5.34. Questions for Regulation 18 consultation:
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
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
The Primary School ( 420 pupils) will be accessed from the south, east and west by narrow country lanes. It is unlikely these will be able to be expanded sufficiently to enable good access. This would be particularly the case if the railway bridge did not come forward.
The proposed development would be moving further east along Priors Leaze Lane, virtually a single track carriageway and dangerous for pedestrians and cyclists. Multiple landowners make this difficult to forward in a co -ordinated way.
It would be unsustainable and gridlocked. Narrow country lanes would be congested, especially at school times.
No uploaded files for public display
The new school should be in Southbourne adjacent to the Bourne school. It shouldn’t be in Nutbourne. This area floods. It is very close to the Ham Brook chalk stream.
Challenge: potential removal of historic and much loved row of very mature lime trees adjacent to Springfield House. Destruction of natural habitat adjacent to Springfield House leading to decrease of biodiversity. Deer, bats, owls, birds of prey, hedgehogs, frogs butterflies and reptiles.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No mention of challenge of additounal health care facility as already at capacity No mention of sewerage capacity as already have major problems in the village with drains needing to be pumped out and raw sewage being pumped into Chichester Harbour area..
Could still do this scenario without a bridge as that crossing would only primarily be serving the new development but could you not upgrade the barriers at the crossing.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 5 Do you agree with the list of benefits and challenges set out above? (para 5.24 – 5.33). Reasons NO Only one historic orchard left, and that is within a site now granted planning permission for housing (Four Acres). Proposed development does impinge into the Landscape Gap.
Question 6 Are there other benefits and challenges that you feel should also be included? Reasons We can’t see any further benefits. Challenges An attempt in NP2 to work with a “consortium” of developers failed when they broke ranks, and they are still doing so (Land east of Inlands Road planning application). If this current application on the alignment of the bridge approach is appealed on non-determination, and goes to inquiry before the LP is approved, permission may be granted due to lack of a 5 year supply. This will either block the road scheme, or require an enhanced land value to be paid for land purchase. Yet another additional land owner (north of South Lane) may be required to achieve access to the north of this option. We have little faith that masterplanning with multi owners has a chance of success. A vehicular connection to Priors Leaze Lane/Cooks Lane would increase traffic on a narrow rural road with no footways and a junction with very poor visibility at the eastern end of Cooks Lane. It also relies on developing community facilities where landowners have not shown any wish to see their properties redeveloped. The northern access point onto South Lane is also severely restricted by a recent planning permission and would be a pinch point for both road and green ring access. An alternative/addition might be to run the Green ring alongside southern boundary of A27. If there are to be problems siting a road over the gas pipeline, the proposed access to the north will fail and there is no alternative location.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Question 5 Do you agree with the list of benefits and challenges set out above? (para 5.24 – 5.33). Reasons NO Only one historic orchard left, and that is within a site now granted planning permission for housing (Four Acres). Proposed development does impinge into the Landscape Gap.
Question 6 Are there other benefits and challenges that you feel should also be included? Reasons We can’t see any further benefits. Challenges An attempt in NP2 to work with a “consortium” of developers failed when they broke ranks, and they are still doing so (Land east of Inlands Road planning application). If this current application on the alignment of the bridge approach is appealed on non-determination, and goes to inquiry before the LP is approved, permission may be granted due to lack of a 5 year supply. This will either block the road scheme, or require an enhanced land value to be paid for land purchase. Yet another additional land owner (north of South Lane) may be required to achieve access to the north of this option. We have little faith that masterplanning with multi owners has a chance of success. A vehicular connection to Priors Leaze Lane/Cooks Lane would increase traffic on a narrow rural road with no footways and a junction with very poor visibility at the eastern end of Cooks Lane. It also relies on developing community facilities where landowners have not shown any wish to see their properties redeveloped. The northern access point onto South Lane is also severely restricted by a recent planning permission and would be a pinch point for both road and green ring access. An alternative/addition might be to run the Green ring alongside southern boundary of A27. If there are to be problems siting a road over the gas pipeline, the proposed access to the north will fail and there is no alternative location.
