5.22. Questions for Regulation 18 consultation:
Benefits - the surface water flooding in recent years has grown following the developments of Priors Meadow and Priors Leaze - how can adding a further 800 houses achieve a better outcome? The vehicular access is already getting out of control following the addition of the Priors Orchard Development and that is not even finished yet. The additional of potentially another 1600 plus cars is unattainable for he roads in the area, they are struggling to cope already, adding another rat run to the mix will not help. Consolidating the senior school site to include another school in the area will be an accident waiting to happen, there are too many parent driving up and down Manor way and the surrounding roads at present without adding more to them. We dont even try to use Stein Road when the junior school is coming and going in the morning and afternoons now let alone with another school in the immediate area. The land proposed to the east of Stein road I noticed incorporate the Southbourne Trees into the green ring, if this is anything like the pathetic attempt of the green ring at Parham Place then they will most likely be cut down or killed in the building process. How can you incorporate the Green ring by putting a road over the already designated land?
Look elsewhere for smaller pockets of housing such as along the B2178 where none of the villages have been attacked by developers, there are families and young people that need housing along this road too. Smaller pockets of housing will have less of an impact on the villages and nature that is currently being wiped out of Southbourne.
Jammed roads with little to no access for emergency vehicles, smaller access roads used more as a rat run than already currently happening. More accidents due to more vehicles. More pollution due.
No uploaded files for public display
New housing will place an increased demand upon the existing level of policing. In the absence of developer contributions towards additional infrastructure, Sussex Police would be unable to retain the high levels of policing in Chichester District that is currently being delivered.
New housing will place an increased demand upon the existing level of policing. In the absence of developer contributions towards additional infrastructure, Sussex Police would be unable to retain the high levels of policing in Chichester District that is currently being delivered.
Planned development will place permanent, on-going demands on Sussex Police which cannot be fully shouldered by direct taxation. Like many other public services, policing is not fully funded via public taxation. New housing will place an increased demand upon the existing level of policing. In the absence of developer contributions towards additional infrastructure, Sussex Police would be unable to retain the high levels of policing in Chichester District that is currently being delivered. Sussex Police will continue to engage with Local Planning Authorities to ensure crime prevention is referenced within new Local Plan documents and provide crime prevention design advice to minimise the opportunities for crime within new development. Ensuring new development takes full consideration of crime prevention and the provision of adequate infrastructure to support policing is clearly outlined within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), relevant sections of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (as amended).
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
There are already community and educational facilities in this location which would facilitate creating another school. This could use some of the same amenities with the College and enhance the educational experience for the primary children. There is unlikely to be space to create similar in the other location/s. A single landowner makes development more viable. The location would support a road bridge.
Access in this location is easier rather than having to use narrow lanes which cannot accommodate the volume of traffic generated by 800+ houses.
Potentially 800 homes in a cul de sac.
No uploaded files for public display
Combines schools and leisure and community hub. Less disruption to current housing and green areas. Makes good use of current unused land.
No
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The consolidation of Education would not be a benefit as would create significant traffic and pedestrian issues and safety risks for the build up around the school as the roads around the school are a mix of residential and industrial with no availabaility for cars to turn drop off or park. There is already a Village Hall which hosts variety of weekly classes and events. so don't class the new community hub as a benefit but would detract/dilute from what is already there. The creation of a characterful development with access to green area and TPO may well be a benefit to the development oocupants but is taking away access to the green space and TPO from the current Southbourne community. Thererfore this would only be of benefit to a few and not all, as it currently is. Loss of grade 1 agricultural land is so short sighted, i don't know how the country will feed its growing population once all the fields are built on. Surely there must be somewhere within the district that does not necessitate the loss of prime agricultural land.
There is no mention of the challenge of Sewerage, as is already extremely well known/documented there are existing capacity issues of waste water treatment and disposal. Drains already need to be pumped out at times of high rain and raw sewage is disposed of in the AONB that is Chichester harbour (how this is allowed anyway is beyond comprehension). Southern Water have to put in place improvements before any further development can happen. No mention of challenge health facilities i.e GP surgery, the current surgery is already full and you cannot get timely appointments, there should be a commitment to have new services as 800 homes plus the housing already being built will increase Southbourne by circa 40 to 50% in populatuion. No mention that challenge to have infrastructure in place before housing or in parallel with housing i.e road bridge and sewerage being the most important. As has been born out time and again with developments across the country if infrastructure is left until afterwards it never materialises.
