Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 35

Received: 24/12/2018

Respondent: Karen Fielder

Representation Summary:

6.63 Fishbourne has limited, not reasonable facilities and services, and the suggestion that further housing is required to sustain these existing facilities is disingenuous. Building a further 250 dwelling does not constitute sustainable development in this context. Furthermore the figure of min. 250 new dwellings must be challenged, and the National Park should be compelled to take an increased share of the housing burden for the District.
6.65 pt2 must refer to the relationship with Bosham as well as Chichester City.

Full text:

6.63 Fishbourne has a limited range of facilities and services, not reasonable, and it is somewhat perverse to suggest that an increase in population is necessary to sustain these services. Truly sustainable growth will not be achieved by building 250 more dwellings in the village. Whilst there is a Tesco Superstore to the east side of the village this is not within walking distance for most of the population and there is no convenience store, no banking facilities, no post office. There is no GP surgery within walking distance. We are fortunate to have a train halt, but the service is poor and unreliable. The village bus service (no. 56) is infrequent and currently under review. The 700 is a good service but it is not a village bus and does not serve a significant proportion of the community. The primary school is full. Many local roads are unsuitable for any significant increase in road traffic and the Fishbourne roundabout is notorious. There is little choice but to head into Chichester, generally by car, for even basic services and facilities. On the other hand the Community Centre, the Roman Palace and the church hall are all excellent facilities and achieve a great deal in building community cohesion in an otherwise poorly serviced and dispersed village.

The requirement for min. 250 new dwellings must be challenged. Fishbourne has already absorbed a significant number of new properties and very little development land remains. Can the demand for this number of properties be evidenced? What is the basis for future predicted needs? The proportion of land within District that has potential for development is (rightly) constrained by its precious natural environment but the National Park must take an increased share of the housing burden.

6.65, pt2 - should refer also to the relationship with Bosham as well as Chichester City. This is critical to retaining village identity and the rural character of the village.