Policy AL8: East Wittering Parish

Showing comments and forms 31 to 41 of 41

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2183

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Erica Bryant

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Comments on AL8 allocation for Bracklesham//East Wittering area relate to:
- Increased traffic a barrier for tourism
- No easy access to the rail networks, employment, secondary schools and higher education.
- No secondary school in this area
- Local schools at capacity
- Medical centre at capacity
- Lack of employment

Full text:

Having read the Local Plan - Preferred Approach we are extremely concerned that the powers that be do not fully comprehend the geography and economic importance of the Manhood Peninsular. We therefore set out our comments below.
There is only one road (A286) linking the Witterings/Bracklesham to the A.27 which is one of the most congested roads in the area and it has proved difficult on occasions for the emergency services to reach accidents etc. It also makes travel to and from these villages, including by buses, extremely difficult. The proposed AL6 link road will not solve the problem and nor will the junction changes which will result in local journeys becoming longer and more difficult. The housing targets will also impact greatly on the road capacity. There needs to be a long term solution to the A27. Indeed, the A286 which links the Witterings/Bracklesham to Chichester is so frequently gridlocked that St Richards hospital recommends that its senior staff do not live in the area because they cannot guarantee that they will be able to reach the hospital within a necessary time limit.
The proposed provision of a commercial development site and a raised link road will be on a flood plain and is adjacent to an internationally important habitat site. This would suggest that such a site for the development would be unsuitable. The impact of a raised road on the Apuldram/Donnington area would also be substantial on the local community.
Consideration has apparently not been given to the impact of the changes at the Hunston junction. There is now a large secondary school near to the junction which has resulted in an increase in the amount traffic at the junction of as the considerable number of children have to be taken to/from school by car due to the lack of public transport particularly from the Witterings areas.
For the reasons stated above we do not think the proposed AL6 link road or the provision of a commercial development site is a sensible or economic solution.
In the Section "S2 - 4.14 Development Strategy it states "consideration has been given to other factors in determining whether a settlement is a suitable location for additional housing growth, including infrastructure capacity". However, these factors do not appear to have been fully taken into account and we would like to comment as follows.
The minimum housing target of 350 set for the Bracklesham/East Wittering area will have a significant impact on the villages and the A286 and suggests that a higher housing target could be reached. Even a maximum of 350 would excessive, in view of the increase in housing that has already taken place and is currently under construction in the area (including Birdham). There is no easy access to the rail networks, employment, secondary schools and higher education. There is no secondary school in the Witterings/Bracklesham area and there is very limited employment in the Manhood Peninsula, which means people have to commute to access employment, schooling and rail networks. One has to assume that it is most likely that each property is likely to use two cars. All traffic from these villages has to travel along the frequently congested A286. The schools are already almost at capacity as is the medical centre which already finds it necessary to divert some patients in need of medical attention to other practices outside of the villages. These village communities rely heavily on tourism for employment and their economy. If the road becomes even more congested this will inevitably lead to tourists avoiding the area, which would also have an adverse effect on the contribution the Peninsular makes to the Chichester district.
We live in Somerley in a conservation area. We have already been impacted by the increase in noise levels from traffic passing along Bell Lane/Bracklesham Lane. According to a Transport Study for the LPR by Peter Brett it forecasts that the further increase in housing will raise the level of noise to "major". We suggest that consideration should be given to reducing, not increasing, the level of noise.
In view of the above we object to East Wittering/Bracklesham being considered as a settlement hub and it should be removed.

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2308

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Portsmouth Water Ltd

Representation Summary:

Policy AL8 'East Wittering' is at the extremity of the distribution system and may be expensive to supply.