Question 7 In this scenario, what do you think would be the challenges or issues if there wasn’t a vehicular bridge? Reasons Much the same as for Option 1 but with much more traffic using the Inlands Road level crossing giving concern to Network Rail. Without a road bridge at least half of all the traffic generated by 800 dwellings would be funnelled onto Prior’s Leaze Lane (see question 6).
No uploaded files for public display
Putting a new Primary school to the East of the Village would make travel longer on foot from the west and increase traffic in Cooks Lane making it worse and dangerous.
provision for good sewage and surface water drainage is essential
It would be unviable without a vehicular railway bridge and make Cooks Lane, Inlands Road and Stein Road dangerous with too much traffic congestion.
No uploaded files for public display
I agree that the benefit of having this proposal would mean educational facilities would be spread out without everyone relying on one location and therefore increasing safety risks and congestion.
No answer given
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. Adding only access onto Stein Road for this new development will only increase the congestion and safety issues.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Objections are raised to east option because as presently drawn a significant part of the proposed development area encroaches into the proposed landscape gap between Southbourne and Hambrook (Ref Gap 10) in the Landscape Gap Assessment (May 2019) and the Strategic Wildlife Corridor included in the Local Plan review. These have not been referred to in the list of challenges.
The east option also has the potential to cause coalescence with consented development at Chidham and Hambrook on the corner of Broad Road and the A259. It is remote from the railway station at Southbourne. It would not deliver one of the core objectives of the DPD which (para 4.7) is to connect new and existing neighbourhoods to the train station. However the principal challenge of this option involves the proposed rail crossing. Para 5.24 of the DPD says this option envisions the delivery of a new vehicular bridge across the railway connecting the A259 with Priors Leaze Lane across land east of Inlands Road. But the performance indicator for securing a vehicular crossing across the railway line for this option in chapter 6 of the Assessment Framework Summary Table scores it as ‘very poor’. The deliverability (viability test) is also scored as ‘very poor’. The purpose of the DPD is to ensure the site option delivers the overarching policy objective of the local plan and policy A13 (para 3.5 4th bullet). Since the east option is unviable and undeliverable with the crossing, the option will not deliver the policy objectives and has to be ruled out in principle. Para 5.33 of the DPD states that one of the benefits of this option is that it has the potential to deliver land for a multi modal bridge. However the Framework Summary Table proves that it cannot deliver such a bridge in practice because it is unviable. It must rule out this option in principle.
Without a vehicular bridge the associated development would be contained to the north. It would potentially cause harm to the local road network as Priors Leaze Lane is narrow along its length. The east option therefore has fundamental challenges to its deliverability both with the bridge (not viable or deliverable) and without it (would overload the local road network).
No uploaded files for public display
Pedestrian Railway Footbridge - This scenario identifies the potential to deliver land for a pedestrian and cycle bridge adjacent to the railway line within 'Land at Cooks Lane' which is also a priority of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan. This will enable a connection to the Green Ring south of the railway line, Southbourne Infant and Juniors School and services / facilities in the village. The land to facilitate the crossing between the Land at Cooks Lane and Priors Orchard to the south of the railway line is within the control of our client, Elivia Homes. The railway crossing is deliverable and ongoing engagement is being undertaken with the Council and Network Rail regarding design and delivery of the bridge. Green Ring - It is appropriate to identify the benefit associated with the delivery of the eastern section of the Green Ring. This scenario includes 'Land at Cooks Lane', which is required to deliver a large proportion of the Green Ring to the north of the railway line, linking to the Green Ring to the north and also to the south (Priors Orchard) through the provision of the railway footbridge. Multi Modal Railway Bridge - There is a potential benefit associated with the delivery of a new multi-modal vehicular bridge that would connect the A259 to Priors Leaze Lane through various parcels of land east of Inlands Road. It is identified that this would relieve pressure from the crossing point at Inlands Lane, and congestion at the Stein Road crossing. The requirement to deliver the bridge is a matter for the Council to explore with statutory providers, including Network Rail. The Council should undertake appropriate transport modelling as part of the preparation of the DPD to determine the impact of this scenario if the bridge is not delivered. Education Provision - This scenario enables the delivery of a new 2FE school, which is a clear benefit. This option is supported and will enable a more balanced distribution of education provision