Fishbourne

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 35

Received: 24/12/2018

Respondent: Karen Fielder

Representation Summary:

6.63 Fishbourne has limited, not reasonable facilities and services, and the suggestion that further housing is required to sustain these existing facilities is disingenuous. Building a further 250 dwelling does not constitute sustainable development in this context. Furthermore the figure of min. 250 new dwellings must be challenged, and the National Park should be compelled to take an increased share of the housing burden for the District.
6.65 pt2 must refer to the relationship with Bosham as well as Chichester City.

Full text:

6.63 Fishbourne has a limited range of facilities and services, not reasonable, and it is somewhat perverse to suggest that an increase in population is necessary to sustain these services. Truly sustainable growth will not be achieved by building 250 more dwellings in the village. Whilst there is a Tesco Superstore to the east side of the village this is not within walking distance for most of the population and there is no convenience store, no banking facilities, no post office. There is no GP surgery within walking distance. We are fortunate to have a train halt, but the service is poor and unreliable. The village bus service (no. 56) is infrequent and currently under review. The 700 is a good service but it is not a village bus and does not serve a significant proportion of the community. The primary school is full. Many local roads are unsuitable for any significant increase in road traffic and the Fishbourne roundabout is notorious. There is little choice but to head into Chichester, generally by car, for even basic services and facilities. On the other hand the Community Centre, the Roman Palace and the church hall are all excellent facilities and achieve a great deal in building community cohesion in an otherwise poorly serviced and dispersed village.

The requirement for min. 250 new dwellings must be challenged. Fishbourne has already absorbed a significant number of new properties and very little development land remains. Can the demand for this number of properties be evidenced? What is the basis for future predicted needs? The proportion of land within District that has potential for development is (rightly) constrained by its precious natural environment but the National Park must take an increased share of the housing burden.

6.65, pt2 - should refer also to the relationship with Bosham as well as Chichester City. This is critical to retaining village identity and the rural character of the village.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 48

Received: 27/12/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Relf

Representation Summary:

2.13 No major employers in Fishbourne making travel to work a necessity.

2.29 What employment needs? speculation and entirely subjective.

3.2 Speculative. Where is evidence of local need, demography and transport.

3.6 Impact of huge traffic increases on the A259 cannot be over-emphasized.

3.7 Fishbourne has no facilities. The railway is a halt, not a station and out of reach of Bethwines.

Previous application for Bethwines development suggested car sharing and extensive use of cycling/walking which would never work.

Public transport is not viable unless a new bus route created.

Traffic will have to access development via unsuitable Blackboys Lane.

Full text:

Your policy DM8 states that any development must minimize and not create or add to problems of highway safety, congestion , air pollution or other damage.

I have been involved since the early 1980's in Sussex traffic issues, including the A27 Forum and I predicted that the BABA27 result would not be successful. The Conservative Government have not spent money in Sussex for decades and there has been little done since the Brighton Bypass. I believe from experience that there is a policy, or a non written agenda that money will not be spent on the south's transport infrastructure. It is time they were honest. London, Runcorn, the motorways and the north billions, the south nothing! This lack of investment brings the actual and proposed increase in housing and transport problems into sharp focus.

I have looked at the range and planning verbiage in the review, and it is so wide ranging that for any individual or Parish Council to assimilate and prepare a full response would be very difficult given the ridiculous time constraint. I can only give a snapshot of my thoughts, without any real evidence as back up. Given that you must have taken a very long time to write a wish list of properties to be built without much evidence either, this is may be acceptable.

The areas of objection for Fishbourne, Bosham and Chidham are considerable, but I will concentrate on the traffic and access problems set out by statements in the main Plan, and an assessment of the proposed Bethwines development.

I set out my reasoning herewith:-

2.5 The A27 does not serve communities west of Chichester unless they use the A259 as a feeder road. We all know about the congestion and danger of Fishbourne Roundabout now.

2.13 There are no major employers in Fishbourne making travel to work a necessity.

2.29 I have to ask what employment needs? What employment? Much of this document must be speculation and entirely subjective. There is no employment in Fishbourne, and no plans to provide it, and no one I know can see where the employment will be unless the new resident travels a considerable distance - using the A259 to access the A27.

Where are you going to create new open space? The open space currently exists as a buffer between villages but this report is actually planning to take it away. Views from Apuldram to the Cathedral, and the loss of the buffer zone west of Fishbourne. Your statement on the preservation of landscapes is therefore ridiculous set against the building of houses on current landscapes and views.

3.2 This is all speculative. Where is the evidence of local need, demography and transport. It is not set out in this document.

3.6 How can this conserve and enhance local distinctiveness? It is unsupported verbal junk. The impact of such huge traffic increases on the A259 cannot be over emphasized. This Local Plan report will seek to add to the problem already agreed from the increase of 1600 houses currently in the expansion development to the west of the City, and the proposed 100 houses and commercial development south of the A27.

