5.47. Question for Regulation 18 Consultation
No choices made
A mixed scenario sound’s quite promising
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Infrastructure of it moving into the east and spreading further around and relieving congestion spots, instead of piling more onto a259
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
All options need to protect the ‘harbour’ and ensure there is no development sort of Main Road so that all future residents can enjoy green space. Housing needs to be closest to railway line.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
This ranking explores the potential to address an existing unsafe pedestrian rail crossing by providing a pedestrian and cycling bridge and/or a vehicular bridge using access rights and land safeguarded through Section 106 Agreements from developments south of the railway. Sussex Police consider this ranking would best address the relevant sections of the NPPF with regard to promoting healthy and safe communities.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East
Scenario 3 – 1st – the identified benefits have very considerable merit which I consider would far out-weighing the challenges. Development to both the East and West areas would likely facilitate a more comprehensive integration and sense of inclusiveness of the new developments into the existing Southbourne village, particularly when coupled with multiple landowners to encourage a broader range of housing styles. It is unfortunate that the existing Railway line physically splits the village, and the lack of provision of a vehicular bridge I think exacerbates this situation, so the more that can be done to negate this physical barrier by reducing the impact of ‘new’ to the north and ‘old’ to the south the better. Scenario 1 & 2 equal second ranking. It is considered that each of these options would foster less embracing of the new developments into the existing Southbourne settlement area.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
Scenario 1 would seem to be the one delivering the most benefits to existing and new residents. It utilizes facilities and amenities already in place. There is already a school, Sports Centre and Recreation Ground. These could be used to expand to a Community Hub. The other two involve building around very narrow country lanes which could not sustain additional traffic without considerable upgrading. Scenario 1 has the nost chance of being completed without a lot of delay as there is one landowner.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
This scenario has the most benefits for both existing and new residents. It can build on the facilities and amenities already provided by the College, Sprots Centre and Recreation Ground. It is also has the potential to be delivered in a timely manner being with one landowner. The other two would result in considerable congestion around three narrow country lanes unless there was considerable upgrading.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
Good availability of land, least impact on environment. Less flood risk. Seemless transition from primary to secondary schools and facilities.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
Community consolidation, create a central point that brings everyone together. We don’t want to be another village that loses it heart. Give us a plan that strengthens a community, not comprises for the sake of building. The other two scenarios are all about compromise! Actually do something which delivers a benefit beyond houses.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Land to the East gives greater spread across the village with the school and traffic being away from an already conjested area of level crossing at Stein Road. This option could still be delivered without a road bridge across the track. Mixed scenario again gives a spread across village although concerns of increased traffic at Stein road level crossing as the main road in and out with vehicular access and the risks this brings. Land to the West, is only workable with the vehicular bridge and would still give concern to the concentration of the schools and traffic around it would be dangerous. 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 no doubt further developments will come along over time anyway.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
Question 10 Which scenario (Land to the West, Land to the East, or Mixed Scenario) do you feel should be selected as the preferred option for allocation? Please rank from 1st (most preferable) to 3rd (least preferable) Reasons 1 Land to the West Way ahead as the best choice especially if the site south of Cooks Lane is included to complete the Green Ring and connect to the southern platform of the railway station as envisaged in NP1 (which network Rail appears to support para 4.21). Most practicable opportunity to provide the road bridge which is essential if Southbourne is to expand. The Sustainability Appraisal states that the bridge is more likely to be viable under this option (para 3.66) although unsurprisingly cost is a key concern. Waiting times at the level crossings are going to increase very soon due to new train timetables. If 800 dwellings are built without a bridge, congestion at the level crossings will last longer, queues will be lengthy, and it will be dangerous due to conflict of vehicle and increased numbers of pedestrians (many of them children) and cyclists. The Stantec traffic study refers to a “jump” in waiting/queues at 750 more dwellings and a bridge being needed at 1000. It is opaque about the numbers in between. It’s not possible to be precise about these numbers, which is why different traffic studies have come up with different thresholds. The only certainty is that if a bridge is not required now alongside this major development, Southbourne will never get one. It is