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

Showing comments and forms 91 to 120 of 194

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1500

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Christopher Swann

Representation Summary:

Wholly inappropriate use of flood plain with an established rural character. Views of Chichester Cathedral would be seriously compromised by
a road of the dimensions necessary to overcome flooding issues. Inappropriate development in a rural area.

Full text:

Site AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington parishes)
includes a flood plain. This will mean that the road will need to be elevated and, taking into account supporting structures etc a height of around 4m is anticipated. This would destroy the iconic views of the cathedral framed by the South Downs. The noise generated by a road at this elevation would also be unacceptablein terms of Policy DM25.

Serious local concerns over the ability to ensure adequate Waste Water Treatment provision. Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW) has no spare capacity and account needs to be taken of the special environmental considerations of Chichester Harbour when dealing with run off water.

An additional access onto Fishbourne roundabout would be dangerous, even
with the closure of the Terminus Road access.

The concept of a link road was rejected by the public as part of the
Highways England A27 Chichester Bypass Improvement proposals

This site has previously been considered and discounted from development
plans (see DPD Sustainability Appraisal November 2016, Local Plan
Inspector's report May 2015).


ALTERNATIVES TO AL6
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)

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1526

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Natural England

Representation Summary:

Natural England notes that this is a large allocation site adjacent to the AONB and close the SPA/SAC/Ramsar/SSSI. We welcome clause 6, which requires mitigation for potential impacts on nature conservation sites - our view is that the key issues will be recreational disturbance and water quality (both surface water and sewerage). Given the status of Apuldram WwTW, Natural England's recommendations for policy S31 are particularly important for this site allocation.

Clause 3 is also vital - a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be necessary to identify whether development is possible without harming the setting of the AONB.

Full text:

Natural England notes that this is a large allocation site adjacent to the AONB and close the SPA/SAC/Ramsar/SSSI. We welcome clause 6, which requires mitigation for potential impacts on nature conservation sites - our view is that the key issues will be recreational disturbance and water quality (both surface water and sewerage). Given the status of Apuldram WwTW, Natural England's recommendations for policy S31 are particularly important for this site allocation.

Clause 3 is also vital - a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment will be necessary to identify whether development is possible without harming the setting of the AONB.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1621

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Philippa Hook

Representation Summary:

The protection proposed by para 3 of the policy AL6 is unachieveable.

Full text:

The protection proposed by para 3 of the policy AL6 is unachieveable.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1659

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Kirsten Lanchester

Representation Summary:

Too close to internationally protected habitats. Other sites are more appropriate for housing and commercial development. Noise from link road likely to cause disturbance.

Full text:

Too close to internationally protected habitats. Other sites are more appropriate for housing and commercial development. Noise from link road likely to cause disturbance.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1737

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

AL6 is an uncertain proposal as it currently stands in this plan and as a result should be immediately removed from the plan.

In particular:
a. Testing has not been conducted for this site this is acknowledged at 6.47.
b. 6.48 is unable to provide any idea what the proposed usage of the site will be
c. 6.49 makes no concrete proposal just suggesting a link road may be needed. This begs the question why as the proposed link road has NO impact on relieving traffic flows.

Full text:

AL6 is an uncertain proposal as it currently stands in this plan and as a result should be immediately removed from the plan. This means that as it stands (at this consultation) we have no certainty on this proposal and therefore are unable to comment in a constructive way due to the uncertainty.
In particular:
a. Testing has not been conducted for this site this is acknowledged at 6.47.
b. 6.48 is unable to provide any idea what the proposed usage of the site will be
c. 6.49 makes no concrete proposal just suggesting a link road may be needed. This begs the question why as the proposed link road has NO impact on relieving traffic flows.

This is not a worked up proposal for a strategic site and should be removed unless CDC can demonstrate the appropriate evidence base for this which must be re consulted upon. Failure to do so will ensure that this site will be challenged at examination.

further comments:
a. No mention is made of the unique view of Chichester cathedral framed by the South Downs which is one of the only such views in the area.
b. No mention is made of the impact of development on the views of the South Downs to the North (where other removed or rejected suitable sites make this one of the reasons for removal).
c. No mention is made that the proposed site is within 100 metres of the AONB where a reason for non development on other sites is the 1km proximity of the SDNP.
d. No mention is made of the extensive level 3 floodplain and mitigation requirements as used on other strategic sites removed from the plan. This was a valid reason for removal of this site by the examiner at previous planning cycles.
e. No mention is made of the impact to the river Lavant and its biodiversity and the Salterns way footpath/cyclepath by this development.
f. Previous sites have discussed the impact on the Apuldram waste site yet this site will impact directly with no option to use other sites.
g. Where would a Country park go that is not in the flood plain
h. There will be no green buffer between Chichester and the AONB.
i. Cost of road improvements and the delivery of a raised link road.
j. This site was rejected by the examiner in a previous local plan. That "judgment" with reasons is conveniently not available for this consultation.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1742

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton

Representation Summary:

Site is wholly unsuitable and is not ready for consideration in this plan.

Move employment to AL4. benefits of doing so are as follows:
a. Proximity to other business in the area and particularly Rolls Royce.
b. Benefit of opening up employment opportunities for the rural community within the SDNP.
c. Limited flood plain impact as the majority of this site is outwith level 3 floodplain.
d. Overcomes the noise sensitive impact of the race circuit and aerodrome.
e. Outside the safe air corridor
f. Good access to the A27 with no requirement for major new junctions or relief road.

Full text:

Move employment to AL4. benefits of doing so are as follows:
a. Proximity to other business in the area and particularly Rolls Royce. Co location of business in specialised areas is a key benefit for supply chain and mentoring delivering the support mechanism for this high tech business.
b. Benefit of opening up employment opportunities for the rural community within the SDNP without having to cross Chichester itself to reach employment opportunities.
c. Limited flood plain impact as the majority of this site is outwith level 3 floodplain.
d. Overcomes the noise sensitive impact of the race circuit and aerodrome.
e. Outside the safe air corridor f. Good access to the A27 with no requirement for major new junctions or relief roads that are expensive and unaffordable.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1745

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton

Representation Summary:

AL6 is an uncertain proposal as it currently stands in this plan and as a result should be immediately removed from the plan.

In particular:
a. Testing has not been conducted for this site this is acknowledged at 6.47.
b. 6.48 is unable to provide any idea what the proposed usage of the site will be
c. 6.49 makes no concrete proposal just suggesting a link road may be needed. This begs the question why as the proposed link road has NO impact on relieving traffic flows.

Full text:

AL6 is an uncertain proposal as it currently stands in this plan and as a result should be immediately removed from the plan. This means that as it stands (at this consultation) we have no certainty on this proposal and therefore are unable to comment in a constructive way due to the uncertainty.
In particular:
a. Testing has not been conducted for this site this is acknowledged at 6.47.
b. 6.48 is unable to provide any idea what the proposed usage of the site will be
c. 6.49 makes no concrete proposal just suggesting a link road may be needed. This begs the question why as the proposed link road has NO impact on relieving traffic flows.