In this scenario there has to be a vehicular bridge to allow access for it to be workable. There would be major challenges from volume of traffic with an increase in circa 1500 + cars if there was only access from Stein Road, this would create significant safety risks both North and South of the level crossing. North the traffic can already build up to past Tesco when the crossing is down if you add in large lorrys accessing the industrial estate from Stein Road and Manor road plus the school traffic and volume of children walking/biking currently (plus additional capacity after build) on what is not very wide roads or pavemensts, there would be a significant safety risk to life as well as quality of life for existing residents. South of the crossing traffic can already build up to the roundabout at the A259, additional traffic would make this build up a very common occurrence causing significant traffic delays on the A259 and subsequent safety risks that this entails for pedestrians and bus route.
No uploaded files for public display
LAND TO THE WEST Question 2 Do you agree with the list of benefits or challenges set out above? (para 5.12 to 5.21). Reasons No The Library and Village Hall are missed off the illustrative diagram for “Land to the West” Para 5.13 Take account of severance (Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 para 10.56) and also delay endured by the local community Para 5.15 There are no multiple owners south of the railway line? Para 5.17 Land south of railway line should not be developed to protect the landscape gap Para 5.18 There could be a third access via Manor Road and CDC car park adjacent to the leisure centre provided it can be agreed with WSCC.ie third party land Para 5.20 Brent Goose mitigation area – the policy requires a “suitable replacement area” – there is a substantial appropriate area close by north of A27 in same ownership as “Land to the West” which would mitigate this. Para 5.21 consultation is required but the gas pipeline unlikely to require more than a narrow safeguarded strip and it already crosses under Stein Road, so assume no objection to having a road (and open space) within easement area. In any case, there is enough land to site the access road in an optimum position, maybe with a roundabout on Stein Road also serving South Lane. Challenge – This scenario includes no link/footbridge for the Green Ring on the eastern side of the Southbourne. Therefore include an additional site - land south of Cooks Lane. The southern landing pad and a pedestrian route/cycleway to the south side of the railway station were proposed in the first Neighbourhood Plan 2015 and are safeguarded by a 106 Agreement. The Cooks Lane site is now required for the northern landing pad/footbridge over railway to complete the Green Ring crossing. This site could also provide a small car park for railway station and some housing. This housing could substitute for the removal of the housing allocation shown south of the railway line in “Land to the West” thereby protecting the landscape gap between Southbourne and with Hermitage.
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The Library and Village Hall are missed off the illustrative diagram for “Land to the West” Para 5.13 Take account of severance (Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 para 10.56) and also delay endured by the local community Para 5.15 There are no multiple owners south of the railway line? Para 5.17 Land south of railway line should not be developed to protect the landscape gap Para 5.18 There could be a third access via Manor Road and CDC car park adjacent to the leisure centre provided it can be agreed with WSCC.ie third party land Para 5.20 Brent Goose mitigation area – the policy requires a “suitable replacement area” – there is a substantial appropriate area close by north of A27 in same ownership as “Land to the West” which would mitigate this. Para 5.21 consultation is required but the gas pipeline unlikely to require more than a narrow safeguarded strip and it already crosses under Stein Road, so assume no objection to having a road (and open space) within easement area. In any case, there is enough land to site the access road in an optimum position, maybe with a roundabout on Stein Road also serving South Lane. Challenge – This scenario includes no link/footbridge for the Green Ring on the eastern side of the Southbourne. Therefore include an additional site - land south of Cooks Lane. The southern landing pad and a pedestrian route/cycleway to the south side of the railway station were proposed in the first Neighbourhood Plan 2015 and are safeguarded by a 106 Agreement. The Cooks Lane site is now required for the northern landing pad/footbridge over railway to complete the Green Ring crossing. This site could also provide a small car park for railway station and some housing. This housing could substitute for the removal of the housing allocation shown south of the railway line in “Land to the West” thereby protecting the landscape gap between Southbourne and with Hermitage.
Question 3 Are there other benefits or challenges that you think should also be included? Reasons Benefits – this enables a landscape corridor to the wildlife area to the west (Lumley), this is not mentioned, although comparable proximity to the wildlife corridor to the east (Ham Brook) is mentioned for Scenario 2? Similarly a benefit quoted for Scenario 2 is the landscape corridor at the eastern edge. A landscape corridor is provided to the west in Scenario 1 but this is not mentioned?
