concerns about changes to access 130 4% Proposals will increase rat-running on local roads 99 3% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 91 3% HGV / lorry driver concerns (need to limit amount of lorries passing through 82 3% etc.) Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 80 2% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 78 2% Need a bypass instead 73 2% Disagree with the proposals 65 2% Pushes traffic elsewhere / to surrounding areas 64 2% Concern about dual carriageway to single carriageway 60 2% Suggest intelligent traffic light management / sequencing 55 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 52 2% Concerns that will cause more local traffic congestion/be detrimental to local traffic 51 2% The most frequently mentioned comment in relation to this junction were concerns over the proposed prohibited right hand turns into Sompting Road from the A27 eastbound, and from Pines Avenues onto the A27 westbound (277 comments; 8%). A further 130 comments (4%) express concern over changes to access, with an additional 82 comments (3%) having concerns over HGV / lorry drivers through the junction. A proportion of comments (134; 4%) feel that the proposals will worsen congestion on the A27, with 99 comments (3%) believing that the proposals will increase rat-running on local roads to avoid the congestion. In addition, 64 comments (2%) expressed the view that the proposals would push the traffic to the surrounding areas, and subsequently 51 comments (2%) envisage a detrimental effect to local traffic congestion levels. 35

47 The proposals for this junction being a waste of time was also a key theme in response to this question (207; 6%). In support of this, 91 comments (3%) feel the proposals are a short-sighted solution, with 73 comments (2%) expressing the need for a bypass. A number of comments are concerned about the pollution (52; 2%). Alternatively, 55 comments (2%) suggested the use of intelligent traffic light management and sequencing to ensure the flow of traffic is efficiently managed throughout the day. Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane Junction In total, respondents gave 2,073 comments on Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane junction. Table 6.5 shows the most frequently mentioned coded comments. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. Table 6.5: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane junction? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Concerns about loss of green space / land 99 5% Do not perceive / see any problems here/ not needed in this area 91 4% Congestion will worsen 79 4% The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 77 4% Disagree with the proposals 76 4% Too many traffic lights proposed 74 4% Need a bypass instead 68 3% Waste of money 52 3% Good idea / agree with the proposals 42 2% Concerns about changes to access 42 2% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 41 2% Will be a much needed improvement /good result 38 2% Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 37 2% Proposal looks too complicated / unclear 36 2% Proposals will increase rat-running on local roads 35 2% Too many junctions / proposal of extra junctions 34 2% Concerns that will result in extended journey times 32 2% The largest number of comments received in relation to Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane junction indicates that the proposals are a waste of time and a pointless exercise (166 comments; 8%). A total of 76 comments (4%) disagree with the proposals, with additional comments deeming the proposals as a waste of money (52; 3%) and a short sighted solution (41; 2%). A proportion of comments relate to the loss of green space and land (99; 5%) particularly in relation to the land take required from the South Downs National Park. A number of comments express that there are too many junctions (34; 2%) and the proposal looks too complicated (36; 2%). A common theme is the perception on congestion. A number of comments (79; 4%) believe that congestion will worsen, with 77 comments (4%) believing that traffic lights cause more congestion. A proportion of comments (74; 4%) feel that there are too many traffic lights being proposed. A number of comments (35; 2%) believe the proposals will cause more rat-running on local roads. Alternatively a number of comments do not perceive a problem at this junction (91; 4%), whilst 42 comments (2%) believe the proposals are a good idea. An additional 38 comments (2%) feel that the proposals will be a much needed improvement. 36

48 Grinstead Lane / Manor Road Junction Respondents gave 2,488 comments on these junctions. Table 6.6 shows the comments that were frequently mentioned, and that represent a proportion of the results. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. Table 6.6: Do you have any comments on the proposals for Grinstead Lane / Halewick Lane Junction? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Congestion will worsen 105 4% Concerns about changes to access 105 4% The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 104 4% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 92 4% Proposal looks too complicated / unclear 78 3% Disagree with the proposals 77 3% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 77 3% Too many traffic lights proposed 73 3% Concerns about loss of green space / land 60 2% Need a bypass instead 58 2% Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 54 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 50 2% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 48 2% Good idea / agree with the proposals 47 2% Concerns that will result in extended journey times 41 2% Do not perceive / see any problems here/ not needed in this area 40 2% Suggest traffic light controlled roundabout 38 2% A roundabout would be more preferable 38 2% Similarly to the last junction, the most common theme suggests that the proposals are a waste of time and a pointless exercise (124 comments; 5%). A total of 77 comments (3%) disagree with the proposals, with additional comments considering the proposals as a short sighted solution (48; 2%). Another recurring theme is the impact of the proposals on congestion. A proportion of comments (105; 4%) believe that congestion will worsen, with 104 comments (4%) suggesting that the introduction of traffic lights will cause congestion. A number of comments 73 (3%) feel that too many traffic lights are proposed, with an additional 41 comments (2%) raising concern that the proposals will result in extended journey times. A proportion of comments raised concern about the loss of green space and land (60 comments; 2%), especially from Lancing Manor Leisure Centre, with a subsequent 105 comments (4%) having concern over the changes to access as a result of the proposals. A number of comments (50; 2%) also raised concern over the impact on air quality and pollution. On the other hand, a number of comments 47 (2%) were in support of the proposals for Grinstead Lane / Halewick Lane junction, whereas 40 comments (2%) did not perceive there to be an issue at this particular junction. Alternative solutions were also mentioned, with 58 comments (2%) expressing the need for a bypass and 38 comments (2%) preferring a roundabout solution and 38 comments (2%) suggesting a traffic light controlled roundabout. All junctions In total, respondents gave 2,597 comments on all the junctions. Table 6.7 shows the most frequently mentioned coded comments. The full list of codes and their associated frequencies are presented in Appendix C. 37

49 Table 6.7: Do you have any comments on the proposals for all the junctions (1 to 6)? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Need a bypass instead 197 8% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 178 7% Waste of money 148 6% Congestion will worsen 91 4% The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 63 2% Disagree with the proposals 59 2% Insufficient funding / needs more money and investment 57 2% Concerns about disruption during works 57 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 55 2% Proposals provide a poor benefit to cost ratio / return for money 55 2% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 53 2% Too many traffic lights proposed 44 2% Council / Government negatives 44 2% Traffic / congestion / queues (general) 43 2% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 39 2% On the proposals as a whole, the main theme resolves around the proposals being a waste of time (247 comments; 10%) and money (148 comments; 6%). A number of comments (178; 7%) believe the proposals are a short-sighted solution, with an additional 57 comments (2%) expressing the need for greater money and investment. The proposals providing a poor benefit to cost ratio was mentioned in 55 comments (2%). Subsequently negatives towards the council / government was noted in 44 comments (2%). A significant proportion of the comments expressed the need for a bypass instead of an improvements scheme (197 comments; 8%). Another common theme is related to congestion and traffic lights. 91 comment (4%) believe that the proposals will worsen congestion, with 63 comments (2%) attributing more congestion to the proposed traffic lights. A number of comments (44; 2%) feel that there are too many traffic light proposed. The proposals as a whole also raised concern about the impact on local residents and communities (39 comments; 2%). An additional 57 comments (2%) are concerned about the disruption during works, and a number (55; 2%) are concerned about the air quality and pollution that may be caused as a result of the proposals. School concerns were also raised in 53 comments (2%). Support for the proposed scheme (Option 1) Question 9 then asked respondents to indicate their views on the proposed Option 1 solution for the A27 Worthing to Lancing. The result in Figure 6.3 indicates that there is a low level of support for the proposed scheme. As shown, 76% of respondents overall do not support the proposed Option 1 (63%; 1,054 strongly disagree, 13%; 216 disagree). Meanwhile, 15% of respondents support the proposed Option 1 (7%; 115 strongly agree and 8%; 143 agree with the proposed scheme). A further 9% of respondents (146) expressed a neutral opinion and 1% (12 respondents) answered don t know. 38

50 Figure 6.3: Overall, to what extent do you support the proposed option (Option 1) for the A27 Worthing to Lancing improvements? 1% 7% 8% 9% Strongly agree Agree Neutral or undecided 63% 13% Disagree Strongly disagree Don t know Base: n=1, Whilst the results in Figure 6.1 clearly indicate that while there is very strong support for improving the A27 between Worthing and Lancing (86%; 1,453 respondents), Figure 6.3 shows that the proposed solution (Option 1) is not supported in its current format (76%; 1,270 respondents). Question 10 then went on to ask respondents to provide details to support their response on the extent to which they support Option 1. In total, 5,002 comments were received in response to Question 10, with Table 6.8 indicating the most common responses. Appendix C provides a full list of codes and their associated frequencies. Table 6.8: Please provide details to illustrate your response to Question 9 DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 330 7% Need a bypass instead 311 6% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Waste of money 240 5% Congestion will worsen 198 4% Insufficient funding / needs more money and investment 150 3% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 146 3% Concerns about disruption during works 140 3% Proposals provide a poor benefit to cost ratio / return for money 136 3% Other negative comments 126 3% Disagree with the proposals 122 2% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 118 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 110 2% Council / Government negatives 100 2% The proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion 86 2% The most frequently mentioned comment relates to the proposals being a short-sighted solution (330 comments; 7%). An additional proportion of comments believe the scheme to be a waste of time (294; 6%) and money (240; 5%). A number of comments feel there is insufficient funding for the scheme (150; 3%), with 136 comments (3%) stating that the proposals will provide a poor benefit to cost ratio. Subsequently a number of comments (311; 6%) expressed the need for a bypass solution. The proposals impact on congestion was also a common theme. 198 comments (4%) believe that congestion will worsen, with an additional 86 comments (2%) stating that the proposed traffic lights will cause more congestion. As a result, concerns about air quality and pollution was mentioned in 110 comments (2%). 39