This is not a worked up proposal for a strategic site and should be removed unless CDC can demonstrate the appropriate evidence base for this which must be re consulted upon. Failure to do so will ensure that this site will be challenged at examination.

further comments:
a. No mention is made of the unique view of Chichester cathedral framed by the South Downs which is one of the only such views in the area.
b. No mention is made of the impact of development on the views of the South Downs to the North (where other removed or rejected suitable sites make this one of the reasons for removal).
c. No mention is made that the proposed site is within 100 metres of the AONB where a reason for non development on other sites is the 1km proximity of the SDNP.
d. No mention is made of the extensive level 3 floodplain and mitigation requirements as used on other strategic sites removed from the plan. This was a valid reason for removal of this site by the examiner at previous planning cycles.
e. No mention is made of the impact to the river Lavant and its biodiversity and the Salterns way footpath/cyclepath by this development.
f. Previous sites have discussed the impact on the Apuldram waste site yet this site will impact directly with no option to use other sites.
g. Where would a Country park go that is not in the flood plain
h. There will be no green buffer between Chichester and the AONB.
i. Cost of road improvements and the delivery of a raised link road.
j. This site was rejected by the examiner in a previous local plan. That "judgment" with reasons is conveniently not available for this consultation.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1773

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to link road in AL6 due to conflict with DM23 Lighting.

The building of any link road will impact on the dark skies value of the AONB. Any link road will require associated street lighting but also the light pollution from cars on an elevated section would impact the dark sky across this flat harbour area.

Full text:

The building of any link road will impact on the dark skies value of the AONB. Any link road will require associated street lighting but also the light pollution from cars on an elevated section would impact the dark sky across this flat harbour area.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team

Representation Summary:

Any development South of A27 at Donnington/Apuldram/Fishbourne is at risk of flooding. It is on the Lavant flood plain

Full text:

Any development South of A27 at Donnington/Apuldram/Fishbourne is at risk of flooding. It is on the Lavant flood plain

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1793

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team

Representation Summary:

Oppose any development here due to proximity to harbour

Full text:

6.44 to 6.49 Policy AL6
NOTE This is Apuldram/Donnington AND Fishbourne

Fishbourne Parish boundary is Lavant River

We oppose this. No development should be undertaken in this area. It is in the Lavant flood plain.
No additional housing
No Commercial sites
We object to the relief road.
All employment land MUST be relocated to the Goodwood Aerodrome site.
This site is too close to the AONB on a flood plain and the relief road would affect the landscape and views.
An additional road onto the Fishbourne Roundabout will add to the traffic being projected onto the roundabout with development in Southbourne, Chidham/Hambrook, Bosham and Fishbourne.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team

Representation Summary:

6.44 to 6.49 Policy AL6

We oppose this. No development should be undertaken in this area. It is in the Lavant flood plain.
No additional housing
No Commercial sites
We object to the relief road.
All employment land MUST be relocated to the Goodwood Aerodrome site.
This site is too close to the AONB on a flood plain and the relief road would affect the landscape and views.
An additional road onto the Fishbourne Roundabout will add to the traffic being projected onto the roundabout with development in Southbourne, Chidham/Hambrook, Bosham and Fishbourne.

Full text:

6.44 to 6.49 Policy AL6
NOTE This is Apuldram/Donnington AND Fishbourne

Fishbourne Parish boundary is Lavant River

We oppose this. No development should be undertaken in this area. It is in the Lavant flood plain.
No additional housing
No Commercial sites
We object to the relief road.
All employment land MUST be relocated to the Goodwood Aerodrome site.
This site is too close to the AONB on a flood plain and the relief road would affect the landscape and views.
An additional road onto the Fishbourne Roundabout will add to the traffic being projected onto the roundabout with development in Southbourne, Chidham/Hambrook, Bosham and Fishbourne.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1805

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Graham Causley

Representation Summary:

AL6 would cause an irretrievable detrimental impact on the landscape, character, context and setting of the AONB and National Park.and obliterate views of the cathedral and SDNP from the coast and AONB. It would have a devastating impact on wildlife and cause noise and light pollution.
AL1, AL2 and AL15 provide 12.4 hectares of the 23.2 hectares identified in 4.56. leaving 10.8 hectares additional requirement. AL6 is 3 times this requirement and therefore completely unjustified. the 10.8 hectares can be found elsewhere. AL6 is a cynical ploy to implement Option 2 of the rejected public consultation from 2016.

Full text:

4.56 identifies total additional employment land required is approximately 23.2 hectares. Under 4.57 three of the four identified employment sites, AL1, AL2, AL15 provide a total of 12.4 hectares, leaving 10.8 hectares unidentified. AL6, which is proposing 33 hectares, is therefore 3 times the requirement and additionally requires a raised road for access over a flood plain which will obliterate views of the Cathedral from the coast and AONB. One can only assume that a 33 hectare area is being proposed to sufficiently fund the link road and junction changes which were voted against by 47% of local residents who opposed Options 2&3 in 2016. AL6 would cause an irretrievable detrimental impact on the landscape, character, context and setting of the AONB and National Park.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1810

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Heather McDougall

Representation Summary:

AL6 should be removed due to:
- it is inaccessible without a link road, which would be raised due to the flood plain resulting in unacceptable light, noise, air pollution
-the likelihood of flooding in the area
-there is no access for pedestrians / cyclists coming from the city / train station
-the impact on water pollution of runoff
- it's proximity to AONB, and in particular the impact of the link road
- the impact on protected and unique views into the city and framed by the South Downs

Full text:

It is beyond belief that this area has been included as a strategic site, when others have been discounted on much flimsier grounds, (cited in S15 and S16)
This site is on a flood plain and with climate change, the risk to this area increases. It is irresponsible to locate industry and housing on such vulnerable land,
There is no sustainable transport to get to this site. Whilst it may appear close to the train station, it is not feasible to travel on foot or cycle without crossing the A27. The Stockbridge footbridge does not facilitate this as there is no path to the south of the A27. There is no provision for a footbridge at the Fishbourne roundabout, without this, this site can only be accessed by vehicles. No costs or land have been taken into consideration for providing a footbridge.
In fact, there is no access to this site at all without using development funds for a road. The costs of which do not appear to adequately consider the mitigation required to cross the flood plain and River Lavant. Due to the low land, serious mitigation would be needed against the noise, light and air pollution; all of which would have a negative impact on the views and character of the area, which is in close proximity to the AONB.

If this is not addressed, I wish to raise these points with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1845

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Andrew Bain

Representation Summary:

I support this new policy and its land allocation. There should be allocation on this Land for relocating the Bus Garage and Royal Mail Postal Distribution Depot to allow the early freeing up of the existing sites within the Southern Gateway Masterplan.

