Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 227

Received: 29/01/2019

Respondent: Sustrans

Representation Summary:

The East West corridor is proposed to take 80% of new housing. It is stated that it has good transport links: however this is not true for CYCLING.. This corridor between Chichester and Emsworth is also the route of NCN2 strategic cycle network route (currently A259), A MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE REQUIREMENT for all new housing proposals, especially for Chichester, Bosham, Chidham and Southbourne must be to fund the necessary improvements to this route. Also various feeder cycle routes are needed to link in to NCN2 .

Full text:

The East West corridor is proposed to take 80% of new housing as it has environmental and communications advantages compared with other parts of the plan area.. It is stated that it has good transport links for public transport and travel by car; however this is not true for CYCLING or walking... This corridor between Chichester and Emsworth is also the route of NCN 2 [ Dover to Truro] strategic cycle network route (currently along the A259),and as this route is currently identified as inadequate by the highways authority and Highways England Sustrans believes that it is A MAJOR INFRASTUCTURE REQUIREMENT for all new housing proposals, especially for Chichester, Fishbourne, Bosham, Chidham and Southbourne is to fund the necessary improvements to this route. which are soon to be identified by the highways authority Also various feeder cycle and walking routes are needed to link in to NCN2 from these new housing areas and to existing villages and attractions.

Currently the major housing allocations have insufficient and lukewarm proposals for improvements to the cycling/walking networks and the Infrastructure Delivery Plans which will follow after the plan's agreement must contain the necessary projects and funding for these facilities.
The proposals for the villages between Chichester and Emsworth will substanially increase their population over the plan period. There does not appear to be any sub- plan strategy or vision for these important settlements other than simply housing growth. Each allocation, AL 7, 9 10 and 13 are treated in isolation from each other. No differentiation of current or future roles or character is proposed other than apparently becoming larger housing settlements. The plan therefore is missing an opportunity to establish roles and characteristics which build on their current attributes.