Policy S30: Strategic Wildlife Corridors

The wording is unclear and contradictory.

The final paragraph seems specific to 'minor' development' and if this is the case [which i consider it should be] then the word 'Major' needs to be inserted at the beginning of the first paragraph.

Insufficient work on strategic corridors has been done for a district with so many important habitat sites. Most work to date had focussed on one corridor (to the west of the city) while inadequate resources have been given to provide corridors linking the district's international habitat sites (Chichester and Pagham Harbours and Medmerry). More work also needs to be done to ensure that the corridor to the west of Chichester would be the most appropriate corridor to link the harbour with the SDNP

I support the inclusion of wildlife corridors in the local plan as they are vital to a viable ecological network within the whole district and will ensure there are both permanent green links between the AONB and South Downs National Park. This network will not only support wildlife but provide spaces to be close to nature - so important for our own health and well-being. I notice from the maps that the corridors do not extend all the way across the peninsulars in Chichester Harbour but appear to just end at the sea - it is important that they join together at the southern end for maximum benefit.

The Chichester Local Plan Review has much to recommend it, and it is obviously the result of a lot of careful work by the Planning Officers. But I should like to comment on two aspects.

(A) The future relationship between the proposed Local Plan and Local Traffic Flows. This needs to be clarified in order to make sure Chichester fit for sustainable living and possible climate change by 2030, in line with the recommendations by the International Committee on Climate Change. Local traffic is the main air pollutant for Chichester. Recent data from the Office for National Statistics shows that Chichester produces more pollution per had than Hastings and Worthing together. This needs to be substantially reduced by establishing an integrated and sustainable plan for future traffic flows. I submit there must be a much sharper distinction between through traffic and local traffic, notably along the A27 and the A 286. Rather than simply introducing traffic light controls along the A27 (which is a start) I suggest that there should be individual permits for residents cars (and delivery traffic). This could be augmented by a 'park and deliver' system adjacent to the A 27 as part of the Southern Gateway plan, where long distance deliveries could be transferred to local electrically-powered delivery vehicles.
(B) There are two fields lying to the south of the Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve abutting onto the north side of the B2178. They have currently been included in Phase 1 of the policy for the land West of Chichester (Policy AL1), and designated as an open space as part of a putative country park. There is also a plan in the current development plan for a strategic wildlife corridor linking Chichester Harbour to the South Downs National Park. I consider that the two fields which lie to the south of Brandy Hole Copse should be integrated along with Brandy Hole Copse into the proposed wildlife corridor. They could, for example become wildlife meadows, accompanied by a strategic policy of tree planting, which would not prevent them from becoming a key aspect of the putative country park, where children could play and rediscover nature.. PERHAPS THE TWO PARTS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT COULD LIAISE ON THIS BEFORE THE PHASE ONE PROPOSALS FOR AN S.106 AGREEMNT FOR THESE TWO FIELDS ARE SIGNED OFF WITH THE DEVELOPERS.

As a local resident in Fishbourne for 34 years I have so much change to the village. Whilst appreciating that development has been imposed on the village surely we can't allow such a development on Bethwines farm which is the only natural land belt between Fishbourne and Bosham. We must preserve our valuable farm land. This farm land has been worked for as long as I can remember and how are we to teach our children and grand children to respect our rural land scape if we rob them from the opportunity.

If we are to provide housing would it not be more sustainable to do so from smaller parcels of land leaving this open farm land. We will have no natural drainage if we develop such large areas. My believe is that the natural wildlife corridor should be on Bethwines not Clay Lane.
Please save this Farm Land.

I would be interested to know how this corridor has been agreed !

The impact on traffic and schooling would be immense. We really must take stock of our village and sympathetically develop.

Do we actually need so many houses. Has anyone looked at houses available for sale in Fishbourne of recent !

I wish to see enforcement of penalties against those who adversely affect a wildlife corridor.
The presumption should always be in favour of maintaining the full benefit of a wildlife corridor, not setting out circumstances in which damage to it is permitted.