Question 4 In this scenario, what do you think would be the challenges or issues if there wasn’t a vehicular bridge over the railway line? Reasons. Pressure would increase on level crossings at Stein Road and Inlands Road, and the pedestrian crossing at Church, creating intolerable severance, delay and highway safety issues for the community. It has always been the single biggest issue raised during the preparation of 3 successive neighbourhood Plans. The omission of a bridge in this location would be a lost opportunity to secure the only realistic chance to secure a road bridge. Single ownership offers the best chance of securing a comprehensive masterplan for S’bourne.
No uploaded files for public display
I am not an expert. I would have to have a thorough knowledge of these issues to say 'yes' or 'no'. It all seems to be set out clearly, but what are the qualifications of the people that put these benefits/challenges together?
Challenges: I am concerned about the wildlife affected by the influx of 800 houses. It will be a challenge to you to pick developers who have a high concern (instead of a minimal concern) with the environment. For instance, I chatted to the foreman of the houses put up by Bloor Homes in Cooks Lane, Southbourne. He was impressed by Bloor's concern for the environment, more than some other builders he said. This area has good slow worm population (or did have). Bloor removed over 100 slow worms from its building site to an area of safety. I am not an ecologist so I don't know if they thrived. But you need to go for whatever option of the three will have LEAST disturbance to wildlife. In terms of benefits, these would arise from choosing the option least detrimental to the environment, including the Harbour which is now known to be eroded.
Stein Road, Soutbourne is already a problem vis a vis traffic and tailbacks when the railway gates go down. If you allow this traffic to increase by not providing a bridge, you will pollute the environment further. As it is, very few cars turn their engines off. This could perhaps be mitigated if you liaised with the railway to decrease the amount of time they put down the barriers. Another challenge is making it possible for people to enjoy their homes without constant noise and traffic. I live at the end of Inlands Rd Nutbourne with the junction of A259, already there is increased traffic. This means it is difficult for me to have quiet enjoyment of my garden. This I'm sure is happening elsewhere in Southbourne/Nutbourne. By building my houses, you need to do what you can to ensure quiet enjoyment. Wildlife too is affected by more cars. Hedgehog populations have gone right down. Regularly I see them squashed on the roads here.
No uploaded files for public display
It doesn't create multiple opportunities for pedestrian or cycle access to the village as these walk/cycle ways already exist. The increased car access would be significant for Stein Road, especially around school times.
Only if there are one bedroom houses or apartments to help young people afford to get on the property ladder.
Unless vehicle access is built to to the south of the site over the railway line, this would cause significant disruption and safety issues along Stein Road. There is already severe traffic delays during school hours to the south of Stein Road with school parking and the train crossing, causing huge tailbacks which reach the A259, as well as safety issues of pedestrians trying to cross and cars dangerously mounting the pavement to get past parked cars. This congestion is also duplicated through Manor and Park Road when residents access Bourne College. Adding only access onto Stein Road for this new development will only increase the congestion and safety issues.
No uploaded files for public display
I note para 5.8 says 'current evidence suggests that a multi modal bridge might be required to address traffic congestion if approximately 800 homes are delivered to the north of the railway'. The Summary Table in chapter 6 of the Assessment Framework scores the west option with a strong 'performance indicator' for a potential bridge crossing. By comparison, the east option scores 'very poor'. Therefore if a crossing is shown to be a pre requisite for development, the west option should be preferred.
Other benefits of the west option are that it could provide scope for the natural extension to existing development at Cooks Lane and be closer to existing services and facilities at Southbourne including the school, employment at Clovelly Road and the doctors at the A259.
If there was no bridge across the railway, development would potentially worsen congestion at the level crossing unless new facilities were established on the north side of the railway alongside the housing, thereby reducing the need to make trips south in principle.