Full text:

Spatial Vision
Portsmouth Water note that there are significant additional housing allocations to the west of Chichester and on the coastal strip. These sites will need to be assessed for water supply and funding included in the Infrastructure Charging scheme. (See Map 4.1 Key Diagram)

It is not clear what water storage capacity is being referred to in Section 3.19. Portsmouth Water will review the provision of Service Reservoirs, for day to day use, and has re-started development of a large raw water storage reservoir at Havant Thicket. The reservoir, when combined with Portsmouth Water's existing sources and enhancements to its groundwater sources, would create sufficient
surplus to support an additional flexible daily transfer of treated water from Portsmouth Water are to Southern Water without detriment to Portsmouth Water's resilience.

Southern Water requires this transfer to help meet a significant deficit in its Southampton East, Southampton West and Isle of Wight resource zones. This deficit arose after Southern Water agreed to reduce its abstraction licences on the Rivers Test and River Itchen at a public inquiry in March 2018, to help protect the environment.

It is not clear that the water demands of the Horticultural Development Areas have been assessed. It is possible that these businesses will rely on rainwater harvesting and storage but changes in licencing regulations mean that 'Trickle Irrigation' is no longer exempt from abstraction licencing.

Groundwater abstraction in the coastal plain will require an impact assessment under the Habitats Regulations. (Section 4.75)

Spatial Strategy

Policy S12 sets out how development can make effective use of existing infrastructure. Portsmouth Water agree that the siting and timing of development can assist with the economic provision of water resource infrastructure. It also states that safeguarding existing infrastructure, such as water mains and aquifers, is important. Portsmouth Water would urge developers to check for existing infrastructure and for source protection zones that may limit development options.
Water infrastructure is not funded through CIL but a separate 'Infrastructure Charge' payable for each individual house. This is designed to pay for all off-site water infrastructure such as mains reinforcements, service reservoirs and supply. Development to an agreed program will help this system work effectively.

Strategic Policies

Policy S27 'Flood Risk Management' refers to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and the need to control surface water run-off. It should also refer to aquifer protection and the need for caution when using infiltration systems especially deep bore systems. This applies particularly when the site is in, or close to, a source protection zone.

Policy S31 'Wastewater Management and Water Quality' refers to higher standards in the Building Regulations for water consumption to reduce pollution in the harbours. Portsmouth Waters 'Water Resources Management Plan' is based on lower per capita consumption and we have an aspiration for all customer to reach 100 litres/head/day by 2050. This is no substitute for reducing overall flows
to sewage treatment works by the control of groundwater infiltration and surface water drainage.

Strategic Site Allocations

Policy AL1 'West of Chichester' does not mention water supply so we assume that the site has reverted to a conventional system with sewerage pumped to Tangmere WWTW and water supplied by us. Portsmouth Water has provided provisional designs for this system and there are no existing large diameter water mains on the site. Costs for reinforcement of the water mains will be recovered by the new Infrastructure Charge and on site mains are likely to be provided by a third
party. Information on how reinforcement of the water mains is recovered by the Infrastructure Charge can be found in Portsmouth Water's Developer Charging Arrangements on our website under https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/developers/.

Policy AL2 'Shopwyke' is already under construction and has a conventional water supply system with all elements provided by us. Costs are being recovered via the Infrastructure Charge and on-site charges.

Policy AL3 'East of Chichester' is a new strategic site and there are no large diameter mains crossing it. This is an old landfill and may contain material that can damage plastic pipes. On site mains may need to be protected or be more expensive to ensure water quality is maintained.

Policy AL4 'Westhampnett' Phase 1 is already under construction and account has been taken of the large diameter main that crosses the site. Phase 2 is an extension of the existing Greylingwell site but it is not clear if this has been allowed for in the design of this 'Inset Appointment'. Portsmouth Water do not own the mains and there may be a single point of supply.

Policy AL5 'Southern Gateway' is an inner city development with a good water supply system. The reference to the 'efficient use of water' is confusing because many of the other strategic development sites also drain to Apuldram WWTW. All sites need to be water efficient but not follow the example of the 'Code for Sustainable Homes'. Sites were developed in Chichester that used rainwater harvesting to meet the Code objectives but were able to use higher water use fittings such as power showers. This led to properties producing more sewage than equivalent water efficient homes. This did not achieve the objective at Apuldram. An alternative provision might be to reduce infiltration but it is not clear how this would be funded or who would carry out the work.

