5.34. Questions for Regulation 18 consultation:
Considering that no infrastructure improvements have been achieved to date despite having over 1,000 housing units agreed for the village, and potential multi-modal bridge is not guaranteed, so is too loose to be a benefit. The delivery of the green ring is undermined by this proposal, considering the aim in the approved neighbourhood plan. The provision of a landscape corridor is only necessary to soften the impact of the proposed development of this area, so I do not see this as a benefit as the spatial gap and view in this area exits already with the open space. The assessment of any brownfield sites that could be available as they do exist within the village but developers have taken these The council has CPO powers to address any land ownership issues, so this should be acknowledged as a solution to address the ownership issues.
The provision of sewerage treatment is not considered, yet is a long term capacity issue which could continue to impact the quality of water in the harbour. Especially in relation to surface water overwhelming the Thornham Treatment Works. Road network would need to be widened to ensure a decent flow of traffic. Water supply not considered and the need to reduce extraction from the Ems River.
This would result in continued traffic jams on Stein Road. I also think that Stein Road should have parking restrictions on this main thoroughfare to reduce the problems affecting traffic flow when the train gates are down. Due to already approved houses in the Cook Lane development without an additional vehicular access which ahs added to the pressure on the crossing at Stein Road. The lack of traffic management does not help on such a congested route. So the vehicular bridge should be built now. No improvement on traffic flow then no further houses should be built. This must be a show stopper on this proposal. Guarantees for infrastructure delivery will be essential.
No uploaded files for public display
We would agree with the principle that development to the East of Southbourne is a logical extension to the settlement. We would note that our land HELAA Ref. HSB0009, Land at Hamcroft would not be effected by some of the challenges set out in the Development Plan Document such as the gas pipeline or surface water and flood zone. Our land would be an extension to the allocation that is logical.
Our land HELAA Ref. HSB0009, Land at Hamcroft would benefit the wider scheme by rounding of the village on land that is isolated and can developed as part of the wider masterplan but has it’s own access. The land is being promoted and is a deliverable site to support Chichester’s Housing Land Supply should additional numbers be sought for in Chichester, and in particularly, Southbourne or if the indicative masterplan needs to be amended for any reason. It would be beneficial to the Development Plan Document for the scenario to consider amending the masterplan to include our land HELAA Ref. HSB0009, Land at Hamcroft to the allocation.
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
Nutbourne village is separate to Southbourne village. Those of us who live in Inlands Road and Priors Leaze Lane have Nutbourne addresses not Southbourne addresses. The two listed buildings referenced in the proposals are in Nutbourne Village not Southbourne Village despite what appears to an attempt to blur the difference. The properties are in Inlands Road and Priors Leaze Lane respectively which is an area accessed by narrow country lanes totally unsuited to large scale development and the corresponding huge increase in vehicular traffic. The area benefits from its rural location and feel despite being only a few minutes from Southbourne and will be severely impacted by proposal two with the current rural setting being destroyed by the attempt to expand the Southbourne metropolis further east.
This area is already a ‘green corridor’ being a rural hamlet surrounded by farmland with footpaths and a lot of people of all ages including school children use Inlands Road , Priors Leaze Lane and Cooks Lane as a walking route to the local school, train station and Tesco’s. All the proposals reference ‘cycle routes’ yet you never see any cyclists as the roads are narrow and increasingly busy due to them all being used as rat runs. I am puzzled as to what research has been done as to why there is so much emphasis in all three proposals on cycle routes as if you take Southbourne station as an example there is rarely if ever a bicycle left in the rack by someone who has caught a train? The flood risk again is being downplayed as Inlands Road was closed on the north side of the railway crossing in recently due to flooding so by building on arable land you will increase the flood risk not reduce it.
This is a rural hamlet and as such why would there be a vehicular bridge over the railway through top quality arable land which would lead to the concrete encirclement of this part of Nutbourne Village and with it a huge increase in vehicular traffic further compounding the safety issues that we are already seeing. Inlands Road, Priors Leaze land and Cooks Lane are all very narrow - the road width from the bottom of our drive to the house opposite in Inlands Road is barely 16 feet which already makes it a challenge to pull out safely with vehicular traffic using the road as a rat run at excessive speed with blind corners, bends and dips.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Challenges The location of the Community Centre, at the junction of three roads that aren’t wide enough to sustain the level of traffic. -Inadequate sewage capacity -Water extraction -Congestion.