51 Concerns about residents and communities was apparent in 118 comments (2%), with concern over disruption during works mentioned in 140 comments (3%). School concerns, in terms of safety for pupils and additional traffic generated during term time was noted in 146 comments (3%) Alternative improvements Question 11 sought to understand from respondents whether they had any alternative improvements that should be considered that would meet the scheme objectives, having taken account of the project constraints and past studies. In total, 3,745 comments were coded in response to this question, with the most common codes presented in Table 6.9. A full list of codes and frequencies can be viewed in Appendix C. Table 6.9: Having read the brochure and taking into account the constraints and past studies conclusions, please share your views on any alternative improvements we should consider that would meet the scheme objectives DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Need a bypass instead % Insufficient funding / needs more money and investment 224 6% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 144 4% Need flyovers / overpasses 129 3% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Need tunnel 104 3% The A27 should be dual carriageway, not single carriageway 96 3% Suggest alternative route (using existing roads) 95 3% Waste of money 81 2% Need underpasses 76 2% Suggest removal / turning off of traffic lights 72 2% Lack of following up since last consultation 69 2% Disagree with the proposals 66 2% Suggest widening / extra lanes 57 2% Pedestrian / cycle bridges / underpasses should be introduced 57 2% The most frequently mentioned alternative improvement was the need for a bypass (674 comments; 18%), with 95 comments (3%) suggesting the use of existing roads for an alternative route. A number of comments believe that the A27 should be dual carriageway along its entire length rather than single carriageway (96 comments; 3%). Other improvements included flyovers / overpasses (129; 3%), a tunnel (104; 3%), underpasses (76; 2%), removal / turning off traffic lights (72; 2%), widening to accommodate extra lanes (57; 2%) and introducing bridges or underpasses for pedestrians and cyclists (57; 2%). A proportion of comments stressed that the scheme has insufficient funding (224; 6%) and that the solution presented is short sighted (144 comments; 4%). Subsequently a number of comments were received stating that the scheme is a waste of time (119; 3%) and money (81; 2%) with a lack of following up from the previous consultations on the A27 at Worthing and Lancing (69; 2%). Other comments Question 13 provided respondents with the opportunity to provide any additional comments that they would like to make in relation to the proposed junction improvements scheme. In total 3,659 comments were coded in response to this question. The common themes that were mentioned are shown in Table The full list of codes and associated frequencies are in Appendix C. Table 6.10: Do you have any other comments on the proposed junction improvements scheme? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE 40

52 DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Waste of money 255 7% Need a bypass instead 237 6% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Insufficient funding / needs more money and investment 143 4% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 139 4% Congestion will worsen 132 4% Disagree with the proposals 131 4% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 123 3% Council / Government negatives 95 3% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 80 2% Concerns about pollution / air quality 69 2% Lack of following up since last consultation 65 2% Concerns about disruption during works 61 2% The most frequently mentioned comment relates to the proposals being a waste of money (255 comments; 7%). An additional proportion of comments believe the scheme to be a waste of time (215; 6%) and a short-sighted solution (123; 3%). A number of comments feel there is insufficient funding for the scheme (143; 4%). Subsequently a number of comments (237; 6%) expressed the need for a bypass solution. School concerns, in terms of safety for pupils and additional traffic generated during term time were noted in a proportion of comments (139: 4%). Concerns about residents and communities were apparent in 80 comments (2%), with concern over disruption during works mentioned in 61 comments (2%). The proposals impact on congestion was also a common themes. 132 comments (4%) believe that congestion will worsen, with a number of comments (69; 2%) raising concern over the impact of the proposals on air quality and pollution. Provision for walkers, cyclists and horse riders Question 12 of the questionnaire gave respondents the opportunity to provide any suggestions in ways that the provision for walkers, cyclists and horse-riders could be improved as a part of the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme. A total of 3,028 comments were received in response. Table 6.11 demonstrates the key comments made in response, with the full code frame and frequencies being provided in Appendix C. Table 6.11: How do you think we can improve the provision for people walking, cycling and horse riding as part of the proposed junction improvements scheme? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Suggest segregated pedestrian / cycle lanes away from vehicular traffic % Pedestrian / cycle bridges / underpasses should be introduced 283 9% Need a bypass instead 201 7% Need underpasses 153 5% No horse in the area, no need for improvements 100 3% Concerns about pedestrian crossings (not enough, not safe, elderly) 98 3% Concerns about cycling (not safe, improvements needed) 80 3% Suggest pedestrian crossing/lights 66 2% Suggest banning horses from A % Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Suggest segregated bridle paths away from vehicular traffic 51 2% Concerns about road safety 49 2% Concerns were raised about the safety and quantity of pedestrian crossings especially for children and the elderly (98 comments; 3%), with 80 comments (3%) raising concern over cycling and the need for safe improvements. Concerns about general road safety was apparent in 49 comments (2%). 41

53 The most frequent view on how to improve the provision for people walking, cycling and horse riding is to provide segregated pedestrian and cycle lanes away from vehicular traffic (375 comments; 12%). An additional 283 comments (9%) suggest that bridges and underpasses should be introduced for pedestrians and cyclists. A number of comments (100; 3%) expressed that there is no requirement for equestrian improvements as a part of the improvements scheme with 57 comments (2%) proposing to ban horses from the A27. However 51 comments (2%) suggested segregated bridleways away from vehicular traffic would improve the provision for horse riders. Consultation process Question 20 aimed to gather respondents views on the consultation process. In total 1,237 comments were made in response to this question. Table 6.12 indicates the most frequently mentioned comments, with a full list of codes and frequencies being available in Appendix C. Table 6.12: Do you have any comments about the consultation process? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE People not listened to / views not taken into account % Highways England negatives 94 8% Disagree with 1 option only / no provision on consultation for more than 1 option 91 7% Council / Government negatives 86 7% Survey / consultation positives 81 7% Waste of money 76 6% Questionnaire negatives 71 6% Waste of time / pointless exercise - will not improve the A % Need a bypass instead 51 4% Short sighted solution / tinkering with large problem 33 3% Lack of following up since last consultation 32 3% Insufficient funding / needs more money and investment 30 2% Disagree with the proposals 28 2% Consultation negatives 23 2% School concerns (safety, term time traffic) 21 2% The main comment made in relation to the consultation process, was that people felt they were not being listened to (128; 10%). Subsequently negative comments were received towards Highways England (94; 8%) and the council / government (86; 7%). A number of comments believe that the proposals are a waste of money (76; 6%) due to them being a short sighted solution (33; 3%) with insufficient funding (30; 2%). A proportion of comments disagreed with only 1 option being consulted upon (91; 7%), with 51 comments (4%) expressing the need for a bypass solution. A number of comments (32; 2%) felt that there was a lack of follow up from the previous consultation on the A27 at Worthing and Lancing. A number of comments were negatively received toward the questionnaire (71; 6%), in terms of biased questions in the wording, and the consultation process (23; 2%) with respondents feeling that it should have been extended due to the holiday period. Alternatively, 81 comments (7%) expressed positives towards the questionnaire and consultation process. 42

54 7 Stakeholder responses 7.1 Introduction This section provides an overview of the written responses received in relation to the public consultation from stakeholders. Each stakeholder submission has been tabulated to indicate the organisations (or individual s) overall position in relation to the proposed scheme (Option 1), the positive and negative comments on the proposed scheme, and any further suggestions. The full submission from each stakeholder (excluding those that responded via the questionnaire) is provided in Appendix D. Stakeholder response by type There were a total of 69 stakeholder responses received by , letter and by responding to the questionnaire. Stakeholders have been categorised into: Local Authority Political / Elected Member Parish Council Environmental Group Businesses & Business Organisations Education Centre Emergency Services Transport / User Group Resident Groups / Association Community Group Table 7.1 indicates the number of stakeholders by type / group, with the percentage by type that support the proposed option, that are neutral or undecided, and those that oppose the option proposed. Table 7.1: Stakeholder by type, and percentage support / neutral / opposed to Option 1 STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOTAL SUPPORT NEUTRAL OPPOSED Local Authority 6 67% 17% 17% Political / Elected Member 11 0% 0% 100% Parish Council 3 33% 0% 67% Environment Group 4 50% 50% 0% Business Organisation 8 13% 13% 74% Business 8 25% 13% 62% Education Centre 1 0% 0% 100% Emergency Services 1 0% 0% 100% Transport / User Group 7 29% 0% 71% Resident Group / Association 9 11% 0% 89% Community Group 11 18% 9% 73% Total 69 22% 8% 70% 43

55 7.3 Local authorities Adur and Worthing Councils Table 7.2: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councils ADUR & WORTHING COUNCILS Strongly support the need for a scheme but are opposed to the proposed option. Any scheme to reduce congestion is to be welcomed. Concerned that aims to reduce emissions from traffic will not be achieved until traffic can flow more smoothly and at a higher speed. Fear the proposals do not go far enough and are unlikely to significantly reduce congestion, particularly through Worthing. The impact of developments on traffic levels and flows must be taken into account in any plans for the A27. Consideration should be given to enhancements to the carriageways entering and exiting the junctions in Worthing. Dedicated safe cycle lanes should be included. The provision of safe walking and cycling routes in and around the Grove Lodge junction must be included, with access to Worthing College being most important. Arun District Council Table 7.3: Summary of response from Arun District Council ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL Arun District Council supports the proposals. Proposals do not have any negative impacts on Arun District. Believe the proposals will provide improvement to the capacity of the A27 will help local businesses and residents. Standalone improvements to the A27 along the South Coast are achievable. N/A A more holistic approach to improvements along the South Coast is preferable. Horsham District Council Table 7.4: Summary of response form Horsham District Council HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL Broadly supports the proposals, but disappointed with the scheme s lack of future proofing and ability to improve air quality. Ideally would like to see a reconsideration of all of the options. The proposals will reduce traffic flows on the A283. Do not believe the option could reduce the existing congestion, let alone the proposed future increase. Concerned that the proposals do not give maximum value for money. Feel that the scheme does not address long term pressures on the surrounding road 44