in Southbourne Village, distributing traffic across the village and providing associated pedestrian, cycle connections and links to the Green Ring. Landscape Impact - In landscape terms this scenario does not have a significant landscape impact and maintains the integrity and purposes of the Southbourne to Hambrook Local Gap identified in the Landscape Gap Assessment (2019). This scenario also retains the landscape corridor to the wildlife area to the east and has the ability to integrate existing water resources within a blue and green infrastructure strategy. This scenario also proposes to deliver development in the least constrained parts of the Parish, in accordance with the Landscape Capacity Study for Chichester (2019). The landscape corridor to the eastern edge also provides a spatial and visual gap to the north of the railway line. In landscape terms there is no constraint on delivery of c800 homes and this scenario performs better that Scenario 1 - Land to the West where the wider allocation option is more constrained in landscape terms. Gas Pipeline - In relation to the location of the gas pipeline it is understood that this would not constrain the sustainable delivery of c800 dwellings within this scenario. There will be a requirement for the Council to engage with statutory consultees regarding land within the consultation zone and the delivery of the northern access point connecting to Stein Road. Site Access - This scenario identifies the potential for a secondary access from South Lane to Stein Road and it is appropriate that the Council undertakes further technical work regarding options to achieve access in this location and to consider alternative options. Flood Risk - In flood risk terms the broad area for development in Scenario 2 is within flood zone 1 and flood risk is not a constraint on the delivery of c800 dwellings or more. There is an area to the east (outside of the growth area) adjacent to Hambrook within flood zone 2 and 3 but this does not affect the deliverability of this growth scenario. Within the wider scenario area there is limited surface water flooding which does not affect the delivery of c800 homes and there is only potential impact on site access options. An FRA and drainage / SuDs strategy has been prepared for the Land at Cooks Lane site (within the wider allocation) which demonstrates the sustainable delivery of c100 homes in this location. Further technical work will need to be undertaken by the Council in relation to the potential location of a multi modal vehicular bridge and drainage strategy for this location. Landownerships - We consider that a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach can be achieved to effectively realise the objectives of the emerging Southbourne Allocation DPD and Submission Local Plan. Elivia Homes is supportive of working closely with other landowners to ensure a comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to master planning and infrastructure delivery. Through the preparation of the IDP and CIL Business Plan there is scope to co-ordinate proportionate financial contributions to key infrastructure required to support delivery of the wider allocation. [See attached document for full submission]
Accessibility to Services - A further benefit of this scenario is accessibility to key services and facilities in Southbourne Village and also further afield via public transport links. This scenario is well related to the settlement edge of Southbourne and accessible within reasonable walking and cycling distances to services and facilities in Southbourne including supermarkets, health facilities and public transport services. From the Land at Cooks Lane, the nearest primary school is located within 250m and the nearest secondary school 750m to the west. The West Coastway Railway Line and Southbourne Train Station are located to the south-west, which is highly accessible by walking and cycling. The SA also identifies that Scenario 2 provides closer access to the railway station and employment opportunities further afield. Transport Impact - In transport terms the SA identifies that scenario 2 performs most favourably as it utilises the existing multi-modal bridge and pedestrian crossing via Inlands Road and includes the provision of a pedestrian / cycle footbridge and new multi modal bridge. This should be recognised in the benefits. Ecology - In ecology terms this option does not involve the loss of any land from the Brent Geese Support Area and this should be recognised as a benefit. [See attached document for full submission]
The draft DPD raises a potential challenge related an increase in traffic on Inlands Road Crossing if a multi-modal vehicular bridge is not delivered as part of this scenario. 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 would be the impact of not delivering the bridge. [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. There needs to be a clearly identified Cycle /pedestrian route from the new proposed railway crossing to the A259 at that intersection a new lights controlled crossing of the A259 is implemented.
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
The main challenge will be that Inlands Road will be totally grid blocked by the extra traffic if there is no new bridge.
No uploaded files for public display
Distribution of traffic would be beneficial
No answer given
Too much pressure on existing narrow roads
No uploaded files for public display
Much better having a multi modal bridge over the railway crossing.