No uploaded files for public display
Housing Delivery - It is considered that all 3 scenarios should consider capacity to provide over and above 800 homes to provide flexibility in supply to ensure the Local Plan housing requirement is met. This will take account of potential unforeseen factors which may affect delivery of land parcels within the allocation option areas. In view of landscape sensitivity constraints associated with scenario 1, including local gap, it is uncertain whether 800 dwellings can be delivered, and this should be reflected as a challenge. Green Ring - This scenario may enable the delivery of the western section of the Southbourne Green Ring, which is identified as a benefit. However, it should also be identified as a challenge that this scenario does not provide the opportunity to comprehensively deliver the Green Ring, which is achievable in Scenario 3. Landscape Impact - We agree with the identification of impact on landscape gap as a key challenge and constraint for this scenario. This scenario includes an area identified as part of the Hermitage and Southbourne Local Gap from the Landscape Gap Assessment (CDC, 2019). Furthermore, the location of the existing gas pipeline through the north of this scenario is likely to push development closer into the landscape gap and affect the integrity of the gap. Therefore, it is considered that this scenario may affect the integrity of the local gap and it is uncertain whether the provision of a landscape corridor on the western edge of the scenario will enable appropriate mitigation of impact and delivery of c800 homes. Transport Impact - The draft DPD raises a challenge regarding potential transport impact if a multi-modal vehicular bridge is not delivered as part of this scenario and the impact of increased footfall on the pedestrian level crossing at Church footpath. The potential impact will need to be robustly explored with Network Rail and necessary transport modelling undertaken by the Council. Flood Risk - There are surface water flooding constraints affecting this scenario on the western edge of Southbourne particularly affecting land to the north of the railway line but also land to the south. The Environment Agency surface water flood maps identify a significant area north of the railway line on the western edge affected by high risk (3.3% chance each year) and medium risk (1 - 3.3% chance). In accordance with NPPF paragraph 167 a sequential approach should be applied to plan making taking account of all sources of flood risk and the current and future impacts of climate change. In the absence of a sequential test for the scenario area to assess whether there are any reasonably available alternative sites in areas of lower flood risk and in view of landscape gap constraints it is uncertain whether this scenario is capable of delivering c800 dwellings. Utilities Consultation Area - It is appropriate to identify the challenge concerning the percentage of land for development including the access road being located within the utilities consultation zone. This may affect the deliverability of key utility and infrastructure requirements required for the sustainable delivery of this scenario. Brent Geese - It is appropriate to identify that this scenario would result in a significant loss of land within the Brent Geese 'Secondary Support Area', which would need to be mitigated. A clear strategy is required to demonstrate this is capable of mitigation. Landownerships - The draft DPD identifies a key benefit that the northern side of the site allocation could be largely facilitated by a single landowner which may support a co-ordinated and comprehensive approach to master planning and delivery of infrastructure. With this scenario, there is a potential disadvantage in relying on a single landowner if any specific deliverability issues arise. The delivery of Scenario 1 (Land to the West) also requires co- ordination of land ownerships south of the railway line which should also be identified as a potential challenge. Scenarios 2 and 3 involve the co-ordination of land ownerships but delivery is not reliant on a single landowner and there is potential for development to come forward earlier in the Plan period with land parcels coming forward concurrently. [See attached document for full submission]
Housing Capacity - As set out above it will be necessary to identify the potential challenge associated with this option in delivering c800 dwellings when landscape gap, ecology, flood risk and potential highways capacity constraints are considered through the DPD. Distribution of Development - In comparison to Scenario 3 the approach to the distribution of development on the western edge provides a less balanced delivery of growth. Scenario 3 provides an opportunity to balance the distribution of c800 dwellings, which is also likely to be more deliverable in terms of highways impact and in view of landscape and flood risk constraints in the western scenario. Transport Impact - It should be recognised as stated in the SA that Scenario 1 performs least well in transport terms as it relies on the provision of a singular multi modal bridge, only has one point of vehicular access, provides no opportunity to improve pedestrian and cycle access to the railway station and creates a barrier to movement and integration between new development and existing development in the village. Ecology - In ecology terms the SA identifies that this scenario has the potential to impact on the ecological status of the Ems Water Body (bordering the north of Southbourne Parish) which is vulnerable and currently has poor ecological status as confirmed by the Environment Agency. This should be reflected in the challenges for this scenario. [See attached document for full submission]
The draft DPD raises a challenge concerning the potential transport impact if a multi-modal vehicular bridge is not delivered as part of this scenario and the increased footfall on the pedestrian level crossing at Church footpath. The potential impact will need to be explored with statutory providers including Network Rail and appropriate transport modelling will need to be undertaken by the Council in preparation of the DPD. It is uncertain at this stage what the impact of not delivering the bridge will be. [See attached document for full submission]
In relation to Active Travel continuity there should be better emphasis made on the east/west route along the A259, Known as CHEM route, which is part of the National Cycle Network, number 2. Travel to and from the railway station requires such improvements which are safe and segregated from vehicle traffic. Also travel to and from Secondary school would be enhanced by such improvements. Improvements for Active Travel on A259 should include where appropriate 20 MPH zones where the carriageway width is insufficient for one way cycle lanes, segregated from pedestrians on both sides of the road.