3.7 Fishbourne is designated as a service village. The definition is that the village can provide a reasonable range of basic facilities, or have reasonable access to nearby facilities. Fishbourne has no facilities being wholly residential, in fact only two pubs and the Fishbourne Centre. Reasonable access - This is not so due to huge traffic problems currently on the A259 accessing the Fishbourne roundabout which will greatly deteriorate given the building scale. The 700 bus is excellent, but it is nationally accepted that unless a bus stop is within 400 metres of the house, residents will not use it. The 56 bus runs every one and a half hours up Salthill Road but will again still be out of reach of Bethwines residents. The railway provision is a halt, not a station, and only has one train an hour in each direction, and again is out of reach of Bethwines development.
We also need to add the destructive effects of pollution if we have miles of standing traffic in Fishbourne and on the A27 west of the city.

6.49 Development south of the A27 between Stockbridge and Fishbourne.

I am very aware of the history of Fishbourne roundabout, which was a disaster from its initial construction. It was proved then to the Agency that it was possible to negotiate the roundabout east/west at 70mph, and is still the same. The Highways Agency of course would not agree to their error despite proof, but they have left this over stretched and dangerous roundabout as their legacy to us.

Any attempt to add a further junction from a link road onto the current A27 Fishbourne roundabout must be rejected. There will still be huge obstruction to A259 eastbound gaining access onto the roundabout as it struggles now, but if an additional junction is given precedence over A259, entry to the roundabout will be even more clogged and more dangerous. Not only will Fishbourne traffic be required to give way to growing A27 westbound traffic, it will also have to give way to traffic from any proposed new link from the south. The only possible alternative to a grade separated junction is a signalized and re-created hamburger roundabout. We all know that signals will improve safety, but would never cure the future serious congestion. Even if the dangerous traffic problems on the roundabout are mitigated by signalisation, the congestion will remain heavy and excessive. The huge proposed increase in traffic along the corridor will make this junction unusable with consequences to surrounding minor roads such as Salthill Road, Clay Lane, Funtington Road and Hunters Race.

6.54 The development at Highgrove Farm, Bosham where 250 homes are planned will also reduce the strategic gap between Bosham and Fishbourne and impact upon the A259.


Bethwines development Traffic problems.

The previous application for Bethwines development submitted a transport plan that was frankly ludicrous. Such suggestions as car sharing and extensive use of cycling/walking would never work to reduce regular car use out of the village.

Public transport is not a viable option for the new estate unless a new bus route was created, or the 56 diverted, and I doubt that this is an option. The 700 bus route along the A259 is too distant.

Traffic will therefore have to access the new development via Blackboys Lane.

Blackboys Lane at the south end is narrow, with ditches either side and properties closely border the roadway. The exit onto the A259 is narrow with limited visibility, and an exit almost impossible with the proposed traffic flow. North of the railway crossing the road is open and wider, but leads to Clay Lane that is itself not satisfactory for this growth in car use. Road upgrades would be necessary and roads such as Halfrey Road would have a significant increase in rat run traffic .

The junction of Clay Lane and Salthill Road, and Salthill Road and the Funtington Road would need an assessment using current models to establish the correct junction control. The Funtington Road/Salthill junction has very poor visibility. The narrow Clay Lane throughout it's length to Fishbourne Road East, that is a 20mph residential road would also need to be upgraded including pavements and/or cycle routes.

It is inevitable that Salthill Road, Hunters Race and Clay Lane would become a popular route out of the area. It is over stretched now with the road surface deteriorating quickly especially in Lavant.


The A27 and A259

There has been no time to establish current traffic flows on the A259, but as we all know, the congestion to Fishbourne Roundabout is often back to The Woolpack, and encourages the use of Salthill Road out of the village. The A27 daily has six miles of standing traffic eastbound in two lanes to Fishbourne roundabout

The transport corridor is not effective now let alone with the 2250 houses you are suggesting along the corridor between Chichester and Southbourne. 2250 houses mean 4500 cars, established by a study of Flavian Fields development at Fishbourne. This showed that there were two cars per household, 35% of adult residents in the Flavian Fields development do not work, that means that 65% do work and have to travel to employment outside of the village, and must apply equally to Chidham, Bosham and Southbourne. This also takes no account of the fact that mothers will transport their children to school by car. These schools will be outside of the villages due to an already full Fishbourne and Bosham School and the only secondary school at Southbourne being further away than Chichester schools. It has been established that Fishbourne already has the highest car dependency in Chichester District.

Specifically for the A259 between Chidham and Fishbourne roundabout, the huge growth of 1000 houses in Fishbourne, Bosham and Chidham, amounts to 2000 additional cars that will use the A259. I would anticipate that these villages will use Chichester for employment, schools, access to the A27 and facilities. The 1250 houses in Southbourne will further complicate the numbers, but some will probably travel westbound for services.

National statistics reveal that at least half of those additional cars from our villages will use the A259 the only feeder road for travel at peak time to work. The average length of a family car is now 4.8 metres. Allowing for about a one metre+ gap between them, 1000 cars need a stationery road space of about 6000 metres or Fishbourne roundabout to Chidham if lined up. That is a staggering fact, and no thought has been given to this problem in the planning strategy, exacerbated by the lack of an upgraded A27.

