* We should be doing more to develop our coastal area and grow our tourism industry allowing the manhood peninsula to thrive, by further increasing homes and businesses, above the proposed numbers. Many other towns and villages along the coastal areas of Britain take advantage of their location to improve their economy. I would like to see increased numbers of homes and businesses on the area south of the A27 to Selsey. Infrastructure improvements are required to take full advantage of the opportunities, rather than limiting growth because of the existing infrastructure. A thriving economy is crucial for a sustainable district and tourism opportunities should be maximized. The proposals for new homes in areas such as Selsey, East Witterings and Bracklesham are too low to help grow our tourism industry.
* I disagree that Fishbourne Village can be considered as a Service Village. It has limited facilities, no surgery, no shops. It has a Primary school that is always at full capacity with waiting lists. The community centre provides a wide range of facilities that are already very successful, and as a result serves a wider geographical area; it does not rely on Fishbourne to sustain itself. Yet proposals suggest that Fishbourne can accommodate the same as, for example, Bosham who have shops, takeaways, pubs, and a GP surgery, and accommodate more houses than Hunston, who also have many more facilities than Fishbourne.
* There doesn't appear to be any consideration to the wildlife on the West side of Fishbourne, where a wealth of wildlife can be observed include kites, buzzards, watervoles, Brent geese, and bats. Building on the West side of Fishbourne will have a significant impact.
* As a result of the late introduction to a wildlife corridor to the East of Fishbourne, land availability in the village has been reduced and no longer has the capacity for 250 new houses. The allocated number of 250 homes in Fishbourne should be reduced to allow for the removal of potential land available for development.
* The only land available to build in Fishbourne will be on Bethwines Farm, and we should be seeking opportunities to use land that isn't existing farmland, e.g. increasing use of brownfield sites in other location. Losing the farm will impact on jobs and the village landscaping. Your policies states that we should 'protect the landscape, character, quality and tranquility of the countryside it is essential to prevent inappropriate development'. Development of this scale in Fishbourne does not meet this policy.
* If planning is agreed for Bethwines Farm, the developer will be purchasing the whole farm. The village will lose a farm and it will increase the likelihood of further development. I would propose that the number of homes with Fishbourne is reduced to allow for these factors.