Minor development is ONLY acceptable when it does not cause damage, and enforcement/ full restoration notices will be used where damage is caused.

Ensure strategic road improvements are not blocked by wildlife corridors, with some mitigation of road developments to allow movement of wildlife to continue. This will allow for an A27 northern route to be safeguarded, and ensure the route of a western relief road (as identified some years ago by WSCC) is safeguarded.

Recognize the strategic value of Centurion Way as an existing wildlife corridor, as it is one of the few routes that already connects the South Downs with Chichester Harbour. It would be a helpful development to identify and protect a link westwards from its southern end towards Fishbourne, running north of Clay Lane.

I have some comments on the Chichester Local Plan I wish to submit:

1) S28 and DM24 Pollution
This policy as it is not detailed enough. I would like to see more monitoring and more measures to be included in this policy to ensure actions are taken. These should include Clean Air Zones introduced, cleaner buses, car free day, workplace parking levy, anti-idling zones, increased pedestrianised areas in our villages and towns, better joined up cycle network

2) Policy AL6 - Land South-West of Chichester
I am opposed to the Stockbridge Relief Road and the allocation of houses to Apuldram and Donnington as it is too close to the AONB, on a floodplain and destroys prime agricultural land.

3) DM 16 Sustainable Design and Construction
The plan should acknowledge the need for the area to become carbon neutral in order to prevent climate change.
Manchester has committed that all new buildings will be net-zero carbon. This should be included in the Chichester Plan.

4) DM17 Stand-alone Renewable Energy
The plan should put aside space for renewable energy as a priority. We need space for wind turbines, battery storage and more solar panels on the roofs. Provision may be required on the coast for enabling the connection of an off-shore wind farm.

5) SA5 Southern Gateway
This policy needs to deliver better plans for people walking and cycling.
The green space should be preserved and an additional pocket park added to the area

The city needs a welcoming bus and train station, a proper public transport hub with toilets, tourist information, waiting area in the dry, warm and shade and proper information with RTPI screens (not just bus stops). The current bus and stations are hideous and unwelcoming and are not in keeping with the rest of the city.

6) S23 Transport and Accessibility
A coordinated package of improvements to junctions within the city is missing from this policy.

The roundabouts on Westhampnett Road near Sainsbury's, New Park Road near the new Coop, Eastgate, Northgate, Westgate and Southgate need redesigning to allocate more space to people on bikes and on foot.

More bus lanes and a linked up and continuous network of proper, protected cycle lanes need to be introduced.

St Paul's Road and Bognor Road need to have less private car parking to enable sustainable means to be prioritised - bus and bike lanes.

Transport measures need to ensure that we reduce our carbon footprint as emissions in this sector are still on the rise.

7) Policy S5 - Parish Housing Requirements
A Second home policy should be introduced to prevent an over dominance of new homes being sold to non-residents.

8) Policy S30
Wildlife Corridors need support but the wording needs to be made stronger so that development within this corridor is not permitted. The plan needs a stronger commitment to the preservation of wildlife within the area, in its current form it is lacking.

All proposals should demonstrate that they will have a net zero impact on climate change in line with the government's commitment in 2008 Climate Change Act as a signatory to COP21 Paris Agreement and the IPCC's report published in the autumn of 2018.

1. The proposed wildlife corridor for Clay Lane Fishbourne to be reconsidered, freeing the site for house building if necessary.
2.Reject any building on Bethwines Farm Fishbourne.House building here would reduce the countryside gap with Bosham and generate urban sprawl.It would also reduce valuable agricultural (A2) capacity and have a determinant affect on views across country to the west and to the south downs national park..