This must now be a factor in responding to the Government's demand for housing in this narrow area as I repeat your policy DM 8

'any development must minimize and not create or add to problems of highway safety, congestion , air pollution or other damage.'

This policy cannot be fulfilled!!

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 274

Received: 20/01/2019

Respondent: Steve Blighton-Sande

Representation Summary:

I do not believe Fishbourne can support a further 250 dwellings.

Full text:

I do not believe Fishbourne can support a further 250 dwellings.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 386

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Pieter Montyn

Representation Summary:

6.62 Chichester Harbour is not located to the south of the village,
Part of Fishbourne is within the AONB

Full text:

6.62 Chichester Harbour is not located to the south of the village,
Part of Fishbourne is within the AONB

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 528

Received: 29/01/2019

Respondent: Petrina Miliam

Representation Summary:

- School oversubscribed
- No doctor's surgery
- NHS dental practice oversubscribed
- No shop
- Public transport overcrowded in summer
- Fight to fund rural bus
- Development will encourage car use along the A259
- Traffic queues will increase with hamburger roundabout
- Noise and air pollution from standing traffic at unacceptable levels
- High water table being barely 6" below the surface.
- Habitat Review appears out of date
- Substantial wildlife across Bethwines Farm needs protection
- Bethwines Farm is agricultural land, should not be used for building
- Impact on Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC/Ramsar site

Full text:

Fishbourne does NOT require further development to sustain the services in our village. The school is already over subscribed with children travelling out to other schools, the pre-school is well supported. You are lucky to be able to make a booking in the Fishbourne Centre and St Peter's Place as they are so popular for local groups. The pubs are well used and valued. The Fishbourne Playing Field with all the local sports facilities and groups is the envy of many villages. The success of both WI groups and the recently formed Fishbourne Companions amongst other local groups is a testament to a vibrant, active population. The statement "promote the vitality of the village" with additional hosuing is a complete fabrication and wholly untrue.

However we have NO doctor's surgery, NO nurse led clinic, oversubscribed NHS dental practice, NO shop. The hospital services cannot keep pace with the increase in demand and in fact some surgical services have already moved to Brighton.

Our public transport link along the A259 with the 700 bus is good but overcrowded in summer with holiday makers and often difficult to find a seat. We fight to keep the funding for our rural 56 bus which serves the northern part of the village. Any development will only encourage car use and at 2 cars minimum per household that's another 500+ cars in the village alone without additional cars in the other Bourne villages along the A259. Your transport model is flawed according to the research conducted by our well-respected expert within our village.

The infrastructure of roads is wholly unsuitable for further development particularly in Blackboy Lane and Clay Lane. If all the proposed housing goes ahead with the installation of a new hamburger roundabout, the queues for the traffic lights will increase even further. Impatient drivers will naturally look to take the already overloaded rat runs through our village. Salthill Road has long been known as the western bypass. Noise and air pollution from standing traffic at the Tesco roundabout is at unacceptable levels now let alone with an increase.

The land in Fishbourne, particularly on Bethwines Farm has a really high water table being barely 6" below the surface. The ditches often cannot cope and property downstream on the A259 and in Blackboy have flooded, again recently despite maintenance by our excellent flood volunteers. Any additional building will place undue pressure on the drainage systems. The underground SUDS systems are unsuitable as the fresh cleansed water has to go somewhere. The sewage system at Apuldram is unable to cope with any more development in Fishbourne, Apuldram or Donnington. The Tangmere sewage system is as yet untested for the proposed White House Farm development.

The Habitat Review appears to be out of date and questionable given the development in an adjacent field in Clay Lane within Chichester area. When asked at an exhibition, one of the planning officers said that the proposed wildlife corridor along Clay Lane was not set in stone and could be moved. If that's the case, where is the validity in your report? There is substantial wildlife in the western part of the village across Bethwines Farm which is in need of protection.

Bethwines Farm is agricultural land of the highest grade and should not be used for building. Your own policy states that valued farmland should be sustained. We already import a lot of our food and with a growing population will need to provide more food ourselves. Once the land has gone, that's it. Lost forever with no turning back.

Any development to the west of Fishbourne does not protect "Potential landscape sensitivities, including protecting views to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings". You can see Kingley Vale, Bow Hill and Stoke Clump from Blackboy Lane. Also vice versa that any development in the west of the village will be seen from these view points and interrupt views to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty of Chichester Harbour. Also the AONB is NOT to the south of Fishbourne but lies within the village. Any further development will seriously impact on Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC/Ramsar site.

Fishbourne has already done more to accommodate new housing than any other village in the area. We are pressed on three sides with Chichester to the east, the AONB to the south and the South Downs National Park to the north. Enough is enough!

I note that you intend "Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne in relationship to surrounding settlements, including Chichester City" but you seem to have very conveniently omitted preventting the coalescence of Fishbourne and Bosham!

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 817

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Fishbourne Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Para 6.63 contains untrue assertions about Fishbourne's need for growth (as detailed in the representation).

