Concerning Section 4.2 “Local Context” and 4.5 – 4.7 “Locational Sustainability”

My concern with the existing housing developments (proposed and ongoing) to the North and East of Chichester City is that they are of a scale (dwellings numbering several thousand in total) that introduces a very significant additional number of households to an area that may already be unsustainably trying to support the existing 25,000 or so district households. It isn't clear, to a general public audience, how the current number of dwellings being delivered has been reached with sustainability in mind.

It may be useful to provide a transparent and practical formula for estimating an appropriate initial dwellings quantity into this section of the IPS so that new households can be introduced sustainably into an area without overloading the existing local infrastructures that are already under stress (e.g. GP surgeries, dental practices, post offices, schools, and employment opportunities).

Further, there should be a clear limit placed on the distance of travel between new development sites and the location of existing local infrastructure that households within these new developments are expected to depend upon. For sustainability purposes, existing infrastructures beyond a defined walking distance should be considered out of reach of new development sites, demanding the inclusion of such infrastructures within the development site.


Concerning Section 6.2.6 - Wildlife Corridors

In general, although acknowledgement of wildlife corridors alludes to the existence of wildlife habitats at either end of them, there is little recognition of the shrinking size of the terminal habitat areas. For the benefit of wildlife sustainability, habitat areas need to be recognised by fixed boundaries that are monitored for encroachment as each new housing development is proposed.

For each of our critical species it is possible to calculate a “stock” density above which they will begin to suffer from habitat stresses and fall under threat. Although some of our semi-rural species may tolerate expansion of the Chichester City conurbation (e.g. urban foxes, garden birds), or be able to migrate safely into the neighbouring South Downs National Park (e.g. deer, buzzards, sparrowhawks), there are many more species dependent upon the lakes and waterways of the lowlands outside the National Park. These latter species will find it harder, if not impossible, to thrive or survive as their habitats are encroached upon and modified by housing developments and the change in the nature of land use.

At present, there appears to be very little acknowledgement of where wildlife is expected to move to as new sites are proposed for housing development, and little concept of how their population sizes should be preserved or managed. Sustainable developments demand that the area of land available for all uses is finite, and we should be encouraging the protected management of lands that lie between our existing conurbations (at the centre of our interests) and our geographical or authoritative boundaries around the periphery.


Concerning Sections 6.2.8 & 6.2.10 – Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

There appears to be the opportunity to emphasise the importance of cycle paths, footpaths, and public transport infrastructure within these provisions of sustainable transport. The latest housing estates in the area remain very focussed on layouts and features specific to private car ownership (parking bays and garages), whereas it would be forward-looking to design roadways with covered/sheltered bus stopping zones and housing with better provision for the secure storage and ease of access for bicycles.