Southbourne

I think paragraph 6.87 particularly and other sections need to be made even stronger with regard to development south of the A259. If we accept that additional housing north of the A259 is inevitable then it is even more important that ALL of the AONB is protected from development so that the inevitably increased number of local residents can enjoy this important and special area. The strategic gas provided by meadows and rivers south of he A259 are an essential element of the AONB and should not be seen as 'easy' targets for development. The only exception might be existing and unused 'brown field' sites that could perhaps be improved upon with carefully prepared replacement housing.

Serious consideration should be given to access to the A27 from Southbourne as a strategic objective for the short term not something discarded as simply too expensive.

While I do not object to Southbourne being a settlement area with the associated housing, I do object to a plan that is built that does not contain a CLEAR DEPENDANCY, on the Government to fund a long term solution to the A27. Without a junction to the east of Fishbourne, this housing plan would result in serious exacerbation to the pollution problems in Chichester from the increased traffic movements. Objection is therefore based on this plan being in conflict with DEFRA direction on improving Air Quality and if not adequately addressed, I and others would raise with the Government Inspector.

Once again the language needs to be strengthened. In 6.89, line 2, change "may" to "should", line 3 change "consideration" to "demographic research" In 6.90, bullet point 3, change "consideration" to "investigation". Bullet point 4, delete "potentially" and add "sports/youth facilities and retail units".

The introductory text for Policy AL13 refers to "around 1,250" new homes whereas the policy itself refers to "a minimum of 1,250" homes. This inconsistency needs to be addressed by amending the introductory text to refer to "a minimum".

Consideration should be given to including a reference (also in Policy AL13) for the need to take into account any future potential new access onto the A27.

The basic infrastructure in Southbourne is stretched to its limits with its present population. I understand the need for new housing but definitive plans should already be in place to improve the ongoing problems particularly concerning roads and traffic. This appears to be a build the houses first and deal with the consequences when we get round to it scenario. Leaving the village to the North can be done via country lanes, severely potholed, through the narrow and often blocked streets of Westbourne or through Marlpit Lane, on which the severely damaged road surface is at present having an adverse effect on the condition of private vehicles. The A259 to the South is accessible over consistently congested railway gates. At many times of the day, with the on street parking, this area is gridlocked. With the proposed increase in commercial premises this can only result in more traffic and larger vehicles. Access to schools is poor and the plan proposes to provide a two form entry primary school which the village already has. Is this in addition to or instead of the existing school? Other services are struggling to cope, for example, it can already take over two weeks to get an appointment at the local doctors. Flooding is always a problem and recent housing developments have put greater pressure on an already overworked sewage and drainage system. Tree roots are causing a problem on Stein Road. The villages along the A259 are merging into continual housing both East to Chichester and West to Emsworth and Havant. The required infrastructure improvements should be planned and agreed before the housing.

Traffic flow, another way in and out of village, Railway bridge? Another doctors surgery. Improved access to schools. Road repairs essential. Many are narrowing

See attachment

See attachment