5.46. Questions for Regulation 18 consultation:
This is the worst of both worlds. It would not provide a central hub and would fragment the development and new communities.
The new school would not be able to benefit from sharing facilities with the college,
No uploaded files for public display
Uses existing infrastructure and avoids the challenges of the mixed modal bridge.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Access would be poorer by just coming off Stein Road and safety risks both North and South of the level crossing would be a major concern. Increased traffic of circa 1500 cars coming down the one road would cause significant conjestion leading to safety risks to life of school children pedestrians and delays on the A259. I'm not sure how the proposed pedestrian bridge reduces pressure on Stein Road crossing, the pressure is because of cars not pedestrians. People will only use pedestrian/cycle bridges if there is proper access via pavements to them. They won;t be walking across a field or narrow lanes to access I can see that you are already trying to rule out doing road bridges in all of the 3 scenarios due to cost. Cost should not be the primary driver for this, safety and ease of living should be foremost. If this development is going to happen then please just do it properly and build the bridges which will future proof the area as nod doubt further developements will come along over time anyway.
As already mentioned in answers to both other scenarios we must have traffic infrastructure, sewerage infrasturcture and health (gp) infrastructure in place before otherwise it will not be delivered. The village is already at capacity for much of this and the current roads do not allow for such a significant increase in cars that 800 homes will bring. There is no employment in the village so cars will be the primary mode of transport, walking and cycle will not happen as you think it will other than for leisure at weekends.
No uploaded files for public display
Question 8 Do you agree with the list of benefits and challenges set out above? (PARA 5.35 – 5.45) Reasons Challenges The lack of a road bridge will increase traffic congestion at the level crossings with intolerable results, increasing severance, delay and danger. It would throw much more traffic onto Priors Leaze Lane/Cooks Lane to the detriment of the rural character, highway safety and increase traffic using the Inlands Road level crossing giving concern to Network Rail.
Question 9 Are there other benefits or challenges that you think should also be included? Reasons There are some serious design issues. The scattering of development around the village looks like an easier option, but some of these sites are awkward in shape and it would be difficult to create any real cohesion with existing housing areas. These long strung out shapes would also force the Green Ring to be a peripheral feature conflicting with the concept of a green route threading through the village. It also relies on developing community facilities where landowners have not shown any wish to see their properties redeveloped.
No uploaded files for public display
This would bring significant congestion to Stein Road, with all traffic being directed out onto the north end of Stein Road, causing considerable disruption and safety issues, not only through the lower part of Stein Road, during school hours and at the train crossing but also potentially through the villages of Westbourne and Woodmancote, where lanes are narrow and unmarked.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
If the proposed gaps in the Gap Assessment are to be respected, the combined option would also best accommodate development in the area beyond the consented areas at Breach Avenue and land north of Cooks Lane; and on land around the college contained by the proposed Hermitage and Southbourne gap (Gap 9 in the Gap Assessment). A joint west and east shared extension would have sustainability benefits with both areas being close to the existing college and school and other local facilities at Southbourne itself.
This option scores 'reasonable' in terms of viability in the Assessment Framework Summary Table in Chapter 6 whereas the east and west options both score 'very poor'. Unless the bridge across the railway which scores 'strong' for the west option in the same Summary Table can be made to be viable then the combined option appears to be the only option that is viable and able to deliver the development in principle.
