5.47. Question for Regulation 18 Consultation
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
Scenario 1 includes a road bridge which should be a mandatory requirement for building additional housing in the village. It also includes a hub which is sited adjacent to current facilities - the senior school and the leisure centre. Scenario 2 also includes a road bridge but the challenges delivering that option are very great due to multiple landowners and an existing planning application for the land. The hub is separate from other facilities in the village. Scenario 3 has no benefits - it does not deliver a road bridge, the hub is to the east. It will increase congestion in the village enormously.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
1 2 3 Deliverability. One land owner, the possibility of a proper planned approach with a Road bridge
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
It is Network Rail's view that Scenario 1 allows for the most effective and practical means of mitigating development. Development of land to the west would allow for the potential closure of two level crossings and provide a single means of accessing land to the north. A multi modal bridge would also potentially relive pressure on Stein Road. Scenario 2 is considered to be the least best option to pursue as there are significant limitations to mitigating Inlands Road level crossing effectively. The scale of development proposed would require a new bridge at Inlands Road and, given the on-going application and likely other applications coming forward, the land required for the bridge may not be available. For Scenario 3, a more effective opportunity could be to provide the multi modal bridge at Church and the further means of crossing to the east of Southbourne rail station for pedestrians. It is acknowledged that there may be a viability consideration for this given the spread of development within the Scenario. In all Scenarios, any railway crossing would need to be fully funded by third parties and would require all necessary Network Rail agreements related to a structure spanning the railway.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
The land to the West, has better existing infrastructure is less affected by the gas pipeline, a smaller loss to wildlife habitat, dormice and bats while maintaining a greater degree of wildlife / Dark Sky corridor. Also it will have significantly less impact on the already unacceptable levels of flooding on Farm lane and the CSO overspill.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
NONE. We will not cope in the village
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
The west appears most sustainable and most likely to achieve a bridge which is fundamental to Southbourne. If a bridge isn’t delivered the congestion and pollution from queuing traffic will be unbelievable
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Scenario 3 should be selected as the preferred option. Scenarios 1 and 2 are both potentially equally harmful to both landscape and nature conservation objectives, for the reasons given in our answers to earlier questions. All 3 of the scenarios would be located on Grade 1 and 2 Agricultural land and score as ‘poor’ within the Assessment Framework as a result; although scenario 3 would appear to have the ‘least bad’ impact in this regard, as the proposed housing area includes less Grade 1 land than scenarios 1 and 2. All 3 scenarios would increase recreational disturbance to Chichester Harbour SPA, and would therefore require significant mitigation, including the provision of the SANG, as well as contributions to the Bird Aware Solent mitigation package. Again, scenario 3 would have the least impact in this regard, due to being further away from the Harbour. All 3 scenarios would also have the potential to increase pressure on the existing Thornham Waste Water Treatment Works, and under current policy as set out by Natural England, would be required to demonstrate ‘nitrate neutrality’. However, scenario 3 would have the least impact on the setting of Chichester Harbour National Landscape, and therefore selecting this option would help to fulfil the Council’s duty under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to ‘further the purpose’ of designation of the National Landscape, to conserve and enhance natural beauty. Scenario 3 would be the only option that would not result in actual and perceived coalescence of settlements and the continued urbanisation of the A259 corridor. Scenario 3 would also have the least impact on the Strategic Wildlife corridors and the ecological connectivity between the Harbour and the South Downs.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
1. East - Due to the Cooks Lane development the growth would be better on the East side to address an extra vehicular access. 2. Mixed - Embraces the green agenda and reduces vehicular access to the school area which is already congested so the foot bridges would help better with official pathways to access the school/leisure areas. 3. West - This option adds traffic congestion by having a vehicular bridge proposed.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