Policy AL6 'South West Chichester' is crossed by a large diameter main that will have to be reflected in the road layout or diverted. The proposed link road may offer an alternative route for the main.

Policy AL7 'Bosham' is situated on the old A27 and there are no large diameter mains in the area.

Policy AL8 'East Wittering' is at the extremity of the distribution system and may be expensive to supply.

Policy AL9 'Fishbourne' allocation is not site specific and it is difficult to comment on the feasibility of water supply. Any off site costs will be recovered via the new Infrastructure Charge. Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and development is likely to be located in a source protection zone for our Fishbourne public water supply abstraction. Under this policy, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality
protection and the additional requirements when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Further guidance on Portsmouth Water's preferred approach to development relating to groundwater quality within our catchments can be found within 'Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance notes' which are attached to this response and also available to view on our website under https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/developers/groundwater-protection/.

Policy AL10 'Chidham and Hambrook' is a large site and may need to be considered in combination with 'Southbourne' and 'Bosham'. There are no large diameter mains in the area and mains reinforcements may be required.

Policy AL11 'Hunston' allocation is not site specific.

Policy A12 'Selsey' is at the extremity of the distribution system and has seen previous housing growth. Reinforcement of the water mains may need to be provided.

Policy AL13 'Southbourne' is supplied from a different distribution system to Chichester. This is a very large housing allocation and this may need to be considered in combination with 'Hambrook' and 'Bosham'. There are sufficient water resources for all the housing allocated to Portsmouth Water's area of supply. It is the location of the housing site in relation to existing trunk mains and
service reservoirs that determines the cost to supply. Local reinforcement of the water mains may be required.

Policy AL14 'Tangmere' housing allocation has increased by 30% and we may need to repeat the modelling that has already been done. There is also uncertainty about the water supply to the HDA which seems to rely on rainwater harvesting for future growth. The housing development and the HDA could have an impact on our source protection zone. Under this policy, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality protection and the
additional requirements when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Guidance should be sought from Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance for development.

Policy AL15 'Land at Chichester Business Park, Tangmere' Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and the site allocation is likely to be within a source protection zone for our Aldingbourne public water supply abstraction. As above, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality protection and the need for caution when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Please refer to Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance for further information.

Development Management

Policy DM10: 'New Employment Sites' Development proposal should be compatible with other policies in the Plan, in particular DM9 'Existing Employment Sites' to ensure that the development is otherwise acceptable. Policy DM9 states that development should 'not generate unacceptable levels of water pollution' and this should include groundwater pollution. This requirement should also be applied to Policy DM10, especially when the site is in, or close to, a source protection zone.

Policy DM15 'Horticultural Development' Developments at Tangmere HDA have relied on infiltration to dispose of excess surface water. This policy states that development should 'not generate unacceptable levels of water pollution' and this should include groundwater pollution. Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and the potential impacts must be assessed for any SUDS. The EA 'Abstraction Licencing Strategy' (ALS) may give an indication about the
availability of groundwater but it does not cover the derogation of existing supplies.

Policy DM16 'Sustainable Design and Construction' covers the use of Building Regulations to control water use. Portsmouth Water have an aspiration to reduce overall water use to 100 litres/head/day and this policy will help to achieve that aim.

Policy DM18 'Water Management' using SUDS needs to take account groundwater quality and should avoid direct infiltration into the chalk aquifer. This is especially important within the source protection zones.

Policy DM29 'Biodiversity' Portsmouth Water has legal duties to protect and where practical enhance biodiversity and has an active program of work on it's own land. This work is now expanding to include projects on other people's land in association with 'Catchment Management' activities. We would look to CDC for support in areas such as Bosham Stream, Lavant Stream and Fishbourne Stream where schemes could be developed in partnership with local housing developments.

