Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework

Chapter 6: Assessment Framework Summary

6.2. The table above provides a summary of the site assessment framework and the colour coded scores show how well the three scenarios meet each category under each DPD objective.

6.3. Below the key differences between the scenarios have been drawn out in relation to each Assessment Criteria.

Integrated, well-serviced community

6.4. The western scenario has the potential to allocate land for new and enhanced educational and community facilities. It offers an opportunity to improve connectivity addressing the barrier effect of the railway line, with the potential to deliver a vehicular, cyclist and pedestrian bridge. The western scenario supports the creation of a community hub north of the railway line, co-located with the college, leisure centre, and recreational grounds, though, it would be somewhat distanced from the existing village centre. The educational land may create a barrier to integration between the new developments and the existing village. However, this could potentially be mitigated through improved pedestrian and cycle connectivity. All development would be within proximity to open green spaces. There would be land available to support the creation of commercial development providing local employment opportunities, however, this would be distanced from the existing village centre.

6.5. The eastern scenario facilitates the allocation of land for new and enhanced educational and community facilities. It provides opportunities to improve connectivity by providing land for a new pedestrian and cycle bridge immediately east of the train station, and possibly a multi-modal bridge. The separation between the college, leisure centre and new community hub limits the opportunity for co-location with existing facilities, though the new facilities would be closer to the village centre. This scenario benefits from several connection points to the existing settlement. All development would be within proximity to open green spaces. There would be land available for commercial development supporting local employment, which can be within proximity to the village centre.

6.6. The mixed scenario allows for the allocation of land for new and enhanced educational and community facilities. It aims to improve connectivity by providing land for a new pedestrian/cycle bridge near the station and enhancing informal rail crossings. The scenario faces similar challenges to Scenario 2 regarding the separation between new facilities and the existing village centre, but it benefits from several connection points to the existing settlement. Additionally, it supports the provision of a continuous green ring, enhancing integration. All development is within proximity to quality open green spaces. There would be land available for commercial development supporting local employment, which can be within proximity to the village centre.

Housing for all

6.7. The western scenario has some challenges with the utilities pipeline, which may impact site capacity. This scenario has the potential to deliver the required 800 homes, though the single access north of Stein Road, and reliance on aspirations for a vehicular bridge could pose constraints. It can provide a mix of housing types and tenures, meeting local need in line with the Housing Need Survey Report.

6.8. The eastern scenario has a smaller area impacted by the utilities pipeline, which could constrain site capacity. There are access constraints at South Lane, due to the nature of the road, this has been assessed by the site promoter. However, it is likely to require further consideration in order to establish the maximum highway capacity this lane could accommodate (including what improvement to that road are achievable) and increased pressure on Stein Road. However, other vehicular access points within the site scenario could mitigate these challenges to a certain extent. It has the potential to deliver the required 800 homes, subject to the highways constraints, providing a mix of housing types and tenures in line with the evidence base.

6.9. The mixed scenario has the potential to deliver the required 800 homes with multiple vehicular access points with the primary access from the north reducing the reliance on narrow lanes. It faces challenges with utilities pipeline impact, like the other scenarios. This scenario can deliver a mix of housing types and tenures, meeting local needs in line with the evidence base. Ultimately, this option provides the most flexibility in terms of capacity and providing different development typologies.

Transport and Sustainable Travel

6.10. The western scenario provides three points of connection north of the railway line and has the potential to improve existing footpath railway crossings. It includes the potential for a pedestrian/cycle bridge west of the village and land is safeguarded for a vehicular bridge, which would help alleviate traffic congestion at the rail crossing. The land for the vehicular bridge is safeguarded by virtue of a S106 agreement, but a land swap may be required to facilitate this delivery. However, the scenario has limited access points, creating a reliance on the vehicular bridge for a connected street network. Approximately 50% of the development is within 400 meters of an existing bus stop, which is considered a positive contribution. All development sites meet the requirement of being within a 15-minute walk from the train station.

6.11. The eastern scenario offers more than three points of connection north of the railway line, linking to the existing strategic highway network and improving connectivity by the railway line through a new pedestrian/cycle bridge in the village centre. There is an opportunity to deliver a vehicular bridge, however this would rely on negotiations with landowners due to a recent planning application being submitted in that location. Should this be possible, it would alleviate traffic congestion at the railway crossing. Only approximately 10% of the development is within 400 meters of an existing bus stop. All development would be within a 15-minute walk from the train station.

6.12. The mixed scenario offers four or more points of connection north of the railway line, connecting with existing lanes and has the potential for delivering a full green ring for a walking and cycling route around the settlement. It has the potential to deliver a pedestrian/cycle bridge to the west and within the core of the settlement but does not provide opportunity for the deliverance of a vehicular bridge. It would therefore not be possible to alleviate traffic congestion at the railway crossing within the village centre. The scenario has limited access points and relies on existing lanes, which are unlikely to accommodate buses. Approximately 30% of the development is within 400 meters of an existing bus stop. All sites are within a 15-minute walk from the train station.

Climate Change Chapter 6: Assessment Framework Summary

6.13. All scenarios can meet high environmental performance standards and the Future Homes Standard.

Environment

6.14. The west scenario would secure the western part of the Green Ring and could deliver 15 hectares of accessible natural greenspace to mitigate recreational disturbances. However, it could result in the significant loss of land used by Brent Geese, though the landowner appears to have the potential to mitigate this impact. This scenario would involve the loss of high-quality agricultural land (Grades 1 and 2). Development would be located in Flood Zone 1, but there are surface water flooding areas in key locations (in relation to the vehicular bridge and access road). There would be no impact to the wildlife corridors and there is the potential to enhance them through BNG requirements. It supports the creation of green/blue infrastructure, this is significant surface water flooding north of the railway and along the route of the access road to the south of the railway line.

6.15. The east scenario would secure the eastern part of the Green Ring and deliver 15 hectares of accessible natural greenspace. There would be no impact to the wildlife corridors and there is the potential to enhance them through BNG requirements. It impacts existing hedgerows and orchards, which could be integrated and mitigated through design, but it would result in the loss of high-quality agricultural land (Grades 1 and 2).There is a Flood Zone 3 area running along the edge of the site, though that is unlikely to impact upon the development of the site, however, there are some significant surface water flood areas within the main site area and the vehicular access in the event that a bridge can be provided would be in a future tidal flood zone.

6.16. The mixed scenario would allow new walking routes to be created on both sides of the settlement, connecting into the village and the green ring. There would be 15 hectares of green space provided, with no impact on wildlife corridors. Like the other options there is potential to deliver improvements to the corridors through BNG contributions. This scenario would result in impacts to existing hedgerows and orchards, which can be mitigated through a design-led approach. There would be a loss of land used by the Brent Geese and high-quality agricultural land (Grades 1 and 2). Surface water flood risk would impact some parts of the site, but to a lesser extent than the other two options.

Character

6.17. The western scenario is located within the visibility zone from the South Downs National Park (SDNP), requiring design-led mitigation. There is potential moderate/minor impact to the setting of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape based on the LVIA submitted by a site promotor, however, further studies would be required to confirm this. The scenario would lead to one-sided growth of the village, unbalancing its original form and structure. However, it offers potential to create characterful development through the retention and integration of TPO trees and public rights of way (PROW). Development would be located within an identified landscape gap within proximity to Hermitage. A gap of 100m has been retained but would require further mitigation through a considerate deign-led approach.

6.18. This eastern scenario is within the visibility zone of the SDNP and a potential moderate impact has been identified. An LVIA has been submitted by a site promotor that has identified there would to be a moderate/minor impact on the setting of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape. However, the impacts can be mitigated through a sensitive design-led approach. This scenario would lead to one-sided village growth, potentially unbalancing its original form and structure. A small section of the development site is located within an identified landscape gap within proximity to Hambrook, however, a separating gap has been maintained to mitigate this impact. The scenario offers the potential to create characterful development through the retention and integration of historic orchards, existing hedgerows, and public rights of way.

6.19. Development within the mixed scenario is also within visibility of the SNDP, however, the impacts would be reduced/mitigated through design in addition to imbedding a strong green infrastructure framework. There is potential moderate/minor impact to the setting of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape based on the LVIA submitted by a site promotor, however, further studies would be required to confirm this. Parcels of the development would be located within proximity to both Hambrook and Hermitage. A landscape gap of at least 250m has been retained to Hambrook and min 100m to Hermitage to mitigate the impact, which can be mitigated further with sensitive design and planning. There is the potential to deliver characterful development through the retention and integration of TPOs, historic orchards, hedgerows and public rights of way. Overall, this scenario allows a development to form a more sympathetic and equal growth structure around the settlement.

Deliverability

6.20. The western scenario benefits from having a majority landowner north of the railway, facilitating development of this option. However, there remains a high viability risk due to uncertainties surrounding the cost of the vehicular bridge. Also, while there is a majority landowner north of the railway line, there is a significant parcel of land in a key position which is owned by a different landowner.

6.21. Concerning the east, deliverability is a very significant concern with this option. Deliverability is hindered by the need for land assembly due to multiple landowners, with high viability risks similar to Scenario 1. Equalization and a Section 106 contribution framework are required to manage infrastructure costs. This problem is further exacerbated by the speculative applications which have already come forward, and another application which is under consideration within a key part of the site. While it is understandable that landowners/developers feel that it is appropriate for them to bring applications forward, this approach has already markedly compromised this option and there are significant concerns as to whether a comprehensive and coordinated scheme, which delivers the necessary infrastructure, is achievable on the basis of this scenario.

6.22. For the mixed scenario, deliverability is complicated by the need for land assembly and the equalization across allocation and pooling of infrastructure. In some respects, this is the most complicated option of all in this regard as it involves the greatest degree of coordination between landowners. However, with the bridge not being required with this option, that would take a lot of pressure of the development costs and would potentially make land equalisation more straightforward.