56 HORSHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL networks, which could limit the amount of housing development. Believe the scheme would result in increased accelerating and decelerating in vehicles, leading to a rise in air pollution, in particular NO 2 and particulate matter (PM). Disappointed with only the minor non-motorised user improvements, as they believe improving these would reduce vehicle numbers. Option 2, Option 5 and the Hybrid option should be reconsidered. Opportunity for electric vehicle charging infrastructure to be included. Would like to work with Highways England to see whether more substantial improvements could offer good value for money. Would like a construction phasing plan that minimises the duration and impact of construction. If the proposal does not go ahead, would need to see smaller scale proposals at some of the junctions to mitigate the impact of development-related traffic. They believe that do nothing is not an option. Requests a package of mitigation and compensation measures to be developed with regards to the environmental impacts. Considerations are made of the cumulative impact of all the A27 improvement schemes before the Preferred Route Announcement. Would like to see how the impact on GDP (Gross Domestic Product) has been calculated. Littlehampton Town Council Table 7.5: Summary of response from Littlehampton Town Council LITTLEHAMPTON TOWN COUNCIL Supports the proposals, given the budget constraints. Investment in the junction improvements and crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists is welcomed. The scheme would seem to reduce the likely continued deterioration in congestion. The current proposals do not have the capacity to cater well for the peak period in the longer term. Concerned that there are no significant bus improvements planned. Concerned that there is no likely investment in rail infrastructure. Ministers should reconsider the overall budget available to the scheme. Local authorities should consider measures such as traffic restraint policies, improvements to public transport, increased walking and cycling to deal with capacity issues in the longer term. West Sussex County Council Table 7.6: Summary of response from West Sussex County Council WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL Support the proposed option it is in the best interest of both the local residents and the wider West Sussex Community. 45

57 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL The proposals perform positively against all of the objectives. Believe they are able to improve public transport and non-motorised user facilities to compliment the proposed option. Supports the use of the West Sussex County Transport Model (WSCTM) as a tool to assess the performance of the proposals. Believes Option 1 will positively impact traffic flow in areas, including A259 east of Worthing, as well as Offington Avenue. Additional capacity at the 7 junctions, increasing flows. Considers that the additional traffic signals will be beneficial at peak times. Would consider greater use of Intelligent Transport Systems to help manage traffic on the A27. Welcome the proposed non-motorised user facilities at junctions on the corridor (however, they would like to see how they connect to the wider network). Concerned that the benefits will decrease over time, creating a need for more improvements in the future. The proposed sustainable transport measures are unlikely to meet the Government s ambition for sustainable transport measures. Foresee rat running increasing on some local roads. Concerned that the additional traffic signals will extend journey times in the interpeak period. Query the landscape impact assessment of the Busticle Lane improvements as it does not include the impact of the proposal to realign at the end of Halewick Lane. Disappointed that the proposal does not positively impact air quality. West Sussex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority Table 7.7: Summary of response from West Sussex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCIL LEAD LOCAL FLOOD AUTHORITY Neutral / undecided. N/A Proposals will have significant ramifications for the wider drainage strategy affecting Manor Road estate upstream and the Lancing Brook catchment, downstream. Wish to provide input to the detailed scheme. Would also like to discuss the overall run-off from the watershed west of Grinstead Lane Roundabout. 7.4 Political / elected members Adur District Councillor Table 7.8: Summary of response from Adur District Councillor ADUR DISTRICT COUNCILLOR Objects to the proposals. N/A 46

58 ADUR DISTRICT COUNCILLOR The proposals are inadequate and would only make matters worse. The proposals are a waste of taxpayers money. Flyovers, single lane in each direction, over the roundabout and junctions. Adur Green Party Table 7.9: Summary of response from Adur Green Party ADUR GREEN PARTY Neutral / undecided about need for scheme does not support option proposed. N/A Concerned about current facilities for cycling between Shoreham and Worthing. Air quality and pollution concerns particularly near busy roads where regularly exceed harmful levels. Crossing the A27 can be hazardous. Sompting Village is adversely affected by car and van traffic rat-running. Not all planned or perceived growth on the A27 is inevitable and may even be undesirable. Traffic volumes can reduce by improvements to other modes, but improvements outlined would in all likelihood pull more traffic onto the A27. Proposals are unlikely to significantly improve the flow of traffic on the A27, particularly in the medium term. Mechanisms to reduce the level of motorised transport and offer lower carbon solutions to mobility are underinvested. We are completely opposed to consideration of other routes to take traffic off the A27 by bypassing of any sort. Attention to safe parallel-to-motor routes and safe crossing both at junctions and across the axis of the A27 route are essential. The scheme should be seen as an opportunity now to design these in to the higher standards achieved in e.g. the Netherlands. Within a constraint that the Green Party sets that no new routeway should be created, we contend that the existing proposed budget or, if required, a greater amount should be allocated by Highways England or other public sector partners to improving sustainable and low carbon transport options for this route. Adur and Worthing Councillor (1) Table 7.10: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councillor (1) ADUR & WORTHING COUNCILLOR (1) Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Strongly object to any land being taken from Manor Park. Object to any cut through making Manor Road any worse than the rat run it is at the moment. Do not feel scheme has been thought through by anyone that actually uses this 47

59 ADUR & WORTHING COUNCILLOR (1) route. Put lights at Manor roundabout. Put in cycle paths. Adur and Worthing Councillor (2) Table 7.11: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Councillor (2) ADUR & WORTHING COUNCILLOR (2) Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Do not feel scheme has been thought through by anyone that actually uses this route. Put lights at Manor Roundabout. Put in cycle paths. European Parliament, MEP for the South East of England Table 7.12: Summary of response from MEP for the South East of England EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, MEP FOR THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAND Neutral / undecided about need for scheme against proposals. Relieved the proposed new junctions will have protected pedestrian and cycle crossing facilities. Reducing the number of roundabouts and replacing them with signal controlled crossings will make the road safer for cyclists and pedestrians. The scheme does not promote low carbon mobility. Disappointed that the Government has yet again failed to adopt a joined up approach to mobility. Combining road improvements with investment in public transport and incentives to walk and cycle is the only truly viable way to reduce congestion on our roads. Against relentless focus on road building which will only serve to increase traffic and pollution and contribute to climate change. It crucial to minimise demand and implement measures that will actually reduce traffic. Convinced that if investment in public transport, cycling and walking and creating intermodal sustainable mobility chains, were given the adequate resources, the current roads would be fit for purpose. The Worthing Lancing section of the A27 does not need upgrading, altering or expanding. The investment is much better placed in taking the steps to promote alternative modes of transport. Believe that there is very little evidence that new road schemes have a positive economic impact. Combining road improvements with investment in public transport and incentives to walk and cycle is the only truly viable way to reduce congestion on our roads. Smart transport planning, including changes to the built environment e.g. focusing development in towns around new and existing rail stations, and creating transport 48

60 EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, MEP FOR THE SOUTH EAST OF ENGLAND hubs that facilitate end-to-end journeys involving more than 1 mode of transport, is also crucial in reaching this goal. Ultimately, the only long term solution to relieving congestion and improving safety on our roads is to reduce the number of motorised vehicles using them. Would like to see the scheme include provision for green infrastructure such as low roadside hedges which have been shown to reduce the impact of pollution from traffic. Greater consideration also needs to be given to the impact of road use on climate change. Dedicated bus lanes should therefore be considered for inclusion in the scheme. Recommend that the scheme involves all such measures including ensuring stepfree access to buses and Toucan crossings fitted with rotating cones to assist deaf and blind people crossing the road. The inclusion of a protected and separate cycle lane along the entire east west route needs to be prioritised, whether or not it is feasible for this to run parallel with the A27 itself. The new Toucan crossings must be well designed and in line with the recommendations made by Sustrans, including detector loops cut into approach paths used to call the signal so that it is green when cyclists and pedestrians reach the crossing. Toucan crossings should be single-stage unless impossible. Where staggered or multi-stage crossings are genuinely the only viable solution, space in the central waiting area must be maximised. Crossings should be located on desired cycle routes, provide direct connections to traffic free routes on either side of the road and take account of cyclists wishing to leave or join the carriageway at the crossing. Cyclists leaving the carriageway to access the Toucan crossing will need a separate slip off the carriageway in advance of the crossing to avoid conflict with pedestrians or cyclists waiting to cross. Lancing Parish Councillor Table 7.13: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Councillor LANCING PARISH COUNCILLOR Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A As an ex driving instructor I do not think these so called improvements will have very little impact on traffic flow, not worth the money, time and inconvenience. The best answer is a bypass from the Shoreham flyover to the A27 west of Worthing. Not worth time or money. A bypass is the best solution, and the only one that would work in the long run. Lancing Parish Councillor and Adur Councillor Table 7.14: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Councillor & Adur Councillor LANCING PARISH COUNCILLOR AND ADUR COUNCILLOR Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. 49

61 LANCING PARISH COUNCILLOR AND ADUR COUNCILLOR The Busticle Lane proposal looks like a genuine improvement. Believe that the majority of this is good for cars travelling through Lancing. Not convinced that signals would improve journey times at Offington Corner roundabout. Missed opportunity to fully redesign Grove Lodge Junction. Serious concerns it will make the traffic in Grinstead lane even worse and extend journey times for those trying to get out of Lancing, clogging up local roads even further, especially in the mornings. Very concerned that the improvements to through traffic on the A27 at the 'manor roundabout' will come at a cost of blocking up Grinstead lane and local feeder roads in Lancing even further. Remove traffic lights to reduce delays. A longer terms solution is needed. Option 3A or the hybrid version would be best - and require more money but it would be well invested. Bridges. West Sussex County Councillor (Cissbury Division) Table 7.15: Summary of response from West Sussex County Councillor (Cissbury Division) WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCILLOR (CISSBURY DIVISION) Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A The major issue with the A27 is poor traffic flow due to traffic light junctions and the huge amount of through traffic which is almost exclusively huge Lorries. Concerned that a bypass at Arundel, will cause traffic to come as far as Worthing and stop. This first set of traffic lights will hold up the traffic in all directions. It will also cause dangerous rat running through High Salvington. Offington Junction - Traffic lights at this junction would be disastrous. Again, the traffic flows perfectly well as it is and all that is needed is a slip road onto Warren Road from the Findon Road. It would be a dreadful backwards step to hold traffic up here with lights. Grove Lodge Junction - The proposed change to the road layout will make no difference to traffic flow as the traffic still has to merge into 1 lane on either side of the roundabout. This area could be improved hugely with very little in the way of changes. Occasionally the traffic lights have been out of order and when Grove Lodge is able to be used as a roundabout, there is no doubt that the traffic flow is vastly improved and the pollution levels vastly less - all the statistics back this up. The stopping of the right turn down Sompting Road is unnecessary and will cause terrible traffic problems in Sompting. Traffic will be taken away from the main roads and into residential areas. Sompting Road is the main route to the tip. The huge lorries that go there must not be pushed into narrow residential streets. Busticle Lane - There is no benefit whatsoever to this junction from the improvements suggested. 50