Policy DM35 'Equestrian Development' can have a direct impact on water quality including groundwater quality. Portsmouth Water support the protection of water courses and aquifers.

Appendix 'E' Monitoring Framework

Policy S12 covers the provision of infrastructure but it is not clear how records of completed projects will be collected or stored.

Policy S26 covers biodiversity improvements and Natural England should be consulted on priorities and record keeping.

Policy S31 covers water consumption which is only available for the whole Company area in the WRMP Annual Review.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2362

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: West Sussex Local Access Forum (WSLAF)

Representation Summary:

Opportunities for the provision of green infrastructure links to the wider countryside within these Policies are welcomed. It is particularly relevant to the Coastal Plain where the current provision of multi-user routes is very limited. Improvements in this area would comply with the objectives of the West Sussex Rights of Way Management Pan 2018-2028.

Full text:

Para 3.2 bullet points 5, 9 & 10 - these objectives are supported
The Local Plan Strategic Objectives
Para 3.19 Health & Well-Being bullet point 1 - this objective is supported
Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula : Objective 5 - while the objective is supported it should apply to all Non-Motorised User (NMU) activity. This could best be achieved by ensuring at least one multi-user route is provided around and through developments linked to the existing Public Right of Way (PRoW) and wider access networks.
Design : Policy 20 bullet point 5 - the objective is supported but should recognise that this includes multi-use PRoW for the use and benefit of all.
Planning for Health and Well-being Para 5.9 - this objective is supported but should encourage all NMU activity not limited to walking and cycling.
Transport Infrastructure
Para 5.15 - the inclusion of bridleways is welcomed but there should be specific inclusion of PRoW
Para 5.16 - the wording is misleading as the provision of bridleways on the Coastal Plain is very limited, restricting access for cyclists and equestrians. Upgrading suitable PRoW to bridleways would improve access for all NMUs and contribute to the West Sussex Transport Plan (2011-2016) to improve safety for all road users.
Policy S23 : Transport and Accessibility bullet point 8 - inclusion of PRoW is welcomed
Policy S32: Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Sites
Bullet points b, e & g - the aims of these are welcomed but any new routes are linked from new developments to the wider PRoW and access networks
Policy AL1 : Land West of Chichester
Para 4 - this development provides an opportunity to improve access links to the wider access network
Para 10 - there is an opportunity here to provide a multi-user PRoW for all NMUs
Policy AL2: Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish)
Para 9 - any bridge should be for all NMUs, including equestrians, to reinstate the route severed when the A27 was re-aligned.
Policies AL3 - AL14 - opportunities for the provision of green infrastructure links to the wider countryside within these Policies are welcomed. It is particularly relevant to the Coastal Plain where the current provision of multi-user routes is very limited. Improvements in this area would comply with the objectives of the West Sussex Rights of Way Management Pan 2018-2028.

DM15 Horticultural Development - there is an opportunity within the Runcton area to enhance and upgrade routes for NMUs should the land be used for housing at a later date.
Policy DM23 Green Infrastructure
Para 7.185 - the examples should specifically include PRoW.
Bullet point 4 - more positive wording to recognise the improvement proposals could make to the access networks is preferred.
Policy DM34 Open Space, Sport and Recreation.... - the aim to retain, enhance, enhance access and increase the quantity and quality of PROW and the links to them is supported. This would be of great benefit to all NMUs is all new routes/links are multi-user.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2663

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Mike Dicker

Representation Summary:

Overall mentions that the road infrastructure is not currently able to manage demand yet no mitigation proposals are included in this element of the plan.

See attached for full detail.

Full text:

Full detailed submission for the Local Plan and supporting evidence is attached.

The representations attached to this submission reflect a high level summary of the detailed submission and do not contain the full level of detail received.