Full text:

Policy S13 Chichester City Development Principles
I support the protection of the views of the Cathedral

Policy S14 Chichester City Transport Strategy
I propose the following aspects are added in:-
a) Replacement of the level crossings in Basin Road and Stockbridge Road by a height limited underpass capable of taking single decker busses and being accommodated between the Kingsham Road junction and extended Avenue de Chartres junction on Basin Road. This would also incorporate a grade separated cycle and footway.
b) Safeguarding of land to enable the expansion of Chichester Railway Station from its present 2 platforms to 4 as envisaged by Network Rail to enable a faster service from Portsmouth to Brighton, and to allow for a fully integrated transport hub for bus and rail services.
c) Safeguarding of land close to the A27fora future "park and ride".
d) Safeguarding of land close to the A27for a "consolidation centre "for break bulk delivery to city centre retail units.

Policy S20; Design
I welcome this proposed additional policy to be used positively to protect our City against the creep of dumbing down with the poor design quality of new housing estates and ill-considered extensions and alterations to existing housing.

Policy S23; Transport and Accessibility
a) This additional policy is welcomed
b) I particularly welcome the proposed new road connecting Birdham Road to the A27 at Fishbourne roundabout. This was known as the Stockbridge Link Road as part of Highways England Option 2in their 2016 ill-fated consultation. I feel other aspects of Option 2 should be allowed for future inclusion particularly the flyovers for the A27 at the Fishbourne and Bognor Road roundabouts.

Policy AL5; Southern Gateway

a) In site specific requirement number 3 I propose " Respect for the historic context, have regard to that part of Southern Gateway that lies within the Conservation Area and to the Listed Buildings and Heritage Aspects and make a positive contribution towards protecting and enhancing the local character and special heritage of the Aareaand important historic viewsespecially those from the Canal and its Basin towards the Cathedral,"
b) I propose you site specific requirement number 4 "provision of a height limited underpass on Basin Road to allow removal of the level crossings on Stockbridge Road and Basin Road.
c) I propose the removal of paragraph 7

Policy AL6; Land South -West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes.
I support this new policy and its land allocation. There should be allocation on this Land for relocating the Bus Garage and Royal Mail Postal Distribution Depot to allow the early freeing up of the existing sites within the Southern Gateway Masterplan.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1852

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Charlotte Horn

Representation Summary:

AL6 should be removed from the plan:
- loss of wildlife
- flooding
- damage caused by link road
- damage to Chichester Harbour

Full text:

I am 14 yrs old and have lived in the same house in Donnington , Chichester since I was born. I am horrified at some of the plans I have seen for Chichester in the CDC Local Plan, but especially for those relating to AL6. This section should be removed completely.

My house looks out over some of the farmland included in this AL6 section. At present I can watch deer grazing out of my bedroom window on a daily basis, along with all sorts of other wildlife. The field I look out on has parts under water for a lot of the winter as it is the natural drainage area for the River Lavant. It is criss crossed by lots of streams at the field edges which help to ensure that Chichester remains flood free. Building on a flood plain that has category 3 status (as I understand it, a category that should not be built on because of the increased risk of flooding,) is absolute madness and I can't believe the Council is even considering it. We should be protecting areas like this to safe guard the rest of the city. It makes even less sense when there are suitable areas to the north around Rolls Royce and the airfield that already have the infrastructure do not carry the same flood risks.

I have also read that the plan has put the link road back in. I, along with the majority of Chichester residents rejected this road and the other southern options in the 2016 Consultation that Highways England ran. I feel betrayed by CDC who are supposed to represent locals, that they have taken no notice of our wishes and put it back in. It doesn't give me much faith in democracy and I am only 14. What a poor example to set.

We rejected it for many reasons.

The main one was that it would be an absolute eyesore. It would have to be raised really high in order to ensure it did not flood. The land from the coast is very very flat, so a very raised road would be seen for miles around, so destroying historic views towards the Cathedral that have remained pretty much the same for 100's and 100's of years.It would also result in the demolition of a historic house. I am really sad and disappointed that CDC think it is acceptable to destroy these iconic views for my generation and all of our future generations. They should be ashamed of themselves.

One of the other reasons this road was rejected was because it wouldn't actually solve the congestion issue, it would just shift it along the road. People did not see the point of destroying the countryside to provide a road that would not solve the problem and infact would penalise local traffic even more and probably create more congestion.

It was also rejected as it would add even more air pollution. Only yesterday in the news ,studies are urgently being undertaken to prove to the Government , as if they need further proof,that toxic air pollutants are killing and damaging younger people. I am one of those young people who are already exposed to the unacceptably high levels of toxic air pollutants that the Stockbridge area is already exposed to . This link road would mean that I would be sandwiched between two roads which would make my risk of ill health even higher. Why is CDC not accepting that we already breach air quality levels in this area and stop issuing plans that would make the situation even worse. The link road needs to be removed from the plan completely. We should be looking at a northern route to dilute the traffic and potentially life threatening pollutant levels.

AL6 would destroy a very important area. Chichester Harbour has a unique environment all of its own, which is has lots of protected status including AONB, Site of special scientific interest and is a Ramsar site which means that it has international importance. I can't believe CDC think that building houses and industrial units within 100 meters of the boundary if not going destroy this part of the Harbour and all the wildlife that relies on it. There are so many migrating birds and native wildlife that rely on the unique bio diversity of the harbour and nearby fields on the floodplain that would be lost forever if this road and buildings detailed in AL6 gets the go ahead. The Harbour and its uniqueness are what draws nature and tourists to the area. Why on earth would CDC be thinking of jeopardising this with their horrendous plan ? I love to watch the Peregrine falcons from the Cathedral in the summer teaching their young how to hunt over the fields, this would be gone and maybe the peregrines would leave too as they will have lost their natural hunting grounds.

I am part of the next generation who want to continue to enjoy this beautiful special area that I live it. How dare CDC consider destroying this area in AL6 ? It is unique and essential to keep Chichester City from flooding. If CDC continue to consider developing on AL6 and to add this link road, what a terrible legacy to leave future generations. They should hold their heads in shame . I hope that they can justify the vandalism..not a great development to be remembered for !!