Full text:

Para 6.63
As a resident of Fishbourne for over 40 years, I have seen the village double in size by the turn of the century and grow by a further 30% since the 2001 Census. As a result, the land available for sustainable development has been used up and it was agreed that 50 homes would be an appropriate allocation for our Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029.
I was therefore surprised to find the allocation for Fishbourne in the revised Local Plan set at 250 (five times the earlier allocation) and alarmed when this seemed to be an arbitrary allocation since no-one could give me a rationale or formula for the calculation. An attempt is made in para 6.63 but the basic facts on which the argument is based are totally untrue: (1) Far from needing growth to sustain it, the local primary school is oversubscribed with children who live in Fishbourne and so families moving into the village have to search for schools further afield.
(2) Similarly the Fishbourne Centre is so well-used it is having to adapt the current meeting spaces into a flexible format so that more functions can be run at any one time.
(3) And the suggestion that Fishbourne needs to promote the vitality of the village beggars belief! In the last decade, the Parish Council has obtained a million pounds of outside money to spend on facilities including its much admired Centre and Playing Field and to contribute to the development of the Pre-School (OFSTED: Outstanding) and the new Church Hall. Fishbourne has a strong community spirit the latest example of which is the Fishbourne Companions. Through its earlier Village Plans and its Neighbourhood Plan, Fishbourne has a track record of listening to its community and finding ways of meeting these needs. Does this sound like a village that needs population growth to promote its vitality?

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 819

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Fishbourne Parish Council

Representation Summary:

2 examples of sharp contrasts between policies and practice would seem to make the whole document unsafe. Which is the examiner to accept as the truth?
The two examples are detailed in the Representation section above.

Full text:

6.65

This is one of many examples where policy and practice are at variance. "Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne" was one of the top priorities in the Village Survey and I am pleased to see it referred to in 6.65. However, as the HELAA and the Local Plan Review have created a situation where the arbitrary figure of 250 could be met only by starting to build on Bethwines there is a sharp conflict between policy and practice since Bethwines Farm is the only gap left at Fishbourne's borders.
Policy DM8 is another example of conflict between policies and practice. The policy boldly states that "any development must minimize and not create or add to problems of highway safety, congestion, air pollution or other damage" - whereas in practice 2,300 houses are scheduled to be built along the corridor between Chichester and Southbourne. The A259 is already operating beyond its safe capacity and the delays caused at Fishbourne and subsequent roundabouts along the Chichester bypass are not only bad for the regional economy but also for the health of those breathing in the increased pollution.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 887

Received: 03/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs paula smith

Representation Summary:

The level of housing proposed for Fishbourne should be reduced to recognise there is limited availability in the village, that a wildlife corridor has since been introduced, further limiting land availability, leaving a viable farm as the only main alternative. This appears to go against your countryside policy. We should also be increasing and growing our tourism industry and taking greater advantage of the Manhood Peninsula. The current proposals does not give this enough consideration

Full text:

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

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1104

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Keeley

Representation Summary:

Fishbourne is NOT suitable for as many as 250 new homes. I would like someone to tell me how that figure was decided upon. And where does CDC expect these homes to be built?
The area Fishbourne has chosen to be developed has now been allocated as an Environmental Corridor. However I would like to see Bethwines Farm declared an environmental corridor and the Clay Lane sites be permitted for housing. I believe Fishbourne can sustainably find land for about 140 homes if the Clay Lane sites are released.

Full text:

Fishbourne is NOT suitable for as many as 250 new homes. I would like someone to tell me how that figure was decided upon. And where does CDC expect these homes to be built?
The area Fishbourne has chosen to be developed has now been allocated as an Environmental Corridor. However I would like to see Bethwines Farm declared an environmental corridor and the Clay Lane sites be permitted for housing. I believe Fishbourne can sustainably find land for about 140 homes if the Clay Lane sites are released.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1380

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Joanne Osmond

Representation Summary:

Loss of farmland
Lack of infrastructure: school capacity/medical/ dentist/ unsuitable roads
Concern for wildlife- keeping the corridor
Loss of village identity- negative impact on residents
Flooding


Full text:

I object to the allocation of 250 homes to be built on Bethwines farm. I contest that the infrastructure is sufficient to sustain more homes. As a school Governor I am aware that Fishbourne primary school is over subscribed, with current villagers unable to gain access to their own local school. I travel along the A259 and I am dreadfully aware of the current hold-ups at the Fishbourne roundabout, which would only be made worse. This is a notorious roundabout with many accidents. As an active member of my community I know that due to the lack of buses, many elderly residents have to use their cars. So the pressure on the A259 is already building. Bethwines farm forms a natural break between Fishbourne and Bosham, where nature can flourish and residents of Blackboy lane enjoy the views of the downs but also the changing seasons; crops grown and harvested. This farm is valued for many reasons and it is my greatest sorrow to think that the farm land will be replaced by housing. Residents know that Fishbourne will grow, and the Parish has been very effective at locating sites in the past (I believe that our past effectiveness is now being used against us as most identified sites have been used) The farm is productive and I believe that the current farmer wishes to continue. I am fearful that 250 homes will then lead to over 1000 and our village identity will be gone. Bosham residents feel the same way. To create a continuous belt of residential development from Chichester to Emsworth would be a mistake, destroying village identities and putting pressure on road, school and other services. I am also aware of the danger of flooding if the area of farmland were to be covered by housing and the pressure on the current narrow Blackboy lane and Clay lane. These roads are not wide enough to take passing cars in places and are already used by some as a rat run. Concerns over speeding cars have led to a consolation to reduce speed limits but this has been unsuccessful; more traffic will lead to more speeding and potentially accidents.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1538

