I strongly object to the AL6 proposed development and the associated Stockbridge Link Road.

This area is one of the most attractive parts of Chichester, it offers outstanding views from the South of the Cathedral and South Downs enjoyed by locals and visitors alike. We already have countryside within walking distance, a cut down park area is not equivalent and is no substitute for what is already in place and cannot be replaced if lost. This will cause irrevocable harm to the appearance of the countryside which we all love and choose to reside here for.
Any development will impact the wildlife of the area and their habitat, There is a strong Bat population at home in this area which I have not seen anywhere else. Bordering the Chichester Harbour AONB it attracts a wide variety of wildlife..Any changes to the area will cause great disruption and a suggested corridor is a poor excuse to deflect objections to the reality of destroying this. Any development here will impact the AONB, its too close and if anything the AONB should be extended to include this location from harm to prevent further encroachment.
The proposed site which only specifies Minimum figures is on a Zone 3 Flood Plain. The idea that it can be developed on the fringes is flawed and will increase water displacement and flooding to surrounding areas, increasing the flood risk. A raised SLR will add to this risk and drastically alter the landscape.This is contrary to the aim to 'Minimise flood risk for new and existing developments' how can this proposal stand with such contradictions?. It is not sustainable. This proposal runs contrary to 5.54
This is arable farmland which is well managed and will serve as a loss of produce, removing Mile Pond Farm completely adversely affecting the farm and those dependant on it for their livelihood and home. In the present climate this is short sighted.
The policy is against the CDC own aims to ensure environmental protection, protect and enhance wildlife, enhancement of the landscape, habitat networks and dark skies (over the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB). This proposal will negate all of those elements and there is no mitigation that would be able to prevent that impact.
'In order to protect the landscape, character, quality and tranquillity of the countryside it is essential to prevent inappropriate development.' this proposal is inappropriate in its entirety.
7.118 'The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour channels, or open countryside.'
This idea is ill conceived and destructive, its impact would be to detract from the area and lose that quality which attracts visitors to Chichester. Its unbelievable that people would seek to throw away that which makes our surroundings so special, the character and beauty which makes it so attractive. It doesn't make any sense and the argument does not add up, it would be a disaster if any element of this policy progressed further.

The inclusion of several rehashed A27 proposals such as the SLR, Fishbourne roundabout additions, removal of the Terminus Road exit, Stockbridge lights with no right turns, left turn access etc has totally undermined the BABA27 proposals. Its disappointing that CDC have tried to reintroduce these elements through the backdoor knowing full well that these had been rejected by the majority under the A27 consultations. These were flawed then and are still now, even more funds have been diverted to repeat the errors of the past. The preference over through traffic to that of local residents will not assist residents. The addition of exits and link roads will merely create further bottlenecks and pinch points, displacing traffic into the side roads. The Donnington/Stockbridge area will be enclosed in a pollution triangle surrounded on all sides by increasing traffic. In view of pollution levels already in Chichester this will rise and raise health concerns further. Their inclusion will not mitigate traffic but contribute to it. These need to be recognised as flawed from the outset and the motivation for their inclusion raises questions when alternatives based on local consensus have been put forward supposedly with the backing of the CDC yet again being contradicted by the plan.