4.11. Question for Reg.18 consultation:
The document states: A thriving place that is well served by infrastructure. My comment: it never has been created in the area by government and I doubt very much if this will change. More cars, more people, more necessities such as deliveries, ambulances, doctors, schools, shopping. There is only one main road to and from Southbourne. I is already full to capacity at peak times, when people are most likely to go to work, go home, travel for a variety of reasons. There are no new surgeries and only one major hospital which is in Chichester and which is already on its knees. This is all stuff you know but it is ignored in favour of stuffing more housing into an already saturated area. Job done tactics. But it never is. 4.6. To deliver a range of suitable, well-designed and energy efficient housing types, sizes, and tenures to meet local needs. This will include affordable housing, specialised housing, serviced self/custom build plots and Traveller sites, as part of a mixed and balanced community. My comment: there is no such thing as affordable housing these days which you know full well. Many people cannot get a mortgage and must rely on renting, of which there is a paucity of housing available and affordable. Many building companies renege on the 'affordable' house options.The wording below is not realistic to too many households. Even 20% below market value is not an option for most, if any. Homes provided with other affordable routes to home ownership This can include Shared Ownership, whereby homes are sold at a discounted rate (at least 20% below market value) and homes referred to as being ‘Rent to Buy’. - Homes committed by developers to be sold at a discount Developers can commit to selling homes at least 20% below local market value. May I remind the council that this corridor between Brighton and Portsmouth is now solid with new builds added to already existing dense housing and is totally unsustainable in terms of infrastructure, the traffic alone should give you a clue to what is happening to the south coast and how inhabitable it is now becoming. Witness the A27, usually at a standstill around the Chichester and other areas. It is pointless to even think about going to the Witterings in the summer months as the traffic is backed up from the Witterings to the A27 and adjoining roads. More and more housing is not the answer in this area. It's not a question of not in my back yard as such but it is to protect those whose lives are being blighted by too many poor quality houses, identikit ones, built on floodplains which is so short-sighted. It is way past time to look at a more fair way of housing as found in countries like Austria, Denmark, Holland and other enlightened countries such as Switzerland: For the City of Zurich, “smart” means connecting people, organizations and infrastructures in such a way that social, ecological and economic added value is created. To create the basis for developing new ideas for new opportunities and challenges. To see future urban development as a long-term undertaking – for example with regards to the resource-conserving use of energy, the goal of net zero by 2040, transportation and housing policy. The City of Zurich has developed strategic responses to the challenges facing the city in the future as set out in the “Zurich 2040 Strategies”, which were recently published. There are also topic-specific strategies such as “Net Zero 2035/2040”, “Urban Space and Mobility 2040”, and the “Smart City Strategy”. Learn from other countries, not copy what is happening up and down the land in a disastrous way for the future of those generations to come. I urge you to take a train journey from the south coast to other parts of the UK to see the vast housing estates with no infrastructure, no affordability, no life-enhancing chances in life. Regards, [Redacted]
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The new infrastructure should be put in place before any further development. Doctors, sewage, schools etc. Please keep Nutbourne and Southbourne separate. They are and should remain villages and not turned into towns.
No uploaded files for public display
Vision – Needs addition “… Southbourne will offer a diverse and future proofed environment which contributes to net zero lifestyles………..” Otherwise we agree with vision. Objectives – Needs amendment to: para. 4.9 “……..a continuous Green Ring that encircles weaves through Southbourne, connecting….” Table on page 28 – amend to “weaves” para 4.12 last bullet point “…..green space encompassing weaving through the settlement…..” para 4.23 “………Green Ring around within Southbourne.” Otherwise we agree objectives.