• Without a vehicular bridge, connectivity across the railway line will be severely limited. This could result in increased traffic congestion on existing routes and limited options for crossing the railway, creating bottlenecks and hindering efficient transportation. • Emergency services, logistics, and general vehicular movement would face delays, impacting residents' and businesses' accessibility and response times. • • While a pedestrian and cycle bridge provides some connectivity, it does not address the needs of those relying on vehicles for longer or more frequent trips. This limits the effectiveness of a multi-modal approach and may discourage integrated land-use planning. • The development will lead to additional population density and, consequently, increased footfall and traffic. Without a vehicular bridge, the strain on existing roads and infrastructure is likely to exacerbate. • With parts of the potential bridge location within a future flood zone and other flood risk issues in the eastern BLD area, the planning and feasibility of alternative access routes or solutions become more difficult without a vehicular bridge. • While there are benefits associated with pedestrian and cycling connectivity, the lack of a vehicular bridge risks undermining the area's overall functionality and resilience. • Stakeholders should prioritize addressing the fragmented development issues and exploring alternative solutions for vehicular connectivity if a bridge cannot be delivered.
No uploaded files for public display
Comment to Paragraph 5.28: HELAA Assessment identifies potential for 2000 homes within allocated Broad Location for Development (east). IF the DPD is limiting the potential to 800 homes there is seemingly significant scope to accommodate these respecting any requirements of the Gas Pipeline. Therefore, paragraph 5.28 can be accommodated and does not present a Challenge. Comment to Paragraph 5.29: With reference to application '24/01161/OUTEIA | Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 49 dwellings and for the provision of open space and sustainable drainage. | Land East Inlands Road And South Of Railway Line Inlands Road Nutbourne West Sussex: The Illustrative Site Plan shows public open space to the east of the site. This land co-ordinates with a land take defined at Image 3.3 of the i-Transport report of 12 October 2020 (appended to application document '24_01161_OUTEIA-PART_1_TRANSPORT_STATEMENT-5425846.pdf) that would be required for a multi-modal bridge. Potentially this land is still available for a bridge despite the pending application and if required for the DPD this could be held by CDC in Planning Condition protecting the option in perpetuity. Comment to Paragraph 5.30: If our comment to paragraph 5.29 is actioned, paragraph 5.30 is mitigated. Comment to Paragraph 5.32: This could be construed as a benefit as Planning Application and Pre-Application demonstrate potentially viable and deliverable development.
Benefit: Scenario 2 has the potential to provide Mains Drainage to houses in Inlands Road (currently reliant on Private Sewage Treatment solutions avoiding the potential of local environmental pollution. Benefit: Scenario 2 has the potential to improve surface drainage through SUDs.
Traffic Congestion principally at Stein Road Level Crossing and Inlands Road Level Crossing.
No uploaded files for public display
Please see DPD Response 25.22, 5.34, and 5.47 a pdf file uploaded with question 4.11
Please see DPD Response 25.22, 5.34, and 5.47 a pdf file uploaded with question 4.11
Please see DPD Response 25.22, 5.34, and 5.47 a pdf file uploaded with question 4.11
This is the second worst option as it will likely fail to deliver an effective solution for the new traffic as we all know there is a vanishigly small chance of a road bridge over the railway to the East, and in adding new schools and a new 'hub' to the East of the villiage it will actually generate additional vehicular traffic with Southbourne as many pupils will be driven to school along roads that are not wide enough to support two-way traffic flows (Cooks Lane, Inland Road and Priors Leaze Lane)... and if you think most pupils will walk/cycle then the evidence of the existing school run says you are wrong, while the lack of any footways on sections of Cooks Lane and Inlands Road as well as all of Priors Leaze Lane will spur parents to drive rather than trust their kids to unsafe walking/cycle routes. The 800+ new cars will add to congestion in Stein Road, and generate congestion at the Inlands Road railway crossing which, with an unsupervised and diccontinuous barrier will not be safe for this volume of traffic. Again there is absolutely no mention of SEWAGE issues, which apears to be a deliberate ommission from this whole consultation process.
