Policy AL11: Hunston Parish

Showing comments and forms 91 to 120 of 145

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2365

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: West Sussex Local Access Forum (WSLAF)

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

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

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2404

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: Mr John Newman

Representation Summary:

Need to consider:
- Cycle access

Full text:

Introduction
I agree with most of the points made in the Introduction, not least the points about affordable housing, (para 2.9) for which there is a clear demand and inherent because of the 0.75%pa rise in population and the yawning gap between incomes and house prices.
I will acknowledge that I am writing as a baby boomer, but I note the above average presence of senior citizens in the CDC area and your anticipation that it will rise to 35% by 2015 (para 2.8). This surely has implications for the facilities that CDC, and probably more so WSCC because of its responsibilities for social care, will need to provide, and I do not notice any focus on this in your introductory section. In fairness I am slightly more encouraged when I read paragraph 3.19
I would also ask how many of the young people educated in the area return here to live and work after qualifying. And if the number is low, why, and what do you propose to do to ameliorate the haemorrhage?
Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives
I agree with your list of items in paragraph 3.2. That said, I note that you state that people should be able to "move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel (my emphasis). This surely has major implications for public transport, for walking, and for cycling, and surely these should be highlighted in this introductory summary. I shall look forward to seeing what you have to say about these later in the document.
I agree with paragraph 3.3 - but what do you mean by your hope to "balance the ageing population"? That could sound horribly ominous!
In para 3.4 I understand the wish to diversify the local economy - but where are these new organisations to go? You talk about "new sustainable neighbourhoods on the eastern, western and southern sides of Chichester, which could, especially when one thinks of Whitehouse Farm, appear to presage a level of growth which will frighten many. I think that the example of Summersdale, where I live, does not bode entirely well, for it is largely devoid of any community centres and has no public transport in the evenings.
In para 3.6 you speak of a "highly accessible transit corridor" Do you really mean this, says he thinking of the state of Chichester by-pass, the queues that I see coming east on to the Fishbourne roundabout in the morning, and the rush-hour queues from Bognor? Perhaps I could add what the all too predictable impact of Whitehouse Farm will be on both the Fishbourne roundabout and the Northgate gyratory.
Re para 3.10, my understanding is that rather more than "moderate levels of growth" are proposed between Fishbourne and Southbourne, and I shudder at the impact on the A259, all the more so when I think of all that traffic passing through the narrow main road at Fishbourne and also coming out on to what is already a very dangerous Fishbourne roundabout, which I do my best to avoid now!
Turning to paragraph 3.19 I welcome, amongst the other points you make there, the references to affordable housing, to air quality, to the section on health and well-being, and (at a time of fears about global warming) to the reference to flood risk.
Spatial Strategy
I welcome the list of services and facilities mentioned in paragraph 4.12, as that most certainly is not the case in present-day Summersdale.
In fairness I recognise the increased demand for housing as mentioned in para 4.22, as this is inherent in an area of rising population and probably more single-person households (which I have not seen mentioned). I suspect, for instance, that I am far from alone in living singly since bereavement in the family house where I have lived for forty years and from which I have no plans to move. That said, enormous care will be needed in selecting the areas for expansion and the implications for infrastructure and community buildings. Moreover you are clearly right in para 4.30 to refer to longer term growth.
You are clearly right to talking of "meeting the housing needs of the plan area and tackling homelessness" in para 4.34. In all honesty I was appalled when I saw the numbers of people sleeping out late a night when I happened to walk home at a late hour last March. I did not think that such an inhuman state of affairs obtained in Chichester, and am horrified that it still apparently does. I strongly agree with paragraphs 4.43 and 4.44. I welcome the policy statement S6, even if I think that we really need is a return to council house building, as was used to solve even worse problems in the decades after 1945.
Re para 4.66 I have very mixed feelings. It has pleased me not to see the extent of boarded up properties that one sees elsewhere. That said:-
* I write as one who detests shopping and does very little within Chichester city centre; I probably use only about half a dozen shops and those only occasionally.
* I know that my wife always preferred to go to Worthing and can think of a friend who prefers Southampton.
* I think that you have to recognise as a fact of life that more people are going to shop on-line, not least for reasons of price, and that that inherently impacts on traditional retail shopping.
* I tend to do my shopping on the edge of town as that is where the big supermarkets are and parking is easy. I would take some persuasion to change that.
* Looking at policy S9, do you really need more shipping in the Southern Gateway at a time of decline of town centre retail shopping?
Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services
Paragraph 4.80 should also include cycle tracks and bus routes if you really want to move away from the use of private cars.
I note that paragraph 4.81 includes a reference to "appropriate revenue support". I fully agree and wish that I could believe that this present austerity-obsessed government would actually provide it.