No uploaded files for public display
Distribution of Development - The balanced approach to the distribution of development in this scenario provides the option for further sustainable and proportionate growth in the future appropriate to the role and function of Southbourne as a settlement Hub in the Local Plan settlement hierarchy. Transport Impact - This option is potentially more deliverable in transport terms when assessed against scenarios 1 and 2, as stated in the SA Report. This scenario is more readily accessible with the main access from Stein Road into land to the east and west. It also benefits from multiple points of potential vehicular and pedestrian / cycle access, as well as the opportunity to deliver a complete pedestrian / cycle route around the northern part of the village through the delivery of a green ring. Distributing development on 'suitable' sites around Southbourne also reduces the potential need for a multi modal bridge. As stated in response to scenarios 1 and 2 the Council will need to engage with statutory consultees and undertake appropriate transport modelling to assess transport impact including in relation to Stein Road, Inlands Road crossings, Church footpath and Penny Lane footpath. Green Ring - We agree it is important to identify the delivery of an almost complete Green Ring, as prioritised in the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, as another key benefit to this scenario. In this respect this scenario performs better than scenarios 1 and 2. Pedestrian Railway Footbridge - Within Scenario 2 and 3 the Land at Cooks Lane provides the safeguarded land to enable the delivery of a new pedestrian and cycle footbridge over the railway line which is a key priority of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan. The footbridge is also a key element of the Green Ring that provides a safe and direct pedestrian and cycle link to the Primary School, railway station and Southbourne Village centre. The land to facilitate the crossing is within the control of Elivia Homes, as stated above. The railway crossing is deliverable and ongoing engagement is being undertaken with the Council and Network Rail regarding design and delivery of the bridge. Landscape Impact - This scenario provides a balanced approach to the distribution of development around Southbourne which has less impact on National Landscapes and maintains the integrity of the settlement gaps to the east and west of Southbourne as identified in the Local Gap Assessment (CDC, 2019). The SA identifies that this scenario would have less impact in comparison to scenarios 1 and 2 on the National Landscape to the south. Scenario 3 also locates development within areas that have greater capacity for change as identified in the Landscape Capacity Study for Chichester (2019). Education Provision - The location of the new primary school in this scenario is the same as scenario 2 'Land to the East' which enables a more balanced distribution of education provision in Southbourne Village, distributing traffic across the village and provides associated pedestrian, cycle connections and links to the Green Ring. Gas Pipeline - In relation to the location of the gas pipeline consultation zone 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. Brent Geese - This scenario would have an impact on the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area which will require mitigation but the impact is less than scenario 1 and it is understood that appropriate mitigation options have been identified. Flood risk - In relation to flood risk and areas of surface water flooding, a balanced approach to locating development on the west and least of Southbourne enables development to be located in areas of lowest risk and provides greater certainty in delivering c800 dwellings. Landownerships - In the context of landownerships, Elivia Homes considers 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 masterplanning 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]
Housing Delivery - This scenario is capable of providing for c800 dwellings or higher in view of the balanced distribution of development. This would provide sufficient flexibility to ensure the housing requirement to be met and also enable the potential for future growth proportionate to the role and function of Southbourne in the Local Plan settlement hierarchy. Transport Impact - The SA identifies that Scenario 3 performs well in transport terms as it has multiple points of potential vehicular and pedestrian cycle access, as well as the opportunity to deliver a complete pedestrian / cycle route around the northern part of the village through the delivery of a green ring. This should be recognised as a benefit. Flood Risk - The SA identifies that Scenario 3 performs best in flood risk terms as it does not contain any areas of high risk or surface water or fluvial flooding which should be identified as a benefit. Railway Connectivity - Options 3 (and 2) perform most favourably in relation to proximity to the railway station in comparison to Scenario 1 which should be identified as a benefit. [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.
Funding of Active travel improvements, including those to the A259, NCN2 should be made a planning obligation
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
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. • Critical challenges, including the inadequacy of existing road infrastructure to manage increased traffic, are not sufficiently addressed. The roads in question, including Priors Leaze Lane and Inlands Road, are single lanes with sharp bends that pose severe risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. Priors Leaze Lane features a lethal blind bend, and its width is insufficient for safe two-way traffic, making it particularly hazardous for any increased traffic volume. Cooks Lane also includes a T Junction at the conclusion of the blind bend at Priors Leaze Lane that has been the site of numerous near-miss accidents, emphasizing the severe risks involved. • Critical challenges on current flooding issues and inadequate sewage systems are overlooked. These problems are already severe, with raw sewage frequently discharged into the local harbour, a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and the Hambrook Stream suffering from effluent contamination. Furthermore, houses north of the railway lines in the area are reliant on septic tanks. During floods, these septic systems present an increased risk of biohazard discharge, exacerbating the public health and environmental dangers. • The plan overlooks the fact that the land to the East of Southbourne has already been subject to most of the recent development of Southbourne including the land north of Cooks Lane and Priors Orchard. Development needs to be spread across the Parish to the West and North of Southbourne to mitigate the impacts of development on just a small portion of the community, particularly given the rural feel of the community to the East which has been completely disregarded by the DPD. The document requires rewriting to provide a true and fair assessment of the challenges, including those mandated by NPPF objectives 97(c), 108, 110, and 128.
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.