62 WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCILLOR (CISSBURY DIVISION) Grinstead Lane - The changes to the road here do not take into account the possible changes along this stretch of the A27 if the planning application for IKEA and housing is approved at New Monks Farm. Concerned that the proposal shown for the layout for this junction on the New Monks Farm plan is entirely different. There is no overall benefit to residents from these proposals. The marginal increase in journey times which is proposed is certainly not worth 69 million and 2 years of disruption. It seems extraordinary to me that if the purpose of the option is to improve traffic flow, then how can adding 5 extra sets of traffic lights to a relatively short stretch of road which already has 4 sets of lights, be helpful? These proposals are not welcome. My residents do not want this proposal and feel that it is not value for money. They would rather that the money was taken away than this scheme went ahead. If the road is improved even slightly then more traffic will use it. These numerous sets of traffic lights will only add to the congestion and pollution. There are 2 solutions to the problems of traffic congestion and pollution on the A27: Firstly remove the traffic lights from the Grove Lodge roundabout. The pedestrian crossings may be left temporarily but only until a footbridge is built. Worthing College are in agreement (I am a Governor there) and West Sussex County Council own a large piece of land adjacent to the roundabout, perfect for a footbridge. Secondly, a proper study and costing has to be made into using the money available to improve the A283/A24/A280 route. The only solution to Lyons Farm is to put in a tunnel for through traffic. West Sussex County Councillor (Storrington Division) Table 7.16: Summary of response from West Sussex County Councillor (Storrington Division) WEST SUSSEX COUNTY COUNCILLOR (STORRINGTON DIVISION) Strongly supports need for scheme. Supportive of improved journey time that detracts diverted traffic, particularly Heavy Goods Vehicles through rural villages. While I do not want to undermine the current proposal, the planned improvements only marginally address the issue. Not entirely convinced changing to traffic lights will work at Offington. May benefit peak traffic but not inter-peak traffic. Would have considered the fact that accidents on this locality are in the Top 10 would have given more emphasis to do more that adjust key junctions. Worthing Borough Councillor Table 7.17: Summary of response from Worthing Borough Councillor WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCILLOR Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A 51

63 WORTHING BOROUGH COUNCILLOR Existing infrastructure is very poor, supporting a significant volume of through and local traffic. N/A Worthing Green Party Table 7.18: Summary of response from Worthing Green Party WORTHING GREEN PARTY Against scheme and proposed option. N/A Provision for cycling appears to be poor, with no segregated cycle lanes. Life for pedestrians will be made worse, with restricted crossing of the road, and more noise and pollution. Increased traffic will increase noise and pollution along the entire route. Do not see the point of this hugely expensive and disruptive project. It is not a sustainable approach to the problem. There is no discussion of carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions and climate change. Concerned about restriction of people getting in and out of their properties prioritises through traffic over the convenience of local residents. Increasing the capacity of the junctions will lead to pressure for dualling the single carriageway road through built up areas. This is environmentally unacceptable because of noise, pollution and visual intrusion. The scheme is only marginally cost effective. The term "improvements" is inappropriate and annoying. A study looking at the whole transport issue across all modes of travel, using the principles of modern sustainable urban/suburban transport planning. 7.5 Parish councils Lancing Parish Council Table 7.19: Summary of response from Lancing Parish Council LANCING PARISH COUNCIL Lancing Parish council objects to the proposals. N/A Objects to the proposed scheme due to its inadequacy. Alternative scheme that have the inclusion of flyovers, a relief road or a bypass. Storrington and Sullington Parish Council Table 7.20: Summary of response from Storrington & Sullington Parish Council STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Strongly agrees with need for scheme supports scheme in the absence of any 52

64 STORRINGTON & SULLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL other option. In the absence of any other options or extra funding, the Parish Council supports the scheme proposed. This Parish Council does not consider that the proposals do not provide a long-term solution required to prevent traffic from detouring through villages such as Storrington. However in the absence of any other option or indeed extra funding for a more complex scheme, the Parish Council supports the scheme proposed. N/A Washington Parish Council Table 7.21: Summary of response from Washington Parish Council WASHINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Washington Parish Council are opposed to the proposals. N/A Proposals do not go sufficiently far enough to address congestion. Projected time saving (3 minutes) represent poor value for money. Increased budget essential to make meaningful changes. 7.6 Environmental groups Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Sussex Table 7.22: Summary of response from Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) Sussex CAMPAIGN TO PROTECT RURAL ENGLAND (CPRE) SUSSEX Supports need for scheme against proposed option. We welcome the decision to upgrade existing road. Need more evidence as to why the consultation brochure claims that greater reliance on public transport, walking and cycling would be unlikely to alleviate congestion on the A27 through Worthing and Lancing? Undoubtedly this would be a better way of meeting the scheme objectives. Believe that this work needs to be part of a wider package of measures to reduce the use of motorised vehicles. Believe that option should be better aligned with Local Plans and planned development. More consideration needs to be given to the proposals for cyclists and horse riders to ensure that there is wider connectivity and safety at junctions. Environment Agency Table 7.23: Summary of response from Environment Agency ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Will continue to positively engage with Highways England and provide advice on the options as they develop. 53

65 ENVIRONMENT AGENCY Flood risk is not anticipated to increase as is the proposal is for online improvements. Pleased that mitigation will be provided, in line with the Design Manual for Road and Bridges (DMRB). Concerned about potential risk to the water environment: Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction is located at the extremities of tidal Flood Zones 2 and 3. Most of the junction is located within Flood Zone 1. Some of the proposed improvements are located in areas that have historical local flooding problems from groundwater, surface water and foul sewage. The existing surface water pipe network is undersized in places. The proposed works pose a risk to surface and ground water quality through increased pollution from highways runoff. Does not agree with the consultation statement that the scheme is unlikely to have notable benefits or impacts on the quality of the water environment. Continued engagement with the Environment Agency advised to ensure the issues are resolved and the opportunities are maximised. Historic England Table 7.24: Summary of response from Historic England HISTORIC ENGLAND Does not object to the proposals. Does not believe the planned works will cause any additional harm to designated heritage assets that is already caused by the A27. N/A Local Planning Authority conservation staff should be asked to comment on the proposed design, so that any potential harm to historic areas, buildings and archaeological remains can be minimised and suitable mitigation planned. Sussex Wildlife Trust Table 7.25: Summary of response from Sussex Wildlife Trust SUSSEX WILDLIFE TRUST Scheme will only deliver slight benefit. N/A The scheme will deliver only a slight benefit to congestion. Believes that the consultation has failed to consider the New Monks Farm development. Concerned that the Busticle Lane / Halewick Lane junction requires land acquisition which is within the South Downs National Park. Information provided at this stage in the ESR (Environmental Study Report) is too limited to understand the ecological impact of the scheme. The impact on biodiversity has not been sufficiently determined. Concerned that a holistic solution to local transport improvements has not been presented as part of this consultation. 54

66 SUSSEX WILDLIFE TRUST Improvements to public transport to reduce that amount of local travel. 7.7 Local businesses and business organisations Business organisations Adur and Worthing Business Partnership Table 7.26: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Business Partnership ADUR AND WORTHING BUSINESS PARTNERSHIP Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A The scheme is too little to make a difference. Highways England should work fully with West Sussex County Council after badly thought out A259 scheme. Coastal West Sussex Partnership Table 7.27: Summary of response from Coastal West Sussex Partnership COASTAL WEST SUSSEX PARTNERSHIP Supports comments prepared by Worthing and Adur Chamber of Commerce against a single option. N/A Disappointed with only 1 option being presented. Optimum solution to improving and creating reliable journey times is through a dual carriageway along the whole A27 route. A holistic approach is necessary to have a positive impact on the area. Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) Table 7.28: Summary of response from Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) FEDERATION OF SMALL BUSINESSES (FSB) Neither objects nor supports scheme. N/A Would like to see realistic budget so that longer term solution can be created. Does not want disruption every few years; would want scheme to benefit businesses, tourists and residents. Consideration for a bypass with tunnels along the edge of the South Downs National Park. Hargreaves Group of Companies Table 7.29: Summary of response from Hargreaves Group of Companies HARGREAVES GROUP OF COMPANIES 55

67 HARGREAVES GROUP OF COMPANIES Supports the proposals. Fully supports the proposed option as it meets scheme objectives. The additional carriageway and traffic signal nodes between Grove Lodge roundabout and Upper Brighton Road will deliver the highways capacity benefits as well as reducing congestion. N/A Clarification of how proposals in the emerging Local Plan are reflected in within the scheme s plan. Lancing Business Park Table 7.30: Summary of response from Lancing Business Park LANCING BUSINESS PARK Objects to the proposal. N/A Reject outright the proposal. Will incur a loss of income during the 2 year construction. If the proposal goes ahead, a lot of large companies will have to move out of the area. Refer to proposal as a cheap sticking plaster option. Tunnelling under the Downs. Grade separation. Sussex Chamber of Commerce Table 7.31: Summary of response from Sussex Chamber of Commerce SUSSEX CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option N/A Concerned about the cost implications, the long-term economic solution for the region, journey times, congestion, pollution and road safety. Feedback from businesses in the area is that future development has not been taken into account. Concerned about the lack of alternative proposals. No clear indication about the timing and impact of construction phase. There needs to be a long term and sustainable benefit to the environment. A revised scheme needs to consider a long-term solution to help drive the economy in the area. It needs to take into account new developments, road safety and cut down on pollution. 56