Your policy S12 seems right to me.
East-West Corridor
I think that you are somewhat optimistic in paragraph 4.88. The 700 bus service is very good, but what about other routes, especially in the evening? The present state of the Chichester by-pass is dreadful, and the Fishbourne roundabout is a particular source of danger, moreover one likely to be made worse by more traffic coming from Whitehouse Farm and from further development along the A259.
Policy S13 seems fine to me.
Paragraphs 4.95-98 describe a situation that I know only too well. I would add that as a cyclist I find the western end of The Hornet and St Pancras to be by far the most dangerous pieces of road in Chichester, and I write as one who usually does not mind where he cycles.
I do not agree with paragraph 4.101 - I think that a park and ride is badly needed, arguably from both the west and the south.
Re policy S.14:-
* Re peripheral car parks, if you want to revive the city centre, is that really the answer? What about those who find walking difficult or who do not want to carry heavy shopping half a mile to their car?
* I shudder what the queues will be like with a bus lane up to the Bognor roundabout.
* I think that the present bus/rail interchange is quite good, though I think that you need safer crossing of the road and seats in the bus station
* I do not notice any statement about solving the problems caused by the level crossings by Chichester Station. Having had to wait there for over five minutes yesterday while a train was sitting in Chichester Station I feel bound to ask whether there cannot be some mechanism to bring the gates down just before a train is due to leave, and when you are going to have either a bridge or an underpass there.
Re paragraphs 4.103-105, wshat consideration has been given to the transport consequences of such development, especially given the absurd decision to remove the Oving lights?
Given that I live in Maplehurst road, you will not be surprised that I have noted policy S15. Essentially I welcome this policy, not least, as having some pretentions to being a musician, I am very aware of noise, and the weekends where un-silenced racing is allowed are truly a misery, which ideally would be stopped as unbelievably selfish and insensitive and at very least should not be allowed to expand beyond the one such meeting per year. In fairness the banks erected some years ago have made a difference, and for the most part aircraft do behave themselves. I also think that any housing development closer to Goodwood Airfield should be out of the question, as the noise would be intolerable to anyone with normal hearing. In policy S16, point 2 I think that un-silenced racing should not be allowed despite their loss of amenity, as the consequent noise is not reasonable.
Re paragraphs 4.111-115, what do you think is going to be the impact of 1600 new houses in that area - to amenity and the rural aspect; to the A259; to traffic through Fishbourne; and the already dangerous Fishbourne roundabout? I think that the scale of this development is highly questionable for these reasons.
Strategic Policies
Looking at policy S20, I agree with all the points that you make. I would add:-
* The need for a public transport system that does not stop in the evening, and
* The need for good bicycle access. When I think that at least twice a promised access to Centurion Way has not been delivered, I think it fair to make that point, especially if you really do want to get people out of their cars.
Re paragraph 5.16 I find it sad that you do not mention in your strategic corridors that the cycle track adjacent to the A259 going west from Chichester is part of cycle route NCN2.
Re paragraph 5.22 our roads are going to be even more over capacity with significantly more housing development. I have already referred several times to my concerns over the dangerous Fishbourne roundabout.
Re paragraph 5.27 I welcome the interest in cycling provision. Living in Summersdale it takes me less than ten minutes to cycle into the city centre - in fact by far the quickest way I can get there. For the most part it is safe, I think, but with the glaring exception of the Northgate gyratory. Whoever designed that clearly forgot that a cyclist is at his/her most risk when pulling away, so to expect cyclists to stop at each exit is a massive deterrent. This cyclist prefers not to use the cycle lane in order to have safer crossing at each exit. I find the St Pauls Road exist especially dangerous. I would also like to have paint markings on the raised kerbs at each exit for safety in the dark.
More generally, if you are in the Low Countries, it is exceptional for cyclists can have two way traffic in what it is a one-way street for motorists - I have seen so many no-entry signs there with "uitgezonderd fietser" below. In fairness there is some of this in Chichester, but I think that there is scope for more.
I also think that Chichester centre needs increased provision for cycle parking, for instance adjacent to the Little London car park, where there is plenty of potential space, and at the eastern end of East Street, where I find the present racks often to be full.
I would also like you to think how cyclists can be safer at the western ends of The Hornet and St Pancras, which are the two roads in Chichester which make me feel very chary.
With the additions of the points made in the previous paragraphs and also restating a need for evening bus services, I generally support the points made in policy S23, though I would repeat what I have already said about expecting people to park too far away from the city centre if you really want people to come there, and I would extend this point by saying that if you are going for distant parking, a park and ride becomes essential. I am agnostic about the Birdham Road to Fisbourne proposal, as I do not know enough about it to comment.
Re policy S24 I would make a particular plea for the Lavant Gap, which is important both to Lavant and Summersdale especially as an important part of our amenity. And we did not fight to save it to have a northern by-pass trundling through there!
