I wish to object to this plan, for the following reasons:
1. There has been no attempt to justify the increase in annual housing numbers from 435 in the Adopted Plan to 650. The Adopted Plan cited environmental and infrastructural constraints as a reason for using 435 as the annual figure. None of these constraints have changed, yet the housing figure has increased by nearly 50% without a word of justification. No houses should be accepted from the SDNP, and the housing figure should be reduced to reflect the 2016 ONS household projections. Chichester does not need 609 houses every year until 2035, and is under too much environmental pressure to accept houses from a vast National Park.
2. Using the figure of 650 houses per year, the plan calculates that 4400 houses are needed from strategic locations. It then lists the strategic locations, which adds up to a total 7985 houses. Considering that the total figure should be more like 550 houses pa, the figure of 4400 is itself too high, and should be more like 2900. This means an excess of 5000 houses has been allocated. I may be reading these figures incorrectly, but it seems to me that a large number (I would suggest at least 2500) be removed from the proposed sites. A large number of the houses proposed are more or less immediately adjacent to the Chichester Harbour AONB. I suggest removing those doing most harm to the AONB.
3. Far too much building has been proposed that damages the Chichester Harbour AONB. Especially Policy AL6 (Land South-West of Chichester, Apuldram and Donnington Parishes) which proposes a new link road which cuts the harbour off from the city, and a major commercial development within a few hundred metres of the AONB. Any plans for a link road should be abandoned, and the commercial site should be moved to the East of the city. Airfields usually provide a good hub for commercial sites, so close to Goodwood airfield would be a suitable place. The houses proposed for this site are not needed.
4. Environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints were recognised when allocating housing on the Manhood Peninsula in the adopted Plan. Additionally, building on the Manhood Peninsula was front loaded because of capacity limitations at the Tangmere Water Works. The Manhood's requirement until 2029 has already been exceeded by a large margin. The environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints remain completely unchanged, with the A27 improvements seemingly further than ever from resolution. The A286 is becoming busier and noisier, with complete gridlock on holiday weekends. As there is a huge oversupply of development sites, no housing should be allocated to Birdham, Bracklesham or West Wittering in this plan cycle, or until infrastructure improvements are complete.