- TRAFFIC - without a bridge there will be 800+ cars funnelled onto roads that were not designed for two-way traffic flows and a rialway crossing which is already seen as unsafe for the existing low traffic volumes - SEWAGE - why doesn't this appear anywhere in any of these Scenarios? - the proposed school/hub in the East is a 'challenge' not a benefit as it will generate additional two-way traffic on roads that don't support this two way traffic flow... and to be honest 'another' hub isn't really a hub, is it? - the 'ped/cycle routes' on your map end in the middle of open fields and do not connect to any eisting rights of way - why is that? - 'Delivery of the eastern section of the Green Ring' is NOT a benefit - at best you can say you are safeguarding a Green Ring, as a 20m wide strip of green space is a LOT less than what we already have.
You will get traffic chaos. There will be additional traffic into Stein Road via yor Northern route, which will make the existing issues at the Stein Road railway crossing worse. Traffic towards Stein Road down Cooks Lane will be a huge issue as it will meet traffic heading East (trying to escape the Stein Road congestion) on a section of road only one car's width wide. It shoud be noted that there is currently no footway either which will make walking and cycling dangerous - though there are indications that the new Elivia development may help with this. Traffic down Inlands road will also be funneling into a single lane with no footway. The current railway crossing in Inlands Road is already seen as potential unsafe, and will be dangerous with heavy traffic at peak periods as it is automatic and unsupervised (unlike Stein Road which is controlled from Chichester and which has crossing cameras in use).
No uploaded files for public display
A key challenge , acknowledged here, is the problems caused by development submissions being delivered piecemeal without consideration of an overall strategic vision. provision of a vehicular bridge. Should still further development be required in the future moving schools and centralised facilities to the East of Stein road would Make More sense if further expansion East towards Hambrook were to be undertaken. Similar issues exist regarding lack of Modern and adequate waste water facilities as mentioned earlier. This is Made More impactful by the fact that several tides are required to alleviate release into the North of the harbor!
Through all proposed scenarios there needs to be move consideration to infrastructure, beyond a Mere "nod to providing improved infrastructure. Existing waste water works are inadequate for existing housing stock, including housing already approved piecemeal . Thornham WTW is one of the oldest on the S.coast. All WTW'S discharge into the Chichester Harbour AONB and untreated sewage is regularly discharged already and requires Multiple tides to be diluted.
Excessive traffic on Stein Road "Ratruns" North of A27 eg. Westbourne as traffic avoids level crossing , A259 roundabout etc.
No uploaded files for public display
Development would be close- to Southbourne and would feel more as if the development belonged in the village
It would be the best result from the previous decision that was to build to the east of Southbourne.
There would be greater pressure on existing roads. With any scenario, an additional 800 homes means a significant increase in traffic. This means that the A259 junction with A27 needs to be sorted out before any further houses are built. The money to do this needs to be found.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
The challenge outlined in 5.31 is not included in the Scenario 2 Summary Challenge list -it should be.
Difficult to sell properties North of The railway.
No uploaded files for public display
Following a review of Scenario 2, Natural England advise that we agree with the potential benefits as laid out in the DPD. Namely, this option may provide opportunities for better connections with nature for both the existing and new residents of Southbourne, through the delivery of the eastern section of the Green Ring with the incorporation of locally protected hedgerows, historic orchards and local green spaces. The provision of foot and cycle paths along with attractive green spaces has the potential to benefit both people and wildlife, both within and beyond the development site. We support the consideration of how this scenario may integrate existing water courses to allow for a blue and green infrastructure strategy. We note that the challenges currently outlined within the DPD are largely outside of our remit to comment on, however, we concur that the development of this site would result primarily in the loss of Grade 1 Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. In line with Policy 48 in your authority's currently adopted Local Plan, development of poorer quality land should be fully considered in preference to best and most versatile land and this should be evidenced within application documents. In addition, there are further environmental challenges that should be considered, as described in the section below.
