There were hundreds of objections to this development.
The site is not suitable.
The site should be removed from the housing allocation.

The proposed allocation of the site in policy A11 does not correlate with the plan for sustainable transport due to there being no primary school allocation on the site.

The proposed local plan on page 40 states:

“3.35.  The settlement hierarchy has been defined in relation to the presence of certain services and facilities. The list of services and facilities considered included:

Convenience stores;
Primary schools... “

There is no primary school proposed on the site and the village site is at capacity without the land to expand. The local primary schools in the area are all at capacity. The schools West Sussex County Council have identified for the proposed development are in the Bourne area. These include:

Compton and Up Marden (10.9 miles)
Funtington Primary (3 miles)
Thorney Island (5.6 miles)
Westbourne (6.6 miles)
Southbourne (3.9 miles)
Chidham (2.4 miles)

Only Bosham and Chidham Primary are within walking distance and neither Bosham nor Chidham currently have spaces or space to expand.

The other schools proposed are too far away to walk and are mostly rural with poor public transport links. This will likely mean reliance on private cars to transport children to school. This contradicts the proposed aims of the local plan on page 200 which states:

“8.8. Increasing the capacity of the road network is key to supporting growth in the Local Plan. However, there is also a need to reduce demand for road transport to achieve net zero in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 as highlighted in the council’s Climate Emergency Action Plan and Strategic Objective 1. In aiming to achieve the ambitions of the action plan, all development is expected to demonstrate how it will support three key objectives to create an integrated transport network which will alleviate pressure on the road network, improve highway safety, encourage sustainable travel behaviours and help reduce transport related impact on air quality, by:

1. Avoiding or reducing the need to travel by car;
2. Enabling access to sustainable means of travel, including public transport,
walking and cycling;
3. Mitigating the impacts of travel by car.”

Residents have expressed concern about congestion the development is likely to cause based on 300 additional cars being used to transport children to school and this is acknowledged in the plan. The proposed plan on page 199 states:

“8.3. Road congestion is a major concern for residents and businesses in the plan area; in particular, congestion around the junctions of the A27 Chichester by-pass which in turn, leads to congestion on the local road network as drivers seek alternative routes, increasing traffic speed and flow on those alternative routes.”

This proposed development without a primary school is not avoiding or reducing the need to travel by car and will increase reliance on private cars and exacerbate congestion and nor can this choice of schools for the proposed site be argued to enable access to sustainable means of travel, including public transport, walking or cycling as the schools proposed are mainly in rural areas without public transport links and too far to make walking or cycling viable alternatives.

The development proposed in policy A11 appears to be inconsistent with the NPPF which states:

“It is important that a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities. Local planning authorities should take a proactive, positive and collaborative approach to meeting this requirement, and to development that will widen choice in education. They should:

give great weight to the need to create, expand or alter schools through the preparation of plans and decisions on applications; and 

work with school promoters, delivery partners and statutory bodies to identify and resolve key planning issues before applications are submitted.”

Planning a development of the size proposed in policy A11 whilst knowing that there is no capacity because of the land constraint to expand the schools within walking distance, means that children will have to travel far out of the village for education provision. This is a key issue which does not appear to have been resolved before the application was submitted.