I hope someone takes notice of my comments.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1854

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs C Shepherd

Representation Summary:

Object on following grounds:
- flood plain
- add to congestion/pollution
- link road will add to issues
- loss of wildlife
- loss of views
- impact on services

Full text:

I object to this planning proposal, not to mention that the houses that have been suggested to be built in my area are positioned upon a FLOOD PLAIN, but will also increase the levels of pollution and congestion on a heavily used road especially in the summer; not only will this affect many people particularly young children who live in the area with health issues such as asthma but will also effect the safety of the road. The Birdham road is often highly congested and abused by many drivers who speed down the road, over the years I have felt it to become increasingly dangerous for me to cross as I walk to school. If I as a 16 year old feel vulnerable crossing the road with disruptive drivers, how will the elderly and young feel when this is added to? Not only has this road lacked the supervision needed but it has also lacked appropriate crossing procedures, even absent at entrances to public footpaths and bus stops. The suggested SLR will not alleviate the issues but aggravate the impact even more with us now being surrounded on all sides. Perhaps rather than ruining our health and putting constituent's welfare in danger on a flood plain, steps to improve the quality of life should be put into place.
Another reason that I strongly object to this proposition, is due to the wildlife aspects. I believe this has been neglected and the council are only focusing on quotas. From the parish of Donnington onwards West Sussex is famously known for our breath-taking views and our cherishment of nature. By building these houses, you will be destroying the wildlife's habitats many of which have limited measures. It is vital for this generation to be aware to preserve nature and create a sustainable environment in order to ensure that species do not enter extinction. If the council is willing to destroy these habitats, what hope do we have? The disruption this would cause would be devastating and I am so disappointed in my council that they believe it is acceptable to ruin the lives of animals to benefit themselves. Surely the council should be responsible for the preservation of the natural aspects of this city rather than just the houses they have made. If this proposal is to be respected, I expect detailed analysis of what the council will take action upon in order to rejuvenate the natural aspects of Donnington but also to reduce the pollution elements. It will be interesting to read your viewpoints on how introducing these settlements will improve my safety, the wildlife and my value of welfare - not to mention how the schools will be able to cope with the increase of children in the area, but how will the increase of this area's population be beneficial for the services such as schools, doctors, dentists and not to mention the public services.
Will the council be taking action on helping to lower the prices of buses? Will the council implement safer roads? Will the council come to reality and think of the issues that actually interest and are important for its constituents?
A raised SLR will have a detrimental effect on the area, a raised road will raise pollution, seriously affect the landscape and affect wildlife in the fields around. This is particular will seriously affect the character and beauty of the area obstructing views of the City, Cathedral and the Downs, the very things which attract visitors to our area

I suggest - do not build on a flood plain ( I believe this is self-explanatory )
Increase the protection of the areas naturistic elements
Focus on reducing the levels of pollution introduced to the area due to the motorway,

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1860

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Gary Neal

Representation Summary:

Object to allocation on following grounds:
- adjacent to the Chichester Harbour
- Dark Skies
- Landscape
- Wildlife habitats
- Wildlife stepping stones
- Noise pollution
- Air quality
- Tourism

Full text:


This proposed land for development to the South West of Chichester (AL6 Donnington & Apuldram) to the east of Apuldram/Dell Quay where the main river Lavant enters the AONB Chichester harbour and hence subject to future sea level rises, for an industrial/commercial estate and housing together with a raised road across the Flood Risk 2 & 3 must not proceed.

The 2015 Chichester Local Plan Inspectorate Report stated "Early proposals to locate strategic development to the south west and west of Chichester and at Fishbourne were discounted due to their environmental impact on the Chichester and Langstone Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). Subsequently a mitigated strategy for recreational disturbance was developed and a solution to address the issue of waste water treatment emerged. This led to the strategic location for development West of Chichester being re-introduced. However the SA report makes it clear that no such justification exist to re-introduce South West of Chichester or Fishbourne as locations for strategic development."

Looking at the facts AL6 should be removed from the plan for the following reasons:

* This land is adjacent to the Chichester Harbour (AONB, RAMSAR, SPA and SSSI sites)
* Dark Skies- The raised road will affect the Dark Skies of the AONB- no light pollution is mentioned nor protected against throughout the policies in the plan
* Landscape- destruction of the outstanding and the unique views of the Cathedral framed by the SDNP from Chichester Harbour (the only view of a Cathedral from the sea in England) and Salterns Way cycle path
* Wildlife Habitats/Hedgerows- Destruction of habitat for protected species (ref AONB wild fowl) dependent on woodland edge, scrubland and rough grassland habitat (see attached images)
* Wildlife stepping stones- this piece of land is an existing wildlife stepping stone between Pagham and Medmerry Harbours, the historic Chichester Ship Canal and Chichester Harbour.
* Noise pollution - disturbing and affecting the AONB Chichester Harbour natural inhabitants, not mentioned in the Local Plan
* Air quality
* Tourism- Affecting our local economy and potential future for tourism

Remove AL6 from the plan.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1866

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Jennie Horn

Representation Summary:

Object to the Land South-West of Chichester allocation on following grounds:
- Destroys biodiversity of the area
- Destroys historic views
- Destroys the natural environment
- Destroys the openness of views in and around coast
- Will increase flooding and contamination of Chichester Harbour
- Destroys dark skies
- Increase in light, air and noise pollution
- Link road unsuitable
- Lack of capacity for waste water
- Other housing and employment sites should be considered
- Unequal distribution of housing

Full text:

Having trawled through the CDC Local Plan, which I have to say at the outset is the least user friendly document I have had the misfortune to read in a long time. The sceptic amongst me , would claim that CDC has deliberately done its best to make it as inaccessible as possible and these points go to explain my reasons for coming to that conclusion.

:- It was released just before Christmas, when CDC knows that people are busy.
:- It was released with very little advertising and only now has there been a little more effort but still not enough..
:- Very few public exhibitions have been put on or advertised , many actually put on by local communities horrified at what has been included.
:- Only available really to those who have access to the internet as there is a charge of £15 for a paper copy so excluding many of the older generation who do not have access to the internet.
:- the fact that the software being used only allows one response from an email address. Any others are not acknowledged.

I would like these issued raised and acknowledged. For such an important Consultation to be conducted in this matter is harmful and actually against a democratic process.

I have commented electronically but because of the constraint of 100 words this makes commenting properly very restrictive , I am therefore submitting this email as well and insist that both my electronic comments/objections are taken together and that neither is excluded.
I welcome a need for a Local Plan to safe guard the uniqueness and sustainability of our beautiful city, but this plan is wholly unfit for purpose. In places it is so biased and contradictory , it has actually made me laugh ! This is a Local Plan so why has there only been development in the South , East and West. For some reason Goodwood and the North has either been included and then removed or excluded completely. This is not a LOCAL PLAN, this is a biased and incomplete plan because of this exclusion.

The Southern and western areas that border Chichester Harbour AONB have been repeatedly included in the plan for significant development despite having the a same or greater criteria for exclusion than Goodwood and the area to the south SDNP which have been excluded. This invalidates the Plan as it contradicts all the criteria used and makes a mockery of the Plans integrity.

TRANSPORT

The transport study done by Peter Brett Assoc (PBA) is completely unfit for purpose. The study has only explored short term transport infrastructure which is completely unacceptable for this Plan which specifically states that is should be looking at short, medium and long term transport models especially the considering the Plan is supposed to last until 2035. It has included a link road in AL6 which was roundly opposed in the democratic Highways England (HE) consultation of 2016 along with hybrids of Options 2 and 3 also rejected, so it should not have been included unless all other options including the preferred Mitigated Northern route had also been included.