Given the location of the site, any new overnight accommodation will have a likely significant effect upon the Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar site, as well as the Solent Maritime SAC, due to increased levels of recreational disturbance and treated effluent being discharged into the site. Nutrient neutrality has the potential to be addressed via on-site land use change, such as woodland planting. Natural England would encourage the consideration of mitigation options that can provide multiple benefits. For example, woodland planting (or other appropriate land use changes) can have the additional benefit of providing on-site greenspace to attract some recreational activity away from the Solent designated sites (as part of a mitigation package for recreational disturbance impacs) while addressing increased levels of nutrients. However, we advise that given the scale of the development and its proximity to coastal designated sites, standard financial contributions and on-site greenspace provision are unlikely to wholly mitigate the impact of increased recreational disturbance alone, and may require additional bespoke mitigation measures in line with the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy (December 2017). In addition, although the proposed development site for Scenario 2 is larger than Scenario 1 it is still relatively small in comparison with Scenario 3 and is still delivering the same number of houses. We would suggest that the potential challenges with delivering onsite mitigation should be considered if this scenario is to be taken forward, including whether offsite solutions may be required instead. Natural England advise that whilst this scenario does not appear to directly impact any areas identified within the Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy, this does not necessarily mean that the land is not functionally linked to Chichester & Langstone Harbour SPA and Ramsar site. We would consider the entire Broad Location of Development (BLD) to be suitable for use by designated bird features and therefore further survey work would be required to determine the scale of impact. Given that the Southbourne Broad Location of Development (BLD) is located within the setting of both the South Downs National Park to the north, and the Chichester Harbour National Landscape (formerly 'Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty') to the south, all development scenarios will need to consider potential landscape impacts. In line with Paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework, development within the setting of protected landscapes should be sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the designated areas. We would therefore expect any potential impacts to be assessed in line with Paragraph 183 of the NPPF and Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023.
This question is outside of Natural England's remit, and we therefore will not be providing comment.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
The challenge outlined in 5.31 is not included in the Scenario 2 Summary Challenge list -it should be.
Difficult to sell properties North of The railway.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
In Scenario 2: Land to the East option there is potential to impact on two designated heritage assets (Thatchways and Loveders Farm, both grade II Listed Buildings) and their settings. This 'challenge' should be recognised within the policy.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
3.22 Having considered the benefits of scenario 1, none of the benefits associated with scenario 2 appear overwhelmingly more important. Whilst there is the notion that a multi-modal bridge could be provided, there are acknowledged challenges to this, including landownership and flood risk. This uncertainty and the evident risk to deliverability is a clear disbenefit of the second scenario. [See attached document for full submission]
No answer given
No answer given
Benefits 4.1 Metis do not agree that the delivery of a new vehicular bridge which would connect the A259 to Priors Leaze Lane through various parcels of land east of Inlands Road, is a benefit (paragraph 5.24). There is no justification for the bridge (see paragraphs 3.7 – 3.9 above and Appendices A and B). It will encourage reliance on vehicle trips, undermine the viability of the allocation and by extension compromise the delivery of affordable housing and community infrastructure. 4.2 The Scenario would result in the proposed Primary School and local centre being located a significant distance from the existing Secondary School and Bourne Leisure Centre, with poor pedestrian and cycle infrastructure provided on the existing network north of the railway line between these locations. This dispersal of facilities without suitable pedestrian and cycle connections will encourage car journeys across the village. This is incorrectly presented as a benefit (paragraph 5.26) on the basis of distributing car journeys, when car journeys should be discouraged as a first principle. Any Scenario which encourages car journeys is at odds with the Local Plan strategy, the BLD Vision and Objectives and the NPPF. Challenges 4.3 Metis do not agree that “this Scenario has a strong reliance on a vehicular bridge over the railway” (paragraph 5.29) as there is no evidence to demonstrate that a vehicular bridge is required to deliver this Scenario, where at least 200 of the 800 dwellings can be located to the south of the railway line. Paragraph 5.29 goes on to state that the vehicular bridge is challenged by Metis’ planning application (Ref. 24/01161) for 49 dwellings on land to the east of Inlands Road. The delivery of a road bridge should not be seen as a challenge as it is not required. Notwithstanding the lack of evidence supporting the need for a vehicular