No uploaded files for public display
Challenge - highway safety will be materially impacted at the corner of Cooks Lane and Priors Leaze Lane given the blind junction and blind bend
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Lack of a road bridge is NOT going to aid in deliverabilty. It WILL cause severe highway issues, safety and delay by putting more traffic into a single track land (Priors Lease) and down Inland Road and the rail crossing there which is already a concern for Network Rail. Placement of the community hub so far removed from the rest of the facilities within Southbourne will INCREASE need for car travel down a single track lane, ruining the rural nature of the eastern side of the village.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
It is of no benefit to distribute development more widely. The green ring is not much of a benefit as there are already footpaths.
Disturbance to skylark nesting sites Loss. Pressure on Stein road crossing. Pressure on Westbourne and Woodmancote Villages and lanes Loss of beautiful open countryside.
No uploaded files for public display
This plan does not include a vehicular bridge. A vehicular bridge should be a mandatory pre-requisite. The traffic is already very congested in the village as the village is effectively cut in half by the train line. The wait at the railway barrier is already very long, especially at peak times. 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. A hub to the west is much better than one to the east as it would be sited with existing facilities. Spreading facilities around the village will encourage people to drive between them, causing even more congestion.
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.
No uploaded files for public display
Mostly, but please see our answer to Q9.
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 uploaded files for public display
This is the worst scenario, as it does not deliver any great benefits for Southbourne, and does not deliver the Road bridge. This would not deliver any befits for locals and will create traffic havoc on roads to the North
No
No uploaded files for public display
Network Rail supports the identifications of the issues around pedestrian and vehicular traffic and existing level crossings requiring mitigation.
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
As above. This Scenario has the problems of Scenario 2 and 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.
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.
No uploaded files for public display
As commented already, any more homes will ruin the countryside, take away areas used to grow crops, cause services to not cope with more people in the village. I am just so glad that I am not a young person because seeing what is happening makes me glad that I don't have as many years left to witness the destruction of the village and surrounding areas.
No benefits, just destruction
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Benefits: - GP Surgery - Pharmacy Challenges: 1. Placement of Community Centre 2. Inadequate Sewage Capacity 3. Water extraction 4. Congestion – Moreso than the other options. This WILL cause more congestion that will have a big impact on all of Southbourne. 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
The list of benefits misses out the key point that this scenario would be further removed from, and therefore likely to have less impact on, the rural setting of Chichester Harbour National Landscape. It would also have the least impact in terms of the coalescence of settlements, as it would wrap around the northern part of the existing settlement where it is well spaced apart from neighbouring settlements, and would not contribute to the urbanisation and infilling of the A259 corridor (the boundary of the National Landscape) which has been seen in recent years. It would also be the furthest removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridors, and would have the least impact on the ecological connectivity between Chichester Harbour and the South Downs, of the 3 scenarios. Therefore, from both a landscape and nature conservation perspective, scenario 3 would be the least bad of the scenarios.
Scenario 3 would clearly have the least impact on the setting of Chichester Harbour National Landscape (NL), given that the housing/built element of the proposal would be limited entirely to land to the north of the railway line, and therefore would be removed a sufficient distance from the National Landscape such that it would be unlikely to affect views into or out of the NL, or the rural setting of the NL. Scenario 3 would also be the furthest removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridors and is therefore less likely to have a negative impact in this regard (although this is not acknowledged in the Assessment Framework, which scores all 3 as ‘strong’ under the objective of ‘Preserve wildlife corridors’). Scenario 3 would be furthest away from the Harbour's edge and would therefore have the least impact in terms of recreational disturbance to the shoreline, provided a sufficient SANG is provided on site. A further 'benefit' of scenario 3, which is not acknowledged in the document, is that it would have the 'least worst' impact in terms of the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, since the proposed housing area includes less Grade 1 as a proportion of the land than scenarios 1 and 2.