Including Wildlife corridors is admirable. However designated strategic wildlife corridors in the view of professional conservationists do little good when they are too close to the the hostile A27 bypass and other busy roads/rail network and urbanised areas with little green space and are too narrow to support the wildlife as do not go far enough in their coverage. They recommend that a single much wider corridor, which would provide wildlife with the natural space in which to move, connect with other ecological networks and breed undisturbed. The West of City corridors positioning seem at odds with 5.23 Transport infrastructure, CDC's resolution to support a northern alignment to the A27 as they are positioned in areas of the entrance/exit points onto the A27. This begs the question are these corridors' positioning meant to help the wildlife or are they merely self serving? Have any other areas been explored when the CDC focused on these? I wish to raise this with the examiner.

The aim is good, but needs backing up with much more robust legislation. These corridors should be protected from development in perpetuity.
There should be a statutory duty to protect these corridors from development, and to increase their number and scope as more and more infrastructure is built in the area. The pressure on wildlife is increasing all the time.

Any area designated as a wildlife corridor should never be considered for development for housing, roads etc.

Fishbourne has an over-subscribed primary school, a well-supported community centre and playing fields but no convenience store or doctors' surgery. What it also has is the most beautiful open view to the west to the horizon where you can see wonderful sunsets which everyone can enjoy. It is imperative that this landscape be preserved.

For most everyday living, the use of a car is a necessity.

As Fishbourne is squeezed between the harbour and the A27, the only land available for potential development is Clay Lane towards Chichester or Bethwines Farm.

When a planning application for 200 dwellings was submitted for Bethwines Farm in 2008, this generated over 330 letters of objection including those from Chichester Harbour Conservancy, Fishbourne Parish Council, Bosham Association, Chichester Society, Environment Agency, Natural England. This application was withdrawn before it could be refused. Today would be no different.

Any development here would only harm the environment and would certainly not enhance the landscape and rural character of the area. Once this countryside is gone, Fishbourne would not be the attractive village it currently is and one could well be living in surburbia.

Bethwines Farm is good quality farm land and domestic food production is of strategic national importance. By building on part of it, it could seriously prejudice the viable agricultural operations of the farm and would do nothing to enhance the area's biodiversity and wildlife habitats.

Access via Blackboy Lane would be problematic due to its narrow width and, due to existing development and ditches, there is no opportunity to provide a pavement all the way down to the A259.

There would undoubtedly be a huge increase of traffic travelling down Blackboy Lane trying to join the A259, which is already very busy, with the subsequent increase of traffic through the conservation area of Fishbourne to the Tesco roundabout.

There will be increased recreational pressure on Chichester Harbour and its wildlife.

There is potential for flooding below the site and the run-off being discharged into the harbour.

Clay Lane, in comparison, is very scrubby, unattractive land with no notable outlook. It is preferable to develop poorer quality agricultural land rather than the best. To my knowledge, this land has never been used to grow crops. By developing here, most traffic will travel along Clay Lane towards Chichester, thus avoiding the Tesco roundabout and the A27.

Hopefully, this site would encourage developers to build smaller properties that are needed for first-time buyers rather than large detached homes for in-comers.

A development site is currently underway in Clay Lane nearer to Chichester and one has also been completed in Clay Lane along from its junction with Salthill Road.

I understand that a 'wildlife corridor' is proposed to the west of Chichester. Due to the current building work in Clay Lane and the Whitehouse Farm development, it would be eminently more sensible to provide this wildlife corridor to the west of Fishbourne. The link could easily be made from the top of Chichester Harbour to the South Downs National Park.

The area round Bethwines Farm has enormous diversity. Buzzards, starlings, sparrows, owls, bats, woodpeckers, deer, hedgehogs, harvest mice, slow worms, partridges are regularly seen. In contrast, I don't recall seeing any wildlife along Clay Lane.

In addition, if another road is to come into Tesco roundabout from the south west Apuldram/Donnington, I hate to think of the chaos this will cause with even more traffic travelling along the A259.

Essential that meaningful wildlife corridors are installed.Agencies with expertise must be employed at the earliest planning stage and their recommendations must be instigated.Places such the AONB of Chichester must be afforded the greatest protection as the biodiversity is unique and should not be compromised. Chichester is unique in biodiversity and it is a jewel that should be nurtured completely at every stage and not dismissed.as your plan says, people choose Chichester because of the unique environments...please don't shoot yourselves in the foot by destroying it !!