68 Worthing Town Centre Initiative and Business Improvement District Table 7.32: Summary of response from Worthing Town Centre Initiative & Business Improvement District WORTHING TOWN CENTRE INITIATIVE & BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Objects to proposal not fit for purpose. N/A Option put forward is not fit for purpose, with the request for Highways England to go back and create a new option. The option delivers little or no long term improvement to journey times. Several years of construction will not only cause travel disruption, but also negatively affect the quality of life for residents and visitors. It will have economic consequences. Would like to see a new proposal that removes the pinch points by incorporating overpasses and underpasses. Believe that the area has economic potential that needs to be unlocked through more investment in the road infrastructure. Worthing and Adur Chamber of Commerce Table 7.33: Summary of response from Worthing & Adur Chamber of Commerce WORTHING & ADUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Objects to the proposals. Agree with the schemes objectives. Reject the proposed option, stating unfit for purpose. Budget of million is not sufficient for most densely populated local authority in East & West Sussex. Government to reconsider budget. In a revised version of the same route, would like to see: Grade separation at Grove Lodge, Durrington Cemetery and Lyons Farm New Monks Farm development to be factored into plans Improved road safety Decrease in air pollution. Businesses Broadwater Medical Centre Table 7.34: Summary of response from Broadwater Medical Centre BROADWATER MEDICAL CENTRE Supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Concerned about an increase in the use of Durrington and Salvington Hills as a rat run if this becomes a traffic light junction. Neither routes are suitable for commercial vehicles in particular who should use A27/A24. 57

69 BROADWATER MEDICAL CENTRE Too little for too high a cost. A complete waste of tax payer s money. A proper by pass is the only long term solution. Grove Lodge Veterinary Group Table 7.35: Summary of response from Grove Lodge Veterinary Group GROVE LODGE VETERINARY GROUP Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Very concerned about safety, particularly in terms of proposal for Grove Lodge. More traffic will make matters worse. Concerned that the scheme appears to be piecemeal. Believe that issues will only get worse with the planned development, including proposed IKEA at Shoreham. Feel that the only solution is a new road - or maybe development of Long Furlong to take the traffic further north. Would like to see businesses consulted with before the public. Inside Broadwater Table 7.36: Summary of response from Inside Broadwater INSIDE BROADWATER Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Believe that Option 1 will cause significant problems to residents in the Broadwater area. Believe that the investment is vastly disproportionate to the need and a sticking plaster response. Would like to see walking and cycling facilities moved away from roads, and alleyways suitable for bicycles and pedestrians. A bypass makes far more sense. New Monks Farm Development Table 7.37: Summary of response from New Monks Farm Development NEW MONKS FARM DEVELOPMENT Neither objects nor supports scheme. Welcome the opportunity to work with Highways England on the future of the scheme s development and options review for works on the A27 corridor. N/A Important that any A27 improvement works account for the ambitions of the New Monks Farm development. 58

70 Permisson Homes Plc Table 7.38: Summary of response from Permisson Homes Plc PERMISSON HOMES PLC Supports the proposal. Support the proposal. Welcome toucan crossings on junctions of Upper Brighton Road, Busticle Lane and Grinstead Lane. Support the cycle route between Lancing and Findon Valley. Highlighted that proposal will bring a net benefit to the local network, going over and above the Adur Local Plan schemes. N/A N/A Ricardo Plc Table 7.39: Summary of response from Ricardo Plc RICARDO PLC Broadly supports scheme objectives, but the budget is not viable. Broadly supports scheme objectives. Do not believe that budget is viable. Do not believe there are any significant benefits to the proposed option. Want to see more than 1 option. There is no discussion of how the scheme might be constructed. Option 2 should be properly worked up and funded and put out to consultation with options. Want air quality to be addressed. Would like to see a wider road network solution, with one that incorporates the new IKEA development. Wish to see information on how the scheme will be constructed. Shoreham Port Authority Table 7.40: Summary of response from Shoreham Port Authority SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY Supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Believe that minor improvements spread over such a wide area do not represent best value for money or address the scheme objectives effectively. A strategic view aimed at improving the primary trunk road function of the A27 would concentrate limited funds on 1 or 2 proper solutions - at, say, Grove Lodge and (outside the scope of this consultation) the new IKEA scheme at Lancing. The new junction/roundabout proposed for the IKEA scheme should be added into 59

71 SHOREHAM PORT AUTHORITY this study/consultation. We need to separate local traffic, including pedestrians, cyclists and horses from the A27 through traffic. Sompting Estate Table 7.41: Summary of response from Sompting Estate SOMPTING ESTATE Broadly support the scheme. Support the option in the fact that it is online improvements, rather than offline. Support the maintained at-grade junctions with the 40mph speed limit. Pleased with the fact that it is not overdevelopment of the route, which could have created many new problems. Do not feel rat running issues have been addressed. There is insufficient practical safe pedestrian access. The IKEA development has not been considered. More attention is needed to the strategic consistency throughout the Worthing and Lancing section. More needs to be done on the protection and improvement of side road accessibility in between main junctions. More thought to sustainable transport measures. Would like to see Highways England liaise with Worthing and Adur local authorities, MPs, transport services and communities to develop a vision to reduce local transport use. 7.8 Education centre Lancing College Table 7.42: Summary of response from Lancing College LANCING COLLEGE Objects to the proposal. N/A Both the A27 scheme and the New Monks Farm site have significant implications and will be of detriment to the Lancing College Estate. Lack of cohesion between the A27 scheme and the New Monks Farm development. The 2 schemes should be designed as 1, and delivered by Highways England. They highlight the lack of opportunity to turn back eastbound at the new Manor Road junction. They want to ensure: Their accommodation fronting the A27 does not see an increase in air pollution. Equestrians have a safe and convenient place to cross the A27. Staff, pupils and visitors who travel in a non-motorised way is maintained at its current level. 60

72 LANCING COLLEGE The Estate remains fully accessible from Coombes Road and Hoe Court. Access to Lancing College remains during construction. 7.9 Emergency services Sussex Police Table 7.43: Summary of response from Sussex Police SUSSEX POLICE Strongly supports need for scheme objects to proposed option. Sussex Police will support any measures which on the balance of probability is most likely to deliver on the objectives as outlined. Believe it illogical to be offering only 1 option for consideration which is likely to be seen as a fait accompli, generating a negative response from community and all road users. Not convinced the single option illustrated will achieve objectives that, especially when set against the back drop of housing developments in the county along with development plans including a new Ikea Store at Monks Farm, Lancing. Concerned about the management of throughput of traffic at junctions by the use of traffic signals. Traffic is already adversely affected by the use of such signals along the A27 which results in the brigading of traffic which generates excessive congestion. Existing management systems such as SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimisation Technique) or MOVA (Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation) have failed to manage the traffic effectively along the route in Worthing. With a new traffic signal controlled roundabout proposed at Monks Farm it will be important to introduce an effective 'green wave' system to move traffic along this section of highway from the Adur Flyover through to the dual carriageway at Castle Goring to the west of Worthing Transport / user groups British Horse Society Table 7.44: Summary of response from the British Horse Society BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY Objects to scheme in current form. N/A The A27 is a barrier to access from the Coastal Plain to the South Downs National Park for non-motorised users, and especially equestrians. Concerned about the severance of Bridleways and access to the South Downs National Park. These scheme proposals will all be detrimental for equestrians wishing to access the South Downs National Park. The Society believes Highways England has not complied with guidance in HD 42/17 as it should. Believe there is a need for 1 or 2 dedicated non-motorised user bridges linked to 61

73 BRITISH HORSE SOCIETY access routes both north and south. There should be provision for grade separated non-motorised user crossings. Provide grade separated non-motorised user crossings (bridge / subway), or Pegasus in Sompting area. Campaign for Better Transport Table 7.45: Summary of response from Campaign for Better Transport CAMPAIGN FOR BETTER TRANSPORT Supports the proposed option. Welcome proposed option as not large scale or damaging. Concern over impact on South Downs National Park and non-motorised users. Believe little attention has been paid to improving non-motorised user links, with no attention at all paid to bus services. Want to see a holistic approach, as road building alone is not a long term solution, and should be done also by reducing the need to travel. Believe the proposed new junctions make it harder for non-motorised users to cross, as well as increasing their waiting times. Offington Corner requires 7 separate crossings. Grinstead Lane/ Manor Road junction will become bigger, and the road is being widened, resulting in a longer crossing. Fewer pedestrian crossings and shorter wait times for users. Grade separated junctions. Designated cycling facilities. Chi Cycle / 20 s Plenty for Chichester / Green Party Table 7.46: Summary of response from ChiCycle / 20's Plenty for Chichester / Green Party CHICYCLE / 20'S PLENTY FOR CHICHESTER / GREEN PARTY Disagrees with scheme proposals. N/A Concerned that scheme does little to improve cycling, walking and bus links. Scheme is costly and will not achieve the goals set, and should be scaled back. No roads should be built through the South Downs National Park. Need to put in bus and cycle lanes to make it easier for people to travel sustainably. Highways England needs to put in bus lanes to promote sustainable travel. Improve bus services, bus and cycle lanes to promote sustainable travel. Crossings should be at grade if at all possible. Compass Travel Table 7.47: Summary of response from Compass Travel COMPASS TRAVEL 62

74 COMPASS TRAVEL Supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Believe traffic lights will just make the problem ten-times worse and hold up the traffic for miles and cause gridlock. Would like to see traffic lights switched off and then the existing road layout would work well. If the present traffic lights were switched off the current road layout would work well. Believe that unless traffic on the A27 is reduced the congestion will just keep getting worse. Object to scheme as a waste of time and money. Doing nothing is better than this. What is needed is a low-cost single lane east-west flyover in both directions. Keeping in mind the needs of local people trying to get across Worthing. Would like to see traffic lights switched off and then the existing road layout would work well. Road widening and small flyovers at Offington Corner and Grove Lodge are essential. Modal shift is the only long-term solution - getting people out of their cars and onto buses and trains - and walking or cycling for local journeys Segregated cycle paths where possible. Believe solution is to reduce car use - road pricing, congestion charging and improvements to public transport. Freight Transport Association (FTA) Table 7.48: Summary of response from Freight Transport Association (FTA) FREIGHT TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION (FTA) Supports the proposals. Fully supports the scheme objectives. Supportive of measures that reduce congestion and delays that cost both the economy and industry money. Supports efforts to increase and improve capacity along this stretch of the A27. N/A N/A Road Haulage association (RHA) Table 7.49: Summary of response from Road Haulage Association (RHA) ROAD HAULAGE ASSOCIATION (RHA) Supports improvements but this scheme not fit for purpose. The Road Haulage Association supports efforts to enhance road safety. Concerned about proposed changes at Lyons Farm, particularly for commercial 63