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The Basis Provided for Informed Decision-Making is not comprehensive and fundamentally flawed Paragraph 2.3 of the consultation document states that it aims to provide a comprehensive basis for informed decision-making. However, this claim is undermined by significant ambiguities and ill-conceived assumptions, particularly evident in the following: • The depiction of the "Community Hub" at the junction of Cooks Lane and Priors Leaze Lane is fundamentally flawed. This site encompasses the extensive and recently redeveloped high-specification buildings of Cooks Farm. The owner is unwilling to sell, making this proposal infeasible. The lack of alternatives or contingencies highlights the inadequacy of the planning process.
2. Specific comments on the DPD - Failure to Address Environmental and Sustainability Objectives The DPD fails to align with Clause 2.8c of the NPPF, which emphasizes environmental sustainability. Specifically: • The existing sewage infrastructure is inadequate. Recent incidents, such as the prolonged occupation of Stein Road by sewage treatment vehicles in 2023/2024, underscore the inability of current systems to cope with existing demand, let alone the additional pressures proposed developments would bring. • The areas for proposed development under Options 2 an 3 are already designated as flood risks and the existing green land is currently mitigating this risk. Developing this land will greatly exacerbate the risk of flooding in the local area also putting pressure on sewage discharge. • The purposeful omission of these issues in the DPD constitutes a serious oversight. The continued discharge of raw sewage into environmentally sensitive areas not only contravenes sustainability principles but also poses significant public health risks. This neglect is incompatible with NPPF objectives, including 124 (flood mitigation), 128 (infrastructure capacity and availability), and 166 (managing flood risk from all sources). 3. Specific comments on the DPD - Inadequate Consideration of Road Safety and Transport Links The DPD’s treatment of transport issues is insufficient and fails to meet the requirements set out in NPPF objectives 108, 110, and 115: • The narrowness and hazardous bends on Inlands Road, Priors Leaze Lane, and Cooks Lane make these routes unsafe for increased traffic. Priors Leaze Lane, in particular, features a lethal blind bend that significantly increase the likelihood of collisions, while its insufficient width fails to accommodate the required traffic flow safely. Cooks Lane includes a particularly blind and dangerous T juction on the blind bend of Priors Leaze lane that have been the site of numerous near-miss accidents. • The cumulative impact of increased traffic from Proposals 2 and 3 would exacerbate these dangers, severely impacting road safety and rendering the local network unable to function effectively. • In addition the increased traffic from the new development at Cooks Lane forces traffic onto the narrow roads at Cooks Lane and Inlands Road when the train barriers are lowered on Stein Road. The Highways Agency’s active involvement, as stipulated under NPPF 110, is essential. Without this, the proposals will have unacceptable impacts on highway safety and functionality, contravening NPPF 115, which emphasizes preventing unsafe highways and severe cumulative impacts on the road network. 4. Specific comments on the DPD - Flood Risk and Mitigation Deficiencies Proposals 2 and 3 disregard the critical need to address flood risks, as required by NPPF objectives 157, 165, and 166. Flooding is a persistent issue in the area with Inlands Road, North of the railway line, often flooded making it inaccessible, with certain lands serving as natural flood mitigation zones. Development on such lands would exacerbate flooding risks and damage community resilience. The increased reliance on septic tanks in flood-prone areas further heightens the risk of biohazard contamination, presenting a significant threat to public health and safety. It is unclear how sewage and waste water will be managed on the developments north of the railway line given the lack of mains sewers.
Excessive traffic on already overloaded roads that are too busy.
No uploaded files for public display
It impinges on the landscape gap between Southbourne and Nutbourne It's east/west only road is a single track lane, which cannot be widened in areas due to current housing The some of the land is within the Hambrook Wildlife corridor (and contains the Hambrook catchment area) and would be needed to provide flood mitigation down stream
There are no benefits to this scenario
No bridge is not an option. Multiple landowners, and sites with current pending planning applications would ruin any chance of a bridge if planning is granted. I do not believe, having worked on NP2 with a consortium of developers (the same ones) that there is any chance of a cohesive master planned development even occurring.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Already a patchwork development exists with parcel of unused land obviously waiting to be built on. Confines development closer to the main road.
Inland’s road crossing would need improvement.
No uploaded files for public display
A hub to the east would increase traffic congestion in the village. It would be better to have one hub located at the Senior school and Leisure Centre so that people could make one journey to do a variety of things. Splitting the hub into various areas would encourage more car use from one location to another. Traffic access to the eastern hub for people approaching from the south and west would be along Cooks Lane and/or Inlands Road which does not support two way traffic. We already expect severe congestion on these roads due to current and pre-app developments.
Challenges There is no mention of the existing sewage challenges. There is no evidence that Southern Water has the capacity to join new housing to the sewage network. We had sewage tankers in Stein Road for 10 days last winter trying to cope with sewage overflows. There is no mention of traffic congestion - much of the new building will rely on Cooks Lane, Inlands Road and Prior's Lease Lane, none of which in places can support two way traffic.
No vehicular bridge should mean no houses! It would not be safe to build houses to the east without a vehicular bridge as all the traffic coming south from the new development will get backed up at Inlands Road crossing and in Cooks Lane. The Inlands Road crossing would not be safe for high volumes of traffic as it is not camera controlled and the barriers do not completely block the road. It will also increase the traffic coming down Stein Road which is already very congested due to the train barrier and through Wesrbourne which has its own traffic problems. The East already has two new developments going in and two pre-apps which on their own will cause significant traffic issues.
No uploaded files for public display
We mostly agree with the list of benefits or challenges, but please see our answer to Q6.
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 of the Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) for Water supply, wastewater and water quality, we would expect development 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. Water efficiency measures will need to be incorporated. 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
The challenges outway the benefits of this scenario I cannot see the multiple landowning interests acting in concert to achieve the scenario outlined
A major challenge is the Hambrook as the state of this rare chalk stream is already compromised, and 800 plus houses will undoubtedly effect this .
Its undeliverable with out one, but I cant see the numerous landowning interests working together to help pay for it.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No answer given
The lack of a vehicular bridge would render the development proposed by the scenario as undeliverable. Inlands Road level crossing is a high risk crossing and would need to be sufficiently mitigated to enable safe crossing of the railway. Network Rail has objected to the current application located close to the crossing for 46 dwellings, as it is considered the usage generated by this would have an impact on safety at the crossing. The application fails to safeguard land for a future railway crossing which would be a significant inhibitor to the delivery of a crossing. The pedestrian bridge, noted on the scenario 2 map above, provides no specific railway benefit as it would not alleviate impacts on Inlands Road nor facilitate any other level crossing closures. It may increase connections to aid access to Southbourne rail station however a clear link to the station would need to be shown.
No uploaded files for public display
This Scenario does not take into consideration the full effect of; 1. Wildlife and Dark sky impact. 2. Inadequate capacity of the Ham Brook and CSO capacity to cope with surface run off and the failure of the sewage infrastructure going from a 18" diameter pipe to a 9" pipe at the A259 crossing resulting in both flooding and raw sewage already spilling into private residence and been contrary to NPF's. An upgrade of the Sewage infrastructure is required before this scenario can be used. 3. Priors Leaze lane and Inlands road need to be upgraded to take two way traffic and increase pedestrians safely. Although Highways say they are acceptable the increase in width of modern day cars makes the standards used by Highways obsolete and dangerous
As above. This Scenario does not take into consideration the full effect of; 1. Wildlife and Dark sky impact. 2. Inadequate capacity of the Ham Brook and CSO capacity to cope with surface run off and the failure of the sewage infrastructure going from a 18" diameter pipe to a 9" pipe at the A259 crossing resulting in both flooding and raw sewage already spilling into private residence and been contrary to NPF's. An upgrade of the Sewage infrastructure is required before this scenario can be used. 3.Priors Leaze lane and Inlands road need to be upgraded to properly take two way traffic and increase cycle /pedestrians safely. Although Highways say they are acceptable the increase in width of modern day cars makes the standards used by Highways obsolete and dangerous. When currently cycling on these roads there is no ability for cars to pass in large sections, leading to driver frustration and dangerous behaviour. Pedestrian traffic is also regularly put at risk.
This Scenario does not take into consideration the full effect of; 1. Priors Leaze lane and Inlands road need to be upgraded to take two way traffic and increase cycle /pedestrians safely. Although Highways say they are acceptable the increase in width of modern day cars makes the standards used by Highways obsolete and dangerous. When currently cycling on these roads there is no ability for cars to pass in large sections, leading to driver frustration and dangerous behaviour. Pedestrian traffic is also regularly put at risk.
No uploaded files for public display
Nutbourne West is a small hamlet with no infrastructure and no space for infrastructure. The schools are full, the doctors surgery cannot cope with the current population and the A259 is already far too busy with many minor roads joining from the new housing. Housing is needed but Southbourne parish and the neighbouring parish of Chidham and Hambrook already have new estates. The environment is ignored, the valuable chalk stream has not been taken into consideration and the green corridors have been disregarded. Sensitive and empathetic planning must be considered, so do not fill every space along the A259 with housing. Sufficient consideration should be given to green spaces, wildlife corridors, natural water to enhance living in this area.
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
The benefits and challenges set out in the document misses key points regarding the proximity to (and therefore likely negative impact on) the Ham Brook Strategic Wildlife Corridor, and the fact that this scenario involves land which directly adjoins Chichester Harbour National Landscape, which will therefore inevitably have a negative impact on its setting.
The part of this site directly adjoining the National Landscape is characterised by a field with a line of trees marking the boundary with the road, which contribute to the rural setting of the National Landscape. This area is not identified as a landscape gap in the Council’s study, however, there is concern about the impact on the setting of the National Landscape given the fact that the site lies directly adjacent to the NL and would take out the last remaining field between the Southbourne and Nutbourne settlement boundaries, effectively joining these settlements (and therefore resulting in actual coalescence, contrary to Local Plan Policy 20 and emerging Local Plan Policy NE3 criterion a) and b). This scenario also comes very close (in places) to the Ham Brook (rare chalk stream) Strategic Wildlife Corridor and is therefore likely to have a greater negative impact on this feature, however, this is not acknowledged within the Assessment Framework, which gives this scenario a score of ‘strong’ under the objective of ‘Preserve wildlife corridors’. It also comes very close to the identified landscape gap to the north of the railway line (the orange shading appears to slightly overlap with the purple shading of the landscape gap). This scenario is also to be avoided on the grounds of both landscape and nature conservation impacts, as well as the loss of Grade 1 and 2 agricultural land, and the reduced ecological connectivity between the Harbour and the South Downs.
We believe that a further 800 houses in Southbourne, 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
Benefits: -GP Surgery -Pharmacy Challenges: -Placement of Community Centre, it is placed on a junction of 3 roads that aren’t wide enough to sustain the level of traffic. Obstructs the gap between Southbourne and Nutbourne. – Location for ‘West’ Proposal is much better -Inadequate sewage capacity -Water extraction -Congestion.
If there is no bridge, there should be no new houses! It is part of the catchment of the Wildlife Corridor and is an area prone to flooding from the Ham Brook catchment.
No uploaded files for public display
Yes
Lack of doctors surgery capacity
Again, this is crazy. The dangers of both existing crossings are unreal. The transport assessment is a nonsense - more than 600 pedestrians cross stein road each day with that many in the morning along going to schools! They lied in the application for the priors meadow development in claiming no real extra traffic would use the inland’s road crossing and that is now carnage, particularly as residents of priors orchard are now parking in inland’s road near the crossing
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 2: Land to the East. (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 2 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 proposed the inclusion of the following additional Challenge (in brackets) to Scenario 2. (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 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 would generally agree with the benefits and challenges set out in the Development Plan Document. We would at this stage like to state whether this is the appropriate location for the new Community Hub, or whether that would be better placed elsewhere in the wider Masterplan say to the north further from existing facilities. Given our land's ( HELLA Site. Ref HSB0033) proximity to the centre of the village and railway station, it would be our view that residential in this location would be more suitable. We do however support Development Plan Document view of the location of development in Scenario 2 but with the location of specific infrastructure to be determined through the planning application and further consultation stage. We would also draw to your attention the public footpath Ref Number 247 which is on our land (HELLA Site. Ref HSB0033)
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