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Neal

Representation Summary:

Fishbourne Parish Council have been receptive to development during the previous plan and during this draft plan. They have offered up space to accommodate the development of 160 homes on land in the Eastern part of the village Clay Lane. The sudden inclusion of Wildlife Corridors in Policy S30 puts this into question. These corridors have not been fully thought through and should be moved further West. Take the 250 homes quota from AL9, keep to the Parish's proposed maximum 160 and return the 90 homes to SDNP's refused allocation. Re-draft AL9 in line with Fishbourne Parish Council's Neighbourhood Plan

Full text:

In the Local Plan documents for public consultation there is not a map accompanying AL9, therefore how can members of the public or other District Councillors know what the Officers at CDC are fully proposing? Without this spatial information the policy is not acceptable.

In addition the Policy 6.62 AONB Chichester is not "to the south of the village" AONB encompasses Fishbourne up to the A259. This needs amending.

Policy AL9 Fishbourne Parish- "Land will be allocated for development in the revised Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan for a minimum of 250 dwellings". Fishbourne does not have any further room to accommodate 250 homes without losing its distinct identity and separation from Bosham and Chichester City and this policy contravenes the statement in 6.65 "Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne in relationship to surrounding settlements, including Chichester City." but it omits Bosham Village.

Fishbourne Parish Council have been receptive to development during the previous plan and during meetings with CDC over this draft plan. They have offered up space to accommodate the development of 160 homes on land in the Eastern part of the village Clay Lane. The sudden inclusion of Wildlife Corridors in Policy S30 puts this into question. Please see my response to S30 as these corridors have not been fully thought through and should be moved further West. Hence one can presume the rushed Policy AL9's opening statement! Take the 250 homes quota from AL9 keep to the Parish's proposed maximum 160 and return the 90 homes to SDNP's refused allocation. At a Boxgrove Meeting in Autumn 2018 residents of the SDNP raised their frustration at their undersubscribed and in some cases primary schools closing alongside shops due to the lack of affordable homes in the SDNP to MP Gillian Keegan.

Point 6. There is little opportunity for expansion as this will join settlements and contrary to 6.65.

6.62 states that it "benefits from a railway station" it is not a station just a mere stop and has one train an hour and is situated away from from the majority of the housing. "...a good bus service" what do CDC mean by good? The 700 and 56 bus services, the latter bus route's longevity under question at this present time.

Fishbourne is described as a "Service Village" in Policy S2, how is that the case, it has two pubs and a club. Any access to shops and Doctors Surgeries means leaving the village and heading into Chichester.

A study of Flavian Fields, a recent 97 dwellings development at Fishbourne carried out by Fishbourne Parish Council shows that there are two cars per household, 35% of adult residents in the development do not work, that means that 65% do work and have to travel to employment outside of the village, and must apply equally to Chidham, Bosham and Southbourne. Families already transport their children to school by car outside of Fishbourne due to an already oversubscribed Fishbourne and Bosham School and the only catchment secondary school at Southbourne. It is a fact that Fishbourne already has the highest car dependency in Chichester District due to the lack of facilities.

This and the additional 2,250 houses proposed to be built along the A259 corridor alongside the proposed changes at Fishbourne roundabout will cause a huge increase in traffic, accident rates, congestion, noise and air pollution. According to West Sussex County Council Reported Accident Records December 2013-November 2018 the A259 between Southbourne to Fishbourne had 2 Fatal 15 Serious 33 Slight accidents. With the huge increase in traffic along this stretch of A259 due to the development numbers this is only going to rise.

There is nothing in AL9 mentioning the protection against further air, noise or light pollution.

Re-draft AL9 in line with Fishbourne Parish Council's Neighbourhood Plan

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1668

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Louise Goldsmith

Representation Summary:

Fishbourne Village was once a small compact historic harbour village. Over the last 15 years there has been considerable additional housing built in the Village allowing Fishbourne to develop almost within the existing curtilage of the village.
250 homes will alter the village considerably. There is the potential for coalescence between the harbour/coastal villages. A significant impact on Chichester Harbour effecting, wildlife, and general environment.
There are flooding issues in the area too. This is over development of a village that has had significant development. .

Full text:

Fishbourne Village was once a small compact historic harbour village. Over the last 15 years there has been considerable additional housing built in the Village allowing Fishbourne to develop almost within the existing curtilage of the village.
250 homes will alter the village considerably. There is the potential for coalescence between the harbour/coastal villages. A significant impact on Chichester Harbour effecting, wildlife, and general environment.
There are flooding issues in the area too. This is over development of a village that has had significant development. .