75 ROAD HAULAGE ASSOCIATION (RHA) vehicles. Also concerned about proposal for Manor Roundabout, which would prevent traffic travelling westwards from doing a U-turn, thus cutting off many residents from their homes. The A27 needs to be looked at as a strategic route along the south coast. We look forward to working with Highways England to develop road safety measures that improve provision for cyclists, but which also accommodate trucks. Hope that all plans are properly integrated so that imposition of height and weight limits in one area, or low emission zone in another, does not result in the displacement of trucks onto unsuitable road in another area. Where feasible, the primary impacts of any new schemes must be objectively assessed alongside the potential secondary impacts. 64

76 Sustrans Table 7.50: Summary of response from Sustrans SUSTRANS Neutral/Undecided about scheme against proposals. N/A The impact of the scheme on air quality should be assessed as seriously adverse. Do not believe true costs of failing to improve air quality are reflected in the calculation of the Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR). Believe that the full scale of impact on air quality was not assessed before the public consultation. The scheme is expected to impact traffic flows across Worthing and the impact on air quality at other sites should have been included in the consultation. Increased volumes of traffic will make it more difficult and more expensive to bring air quality back to safe levels. Concerned about the proposed design at Offington Corner in relation to cycling movements. Believe that impact of the scheme must be assessed against the ability to meet greenhouse gas reduction targets. The public consultation has taken place before provision for walking and cycling has been fully developed. Concerned about improving safety for cyclists and cycling infrastructure. The proposal to create a cycle route parallel and south of the A27 needs to be part of this process. It is essential that design standards are consistent along the whole route, which includes the A27 between Offington Corner and Grove Lodge. Highways England should consider working with West Sussex County Council, using Highways England s designated funds, to develop this cycle route outside the area of the A27 scheme Residents group / associations Adur and Worthing Residents Alliance (AWRA) Table 7.51: Summary of response from Adur & Worthing Residents' Alliance (AWRA) ADUR & WORTHING RESIDENTS ALLIANCE (AWRA) Objects to the proposals. N/A AWRA objects to the single option proposed. Do not believe that traffic could be diverted effectively or safely during construction. They fear that construction will affect residents, businesses and emergency services. Do not believe some of the statements made in the consultation brochure and at the public exhibitions about average journey times, the percentage of through traffic, and the cost to benefit ratio of the northern bypass. Concerns over the removal of the right hand turn off the A27 into Sompting Road at Lyons Farm, as it will cause vans and lorries to divert onto unsuitable roads. 65

77 ADUR & WORTHING RESIDENTS ALLIANCE (AWRA) Believe the proposed junctions and restrictions going onto the A27 to the east of Lyons Farm will disadvantage residents. Do not like the loss of a U-turn at the Manor intersection. There has been no provision for the increase in traffic that the Chichester and Arundel schemes will bring. The residents preferred option is a new dual carriageway along the A283 and A280, wide widening of the A24 in between. Charmandean Residents Table 7.52: Summary of feedback from Charmandean Residents CHARMANDEAN RESIDENTS Supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Very concerned that no consideration appeared to have been taken into account about proposed developments at Monks Farm and the old cement works at Shoreham. It seems that the comments are a paper exercise to promote the proposal that Highways England want and do not represent the practical situation for those people living in the area. Very disappointed that yet again we are unlikely to have a solution to the road congestion and if it is not sorted out this time then more money will be required in the future. Do not feel that local residents are being listened to and that a decision has already been made. There is an obvious need for a bypass. Findon Valley Residents Association Table 7.53: Summary of response from Findon Valley Residents' Association FINDON VALLEY RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Objects to the proposals. N/A Objects to the proposed option. Feel the cost of the scheme cannot be justified, due to the limited benefits it brings. Fear that adding traffic lights at pinch points will only cause congestion, increase noise pollution and journey times, and disturb residents. The proposed traffic lights at the A27/A24 Offington roundabout will cause congestion that tails back through Findon Valley. The land taken at this junction will bring traffic closer to residents, affecting their wellbeing. This roundabout is currently an aesthetic aspect of the area, with maturely planted trees. Request discussion between Highways England and Lyons Farm Estate. 66

78 High Salvington Residents Association Table 7.54: Summary of response from High Salvington Residents' Association HIGH SALVINGTON RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION Objects to the proposed option. N/A Objects to the proposed option. Cannot justify the 69 million cost of the scheme in relation to the journey time saving. Believe this scheme will encourage the increase in road usage, defeating the object of reducing congestion and being of detriment to local residents. Believe the traffic lights at the bottom of Salvington Hill will stay greener for longer as road users use Bost Hill as a cut through when traffic is queuing on the A24. Object to the closure of access roads as it will increase traffic on open access roads and make it harder for High Salvington residents to get onto the A27. Already concerned about air pollution levels, and they expect these to increase even more with the proposed option. Concerned with the lack of diversions in place when construction starts. Object to the scheme on the fact that the New Monks Farm development hasn t been taken into account. The only solution is a relief road. Lancing Manor Residents Network Table 7.55: Summary of response from Lancing Manor Residents' Network LANCING MANOR RESIDENTS NETWORK Strongly oppose proposals. N/A Strongly oppose the Manor roundabout section of the scheme. Issue with no U-turn for eastbound traffic. How the residents (approximately 100 households) will travel eastwards with no roundabout that currently exists? Strongly oppose the proposals suggested by Highways England. Fear that North Lancing will be severed with the Manor intersection. Without the ability to do a right turn at the roundabout, there is no access to Manor Road and the areas to the north of the A27. Asked where the Toucan Crossing will be located, explaining that wherever it will be positioned, there is an additional road to negotiate for non-motorised users with the added A27 link road from Manor Road through the south side of the park. Object to the many trees that will be removed and the cricket pitch that will be badly affected, which is also a valued community asset. Concern for the increase in rat running on Manor Road that will occur as a result of the traffic light delays at the new Manor intersection. There will be an increase in air pollution, which is already a problem. The community groups under AREA (Adur Residents Environmental Action) undertook their own monitoring programme, which found that most areas between Sussex pad junction and Halewick Lane/Busticle Lane junction were over the legal limit. 67

79 LANCING MANOR RESIDENTS NETWORK Lack of joined up thinking with other developments, as the commercial development at Shoreham airport, the proposed new IKEA and the mixed development on Shoreham Harbour have not been taken into account. Object to any under or over passes, or online duelling that may be proposed if the current scheme does not proceed. All of the members agree the only solution is a bypass or relief road that takes through traffic out of the area. Lancing Manor SE Residents Network Table 7.56: Summary of response from Lancing Manor SE Residents Network LANCING MANOR SE RESIDENTS NETWORK Against scheme. Actions N/A Very concerned about impact that proposed scheme will have on the residents represented in the vicinity of the A27 Manor Roundabout intersection. Believe that design is totally flawed. Removing roundabout, and providing no U-turn facility will impact over 100 households on the south side of the A27 westbound carriageway in Old Shoreham (Slip) Road and the 2 cul-de-sacs joining it (Manor Close & Manor Way) and the Mash Barn Lane on the New Monks Farm. How are they expected to travel eastwards in the direction of A23/Brighton? It will be the same problem for patients visiting the doctor s surgery in Old Shoreham Slip Road. It'll be the same problem for many patients visiting the doctor's surgery in Old Shoreham Slip Road. There are also at least another 6 dwellings opposite the above stretch along the eastbound carriageway. They will be able to travel eastwards as they do now - but how, with no U-turns are they expected to return home when coming back from the direction of Brighton/A23? Without the ability to do a right turn at the roundabout, there is no access to Manor Road and the areas north of the A27. You have not specified where the existing Toucan crossing will be located. Wherever it is positioned, you now have an additional road to negotiate for pedestrians/school children/cyclists/park dog walkers because of the additional A27 link road from Manor Road through the south side of the park. The proposed Manor Road feeder through the south side of the Manor Park will wreck many established trees and badly affect the cricket pitch and a much valued community asset. N/A Immediate response required to all issues raised. North Durrington Residents Group Table 7.57: Summary of response from North Durrington Residents' Group NORTH DURRINGTON RESIDENTS GROUP Objects to proposal. 68

80 NORTH DURRINGTON RESIDENTS GROUP N/A Group rejects the scheme proposal due to it not meeting their expectations on improving their quality of life. Residents already suffer from the noise and air pollution that the A27 currently creates, causing a lack of sleep, respiratory issues and stress. The scheme objective to increase capacity will cause the conditions to worsen, resulting in even poorer health of residents. Want to see an improvement of the crossing of the A27 at Cote Street to the National Park. At present, the high speed and volume of westbound traffic is already an issue for residents. The complete corridor from Chichester through to Shoreham should be treated as 1 scheme, with the objective of improving resilience for those on long journeys. North Lancing Community Association Table 7.58: Summary of response from North Lancing Community Association NORTH LANCING COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION Strongly supports need for scheme. N/A The road that passes our house (Manor Road) is used as a rat run, causing congestion. The proposed scheme is likely to increase the congestion making it even more difficult to exit our property. Tunnel. South Broadwater Residents Association Table 7.59: Summary of response from South Broadwater Residents' Association SOUTH BROADWATER RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A Preventing right turns into Sompting Road will cause heavy traffic through the centre of Broadwater which is already heavily congested. Traffic flows better without the traffic lights at Grove Lodge Junction. Preventing eastbound traffic from turn right into Sompting Road with create further congestion through Broadwater Village. This includes traffic to industrial estates. Option 6 made sense and was good use of the money. Better segregation between pedestrians and traffic. 69

81 7.12 Community group A27 Working Group for Worthing and Adur Table 7.60: Summary of response from A27 Working Group for Worthing & Adur A27 WORKING GROUP FOR WORTHING & ADUR Objects to the proposals. N/A Group believe the option put forward is not fit for purpose and will not address the long term problems. Do not see any evidence to suggest that the option would ease congestion at the pinch points, and in the case of Durrington Hill, they believe the traffic lights will create more congestion and pollution. Do not think installing traffic lights at Offington Corner will solve the congestion issues. Believe pedestrian access will worsen at Offington Corner, as the amount of crossings will increase from 2 to 6. Believe the double set of traffic lights proposed at Lyons Farm will not ease congestion, and could make it worse. Concerned that at the Lyons Farm junction, traffic turning right into Broadwater will have to use narrow residential roads. Object to the double set of traffic lights at Hill Barn. Would like to see removal of junctions to keep traffic moving. Would like to see the removal of traffic lights at Grove Lodge roundabout. Believe nothing should be done to the Durrington Hill/ Salvington Hill junction as this junction does not cause delays. Believe the only solution to improve the Grove Lodge is to remove the traffic lights. Would like to see a pedestrian footbridge or underpass at Grove Lodge. The only solution at Lyons Farm is an over or under pass. Would like to see a reduced speed limit of 40mph between Lyons Farm and Hill Barn. Important for traffic to be able to reverse direction at either end of Sompting Bypass. Believe it is required for a U-turn to be maintained at Manor roundabout. Arundel Scate Table 7.61: Summary of response from Arundel SCATE ARUNDEL SCATE Neutral about need for improvements objects to scheme. N/A Concerned that measures will increase motorised use of the A27, leading to increased congestion. Believe that it is extraordinary that 69 million is to be spent on facilitating this mode of travel. Funds would be far better allocated to traffic reduction methods through improving 70

