Plan should show details of sites proposed within BLD.

I have read the published documentation on the above subject as carefully as is possible, given the restrictions on cross-referencing whilst using a screen. My reaction is that the report is really about the immediate area of Chichester and that, where I live in Southbourne, is of less importance. Should this not be the case, perhaps you could tell me why, please, that so little space and detail is given to an area which is designated to take more than 10% of the housing requirements for the area?

Two paragraphs seem to sum up reasons why. I shall quote them below:
Southbourne and Tangmere will continue to grow and develop their role as settlement hubs by widening the range and improving the quality of public open space, leisure and community facilities for their respective local areas. For Southbourne, the aim is to take advantage of the village's good transport links and existing facilities to deliver significant new residential-led development within the broad location for development which will further enhance local facilities and offer opportunities to reinforce and supplement existing public transport, including bus routes.

Southbourne is a 'Settlement Hub' with a good range of services and facilities, and rail connectivity. As a sustainable settlement, Southbourne has been identified as a location suitable for a comprehensively masterplanned mixed use development of 1,050 dwellings, with local employment, education provision and appropriate community facilities. The Plan identifies a broad location for development (BLD) at Southbourne, which means that the development site boundary will be determined at a later stage, either through a site allocations development plan document or through the neighbourhood plan.

I guess that the definitions 'Settlement Hub' and 'BLD' - whatever they mean - give licence to the Council to 'balance their books' by dumping the excess housing needs over what other areas can take into Southbourne without definition of the 'where' such provision is expected to be met, especially given your claim that the are has been 'identified' for such purpose. This is not good enough! The plan should show detail of sites proposed. Anyway, the sheer number of houses is objectionable.

But, I do complement the Council for their humour. The suggestion that Southbourne enjoys good transport links is a real LOL moment! It also shows that the report's authors do not live in Southbourne, or have ever tried to get to appointments using either public transport or the local road system. Even allowing for the current disruptions caused by strikes, maintenance works, lack of staff, etc., the service provided on both rail and bus networks is very poor and unreliable. So much so that even we have been forced to return to use of the car where timing is important. And, then, of course, we meet the problem of the road system with its huge inadequacies and under provision. Not your finest moment.

I could go on but you have, probably, stopped reading by now as this is not the stuff you want to read.
• My overall verdict on the document is that it is poor.
• My overall verdict on the proposals is 'dream on'.
• My overall expectation on the outcome is that it matters not a jot what I (or anyone else when it comes to it!) says, as we shall be stuffed with whatever the Council decides, come what may. After all, it is financially rewarding the them (via the Council Tax levy) to build as many properties as possible and in areas where 'the take' is enhanced, like Southbourne.