We fully support Policy 30, but object to the omission of a Wildlife Corridor directly along the route of the Ham Brook in Southbourne Parish. This would be in addition to the corridor identified east of Hambrook village. The evidence set out in the Council's own paper (Strategic Wildlife Corridors, Local Plan Review Background Paper, December 2018) demonstrates the importance of this additional area, including reference to identified water vole and bat networks, a considerable number of rare species sightings, and barn owl habitat. It has both over and under access across the A27 to the north and clear access beyond to the National Park. It meets Chichester Harbour at the Nutbourne Marshes Local Nature Reserve and adjoins the Nutbourne Mill Pond (SSSI) at its southern end, where we believe a Harbour Conservancy Management Programme is underway and a considerable number of rare species have been recorded. It meets all the criteria set out in paragraph 4.7 of the Background Paper and can be seen to provide at least as much wildlife habitat, if not more, as the selected "corridors".


This area is described as "West of Nutbourne" in the Background Paper. It was considered as an alternative to the "Proposed Chidham/East of Nutbourne Strategic Wildlife Corridor", and rejected (paragraph 5.5). The case for these corridors is well argued in the Paper and the fact that they will probably provide the only places where wildlife can pass safely from the National Park to Chichester and Pagham Harbours shows their importance. There are few places left where "corridors" can be identified and the opportunity to recognise the potential of the Ham Brook corridor and protect it should not be lost while we still have the chance.


Three reasons were given for its rejection in the background paper :-

1 The first was the proximity of residential areas. We dispute this because the survey material published in the Background Paper shows that despite proximity a significant number of wildlife sightings have been recorded sufficient for this are to be a candidate corridor.

2 The second is "proposed development". We can find no evidence that current building is a problem. The "Meadow View" housing site at Nutbourne is underway (HELAA - HSB0008). It provides considerable open space around the site including a buffer area alongside the Ham Brook. The developer has been made aware of the likely presence of water voles in the adjoining watercourse, and he has delayed management works until an ecologist can attend to supervise. "Proposed development" could refer to future development sites identified in Neighbourhood Plans. There are three other HELAA sites within this "corridor" area (HSB0012, HSB0009, and HSB0001) but it is far too early to suggest that any of them might be identified for development as a result of the review of the Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan (SPNP). Even if any of them were, it would be possible to require the retention and management of appropriate gaps or buffers within such sites.

3 The last reason was that the "corridor" would be too narrow to act as a "suitable functional strategic corridor". There is no evidence to suggest that this is currently the case, nor likely to be in future.


We consider that none of these reasons are sufficient to justify the omission of the Ham Brook. It is one of the more significant watercourses in the area between Lumley and Fishbourne. All the other major watercourses in this area flowing from the Downs to the Harbour form the basis of a proposed wildlife corridor and it is inconsistent to exclude the Ham Brook.