bridge, Metis agree with the final statement at paragraph 5.29 which notes that the cost and delivery timeframe for a vehicular bridge is a challenge. It is a significant challenge that would undermine the viability of the allocation and this is confirmed in the supporting evidence from Sturt & Co at Appendix B. 4.4 Metis do not agree that “If a pedestrian, cycle or multi-modal bridge cannot be delivered as part of this Scenario then it will raise concerns about additional traffic (pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular) from new development on the Inlands Road level crossing which has been raised as a concern by Network Rail” (paragraph 5.30). Firstly, the three modes of transport are being linked. There is no capacity or safety justification for a vehicular bridge on the basis of the planned level of development. Setting this aside, there are also considerable viability and deliverability challenges associated with its delivery. Provision of a pedestrian and cycle bridge is not constrained in the same way. Land is already safeguarded for a pedestrian and cycle bridge, and it does not present the same viability challenges as a vehicular bridge in terms of cost. The provision of a pedestrian and cycle bridge would provide a sustainable connection between land north and south of the railway line, removing the need to travel by car. This would result in significant for air quality, sustainable travel, climate change and health benefits. [See attached document for full submission]
4.5 As this Scenario relies on a vehicular bridge, the additional benefits and challenges are the same as Scenario 1, repeated here for completeness. Challenges 4.6 Any Scenario which relies on a new vehicular bridge presents a significant challenge. Metis do not consider that the bridge is justified in transport terms or supports good placemaking – it undermines the Vision, the Objectives and the Local Plan transport strategy. Conversely, a pedestrian and cycle bridge supports all of these. The allocation should not be designed for a car led Scenario. In response to improving connectivity, the first solution should not be to build a vehicular bridge. Instead, it should be to encourage non-car journeys by providing Infrastructure that facilitates non-car journeys and makes non-car journeys convenient, attractive and safe. 4.7 It is also considered that clarification on the distribution of development is required. Even with only 100 dwellings to south of the railway line, it leaves only 700 to north, which is well within capacity given that the Council’s evidence states that, “between 750 – 1000 dwellings, a road bridge may be beneficial”. Our estimation is that a minimum of 200 dwellings could be constructed to the south of the railway line which would leave a residual requirement of 600 to be provided north of the railway line, making a vehicular bridge completely unnecessary. Again, this points to the need to maximise development to the south first, reducing the residual requirement to the north. 4.8 An Assessment has been prepared by Paul Basham Associates (PBA) and can be found at Appendix A of these representations. This assesses the Council’s transport evidence prepared by Stantec, which considers the need for a multi-modal bridge. The Assessment concludes that there is no justification for a multi modal bridge to deliver the residual requirement of 800 dwellings. By maximising development to the south of the railway (a minimum of 200 dwellings), the case for a vehicular bridge is diminished further, as there is no evidence to suggest that a bridge is required for 600 dwellings north of the railway.. 4.9 A further challenge with this Scenario is that the inclusion of a vehicular bridge significantly undermines viability, and therefore compromises the viability/deliverability of affordable housing, the local centre and other community infrastructure which are key elements of the Vision. Maximising development opportunities to the south of the railway line, where existing services and facilities are located, would support these existing services and allow the new Local Centre to focus on complementary provision. This would assist with the overall viability and deliverability of development, also ensuring that affordable housing delivery is not undermined. 4.10 An analysis of the Council’s Stage 1 Viability Assessment (Dixon Searle) has been carried out by Sturt and Co. A copy of this analysis can be found at Appendix B of these representations. 4.11 The analysis highlights a significant inconsistency in that the Dixon Searle reporting includes appraisals of development Scenarios of 1,050 dwellings, whereas the consultation is being undertaken on the basis of identifying an allocation for 800 dwellings (the residual requirement net of committed development), Sturt & Co question the relevance and legitimacy of Dixon Searle assessing the viability of 1,050 dwellings, noting that the obligations for the 250 committed dwellings are already secured through their respective permissions, and should not be included in viability modelling for 1,050 dwellings Scenarios, as appears to be the case in the Dixon Searle reporting. 4.12 Sturt & Co also highlight that requests were made to CDC for electronic copies of the Argus Appraisal worksheets for the appraisals at Appendix 2a of the Dixon Searle Assessment, but this information has not been provided on the basis that it is information that would need to be made available to all parties, which is not considered appropriate while the consultation process is underway. Consequently, it was not possible for Sturt & Co to undertake a full and detailed assessment. 4.13 However, the analysis has highlighted a number of significant issues relating to assumptions made by Dixon Searle in respect of Sales Values, Benchmark Land Value and Finance Rates – which have a significant impact on viability, both individually and cumulatively. 