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.
As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Resident of West Wittering
The Wild Life Corridors do not appear to give a robust rural link between the areas of special protection. Clear links should interlink the AONB, SDNP. Pagham Harbour and Medmerry.

There needs to be very careful definition of control of what constitutes minor development in wildlife corridors; AL6 for instance will squeeze the corridor and probably have a significant detrimental impact.

It is incomprehensible how anyone who lives in this area would contemplate permission for the number of homes that are being forced upon the local communities when this part of the country is so special. One would have to be blind not to look at a map of the South East of England and realise its slow death from concrete and congestion and here - especially west of Chichester is the last remaining foothold of sanity along the coast.
Chichester, a beautiful County Capital, is a Roman walled city with a Georgian centre - its roads reflect this wonderful heritage - THEY WERE NOT MADE FOR MODERN TRAFFIC LEVELS. This has a knock-on effect upon nearby villages including FISHBOURNE. The position of the Chichester Plains including FISHBOURNE is that it is caught between the SDNP and the sea. But that is no reason to concrete it over. All this is in YOUR CARE.Y

FISHBOURNE - The Present State
Fishbourne cannot be accused of Nimbyism - it has built more than the required number of houses requested on sensitive, sustainable sites and therefore there is no moral justification whatsoever to inflict the community with 250 more. There has been no explanation as to why this number and why Fishbourne from the CDC. Apparently the CDC has decided to classify Fishbourne as a 'service village'. Has anyone actually been to Fishbourne to verify this classification?
The truth is:
Fishbourne Parish Council has already submitted and enacted upon the Neighbourhood Plan with the full involvement and support from the local community.
Fishbourne has already reached its boundaries. It is crucial to the well being of communities and in the spirit of the Government's policies to prevent 'coalescence' of villages.
Fishbourne is a Conservation Area and the FISHBOURNE MEADOWS are a crucial part of it.
The Primary School is already filled with children from the catchment area. The Fishbourne Centre is so popular it is functioning at full capacity. The local church and its hall is likewise functioning at full capacity. The Fishbourne Playing Field facilities provide not only tennis courts, bowls, croquet, cricket, etc. and a fully equipped children's outdoor secure play area. All these are used on a regular basis. There is no doubt that Fishbourne is a thriving and active community and therefore there is NO CASE for further growth.