82 ARUNDEL SCATE active travel and access. A comprehensive sustainable transport infrastructure plan is needed. Address where people want to go rather than cycle routes where it is easy to implement them. Chichester Moves On Table 7.62: Summary of response from Chichester Moves On CHICHESTER MOVES ON Neutral about need for scheme against all options proposed. The northern bypass option has been dropped. Believe there is lack of information about how non-motorised user methods of transport will be changed by proposals. The supposed improvements to the junctions in option 1 aren't likely to happen with the tweaking of the junctions offered. Believe that large spend cannot be justified economically or socially. Air quality issues are going to make matters worse. Bus lanes to enhance bus reliability. Park and ride schemes. Out of town railway station for North Worthing and Lancing. More at grade crossings that give priority to cyclists, walkers etc. Continuous stretches of off-road good quality cycle path that should have been offered by West Sussex County Council years ago instead of being continually shelved. Make this a flag ship of good practice for off road paths. Friends of Lancing Manor Park Table 7.63: Summary of response from Friends of Lancing Manor Park FRIENDS OF LANCING MANOR PARK Objects to the proposals. N/A Opposes scheme on basis that slipway will intrude onto the Lancing Manor Park, with result of little gain. Concerned that the slipway will bring traffic and pollution closer to those pursuing sport and leisure activities. Fear the park s peace and tranquillity will be adversely affected. Object to the expected felling of established trees. Concerned that the long standing cricket club will no longer be able to play or play safely due to the options incursion into their boundary. Fear rat running will increase on Manor Road. N/A 71

83 Friends of Sompting Church Table 7.64: Summary of response from Friends of Sompting Church FRIENDS OF SOMPTING CHURCH Neutral/Undecided. Strongly in favour of improved crossing of the A27 to reach Sompting St Marys church and Sompting Abbotts School and the Downs from Sompting. Would hope that the improvements would calm drivers. I would be very pleased if anyone has any ideas of providing better access to St Marys Sompting for congregation and tourists. Access to St Marys Church Sompting. By car this is clearly visible travelling East to West but no access. From West to East although signposted, it is not visible. To reach it on foot from Sompting Village requires crossing the A27. Would welcome ideas for providing better access to St Marys Sompting for congregation and tourists. Lancing Manor Cricket Club Table 7.65: Summary of response from Lancing Manor Cricket Club LANCING MANOR CRICKET CLUB Against proposal. N/A The impact of the schemes outlined would have a direct and highly detrimental impact on the Cricket Club. Part of our outfield would be lost, so putting traffic into extremely close proximity to our matches. Whether looked at from the point of view of noise, pollution, visual intrusion or health and safety, we find it hard to believe that Lancing Manor Park would remain viable for playing cricket. Concern about the loss of an important community asset. Since it would be a knock-on implication of the scheme, we are anxious for provision to be included in the detailed proposals for a replacement cricket ground. This would allow the wider public interest to be delivered, whilst mitigating the threat to the continuation of the sport in Lancing. Moreover, for the level of the game at which we play, the cost of doing this would be entirely marginal when set in context of the stated project budget of up to 100 million. Rev. Fr. Daryl George East Worthing Parish Diocese of Arundel & Brighton Table 7.66: Summary of response from Rev. Fr. Daryl George East Worthing Parish Diocese of Arundel & Brighton REV. FR. DARYL GEORGE EAST WORTHING PARISH DIOCESE OF ARUNDEL & BRIGHTON Respondent Rev. Fr. Daryl George Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. N/A You will make the road too fast in places and where you create 2 lanes you then jam 72

84 REV. FR. DARYL GEORGE EAST WORTHING PARISH DIOCESE OF ARUNDEL & BRIGHTON the traffic scrabbling to get back to 1 lane. There will be more confusion where you complicate junctions. The constraints that have been set actually mitigate against any meaningful solution being achieved. There is no chance of a solution if one accepts the financial ceiling. N/A Shoreham Society Table 7.67: Summary of response from Shoreham Society SHOREHAM SOCIETY Disagrees with need for scheme. N/A Money should be spent on sustainable transport. Money should be spent instead on improving sustainable transport means - buses, bicycles, pedestrian. Sompting A27 Rural Group Table 7.68: Summary of response from Sompting A27 Rural Group SOMPTING A27 RURAL GROUP Supports the proposed option. Support the option in the fact that it is online improvements, rather than offline. Support the maintained at-grade junctions with the 40mph speed limit. Pleased with the fact that it is not overdevelopment of the route, which could have created many new problems. Object to that lack of options proposed. Do not feel rat running issues have been addressed. Concerned that the eastward access out of Lyons Farm is dangerous. Highlight that IKEA development has not been considered. Believe the current proposed layout will increase traffic in North Lancing. Plans lack consideration for non-motorised user safety. Object to limiting access to local roads. Do not believe a Toucan crossing at Grove Lodge will be safe due to human nature with the need for people to cross quickly. Do not feel public transport has been considered in the proposal. Believe more attention is needed to the strategic consistency throughout the Worthing and Lancing section. Believe that more needs to be done on the protection and improvement of side road accessibility in between main junctions. Would like to see more thought to sustainable transport measures. Would like to see Highways England liaise with Worthing and Adur local authorities, 73

85 SOMPTING A27 RURAL GROUP MPs, transport services and communities to develop a vision to reduce local transport use. Would like to see traffic flow be prioritised over speed, to reduce pollution. Request to keep U-turn opportunities at either end of the Sompting Bypass. Would like to see Grinstead Lane with yellow lines. Add in average speed cameras with a 40mph speed limit and distance chevrons. Non-motorised user footbridge at Church Lane or Dankton Lane. South Downs Society Table 7.69: Summary of response from South Downs Society SOUTH DOWNS SOCIETY Supports proposed option. Society does believe that the proposed option has some limited improvement for the short term. Welcome the recognition to facilitate local movement by foot, bike and public transport, not just enabling quicker traffic flow. Support that the option proposed does not infringe upon the national park. Support the option not having flyovers and underpasses, as this would impact on viewpoints from the national park. Welcome the fact that the proposed option intends on reducing traffic levels in the national park. Support the measures aimed at reducing climate change. Believe the option would cause strain on other pinch points along the A27, due to the increase in vehicle volumes. This would then require investment into these newly congested areas. N/A Worthing Bypass not Throughpass Residents action Group Table 7.70: Worthing Bypass not Throughpass Residents Action Group WORTHING BYPASS NOT THROUGHPASS RESIDENTS ACTION GROUP Strongly supports need for scheme against proposed option. Agree that traffic lights at Durrington Hill should improve safety. Some improvement may be better than none at all but the only long term solution is to have a proper bypass. Concerned that the proposal will make little or no difference to journey from Lyons Farm westward to Lancing Manor, which currently takes from 10 minutes to up to an hour. Concerned about current and future air quality impacts through increased development and traffic. Apart from a few improved safety functions the overall effect on traffic will be minimal. N/A 74

86 Summary Responses were received from 69 stakeholders. 36 responses were received by or letter, and 33 stakeholders responded via questionnaire. Table 7.71 shows the stakeholders by group and representation by number and percentage. Table 7.71: Stakeholder responses by group and percentage of total STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOTAL PERCENTAGE Local Authority 6 9% Political / Elected Member 11 16% Parish Council 3 4% Environmental Group 4 6% Business Organisation 8 12% Business 8 12% Education Centre 1 1% Emergency Services 1 1% Transport / User Group 7 10% Resident Group / Association 9 13% Community Group 11 16% Total % Table 7.72 details the response to the need for a scheme by stakeholder group. Over 80% of stakeholders agreed that there was a need for a scheme to improve the A27 at Worthing and Lancing. Table 7.72: Stakeholder by type, and percentage support / neutral / opposed to the need for a scheme STAKEHOLDER GROUP TOTAL NEED FOR A SCHEME SUPPORT NEUTRAL OPPOSE Local Authority 6 83% 17% 0% Political / Elected Member 11 73% 18% 9% Parish Council 3 100% 0% 0% Environmental Group 4 50% 50% 0% Business Organisation 8 100% 0% 0% Business 8 100% 0% 0% Education Centre 1 100% 0% 0% Emergency Services 1 100% 0% 0% Transport / User Group 7 86% 14% 0% Resident Group / Association 9 100% 0% 0% Community Group 11 45% 45% 9% Total 69 81% 16% 3% The most frequently mentioned positive statements were that the proposed option would reduce congestion, improve capacity and improve walking and cycling facilities. Table 7.73 shows the percentage of positive comments raised by stakeholder type. Table 7.73: Stakeholder positive statements STAKEHOLDER GROUP REDUCE CONGESTION IMPROVE CAPACITY IMPROVE CYCLE / WALKING Local Authority Political / Elected Member Parish Council Environmental Group Business Organisation Business Education Centre Emergency Services