optimistic to assume that development north of the railway will be limited to 800 for all time. The Local Plan figure is not fixed as yet, and could be 1050. Alternatively, one or two further applications/appeal decisions are more than likely to increase this number. If a bridge is not required now, and money set aside for it, it will be too late to try and put it right in the future. Why spend some £1.5m replacing the Church crossing (one of the most dangerous crossing points) and only solve a small part of the problem, when some £6 to 10m would buy a combined road/pedestrian bridge solving the crossing problems at both Church and Stein Road, and enable the Inlands Road crossing to be closed, at least to vehicular traffic. Sufficient developable land is available within a single ownership which makes the whole masterplan achievable. The third party ownerships are very small, WSCC and CDC, and financial incentives would surely enable them to facilitate the development if necessary. 2 Land to the East A very poor second choice. This has very little chance of securing a coordinated development due to multiple ownerships. Developers continue to break ranks eg the sites at Cooks Lane and Land East of Inlands Road. The northern vehicular access may not be achievable. The bridge and associated road links would push traffic onto unsuitable local lanes without footways causing safety issues and damaging the character of the rural environment. It appears that flooding could be a serious problem in bridge construction, increasing costs. 3 Mixed Scenario This is the worst option by far. At first glance this looks the least intrusive option, but as set out in para. 5.44 it will be the hardest to achieve. The illustrative diagram also seems to have less “new development” shading? However, while this might be the easiest to manage due to not having an expensive road bridge to negotiate, it will be very hard to persuade multiple and individual owners via equalisation arrangements to fund off-site facilities, especially as the community facilities are sited where some landowners have shown little interest in redevelopment.. This option provides for 800+ dwellings while ignoring the need for a road bridge and even worse, actually acknowledges it would enable further development in future. This would likely take the number of dwellings well over the 1000 threshold for a bridge that even Stantec seems to propose, with no hope of relief whatsoever. (para 5.40 – “would retain flexibility for future growth of the village if required”) Para 5.39 How can this option relieve pressure from the Stein Road crossing? and Para 5.43 says that spreading development around Southbourne will reduce pressure for a bridge. This will not be the case if residents continue to head for the A259 to go to work or shop, they may live in scattered developments but will still drive to the level crossings. Nor is there any guarantee that all residents of the 800+ dwellings will use the new junior school north of the railway, a considerable number may still travel to the existing school
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Option 1 spreads 5he houses more evenly around existing Option 2 opposed to 3 as the A259 is wider to the east and buildings to the north of 259 less dense. Some of the new traffic would not use the Southbourne roundabout as a good proportion must head for Chichester.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
1. I prefer scenario 1 on the basis that its a single landowner. Also delivery of western green ring (inc. TPOs/PROWS). Bridge which will help with traffic distribution. 2. Second in line as this completes the Eastern green ring, retaining hedgerows,orchards and provides opportunity for walking/cycling. Also second as multiple landowners, leading to lack of integrated approach. 3. Mixed scenario least favoured as raises serious problems with local road networks and increased traffic in spots which already have traffic problems ie Stein Road and Inlands Road. Also multiple landowners so unintegrated approach.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Purely due to potential traffic safety concerns and congestion if vehicular access is not built on these options. Serious consideration needs to be given the safety issues for car users and pedestrians, especially children, if vehicular access onto the A259 is not agreed.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East
The combined option is the only 1 that appears viable and able to deliver the objectives and vision for the Southbourne DPD in principle. However if the rail crossing could be made viable for the west option it is otherwise a strong option having the potential for a crossing in principle. The east option is neither deliverable or viable with the rail crossing. It would cause harm to the local road network if it were to come forward without a crossing. The east option should not be pursued further.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
I have great difficulty in giving priority to any of the scenarios. The provision of a multi-modal bridge is essential whatever scenario is selected. Positioning the new development to the east gives a better location for community facilities and the junior schools and there are more links to existing roads. The provision of open space to the east adjacent the Ham Brook will be a welcome public benefit. Though the proposals under discussion are based on current demands, I believe that in the future further demands will be made. It is important therefore that we look further ahead so that we end up with an integrated well structured community. Though the scenario 1 looks to be the easiest to deliver, premature or opportunist development in the east will prevent future opportunities in that area - in particular the construction of another multi-modal bridge. Having read the relative advantages and disadvantages, I venture to suggest a hybrid based on scenario 3. This includes the noted advantages of scenario 2 in the location of the community facilities, the junior schools and the better access to land adjacent the Ham Brook. But that the 'orbital' road be continued to the multi-modal bridge by the Bourne College and south to the A259. Also, perhaps a more achievable than a bridge, upgrading the Inlands level crossing and widening the adjacent Cooks Lane, Priors Leeze Lane and Inlands Road. This will relieve the over used Stein Road, provide easier access to the perimeter parts of the village, prevent rat-runs through the village and, should further development demands be made, give access to new sites without disturbing the core of the village.