The Disastrous Consequences of Mass Unnecessary and Unwanted Development
If this is 'forced' upon the community it will break every democratically arrived at Policy of the Parish Council and anger the vast majority of residents for, by permitting a few houses on Bethwines Farm will open up the floodgates to 1000. This will destroy valuable green field agricultural land. It will exacerbate flooding. Will cause untold traffic congestion for with every household there will be two cars as a minimum creating gridlock on local roads. Will heighten the already dangerous levels of air pollution. The local sewerage plant in Apuldram is already at breaking point. All this on top of the already permitted 1600 homes at Whitehouse Farm north of Fishbourne. The chaos and damage to the roads, the noise, the mud, the dust, potential danger to locals due to confined sites etc during construction which could take years not months. The agricultural land in this area is of special importance to the national production of horticulture. It provides employment to 9,000 and creates £1 billion in sales - substantial statistics.
CHICHESTER HARBOUR
Is an AONB, an SSSI, a Ramsar, an SAC, an SPA, an SINC/SNCI, a Conservation Area, a Local Wildlife Site, and a Local Nature Reserve. This is the JEWEL IN THE CROWN. It is the duty of every citizen, especially those in Authority, to safeguard this valuable, irreplaceable asset, unharmed for the nation and future generations. NOTHING should be permitted that would endanger it in any way. So why is the Chichester District Council not fighting the Government to protect it? To protect it from:
Mass Developments that are not NEEDED that will damage the waters through flooding - including Apuldram sewerage outflow, will create pollution from additional traffic, will disturb the wildlife and tranquillity from growing disturbances, will create light pollution, and with the growth in population create damaging levels of litter, and many more.
A259 -Main Road
This is the only access for all the developments being planned and being built in Bosham, Chidham, Nutbourne and Southbourne (hundreds and in some instances thousands) that will accumulate at Fishbourne roundabout in order to access the A27 and the City. This route is the only one that all delivery trucks and all agricultural machinery can use. The traffic will continue to grow along this road as the bus schedules are being cut and the SW train service seems to be in permanent decline. This road is also the boundary to the Chichester Harbour Trust. How then will the CDC enforce the protections of the Trust? AIR POLLUTION
AIR POLLUTION
The UN in June 2017 is quoted as saying: 'Air pollution is Europe's leading environment killer'.
NAEI have a map of the Chichester Plains where the average levels are 0.1 - 0.3 but Fishbourne and Donnington roundabouts already reach 25!
Friends of the Earth are quoted as saying 'Costs to the UK of air pollution runs to £20 billion.
Living Streets say '80% of toxic nitrogen oxide concentrations are found at roadsides from motor traffic'.
'40,000 deaths annually are attributed to air pollution'
'38 out of 43 UK zones exceeded legal levels of nitrogen oxide emission in 2013.'
The UK is breaking the law with its current air pollution levels.
We now have children dying with 'air pollution' on their death certificates.
THE LEVELS AT FISHBOURNE ROUNDABOUT ARE ALREADY BREAKING LEGAL LIMITS
So what will these levels reach :
When all these 2250 scheduled developments with two cars per unit take place using the only road available - A259.
When the TRAFFIC DOUBLES OVER THE THREE SUMMER MONTHS creating gridlock down to the Manhood Peninsular
When your proposed Stockbridge link road - whose construction will break all the criteria laid down in the CDC policies by building across major flood plains, by restricting the protected views of the Cathedral, by building on the protected Fishbourne Meadows and into the AONB of Chichester Harbour, and end up TAKING ALL THE TRAFFIC ON TO THE FISHBOURNE ROUNDABOUT.
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
The last minute offer of a Wildlife Corridor in an attempt to mitigate the horrors being inflicted upon this community you have placed in a narrow strip to the east of the village. This will immediately be irrelevant for it is too narrow, will pass through a built up environment which will lead to disturbances throughout the day, will lead to noise pollution, will lead to light pollution and will therefore NOT PROVIDE a safe haven for any wildlife. The obvious position for such a corridor would be to the WEST of FISHBOURNE where the open agricultural green field sites will enable all forms of wildlife to access both the Harbour Conservancy and the National Park safely.
THE A27
What is the point of this whole exercise when there has been no decision on the route of the A27. Until the CDC issues correct data on present traffic flows, until the CDC issues correct data on 'projected' traffic flows, until the CDC recognises that this is a NATIONAL STRATEGIC road and NOT A LOCAL road, until the CDC re presents the NORTHERN option, then no permissions for further developments should take place.
The Secretary of State for Housing is quoted as saying: 'The message it (NPPF) sends is clear and direct; we want the right number of homes in the right places. CENTRAL TO THIS IS THE VOICE OF THE COMMUNITIES.'
As the community's elected representatives it is your duty to protect the National Assets in this area. It is your duty to provide 'sustainable' developments that do not create or add to the highway safety, air pollution or any other damage to your communities. This area does not NEED new three/four bedroom houses. What it does need is AFFORDABLE housing. Part of the relief could come from allowing Affordable housing in the SDNP which would halt the decline of the communities, fill the empty schools, and provide continuing regeneration. Jake Berry MP in the Ministry of Housing has said that WHERE HOUSING IS NEEDED IS IN THE NORTH where the region is undergoing regeneration and businesses are relocating.
THE FISHBOURNE COMMUNITY
The Fishburne community has acted in good faith throughout this whole exercise. It is now up to the CDC to support it.