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 525 dwellings at each location (split of 1,050 as referred to in the Policy A13 of the local plan) and we assessed capacity for the 400 dwellings at each location (split of 800 dwellings planned for in this DPD). The assessment reveals that the local sewerage network in closest proximity to the site has sufficient sewer network capacity for 400 dwellings allocated at the two sites. The assessment also reveals that the local sewer network in closest proximity to the site has limited capacity to accommodate a proposed development of 525 dwellings allocated at the two sites. The fact that the allocation is split into two locations does not reduce the overall volume of wastewater draining to the wastewater catchment, which would still equate to the same volume as 1,050. 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 split across the two sites 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 program 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 400 dwellings at each site. However, should this be 525 dwellings at each site, then we would recommend the following Challenge (in brackets) for Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario. (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 3 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 3. (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) Southern Water 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 uploaded files for public display
Why is the area of land taken from grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land still fully required? The village will lose all good quality agricultural land that surrounds it. Option 3 is just option 1 & 2 combined. So comments from my previous responses stand. Vehicular access via Stein Road doesn't address the congestion which occurs due to the north south journeys required to access the Bourne school.
Sewerage treatment capacity will be an issue with the proposed 800 homes target. GP capacity still yet to increase from the 1000 homes already in the pipe line or delivered to date. Tangible delivery timescales of the required infrastructure improvements and the public services required.
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 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 3 but with the location of specific infrastructure to be determined through the planning application and further consultation stage. I 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.
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 would not be impacted 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.
No uploaded files for public display
The reasons are very similar to the ones I just gave on proposal number two with the added question of if there is no multi-modal bridge is this suggestion serious in that the Inlands Road crossing would become the only real access point for this new school and all the new houses and this ‘may increase impacts of traffic congestion’? Narrow country lanes being used by hundreds of cars with no impact on safety or the local community? Why would building a new school here benefit Southbourne when it will be built in a hamlet in Nutbourne requiring the residents of Southbourne to drive to the school? Another question is why a community hub would be built in the middle of a rural location on a very narrow lane (Cooks Lane/Priors Leaze Lane) and on a blind bend at a narrow junction quite a distance from the centre of Southbourne? The only way it could benefit Southbourne would be if everyone who wanted to use it got in their cars and drove to it which hardly fits in with the green ideal and would potentially be a disaster for the area and very dangerous.
The flood risk would increase with both Priors Leaze lane and Inlands Road already suffering and as already stated the area already has an existing green corridor.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Challenges: 1. Location of the Community Centre 2. Inadequate Sewage Capacity 3. Water extraction 4. Congestion: This option would contribute to significantly more congestion compared to the alternatives, with a substantial impact on the entire Southbourne area. Southbourne has only one primary north-south route, and during peak times, gates are closed for 30 minutes every hour. Building additional housing without constructing a road bridge would be neither an acceptable nor a sustainable solution."
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
Comment to Paragraph 5.38: Although the Educational and Community Facilities are proposed to be spread out (set devoid of existing provision) - the position indicated (very close to the Cooks Lane / Priors Leaze Lane / Inlands Road junction / hairpin which will compound congestion in this new vicinity. There would seem to be potential to broaden Scenario 3 to the east of Inlands Road and to include the north and south of Priors Leaze Lane creating the potential for a broader road network to spread traffic flow more directly into Inlands Road free of bottlenecks (more akin to a true hybrid with a consolidated Scenario 2). Comment to Paragraph 5.39: Stein Road - whilst this option may provide Improved pedestrian and cycle provision / safety - the potential vehicular traffic in the vicinity will increase so elevating (not relieving) pressure at the level crossing.
Challenge: Comment to Paragraph 5.40: If future growth to Southbourne (beyond the 800 homes currently under evaluation) is required then provision for growth should be accommodated within Scenario 3 and when would a multi-modal bridge be required (the potential for growth in Scenario 1 and 2 are more apparent and defined towards a potential of 2,000 homes in each).
No uploaded files for public display
5.46. Question 8 Do you agree with the list of benefits and challenges set out above? (Paragraph 5.35-5.45) - Please set out reasons for the answers given. No. A decision not to build a multimodal bridge is inexplicable given the same number of vehicles on Stein Road as the previous scenarios. But This does create a move balanced enlargement for Southbourne and probably provides scope for future enlargement if absolutely necessary. Without a National level strategic vision for housing(ie.not just building more of the same houses) such enlargement becomes inevitable.
See above comments. (No. A decision not to build a multimodal bridge is inexplicable given the same number of vehicles on Stein Road as the previous scenarios. But This does create a move balanced enlargement for Southbourne and probably provides scope for future enlargement if absolutely necessary. Without a National level strategic vision for housing(ie.not just building more of the same houses) such enlargement becomes inevitable.)
No uploaded files for public display