Policy AL11: Hunston Parish

There is no provision for the road infrastructure impact of a further 200 dwellings onto the A259 and A27 and will impact the transport report. Traffic is already backed up trying to access the A27 in peak times. No school provision so will necessitate increased car journeys as there is no safe pedestrian access from Hunston to the Free school.Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Housing requirement for Hunston may have been misjudged as it seems to have been based on it being part of the the city requiment. Why, because it is the opinion of planners that Oving/Drayton is unsustainable and that Mundham for unclear reasons is also not suitable despite it having clear advantages over Hunston. Better road options, availability of land for instance. Building at Hunston should not be decided simply on its proximity or social standinf in comparison to other areas. Extensive housing in Hunston does not reduce the need to travel, it will add to the already unacceptable levls of congestion, there being no other traffic options to gain access to the A27, or rail service.

It is noted that an allocation of 50 homes is proposed for North Mundham, and Policy AL11 will allocate a minimum of 200 homes for Hunston parish.

The B2166 and Pagham Road are the primary route for traffic travelling from Pagham to Chichester and the A27. The road network between Pagham and North Mundham and Hunston is already congested for much of the day. Traffic from these three villages meets at a small roundabout for the B2166 and B2145 via which access is gained to the A27 and wider strategic road network. There are already delays due to the recent opening of Chichester Free School, mitigation measures for which have not been implemented. To increase the number of homes in this area will exacerbate the problems already encountered by local traffic, which are already at an unacceptable level. The B2166 and Pagham Road are narrow, rural roads which are unsuitable for the current traffic load and it is dangerous to increase this further.

This statement refers to a MINIMUM number of dwellings; this is open ended and makes effective objection difficult.

Para 3.

Plans for site(s) access will not reduce the need for a large number of vehicles to exit onto the B2145 - an extremely busy 'B' road which is brought to a standstill by the slightest interruption in traffic flow or blockage of the A27. The same is true of the access roads to the Stockbridge and Bognor Road roundabouts. The addition of the +/- 400 vehicles linked to this proposal will cause unacceptable traffic volume and journey time increases plus the inevitable increase in road traffic collisions, air pollution and danger to pedestrian/non motorised road users.

The B2145 is already overloaded with traffic including large lorries going to businesses on the Manhood peninsular. To build extra houses in this area (not just Hunston but also the coastal villages), will increase the traffic to unacceptable levels, leading to major pollution and poor air quality for all living in the area. Traffic has already increased due to the opening of the Free School in the Carmelite convent, producing major traffic hold-ups in the morning and afternoon, leading to the A27 roundabout north of the convent being frequently blocked with the likelihood of traffic accidents on the A27.

I have been informed by CDC that, as of November 2018, there were 581 dwellings in Hunston. To add a proposed minimum of 200 dwellings would represent an increase of over 34% to the existing dwellings which would not be in keeping with the character of Hunston Village. It would be more suitable for a suburb of Chishester town. Much more realistic would be an increase of 10% ie 58 dwellings, and certainly not over 70 dwellings. The existing development to the west of the Village is mainly a densly built warren of buildings out of character for the Village. It gives an impression of a dumping ground for Chichester town. It is important, that in order to preserve the village envirenment, all of the new buildings are sympatheticly designed. Also, that the added aminities look and are appropriete for Hunston.

Planning Policy:

It seems the rationale for building 200 houses in Hunston is that land could be made available. The Housing needs for Hunston are in fact much lower

Hunston doesn't want the housing development and no consideration seems to have been given to the village's needs. Instead CDC has invited land owners to submit plans, with no consultation with the village whatsoever.

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?

The CDC Landscape Capacity Study November 2018 identifies at section CH30 that sub-area CH30 is medium capacity but it is recommended that only a small amount of development may be accommodated around the existing settlement and provided it is informed by further landscape and visual impact assessment and sensitively integrated into the landscape.
Once again what has changed? The development on land proposed by the Church Commissioners is not a small development.

Housing:

200 houses would increase the size of Hunston by 35%. This isn't development, its social change.

The suggested sites are currently arable land, using both for grazing cattle and crop production. In our small island, we cannot afford to give up productive land.

Hunston is a semi-rural village, this development would change its identity to a dormitory for Chichester

This development would be the start of joining Hunston to Mundham meaning that both would lose their identity

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

Local Plan P.130 states that the following should be considered: "Providing adequate mitigation for potential off-site traffic impacts upon the B2145". As CDC seem to have no effective engagement with Highways, and no recognition of the traffic pressures on Hunston, this seems like wishful thinking.

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 15 metre 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.

I would like " a minimum of 200 dwellings" to be changed to "a maximum of 200 dwellings. 200 dwellings in Hunston increases it's size by 35%, which will change the character of the village completely

Environment: Hunston is within the designations of the Chichester and Pagham Harbour SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites. 200 additional dwellings will have a major impact on both the local environment and the SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites

Housing: The Housing Register lists 22 people needing houses in Hunston, with 14 in Bands A - C. This development does not meet the needs of Hunston residents, it is there to solve CDC's housing allocation problems

Hunston is a village within Hunston Parish and needs to remain as such. 200 houses will extned the village to become one mass of housing south of Chichester. Road infrastructure cannot sustain the subsequent increase in traffic. The road is already dangerous with the volume of traffic increasing over the years with development of housing in surrounding villages especially Selsey. The road through Hunston was not built for this volume of traffic.
Areas of Hunston are already subject to flooding. Can utilities services cope with the increase 200 houses would demand in the area?

Housing:3. The CDC Landscape Capacity Study November 2018 identifies at section CH30 that sub-area CH30 is medium capacity but it is recommended that only a small amount of development may be accommodated around the existing settlement and provided it is informed by further landscape and visual impact assessment and sensitively integrated into the landscape. This proposal is not a small development

Traffic: The continuing problems with the A27 and increased traffic from new building in Pagham and Selsey, all meeting at the roundabout north of Hunston where the B2166 and B2145 meet, will result in longer and longer traffic queues. Traffic was literally gridlocked in high summer and this will spread throughout the year.

Environment: Demonstration that development would not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of identified sites and habitats;
The planned development on Church Commissioners land would mean the field between Southover Way and Hunston Copse would be developed. Hunston Copse is Ancient Woodland and houses a multitude of wildlife. 15 metre protection zones are totally inadequate to ensure the wildlife can thrive

Environment: Detailed consideration of the impact of development on the surrounding landscape;
The CDC Sustainability Appraisal - October 2018 - states:
There would be a "negative impact on village form" and a "potential negative impact on the Archaeological Priority Area".

Environment: Point 6: Opportunities for the expansion and provision of green infrastructure into the wider countryside including between settlements and facilities; This development will do precisely the reverse by removing current green infrastructure

Environment - Point 7: Demonstration that development would not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of identified sites and habitats;
Development abutting Hunston Copse will damage this Ancient Woodland site

Housing:Protecting existing views and particularly those of Chichester Cathedral spire and Hunston Copse whilst also creating new public viewpoints;
This development will result in residents of Southover Way and Meadow Close losing their views of the Cathedral Spire and Hunston Copse

Services: Currently Mundham, Sidlesham and The Chichester Free School are full at entry level. The Free School has a country wide catchment, so there is no guarantee of places for Hunston residents. This will result in children being driven to schools in central Chichester and beyond, only exacerbating the current traffic problems

The British Horse Society (BHS) is the UK's largest equine charity and equestrian membership organisation and the governing body for recreational riding. Its charitable objects include the promotion of equestrian safety, particularly on roads, and equestrian access to bridleways and other off-road multi-use routes for the public benefit. On behalf of The Society I would like to make the following comments:

Chichester Local Plan Review 2016-2035 Preferred Approach

The Society's priority when commenting on this document is to try and ensure that the policies and wording in the text include commitments to support and protect vulnerable road user groups, including equestrians (West Sussex Transport Plan, page 32, para 1.4.5), from the dangers they face on local roads due to the inevitable increase in traffic on these roads brought about by planned housing development.