SWT is not in a position to select a preference, however for the most part we agree with the benefits and challenges listed for each of the three scenarios. We are concerned about the scenarios impacting the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area and would like to see more information about the reality of trying to mitigate for this loss. For example, what are the options for like-for-like replacement of this habitat in the local area? One overall concern we have is that regardless of the scenario chosen, the multiple landowners to the east of Southbourne will still put in applications for speculative development outside of the masterplan area - particularly in light of the increased housing targets and the reinstatement of the 5 year housing target suggested in the Government’s recent NPPF consultation. SWT would like to see robust wording in the DPD to ensure that development coming forward is cohesive, respects the environmental capacity of the area and particularly provides appropriate buffers to the wildlife corridors identified in the Southbourne NP and Chichester LP. Given that this will be a strategic development of a large scale, we would also expect to see a more ambitious biodiversity net gain target that goes beyond the mandatory minimum of 10% and aims for at least 20% BNG.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
SWT is not in a position to select a preference, however for the most part we agree with the benefits and challenges listed for each of the three scenarios. We are concerned about the scenarios impacting the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area and would like to see more information about the reality of trying to mitigate for this loss. For example, what are the options for like-for-like replacement of this habitat in the local area? One overall concern we have is that regardless of the scenario chosen, the multiple landowners to the east of Southbourne will still put in applications for speculative development outside of the masterplan area - particularly in light of the increased housing targets and the reinstatement of the 5 year housing target suggested in the Government’s recent NPPF consultation. SWT would like to see robust wording in the DPD to ensure that development coming forward is cohesive, respects the environmental capacity of the area and particularly provides appropriate buffers to the wildlife corridors identified in the Southbourne NP and Chichester LP. Given that this will be a strategic development of a large scale, we would also expect to see a more ambitious biodiversity net gain target that goes beyond the mandatory minimum of 10% and aims for at least 20% BNG.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
We have ranked scenario 3 last as there is no provision for a vehicular bridge, which would be a major issue. Scenario 1 has the advantage of being built around existing facilities and amenities. The advantage of combing a new school with existing educational facilities is clear. Having only one landowner to deal with makes the development easier to achieve.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East
This is the only acceptable option as it has the least impact on the agricultural land and green spaces that are already present. This option links the proposed housing with that already being built and protects the village from growing into Emsworth and losing its identity. A green ring is no substitute for the existing green fields and, once they are lost they cannot be reclaimed for agriculture.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East
Personally I do nit believe any of the options are suitable and that Chichester council should be looking elsewhere for areas nearer the A27. if pushed, I believe scenario 2 is the best option. This is more environmentally friendly, saves destroying land on both sides of the village and boxing in the village of Southbourne. The proposed new school is going to be in the East side of the village so if the development was that side this will help reduce car travel as will be within walking distance. The area towards Hambrook has already been developed so this option will help save some agricultural land. There are no concerns regarding migrating birds in this area. Smaller landowners will be more likelihood to sell land for development, particularly with the inheritance changes, so there is already a risk that this are will be developed at some point but outside of the Parish allocated numbers. I am so concerned for our environment and wildlife that I fear whatever happens, our green haven will be lost forever.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East
As stated in my earlier responses - Scenario one is in Southbourne and therefore benefits Southbourne whereas the other 2 are in Nutbourne and in the rural hamlet that comprises Inlands Road, Priors Leaze Lane and Cooks Lane. Scenarios two and three will hugely impact Nuthbourne both from a building perspective, traffic congestion and safety perspective, flooding perspective whilst not delivering on the ‘vision’ of developing Southbourne further in terms of schooling and housing and transport into an integrated vibrant community.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East
Seems to have less damaging effects to our natural world & Wildlife. I would rather nothing happened and our wildlife was left in peace, for once!!