No uploaded files for public display
Vision – Needs addition “… Southbourne will offer a diverse and future proofed environment which contributes to net zero lifestyles………..” Otherwise we agree with vision. Objectives – Needs amendment to: para. 4.9 “……..a continuous Green Ring that encircles weaves through Southbourne, connecting….” Table on page 28 – amend to “weaves” para 4.12 last bullet point “…..green space encompassing weaving through the settlement…..” para 4.23 “………Green Ring around within Southbourne.” Otherwise we agree objectives. Assumptions Para 5.6 SANG – 26.5ha of open space is proposed in each option, of which some 15ha is SANG. However, the Neighbourhood Plan 2023 identified an existing shortfall of about 11.56ha (Evidence Supporting Specific Policies, SB12.EV5, Open Space, Recreation and Sport, Table 2 - Sept 2022: Parish Council website). It is not clear whether the 26.5ha includes making good the shortfall as well as providing for the proposed additional population. Para 5.7 Preliminary Biodiversity Net Gain - existing levels should be broadly assessed as part of this project. Too late at planning application stage because sites are often cleared before planning applications are submitted thereby showing very low existing biodiversity, so a 10% uplift later is easier to demonstrate. Para 5.8 Level crossings – Only “safety” is mentioned but severance and delays are also important. (“Severance” is mentioned in the text of Submission Local Plan para.10.56 but not in the policy, and it should be. Delay is not mentioned in either the LP policy or supporting text and it should be). Para 5.8 There should be no more development north of the railway line without a new road bridge being provided.
No uploaded files for public display
Vision – Needs addition “… Southbourne will offer a diverse and future proofed environment which contributes to net zero lifestyles………..” Otherwise we agree with vision. Objectives – Needs amendment to: para. 4.9 “……..a continuous Green Ring that encircles weaves through Southbourne, connecting….” Table on page 28 – amend to “weaves” para 4.12 last bullet point “…..green space encompassing weaving through the settlement…..” para 4.23 “………Green Ring around within Southbourne.” Otherwise we agree objectives. Assumptions Para 5.6 SANG – 26.5ha of open space is proposed in each option, of which some 15ha is SANG. However, the Neighbourhood Plan 2023 identified an existing shortfall of about 11.56ha (Evidence Supporting Specific Policies, SB12.EV5, Open Space, Recreation and Sport, Table 2 - Sept 2022: Parish Council website). It is not clear whether the 26.5ha includes making good the shortfall as well as providing for the proposed additional population. Para 5.7 Preliminary Biodiversity Net Gain - existing levels should be broadly assessed as part of this project. Too late at planning application stage because sites are often cleared before planning applications are submitted thereby showing very low existing biodiversity, so a 10% uplift later is easier to demonstrate. Para 5.8 Level crossings – Only “safety” is mentioned but severance and delays are also important. (“Severance” is mentioned in the text of Submission Local Plan para.10.56 but not in the policy, and it should be. Delay is not mentioned in either the LP policy or supporting text and it should be). Para 5.8 There should be no more development north of the railway line without a new road bridge being provided.
No uploaded files for public display
I do agree with them, largely, but if I pressed 'yes' there was no opportunity to comment. This is an error in the way you've set it up I think. My comments are: to please remember that Southbourne is a village - the scale of building sounds like it will turn into a town. I think Environment should be brought to the top of the list. From your plans it is not clear how the infrastructure will deal with the influx of houses and people eg particularly Thorney sewage treatment which I understand is near capacity and GP surgeries, again at capacity. There are regular problems with sewage discharge eg Patrcia Way and discharging from the CSO into the Hambrook chalk stream. Drain covers burst with discoloured water in multiple locations around A259, Farm Lane, School Lane, Nutbourne. This has been reported Ref.2326376.People at Belle Court have had sewage/toilet paper across their drive. In what you say, I do not see provision for infrastructure.
No uploaded files for public display
Para 3.2 pre supposes the Local Plan review will be adopted. The Vision and Objectives should be amended to specify what role it might play in the determination of future speculative planning applications in the event the Local Plan fails to meet the Tests of Soundness following the recent Examination and is not adopted. Bullet 7 in para 3.5 and 3.6 should clarify this unless the Local Plan Examiner makes a prompt decision on the Plan and confirms that it can proceed to adoption and inform the remainder of the DPD consultation process. Otherwise the Vision and Objectives of the DPD in chapter 4 should recognise the need for development to respect the defined local gaps from the Landscape Gap Assessment (May 2019), the Hambrook Strategic Wildlife Corridor and respect the setting of the wider area, e.g. in preventing coalescence of the selected growth option with development that already surrounds it or has planning permission.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The objectives miss key requirements around enhancing/maintaining transport safety as set out in NPPF objectives 108, 110, and 115: The objectives should address flood risks as set out in by NPPF objectives 157, 165, and 166 Sewage is a significant issue for the area and a specific objective to address the raw effluent currently found in our streams, fords and harbour need to be specific objectives.