The main challenge to the provision of active travel improvements is the funding and therefore this DPD should require the proposed development should be required to fund them, either through Section 106 agreements, CIL contributions or through the A27 SPD contributions; in summary they should be a planning obligation. The provision of the new active travel bridge across the railway line and the A259 improvements should be completed by the completion of the hundredth house, so that new travel habits are assisted at the beginning of the development. Only with such Active Travel Provision can any modal shift be achieved and mitigation of vehicle movements enacted in line with the DPD objective set out in para. 4.7
Even more congestion on Stein Road and at mini roundabout with A259
No uploaded files for public display
The loss of good quality agricultural land when other - unused - land can be used. Loss of a well used beautiful area.
Stein Road too narrow to accommodate extra traffic
Serious back up of traffic when barriers closed with potential dangerous scenarios due to parked cars on Stein Road
No uploaded files for public display
We badly need a better way of crossing the railway line. As a regular pedestrian and cyclist along this road the frequency and time taken waiting for the barriers to lift is really annoying.
No answer given
More gridlock on Stein Road.
No uploaded files for public display
The library and Village Hall were left off the indicative layout. Para 5.13 Take account of severance (CLP 2021-2039 para 10.56) and also delay endured by local community There are no multiple land owners south of the railway 5.17 Land south of the railway should not be developed to preserve the landscape gap 5.21 Consultation is needed regarding the gas pipe line, however it most likely will only require a narrow safeguarded strip and it already passes under Stein Road so I assume there will no objection to a road or open green space within the easement.
Additional challenge the scenario includes no link/footbridge for the Green Ring on the western side of Southbourne. Therefore include an additional site - land south of Cooks lane that has the southern landing pad in Priors Orchard. The land is required to provide the northern landing pad for a footbridge and rail station car park. The housing number on this site can be substituted from this scenario south of the railway thereby protecting the landscape gap between Hermitage and Southbourne
No Bridge is not an option.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Disturbance to Skylark nesting sites Loss of quality agricultural land . Loss of well used open space
Extra pressure on the level crossing. Extra traffic through Woodmancote and Westbourne .
No uploaded files for public display
This is the least bad of the three options.
1. Increased traffic in the village will increase congestion especially because the barriers in Stein Road are down for a significant proportion of the time. Congestion at the railway station is already very heavy with long traffic lines queuing to get across. A road bridge is of vital importance. No bridge - no houses. 2. Sewage capacity is not even mentioned. There is no evidence that Southern Water have the capacity to join so many houses to the sewage network.
The challenges would be too great for the village to bear if there wasn't a vehicular bridge as all the traffic would funnel down Stein Road which is already struggling to cope with the current volume. The only alternatives would be to go north through Westbourne which has existing traffic problems or to turn into Cooks Lane which cannot support two way traffic. The traffic in Stein Road and Cooks Lane is already likely to be severely impacted by the new Prior's Meadow development, the Four Acres development (which has already got planning permission) and the two pre-app developments in Cooks Lane and Inlands Road.
No uploaded files for public display
We mostly agree with the list of benefits and challenges, but please see our answer to Q3.
We note that the site includes areas of railway land, which is potentially contaminated land. This is a challenge that has not been referenced. It is likely that any planning application would need to be accompanied by a desk top study, site investigation and proposed remediation strategy. As per the hierarchy within paragraph 020 of the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) for Water supply, wastewater and water quality, we would expect a development of this scale to connect to the mains foul sewerage network. This means demonstrating and providing evidence that capacity is currently available or can be made available in time to serve the development in accordance with PPG. Page 31 of the Sustainability Study acknowledges that “increased growth in the plan area will also likely impact upon the capacity of the Thornham wastewater treatments works that serves it.” The ‘Position Statement on managing new housing development in the Thornham Waste Water Treatment Works catchment’ (available on Chichester District Council’s website) will need to be considered. Development may need to be phased to ensure that any necessary capacity increase at Thornham wastewater treatment works is delivered prior to occupation. Early engagement with Southern Water will be necessary.
No comment as matters of transport impacts are outside of the Environment Agency’s remit.