I support the proposed wildlife corridor policy and the NPFF which states that wildlife rich habitats should be safeguarded, including wildlife corridors and the stepping stones that connect them. Conserving and sustainably managing biodiversity is critical to addressing climate change and meeting government's commitment in 2008 Climate Change Act.

I am registering my 100% objection to any further building in Fishbourne if it means the destruction of Bethwines. This village is being swamped by new houses and there are few facilities for new families. We do not have a station, but a halt, and two of the main routes are lanes, not highways. I find that many of your comments are contradictory.
You say you wish to protect the rural areas (quote:That the scale, siting, design and materials of the development would have minimal impact on the landscape and rural character of the area), but in the same breath you want to cover the area in concrete.
You say Fishbourne is a service village which is utter nonsense. The school is full to bursting so why on earth do new families need to come in to make sure the school stays open? There is no risk of it being under-subscribed with the population we already have.
Fishbourne, if I'm right, has 900 houses already with the prospect of 1600 on Whitehouse, but that isn't enough for you! This development is already not simply development, it is social change, and turning Fishbourne into a small town with few corresponding amenities. We have a church, a primary school, a dentist, 2 pubs & a small restaurant, a kennels, a beauty salon, a hairdresser (I think she's still there) and a thriving centre for sports and activities. There are also self-employed plumbers, gardeners etc, but the huge majority of people here go elsewhere to work, in a semi-circle from Southampton to Aldershot to London to Brighton and all along the coast back to here. The strain on the roads & public transport systems will be huge.
You say you want to keep pollution to a minimum. How will that be possible with a massive increase in traffic?
You realise the importance of farming and feeding the country yet you are considering turning Bethwines into a housing estate. This option should have been rejected at the start, whether or not a building company bought the option from a lady who was in the early stages of dementia at the time. It is scandalous that this is even still on the table and that the owner is embroiled in court cases with the company & left to her own devices to deal with it, when she should be supported by you.
The so-called 'wildlife corridor' is a nonsense. Are we to teach wildlife to read so that they know where they will be 'allowed' to roam? The deer & rabbits are already losing Whitehouse & now they're supposed to know that they must keep to Clay Lane! Bethwines has deer, rabbits, pheasants, hedgehogs, birds and bats galore. After 50 years in Godwin Way the only animals I have ever seen in the Chi end of Clay Lane are the sheep and cows on the small-holding.
I know farmers who have tried to cultivate the land along Clay Lane but it is impossible to do - as it's Clay! - whereas Bethwines is fertile and very productive. Construction has already started in Clay Lane anyway so the sensible logical thing to do would be to continue. Nobody would be bothered by further building, Fishbourne & Bosham would remain separate, & Blackboy Lane would not need to be turned into a highway.
You have been given the custodianship of this area & trusted by the electorate to promote it, look after it for future generations & create a sustainably developed area for everyone. You would appear on paper to want this, but actions speak louder than words and you do not appear to be respecting your own standards. You cannot roll over and accept diktats handed down by those who do not live here, do not know the area & have no clue about how things work here. And that includes James Brokenshire whose name belies his job title!
Chichester was an adorable market town and people have seen to it that it has changed practically beyond all recognition - so many say 'Chichester is not what it was - such a shame'. Please do not turn all the villages into sprawling housing estates. Please do not be party to the destruction of our area. Tourism brings in millions of £s but people who come here do not come to see vast housing estates, they come for the beauty of the area. We humans are but temporary fixtures and should be safeguarding and caring for the land so that we pass on in good condition what has been ours for our generation to enjoy, not destroy. An area is in the hands of its leaders, it cannot change of its own volition. It is wrong to say Chichester is changing as it cannot, by itself. Chichester is changing because of what we do to it and if you, as its professional guardians, ruin it, then what will your legacy be? Is that how you wish to be remembered? The councillors that allowed building all over the countryside, thus ruining it for the future? I rest my case whilst imploring you to think very carefully before you impose your dreadful planning on the area. Thank you.

I suggest that you go back to the drawing board and listen to what we the tax-paying residents know is best. We will accept some housing but we know where it should go. Outsiders with their clipboards, however well-qualified do not know as they have no local knowledge; for them it all looks good on paper & that is enough. Well it isn't enough and you are the only people who can do anything about this and who can call the shots, so I ask you to listen to us, act on what we know and say and do right by the area. This is not nimbyism, this is despair because I love this area & it breaks my heart to see what those who should know better are doing to it.

Development within Strategic Wildlife Corridors should not be permitted.

The importance of 'Wildlife Corridors' cannot be over emphasised.
For the last four years the Manhood Wildlife and Heritage Group has been working via the HLF funded FLOW (Fixing and Linking our Wetlands) Project to improve green connectivity between the three internationally important wildlife sites on and around the Peninsula. This enables creatures to move safely between them. Hedgerows, ditches and watercourses form these valuable links. Birds, bats, small mammals, insects and other invertebrates can travel and forage for food along them.
It is so important that this connectivity should continue beyond this relatively small area to provide passages and food for migrants and opportunities for species to reach new populations and thereby strengthen their gene pool that can become diluted and weakened in isolated populations, which may ultimately die out.
Our lovely coastal region is heavily developed and the pressure for new housing is enormous. It is vital that despite this these green corridors should be created and remain sacrosanct.
It is most likely difficult for many people to realise the importance of this to their own health and wellbeing. However the relationship between all of nature, from the smallest seed to the tallest tree, from the tiniest mite to the largest animal, is a complex but inexorable web of survival, of which humans are at the top. The more diverse the network the stronger it is. It affects the air we breathe, the food we eat and the way we feel. For every species that becomes extinct or eradicated from a region a small link in this invisible web is broken. In the last 25 years our insect population has declined by 75%; since the end of the last war Britain has lost 97% of its wild flowers and 300,000km of hedgerows; we are losing our pollinators like bumblebees (three species gone, 10 severely threatened). Since 1970 the WWF reports the global vertebrate population has declined by 60%. The web of life is being weakened.
So we therefore strongly request that Chichester District Council should ensure these green links exist between the coastal plain and the South Downs and that they are protected from encroaching development, thereby helping to maintain the biodiversity of this special area.
In our view, the wildlife corridors that have been planned, using the best evidence and research available, form an essential way of protecting species in a rapidly changing environment, and are the minimum requirement. I would suggest that there are also significant reasons for recognising and protecting a network of wildlife corridors within the Manhood Peninsula, which link to the major corridors, so that any development, however small, does not impact negatively on biodiversity.

It is vital to indentify and protect the wildlife corridors between areas of biodiversity, so that these do not not become squeezed into ever smaller islands of life, eventually dying out when condtions change adversely or become overcrowded. This is not something that can be done 'after the event', if it's done wrongly or without due consideration and planning, then these lifelines are lost forever to the detriment of the area and all who inhabit it.

Natural England welcomes the fact that the Council has identified strategic wildlife corridors. Our view is that this is important in meeting the requirements of the NPPF paragraph 170(d) for ecological networks.

However we would like to work with the Council to improve the policy in the following ways:
- The corridors are rather narrow, particularly in the 'East of the City', limiting their value for people and wildlife.
- links should be made to the National Park's bat protocol - there is significant opportunity for enhancement of habitat for foraging bats.
- We suggest amending clause 3 to include development further from the corridor, eg link could be made with the concept of net gain for biodiversity, whereby development could compensate for biodiversity loss by contributing to enhancement work within the corridor.
- Link should also be made to the Green Infrastructure policy as there is opportunity to create habitat for people and wildlife.
- We suggest amending clause 1 to make it clear that development within and in close proximity to the corridors will be avoided in the first instance.

For Strategic Wildlife Corridors - please add the following Policy.

Reference to existing linear features - especially where these features are predominantly naturalised (or can be) must predispose them for Formal Recognition as Strategic Wildlife Corridors.