There has been no detail of how these large housing developments (over 2000 homes) along the A259 are going to access the A27 which is already at full capacity at the Fishbourne Roundabout. There is also no evidence that the required consultations between CDC, PBA and HE have taken place so any inclusion of link roads and junction upgrades are invalidate and should be removed and if not adequately addressed in future iterations of this plan , I will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time .The PBA actually claims that there will not be an increase in air/noise/pollution by the building of a link road. REALLY ! You are proposing to build an elevated road (due to it being on a floodplain 3 zone !) which would have to be 4 metres high in an open flat topography, bordering the highly sensitive Chichester Harbour AONB with dark skies and noise/air pollution protection and restricting right turns only, necessitating Stockbridge and Whyke roundanabout traffic to travel twice as far and the report states that there would be no increase in air pollution.Absolutely ridiculous and totally unrealistic.They also state that there will be no further increase in air pollution despite traffic volume increasing year on year. Chichester, especially Stockbridge Roundabout has frequently breached air quality limits in recent years and continues to do so. So this part of the report is just nonsense.(DM24/SP28)
There is also no mention of any realistic funding. Again you cannot include junction upgrades which come under the jurisdiction of HE and for which no consultation evidence has been shown in the report. CDC Local Plan should not include any upgrades that they do not have confirmed funding for when the plan is produced. Anyone can produce a plan with a nice wish list but this does not make a professional /viable document .
CDC said itself that "any highways improvements should mitigate congestion on the A27"....the limited detail in this plan actually adds to the congestion it does not mitigate it and it again hugely disadvantages local traffic.

All the proposed developments along the A259, at Chidham/Hambrook, Bosham, Southbourne and Fishbourne all claim that they are sustainable because they have good transport links in the form of bus and rail links. They do not and these transport link viabilty and frequency cannot be influenced by CDC as they are run by independent companies. At present the bus service is fairly frequent at peak times but other times is not so cannot be relied upon. It is also not a very cheap option for many people. Rail links have been cut significantly in recent years with timetable rearrangements and places like Bosham and Southbourne have one train stopping once an hour at peak times, to and from Chichester. Not what I would call good links. and again is expensive..£2.80 for a single from Fishbourne...a journey of 5 minutes !! So these developments would realistically rely on cars again so increasing the burden on the Fishbourne of Emsworth junctions that are already running at full capacity.

Unless these issues are adequately addressed in future iterations of this plan, i will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

HOUSING

( including 3.17,S3,S5,S19,4.3 )

Why is CDC not insisting that SDNP take back responsibility for the allocation of 41 houses a year . It would remove the need for CDC to find areas for another 200+ houses within their local plan and SDNP should be promoting small scale house building within the Park in order to sustain local services such as schools and local services which will die if more families are not encouraged.

Why has the north of Chichester ,been removed from the plan...houses along the A259 amount to well over 2000 houses with the same environmental sensitivities and yet houses south of the SDNP to Chichester NONE. There is no justification for this as there is suitable land around Goodwood airfield and Rolls Royce that could be used and was originally included in the plan but again was removed for no justifiable reason. Why can large villages like Lavant and Boxgrove not have any housing allocation ? They are classed as local service hubs as they have shops and schools and yet are excluded. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

New housing need to be smaller less intrusive developments so that they don't overwhelm and swamp existing residential areas. They also need to be a majority of affordable housing for people with local connections. These local connections should actually mean people born in the city or whose parents have lived in the area for the majority of their lives. Local young adults don't stand a hope of buying or even renting in Chichester as the prices are so high compared to wages of most ordinary people.There should be a ban on second homes and but if they do slip though and are rented out, then rents should be capped to make it less attractive to landlords.

New developments should not include 'executive' 4 and 5 bedroomed houses. There are enough of these in Chichester and so developments should consist of 1, 2 and 3 bedroomed properties only with a few 4 bedroomed houses to satisfy housing association demand.

Why are brownfield sites like the one bordering Swanfield Drive / Portfield near Sainsburys not being used for housing if demand is so crucial. We do not need anymore out of town entertainment which is killing the town centre.It should be reclassified for housing , as it would have less impact, is within walking distance of services and already borders residential areas..

Unless these issues are adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise it with examiner at the appropriate time.

SCHOOLS/SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURES

(including 4.85)

Although there is lip service paid to providing schools, it is all very vague. If you are building developments of 250 + then you are going to need school provision. Most schools in places like Bosham are already at full capacity from local children so expansion or new schools need to be built very early on in any development. The threshold should be very low , for example when the 50th house of 250 is built, that way the services will already be in place before the houses are occupied. Most primary schools within Chichester city and surrounding villages are now already at full capacity necessitating parents to have to travel in cars to get their children to less local schools. The schools like Parklands Primary that have been expanded recently to take two form entry have suffered from substandard design and building. Stairs out of action for months. Disabled toilet out of use and worst of all classrooms too hot in summer due to lack of air conditioning which meant children had to be sent home for several days. This particular issue has still not been addressed so will occur next year when the temperature rises.

Although the Free School has recently been completed( but because of its site requires most children to access by car at least some if not all of the way,) relieving pressures on primary and secondary school places, no provision has been made for future developments around the southern peninsula of Witterings/ Bracklesham etc which necessitates huge transport movement twice a day as there is no secondary school provision within a 6 mile radius.

Funding for such new schools are not funded by CDC and therefore these should have been properly costed and funded before they could be legitimately included in the Local Plan...again a fictitious wish list !!

No mention of where people are going to find other services such as doctors and dentist, many of which are already running at full or near full capacity.If there are no services available locally then people will be forced to travel. No mention of increased travel because of this and lack of local school places in the Local Plan.

Unless these issues are adequately addressed in future iterations of this plan, I will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

AIR QUALITY

DM24/SP28 There is no acknowledgement of the fact that the air quality levels especially at Stockbridge Roundabout exceeds quite substantially acceptable levels set by the Government. Such an omission is significant and has a huge influence on future planned developments and unless it is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise this with examiner at the appropriate time

AL6.

Well where do I start on such an utter inaccurate piece of wilful destruction and vandalism. AL6 contradicts everything that the Local plan states .
It does not protect the biodiversity of the area...It DESTROYS it
It does not protect the historic views of the only Cathedral visible from the sea...It DESTROYS it.
It does not enhance the natural environment (S26)... It DESTROYS it
It does has an adverse impact on the openness of views in and around the coast. (S26)..It DESTROYS them.
It does not have regard to flood and erosion policy (S27)...It WILL increase the likelyhood of flooding and contamination of Chichester Harbour water.
It does not protect the area from light/air/noise pollution(DM23/24 etc)....it would DESTROY the dark skies policy and hugely increase air pollution.

I could continue. AL6 should be removed completely. The Plan itself states that no proper study has been done into the impact of AL6 and so that very admission should have been enough to exclude it from the plan.How can you include a destructive option like this without doing any sort of environmental study or impact study first. Unprofessional and disgraceful AL6 comes within 100 metres of Chichester Harbour which has AONB status which holds the same protection as the SDNP but does not have the same 5km exclusion that the SDNP has been given....strange that !! Unfortunately Chichester Harbour does not have a landed Estate as its neighbour !!

AL6 is on a category 3 Floodplain , which under Governments own rational means that it should not be developed for housing or industry at all because of the unacceptable flood risk and only then developed if ALL other less risky sites have been developed first and only then for suitable light use. Land to the south of the SDNP has been removed due to it being under risk of flooding and yet it is mainly classed as Flood zone 2 , a lesser risk. So why was it removed for this reason and AL6 left in place ?
INCONSISTENCY and BIAS. REMOVE AL6.

Under CDC own data, a link road would need to be elevated to 4 metres in order to be safe from flooding.How on earth are you going to mitigate a road that high which is on a flat topography with historic views of Chichester and the Cathedral ? .This would then contravene Government policy on pollution and housing , as the toxic fumes from the road would reach higher into the air.REMOVE AL6.

This link road and Options 2/3 were hugely unpopular in the 2016 Highways England Democratic Consultation and were emphatically rejected by the vast majority of Chichester residents as they knew it would be short term and ineffectual and that along with the no right turns at junctions would hugely hinder the movement of local traffic. CDC were seen to accept that and Cllr Dignum said that "any Highways improvement should mitigate congestion on the A27". Clearly this scheme would not and so why is the link road included. If you want an unbiased complete Plan then surely the mitigated Northern route should have been included in this plan as the criteria are the same...no funding and no HE acceptance, or exclude both proposals. Again double standards to the detriment of the south.No roads should have been included as they do not come under CDC remit or funding and the protection under Para 3 AL6 is unachievable. Total betrayal under Cllr Dignum leadership.REMOVE AL6

In order to instigate a link road , junction upgrades are also mentioned...(but not funded by CDC and no consultation evidence with HE in the Local Plan S23 and PBA report) Each junction is estimated to take a minimum of 3 yrs to complete, that's 15 years of gridlock, air pollution and misery. Seriously. Chichester city and tourist industry would be destroyed. REMOVE AL6

There is no mention of only a 100 metre border with the Chichester Harbour AONB and yet frequent reference is made to the SDNP 1km border. Double standards and inconsistency again.REMOVE AL6

There is no mention that the land earmarked in AL6 is floodplain 3 category. Frequent reference to SDNP/Goodwood being in Flood zone 2 and a small amount in Flood plain 3. Again double standards and inconsistency. REMOVE AL6

No mention to the destruction of the views and yet time and again SDNP/Goodwood views of the Cathedral are mentioned and pushed. The views from SDNP/Goodwood are far less prominent and actually are invisible because of the topography of the land in many places. Not the case for views in AL6 where uninterrupted views of the Cathedral can be seen from the coast in almost any position looking north. Double standards and inconsistency again.REMOVE AL6

No amount of mitigation could protect Chichester Harbours unique ecology. It has status as an AONB, SPA,SAC,SSSI and is a Ramsar site. There is no detail of how a successful buffer zone would be applied.There appears to be no room for a proper successful wildlife buffer zone, with proposed building up to 100 meters of the harbour.There would be significant adverse ecological damage done, from light, noise and especially air pollution,which already breaches Government and EU safe levels. There is no mention of waste water management and the capacity for any further waste water to be processed at Apuldram Water Treatment plant is not an option as it has reached capacity so the risk of polluted water entering Chichester Harbour is incredibly high and an unacceptable risk.(Policy S18) REMOVE AL6

There are other much more suitable areas already identified around Goodwood Airfield and Rolls Royce which meet the criteria set out in the plan for housing and light industrial employment and already have suitable infrastructure but have been unjustifiably removed. These should be reinstated and AL6 REMOVED.

Any development of AL6 would necessitate movement by car due to its proximity to the A27 .This is against CDC Local plan policy of encouraging any new developments to either be well served with public transport or sustainable transport ie cycling and walking. The position of this site will not meet this criteria. REMOVE AL6.

There is no mention of the fact that this site is part of the River Lavant floodplain. Those of us who remember the 1990's , remember the hugely damaging flooding that affected Chichester partly because the water courses and natural drainage had been allowed to deteriorate. AL6 covers a significant part of the River Lavant natural drainage basin. It would be insane to build on this land. It could well result in renewed flooding in the city centre as we get wetter winters and the rain water has no where to go.REMOVE AL6.

The plan is totally inconsistent as to numbers in the development. How can we possibly comment on a plan that in one place states there would be 100 houses and industrial units in AL6 and yet elsewhere it says 200 + homes and industrial units. Ridiculous inconsistency and very unprofessional. REMOVE AL6.

Unless all these issues are adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise these with the examiner at the appropriate time.

In summary, The CDC Local Plan in its form at present should be rejected and rewritten with the inconsistency and bias removed. Any development site should only be include when a proper and realistic viability study has been commissioned by independent consultants who will have been given a complete and unbiased brief (unlike the PBA study which is incomplete ,short term and does not reach the brief that was supposedly set). This is hugely important to the Chichester area and its residents. We want and deserve a fair ,complete and transparent plan and this version is not.

CDC along with WSCC should go to central Government and insist that until proper funding is put in places to sort the transport/A27 and services (Schools etc) infrastructure out then although the Plan can be written, no housing will be built until funding has been secured and work started on this vital infrastructure. We cannot sustain this level of development without serious investment on infrastructure and the addressing of dangerous pollution levels because of the lack of it.

Until this Plan has been fairly and properly amended so it provides a properly informed, fair and complete document it should not be adopted and should then be rewritten and only then reissued for full public consultation again. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations, I will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1869

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Jenny Cole

Representation Summary:

- Objection to the building of a new road between the A27 and the Birdham Road A286.
- This particular part of Fishbourne being listed as floodplain 2 will need piling to support a road, which will destroy the character of the Fishbourne meadows and paths to the harbour/sea.
- This area should instead be a wildlife corridor rather than the site of industrial units.