I agree with policy S27 and would add that I can remember the floods some fifteen years ago and looking out at the River Lavant east of Maplehurst Road to see how far the waters were going to spread. That too me (besides proximity to Goodwood) would be a major factor in my opposing any development there. I am aware that the Pagham Rife project subsequently ameliorated the risk, but I still think that it needs to be borne in mind, especially given the impact of global warming.
I agree with policies S28 29, 30, and 31. I would make a particular point of air and noise pollution.
Strategic Site Allocations
I agree with policy S32,
How can you write paragraph 6.8? You will know as well as I do that cycling links are not good, and will be worse if Centurion Way is to be diverted. Also how are cyclists supposed to get into the city from the northern end of Whitehouse Farm - down St Paul's Road and coming on to the Northgate Gyratory (which will also be receiving significantly more motor traffic? Please!! I hope that you also know that the plans could well include a really dangerous junction on Centurion Way that is the entrance from Bishop Luffa Close.
As for motor traffic, the same point about St Paul's Road applies. And as for the southern end, surely you know what that is going to do to local roundabouts, not least the dreadful Fishbourne roundabout?
In terms of recreational disturbance, (para 6.12) why is there no reference to Centurion Way?
The points above all are relevant to policy AL1.
Re policy AL2 I do not know enough to comment in much detail. That said, I am concerned about transport access. I know that I am not alone in detesting coming up to the Bognor roundabout from Bognor and often prefer the safer route via the Oving traffic lights. Has any account been made of how such traffic, which is not inconsiderable will be affected, and how this will make the journey from Bognor to Chichester significantly worse than it presently is?
Re policy AL5 I accept the case for redevelopment, though was far from impressed with the last proposal I saw and commented on at the time; I thought, and still think, that the road alternations then proposed were insane and asking for more rather than less jams. I welcome the references to access for cyclists and pedestrian. I am not clear when there are references to the bus depot as to whether that includes the bus station. If you want people to come to Chichester centre, bus access needs to be close; moreover the present bus station is properly close to the railway station, which is important for integrated travel. I do not see any reference to taking away the present crossing gates, which are a serious impediment to traffic at the moment, both on Stockbridge and Basin Road; I think that that is a bad omission.
Re policy AL9 I lack the detailed knowledge usefully to comment, but would ask how far the present state of the A259 has been borne in mind in planning both in Fishbourne and further west from Chichester. It is narrow and at times congested now - major development can only exacerbate such problems.
Re policy AL10 I can comment only as one who fairly often cycles east-west along the A259. The exit from the cycle track on the southern side of the A259 to the east side of Chidham is presently dangerous because of the road layout and the warning sign about cyclists being several; yards too late and often obscured by foliage. Where there is a cycle track in Chidham, parking on that track is not uncommon. There is also a significant gap in the cycle track through much of Chidham. Moreover this is part of a national cycling route, and will become even more significant with more development in Chidham and points west.
Re policies AL11 and AL12 please bear in mind the need for cycle access and for the proposed cycle track between Chichester and Selsey (via Hunston) to develop, especially if you really mean to develop non-motor transport (and also as a valuable and healthy amenity) and bearing in mind how dangerous the B2145 is.
Re policy AL13 cycling provision to the west of the roundabout presently is reasonable; it is not good west of the roundabout. My comments about NCN2 refer here too.
Development Management
I am especially pleased to see paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8, as with an ageing population and baby bookers such as me passing 80 within ten years or so, increased specialist provision is inevitably going to be necessary. This is not to downplay other specific groups, eg students - I simply write from an area of specific knowledge. I agree with policy DM1.
The principles behind policy DM2 seem right to me and I am pleased to see recognition of the need for affordable housing. I would make specific reference to resolving homelessness, young families with not much money, and people in the twenties moving to a new area to start work.
I agree with what you are saying in policy DM8. I have raised my concerns about such issues as cycling routes, bus services, parking and the impact on existing crowded and/ or dangerous routes earlier in this response.
I can see why you are seeking to protect the city centre and prevent an excessive dominance of out of town areas, all the more so as I have seen this in the USA. That said, I find shopping on the edge of town a lot easier -things are in the same place; parking is easier; prices tend to be better. And how far are you crying for the moon as on-line shopping takes off? I for one would take a lot of persuasion to do much shopping in a city centre especially with poor parking. So, while I accept most of what you say in policy DM12, it is with this big proviso.
I agree with policies DM13 and DM14.
I think that any new building should have to incorporate solar panels (re policy DM16). I know how much electricity my solar panels have saved me, and, were I younger and further solar installation not so expensive (it would take me more than a decade to get my money back) I would seriously consider more to provide solar energy for heating and electricity storage.
We are now so aware of air quality issues that I am very pleased to see policy DM24. I also agree with policy DM25 and would add that this should be a significant issue (because of the noise pollution emanating from Goodwood) for any development east of Maplehurst Road.
Re policy DM33, last time I was there I thought that the canal towpath was very dangerous at the western end, particularly for anyone trying to ride a bicycle there.
My apologies but I do not know enough about the later policies usefully to comment.

Summary
In case it helps for me to summarise what I have been seeking to say:-
* As a cyclist I have inevitably had a lot to say about present inadequacies in the network. These need remedy if you really want people to get their bikes out in a city that is made for cycling and feel safe in so doing. Moreover there are the clear health and pollution gains from more cycling, and it is actually often the quickest way from a resident anywhere in the city to get into the centre.
* Housing is important - to resolve homelessness; to provide affordable housing; to meet the needs of young families with not much money or young singles moving here to begin a job/ career.
* There are particular issues re an ageing population and the increased needs are so predictable now even if perhaps not immediate.
* If you really want people on buses, fares have to be lower so that they are competitive with the marginal cost of a car journey for a family, which they are not at present. Services need to be good and to include the evenings.
* I think that there is a danger of Canute tendencies re retail when I think of the attractions of edge of city shopping let alone on-line trading.
* This is linked with car parking - reasonably central car parking and/or a park and ride are crucial if you really want to maintain/expand the city centre.
* The present situation over the level crossing is unacceptable.
* The Fishbourne roundabout is unacceptably dangerous, and the present "by-pass" is a denial of your hopes of an easy east-west transit.
* I am pleased to see the sections on air and noise pollution, and also the encouragement of solar electricity, and I hope that these will really mean something

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2508

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Hunston Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Object:
Concern over use of 'minimum' - uncertainty over sites and capacity to deliver e.g. flood risk, impact on ancient woodland
Flawed allocation e.g. reversal of HELAA
Sites are arable used for cattle/crops
Use of greenfield sites detrimental
Coalescence of Hunston-N Mundham and Hunston-Chi.
Traffic impacts
Pollution
Infrastructure
Services
Lack of sustainability
Impact on woodland and wildlife

Full text:

Hunston Parish Council is writing to object to the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 Preferred Approach - December 2018 with the following issues:

Housing Allocation:

Policy AL11 states that:

Land will be allocated for development in the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan for a minimum of 200 dwellings, including any amendments to the settlement boundary.

We would strongly suggest that the wording above should be changed for "a minimum of 200 dwellings" to "a maximum of 200 dwellings". Failing that, to change the wording to: "about 200 dwellings".

We do this on the grounds that there is uncertainty about the identified sites and their capacity to deliver 200 dwellings is not proven. There are issues concerning flood risk and threats to Ancient Woodland (Hunston Copse). Additionally, Section 4.121 The Manhood Peninsula of the Local Plan states that:

Environmental designations cover, or impact on, most of the Peninsula, including the Chichester and Pagham Harbours SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites, the Chichester Harbour AONB and the Medmerry realignment

Whilst we understand that the continuing lack of resolution to the problem of the A27 is not within CDC's control. We believe that the likelihood of increased air pollution caused by the cars associated with 200 new dwellings, when they reach the roundabout north of Hunston where the B2166 and B2145 meet and then onto the A27 must be taken into account.


The Planning Process:

1. 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.

2. 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". The local housing need is 22, with 14 in Bands A - C.

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. Once again what has changed? The development on land proposed by the Church Commissioners is not a small development.

Housing:

1. Hunston is a semi-rural village, increasing its size by 35% would change its identity to a dormitory for Chichester.

2. The suggested sites are currently arable land, used both for grazing cattle and crop production. UKs environmental footprint is already 2.4 times it's land area. We can only produce enough food for about 60% of our population.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply

3. Using green field sites is not only detrimental to the village, it is also detrimental to the county and the country.

4. The size of this development on CDC's preferred sites would result in creep towards joining Hunston to Mundham and then Hunston to Chichester. This is social engineering, which will overcrowd the already overcrowded area.

Traffic:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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?

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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:

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

Infrastructure:

1. 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.

2. There are no indications that the current sewage, drainage and water utilities will be able to cope with this development

Services - Schools:

1. 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:

2. 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?

Sustainability

The Chichester Local Plan Review - Sustainability Appraisal - October 2018 lists the following: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=30955

1A Does the option prevent biodiversity loss and habit fragmentation?
Within the zone of influence for Pagham and Chichester Harbour. Close to the Canal and Hunston Copse SNCIs. Potential impact on components of ecological networks.

3A Does the option reduce air pollution from industrial processes and transport?
Added congestion on the A27 likely to have negative impact on air quality

3D Does the option require new Waste Water Treatment capacity?
Negative impact until WWTW is upgraded or new capacity is found

5A Does the option reduce the risks of coastal, fluvial surface water and groundwater flooding?
Sites to the South East of Hunston likely to increase flood risk and other potential sites located close to flood-zones

6C Does the option reduce congestion?
Likely to add to congestion on A27

7A Does the option encourage sustainable land management practices to conserve landscapes?
Local impact is likely to be significant

7B Does the option ensure protection of traditional urban forms?
Negative impact on village form.

7C Does the option ensure conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings?
Potential negative impact on the Archaeological Priority Area

13B Does the option avoid the loss of the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land?
Potential loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. However, some options for developing Grade 3 land.

It would appear that the Local Plan proposal for 200 houses is completely ignoring all of the above.

Environment: Ancient Woodland:

1. 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"

2. Current residents of Southover Way and Meadow Close will lose their existing views of Hunston Copse with the proposed new housing.

3. The proposed 15 metre margin to protect Hunston Copse is woefully inadequate

Environment: Wildlife

1. 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.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2667

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Mike Dicker

Representation Summary:

Makes no provision for the road infrastructure impact of a further 200 dwellings onto the A259 and A27.

See attached for full detail.

Full text:

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

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

High level comments received:

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

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

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

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

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

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2678

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Devonshire Developments Limited

Agent: DLP Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

No evidence that Hunston can accommodate 200 dwellings.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2684

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Spiby Partners Ltd

Agent: DMH Stallard LLP

Representation Summary:

The proposed policy sets out detailed policy requirements without identifying the site or location which has been considered suitable for the proposed strategic site. It is considered that the Neighbourhood Plan process is not suitable to identify strategic level sites and that these should be identified through the Local Plan review.

Full text:

S5:
We object to Policy Reference S5 on the basis that it requires a significant level of housing to be provided through Neighbourhood plans including 200 dwellings at Hunston. It is considered that the Local Plan review therefore fails to have been positively prepared as it should take a more direct approach to allocating sites, particularly for the larger villages. In many cases, we are aware that a number of Parish Councils (including Hunston Parish Council) will be objecting to this consultation and the suggested delivery of housing within their area. Therefore it is unlikely that all Parish Council's will respond positively to this process creating delays and uncertainty for local communities.
Considering the long standing shortfall of housing in Chichester it is considered that leaving such a significant amount of housing for delivery through Neighbourhood Plans is inappropriate. Therefore it is considered that the Council should be more pro-active in identifying sites for housing.
The Local Plan should identify sites or locations that the Council consider to be suitable for housing, including land at Reedbridge Farm which is considered to be suitable, available and achievable to deliver housing.

AL11:
The proposed policy sets out detailed policy requirements without identifying the site or location which has been considered suitable for the proposed strategic site. It is considered that the Neighbourhood Plan process is not suitable to identify strategic level sites and that these should be identified through the Local Plan review.

The Local Plan should allocate suitable land for development, such as land at Reedbridge Farm, Hunston. This land is suitable, available and achievable as identified by the Chichester Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment.
Furthermore the documentation we have provided to the Council demonstrates an
achievable scheme that would make a significant contribution towards the number of
dwellings allocated within Hunston in a sustainable manner that would achieve the Policy requirements set out by AL11.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2784

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation Summary:

Whilst SWT supports the recognition of Hunston Copse LWS in section 6.72, it is not clear why Chichester Canal LWS which also passes through the Parish is not mentioned. there is a particular requirement in section 6.77 for development to protect and enhance non-designated sites and their setting. We question why it is not included in the supporting text of other allocations which may impact on LWS or in the policy wording for AL11. We ask CDC to be more consistent in their recognition of LWS as per paragraph 174 of the NPPF and recommend amendments in this case:

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2910

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page

Representation Summary:

Hunston suffers from an exceptionally busy road bisecting it (B2145). Under this plan it has been allocated 200 houses. A large number will change the character of the village. The policy calls for a 'minimum' of 200 houses. Given the small amount of land close enough to the main part of the village to ensure proper assimilation, this should read 'about' rather than 'minimum'. Mention of road improvements to accompany the development mentioned in Para 6.77, 4th bullet, is not reflected in this policy and paragraph and should be a necessary condition.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3126

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: D R Pick Grandchildren's Settlement

Agent: Savills

Representation Summary:

The settlement hierarchy identifies Hunston to have fewer facilities than Birdham - Hunston is neither larger nor more sustainable and the allocation is inconsistent with policy S3.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3154

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christine Harrison

Representation Summary:

Object to Hunston allocation on the following grounds:
- Lack of infrastructure
- Increase in traffic
- Unequal distribution of homes
- Tourist economy affected by more development
- Impact on food and environment by building on agricultural land
- Second homes underoccupied
- Impact on The Copse

Full text:

No (research) evidence to suggest that Hunston itself as a village needs 200 houses. It only needs social housing. That the areas south of the A27 cannot bear the overload of proposed development which has been foisted upon it due to the North of Chichester arming itself with protection against development. The character of Hunston will be adversely affected by being enlarged by a third. Hunston functions well currently but has no infrastructure allowing development.

Looking at the North and South of Chichester together in terms of the local economy. The south brings the greatest economic prosperity to the whole population due to its prosperity. Hunston has a lot of farmland. If built on, how will this impact on food and environment? Do a survey on the occupancy state of all the second homes in the area. If second homes are under occupied, should these not be purchased rather than building more houses.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3167

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Alan Carn

Representation Summary:

Will make the overused B2145 even worse.

