Policy AL11: Hunston Parish

200 increase in dwellings is disproportionate and excessive within a village that currently only has approx. 520 dwellings i.e a 40% increase. This would have an unsustainable impact on traffic (as already identified in Chichester Local Plan travel study), the Hunston Copse and Conservation Area, flood risk and waste water capacity.

Previous proposal was 25 under 2029 plan (and agreed by Inspectorate) and therefore a 8 fold increase (to 2035) is excessive and unsustainable.

Land made available by landowners is not suitable for development due to impact on traffic, loss of grade 1/2 arable land, loss of open spaces, impact on surrounding Hunston Copse, Hunston Conservation area and views to cathedral.

Any development should be on the outskirts of the village (north or south) to avoid access roads and congestion in the village centre and minimise the impact on the central open spaces which are enjoyed by the village.

Local Plan should accept that the village can become more delineated in order to manage traffic, protect open spaces and minimise the impact on existing dwellings on the edge of the current settlement boundary which would be adjacent to any new development.

200 extra houses in Hunston is unsustainable as clearly identified in the sustainability report. Negative impacts on traffic congestion, waste water, biodiversity, historic sites, flood risk, air pollution, loss of grade 1/2 arable land (which has been farmed for past 20 years and has never been grazing land).

Too many extra houses on Manhood Peninsula which is a cul-de-sac with no completion of any road improvement plans.

No logic to increase other than allocation number matches the land made available by landowners who have no consideration for the impact on the village.

Reconsider other sites which have previously been rejected on the basis of of 'segregated from settlement' as developments above a certain size can be sustainable on a standalone basis with good access to schools, road network, bus routes and cycle paths. This will be preferred to development in the village centre.

There are many other undesignated sites along Manhood Peninsula which would provide better opportunities for larger scale development (all in one rather than spoiling a number of smaller village) and have the same access to bus routes, road network and allow the provision of new services (due to scale) and avoid the negative impact on existing dwellings and landscapes in existing villages.

Inconsistent decision making on housing numbers in Hunston:

1. Local Plan to 2029 stated increase of 25 dwellings recognising the constraints of the village and sustainability issues.

2. Initial consultation under Local Plan 2035 in Aug 17 under Q14 showed a majority of respondents were in favour of less than 50 houses in Hunston

3. Draft quota then became 176 only on the basis of 2 landowners making land available and ignored previous reasons for constraint.

4. Now the development number is 200

Hunston Parish Council inadequately consulted with during the consultation process up to Nov 2018 (and only after discussions and proposals between Council and landowners. Documents not shared with Parish Council. Inadequate right to respond)

1. Provision of a high quality development to be masterplanned as a sustainable extension....

"Sustainable" cannot be applied to housing development on green field sites in the UK which already has an environmental footprint 2x it's land area. "Least environmentally damaging" is a better description.

I have lived in Hunston for over 30 years and have already seen a massive increase in houses, on the southern side of the village, we have lost some beautiful areas to houses that do not fit in and have ruined our village

I do not believe the village could cope with the extra housing.

The main road into the village is already very busy & loud and unsafe.

The disputation to the village would be massive and have an adverse effect of the current residents.

The B2145 runs through this village it's getting so busy , it's very difficult in the summer months to get out of the side roads . The pavements along the road are very narrow and the speed of the traffic makes them unsafe . The infrastructure is not there to support the cars for another 200 houses in this village . Plus all the new housing developments being planned for the Manhood Peninsular. The B1245 can't take much more traffic . Also not forgetting all the pollution this will cause .

The field between Southover way and Hunston copse should not be developed for housing as any changes to the area would impact on the copse. This ancient woodland is unique in this area with many large oak trees and a large variety of wildflowers including bluebells. It would cause irreparable damage to its wildlife, flora and fauna to have a noisy building site close to its boundaries.

The number of houses suggested would increase the amount of traffic on an already busy B road. Hunston already suffers from too many cars and very large lorries on its busy road. 200 houses would mean an extra 400 cars on the B2145.

The proposed increase in housing in Hunston of 200 will have further detrimental impact on the B2145. The road is already far beyond it's capacity and the combination of the additional congestion resulting from the Free School, and development further down the road towards and including Selsey, means that the village will be impacted with a significant increase in road movements. We already have slow moving/stationary traffic during peak hours and the additional pollution and risk to pedestrians is unacceptable.

The proposed development for Hunston on agricultural land would have a highly detrimental effect on the semi rural character of the village and the access to the countryside from the village itself. The ancient woodland in the copse is an important wildlife habitat and the current proposal of a 15m border is wholly inadequate.

Parts of the proposed land to be used for the development in Hunston are in a Grade 2 flood risk area, and the additional run off from the loss of the natural soak away with the building of the new houses will raise the flood risk for the existing and new build houses.

Hunston is a semi-rural village. The proposal for the minimum of 200 houses would increase our housing stock by at least 35%. This is not development it is complete social change. One of the proposed sites from Church Lane (a single track Lane) round by Meadow Close would have a woeful impact on our diverse wildlife including bats, owls, yellow hammers, hares, deer, slow worms, adders, weasels, buzzards etc etc. As well as on the ancient woodland Hunston Copse. 200 houses would increase traffic by approximately 400 cars. The B2145 was already the 4th busiest B road in the UK before the opening of the new Free School. All the new houses proposed for Hunston and Selsey would result in around another 900 cars using this road. The potential for gridlock and difficulties for the emergency services to get through is enormous and very dangerous.

Funding for improving Cycle route NCN 88 and links between Chichester and Selsey need to explicitly mentioned in the policy.

200 houses is too many additional houses for a small village like Hunston to accommodate. We do not have enough Doctors in the Chichester area for starters. Secondly the roads are terrible, more so now the free school is open it has made the B2145 terrible in the mornings.

A housing allocation of 200 for Hunston parish seems to be incompatible with other policies contained in this plan. Namely DM22,DM28,DM29, S29 and S30 concerning Biodiversity, Natural Environment and Green Infrastructure.
I do not see evidence given that 200 houses can be achieved whilst also complying with the listed policies.

A housing allocation of 200 for Hunston parish seems to be incompatible with other policies contained in this plan, namely DM30 "Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas".

Land in Hunston, and the wider Manhood, is functionally linked supporting habitat for Chichester and Pagham harbours. Cumulative effects need to be considered.


I do not see evidence given that 200 houses can be achieved whilst also
complying with this policy.

1st amendment:
I think this statement should be amended "Land will be allocated for development in the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan for a minimum of 200 dwellings" to "Land will be allocated for development in the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan for a maximum of 100 dwellings". I think that is a far more reasonable number. I recommend this amendment because:

1. I strongly believe that Hunston's current designation as urban (by WSCC & CDC) is incorrect & not representative. Statements like this "Parts of Hunston lie within a conservation area and the village also has a designated Site of Nature Conservation Interest and Ancient Woodland at Hunston Copse." re-enforce my belief that Hunston is rural. I feel the high number of new dwellings planned for Hunston is largely influenced by this inaccurate designation.
2. 200 new dwellings would, at best, introduce 200 new cars onto the B2145. Worst case scenario 400 new cars on the B2145. This is already one of the busiest B roads in the county.
3. There is a perception that Hunston has suitable land parcels for development (more so than Mundham). However the land south of the church (owned by the church) I have seen flood in winter months reducing its suitability for development, at least at the scale proposed.

2nd amendment: "The emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan findings should be incorporated into development proposals, in particular, social facilities and green infrastructure as well as walking and cycle paths to local facilities so that new developments are well connected to the existing village."

to become:

"The emerging Infrastructure Delivery Plan findings should be incorporated into development proposals, in particular, social facilities and green infrastructure as well as walking and cycle paths to local facilities so that new developments are well connected to the existing village and surrounding area."

I am pleased to see provision for local footpath improvement. I think with the increased volume of people in the village more work will need to be done to encourage sustainable modes of travel out of the village. Can specific attention be given to the path that leads from Hunston to the new Chichester Free School. This would promote more people to walk/cycle into Chichester than to drive along the B2145.

Resident of West Wittering
Where are new residents going to work!

Hunston does not have the need for 200 houses. No consideration seems to have been given to the villagers' needs. Landowners have been asked to submit plans, with no consultation with the village whatsoever. 200 houses would increase the size of Hunston by 35%. This isn't development, its social change. Hunston is a semi-rural village, this development would change its identity to a dormitory for Chichester.

The Housing Economic Needs Availability Assessment (HELAA) published in August 2018, allocated 176 houses to Hunston and 375 to Mundham. In October, CDC planners announce that 200 houses will be allocated to Hunston and 50 to Mundham. This reversal of the HELAA, with no rationale given is unacceptable.

The Sustainability Appraisal of the Site Allocation: DPD January 2018 states that there "are multiple options for Hunston - for a relatively small amount of housing to meet a local housing need". What has changed? Where is the analysis of local housing need?

Traffic: The problem of the A27 remains unresolved at present. Currently it is increasingly grid-locked and access from the B2145 becomes more and more difficult.
Building 250 houses in Selsey, 200 houses in Hunston and 400 houses in Pagham will result in around 1700 more cars using the B2166 from Pagham and the B2145 from Selsey.
At present, the B2145 is the fourth busiest B-road in the UK. How can planners contemplate adding 900 cars to the B2145 and 800 cars to the B2166, all meeting at the roundabout north of Hunston?
The population of the Manhood Peninsula doubles in the summer, the current road infrastructure cannot cope, building more houses will result in permanent traffic jams and increased pollution.

Chichester Free School has created serious traffic problems in the afternoons, when children are being collected. Adding 1700 cars will mean traffic becoming increasingly delayed along the A27 as well as the B2166 and B2145

Air Pollution: This increase in traffic and housing will result in increased air pollution, damaging people's health and breaking environmental guidelines

Infrastructure: Parts of Hunston are already in a Flood Risk Area. The water table is high and 200 more houses will only increase the flooding risk. There are no indications that the current sewage, drainage and water utilities will be able to cope with this development

Services - Schools:Currently Mundham, Sidlesham and Chichester Free School are full at entry level. The Free School has a county wide catchment, so there is no guarantee of places for any children from the new housing proposal. As a result, children will need to be driven to schools further away, resulting in yet more traffic problems

Medical Services: There are two GP surgeries on the Manhood Peninsula, one in Selsey and one in Witterings. All residents in Hunston use GP surgeries in Chichester. Where will 200 new families register?

Environment: Ancient Woodland: The Local Plan on P.130 states that the following should be considered: "Protecting existing views and particularly those of Chichester Cathedral spire and Hunston Copse". Current residents of Southover Way and Meadow Close will lose their existing views of Hunston Copse with the proposed new housing. The proposed 15m margin to protect Hunston Copse is woefully inadequate.

Environment: Wildlife: Hunston Copse and surrounding fields support a wide range of wildlife from water voles, adders, grass snakes and slow worms to hares, deer, foxes. People move to Hunston for green spaces, not to have them taken away.

Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016 - 2035 states that the housing need for Hunston is zero for the plan period.

The current plan to add "at least" 200 new houses in the village of Hunston is totally inappropriate and unacceptable.
1/ This increases the housing in Hunston by 35% which is not a small increase but a matter of forcing social change.
2/ Such an increase would start the process of joining Hunston and N. Mundham and, with the opening of the Free school and its associated highway changes, inexorably lead to the area being absorbed into Chichester City and both villages losing their identity. If there is an intention to do this then it must be openly declared. To my astonishment I understand that Hunston has been designated as "Urban" rather than "Rural".
3/ The B2145 is already one of the busiest B roads in England. There has been a tragic traffic related fatality of a pedestrian in the village in the last year and recent requests for a controlled crossing to allow access to the children's playground have been refused. If the proposed additional 200 houses for the village, 250 houses planned for Selsey and and a further 150 for the W Wittering and Birdham are taken into account, then the traffic flow through the village will increase very significantly. There is no possibility of improving the road through the village (without demolishing a significant part of it). A significant number of houses in the village centre sit some 3m or less from the roadway. So consequently traffic flow levels will be totally unacceptable. Current estimates indicate that the developments on the Manhood Peninsular will add 900 cars to the B2145 and 800 to the B2166, that will meet at the roundabout north of Hunston. My understanding is that any development should not produce significant traffic increases. This proposed development is guaranteed to do exactly that.
4/ Much of the proposed development area is very low lying (some 5m above sea level) and turning most of it into housing, driveways and roads are bound to aggravate the chance of local flooding especially as it seems to be Southern Water's policy not to take away surface water from local developments but insist that new developments provide local soak away facilities. This will concentrate rain water run off and cause flooding.
5/ Having the cars from 200 more homes (plus 250 new homes in Selsey) trying to access the B2145 and then the A27 is a planning nightmare. The current situation is that traffic from the A27 often queues back to the village centre in the morning, a situation aggravated by traffic accessing the new Free School, which we were told would not cause any traffic issues.
6/ The proposed changes to the junction of the B2145 and the A27 (Wyke Roundabout) are totally counterproductive, and will likely increase unnecessary traffic on the A27 (having to travel to the next roundabout to do a U turn) and also in Chichester City as vehicles try to find alternatives routes. It must be borne in mind that there is a very heavy traffic of large container type lorries, heading to and from the rest of the UK and Europe serving the very important farming industry on the Manhood Peninsular. The roads in the Peninsular are winding and narrow but by no means quiet county lanes. The fact that it is a Peninsular means that there are very few ways on and off. All these will see a massive increase in traffic with very few opportunities for serious effective mitigation.

Overall I cannot support these proposals.

Opening para. Given uncertainty over potentially suitable sites adjacent to the existing settlement boundary at Hunston have the capacity (given the various landscape, environmental, access etc constraints) to provide a minimum of 200 dwellings, propose replace "a minimum of" with "about".

Sub para 6. Delete "Opportunities for the". Proposed amend to ensure requirement has consistent status with others in Policy and clarity of wording.

Sub para 7. Add at end "including ancient woodland". To ensure particular green asset identified in para 6.77.5 is specifically included in Policy.

Sub para 10. After "infrastructure" insert ", education". Note supporting para 6.76 and comments on para 4.85 regarding Primary education facilities.

Hunston is a village not an urban area. 200 new houses will effectively join the villages of Hunston and Mundham together thus loosing their identities.
200 houses have not been identified as being needed.
Roads cannot cope with the volume of traffic now and the problem of the A27 remains unresolved.
Sewerage and drainage will be compromised.
The environment will be affecteds with air pollution and loss of views and buildingy close to Hunston Copse.
Schools and medical services are already overloaded.

I am a resident, together with my husband, of Hunston. In October this year we will have lived there, in the same house for some 40 years! Of course we realise that in that long period of time we would have expected some changes and they have occurred: Foxbridge Farm Development, Jestico's Close and the new development last year backing onto the canal to name but a few.
My Husband and myself recognise the need for more housing, particularly for the young of the village.We would like them to stay in the community, but the plans to build 200 houses here is ludicrous!
The worst aspect is the access from the developments on to the B1245 and to and from our village.The A27 is currently often gridlocked and and access is often more and more difficult. Any plan to build the proposed number of houses in Selsey, Mundham, PAGHAM! and Hunston will make access nigh impossible. To prevent us crossing the Whyke roundabout and forcing all traffic from the B2145 and B2166 to turn left into the traffic is not sensible!! The aim to keep through traffic moving will not be obtained, particularly at rush hours!! (Chichester Free School already causes multiple problems!!)
The population of the Manhood Peninsula doubles in summer, the current road structure cannot cope now, so building more houses will result in more traffic jams and increased pollution. As we live directly on the main road through Hunston and regularly accommodate our children and grandchildren MORE pollution is not on!
In addition parts of Hunston are already in a flood risk area. We narrowly missed our house being flooded before! There is no indication that the sewage, drainage and water utilities will be able to cope with the Hunston development.
Furthermore, our local schools and medical services are already overloaded and there are waiting lists and waiting times galore. I see no new plans to provide another school or doctors surgery etc in the documents!!!!???
Finally, we love the fact that we have lived in a semi-rural village for nigh on 40 years. If the Church Commissioners proposals go ahead we would lose our direct views across open farm land to the Hunston Copse and to the church we love itself! (Local plan on P.130 states that this should be considered... "protecting existing views...Hunston Copse') How can they not care about the welfare of their parishioners!!!?? We enjoy the wild life in and around the village-water voles, adders, grass snakes, foxes, deer and hares, not to mention the sheep who graze on the very land itself!
Myself and my husband are not against change or local housing persay-but theses proposals are too big for our community to cope with and suggest you reconsider your plan!
Mrs C. Cobden

As a resident of Hunston I completely object this plan by CDC to build 200 houses in the village of Hunston. The village simply cannot take this amount of added houses. Furthermore, they are planned to be built on arable land, much too close to Ancient Woodland & would almost join Hunston to Mundham. The traffic on the Peninsula is already at capacity. Adding 200 houses will most certainly add at least 400 more cars in the village. Advising that Church Lane can be one of the access points for the new housing is of particular worry. Not only is it already difficult to get out of the Lane , it is a conservation area. The Lane is exactly that, a Lane. It already sees high volume of traffic from residents, dog walkers, church goers & farm machinery & vehicles. Add to this number the further houses planned for Selsy & Pagham, CDC are suggesting that they are happy to add approximately 1700 new cars all meeting at the roundabout north of Hunston. Since the opening of the new Free School traffic has obviously become considerably worse. I have to regularly queue, dangerously on the roundabout on the A27 & on 3 occasions have witnessed the emergency services struggling to get through.
It appears that there has also been no thought given to education. The local schools are at capacity & there is certainly no space to build any more. This will only add to the current traffic problems & increasing air polution further.It is noted that among those houses to be built Hunston is to see more social housing. Hunston already has the highest percentage of social housing in the area.
In 2018 a study carried out by CDC identifies that Hunston can only take a small amount of developement. 200 houses is not small. How does CDC reach its conclusions? Every aspect of this plan has given no thought to the environment, sustainability, transport, services & especially no thought to the residents of Hunston. Further to this there is no evidence of housing needed.

Another 200 houses in Hunston will make traffic problems even worse. the B2145 is the only route to the Selsey area and is already congested. The Free school has exacerbated the problem. More housing along its length will make the situation worse.

Bus fares are expensive. Subsidies should be given to these routes to encourage bus use instead of private cars. All housing should only be allowed for definite local need for local people. This could be for older people, young families, single people, but should not include large expensive houses which are not in short supply.

I understand from Hunston Parish council that there is a plan to build at least 200 new homes in the village of Hunston. If it wasn't for the Parish council, I would not have known of this planned significant change to the village that I reside in or where the proposed sites were. I still have not found the map of proposals for Hunston on the CDC website as it doesn't appear to be with the other maps. The fact residents have not been fully informed of this proposal, have not provided an easy to find map of the proposals and the complexities and time spent trying to find a way to make any comment on this, suggests that the District Council are not actively encouraging comments.
In terms of the plan to build at least 200 homes in Hunston, I wish to object. This would increase Hunston by over a third, which is a proportionally huge amount and will negatively impact the village. Hunston has picturesque land surrounding the village, and such a large proportional increase in housing development will diminish the beauty of the village. Outside green spaces will disappear on productive and scenic farmland in areas which is used by local wild deer. I understand CDC's Landscape Capacity study in November 2018 recommended that only a small amount of development should be considered for Hunston and yet this appears to have been ignored.
Such an increase in housing also will have an obvious negative effect on the roads which is already choked far beyond capacity. The failure of the relevant authorities to consider the true effect on the A27, B2145 and B2145 because the new free school has already had a significant effect on traffic congestion going all the way back into the village at key points during the day. Adding further housing (and consequently more traffic) into the village will only make this worse. During summer months in school term, Selsey's annual summer increase in population alongside the school opening will also contribute to the gridlock we have already. If people chose not to commute by road, there is also no other safe way to access Chichester from Hunston for cyclists and pedestrians other than a muddy canal path. Consideration for the infrastructure of this needs serious consideration before any more housing is built.
Using an estimation that each new property will require at least one or two cars, provision will also need to be considered for parking in the village. Already roads are full with parked cars and commercial vehicles, except during standard weekday office hours which has over the years lead to an increase in irresponsible and sometimes illegal parking on roads and creating unrepaired damage to the grass verges. Having at least 200 houses in the village will only create more problematic parking as new developments give little consideration for the need for additional parking in their quest to maximise profit.

* I have examined the plans and I know the site well. I wish to object to the development of the number of houses in this location.
* Exceptionally poor notification of such a large scheme.
* Complex method of reporting comments.
* Infilling could ruin the character of the village while 'estate' development would overwhelm it.
* Adverse effect to visually attractive parts of the village and reducing territory for wildlife.
* Adverse impact of traffic on roads that are already grid-locked - noise, congestion, air-pollution.
* No explanation as to the type of properties being built .

Hunston has 380 council tax-paying dwellings thus another 200 houses = 53% increase which is far too much. And, the 200 is stated as a minimum..........that is open-ended!! A public meeting at Hunston, led by the Parish Council, found that a generous 100 houses should be the maximum.

1 ...."high quality development to be masterplanned as a sustainable developement"...this is meaningless waffle, the development will almost certainly end up as usual developers Noddy Houses with no real sustainability about them, poor air-tightness, orientated willy-nilly, tiny gardens etc etc
5 No part of the development should visibly impact upon, or worse still abut, the Conservation Area which sits within an appealing rural setting the loss of which would be devastating to the one visual asset Hunston has.
7 New housing should not only have an adverse impact upon nature conservation etc it should enhance it.