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Kirsten Lanchester

Representation Summary:

Apuldram sewage treatment works is overloaded on occasion already. Concerned about potential detrimental affects on water quality in Chichester Harbour from more development in this vicinity.

Full text:

Apuldram sewage treatment works is overloaded on occasion already. Concerned about potential detrimental affects on water quality in Chichester Harbour from more development in this vicinity.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1799

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team

Representation Summary:

Too many houses, no sustainable sites

Full text:

6.62 to 6.65 Policy AL9

Fishbourne has had significant development in recent years. An additional 250 houses need to find a sustainable location. The area on Clay lane has now potentially been removed by the sudden imposition of a Wildlife Corridor. We support Wildlife Corridors but this one is in an area where development has already taken place and was being proposed by CDC.

Development on Bethwins Farm is hugely damaging to the village and encroaches on Bosham. It is not supported by the village. It removed important farm land and separates the Harbour from the South Downs. No other land has been identified as deliverable.
We propose that this 250 houses is reduced to a more manageable level in consultation with the Parish Council

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2476

Received: 20/02/2019

Respondent: Fishbourne Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Case for increase in population to increase vitality is not made.

FPC wishes to draw up revised NP but needs cooperation from CDC

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2486

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Mary Hand

Representation Summary:

I query "easy access to Chichester City and the Manhood Peninsula". This may refer to roads but not to the difficulties of using them at particular times of day, days of the week and times of the year.

Fishbourne "facilities" do NOT require a greater population to sustain them. They are working to capacity now.
The primary school reached its PAN (Pupil Admissions Number) maximum with children in all years from its Fishbourne catchment area in 2014 and has been 'full' with Fishbourne children ever since

Full text:

Paragraph 6.62.

I query "easy access to Chichester City and the Manhood Peninsula". This may refer to roads but not to the difficulties of using them at particular times of day, days of the week and times of the year. As an elderly person I rely perforce on my car. Fishbourne roundabout is notorious for its tailbacks and for the "death or glory" approach of many drivers on the A27 as they accelerate round it. Manhood Peninsula roads are often gridlocked on summer days, at holiday times, bank holidays and weekends. No way can the "easy access" description be justified in practical terms. Increasing volume of traffic on the A259 must be a major concern in planning for a further 250 plus homes in Fishbourne and in the context of the other planned housing allocations along the A259 corridor west of Chichester.

Paragraph 6.63

This is a mistaken premise. Fishbourne "facilities" do NOT require a greater population to sustain them. They are working to capacity now. The Fishbourne Centre bookings are at or near full capacity. As are those for the Church Hall, St Peter's Place.
The primary school reached its PAN (Pupil Admissions Number) maximum with children in all years from its Fishbourne catchment area in 2014 and has been 'full' with Fishbourne children ever since. Families new to the area have to find school places elsewhere. Fishbourne C of E Primary school is, and was planned as, a one-form-entry school and its tradition and expertise is as such. There are strong educational arguments for single year classes. Mixed year groups are not popular with teaching staff or parents. The disruption caused by gradual growth in size could well put at risk the 'Good' Ofsted gradings it has enjoyed ever since the Inspections began not to mention the effect of the disadvantages for staff and children of temporary classrooms.

Paragraph 6.64

It is good to know there is an emerging "Infrastructure Delivery Plan". See comments above re education. The foot paths in Fishbourne are already atrocious in their current state - e.g. both sides of the A259 are varied in width, uneven and very rough in condition, Salthill Road's are discontinuous, in Blackboy Lane south of the railway footpaths/pavements are non-existent though the Parish council is currently acting on this. The growth of Fishbourne over the past 80 years has not resulted in much care being given to linking footpaths, despite their importance in reducing the number of car journeys and for maintaining health and fitness as everyone is now encouraged to walk and cycle and use cars less.

Paragraph 6.65

* Potential landscape sensitivities, including protecting views to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings and creating opportunities for new views;

There is only one place where you can get a sense of Fishbourne as a rural village and that is the view to the west from Blackboy Lane. This also gives a fine geographic impression of what a coastal plain looks like, particularly with the flat land making a clear contrast to rising land to the north which marks the edge of the coastal plain and the beginning of the outliers of the South Downs. Any Geography teacher will tell you this is a classic example! There is also the special quality of light which encouraged the farming of salad crops and which is particularly evident here. There are spectacular sunsets, views of which are not interrupted by buildings, and this is the only place in Fishbourne where you can see a full sunset in all its glory. It is important that these landscape sensitivities are respected, not least because they are part of our daily life - you do not have to take a trip in the car to experience them. Please don't under-value the importance of such natural phenomena.

* Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne in relationship to surrounding settlements, including Chichester City;

I query why Fishbourne's identity needs to be protected from Chichester City? New Fishbourne has long been an enclave of Chichester and eastern parts of the village have Chichester (not Fishbourne) as their postal address. The three earlier C of E Rectories (on Fishbourne Rd and Appledram Lane north) were all located in what is now within the city boundary, and Albert Road and Frederick Road were both originally in the parish of Fishbourne whose boundary was the old level Crossing on Fishbourne Road. When the A27 was built that became the eastern and northern boundaries and forms a visual boundary more effective than the narrow strip of green land left. The significant gap is not the miniscule one between the houses of Fishbourne and those now designated as Chichester, but the more substantial one between Fishbourne and Bosham.

A major fear in respect of future planning is the spectre of "Solent City", the splurge of housing developments stretching right along the south coast from Brighton to Southampton. We have seen enough of developments along the A259 from beyond Chichester in the east to Emsworth in the west in recent years to appreciate the value of green space separating the settlements. The gap between Fishbourne and Bosham is important to retain the distinct identities of these two villages, yes, but just as important, indeed more so, is to establish a clear western boundary of the Chichester conurbation of which Fishbourne is an historical part, to keep the city plus its environs as a distinct entity from the burgeoning development along the A259.

* Consideration of the potential impact of development in terms of recreational disturbance on the Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC/Ramsar site;

Fishbourne children have long played in the water meadows and the creek, fortunate that they are easily accessible on foot from the village. More houses would inevitably mean greater footfall along the harbour paths and in recent years dog exercisers have presented an increasing threat to the harbour wildlife. More houses within walking distance inevitably increases the threat to these precious areas.

* Maximising the potential for sustainable travel links with Chichester City and settlements along the East-West corridor;

The A27 and A259 are both now busy roads. Clay Lane is a rat-run particularly when the A27 is blocked at busy times, notably in the morning and evening rush-hour. Parking for the railway station causes problems in the nearby residential roads. Salthill Road is also a rat-run for A27 avoidance with impact on the Clay Lane crossroads and on the A259 junction. The Emperor Way footpath and cycle path is much appreciated by walkers and cyclists but unpleasant friction between users does occur and a wider path would be an advantage. Existing E-W travel links are at capacity/no longer fit for purpose. 250 projected dwellings are likely to yield at least 500 additional vehicles. Taken in the context of all the other 'new' traffic generated by the continued housing developments, up to and including Southbourne, the local gridlock is the only thing that will be sustained!

* Protecting residential properties from noise exposure from the A27;
* Protecting the heritage assets of Fishbourne and their setting;

Apart from the obvious Roman Palace, Fishbourne has other 'treasures' - the Roman springs, the Mill Pond, the Creek and the history of the various mills, the rich agricultural heritage, etc. not to mention the sense of Roman Legions marching out along the as yet unfound Roman road. If we are to retain a sense of history, particularly in the landscape these must be protected.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2502

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Mary Hand

Representation Summary:

View to the west from Blackboy Lane is important.

Eastern parts of the village have Chichester as their postal address - no need to protect seperate identity here.

Important to establish a clear western boundary to Chichester conurbation.

The A27 and A259 are both now busy roads. Clay Lane is a rat-run particularly when the A27 is blocked at busy times.
Existing E-W travel links are at capacity/no longer fit for purpose.
250 projected dwellings are likely to yield at least 500 additional vehicles.

It is good to know there is an emerging "Infrastructure Delivery Plan".

Full text:

Paragraph 6.62.

I query "easy access to Chichester City and the Manhood Peninsula". This may refer to roads but not to the difficulties of using them at particular times of day, days of the week and times of the year. As an elderly person I rely perforce on my car. Fishbourne roundabout is notorious for its tailbacks and for the "death or glory" approach of many drivers on the A27 as they accelerate round it. Manhood Peninsula roads are often gridlocked on summer days, at holiday times, bank holidays and weekends. No way can the "easy access" description be justified in practical terms. Increasing volume of traffic on the A259 must be a major concern in planning for a further 250 plus homes in Fishbourne and in the context of the other planned housing allocations along the A259 corridor west of Chichester.

Paragraph 6.63

This is a mistaken premise. Fishbourne "facilities" do NOT require a greater population to sustain them. They are working to capacity now. The Fishbourne Centre bookings are at or near full capacity. As are those for the Church Hall, St Peter's Place.
The primary school reached its PAN (Pupil Admissions Number) maximum with children in all years from its Fishbourne catchment area in 2014 and has been 'full' with Fishbourne children ever since. Families new to the area have to find school places elsewhere. Fishbourne C of E Primary school is, and was planned as, a one-form-entry school and its tradition and expertise is as such. There are strong educational arguments for single year classes. Mixed year groups are not popular with teaching staff or parents. The disruption caused by gradual growth in size could well put at risk the 'Good' Ofsted gradings it has enjoyed ever since the Inspections began not to mention the effect of the disadvantages for staff and children of temporary classrooms.