No uploaded files for public display
We do not agree with the following statement under 'Challenges':- 'Landscape buffer required to protect landscape corridor to the west of the scenario' Scenario 1 would fall almost entirely with the landscape gap identified in the Council’s 2019 study which is designed to avoid urban sprawl and maintain the separation of settlements. The site would come very close to the National Landscape boundary, being only just behind a recent small housing development site (‘Parham Place’) and the Tuppeny Barn site, where the Conservancy has recently objected to a planning application for 7 dwellings on the grounds of harm to the setting of the National Landscape and of what remains of the rural landscape gap, as well as harm to the ecological connectivity between the Harbour and the South Downs. We do not believe that a landscape 'buffer' would be sufficient to mitigate for the impact to the landscape gap that this scenario would cause, this landscape gap being identified in the Council's own study in 2019, which states that it is important that this area is retained as open countryside, and that this gap is 'essential in preventing the coalescence of the settlements and maintaining their separate identities'. Scenario 1 (land to the west) would involve building on a large proportion of this identified gap, which extends southwards into the Chichester Harbour National Landscape, which would directly conflict with the observations and statements set out in the Landscape Gap Assessment, as well as adopted Local Plan Policy 20 and emerging Local Plan Policy NE3 criterion a) and b). There are clear views northwards from the open countryside within Chichester Harbour National Landscape to the south of the A259, from where there are 2 public footpaths across the fields which allow views northwards across this landscape gap (see attached photo). Any development within the gap, unless, to the south of the railway line it is limited to land directly north of Parham Place only, would be clearly visible from the National Landscape and would intrude into the open, green gap and harm the rural setting of the National Landscape as well as causing the perceived and actual coalescence of Southbourne and Hermitage/Emsworth. Scenario 1 would conflict with NPPF paragraph 182, which states that development within the setting of AONBs (now National Landscapes) should be 'sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas'. Scenario 1 would not be sensitively located in relation to the National Landscape. A further issue with scenario 1 is that it includes fields which have been identified as a Brent Goose Secondary Support Area, and development of these fields would result in the loss of this habitat, as acknowledged by its ‘very poor’ scoring under the objective of ‘Protect and / or mitigate existing wildlife and biodiversity’. Any development within the few remaining rural landscape gaps along the A259 corridor would further sever and erode the ecological connectivity between Chichester Harbour and the South Downs.
The location of this scenario within the landscape gap as well as its proximity to Chichester Harbour National Landscape, and the consequent negative landscape impacts and impacts on the setting of Chichester Harbour National Landscape, should be more fully acknowledged under 'challenges'.
We believe that a further 800 houses in Southbourne, in addition to the hundreds of new houses already granted permission or recently built/being built, regardless of the scenario presented, will require a new bridge over the railway line in order to mitigate for the additional traffic congestion that such a large scale development will create. Therefore, if there wasn't a vehicular bridge over the railway line in any of the scenarios, we believe that this would cause significant challenges and issues with regard to traffic congestion at the existing railway crossings.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No answer given
If no vehicular bridge over the railway line there should be NO new development. If there is new development, the vehicular bridge must be built first, before one new dwelling. Residents have no confidence that if a bridge is promised after building new dwellings that the bridge would be built.
No uploaded files for public display
I think this offers the best chance of achieving a properly Masterplanned development and achieving the objectives however, this cannot be done without new road access over the railway, and it is ludicrous to suggest otherwise. This site has its drawback too, but is in the possession of one owner not multiple interests and doe connect well to school and other provision
Challenges Very high water table and natural aquifers. Transport, and access via car can not be successfully achieved by Stein Road crossing and will need a new Road bridge . Benefits the chance for one Masterplanned development without multiple interests. Location to schools good. Enhanced recreation facilities and the ability to create the green ring, will take pressure off the harbour.
Traffic gridlock. Rat running through the Downs the missed opportunity for enhanced pedestrian, Cycling , horse riding routes that are safer up to the Downs The ability to close some of the very dangerous pedestrian crossings of the railway
No uploaded files for public display
Network Rail appreciates the identification of the high risk crossing at Church and the need for this to be mitigated either through closure or via a new bridge, as proposed as part of Scenario 1.
In addition to the impact on Church level crossing, there is also a concern that development to the north of the railway could increase use of Penny level crossing which is located to the east of Church level crossing (where the red footpath indicator on the Scenario 1 map meets the railway). The scale of the potential development gives rise for the opportunity to close this level crossing and potentially divert the right of way over the new bridge near to Church. This would remove two high risk level crossings and be of significant benefit to promote safe active travel connecting the north and south of the railway. This should be included as a further benefit.
