Surrey Highways declared the Star junction as ‘Severe’ in 2018, there are definitions for a ‘severe’ junction, but they are digital; it is either severe or it is not. NPPF para 115 states ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if the residual impacts on the road network would be severe’.

So, a proposed development that would make a junction severe fails this test; but it is virtually impossible to prove the impact of a development is severe when the junction is already in that State as there is no definition of ‘more severe’.

I have met with the Surrey Highways Officer dealing with this consultation. He says we cannot prove the residual impacts would be severe as the junction is already severe, therefore under NPPF para 115 it cannot be refused on Highway Grounds. Hence Surrey offers no objection to the proposal.

However, Surrey do not see compliance with Policy SA19 as Highway Grounds, it is not an extension of NPPF para 115, it is a list of site-specific criteria approved by the Inspector and the Transport element is a specific test the inspector added himself to be determined by MSDC.

Surrey Highways have provided their expert advice on the SA19 criteria within their Note to Planning Officer. (Committee report page 149). “It is the view of SCC as County Highways Authority, that the SA19 requirement has not been met by the proposals in their current form”, they then say what is necessary to demonstrate compliance with that policy, including further capacity modelling assessments and additional scenarios.

Their consultation response was 18 December 2023, the revised Transport assessment submitted on 16thJanuary, does not include any new capacity analysis or the additional scenarios required by SCC, so nothing has changed that would alter Surrey’s opinion that it does not demonstrate compliance with SA19.

West Sussex Highways don’t mention Policy SA19 or their assessment of compliance in any of their responses.

Paragraph 2.11 of the Committee report states ‘As neither LHA has objected to the scheme, it is considered that the applicants have sufficiently addressed policies DP21 and SA19.’

This statement is making a huge assumption regarding the Highway Authorities assessments of the SA19 test. There is no corroborating statement from WSCC and SCC state that SA19 has not been met by the proposals in their current form.

As SA19 is afforded significant weight in the planning decision, it isn’t legally sound to determine this application until clear confirmation that both highway authorities are satisfied this proposal meets the transport test in SA19.