Paragraph 6.64

It is good to know there is an emerging "Infrastructure Delivery Plan". See comments above re education. The foot paths in Fishbourne are already atrocious in their current state - e.g. both sides of the A259 are varied in width, uneven and very rough in condition, Salthill Road's are discontinuous, in Blackboy Lane south of the railway footpaths/pavements are non-existent though the Parish council is currently acting on this. The growth of Fishbourne over the past 80 years has not resulted in much care being given to linking footpaths, despite their importance in reducing the number of car journeys and for maintaining health and fitness as everyone is now encouraged to walk and cycle and use cars less.

Paragraph 6.65

* Potential landscape sensitivities, including protecting views to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and their settings and creating opportunities for new views;

There is only one place where you can get a sense of Fishbourne as a rural village and that is the view to the west from Blackboy Lane. This also gives a fine geographic impression of what a coastal plain looks like, particularly with the flat land making a clear contrast to rising land to the north which marks the edge of the coastal plain and the beginning of the outliers of the South Downs. Any Geography teacher will tell you this is a classic example! There is also the special quality of light which encouraged the farming of salad crops and which is particularly evident here. There are spectacular sunsets, views of which are not interrupted by buildings, and this is the only place in Fishbourne where you can see a full sunset in all its glory. It is important that these landscape sensitivities are respected, not least because they are part of our daily life - you do not have to take a trip in the car to experience them. Please don't under-value the importance of such natural phenomena.

* Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne in relationship to surrounding settlements, including Chichester City;

I query why Fishbourne's identity needs to be protected from Chichester City? New Fishbourne has long been an enclave of Chichester and eastern parts of the village have Chichester (not Fishbourne) as their postal address. The three earlier C of E Rectories (on Fishbourne Rd and Appledram Lane north) were all located in what is now within the city boundary, and Albert Road and Frederick Road were both originally in the parish of Fishbourne whose boundary was the old level Crossing on Fishbourne Road. When the A27 was built that became the eastern and northern boundaries and forms a visual boundary more effective than the narrow strip of green land left. The significant gap is not the miniscule one between the houses of Fishbourne and those now designated as Chichester, but the more substantial one between Fishbourne and Bosham.

A major fear in respect of future planning is the spectre of "Solent City", the splurge of housing developments stretching right along the south coast from Brighton to Southampton. We have seen enough of developments along the A259 from beyond Chichester in the east to Emsworth in the west in recent years to appreciate the value of green space separating the settlements. The gap between Fishbourne and Bosham is important to retain the distinct identities of these two villages, yes, but just as important, indeed more so, is to establish a clear western boundary of the Chichester conurbation of which Fishbourne is an historical part, to keep the city plus its environs as a distinct entity from the burgeoning development along the A259.

* Consideration of the potential impact of development in terms of recreational disturbance on the Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC/Ramsar site;

Fishbourne children have long played in the water meadows and the creek, fortunate that they are easily accessible on foot from the village. More houses would inevitably mean greater footfall along the harbour paths and in recent years dog exercisers have presented an increasing threat to the harbour wildlife. More houses within walking distance inevitably increases the threat to these precious areas.

* Maximising the potential for sustainable travel links with Chichester City and settlements along the East-West corridor;

The A27 and A259 are both now busy roads. Clay Lane is a rat-run particularly when the A27 is blocked at busy times, notably in the morning and evening rush-hour. Parking for the railway station causes problems in the nearby residential roads. Salthill Road is also a rat-run for A27 avoidance with impact on the Clay Lane crossroads and on the A259 junction. The Emperor Way footpath and cycle path is much appreciated by walkers and cyclists but unpleasant friction between users does occur and a wider path would be an advantage. Existing E-W travel links are at capacity/no longer fit for purpose. 250 projected dwellings are likely to yield at least 500 additional vehicles. Taken in the context of all the other 'new' traffic generated by the continued housing developments, up to and including Southbourne, the local gridlock is the only thing that will be sustained!

* Protecting residential properties from noise exposure from the A27;
* Protecting the heritage assets of Fishbourne and their setting;

Apart from the obvious Roman Palace, Fishbourne has other 'treasures' - the Roman springs, the Mill Pond, the Creek and the history of the various mills, the rich agricultural heritage, etc. not to mention the sense of Roman Legions marching out along the as yet unfound Roman road. If we are to retain a sense of history, particularly in the landscape these must be protected.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Representation Summary:

Page 116, 6.62:
There is a factual error here: "Chichester Harbour is located to the south of the village, with its associated Ramsar, SPA, SAC and AONB designations."

Chichester Harbour is not "to the south of the village." The AONB boundary includes the part of Fishbourne up to the A259. This needs to be corrected.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3090

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Representation Summary:

Page 116, 6.65:
Given that Chichester Harbour is part of Fishbourne and the South Downs is 2 kilometres away, in terms of the sentence structure protecting the views and setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should come before the South Downs National Park.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3187

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp

Representation Summary:

In order to facilitiate safe cycling and walking a continuous, direct, safe and comfortable path must be provided, protected from the traffic; traffic speeds should be reduced to 30mph; route must not be delivered in bits as people need a safe route all the way to their destination; there should be links off the route linking the communities.

As there are no shops in the Service Village of Fishbourne, it cannot be considered a sustainable location.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: