Policy AL6: Land South-West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes)

1. Donnington residents will be disadvantaged by proposed changes to A27 access arrangements under Policy S23 due to the absence of access to the East from Donnington via the A27. Residents would be obliged to head West to the amended Fishbourne Roundabout before heading East. Alternative routes to the East are either through the City or via unsuitable "back roads". Increased traffic from Whyke (facing a similar access problem) add to the congestion between Donnington and Fishbourne.
2. Site AL6 Land SW of Chichester (Apuldram & Donnington) includes a flood plain. Using data from CDC's flood plain assessment, the average height of flood water on the River Lavant is 2.05m above sea level. This means that the road would will need to be elevated by at least 2.5m, bringing the height with supporting structures and the road thickness closer to 4m. This would destroy the iconic views of the cathedral framed by the South Downs. The protection proposed by para 3 of Policy AL6 is not achievable. REMOVE POLICY AL6.
3. Each of the five junction modifications will require three years of work, totalling 15 years of severe disruption for local residents. (N.B. The replacement of one footbridge at Stockbridge Roundabout in 2018 brought gridlock to the area.) (Policy S23 and Peter Brett Associates Transport Assessment)
4. Overall, the plans for modification of the A27 junctions will benefit through traffic but not local traffic. The proposals are very similar to those in Option 3a in the Highways England Chichester A27 Bypass consultation document. These proposals were emphatically rejected by the local community. (Policy SP23 and Peter Brett Associates Transport Assessment)
5. Air Quality will further deteriorate as a result of the proposed plans. Stockbridge already exceeds the recommended air quality levels; development on the proposed scale will increase the problem, with serious health implications for residents. (Policy DM24 & SP28)
6. There are no proposals for new primary schools in the Manhood Peninsula. Accordingly pressure on existing schools to provide more places will increase, leading to increased road traffic and congestion as children are conveyed to schools outside their local area.
7. Impact on ecology - Chichester Harbour and its surroundings are designated as an AONB with the status of a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, SSSI and a Ramsar site. It is inappropriate to consider to consider development on this scale so close to an area with this status. There will be a markedly adverse impact on the ecology of the area; mitigation measures can have only a marginal effect. (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
8. Green tourism contributes significantly to the economy of the Manhood Peninsula. Excessive development, spoiling the natural environment which attracts tourists, would be highly detrimental to the rural economy. (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
9. A viable alternative site is available for industrial development within the buffer zone at Goodwood and the employment land should be allocated there. (Policy AL6,S15, S16)

We support this new policy and its land allocation.

1. I support provision of link road to reduce traffic volume through Donnington.
2. Realistically I accept need for new housing but would strongly support provision of a new primary school south of A27.
3. Air quality around Stocbridge roundabout must be addressed.
4. Existing SSI and AONB area must be respected.
5. Protect all existing footpaths/cycle ways and in particular improve existing right of way from A286 to join with the Salterns Way.

So as a sensitive area of AONB how are you going to ensure that any development on this land is not going contaminate the extremely sensitive harbour environment? Apuldram is at capacity which would necessitate pumping waste/foul/runoff elsewhere...more concreting and disturbing of the fragile environment.Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise it withe examiner at the appropriate time.

I object to the notion that there is potential for development in this area. It's too close to the AONB and will cause disturbance to wildlife there. The initial assessment was inadequate and the area should betaken out of potential development for industry and housing, and no link road should be built.

This area is so near the AONB it should be left alone and not made part of the urban area. A manged country park will be no substitute for an area that is now fairly inaccessible, crossed by one public footpath, and no preserved from pressures from dog walkers etc.

No link road should be built. New roads generate new traffic and are not sustainable. The country's climate change commitments should prevent new road building, rather than promote it.
Mitigation proposals are not specified and can't compensate for damage to the AONB, the SSI and Ramsar sites nearby.

Exactly how can you protect views if buildings are going up? The sewerage works are not able to take any more. Why are we building on floodplains, this will bring misery for residents in new houses and existing.

1. With the available infrastructure there are too many houses being proposed for this land.
2. The pollution is already high at Stockbridge and the proposed building work will increase the pollution and noise and do environmental damage, as well as being built on an existing flood plain.
3.The proposed link road will cut across a wildlife corridor and damage the tranquility of the harbour and subsequently the tourist trade on the whole peninsula.
4. There will be huge disruption for years while the building work is done, without there being any viable detours for the high volume of traffic.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention this major risks of rising sea levels , though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the Chichester Harbour AONB; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. The Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds ,including brent geese in the area designated as AL6.

This land is unsuitable for this development for several reasons. 1. Much of it is on or below the 5 meter contour and is vulnerable to sea level rise. 2. It abuts onto the Chichester harbour AONB and will have adverse effects in terms of 'Dark Skies' and habitat for wildlife. The raised link road will destroy the views of the Cathedral from the AONB. The land is already damp and would require extensive mitigation in terms of the policy for houses vulnerable to flooding which is lively to make development uneconomic

REMOVE AL6. It says there has been no testing done therefore it should not be included.The link road has no funding and has not complied with HE consultation so should be removed.No mention of flooding risk Flood plain 3..govt states it should never be built on.No mention of unique view or light/noise/air/pollution. No mention of junction upgrade required at Fishbourne roundabout again HE funding.Looked at before and rejected by examiner as most unsuitable place in the area. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will be raising it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Policy AL6 is proposed to have 33 hectares for employment space.The numbers don't add up when those listed in para 4.5.7 total 12.4 hectares which leaves 10.8 hectacres remaining. at the school I went to that leaves 10.8 hectares to be identified. How do our officers propose 33 hectacres for AL6.
The government inspector needs to probe deeply into this. Something is not jiving ......why ?

The open spaces / play areas need to be sufficient in size to offset the new employment buildings and housing impact such as designating a country park, rather than some small spaces between the buildings. The proposed link road from the Fishbourne roundabout to the A286 Birdham road will have a detrimental impact on the countryside and the views that are a special feature from the AONB across to the city and South Downs.

The strategic site amounts to 85 Ha. Whilst there is a significant central belt of the site that is within a flood zone this amounts to some 28 Ha leaving 57 Ha of land without flood constraints. Allocating 33Ha for employment and just 100 houses at 35 dwellings/HA uses only 36Ha leaving 21Ha of usable land undeveloped in addition to the 28Ha within the flood zone. Acknowledging proximity to designated sites & potential for impact on views to the cathedral, dwelling allocation seems too low for this site & should be increased to make more efficient use for the land.

This area was previously excluded from development plans

Reasons include:
The likelihood of flooding in an area with risk Zones 2/3a/3b (December
2018 Report: Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and October 2018 Report:
Sustainability Appraisal for the Chichester Local Plan Review -Preferred
Approach)
The proximity to and detriment of the AONB, wildlife etc.
The negative impact on many of the most important views of Chichester Cathedral (April 2005 Report: The Future Growth of Chichester - Landscape and Visual Amenity Considerations)

The Sustainability Appraisal in November 2016 states: "Overall this site has the most negative impacts and the fewest positive of all the Chichester options."

If there is to be any meaningful consultation on the development of this site, CDC needs to be clear about the reasons it has changed its view since previous iterations of the Local Plan.

There are viable alternative sites for these developments as cited in Policies S15 & S16 of the Local Plan.

Does AL6 Land South West of Chichester fall under the Manhood Peninsula policy as that seems to contrary to the policy in light of the flood risk and impact on the attractiveness of the area with the views of the Cathedral and Downs when returning towards the city to encourage visitors to return to the area because of its natural beauty, this will have a negative economic impact on the area. We should be enhancing the areas attraction protecting its views and the countryside around it and the AL6 suggestions seem contrary to that aim

I am writing to STRONGLY OPPOSE to the proposal of the developments throughout the areas in Chichester.
I attended the consultation and it is unbelievable what I have seen using a picture of what I am assuming is the beautiful houses in the grounds of the Cathedral high lighted and labelled neighbourhood planning. if only this was the case, a pretty picture has been used to disguise what is being planned but without any concrete decisions we are only been told of the likelihood such as 'at least' the 100 homes for the Donnington area. My fear is what does the council mean by homes 100? (flats, maisonettes, houses). Why would we want a country park that would be no consolation for what the council is taking away from us when we already have the green fields, the wildlife, the peace and tranquillity, The proposals for employment is another objection I am making, for families to move into the area to enable them to work we would need a vast improvement in the infrastructure of Chichester to facilitate that, buses to take them to work. medical provisions such as doctors Nhs dentists and schools, education has limited resources, as it is we can hardly provide a good standard for the children with such a short fall in investment and not one new school has been mentioned in all the plans, Chichester council are dreaming, all they see is the £ signs. Affordable housing is also another fact that the council has no idea about what young people can afford when buying their own homes Chichester is far too conservative to understand that along with mortgage they have to run car/cars due to lack of bus services and indeed the lack of fair prices in fares.
Now for the proposed so called road improvements they have taken the plans from H E and included them in the plans which would then come back to haunt us having the road around us, they have a nerve to think that people could possibly live with ongoing traffic from behind ,the side and indeed the front of our homes. The proposed housing up in the Wittering area could be an additional 700 cars coming our way each and everyday, how could the council even think that we could live with that, Then with the changes for the Stockbridge roundabout , The A27 proposal was rejected and funding lost. The council believe they can slip it in through the back door and use the already rejected plans. We will loose the farm, the the greenery for what ? a traffic controlled roundabout, with limited access through no right turns and more commercial traffic. without a doubt some of us will develop ill health caused by the build up of the fumes, we do not know either what kind of commercial, employment establishments will be behind us or what noise impact this will have if we are ever able to sit in the garden if these plans are approved. I am also considering the residents that would be living in these new estates. My other question is why on earth would a flood plain be considered for building either around or alongside. The council can not confirm where any of these homes will be built in Apuldram, this is a total waste of money in their fancy posters and booklets, they are not even aware that in the areas they are submitting that the actual land owners would be prepared to sell to them.
I hope you consider what I have written, as I am both angry and so very sad that councillors can sit and plan all this, its obvious there is no consideration for the existing residents, their well being including, the time and money that they have invested in their homes, The A27 fiasco and concrete city,proves they are making a huge mistake that will ruin Chichester for ever, living in the new over populated areas we will have lost everything we hold dear and which we care and maintain . I would also add that w/c 7/1/19 the government was being held responsible for lack of action to cut emissions in areas, evidence of this was sighted on a young child's DEATH CERTIFICATE, is this what Chichester believes could NEVER happen here? I assure you in the very near future it will happen if these plans go ahead, forget social care there will be an increase for medical and mental health care if people are forced to live in an 'inner city' like Chichester.
I can not be the only person very afraid of what these planners have in mind, funny that they choose only the south side of the county.
One more very important point how dare you make the objection procedure so very complicated and time consuming this is a prime example that Chichester has no regard to the residents and believe that using tactics like this will enable their plans to get through.

My main concern is that the road infrastructure is completely inadequate to accommodate this number of houses south of the A27. The Fishbourne roundabout is already a mad racetrack and backs up badly coming from Emsworth on Main Road. The Stockbridge roundabout is also badly congested. For traffic coming from Emsworth to the Manhood Peninsula, the small road through Apeldram relieves traffic on the FIshbourne roundabout but is already heavily used and potentially dangerous because of sharp bends and poor surface with deep ditches on the side. Getting out of that road onto the Birdham road is difficult when there is much traffic and there are significant tailbacks. Drivers take risks because of frustration and poor visibility to the South.

I believe the inclusion of the proposed AL6 site and adjacent link road contravenes this policy. The proposed area seriously harms the habitat of the location, including the wildlife and adversely affecting the natural lay of the land especially a raised road totally changing the landscape irreparably

Its difficult to see how

7.118 The flatness of the landscape makes the AONB particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from inappropriate development, both within or adjacent to the boundary, which can often be seen from significant distances across inlets, the main harbour channels, or open countryside. The District Council will have particular regard to these characteristics in determining development proposals affecting the AONB.

Is consistent with proposal AL6 - this is arable farmland offering an unobstructed view from the CH AONB of the Cathedral currently and supports a variety of wildlife. Any development here including a raised road (needed to avoid flooding) will have a direct impact on the AONB as its is adjacent to its boundary, any development will add visual obstruction to the landscape and air, noise and light pollution. The aim to have Dark Skies across the area will undoubtably be impacted let alone the noise will carry across landscape making a significant intrusive change and cause harm to the area.

Again AL6 seems to be in contravention of this policy as it sis adjacent to the protected areas and its impact will be felt across the area and adversely affect the clear skies and the wildlife in these areas. Its an unsuitable location and in contravention of several council policies.

AL 6 is wholly un appropriate for development:
Affects the AONB on its border:
Light pollution
Noise Polution
Waste water issues
Habitat risk
Green buffer between Chichester and AONB
Only view of cathedral from the sea lost
Unsuitable for residential property due to flood plain
Green buffer between Chichester and Manhood
Proposed link road:
Ruined views of cathedral framed by South Downs
Traffic congestion onto Fishbourne roundabout moves pollution
Loss of Salterns way
Requirement for infrastructure (schools) which can be met with development in North with 100% exception site to meet unmet housing need of SDNP.
Employment space in floodplain

The allocation of this site for the proposed use is entirely wrong. The evidence provided in the Plan Review - Preferred Approach and many of the accompanying documents show that it will be impossible to develop this area within the specified constraints (ie protection of views, countryside impact, protection of AONB and SPA, avoidance of development of flood risk areas, protection of historic landscapes, effect on wildlife habitat, nitrate escape into Chichester Harbour, and more). Industrial units on this site will be a landscape disaster. The proposed Stockbridge link road will totally blight the landscape and it is beyond all sense to suggest that its £18m-plus cost (or should it still be £38m, given the lack of explanation of the "assumptions" reducing that figure?) "has the potential to be funded for the majority of its length by the associated private development" (PBA Transport Study). This road and associated development has been rejected before; it should not have been included this time around (much waste of time and money) and should be rjected again.

Looking at AL6, policy point 2 and at the pba Transport study which states this link would be strategic, other policies for land use totally contradict this. I would therefore ask the Government inspector to examine very carefully this "strategic" claim to the depth that it would be able to withstand a Judicial Review. (I would add that this is not a NIMBY statement I live well north of the A27.)

I'd like to register my objection to the proposed development at AL6; an area prone to flooding that is too close to an AONB. It would also have an impact on views of Chichester and the Downs.
I also object to CDC accepting to take the SDNP's allocation of 41 dwellings. Of what benefit is this to Chichester District residents?
I also object to any proposed Stockbridge to Fishbourne by-pass. It would be a short term fudge redolent of the abhorred and discarded options 2 and 3 of the A27 by-pass consultation

Priority views to the Chichester Cathedral framed by the SDNP from inside the AONB, Salterns Way and Dell Quay would be impacted or lost.
CDC's own assessment here http://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=18730&p=0 identified the following as priority views:
VIEW 9: VIEW FROM CHICHESTER MARINA/ YACHT BASIN
VIEW 10: VIEW FROM SALTERNS COPSE
VIEW 12: VIEW FROM FISHBOURNE CHANNEL
VIEW 13: VIEW FROM PARK LANE ON THE BOSHAM PENINSULA
VIEW 14: VIEW FROM DELL QUAY ROAD
All these views would be impacted.

The site is located on top of and split in half by flood zones 2/3, these flood zones at this present time not taking into account future rises in sea levels and climate change. Developing on this site is reckless and not a long term vision. Any link road would need to be raised over the flood plain further impacting the character of the landscape.

Deterioration in water quality from run off on the link road and development sites could lead to the downgrading of Chichester Harbour's SSSI status.

The site is immediately adjacent to the AONB and developing it would have a detrimental impact on the landscape character in relation to the AONB and SDNP.

Sites on the edge of the city were assessed in a "sustainability impact report" http://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=27222&p=0 where it was discounted with the summary "Overall this site has the most negative impacts and the fewest positive of all the Chichester options."

The site partly falls inside an SSSI Sites of Special Scientific Interest risk zone

A link road would need to be raised to cross flood zone 3 increasing noise, emissions and light pollution

The site is in close proximity to RAMSAR site designated to be of international importance, and development would disrupt important migrating birds.

Waste water issues, is there sufficient capacity to handle such a development.

The development takes away a green corridor between Chichester and the Harbours Fishbourne channel. The development will remove the green gap between the fenced off Apuldram Sewage Works and the A27.

Policy AL6 is proposed to have 33 hectares for employment development space. This is 3 times the requirement.

- Land is flood plain. The average flood water height on the River Lavant is 2.05m above sea level. The road will therefore be elevated by an absolute minimum of 2 metres which is completely unacceptable.
- The development would destroy the unique view of the cathedral framed by the South Downs. Chichester is the only Cathedral in the UK visible form the Sea and the best view of it is from the Fishbourne Channel.
-Noise generated by the road would not be acceptable in terms of Policy DM25.
-Waste Water Treatment provision is inadequate.
-There is no pedestrian access from the North. A footbridge would be required to access across the A27 and the costs for this have not been factored in. (The attempt at refurbishing a footbridge on this stretch of the A27 was a disaster.)
- The link road is A27 Option 2 by the back door - this has already been utterly rejected by the community.

This area has been excluded from development plans in the past December 2016 Report: Site Allocation: Proposed Submission Development Plan Document 2014-2029 P 40). : "Overall this site has the most negative impacts and the fewest positive of all the Chichester options."

The floodplain in AL6 is unsuitable for development. Indeed CDC themselves concluded: "Overall this site has the most negative impacts and the fewest positive of all the Chichester options." (December 2016 Site Allocation: Proposed Submission Development Plan Document 20142029 P40)

No pedestrian access to town or station, without a footbridge (not planned).
The views of the Cathedral framed by Downs from the sea are at their best from here.
The link road would need to be raised several metres.
Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works is inadequate, it already periodically discharges raw sewerage in the harbour where my children kayak and sail.

It is premature to suggest that this area is suitable for development if there has been no assessment of the issues. It is clear that there are significant issues in terms of flooding and impact on the environment as well as obscuring views of the Cathedral.

There are other sites which could be put forward which would be more suitable.

Landscape buffers are used a justification for not putting forward suitable development sites to the north and east of Chichester. Why is there no suggestion of landscape buffers to the sites to the south and southwest? The untested AL6 is not given the same protection so there would be no buffer between Chichester and the AONB. It would be further damaged by a raised road.