87 STAKEHOLDER GROUP REDUCE CONGESTION IMPROVE CAPACITY IMPROVE CYCLE / WALKING Transport / User Group Resident Group / Association Community Group Total 9% 9% 7% The most frequently mentioned negative comments from stakeholders were that the proposed option would not do enough to address either congestion or emissions. This was raised by 57% (39) stakeholders. Almost one-half of all stakeholders (48%; 33) felt the proposed option was not sufficiently future proof. One-third of stakeholders (35%; 24) stated that the option either did not represent value for money or that it was not enough money. Concerns about provision for nonmotorised users were raised by 29% (20) of stakeholders. There were also concerns that rat running on local roads would worsen, mentioned by 22% (15) of stakeholders. Table 7.74 below shows the percentage of comments raised by stakeholder group. Table 7.74: Stakeholder negative statements STAKEHOLDER GROUP NOT ENOUGH FOR CONGESTION / EMISSIONS NOT ENOUGH FOR NON MOTORISED USERS NOT FUTURE PROOF NOT ENOUGH MONEY / VALUE FOR MONEY RAT RUNNING CONCERNS Local Authority 67% 50% 67% 17% 17% Political / Elected Member 64% 27% 36% 45% 36% Parish Council 33% 0% 67% 67% 0% Environmental Group 50% 25% 25% 0% 0% Business Organisation 25% 0% 50% 38% 0% Business 38% 25% 88% 63% 25% Education Centre 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% Emergency Services 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% Transport / User Group 43% 57% 14% 29% 14% Resident Group / Association 89% 22% 56% 22% 22% Community Group 73% 45% 27% 36% 36% Total 57% 29% 48% 35% 22% The most frequently mentioned suggestion from stakeholders was that more should be done to improve facilities for non-motorised users which was mentioned by 32% (22) of stakeholders. One-quarter (25%; 17) of stakeholders stated that a bypass, underpass or flyover was needed, and 19% (13) of stakeholders felt that measures to encourage sustainable transport modes were required. The impact of future development was mentioned by 9% (6) of stakeholders and 4% (3) of stakeholders would like traffic lights to be removed. Table 7.75 shows the percentage of comments raised by stakeholder group. Table 7.75: Stakeholder suggestions STAKEHOLDER GROUP CYCLE / WALKING IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MEASURES FLYOVER / BYPASS / UNDERPASS REMOVE TRAFFIC LIGHTS Local Authority 33% 17% 17% 0% 0% Political / Elected Member 45% 0% 30% 30% 20% Parish Council 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% Environmental Group 0% 25% 50% 0% 0% Business Organisation 13% 0% 0% 38% 0% Business 25% 38% 13% 50% 0% Education Centre 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Emergency Services 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Transport / User Group 86% 14% 29% 14% 0% Resident Group / Association 0% 0% 0% 56% 0% Community Group 45% 0% 36% 0% 9% 76

88 STAKEHOLDER GROUP CYCLE / WALKING IMPROVEMENTS IMPACT OF FUTURE DEVELOPMENT SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT MEASURES FLYOVER / BYPASS / UNDERPASS Total 32% 9% 19% 25% 4% REMOVE TRAFFIC LIGHTS 77

89 8 Other responses 8.1 Introduction In addition to the stakeholder submissions, correspondence was also received via the Highways England Customer Contact Centre, through which respondents sought to feedback their views on the proposals. This chapter summarises the 49 responses to the consultation via letter or through the Customer Contact Centre. As with the open-ended questions within the questionnaire, the comments have been coded (grouped thematically). The respondents made multiple coded comments within their answers. The codes have been analysed to identify the number of times (frequency) a particular issue or comment has been raised. Response analysis Table 8.1 presents the codes that were the most common and amassed a proportionate percentage of the overall coded responses. A total of 470 comments were coded within the 49 response. A full frequency table including all codes and the coding framework used for this analysis is given in Appendix C. Table 8.1: Other responses - most frequently mentioned comments DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Need a bypass instead 23 5% Disagree with the proposals 21 4% Waste of money 21 4% A roundabout would be more preferable 20 4% Concerns about loss of green space / land 19 4% Concerns about changes to access 18 4% Concerns about disruption during works 18 4% Concerns over current pollution problems 16 3% Concerns about pedestrian crossings (not enough, not safe, elderly) 16 3% Proposals will increase rat-running on local roads 15 3% Concerns about residents / impact on residents /community 15 3% Concerns about dividing the town / community in % Concerns about pedestrians (safety) 14 3% Rat-running / using other unsuitable roads 14 3% Concerns about effect on local economy / businesses 14 3% Suggest slip road(s) and flyovers / grade separation 10 2% The most frequently mentioned comment was the need for a bypass rather than improvements (23 comments; 5%). Subsequently 21 comments (4%) expressed disagreement with the proposals, and a further 21 (4%) felt the scheme is a waste of money. 78

90 Another key theme in these responses was the impact on the local community (15 comments; 3%), with concerns raised over the loss of green space (19; 4%), changes to access (18; 4%), disruption during works (18; 4%) and the proposals causing an increase in rat-running on local roads (15; 3%). A number of comments raised concerns about the proposals dividing the community (15; 3%), with other comments concerned about the effect on the local economy (14; 3%). A proportion of comments suggested alternative improvements within their responses, including a roundabout being more preferable, particularly at Grinstead Lane / Manor Road junction (20 comments; 4%). 10 comments (2%) suggest the implementation of slip road(s) and flyovers, with 16 comments (3%) raising concern about the safety and quantity of pedestrian crossing along the route. 79

91 9 Exhibition comments 9.1 Introduction This chapter sets out a summary of the public exhibitions, before going on to analyse how useful the consultation material and events were in addressing any questions that people had. Though attendees were encouraged to complete the questionnaire, it is useful to summarise the questions raised and topics discussed at exhibitions to give further insight into local opinions and recurring concerns / issues. These are detailed in Section 9.4. Public exhibitions As described in Chapter 0, 8 public consultation exhibitions were held for the A27 Worthing and Lancing improvements scheme, with additional invite-only events held for potentially impacted landowners and local businesses. The exhibitions were held on both weekdays and weekends, at a range of locations throughout the area to maximise the opportunities for local people to attend. The exhibitions were hosted by members of the project team comprising of Highways England and consultant, WSP, staff. Experts on highway design, traffic modelling, economics, land & property and environment were on hand to ensure queries raised during the consultation events could be properly addressed. Material and event usefulness Question 16 sought to ascertain whether respondents had found the consultation materials useful. Of the 1,722 questionnaire responses, 1,675 provided an answer to this question. Figure 9.1 summarises these responses. Figure 9.1: Have you found the consultation materials useful in answering your questions? 10% 38% Yes To a certain extent 52% No Base: n = 1, As shown in Figure 9.1, 38% (640 respondents) found the consultation materials useful, whereas 10% (169 respondents) did not. The remaining 52% (866 respondents) felt the materials were useful to a certain extent. Those that responded No were then asked to explain how the consultation material available could have been improved. A total of 337 comments were received and coded in response to the free-text part of Question 16. Table 9.1 details the comments that were mentioned, with the full list of codes and their associated frequencies presented in Appendix C. 80

92 Table 9.1: If 'No', how could the material available be improved? DESCRIPTION FREQUENCY PERCENTAGE Better illustrations / diagrams (unclear / not easy to see markings, too basic etc.) 33 10% More in-depth information needed 30 9% Only proposing single option / consultation needs more than 1 option 23 7% Poor exhibition / displays (not clear, no helpers available, too cramped, noisy etc.) 21 6% Other answers 18 5% Need proven data / input / facts / basis of calculations 17 5% Listen to locals / residents points of views 17 5% Pointless / will not improve A27 / waste of time 17 5% More information of proposed traffic route(s) needed where turning movements impacted 16 5% Improved map / in focus map (too much wasted space on map etc.) 15 4% Scheme not well organised / thought out 14 4% Individual resident information / specifically outlined to the resident / how it would affect them / their area personally 13 4% Content of material (biased, poorly worded, typo errors etc.) 12 4% Suggest bypass needed 12 4% Details of rejected schemes / other proposals needed 11 3% Website / online problems (not easily accessible, difficult to navigate, not enough info etc.) 10 3% Traffic flow modelling / more information on traffic flow needed 10 3% Table 9.1 shows that there were 33 responses (10%) felt the need for better illustrations and diagrams, as they were unclear and too basic. Similarly, 15 comments (4%) expressed the need for improved maps on display, by showing more detail instead of wasting space and ensuring they are in focus. A number of comments (21; 6%) stated that the exhibitions and displays were poor due to overcrowding, lack of staff available to talk to and unclear material. The content being biased and poorly worded was evident in 12 comments (4%). Another key reason why respondents did not find the consultation material useful was because of the lack on in-depth information (30 comments; 9%). In addition, 17 comments (5%) wanted to see more evidence of information, with proven data and facts, whilst 10 comments (3%) requiring more traffic modelling information. A number of comments expressed a requirement to show more information with regards to the proposed junction improvements (16; 5%), with 11 comments (3%) wanting additional information on the rejected schemes. The requirement for more than 1 option within a consultation process was noted in (23 comments; 7%, with a further 17 comments (5%) expressing the need for opinions to be listened too. A number of comments stressed that the scheme has been poorly organised throughout (14; 4%) with 17 comments (5%) stating it was pointless and will not improve the A27. Question 17 asked respondents whether they had already attended a public consultation event, or were intending to do so. Figure 9.2 summarises the results. 81

93 Figure 9.2: Have you or do you intend to visit one of our public exhibitions? 27% Have visited exhibition 51% Intend to visit exhibition 21% No Base: n = 1, As shown in Figure 9.2, of the 1,676 respondents that answered Question 17, over one-half (51%; 858 respondents) had already attended a consultation event, while a further 21% (359 respondents) were planning to do so at the time of their response. Over one-quarter of respondents to the consultation questionnaire (27%; 459) said that they did not plan to attend any of the exhibitions at the time of answering. Question 18, followed this question by asking respondents that had attended an exhibition how useful they considered the event to be in terms of addressing any questions they had. A total of 1,300 respondents gave an answer to this question, of which 420 said the question was not applicable. The answers were as follows shown in Figure 9.3. Figure 9.3: If you have visited an exhibition, how useful did you find it in terms of addressing your questions? 1% 32% 7% 9% 8% 12% 31% Very useful Useful No feeling either way Not useful Not at all useful Don t know Not applicable Base: n = 1, In Figure 9.3, it can be seen that, of the respondents who had already attended a consultation event, 39% (511 respondents) found the consultation materials useful or somewhat useful. Conversely only 16% of respondents (202) said that they did not find the exhibitions useful in terms of answering their questions. As such, it is clear that a greater proportion of respondents considered the materials useful than those that did not thus signifying that the exhibitions were a useful source of information to interested parties. 82