Full text:

Policy S23 A more robust tree and planting policy is required to ensure that Chichester District keeps as many trees and other green planting as possible to mitigate against traffic fumes. All street trees (WSCC) should be given priority over new developments, as mitigation measures (planted afterwards) will never make up for the ecology lost by felling, and removing already established hedges and trees etc. Where the trees aren't stree trees they need to be conserved with TPOs, so that it sends a clear message that Chichester needs its tree cover, particularity in the town centre and along the main roads to provide shade and oxygen, and temperature stability.
Promotion of more sustainable methods of transport, this means building more cycle routes (not just painting lines on roads). West Sussex CC are plainly failing to do this, (28 km planned over 5 years for the whole of the county) so District must work towards this by making sure that all developments have workable junctions onto main roads or off road routes built parallel and then sign posted. District Council may not build these, but it can find funding streams and push for them to be applied locally, and hold the developers to these plans promised, so that CIL money is spent wisely.
Support integration of trains and buses, again this should be a county function, but a unique opportunity to work to integrate the railway station and bus station will be lost in Chichester if the Southern Gateway goes ahead in its current form. And as for losing the taxi rank outside the station too, that beggars belief. Where are the fast charging points for electric cars at the station and throughout our town, West Sussex lags behind the rest of the country in provision, and Chichester especially with just two slow charging points outside the CDC offices which are always full.
Wildlife corridors need to be wider and bolder, and to allow crossings of the roads that block access. The ones on the east side of Chichester are particularly miserly. Most wildlife seems to be seen dead on the roads rather than in the wild. The whole reason for being in this area is that it hasn't got coastal development right along, but has access to the wider landscape of the sea and sky.
Objection to the building of a new road between the A27 and the Birdham Road A286. This particular part of Fishbourne being listed as floodplain 2 will need piling to support a road, which will destroy the character of the Fishbourne meadows and paths to the harbour/sea. This area should instead be a wildlife corridor rather than the site of industrial units.
S26 and S27 Concrete for housebuilding or industrial units or road building is at odds with the provisions for natural environment, and in dealing with floodplains. Any sea level rise or storm surge will make our natural environment more required as a buffer. Where is the provision for climate change? Unless we halt the use of fossil fuels and use more renewable energy there is no way out of this crisis. Building of houses and industry does not give us resilience to be able to cope with the future.
S28 Pollution. We already have three AQA zones, how about more robust measures to counter private cars running on diesel and petrol? Where are the Park and Ride schemes out of town? I don't see any areas designated for this?
S29 Green Infrastructure, the policies map showed no new green infrastructure, which is an opportunity missed.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1880

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Scarfe

Representation Summary:

I object to the proposed new road between Birdham Road and the Fishbourne roundabout because of the impact on the environment. This is near the AONB which is a precious but fragile part of our district and development on it should be greatly restricted

Full text:

I have already made this objection but it did not appear to be submitted.
I object to the proposed new road between Birdham Road and the Fishbourne roundabout because of the impact on the environment. This is near the AONB which is a precious but fragile part of our district and development on it should be greatly restricted

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1883

Received: 10/01/2019

Respondent: Dr Carolyn Cobbold

Representation Summary:

The AL6 link road and commercial development site flies in the face of climate change resilient planning. It is adjacent to internationally designated habitat sites, crosses Flood Zones 2& 3 and degrades significant views of cathedral and Downs from harbour, marina, Salterns Way and A286.

Full text:

The AL6 link road and commercial development site flies in the face of climate change resilient planning.It is adjacent to internationally designated habitat sites, crosses Flood Zones 2& 3 and degrades significant views of cathedral and Downs from harbour, marina, Salterns Way and A286.As such is contrary to CDC's own ICZM policy. The environmental, social and economic harm to the tourist industry completely outweighs any (unproven and short term) benefit.Directing more Manhood traffic off the A27 and onto the A286, the most congestion prone road in the district, is an unsound strategy.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1891

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: William Fleming

Representation Summary:

- Site AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes) is within a flood plain with the River Lavant running directly through the middle of the area.
- This area should remain a strategic gap between the two parishes and efforts concentrated on the area being more gainfully used as a green wildlife corridor.
- This area should be removed and use the alternative land near Goodwood; Policy AL6, S15, S16.

Full text:

Policy S23 is not acceptable as this is similar to the Highways England Option 2 which was comprehensively rejected by the public. If S23 were to be implemented according to the Peter Brett consultation then The South Downs National Park (SDNP) should have to take more housing and trade development to relieve the pressure that would be put on the Manhood Peninsula.
The Manhood cannot cope with any more development without having a complete upgrade of the A27, not the Peter Brett S23 option.
The SDNP (Policy S3, Policy S5 and Policy S19) should share some of the development or have a northern route around Chichester.
Site AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes) is within a flood plain with the River Lavant running directly through the middle of the area.
This area should remain a strategic gap between the two parishes and efforts concentrated on the area being more gainfully used as a green wildlife corridor.
This area should be removed and use the alternative land near Goodwood; Policy AL6, S15, S16.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1897

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM27 Historic Environment.

7.163 states the requirement to protect views in the area. It then mentions 4 views of which only AP6 covers 2 of them and will blight the view with employment space, residential properties and an elevated link road namely "Towards Chichester Cathedral; Towards the South Downs from the Coastal Plain".

Full text:

7.163 states the requirement to protect views in the area. It then mentions 4 views of which only AP6 covers 2 of them and will blight the view with employment space, residential properties and an elevated link road namely "Towards Chichester Cathedral; Towards the South Downs from the Coastal Plain".

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1898

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM28 Natural Environment.

Due to the coastal nature of the district the protection of the coast and views are of importance." This is clearly not the case with the proposal in SA6, Fishbourne and Bosham which will all impact this statement.

Full text:

Due to the coastal nature of the district the protection of the coast and views are of importance." This is clearly not the case with the proposal in SA6, Fishbourne and Bosham which will all impact this statement.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1899

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM25 Noise.

The proposal to move employment space within AP6 exacerbates noise pollution in the AONB. The movement of this and the proposed link road will bring the noise pollution to the border of the AONB and impact the status of the AONB.

Full text:

The proposal to move employment space within AP6 exacerbates noise pollution in the AONB. The movement of this and the proposed link road will bring the noise pollution to the border of the AONB and impact the status of the AONB.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1900

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM27 Historic Environment.

7.163 states the requirement to protect views in the area. It then mentions 4 views of which only AP6 covers 2 of them and will blight the view with employment space, residential properties and an elevated link road namely "Towards Chichester Cathedral; Towards the South Downs from the Coastal Plain".

Full text:

7.163 states the requirement to protect views in the area. It then mentions 4 views of which only AP6 covers 2 of them and will blight the view with employment space, residential properties and an elevated link road namely "Towards Chichester Cathedral; Towards the South Downs from the Coastal Plain".

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1907

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Laura Marrinan

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

AL6 inappropriate for development on following grounds:
a. Affects the AONB on its border:
i) Light pollution.
ii) Noise Pollution.
iii) Waste water issues.
iv) Habitat risk.
v) Green buffer between Chichester and AONB
vi) Only view of cathedral from the sea lost
vii) Unsuitable for residential property due to flood plain
viii) Green buffer between Chichester and Manhood
b. Proposed link road:
i) Ruined views of cathedral framed by South Downs
ii) Traffic congestion onto Fishbourne roundabout moves pollution
iii) Loss of Salterns way
c. Employment space in floodplain:
i) Noise pollution
ii) Light pollution into AONB Sustainability Statement

Full text:

Our concerns are mainly to do with the overburden of the A27, particularly at Stockbridge and Fishbourne where we are very concerned about the air quality and high levels of pollution. With the traffic often at a standstill this is not being given enough consideration in the plan. Building more houses, with more cars, in this area will only make the matter worse.

4.98 This high level extraction is a rerun of Option 3 of the failed Highways England (HE) consultation and none of it will resolve the issues during rush hour and adverse circumstances such as beach traffic. Nor for that matter does it offer a strategic alternative route in the event of road closure. The problems of the A27 and its proximity to the city are the issue that currently exist. Nothing is or will be done to mitigate these within the adopted plan or this proposed revised plan. This plan does not integrate with the mitigated Northern route that we have all campaigned for. We must (as described in planning legislation) plan for an integrated solution which addresses the immediate, and future transport requirements. This policy of tinkering with the junctions will not resolve the issues of the A27.

We are also very worried about the proposed development at Apuldram. This is a flood plain and unsuitable for development. It would also destroy the iconic view of the Cathedral from the coastline.

The views of the cathedral and the South Downs from the sea and the Apuldram area (the only one where both are in one view). Views are a consideration for refusal of suitable land elsewhere within the plan yet this is not applied to this site. This affect on iconic views and habitats are further desecrated by an elevated road which is not affordable and was resoundly rejected by the public in 2016. There is no justification for the link road in the plan and the detailed impact is not available for us to comment on.
The proposed link road would remove the natural barrier between Chichester and the AONB and therefore needs to be removed as other areas have been removed for this same reason in this revised plan.
No consideration has been made for the Pollution impact including AQMA, Light into the dark skies of the AONB and noise.
17th 5.44 This statement is probably the most important statement in the plan so far "The landscape of the coastline is characterised by its relatively flat topography which, on occasion, serves to provide views from the water across to the South Downs National Park." The proposal to build SW of Chichester will not only spoil this view but will also spoil perhaps the only view framed by the South Downs of the cathedral in the whole area with employment sites and housing and with a proposed raised link relief road through countryside bordering the Chichester Harbour AONB. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan I will wish to raise this with the examiner at the appropriate juncture.

Waste - all of the development SW of Chichester the plan acknowledges the waste issue but does not propose a plan for a solution. As we know this will directly impact on our AONB and the harbour for water users and will impact the blue flag status of one of the areas greatest tourist attraction but is not considered in this local plan in any concrete detail. 3000 residential properties will have a massive effect on our status as a AONB.

AL 6 is wholly un appropriate for development as it:
a. Affects the AONB on its border:
i) Light pollution.
ii) Noise Pollution.
iii) Waste water issues. iv) Habitat risk.
v) Green buffer between Chichester and AONB vi) Only view of cathedral from the sea lost
vii) Unsuitable for residential property due to flood plain
viii) Green buffer between Chichester and Manhood
b. Proposed link road:
i) Ruined views of cathedral framed by South Downs
ii) Traffic congestion onto Fishbourne roundabout moves pollution
iii) Loss of Salterns way
c. Employment space in floodplain:
i) Noise pollution
ii) Light pollution into AONB Sustainability Statement
Air quality - PBA say that the development will not increase air quality issues but makes scant mention of the current AQMA and more importantly states "Outside of current air quality management areas (AQMAs)". There is no mention that the Stockbridge AQMA will improve with any of the proposed junction improvements and as such this should be rejected especially the proposed link road. No mention is made of the effect to the AONB of building the proposed link road. The reality is that what these proposals will do is move and extend the AQMA. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan I will wish to raise this with the examiner at the appropriate juncture.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1938

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sally Mountstephen

Representation Summary:

The proposed spur road would push traffic south and cause further congestion.
Roads are narrow and not capable of coping with increased traffic
Roads already at capacity

Full text:

I write to express my comments on The Local Plan - Preferred Approach

I have lived in West Wittering on the Manhood Peninsula for the last 19 years.
The Manhood Peninsula is a unique area which relies heavily on tourism, agriculture and horticulture; within its boundaries lie the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Beauty (ANOB) and the Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve (LNR).
It has only 2 main access roads leading to the A.27.

While I have huge sympathy for the CDC being dictated to by the Government in relation to how many houses, retail units and commercial development they wish to see built, they do not take into consideration the countryside they want it built on.

Therefore I cannot support your view of the way forward (up to the year 2035) as being manageable or workable.

The one massive sticking point is the A.27 itself. I believe there is a considered view that the A.27 in its present form and the proposed northern route round Chichester (2016) is unworkable and unaffordable - the present southern route being unworkable and the northern route unaffordable.
The proposed spur road AL6 (which is Option 3 from the 2016 consultation which was dismissed as it was admitted the road would have to be upgraded to a dual carriage way within 12 years to cope with the increased traffic) from the Tesco's roundabout to link with the A.286 via a roundabout would merely push the traffic south and cause further havoc = eg: cars wanting to access the new Chichester Free School would have to then drive across Wophams Lane, through Hunston to the school, both roads are narrow and are not capable of coping with a huge flow of traffic. Those roads are already used by locals who wish to avoid the congestion on the A.27.

Once upon a time there were traffic lights on the A.27, these were removed and replaced with roundabouts, now you propose to put back traffic lights at the Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts with no right turn if you are driving in a west - east direction. I have heard the cost to be in the region of £80 million pounds, money you do not have. Just leave the A.27 alone until someone with a vision of the future needs of Chichester has the guts to implement a northern route.


I quote 2 reasons why: An accident on the A.286 on 2nd February 2019 closed the road for 5 hours; a cyclist was killed on 10th May 2018 the A.27 was closed for approx 9 hours. The surrounding roads and Chichester were gridlocked.

The minimum number of houses the CDC proposes to build are: the Manhood 1,933, an east-west corridor of 10,056, with a token number of 489 for north of the area plan make no allowances for the inadequate number of police, doctors, schools and transport we already have in place. The East Wittering's Medical Centre had listed over 10,300 patients registered in 2018 - where is the provision for more medical centres?
All these extra houses will have at least one car per family, reality says two cars; how on earth is the A.27 going to cope with these larger numbers when it cannot cope with today's numbers?

The A.27 is the crux of the problem - get that sorted; then the CDC will have a mandate for the future.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1942

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM18 Flood Risk and Water Management.

7.118 States "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".

Full text:

7.118 States "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".

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1943

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton

Representation Summary:

Object to AL6 due to conflict with DM18 Flood Risk and Water Management.

7.108 forwards articulates the councils approach to flood zone areas. AL6 in particular makes no specific reference to the flood zone which is listed as depicted in the environment agency map

Full text:

7.108 forwards articulates the councils approach to flood zone areas. AL6 in particular makes no specific reference to the flood zone which is listed as depicted in the environment agency map