The Plan area covered is home to a large number of equestrians, who bring significant economic benefits, especially to rural communities, but unless they have access to a safe network of bridleways, byways, and other off-road informal recreational routes which they can use daily, the dangers to horse riders will increase, and the industry will struggle to survive.

Policy S18: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula (page 68)
Equestrians on the Manhood Peninsula feel increasingly unsafe on the local roads they have always used, where the speed and volume of vehicles has grown considerably, and will do so even more as a result of the proposed housing development. There are now more than 500 horses kept in the area (Manhood Riding Club count) in private stables, livery yards, and the local Riding School (at which the Chichester Group of Riding for the Disabled is based).

We would, therefore, absolutely support objective 5 of this Policy "Improve infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Coastal Footpath ".

We would suggest the best way to do this is to ensure that at least one multi-use route (bridleway) is provided through, or around the fringe of developments, which can also serve as a green corridor for leisure and recreation and, and benefit health and well-being, wildlife and biodiversity. These routes can form the basis of a safe non-motorised user (NMU) network and link with existing public rights of way (prow) where possible.

Policy S20: Design (page 74)
Bullet point 5 - wording is supported "incorporates and/or links to high quality Green Infrastructure and landscaping to enhance biodiversity and meet recreational needs, including public rights of way."
However, it is important as mentioned above that this incudes 'multi-use' public rights of way for the benefit of all.

Transport Infrastructure
Para 5.15 - very good to see "bridleways" included in this para.
Para 5.16 - The wording "There is an extensive public rights of way network across the plan area... is misleading. The wording implies that this prow network is available to all users, whereas on the Coastal Plain the prow network consists almost entirely of footpaths, which are not available for use by cyclists and equestrians. Upgrading appropriate/suitable prow to bridleways would contribute to the West Sussex Transport Plan (2011-2026) aim of "improving safety for all road users", mentioned in para 5.18.

Policy S23: Transport and Accessibility
Bullet point 8 - Our view is that the objective "improving safety for all road users", should be included in the actual Policy wording, not just in the accompanying text. However, it is good to see 'public rights of way' included, which need to be multi-use bringing safety benefits for all vulnerable road users.

Countryside and Countryside Gaps (page 82)
Para 5.37 - Absolutely agree the plan area's countryside is an important and diminishing resource, and the Council's aim to protect the countryside from the urbanising impacts of development is welcomed. For existing and future residents, the opportunity to enjoy 'informal recreation' (walking, cycling, horse riding) in the countryside is important for leisure, health, and well-being. The Council needs to take a very active role in ensuring that any development provides benefits, most likely in the way of safe, off-road multi-use routes(green links), and the mention of this in para 5.40 is welcomed.

Policy S32: Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Sites (page 92/93)
The references in Point b, "movement and access arrangements and Green Infrastructure provision", in Point e, "community leisure and recreation facilities as appropriate", and Point g, "contain a Green Infrastructure framework to ensure that public and private open space standards are met, relate well to each other and to existing areas and that the new spaces are safe, convenient, accessible and functional" are welcomed.
However, it is important that leisure and recreational routes, and new prow connect to the wider countryside for public benefit, and are not just contained within a development. There are many examples in the county where new routes have been created across or on the fringe of a development, which link to a wider network of recreational routes. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), para 98, states "Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks"

Policy AL1: Land West of Chichester (page 96)
Point 4 - whilst welcoming the provision of "open space and green infrastructure", this development provides an excellent opportunity to improve links to the wider countryside, in particular to BW 270 and Park Lane (which should be formally dedicated as a prow).
Point 10 - An "appropriate landscaping buffer", is also an excellent opportunity to provide a multi-use prow (bridleway), for the safety and enjoyment of all vulnerable road users, which as a 'green corridor, would also contribute to green infrastructure.
We would also request that when looking at 'key landscaping' of the Centurian Way (CW), the issue of upgrading this to a multi-user path where possible, to include equestrians is considered, so that they can also benefit from a safe and secure off-road environment. The CW is the only disused railway line in the county that is not available for use by all NMUs. The Worth Way and Downs Link are fully multi-use, and are highly valued and well used.

Policy AL2: Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish) (page 99/100)
Point 9 - Despite repeated requests for the proposed bridge connection across the A27 at Coach Road (a route used by all NMUs until it was severed when the A27 was realigned) to also be made available for equestrian use, it would appear from the Policy wording that horse riders continue to be excluded, despite the large numbers of horses kept in the Oving area.

At present, riders have to box their horses over the A27 to access the safe network of bridleways and riding routes in the National Park, which is a situation contrary to the aims and objectives set out in this Plan. In order to gain maximum benefit from bridge infrastructure, it should be made available for as many users as possible.

Policies AL3 to AL14
All of these Policies require opportunities for the provision of green infrastructure with links to the wider countryside to be explored, and these are welcomed and supported. Creating new routes and links is especially important on the Coastal Plain, where an off-road multi-use path network would be of great benefit to all NMUs.

The West Sussex Rights of Way Management Plan 2018-2028 has Objectives (page 3) which include:
2. Improve path links to provide circular routes and links between communities.
3. Improve the PRoW network to create safe routes for both leisure and utility journeys, by minimising the need to use and cross busy roads.
4. Provide a PRoW network that enables appropriate access with minimal barriers for as many people as possible.
5. Promote countryside access to all sections of the community enabling people to confidently and responsibly use and enjoy the countryside.

The Plan also states in Improvement schemes (page 13), that "A starting point for new schemes will be to consider who could benefit from a new route, such as walkers, cyclists, horse riders and the disabled, and be as inclusive as possible, often the aim will be to achieve at least bridleway status.

Policy DM32 Green Infrastructure (page 199)
It is disappointing that the wording (on page 197/198) omits to mention that prow (footpaths, bridleways, byways), are defined by Natural England, and also recognised nationally, as multifunctional 'green corridors', and are therefore part of GI. Providing a multi-use (walker, cyclist, equestrian) prow or recreational route around the periphery would comply with NPPF, para 98, as mentioned above.
It is good to see public rights of way, and bridleways mentioned in Point 4 of the Policy, although the wording "do not lead to the dissection of the linear network" appears to be rather negative, much better to tell someone what they should do "The proposals protect, and contribute to the improvement of ........"

Policy DM34: Open Space, Sport and Recreation .... (page 204)
We support the aim to "seek to retain, enhance, improve access and increase the quantity and quality of....rights of way including improvement of links to them." This will be of great benefit to all NMUs.

Point 1 - Excellent to see requirement for development to contribute to new links to the existing rights of way network, which should be multi-use wherever possible.
Also support the aim to secure on-site provision secured via S106 agreements to provide (amongst other things) links to the existing rights of way network to meet any identified shortfalls in the local area, and would request in line with the WS RoW Management Plan that these links will be "as inclusive as possible, often the aim will be to achieve at least bridleway status."

This is an extremely high level of increased housing and there has been no prior consultation on this figure and is clearly an attempt by our current District Councillor to look after her own needs in election season, taking into account that Hunston will no longer be a part of her ward.

To increase the level of housing by circa. 40% in a relatively short period of time and with very little planning or mitigating actions being offered, especially around the increases in traffic.

An additional 200 homes in Hunston would be a very significant increase in the size of the village. The current housing need is around 20 homes so that would lead to approximately 180 homes being filled by those from outside the village. This in turn will put pressure on infrastructure and will inevitably lead to a significant increase in traffic as most people would be joining the existing heavy congestion at peak times to get to work/school etc. It appears that just because land may be available CDC has decided to take up that availability with no real thought about the impact. There is much reference to sustainability but no evidence that this is being considered.

At the current time there is considerable congestion at peak times. The provision of an additional 200 homes in Hunston would only exacerbate this. The measures seen to address this at the presentation attended were entirely inadequate. Firstly the A27 is acknowledged to be congested with no sign of any improvement in the near to medium term. It is likely that 200 homes would lead to an additional 150 cars, most of which would be needing to make their journeys in peak times to work/school. The new Free School has already produced traffic issues. It is not only the new traffic generated in Hunston but with additional homes planned for the rest of the Manhood Peninsula as well as Pagham, the current "B" roads will be unbale to cope. Junction changes will not lead to a material improvement. Other than the bus service there are no adequate footpaths or cycleways to discourage people from using their cars. Until this is addressed by more that fine words then the situation will only get worse. It is not even possible now to walk/cycle from one end of the village to the other safely.

The provision of additional green space/play areas is supported but it must include safe access by foot/cycle. This must also be from the entire village not just the new homes.

New residents should also be able to access the entire village safely. This should include for example the existing golf course.

There are serious concerns regarding the adequacy of infrastructure and services. There is doubt that sewage systems and drainage systems would cope with so many new homes. Roads are acknowledged as being inadequate for the current need let alone significant additional traffic. There is no sign of any solution to separating local and through traffic on the A27. Infrastructure must be improved before new homes are built. Given that infrastructure involves lengthy build times the number of new homes should be reduced until adequate infrastructure exists. This should include proper footpaths and cycle ways. Currently the is no all-weather footpath/cycle route to Chichester from Hunston. In fact this does not exist for children to get to the new Free School from Hunston which is an opportunity missed when the school was built. Currently most residents travel to Chichester for GP, Dental and Pharmacy services. Will there be capacity for the hundreds of new residents?

I strongly object to these proposals, due to the introduction of more residents , and the extra traffic the village will need to absorb, and its consequences.

It can take 30 minutes some days to get from Hunston to Chichester with existing traffic levels, increasing the numbers will simply make life more difficult for all of us.

We know extra/longer delays not only impact the economy, but also the quality of life for those directly affected and those indirectly affected.

What's hard to take is that some parts of the city are better able to deal an influx of residents and the said consequences.

It would appear that the proposal for 200 houses in Hunston has no regard for the local demand or the semi-rural nature of the village. It is a cynical attempt to help fulfill national targets set down by Westminster for housing in West Sussex. These proposals will change the fundamental nature of Hunston as a small village with countryside surroundings. It will move Hunston towards being another dormitory of Chichester.
Possibly more importantly is the even bigger issue of traffic. The B2145 is already a nightmare for Hunston. The proposed developments will add to congestion in and around the village. Add to this the proposed further expansion of development on the rest of the Manhood Peninsula.. Given the scope for any realistic improvement in the B2145 is very limited and add the similar expansion of traffic that will come from the Pagham area (B2166), gridlock in the area is inevitable . Further add an A27 with no firm proposals here and we are looking at total gridlock south of Chichester.

I object because the road is already too dangerous and too busy now the Chichester Free school is open.
My daughter of 9 goes to the CFS and is too afraid to cycle to school because there is no cycle or pedestrian path along the B2145.
We now have to walk through the fields along the Hunston riding stables to get too school, through mud, rain and snow.

It's all about earning money for the building companies and contractors and estate agents.

I am fed up with not considering the safety of people!!!!!

The plan includes far too many new homes for Hunston. The infrastructure is not in place to support this level of development. Traffic which is already a major problem will become intolerable and the plans to mitigate this are completely inadequate.

If the plan is approved and with the land already seemingly available it can be expected that developers will build these new homes in the first few years of the plan not spread over the plan period. If this happens then the infrastructure such as roads, sewage treatment etc will not cope and any plans to improve infrastructure will lag way behind.