Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework
Chapter 5: Assessment Framework
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Integrated, well-serviced community |
|||
|
Land allocation for new educational facilities and community facilities. |
Very Strong Allows for the allocation of new/enhanced educational and community facilities. |
Very Strong Allows for the allocation of new/enhanced educational and community facilities. |
Very Strong Allows for the allocation of new/enhanced educational and community facilities. |
|
Reduce the barrier effect of rail tracks. |
Very Strong Potential to improve informal and unsafe rail crossing with new pedestrian/cycle bridge as a minimum or a multi-modal bridge using safeguarded land to the south of the railway (subject to funding). |
Very Strong Potential to improve pedestrian/cycle connectivity within the village and to the station by providing land for a new pedestrian/cycle bridge immediately east of the station (utilising safeguarded land and subject to funding) and a multi-modal bridge (if deliverable regarding land and cost). |
Reasonable Potential to improve pedestrian/cycle connectivity within the village and to the station by providing land for new pedestrian/cycle bridge immediately east of the station (utilising safeguarded land and subject to funding) and provide land to improve informal and unsafe rail crossing with new pedestrian/cycle bridge close to the station (subject to funding). |
|
Support delivery of a community hub - a 'Heart for Southbourne'. |
Reasonable Potential to create a community hub co-located with the college, leisure centre and recreation ground, creating a single hub of activity north of the railway. Creates a hub but is further away from existing village centre facilities. |
Reasonable The separation between college, leisure centre and a new community hub and limited opportunity for co-location with existing facilities. However, new facilities are located closer to existing facilities in the village centre. |
Reasonable The separation between college, leisure centre and a new community hub and limited opportunity for co-location with existing facilities. However, new facilities are located closer to existing facilities in village centre. |
|
Support delivery of improved connectivity within the village as a whole with good integration between new and existing community. |
Poor The educational land creates a barrier to movement and integration between new development and existing village, potentially mitigated through improved connectivity via pedestrian/cycle bridge. |
Strong Benefits from several pedestrian/ cycle and vehicular connection points to the existing settlement and has the ability to deliver new pedestrian/cycle bridge within the existing village. |
Very Strong Benefits from several pedestrian/ cycle and vehicular connection points to the existing settlement and has the ability to deliver new ped/cycle bridge within the existing village and support the provision of a continuous green ring. |
|
Promote access to nature and open space. |
Very Strong All development would be within proximity to quality, open green space. |
Very Strong All development would be within proximity to quality, open green space. |
Very Strong All development would be within proximity to quality, open green space. |
|
Support local employment opportunities |
Strong Allows for the allocation of commercial development creating opportunity for local employment. Land allocation would be further away from the village centre. |
Very Strong Allows for the allocation of commercial development creating opportunity for local employment. The scenario allows for the land to be within proximity to the village centre. |
Very Strong Allows for the allocation of commercial development creating opportunity for local employment. The scenario allows for the land allocation to be within proximity to the village centre. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Housing for all |
|||
|
Utilities pipeline impact on-site capacity. |
Reasonable Greater percentage of area including space for access road is covered by consultation zone, potentially pushing development to the west. |
Reasonable A smaller area north of site is impacted by consultation zone. |
Reasonable Greater percentage of area north including space for access road is covered by consultation zone. |
|
Site capacity to meet 800 homes delivery requirement. |
Reasonable Potential to deliver site capacity however single access north of Stein Road and potential reliance on vehicular bridge can become a constraint for delivery. |
Poor Potential access constraints at South Lane, due to the character and nature of the lanes which remain untested regarding their capacity to take additional traffic volume. However, potential other vehicle access points elsewhere within scenario. Increased pressure on Inlands Road can become a constraint to delivery. |
Reasonable Multiple access points and primary access to the north de-risks the options in terms of reliance on the historic lanes and vehicular rail bridge to deliver full allocation. |
|
Potential to deliver mix of housing types and tenures, including G&T provision |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
|
Potential to meet local housing need (Housing Need Survey Report NP) • Younger households • Affordable rented tenure • 1-bed houses/flats • 2-bed houses • First time buyers • 2/3-bed houses • Downsizing accommodation • Affordable rented tenure • 1/2-bed bungalows • Private market housing • 2/3-bed houses. • G&T Provision |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
Very Strong Potential to deliver the objective. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Transport and sustainable travel |
|||
|
Providing active travel connectivity. |
Strong 3 points of connection north of the railway, PROW and Network rail support for improvements on two informal footpaths across the railway. Potential to connect with cycling route (ChEmRoute) along A259. |
Strong 3+ points of connection north of the railway, connections to existing network of lanes, PROW and opportunity to improve connectivity across the railway with new pedestrian/cycle crossing in centre of village. Potential to connect with cycling route (ChEmRoute) along A259. |
Very Strong 4+ points of connection north of the railway, connections to existing network of lanes, PROW and opportunity to deliver a full walking and cycling route around the village through the Green Ring and PROW. Potential to connect with cycling route (ChEmRoute) along A259. |
|
Potential for a bridge crossing the railway for pedestrians and cyclists. |
Strong Potential to deliver land for pedestrian/cycle bridge west of the village in location of existing footpath crossing. |
Strong Potential to deliver land for pedestrian/cycle bridge within the core of the village. |
Strong Potential to deliver land for pedestrian/cycle bridges in the west and in the core (east). |
|
Potential for a bridge crossing the railway for vehicles. |
Strong Land safeguarded to south of railway for vehicular bridge and connection secured through of S.106 Agreement. A land swap may be required to facilitate bridge footing and access to the north. |
Very Poor Requires landowner collaboration for parcels north and south of the railway (Note recent planning application on south does not safeguard land for crossing). |
Very Poor No vehicular bridge. |
|
Influence of vehicular bridge on traffic congestion. |
Strong Provide vehicular bridge so would help alleviate traffic congestion at the rail crossing. |
Strong Provides vehicular bridge so would help alleviate traffic congestion at the rail crossing. |
Very Poor It does not provide vehicular bridge so would not alleviate traffic congestion at the rail crossing. |
|
Development within 400m of a bus stop. |
Strong Approximately 50% of development within 400m of existing bus stop. (Note:40 % considered positive contribution). |
Reasonable Approximately 10% of development within 400m of existing bus stop. (Note:10-40% considered neutral). |
Reasonable Approximately 30% of development within 400m of existing bus stop. (Note:10-40% considered neutral). |
|
Improvements in pedestrian / cycle access to the train station. |
Reasonable Limited opportunity to improve pedestrian / cycle access to and from train station. |
Strong Opportunity to improve access for wider community through provision of land for a new pedestrian/cycle bridge adjacent to the station. |
Strong Opportunity to improve access for wider community through provision of land for a new pedestrian/cycle bridge adjacent to the station. |
|
Development located within 15 walking distance from station (Note: reference slide 20- Area of Search). |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Climate change, move towards net zero carbon living |
|||
|
Potential to create buildings to high environmental performance and meet Future Homes Standard. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
|
Support a mix of uses and facilities minimising the need to travel. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
Strong All sites meet this requirement. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Environment |
|||
|
Provide the Green Ring for both people and wildlife. |
Strong Would secure the western part of the Green Ring. |
Strong Would secure the eastern part of the Green Ring. |
Very Strong Would secure walking routes on both sides with sections of the Green Ring and PROW. Would deliver large proportion of Green Ring. |
|
Mitigate impact on the Chichester Harbour SPA from recreational disturbance by creating accessible natural greenspace. |
Strong Development could deliver 15 ha of green space. Sites would be within proximity which could result in an increase in use. |
Strong Development could deliver 15 ha of green space. Sites would be within proximity which could result in an increase in use. |
Strong Development could deliver 15 ha of green space. Sites would be within proximity which could result in an increase in use. |
|
Preserve wildlife corridors. |
Strong No impact on wildlife corridors. Potential to enhance wildlife corridors through BNG requirements. |
Strong No impact on wildlife corridors. Potential to enhance wildlife corridors through BNG requirements. |
Strong No impact on wildlife corridors. Potential to enhance wildlife corridors through BNG requirements. |
|
Development sites to provide sufficient open greenspace (in line with policy). |
Strong Site has capacity to deliver policy requirement of open space. |
Strong Site has capacity to deliver policy requirement of open space. |
Strong Site has capacity to deliver policy requirement of open space. |
|
Protect and / or mitigate existing wildlife and biodiversity. |
Very poor This site would result in significant loss of land of Brent Geese Secondary Support area, with potential area of mitigation north of the A27. Existing ecological constraints could be mitigated through design. |
Reasonable Impact on existing hedgerows and orchards could be integrated and mitigated through design. Existing ecological constraints could be mitigated through design. |
Poor This site would result in some loss of land of Brent Geese Secondary Support area. Existing ecological constraints could be mitigated through design. |
|
Impacts to agricultural land. |
Poor The majority of development is located on Grade 1 agricultural land and would result in the loss of agricultural land Grades 1 and 2. |
Poor The majority of development is located on Grade 1 agricultural land and would result in the loss of Grades 1, 2 and potentially 3. |
Poor The majority of development is located on Grade 1 agricultural land and would result in the loss of Grades 1, 2 and potentially 3. |
|
Development location within Flood Zones. |
Poor Would result in development being constructed on flood zone 1. Surface water flooding north of the railway and to the south of the railway line along the potential access road is located in the area for critical infrastructure (rail bridge) and needs mitigation through design. Groundwater impacts will require further consideration. |
Poor Would result in the vast majority of the site development being within flood zone 1. Surface water flooding north of the railway is located in the potential area for critical infrastructure (rail bridge) and needs mitigation through design. Future flood zones (Tidal - Climate Change) is located in the access location on the A259. |
Strong This location is within flood zones 1. The site area would contain some small areas of surface water flooding, but it is likely to be possible to keep development out of those areas. Groundwater impacts will require further consideration. |
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Character |
|||
|
Impact on views to and from Chichester Harbour National Landscape (CHNL)and South Downs National Park (SDNP). |
Reasonable Development located within the zone of visibility from the SDNP. Mitigation should be design-led. Potential minor/moderate impact to the CHNL. Impacts can be reduced and/or mitigated through design in addition to embedding a strong green infrastructure framework which shields sensitive views. |
Reasonable Development located within the zone of visibility from the SDNP. Preliminary LVIA undertaken by the site promoter has identified a potential moderate (SDNP) and moderate/minor impact (CHNL). Impacts can be reduced and/or mitigated through design in addition to embedding a strong green infrastructure framework which shields sensitive views. |
Reasonable A similar impact as for development to the west is assumed at this stage. Impacts can be reduced and/or mitigated through design in addition to embedding a strong green infrastructure framework which shields sensitive views. |
|
Retention of landscape gaps between villages/settlements. |
Very Poor Development site located within identified landscape gap within proximity to Hermitage. A landscape gap of at least 100m has been retained to mitigate impact. Further a design-led approach to mitigation is required. |
Poor A small section of the development site located within identified landscape gap within proximity to Hambrook. A landscape gap of at least 250m has been retained to mitigate impact. Further a design-led approach to mitigation is required. |
Poor A small section of the development site located within identified landscape gap within proximity to Hambrook and Hermitage. A landscape gap of at least 250m has been retained to Hambrook and min 100m to Hermitage to mitigate impact. Further a design-led approach to mitigation is required. |
|
Potential to retain and enhance existing landscape features to create character. |
Strong Potential to create characterful development, through retention and integration of the TPO trees and PROW. |
Strong Potential to create characterful development, through the retention and integration of the historic orchard, existing TPOs, hedgerows and PROW. |
Strong Potential to create characterful development, through the retention and integration of the TPO trees, historic orchard, existing hedgerows and PROW. |
|
Growth of the village sympathetically to its existing form and structure. |
Poor Development leads to one sided growth of the village, unbalanced with its original form and structure. |
Poor Development leads to one sided growth of the village, unbalanced with its original form and structure. |
Reasonable Development creates a more sympathetic growth structure that allows the village to expand more equally. |
|
Sympathetically to existing heritage features. |
Strong No heritage asset within the development area. |
Poor The two designated heritage assets located within the development area. |
Poor The two designated heritage assets located within the development area. |
Deliverability Assessment
5.1. The below table considers the deliverability of each scenario in relation to key matters of land ownership/assembly complexities and challenges surrounding cost and delivery of different bridge options which may be necessary.
5.2. Each of the scenarios have potential deliverability challenges that would need to be carefully addressed with the landowners and/or site promoters through requirements set in the site allocation DPD and forthcoming Section 106 Agreements linked to planning applications.
|
Assessment Criteria |
Scenario 1 (West) |
Scenario 2 (East) |
Scenario 3 (Mixed) |
|
Deliverability (land) considerations. |
Reasonable Majority landowner to the north of the railway can facilitate the majority of the development and there is safeguarded land for a future multimodal bridge to the south side of the railway and a connection to the A259. The exact alignment of the bridge will need to be tested in detail at later stages. |
Poor Requires land assembly due to multiple landowners. Newly submitted planning application with no safeguarded land to south of railway indicates high-risk delivery of bridge. |
Poor Requires land assembly due to multiple landowners which will require equalisation across allocation and pooling of infrastructure. |
|
Deliverability (viability) considerations |
Poor There remains a high viability risk due to the uncertainty of the costs for the vehicular bridge. A S106 contribution framework will be required to ensure all landowners contribute to the infrastructure costs. |
Poor There remains a high viability risk due to the uncertainty of the costs for the vehicular bridge. Equalisation and a S106 contribution framework will be required to ensure all landowners contribute to the infrastructure costs. |
Poor Equalisation and a S106 contribution framework will be required to ensure all landowners contribute to the infrastructure costs. |