High level comments received:

a. The transport study conducted by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) is not fit for purpose and needs to be rewritten. The scope set for PBA is far too constraining and counters the democratic process agreed by the council to seek alternative routes.

b. Many of the documents are inconsistent and in their current form smack of inconsistency and bias. Reasons for excluding some strategic sites are not consistently used for other sites.

c. Many of the evidence documents are not present or are not complete for this consultation. These will need to be re consulted when they are complete.

d. CDC should not be accepting the unmet housing need from the South Downs National Park (SDNP). They should also be going back to government to insist that until certainty is provided on the A27 this area can not accommodate future housing and or employment space.

e. The proposed link road was resoundly rejected last time it was proposed by Highways England. CDC need to respect the voices that rejected what is option 2 by stealth. Particularly as the PBA report states that the building of the link road will offer other "strategic options". This will not be tolerated locally.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2695

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Welbeck Strategic Land (IV) LLP

Agent: DMH Stallard

Representation Summary:

Strategic allocations should be made in the LPR as they are strategic policies.

E Wittering can deliver more than 350 dwellings, particularly Land at Church Road.

Policy fails to recognise that E Wittering settlement straddles two parishes, therefore policy should consider settlements not parishes.

Promoting site Land West of Church Road.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2773

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

SWT is concerned that the impacts on Pagham Harbour SPA and in particular the importance of functionally linked supporting habitat for Dark-bellied Brent Geese, have not been sufficiently considered by CDC. As mentioned previously we do not think it is sufficient to simply use policy wording to require mitigation. For the allocation to be deliverable there must be sufficient confidence that avoidance of adverse impacts can be achieved. In the case of policy AL8, there needs to be recognition that both recreational disturbance and the loss of functionally linked supporting habitat needs to be avoided.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2925

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Representation Summary:

Major development around East Wittering seen as having negative impact on area. There are reassuring words in policy about impact of developments and mitigation, but unclear how these worthy aims can be achieved here. Plan refers to "promoting sustainable transport options". Additional housing in area can only exacerbate transport problems. Short of everyone using the cycleway, it is hard to envisage how this area can cope with yet further residents. Aware many new houses in the area purchased as second homes. Any development here should be strongly slanted towards affordable homes for local people. Policy does not promote that approach.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2958

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: MR William Sharp

Representation Summary:

This policy is not complete without consideration of global warming and sea level rise (Bracklesham Bay will be underwater at 1.5 metre rise).

So-called "improvements" to highways do not "promote sustainable transport options".

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3307

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Barratt Homes

Agent: Luken Beck MDP Ltd

Representation Summary:

Support for strategic allocation at E Wittering but no justification as to why growth is restricted to 350 dwellings when other Settlement Hubs have significantly higher numbers.

Suggest 875 dwellings can be supported.

Suggest amend policy wording.

Promoting site at Stubcroft Farm.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3345

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: CEG

Agent: Nexus Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Policies AL8-AL11, and AL13 allocate a housing number to each parish to be allocated by the relevant NPs.

Any housing that is expected to be provided through NPs cannot reasonably be relied upon during at least the first five years of the Plan.

It is unclear whether the Parish Council has agreed to accommodate such a significant level of growth as part of a NP.

For these reasons we question the deliverability of 350 homes at East Wittering through a NP process, particularly given the scale of other NP allocations relied upon elsewhere to meet the Council's minimum housing requirement.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3366

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Intelligent Land

Representation Summary:

For the reasons set out in representations to draft Policies S2&S3, the allocation at East Wittering should be more appropriate to its size, services and facilities. As such the allocation should be reduced to 210, with the remainder of 140 allocated to Selsey, along with 25 dwellings from Birdham.

If the suggested changes to draft Policy S3 were applied to the Manhood Peninsula in Policy S4, to help achieve the required 30% affordable housing, a total of 1400 homes would be allocated, with an appropriate proportion of 400 dwellings at East Wittering.

Full text:

See attachment