High on this list should be Footpaths, Bridleways and Cycleways, Railway lines and Canal Courses - especially those where their route is largely away from Roads, and where a significant linkage for both Wildlife and Human travel is, or could be easily demonstrated. Thereby recognising a synergy in the needs of Wildlife and Humans in their need for safe transport routes and connectivity.

I fully support the inclusion of wildlife corridors in the Local Plan. I understand that local government has a duty to safeguard biodiversity in its actions and planning
(https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-implementing-the-biodiversity-duty)
and I appreciate that you are trying to do this with this action. However, I am concerned to note that although in the original Background Review paper on wildlife corridors there was a wildlife corridor running along the Hambrook on the Southbourne/Chidham boundary this corridor has not been included in the Local Plan (see map S30a). Being familiar with this habitat on the ground I am aware that it has very high value for wildlife, consisting of ancient mixed hedgerow and woodland bordering high quality wetland environment. The woodland supports several mammal species including woodmouse, fox and badger and I have also seen evidence of the presence of water voles which I understand have been actually seen on the stream through the woods. The habitat is of great importance for bats, birds, mammals as well as plants associated with ancient woodland and high water-quality streams in an area that is otherwise increasingly denuded of wildlife and I think you should return to your original evidence-based plan to include it in the Local Plan as a fifth wildlife corridor.
In addition is should be noted that there are strong groups of people locally, represented for instance by the Southbourne Environment Group and the Friends of Maybush Copse, who are active in supporting attempts to preserve and improve the wildlife habitat still left to us and would be prepared to take an active part in sensitive attempts to maintain and enhance the value of this wildlife corridor. This factor should not be underestimated as the success of the policy in the long-term will depend on local people taking 'ownership' of wildlife habitat to help ensure it does not degrade as development occurs around it. Also, this corridor has public access through existing rights of way and with sensitive arrangements in place to minimise wildlife disturbance can help enhance the mental health and wellbeing of the residents of the local area by continuing to allow access to wild greenspace that is being increasing restricted by the urbanisation of the A27 corridor.
In conclusion, I support the Wildlife Corridors Policy but strongly urge that the fifth corridor along the Ham Brook be reinstated.

Add Following Policy:
All new Building Developments to include an Assessment of existing and potentially enhanced Wildlife Corridors to preserve and enhance connectivity. This is vital to facilitate populations access to, and the ability to colonise suitable habitats that meet each species' varied and often individual needs.

Ideally, these Wildlife Corridors should follow the routes of human, non-road traffic Pathways. Therefore, sufficiently wide to accommodate naturalised margins, typically including trees and scrub.

Heritage, established linear links must be granted special Conservation Status, especially as oases through major new Developments. So retaining natural links between SDNP and Chichester Harbour.

Please lower the criteria required for Formal Strategic Wildlife Corridor Recognition.

Evidence of Rare or Listed Plants and Animals should NOT be a criterion for Wildlife Corridor Recognition: Existing Records are sparse and patchy. It can be assumed that where a linear, naturalised Corridor exists (or could be created) that a vast and varied assemblage of Life will colonise and commute, providing vital links between otherwise isolated (and therefore potentially doomed) Wildlife Havens. Obvious inclusions for SWCs include a link along the narrow gap between Chichester and Lavant, and similarly between Chichester and Fishbourne - including multi-directional options.

Recognised Strategic Wildlife Corridor Recognition should include, wherever possible, the inclusion of small areas specifically Recognised as Wildlife Refuges - ideally, these will be managed and nurtured by local volunteers. These small Refuges or Havens typically will be fenced off, to minimize interference from domestic cats, dogs, and humans - but allow access for hedgehogs, woodmice, and reptiles/amphibians Etc. Include stacks of rotting timber, dense bramble undergrowth.

Vital to successful Wildlife Corridors in especially urbanised environments. A good example being near to and just West of the Southern End of Centurion Way, abutting the live Railway Track Fence.

With the planned development at Whitehouse Farm, land currently inhabited by a lot of wildlife will be destroyed. It is therefore imperative that Centurion Way be accepted as a wildlife corridor linking the Downs and Chichester Harbour.