In Network Rail's view, there is no specific requirement for a vehicular bridge to be provided. However, this could relieve pressure on the Stein Road crossing by providing a potentially quicker, safer route over the railway. Relieving use at Stein Road would help to lower congestion build up related to when the barriers at the level crossing are down and therefore lower safety risk. It should be noted that a bridge of some form is required should the development north of the railway come forward to serve pedestrians and cyclists and/or vehicles. Without any form of bridge, the safety risk of the level crossings at Penny and Church would be significant and be considered by Network Rail to be unacceptable.
No uploaded files for public display
I disagree with consolidating a new community hub as this will increase traffic issues around the school, leisure centre area. Plus there is already community hub in the village as stated in the neighbourhood plan. The purpose of the green ring as stated in the neighbourhood plan seems to be eradicated by this proposal in relation to the village and the link to the wider landscape as it will also undermine the landscape gaps between settlements, contrary to both the local plan policy and the neighbourhood plan. I also disagree with the inclusion of reference to site ownership as the council has unique powers to deal with site ownership issues. Setting out the proposal with the potential to create a characterful development retaining TPOs and PROWs, is not a benefit as it already has the relevant protections. Especially as this is something that would have to be enforced as there is a risk that the developer will damage these accidently! The document is very lacking in detail of how things will be achieved in relation to infrastructure improvements, especially as the original target of 350 houses in the approved local plan has been exceeded to date and the village has gained no improvements. When calculating the target the approvals by appeals and the Council's approval of developer scheme outside the approved local plan or neighbourhood plans should be reducing the target of 800 houses. The document lacks any detail of what brownfield sites could be available, before grade 1 or 2 agricultural land.
A cycle/foot bridge should be included in the Penny Lane development as that would serve Hermitage to access the school and leisure facilities too. Otherwise the aim to reduce vehicular movement will not be diminished as its always the easy option. Any plan should reduce the need for north south movements over the railway by improving the highways available to link other areas i.e. Westbourne, Portsmouth / Havant and Chichester etc. Sewerage treatment capacity is a challenge not covered in any of the consultation documents, and I think it should be. Especially as it will years to achieve any improvement that will not continue to harm the water quality in the harbour. This document lacks any details about employment opportunities which could reduce the need for travel, small businesses/start up facilities.
No vehicular access is required if the aim is to have greener more sustainable community. Footfall using the existing road by the allotments on Southbourne Fields is well used by those accessing the Bourne School and leisure facilities. No additional vehicular access should be required as traffic movement is already challenging by the Bourne school. Vehicular access this route would add to the bottlenecks experienced around the school and the industrial units in Clovelly Road.
No uploaded files for public display
I believe that losing land that grows crops - that then feed us should not be developed on. So not only will we suffer from the doctors surgeries not being able to cope, the hospitals are overwhelmed already - we take away a supply of food??????
Lack of services - doctors, NHS dentists, no buses apart from on the A259
OMG - it is bad enough now at the level crossing in Southbourne. The train gates can be down at times for a good ten minutes. Vehicles back up both sides in Stein Road causing havoc but complete mayhem when it's time to drop/collect kids from the schools!!!! Pollution from the vehicles that sit in the queuing traffic with the engines running - defo not good for the Ozone.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Benefits: - GP Surgery - Pharmacy Challenges: -Inadequate sewage capacity -Water extraction -Congestion (particularly onto the A259 and around the new proposed schools).
If there is no bridge, there should be no new houses! There is only one North/South running road in Southbourne and during peak times, gates are closed 30 mins of every hour. It would not be an acceptable or sustainable option to build houses without a road bridge.
No uploaded files for public display
They seem to address many issues
Doctors surgery capacity
It would be unbelievable to not achieve this. The existing crossing is already down for much of each hour with huge queues both sides. It’s already extremely dangerous, particularly at Southbourne infants and junior school start and finish times where parents cars line stein road causing havoc with traffic queuing for the railway crossing. That drives traffic to inland’s road crossing which is already dangerous and now suffers with congestion due to vans from the priors orchard development parking on inland’s road. The railway assessment is a joke - 600 pedestrian crossings at stein road a day? That may happen each morning alone for students going to school! And how can inland’s road and stein road have different numbers of train movements… no trains start or end their journey at Southbourne!