The number of new houses in Hunston should be 50 at most, directed at local need, affordable, some to rent, and at least half designated for those on council waiting
lists.
Bus fares should be reduced to encourage bus use by those travelling to work in Chichester.
The nearby Free School should be required to amend their travel plans to restrict private car use for pupil transport.
Developments should only be permitted where a thorough investigation has been undertaken to show that the benefits outweigh any adverse impact on biodiversity.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3190

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp

Representation Summary:

This plan should include provision of housing for younger people with shared communal areas to make living in shared communities an attractive and affordable proposition to attract more young people to stay in the area.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3198

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Joan Duberley

Representation Summary:

Object to Hunston allocation on following grounds:
- Flooding
- Sewage, drainage and water infrastructure
- Traffic congestion
- Use of agricultural land (less available for food production)
- Should use brownfield sites first

Full text:

Parts of Hunston already flood with a high water table. 200 more houses will only make flooding more of a probability. Also the current sewage, drainage and water utilities will not cope with this amount of pressure. Some parts of Hunston are not even on mains drainage.

A lot less new houses and major improvements to sewage and drainage in the village.

The A27 is often gridlocked and traffic cannot flow through Hunston from Sidlesham and Selsey. 250 more houses in Selsey, 200 in Hunston and around 400 around Pagham will put the roads at a standstill. The new Free School already causes major problems and these will be exacerbated. The B2145 is the 4th busiest B-road in the UK and cannot cope with 1,000+ extra cares meeting where the B2166 joins north of Hunston. Residents will be trapped. There are already major problems when emergency services need to get through. Added to that, during the summer the population and traffic doubles. The traffic pressures on Hunston are already intolerable.

Northern A27 route and less new houses on Manhood peninsula.


We do not need an extra 200 houses in Hunston which would increase the size of the village by 35%. Most of the land suggested as housing sites is currently agricultural and used for valuable food production. Surely that must be more useful than housing, which could go on brownfield sites, and we cannot afford to give up such land - once gone lost forever. Also we would just become a dormitory village for Chichester albeit cut off by the A27.

A lot less houses - no more than 80.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3212

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Jill Pagano

Representation Summary:

Object to Hunston allocation on following grounds:
- Views to countryside
- Building on agricultural land
- Increase in cars
- Pollution from traffic
- Affect on wildlife and habitats
- Lack of evidence for housing numbers

Full text:

The proposed development will alter the nature of a small friendly village in a rural setting - the current village will be swamped by large housing estates.
Views from Southover Way and Church Lane will be ruined.
It is unthinkable to build on agricultural farmland.
The impact of another 500 cars will add to the already clogged up roads and cause more pollution.
This building will adversely affect wildlife and habitats

Build on suitable brownfield sites.
Do not ruin a long established small village in a rural location - what evidence is there for this amount of houses being needed?
Build if absolutely necessary on fields just before the new school not swamping already established housing in the village and spoiling the rural location and views over The Copse.

Attachments:

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3300

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Church Commissioners for England

Agent: Lichfields

Representation Summary:

CCE supports the allocation of additional land for a mixed-use form of development including a minimum of 200 dwellings at Hunston, including any amendments to the settlement boundary, to be identified through a revised Neighbourhood Plan.

See attached for site submission.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3348

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: CEG

Agent: Nexus Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Question deliverability of allocation through NP process

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3369

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Intelligent Land

Representation Summary:

For the reasons set out in representations to draft Policies S2 and S3, the allocation in Hunston Parish should be more appropriate to its location. As such the allocation should be reduced to 50, with the remaining 150 allocated to Runcton, as a more sustainable location for this level of development due to its proximity and relationship to the HDA and Chichester Food Park.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3387

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Rebecca Newman

Agent: Genesis Town Planning

Representation Summary:

Hunston has 9 facilities compared with 8 at North Mundham/Runcton but Hunston is allocated 200 units as a strategic allocation and North Mundham has only 50 as a parish housing allocation.

On the basis that a dispersed strategy is accepted for Hunston with a reduced allocation of 125 units, 2ha of land adjacent to the existing settlement policy boundary of Hunston is available at Farmfield. The land has an existing access onto the Selsey Road and is immediately available. It could deliver around 50 dwellings and contribute to the needs of Hunston in the early part of the plan period.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3435

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Beryl Clarke

Representation Summary:

No further development in this village, It is full to capacity now.

Full text:

No further development in this village, It is full to capacity now.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3436

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr David Alan Parsons

Representation Summary:

The infrastructure is not sufficient to support 250 houses - especially in respect of non vehicular transport modes such as walking and cycling.

I object to the very large number of houses in the proposal. This number would completely change the village rural character of Hunston.

The 250 houses proposed would entail a great loss of greenspace and the proximity of these to woodland and cultivated areas would be detrimental to peoples health.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3437

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Janet Parsons

Representation Summary:

The huge increase in traffic if all these houses are built.

Too large a number of new house proposed and the loss of green space.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3438

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Gillian Tennent

Representation Summary:

1. There are already many houses in Hunston
2. With more properties being built near Selsey and in Selsey the main road through Hunston from the A27 also the road from North Mundham through Hunston to Selsey is also getting as busy as the A27.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3439

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs C Axworthy

Representation Summary:

Hunston is big enough. It can take up to an hour to get into Chichester, the road is always congested, buses are delayed have to leave alot earlier for appointments. Also the sewers can't cope. Fields flood badly now.

Full text:

Hunston is big enough. It can take up to an hour to get into Chichester, the road is always congested, buses are delayed have to leave alot earlier for appointments. Also the sewers can't cope. Fields flood badly now.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3440

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs P Harvey

Representation Summary:

200 more houses are too many for our small village like Hunston. Plus more cars (at least 400).

Full text:

200 more houses are too many for our small village like Hunston. Plus more cars (at least 400).

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3441

Received: 01/02/2019

Respondent: Anne Duffy

Representation Summary:

Object to Hunston allocation on the following grounds:
- Too many homes for Hunston
- Lack of social housing
- Loss of agricultural/food production land
- Types of houses not affordable for young people and too large

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3442

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Sharon Lamb

Representation Summary:

200 houses = 400 cars & visitors, 800 ex people.
Will cause extra pollutiion, this will cause health problems for everyone & will have an impact on the copse & wildlife. The buildings will have a huge impact on the environment killing it & wildlife off - green areas help clean our air.

Full text:

200 houses = 400 cars & visitors, 800 ex people.
Will cause extra pollutiion, this will cause health problems for everyone & will have an impact on the copse & wildlife. The buildings will have a huge impact on the environment killing it & wildlife off - green areas help clean our air.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3443

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Lynne Rosemary Powell

Representation Summary:

A large number of houses in a small village like Hunston will ruin the ethos of our community. B2145 is already an extremely busy road and the only one to Selsey. A small primary school already fully subscribed and no suitable facilities to sustain the addition of a large number of houses ex. Drainage, traffic school, doctors.

Full text:

A large number of houses in a small village like Hunston will ruin the ethos of our community. B2145 is already an extremely busy road and the only one to Selsey. A small primary school already fully subscribed and no suitable facilities to sustain the addition of a large number of houses ex. Drainage, traffic school, doctors.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3444

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Terence Robert Powell

Representation Summary:

Drainage won't be able to cope with more house in Hunston. Also more cars on the B2145, as well as the new Free School traffic.

Full text:

Drainage won't be able to cope with more house in Hunston. Also more cars on the B2145, as well as the new Free School traffic.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3445

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: stephen lamb

Representation Summary:

A potential 800 extra people will turn a rural village into a concrete town with no facilities to service them. All medical and frontline services are on their knees and there are none in the village. All schools are over subscribed with long waiting lists.

Full text:

A potential 800 extra people will turn a rural village into a concrete town with no facilities to service them. All medical and frontline services are on their knees and there are none in the village. All schools are over subscribed with long waiting lists.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3446

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Stephen Berriman

Representation Summary:

Building 200 new homes in Hunston village will put added strain on water and sewage services.

Full text:

Building 200 new homes in Hunston village will put added strain on water and sewage services.

Attachments: