I have the following comments to make:
General
The local authority must keep up pressure and continue to challenge the government on the calculation of so-called housing need based on flawed logic and designed to service unsustainable growth rather than dealing with the actual needs of the area. It is an outrage that the area might be forced to take an increased allocation of housing due to a technicality as it cannot cope with the current allocation as it is.
I was concerned to read in last week's Chichester Observer that CDC, before the end if the consultation, has stated that it wishes to streamline and support the planning application process so as not to present a barrier to development and wants to invite developers to intensify and speed up development, proposing a number of dubious schemes to expedite this. This does not bode well and one wonders if this consutation is simply about paying lip service to the process as major developers have demonstrated that they have much greater power than the electorate (and sometimes the Council itself).
Sustainability 4.6 & 7
The scale and density of the current sites would already seem to go against the wording of the plan, even before the increase.
The current sewerage issues are well documented but I am concerned about the longer term impact of this, despite the Tangmere project, and also water supply sustainability with open-ended housing allocations. Just at what point from a sustainability perspective will enough be enough?
The area currently has issues with availability of GP surgeries, dentists etc and yet housing is already being built without these agreed additional facilties. How is this allowed to happen.
With a proposed increased population in the Chichester and Arun districts, how long can current services at St Richards remain sustainable? What steps are being put in place to ensure that current residents do not suffer any loss of services because of this?
Access to Highways
Given the current A27 issue this is, frankly, risible and access is set to be at the expense of current residents, eg the closure of the Oving traffic lights and changes due to the Whitehouse Farm development. Little or no mitigation is proposed to deal with the chaos and gridlock the additional traffic will have on the A27 and surrounding roads, also bearing in mind the overdevelopment in Arun and east Hampshire. No account seems to have been taken of the increased pollution levels all this will cause, going against green policies. Indeed, scheduled bus services such as the one covering Graylingwell have already been reduced as residents need or still prefer to use their cars. This is a human reality which needs to be addressed and won't be mitigated by providing more cycle lanes.
Affordable housing
Developers have already made use of planning loopholes to reduce the allocation of affordable and social housing. Pressure needs to be put on the government to tighten this up as is it is the one area where there is already a genuine local housing need. It is unlikely that in this area, flooding the market with housing will cause a marked reduction in house prices.
Greenbelt land and other location issues
I have serious concerns about the ease with which developers are given permission to build on greenbelt land. I have it on extremely good authority that it is the deliberate intention by the government that this will happen. Developers certainly seem to have the upper hand when it comes to appeals and there are numerous sites on the internet on how major developers in particular can get round planning loopholes. To prevent (mitigate) even more urban sprawl, this should always be challenged. The same should happen for proposals to build on floodplains or, given climate change, potential floodplains, and this doesn't seem to be happening.
Conclusion
Whilst the interim plan clearly sets out worthy intentions, it is the application of these when dealing with developers that I am sceptical of, with particular reference to environmental and infrastructure issues, and I would argue that CDC has already failed to quite an extent with the current plan.
If all goes ahead as the government plans, as it inevitably will, to the permanent detriment to the area, as a quid pro quo for being forced to provide housing for growth purposes, the authority needs to demand that Highways England builds a northern by-pass whilst continuing to fund the A27!