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Wastewater Sewer Catchment: Southern Water is the statutory wastewater undertaker for the Southbourne area. In accordance with this, we have undertaken an assessment of the existing capacity of our sewer network and its ability to meet a possible forecast demand for this proposal, based on a calculated flow rate. Please note that in recognition of paragraph 5.3 in Chapter 5 Site Scenario Options, we assessed capacity for 1,050 dwellings as referred to in the Policy A13 of the local plan, and the 800 dwellings planned for in this DPD. The assessment reveals that the local sewer network in closest proximity to the site has sufficient sewer network capacity for 800 dwellings. The assessment also reveals that the local sewer network in closest proximity to the site has limited capacity to accommodate a proposed development of 1,050 dwellings. Limited capacity is not a constraint to development provided that planning policy and subsequent conditions ensure that occupation of the development is phased to align with the delivery of wastewater infrastructure. Proposals for 1,050 dwellings at this site could generate a need for reinforcement of the wastewater network in order to provide additional capacity to serve the development. This reinforcement would be provided through the New Infrastructure charge, but Southern Water would need to work with site promoters to understand the development programme and to review whether the delivery of network reinforcement aligns with the occupation of the development. Connection of new development at this site ahead of new infrastructure delivery could lead to an increased risk of flooding unless any requisite works are implemented in advance of occupation. Southern Water has limited powers to prevent connections to the sewerage network, even when capacity is limited. Planning policies and planning conditions, therefore, play an important role in ensuring that development is coordinated with the provision of necessary infrastructure, and does not contribute to pollution of the environment, in line with paragraph 180(e) of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2023). Therefore, there is currently capacity on the sewer network to accommodate 800 dwellings. However, should this be 1,050 dwellings, then we would recommend the following Challenge (in brackets) for Scenario 1: Land to the West. (Due to capacity constraints on the public wastewater network, occupation of the development will need to be phased to align with the delivery of sewerage infrastructure, in liaison with the service provider.) Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW): Wastewater Treatment Works (WTWs) treat wastewater collected from homes and businesses within their ‘catchment’ via a network of connecting pipes and pumping stations. WTWs are significant assets, upgrades to which are funded through the water industry’s 5 yearly investment plan which sets out spending requirements over the next 5 year period (AMP) using customer generated income. Wastewater from development in Scenario 1 would drain through the sewer network to Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) for treatment. As set out in paragraph 4.107 of the Chichester Local Plan, a position statement to manage development in the Thornham Wastewater Treatment Catchment was agreed in November 2021. This is a joint Chichester District Council, Southern Water Services and Environment Agency position statement and is required due to the ‘headroom’ at the WwTW being environmentally constrained. Therefore, any Residential development within the catchment of the Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works would need to be in accordance with Policy NE16 ‘Water Management and Water Quality’ of the Chichester Local Plan, which mandates that a “drainage impact assessment should show that the development complies with the principles set out in the latest Thornham Position Statement”. As such we propose the inclusion of the following additional Challenge (in brackets) to Scenario 1. (Due to the ‘headroom’ at the Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works being environmentally constrained, any Residential development within the catchment would need to be in accordance with Policy NE16 ‘Water Management and Water Quality’ of the Chichester Local Plan, which mandates that a “drainage impact assessment should show that the development complies with the principles set out in the latest Thornham Position Statement”.) We recognise the concerns of residents and developers in relation the environmental constraints at Thornham Treatment Works and the impact this can have on development in Southbourne. During the next 5 yearly investment period (2025-30) we will be increasing the hydraulic and process capacity of the site to accommodate the population growth forecast in the Local Plan. Over the same 5 year period we will also be undertaking sewer rehabilitation and maintenance to increase the operational resilience of the Thorhnham WwTW sewer catchment, and use SuDs and storage in various locations to reduce storm overflows. We will keep Chichester District Council updated with the progress of this work through our quarterly meetings.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
We agree with the challenges as set out in the consultation document. The land to the West is heavily constrained with regards to the landscape, and the land to the East has seen more development come forward in a piecemeal fashion ahead of the local plan and Development Plan Document. Our land in particular (HELAA site Ref HSB0033) is well contained with road frontage. Although there are more landowners to the east they are working collaboratively and even with the west there is still the requirement for multiple landowners to work together which is a risk.
None other than what is referenced in the policy document.
If the vehicular bridge was not delivered over the railway, this would place more pressure on the existing railway crossing which would not be able to accommodate the increased traffic.
No uploaded files for public display
We agree with the challenges as set out in the consultation document. The land to the West is heavily constrained with regards to the landscape, and the land to the east has seen more development come forward in a piecemeal fashion ahead of the Local Plan and Development Plan Document.
None other than what is referenced in the policy document.
If the vehicular bridge was not delivered over the railway, this would place more pressure on the existing railway crossing which would not be able to accommodate the increased traffic.
No uploaded files for public display