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Growth Scenario Ranking - Scenario 3 It is considered that this scenario (3) should be ranked 1st in order of sustainability and consistency with national and local policy. This scenario is considered more sustainable and deliverable in comparison to scenarios 1 and 2. This scenario provides a balanced and sustainable pattern of development which has the least impact in landscape terms and is likely to be more deliverable in respect of transport impact. This scenario also enables the delivery of almost complete Green Ring in accordance with the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan. In this scenario there is scope for a coordinated approach between landownerships to ensure a comprehensive approach and delivery of key infrastructure. Growth Scenario Ranking - Scenario 2 It is considered that this scenario should be ranked 2nd in order of sustainability and consistency with national and local policy. This scenario enables the delivery of c800 homes which are deliverable in relation to local constraints and infrastructure requirements. A comprehensive and co-ordinated approach to master planning and infrastructure delivery is also achievable in respect of landownerships. This scenario is considered more sustainable to Scenario 1 ‘Land to the West’ which is constrained in respect of landscape gap, gas pipeline, ecology and flood risk which raise uncertainty regarding c800 homes can be sustainable delivered. Growth Scenario Ranking - Scenario 1 This scenario should be ranked 3rd in order of sustainability and consistency with national and local policy in comparison to Scenario 2 and 3. Scenario 1 ‘Land to the West’ is the most constrained growth option in terms of landscape gap, ecology, transport and flood risk impacts, which raises significant uncertainty regarding the ability to sustainably deliver c800 dwellings. [See attached document for full submission]
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
The land to the West offers more options in terms of space, being close to existing infrastructure, offering more opportunities. The mixed scenario offers a balance to the village that the other two options don't. The land to the East is unsuitable due to roads being way too narrow, no space to create a different layout, and being distant from the existing infrastructure.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
no opinion
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
The presence of a vehicular bridge over the railway line is the key reason I would prefer scenario 2. Scenario 3 is slightly preferable to scenario 1 as development is spread wider
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Having a multi modal bridge is the deal maker. I wrote a plea in another part of my responses, but it seems to have disappeared. PLEASE can we have a properly defined cycle lane along the A259 towards Chichester, like the one on Havant Road between Emsworth and the A27. I always feel very safe along this road and very unsafe on the A259 from Southbourne to Chichester.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Distribution of housing and facilities around existing village more preferable so it creates a natural expansion Some of the land not being used rather than taking grade 1 agricultural land. Bridge over railway essential in my opinion due to existing roads
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
Road infrastructure, sewage capacity, flooding risks and biodiversity issues impacting scenarios 2 and 3 make them unfeasible.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
There are multiple challenges of further developments on land to the East given flood risk, impact on sewage and waste water, loss of environment for wildlife including multiple species of bats and pressure on the road network which is broadly country lanes to the East
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
West is best. It provides the best option for providing a road bridge which is essentially for the continued and sustainable expansion of Southbourne. Constraints regarding Brent geese is easily mitigated by the lands the same land owner has nearby. Especially if the land South of Cooks Lane is included to complete the Green ring to the east and connect to the southern platform of the rail station which Network rail seems to support (para 4.21) It is best option for a proper masterplanned development with one land owner. The site is large enough to add addition dwellings in the future when needed and the cost of a road bridge, while considerable, is the only way you can sustainably continue the grow Southbourne. You cannot make Southbourne a town with 1 north south route.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
Confine development to the existing areas already being built on . Closer to the main road access. Land of poorer quality and amenity.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
The green ring is better The community is better centred More agricultural land is retained
No uploaded files for public display