4.14 The analysis concludes that the viability position is challenging based on the issues outlined above. However, the inclusion of bridge infrastructure costs is the most concerning given the significance of these costs and the lack of any supporting cost analysis. Based on their analysis, there are strong indications that these costs have been significantly underestimated and as such the marginal viability position being reported is incorrect. Sturt & Co confirm that the viability of development is significantly compromised with a multi-modal bridge. Development is more likely to be viable with a pedestrian/cycle bridge. 4.15 In summary, by not directing development to where services already exist along the A259 corridor, the benefits are not being maximised in this Scenario. The A259 corridor provides a sustainable and viable location for development, which reduces the costs associated with development of north of the railway. This avoids putting unnecessary and avoidable pressure on viability, and in turn affordable housing, it supports the wider Vision, Objectives and Local Plan strategy, it responds in a positive way to environmental challenges including landscape character and supports measures to address climate change. 4.16 The challenges with Scenario 1 are exacerbated by not maximising development on land to the south of railway. These challenges would be avoided or significantly mitigated by proposed Scenarios 4 and 5 as shown in Section 6 of these representations. [See attached document for full submission]
4.17 As with Scenario 1, Metis do not consider this to be a challenge, but instead it presents an opportunity to encourage more non-vehicle journeys. The provision of a pedestrian and cycle bridge, providing a sustainable connection between development north and south of the railway line, and linking existing facilities to a new community hub centered around the existing secondary school, would result in a wellconnected and sustainable community. It would provide genuine and convenient opportunities to walk or cycle, achieving the modal shift which the Monitor and Manage approach relies upon. Conversely, a vehicular bridge will encourage short car journeys, leading to further congestion and undermining measures designed to tackle climate change. A vehicular bridge would not be a benefit but a significant challenge to the delivery of the Local Plan strategy and DPD Vision and Objectives. [See attached document for full submission]
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Scenario 2: this scenario does not require any diversion of PRoW but again, the landowner would need to grant permissive cycle rights as a minimum, if not full bridleway rights and deliver surface improvement works over affected FP247. This scenario offers the opportunity to seek landowner permission to consider upgrading the remainder of FP247 northwards both within the site and north of the A27 to link in with the bridleway network within and beyond Westbourne parish. Para 5.30 Inlands Road is narrow in places with discontinuous footways. Inlands Road would not be suitable in highway terms to accommodate any additional significant levels of development as proposed within the DPD. Para 5.31 If South Lane is to be used, there will need to be some certainty in terms of what improvements are necessary and deliverable to accommodate the level of traffic envisaged from the proposed allocated development. [See attached document for full submission]
The consultation is for potential development in a broad location. In most cases when a site is identified for allocation there is usually some proportionate technical background work undertaken to justify the allocation and identify what critical and essential mitigation will be needed as part of the development. In this case there is no site-specific technical work associated with the options, thereby making it difficult to make detailed comments. Technical assessment of the options should therefore take place before a preferred option is selected. The county council would welcome the opportunity to give pre-application advice to the site promoters on the highways and transport impacts of development. In the absence of any technical work on transport impacts of the options, it is difficult to comment on the acceptability of a multi-modal bridge, to serve 800 homes, or whether any of the options are preferable from a transport perspective. There may be some unintended consequences with the delivery of a bridge across the railway which may open up the north / south route as a rat run to avoid congestion; for example, between B2146 and A259. This will need to be taken account of in any transport assessment. Therefore, if any of these options are taken forward, there will need to be a detailed transport assessment to determine whether a road bridge is acceptable. In addition, there is also a need to understand whether a road bridge would be financially viable. A road bridge at Southbourne is not identified as a priority for investment in the West Sussex Transport Plan 2022-36 to address transport issues, so it would need to be developer funded and delivered. [See attached document for full submission]
It is welcomed that Scenario 2 proposes to not encroach into the landscape corridor to the east of this scenario. This landscape gap is identified in the Chichester District Council Landscape Gap Assessment 2019, which on page 48 it states: 'Development in much of the northern and southern area of the gap would be conspicuous, particularly from the public right of way crossing the gap, and could block characteristic views. The open character of the landscape provides positive views between the settlements across open countryside including across the AONB and to the SDNP. This contributes to the perceived separation of the settlements and their rural settings'. We note that where the scenario meets the A259, there is notable pinch point with the adjacent wildlife corridor. Careful design including suitable buffer to the corridor should be required to ensure that development or other activities (such as recreation) that could result in disturbance of habitats and species of the wildlife corridor are avoided. This should be recognised in the challenges
It is welcomed that Scenario 2 proposes to not encroach into the landscape corridor to the east of this scenario. This landscape gap is identified in the Chichester District Council Landscape Gap Assessment 2019, which on page 48 it states: 'Development in much of the northern and southern area of the gap would be conspicuous, particularly from the public right of way crossing the gap, and could block characteristic views. The open character of the landscape provides positive views between the settlements across open countryside including across the AONB and to the SDNP. This contributes to the perceived separation of the settlements and their rural settings'. We note that where the scenario meets the A259, there is notable pinch point with the adjacent wildlife corridor. Careful design including suitable buffer to the corridor should be required to ensure that development or other activities (such as recreation) that could result in disturbance of habitats and species of the wildlife corridor are avoided. This should be recognised in the challenges
No answer given
2.30 Wates support Scenario 2 and consider this to be the most appropriate solution to accommodate additional growth at Southbourne. [See attached document for full submission]
Benefits 2.31 As identified in the SADPD this scenario would include a series of benefits. In addition to those stated we would highlight the following: • Strong connectivity to the existing settlement by pedestrian and cycle by a number of potential routes which are not reliant on third party land. • Cycle improvements on Cooks Lane can be provided, enhancing links to the railway station. • Development would deliver the eastern section of the Green Ring which would benefit from easier access by existing residents as a result of the strong connectivity identified. This would form part of the substantial open space proposed under Scenario 2 which would retain a landscape corridor to the wildlife area to the east and has the ability to integrate existing water courses within a blue and green infrastructure strategy such as linking with the existing Ham Brook watercourse (rare chalk stream). This area is well located for providing a development buffer as well as strategically linking with the Southbourne Parish ‘Wildlife Corridors’ which run in a north to south direction, to the west of Hambrook. • Built development would not be located in the gap from the Landscape Gap Assessment and would not result in perceived coalescence of settlements. • Development would form a balanced and cohesive spatial growth structure which aligns with the current growth pattern of the settlement. Current consented residential schemes and Scenario 2 would serve to form an extension that continues to 'infill’ gaps in the urban form as well as linking with existing good transport corridors (see Appendix Three). • Development would not impact Brent Geese Secondary Support area. • Land to the east contains a mix of Grade 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land. • There are fewer existing PRoWS on the east of Southbourne, with therefore more opportunities to improve connectivity into the wider landscape. • The proposal is less reliant on a bridge than Scenario 1 with a greater quantum of development capable of being delivered in advance of the provision of any bridge. • Vehicular accesses have been agreed in principle with West Sussex County Council in respect of South Lane and the A259 Main Road. See Appendix Two for further details. • Growth to the east of Southbourne has the benefit of previous community support through the earlier Neighbourhood Plan process. Challenges 2.32 Our comments on the stated challenges in relation to Scenario 2 are as follows: • Based on our previous assessment work we understand that access to the site would not be prevented by the gas pipeline and that the pipeline easements would not preclude the works proposed (access etc) taking place. Whilst it is considered that vehicular access can be provided without infringement on the gas pipeline, in the event that access is required over it previous correspondence with SGN by RSK has advised that it will be permissible for roads to cross the pipeline, at right angles wherever possible, and with suitable protective measures in place. • It is considered that the reliance on the vehicular bridge is overstated. Scenario 2 could provide an alternative access north of the railway line (via Inlands Road) and a larger amount of land south of the railway. This means that Scenario 2 is less reliant on the bridge than Scenario 1. The challenges section should clarify this. Furthermore, the current live planning application (24/01161) is yet to be determined by the Council. • Paragraph 5.30 of the Consultation document raises concerns regarding the intensification of use of the Inland Road level crossing. Inlands Road has much lighter traffic flows than Stein Road, and only a small proportion of development traffic would use Inlands Road, and a single arm crossing. The issue at Inlands Road is therefore one of safety rather than capacity. Development at Scenario 2 provides an opportunity to introduce double barriers and therefore address this concern, whilst alleviating additional pressure on the Stein Road crossing. Paragraph 5.30 should be reworded accordingly. It is of course fair to say that the impact of development on the operation on the level crossings will need to be assessed. However, Inlands Road is not the key constraint. • Paragraph 5.31 suggests that the South Lane access is not appropriate in view of width and hedgerows and requires further technical work. This work has been undertaken. An access has been designed and subject to a safety audit and agreed in principle with WSCC. Further details are provided in Appendix Two. • All three scenarios involve multiple landowners. Whilst it is noted that planning applications have already started to come forward for development it is considered this provides further justification for Scenario 2 in ensuring a logical new eastern boundary to the settlement is created, with supporting infrastructure and new homes. The SADPD will ensure a coherent solution to development to the east of Southbourne comes forwards. Wates control the majority of the land to the east and are an experienced land promoter with a significant track record of delivering this scale of development • A small proportion of the land to the east is at risk of flooding (indeed this applies to all three Scenarios). Wates have commissioned further technical work on a range of matters, including in respect of flood risk, in support of Scenario 2 to provide further technical reassurance that this would not preclude development in this location. Based on work undertaken to date it is understood that the areas at risk of flooding are not an in-principle constraint to development and can be addressed through appropriate technical solutions and/or masterplanning of the site. Furthermore, the representations from i-Transport confirm that there are different options for the provision of access into the site and that one such access point (South Lane) has already been agreed in principle with the local highways authority. If flooding were to restrict the construction of the bridge (Wates Developments consider all risks can be mitigated), then other access routes into the site are available that are not impacted by flooding thereby eliminating development risk on this specific issue. As set out in the introduction we are keen to meet with the Council following the close of the consultation to further discuss our submissions and to agree the timescales for sharing any additional information prior to future consultation on the SADPD. 2.33 The conclusions in relation to Scenario 2 should be updated to reflect our above comments. 2.34 Draft Policy SB2 of the Submission Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (February 2021) included proposed policy wording for the allocation of land east of Southbourne Village for development. This included a series of requirements to ensure the delivery of key components and recognised the additional technical work required to confirm the appropriate delivery of these, including timings. Whilst clearly some updates will be required to reflect the latest position, it is considered this would form a useful starting point in drafting the proposed allocation policy in the SADPD. [See attached document for full submission]
• It is considered that the reliance on the vehicular bridge is overstated. Scenario 2 could provide an alternative access north of the railway line (via Inlands Road) and a larger amount of land south of the railway. This means that Scenario 2 is less reliant on the bridge than Scenario 1. The challenges section should clarify this. Furthermore, the current live planning application (24/01161) is yet to be determined by the Council. [See attached document for full submission]
No uploaded files for public display
The idea of using South Lane as a main entrance / exit for the new development is clearly nor possible. It is too narrow for two vehicles to pass in paces which is difficult for the limited number of vehicles using it already. The hedgerow beside it has been recognised as an ancient hedgerow and must be protected. The purchase of the farmland for the provision of a suitable road will add expense and will have to cope again with the high pressure gas line that runs through it.
NO
I repeat my answer for Q4 no scenario without the early provision of a Road Bridge should be even considered
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Q.6 Are there other benefits and challenges that you feel should also be included? 3.8. This question relates to Scenario 2: Land to the East. 3.9. Whilst it is noted that this consultation comprises an "issues and options" consultation, this development option sees Four Acre Nursery contained within the red line for the Broad Location for Development. Indeed, the Scenario 2 masterplan indicatively shows that Four Acre Nursery would be partially/ entirely allocated as green ring, with little residential development. This is inconsistent with the extant outline planning consent for 40 dwellings that the site benefits from (SB/22/01903/OUT). This would raise issues of 'soundness' as defined within paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (December 2023), with specific regard to the requirements for plans to be justified (paragraph 35 (b) and effective (paragraph 35(c)). 3.10. In order to remedy this matter, we would invite the Council to amend the red line of the Southbourne Allocation to exclude land at Four Acre Nursery in its entirety, thus recognising that the site benefits from an outline planning consent for residential development. In doing so, we note that the forthcoming reserved matters application will need to be assessed against the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (adopted 2024), which includes a number of land-use and other planning requirements that are similar to those contained within this Regulation 18 consultation document. Indeed, this is acknowledged at paragraph 4.4 of the consultation document. [See attached document for full submission]
No answer given