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
Scenario 1 (West) emerges as the best option when evaluated against the assessment framework due to the following key advantages: 1. Integrated, Well-Serviced Community Community Hub: Scenario 1 offers the unique opportunity to create a co-located community hub with the college, leisure center, and recreation ground, fostering a vibrant and centralized "Heart for Southbourne." This enhances connectivity and maximizes accessibility to services. Railway Barrier Reduction: It safeguards land for a multi-modal bridge, which can reduce the barrier effect of the railway more effectively than Scenario 3, and is more deliverable than the bridge proposed in Scenario 2. Access to Nature: Proximity to quality green space is ensured, meeting the expectations across all scenarios. 2. Transport and Sustainable Travel Vehicular Bridge: Scenario 1 is the only option that safeguards land for a vehicular bridge, helping alleviate rail crossing congestion, a critical issue for Southbourne. Bus Connectivity: Approximately 50% of the development lies within 400m of a bus stop, exceeding the 40% benchmark for positive contributions. This far outperforms Scenario 2 and provides better alignment with sustainable travel goals. Rail Access: While all scenarios meet the walking distance criteria to the train station, the provision for a pedestrian/cycle bridge in Scenario 1 further enhances connectivity across the railway. 3. Climate and Environment Green Ring Delivery: Scenario 1 secures the western part of the Green Ring, ensuring accessibility for people and wildlife while meeting biodiversity net gain (BNG) goals. Flood Risks: Development is confined to Flood Zone 1, minimizing flood-related risks. Though there are concerns regarding surface water flooding near critical infrastructure, these can be mitigated through design. 4. Housing and Growth Utilities Pipeline Impact: While the consultation zone impacts development space, the west offers a feasible path for meeting housing targets through careful planning and design. Housing Mix: Scenario 1 fulfills the objective of delivering a mix of housing types and tenure, including younger households, first-time buyers, and downsizing accommodation, comparable to the other scenarios. 5. Deliverability Land Ownership: Scenario 1 benefits from a majority landowner north of the railway, simplifying land assembly and facilitating safeguarded land for key infrastructure, including the multi-modal bridge. This advantage outweighs the complexity seen in Scenarios 2 and 3, which involve multiple landowners and significant collaboration challenges. Viability: While the vehicular bridge poses a high viability risk, Scenario 1’s safeguarded land and established framework (S106 contributions) provide a clearer pathway to addressing these costs compared to the higher-risk land assembly issues in Scenario 2. 6. Alignment with Village Character Balanced Growth: Though one-sided growth is a concern, Scenario 1 mitigates its impact through design-led approaches that incorporate green infrastructure and respect existing landscapes. The lack of heritage assets within the development area further minimizes disruption. Conclusion Scenario 1 (West) strikes the best balance between infrastructure delivery, community integration, environmental protection, and housing needs. Its distinct advantages, particularly the provision for a vehicular bridge, centralized community hub, and safeguarded land for sustainable infrastructure, make it the most robust and deliverable option for Southbourne’s development.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
1 – road safety improvement and the most inclusive for all age groups 2 – road safety improvement, however the most environmental and sewage impact 3 – in my opinion this option does not offer any benefit to the Parish
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Please see DPD Response 25.22, 5.34, and 5.47 a pdf file uploaded with question 4.11 and for ease of reference again below
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
Scenario 2: seems to offer potential for growth (the present requirement for 800 homes with a potential of 2000) without creating further congestion in the vicinity of Stein Road and the Bourne Community College - and maintains Southbourne as a discrete settlement preserving spatial and visual gaps defined by the Landscape Gap Assessment (CDC, 2019) avoiding merging with surrounding settlements. Scenario 3: has the potential in the short term of fulfilling the aim for 800 homes but in its current form lacks vision beyond this for true future planning of the fate of Southbourne in the DPD. Has the potential of being expanded to the east (east of Inland Road and north and south of Priors Leaze Lane) to provide a greater capacity of deliverable homes and broader infrastructure network to spread traffic and provide alternative routes to avoid present bottlenecks (Stein Road; and Cooks Lane / Inlands Road / Priors Leaze Lane). Scenario 1: bunches new development closest to the current congestion in the vicinity of Stein Road and the Bourne Community College.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
See comments under each Scenario separately Briefly: The Mixed Scenario provides a Male balanced structure but an alternative railway crossing for vehicles is necessary giver the large increase in traffic. For all three scenarios improved access to the A259 for roads currently feeding onto it will be needed e.g. lights or Mini roundabouts. Improvements to the Fishbourne roundabout also imperative.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West
No answer given
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
Land to the West - best option for road bridge over Preferable) railway. Land to the East - no road access north of Cooks Lane Mixed scenario - no road bridge over railway Developers will not be able to sell houses north of the railway unless construction of a road bridge is planned/implemented. Financing of the road bridge must be a top priority.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 1: Land to the West
This ranking has been given primarily on the basis that Scenario 3 (Mixed Scenario) provides greater opportunities to deliver on-site benefits for both nature and people, which would be harder to achieve in the other two scenarios given their size. In addition, Scenario 3 has the benefit of following the existing layout of Southbourne which should help to minimise impacts upon protected landscapes. It is however important to note that all three scenarios will have similar impacts in terms of nutrient neutrality and recreational disturbance, as well as the potential for land to be functionally linked to Chichester Harbour SPA and Ramsar site. As mentioned, Scenario 3 may find it easier to avoid or mitigate these impacts due to the larger amount of land available and there is likely to be greater opportunities for wildlife connectivity across the site. We would also like to highlight that it is currently unclear what would happen to the land in Scenario 1 if Scenario 2 was to be taken forward, or vice-versa, particularly as planning applications have already been approved within both Broad Locations of Development. It should be noted that if, eventually, both scenarios are to be taken forward leading to 1600 new dwellings in this area then the impact upon both South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour National Landscape would be significantly greater.
No uploaded files for public display
Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East, Scenario 3: Mixed Scenario
1st (Most preferable) Land to the West - best option for read bridge over railway. 2nd Land to the East - no road access north of Cooks Lane 3rd (Least preferable) Mixed scenario no road bridge over railway Developers will not be able to sell houses north of the railway unless construction of a road bridge is planned/implemented. Financing of the road bridge must be a top priority.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
While Historic England would not wish to rank options, it is likely that Option 1 would have least direct impact on designated heritage assets. Without the support of a robust historic environment evidence base, however, it is not possible to ascertain the scope of potential impacts on the full range of heritage assets (as indicated in the General Comments above). While it is possible that such effects appropriately may be assessed within the Sustainability Appraisal it is necessary for the DPD to be found sound that the outcome of such assessment is reflected in the policies and supporting text. Summary In conclusion, in the view of Historic England the draft Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document is deficient in its understanding of the significances of the historic environment; fails to identify potential impacts of the development options on designated heritage assets (in Scenario 2 and Scenario 3); and, as currently drafted lacks the evidence and appropriate assessment of historic character and heritage significance to underpin a sound plan.
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
6.1 Metis do not support these three Scenarios. Instead, we propose two alternative Scenarios: • Scenario 4: South of the Railway (east and west) and North of the Railway (west) • Scenario 5: South of the Railway (east and west) and North of the Railway (east). 6.2 To demonstrate the significant benefits of these Scenarios, we have taken the format used to present Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 and completed for Scenarios 4 and 5. These are shown below: Scenario 4: South of the Railway (east and west) and North of the Railway (west) 6.3 This Scenario maximises development to the south of the railway line, close to existing services, facilities and public transport. It will provide a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line and is not reliant on a new multi modal bridge. It will complement existing facilities in Southbourne as well as creating a new hub around the Bourne Community College and the Bourne Leisure Centre. Benefits 6.4 This Scenario minimises risks regarding access and delivery as it does not propose to build a multimodal bridge and maximises the use of available land south of the railway line which is inherently sustainable given the presence of existing facilities, services and access to public transport (high frequency bus route and railway station) within walking and cycling distances. 6.5 This Scenario offers certainty for affordable housing and the strategy focuses on the provision of complementary community infrastructure and removes the significant viability/deliverability issues associated with the provision of a vehicular bridge. 6.6 A new pedestrian and cycle bridge will provide sustainable connections north-south, using land safeguarded through Section 106 Agreements from existing developments south of the railway line. 6.7 This Scenario would support the delivery of the CHEMROUTE in combination with contributions from other planned development on the East-West Corridor. This would provide onward cycle connectivity to Chichester and Emsworth, to further align with the Local Plan transport strategy (Policy T1) and have the additional benefit of providing sustainable travel choices to the significant existing population that live along this corridor. This would materially reduce traffic generation on the A27 and the two priority junctions at Warblington and Fishbourne. 6.8 A new two-form entry (2FE) primary school and community centre (providing complementary services and facilities) could be located adjacent to the existing Bourne Community College. This could create a hub of activity for the village where facilities can be shared between the existing college and Bourne Leisure Centre with the new Primary School and community centre, ensuring the use of facilities is maximised. This Scenario would create a safe community hub for children and the wider community and would benefit from having good connectivity to pedestrian and cycle routes within the Green Ring. There would also be multiple opportunities to create walking and cycle connections into the existing village. 6.9 This Scenario allows the delivery of a western section of the Green Ring which integrates biodiversity, nature, wildlife and TPOs (Tree Preservation Orders) with Public Rights of Way and pedestrian and cycle connectivity. 6.10 By maximising development to the south first, the need to accommodate the existing gas pipeline that runs through much of the northern part of the BLD, is reduced or negated. Challenges 6.11 An analysis of the Council’s Stage 1 Viability Assessment (Dixon Searle) has been carried out by Sturt & Co. A copy of this analysis can be found at Appendix B of these representations. 6.12 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. 6.13 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. 6.14 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. 6.15 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. However, the absence of a vehicular bridge In this Scenario makes the viability position more favourable than Scenarios 1 and 2. 6.16 Development in this Scenario involves an area identified as part of the gap from the Landscape Gap Assessment (CDC,2019). A landscape corridor at the western edge of this Scenario will mitigate and provide a spatial and visual gap to the north of the railway line. In relation to the south of the railway this is addressed by a 100 metre landscape buffer; however more consideration and mitigation can be implemented through design. 6.17 This Scenario could impact a Brent Geese Secondary Support Area which would need to be comprehensively mitigated as set out by the Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy Guidance on Mitigation and Off-setting Requirements Report of 2018. Scenario 5: South of the Railway (east and west) and North of the Railway (east) 6.18 This Scenario maximises development to the south of the railway, close to existing services, facilities and public transport. It will provide a new pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway and is not reliant on a new multi modal bridge. It will complement existing facilities in Southbourne along the A259 corridor and provide an opportunity for a new primary school. Benefits 6.19 This Scenario minimises risks regarding access and delivery as it does not propose to build a multimodal bridge and maximises land that is more readily accessible to the south of the railway. 6.20 This Scenario offers certainty for affordable housing and the strategy focuses on the provision of complementary community infrastructure and removes the significant viability/deliverability issues associated with the provision of a vehicular bridge. 6.21 A new pedestrian and cycle bridge will provide sustainable connections north-south, using land safeguarded through Section 106 Agreements from existing developments south of the railway line. 6.22 This Scenario would support the delivery of the CHEMROUTE in combination with contributions from other planned development on the East-West Corridor. This would provide onward cycle connectivity to Chichester and Emsworth, to further align with the Local Plan transport strategy (Policy T1) and have the additional benefit of providing sustainable travel choices to the significant existing population that live along this corridor. This would materially reduce traffic generation on the A27 and the two priority junctions at Warblington and Fishbourne. 6.23 This Scenario allows the delivery of the eastern section of the Green Ring, incorporating locally protected hedgerows and historic orchards and local green spaces. 6.24 The proposed development 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. A landscape corridor at the eastern edge of the Scenario provides a spatial and visual gap north of the railway line. Development in the eastern Scenario does not involve land identified as part of the gap from the Landscape Gap Assessment (CDC, May 2019). 6.25 By maximising development to the south first, the need to accommodate the existing gas pipeline that runs through much of the northern part of the BLD, is reduced or negated. Challenges 6.26 The location of the proposed new primary school to the east of the village does not consolidate facilities but will spread out the educational facilities across Southbourne, which is likely to encourage short vehicle trips between the two schools. 6.27 This Scenario includes multiple landowners and therefore, it will be necessary to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach to development. 6.28 An analysis of the Council’s Stage 1 Viability Assessment (Dixon Searle) has been carried out by Sturt & Co. A copy of this analysis can be found at Appendix B of these representations. 6.29 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. 6.30 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. 6.31 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. 6.32 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. However, the absence of a vehicular bridge In this Scenario makes the viability position more favourable than Scenarios 1 and 2. [See attached document for full submission]
No uploaded files for public display
No uploaded files for public display