No uploaded files for public display
the vision and objectives should also take into account that whilst we are promoting sustainable travel the impact on the road network will be severe and must be mitigated as well as promoting sustainable travel. The local transport networks aren't sufficient to ensure that there will be more than a minimal reduction in car travel given the bus routes are only 1 per hour, the train line notoriously unreliable and the railway barriers at Stein Road cause much traffic backlog impacting Stein Road, Cooks Lane and Inlands Road
No uploaded files for public display
4.7 Transport only mentions active travel and does not set out road infrastructure improvements that are vitally needed now and will certainnly be needed with 800+ new houses. 4.9 The Green ring should read "weaves around and through current and new development" It is NOT just a foot/cycle path. 5.9 SANG we already have a shortfall of 11.56 ha. Not clear if this 26.56 for each option included this shortfall. Evidence Supporting Specific policies SB12.EV5 Table 2 (Southbourne NP September 2022 5.8 There can be NO MORE development north of the railway line without a new road bridge being provided
No uploaded files for public display
I don't want so much growth as it will turn Southbourne into a town. It will no longer be a village. It will also cause massive traffic congestion and increased problems with sewage and flooding. The vision should include better traffic management rather than a hope that all the residents of the new housing will take to active travel (which we know they won't). There should be much stronger safeguards for green spaces and biodiversity. The original idea of the green ring was as an area of significant undeveloped space whereas the new plan uses the term green ring to denote a narrow ribbon of greenery, some of which will be taken up by footpaths and cycleways.
No uploaded files for public display
1. Integrated and well serviced community. The infrastructure should also refer to public services infrastructure i.e. NHS and sustainable water treatment facilities to protect the AONB and harbour. 2. Do not agree with the term "Housing for All". This should be amended to reflect better the statement in line with the approved neighbourhood plan. Exclude reference to travellers site, as this is just a specialist site for a different type of housing need. 3. Transport and sustainable travel. This should also include reference to the public bus facilities too.
No uploaded files for public display
We broadly agree but feel that the preservation and enhancement of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors should be included as being of key importance under 'Environment'. We also feel that the 'setting' of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape and South Downs National Park is key and therefore this word should be added after 'character' under the 'Character' objective.
No uploaded files for public display
The local need for housing in Southbourne is probably 50 not 1000 new dwellings. This is slavishly following the NPPF Standard Method Algorithm and then forcing the unjustified very large number of new dwellings into the 30% of the District not in a National Park or National Landscape, which is further restricted by not being able to build on the Manhood. The District Council Planning Officers and elected District Councillors must re-apply to the Minister of Housing explaining that 'exceptional circumstances' mew the housing number for the District must be reduced. The NPPF allows appeals to Minister of Housing in 'exceptional circumstances. The land around Southbourne is liable to flooding, it was previously marsh land, so should not be built upon. The land around Southbourne is also prime able land and must be kept so to give the country food security in these uncertain geopolitical times.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
4.9 From what starting point are we going to preserve and enhance the Environment, Todays baseline, a baseline from 1, 2, 3,5,10 years ago the objective is not SMART and therefore ineffective and meaningless.
No uploaded files for public display
I believe that the village is being lost due to all the new housing being built. We do not have the infrastructure now - let alone the future!
No uploaded files for public display
Objection to Transport – The Consultation only indicates the train station with no reference to road users, bus links etc or the impacts on congestion into, out of and around Southbourne including barrier congestion on Stein road.
No uploaded files for public display
No vision to provide adequate services for the village, including schools and doctors surgery that can cope with the volume of patients going forwards
No uploaded files for public display
Southern Water supports the vision and objectives set out in the Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document; however, we would welcome some additional wording that recognises the role of climate change in increasing the risk of fluvial, pluvial and sewer flooding, and the risk of water scarcity. Recommendation: Therefore, we recommend the following additional wording (in brackets) to paragraph 4.8 of Chapter 4. Climate change and moving towards net zero carbon living 4.8 Respond positively to the environment to ensure climate resilience and future-proofing, by adopting the Future Homes Standard, strengthening green and blue infrastructure, promoting walking and cycling as the preferred options for short journeys, (reducing flood risk through the adoption of sustainable drainage systems and increasing resilience to water scarcity through water efficient house design), and contribute towards achieving net zero lifestyles. We make this recommendation as we believe sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) should be a requirement for all new all development. Whilst some parts of the sewer network were originally designed to accommodate surface water, the expansion of towns, cities and villages, in particular of ‘urban creep’ can exacerbate capacity issues. As stated in Water UK’s 21st Century Drainage Programme; “The country’s built environment is constantly changing and “urban creep” – home extensions, conservatories and paving over front gardens for parking – can all add to the amount of water going into our sewers and drains. Green spaces that would absorb rainwater are covered over by concrete and tarmac that will not. In fact, studies show that “urban creep” results in a larger increase in predicted flooding than new housing, because it adds more rainwater to these systems’. In terms of flood risk, better rainwater management is key to achieving not only a reduced risk of flooding, but also a reduction in storm overflow releases and reduced demand on water resources. To help achieve this, Southern Water supports objectives, policies and design practice that prioritise on-site surface water management through effective SuDS provision. As set out in the Chichester Local Plan, Water efficiency is regulated by Part G of the Building Regulations which require (section G2) that reasonable provision must be made by the installation of fittings and fixed appliances that use water efficiently for the prevention of undue consumption of water. Whilst we are not the water supplier for Southbourne, we would welcome wording that recognises water efficiency as an objective.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
We are pleased to see the need to connect people to nature included in the vision and objectives. In light of the biodiversity and climate crises, we would expect to see the vision include a proactive commitment to enhancing the natural environment. We recommend that the second line of the vision is amended to: It will be well supported by services and new and existing development will be seamlessly integrated, while embracing and enhancing its existing character, landscape and ecological assets. We support the inclusion of an Environmental objective, along with the references to green and blue infrastructure and climate resilience under ‘climate change’. We believe the ‘Environment’ should explicitly reference the wildlife corridors and the need to provide appropriate buffers. Please note that when referencing the wildlife corridor, this must include the wider corridor identified in the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, not just the strategic wildlife corridor identified in the emerging Chichester local plan. We would support the targeting of BNG within the adjacent wildlife corridor as suggested in paragraph 5.7. This should be separate from any SANGS/green infrastructure development.
No uploaded files for public display
In principle, we agree with the vision and objectives as set out in the Southbourne Development Plan Document and that Southbourne should accommodate more housing. The Settlement is a sustainable location, with good links either via vehicle or train to the surrounding area. It has seen growth in the last few years with various permissions approved in the area. However we are the landowners of HELAA Ref. HSB0009, Land at Hamcroft which is a residential dwelling set in the surrounds of agricultural and equestrian land. The land has been subject to a number of planning applications, and we still wish to confirm to Chichester District Council that the land is available for development and request that Scenario 2 and Scenario 3’s plans be amended to include our land as an option for residential development. The planning landscape has changed in recent years to the east of Southbourne with development progressing East of Southbourne and mostly recently adjoining our land to the West, is an approval under ref. 22/01283/FUL for 103 dwellings. We note that the plans on the various scenarios have not been amended to include the residential development that has been approved and we do feel that is misleading for the public and does not represent the true picture and where development is naturally moving. Our land would be the next logical step but still respects the gap between Southbourne and Nutbourne.
No uploaded files for public display
Not enough of the ‘vision and objectives’ target the existing residents and how the local community will be severely impacted. What mitigation’s are proposed?
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display