Policy AL13: Southbourne Parish

Re Southbourne as a settlement hub - I am concerned that the houses will be built but the infrastructure will not be set in place. Infrastructure has to come first. We are short of facilities in Southbourne already. Very few shops, no youth facilities, a rubbish park (meaning all young families drive to westbourne, fishbourne and emsworth to go to a decent park). Please ensure infrastrucure comes before development, not after.

6 Change "consideration" to "investigation".
16 Change "as required" to "as it is required".

The Policy requires to make reference to NCN2 and the need for this site to fund improvements to strategic and local cycle network/

I appreciate the need for more housing so my concerns lay with the infrastructure and my view that planners do not live in the real world. The plans contain the stock phrases about transport links but the reality is people like to use their own vehicles. In our small close we have up to 40 vehicles - I admit that I am guilty of adding to that number, but it is so convenient. The local roads struggle at peak times and the railway crossing at Southbourne can be a nightmare, forcing locals to use the Inlands Road crossing. The occupiers of any new housing north of the railway line will naturally use the back roads via Westbourne (wholly impractical) and Woodmancote to access Havant, Petersfield direction and Chichester. The local schools will have to expand with a resultant gridlock on local roads at peak times. Parents use cars to transport their children to school (often in large vehicles). This is a fact which planners seem to ignore. The surgery will also have to expand. I have real concerns about what this area will look like in a few years time and the problems we will have in getting from A to B. Will our local villages lose their identities and be merged in to one conurbation between Havant and Chichester? I hope not

Whilst this policy is supported, as large scale development often allows the largest community benefits, the planning for, assessment and delivery of large scale sites takes a long time. It is therefore important that the number of dwellings is expressed as minimum, as this allows flexibility for smaller sites, if appropriate, to come forward quickly to fill the inevitable 'delivery gap'. Perhaps this should also be recognised in this policy?

AL13, 2, add "disabled accommodation, first-time buyers, single-parent families".
AL13, 3, after "access to site(s)" add ", particularly non-vehicular,".
AL 13, 6, change "consideration" to "investigation".
AL13, 7, add "sports/youth facilities and retail units"

Examination of the pba Associates Transport Study, AL13 and Policy DM24 do not take into the account of traffic movements and the effects on air quality travelling eastwards during the construction period of the Fishbourne roundabout. The impact from this number of houses in a settlement area would require a clear statement of works duration, diversionary routes that, do not pass through residential AQMAs,, or create the very real likelihood of creating additional AQMAs. (eg Residential areas of St Pauls Road, and the inevitable rat runs through Parklands Estate who will be affected by Whitehouse Farm/ traffic on the B2178) .

Please inform us as to how CDC allocated the distribution of houses across all Parishes. 1250 new houses in Southbourne is more than double the next largest allocation and seems unfair.

How was this number derived and what supporting evidence is there that other areas cant handle more of the load.

CDC is overloading an already stretched community and CDC will be responsible for the breakdown of services and facilities in Southbourne.

CDC needs to invest in the infrastructure in other areas in order for them to cope with development and growth, not swamping and already stretched area and pushing it to the point of breakdown.

The plan states that "Currently there is good access to employment elsewhere (for example at Chichester City and Havant);however opportunities in Southbourne itself are very limited.Future development will include a mixed use form of developmentsubject to further detailed work and consideration of sites. Inaddition there are a number of specific issues that need to betaken into account in planning development for the area. Theseshould be considered and included in the overall masterplanningthat will be required for the area, these include:
* Phasing the development of the site(s);
* Provision of an up to two form entry primary school;
* Potential expansion of secondary school subject to furtherconsideration;
* Expansion and provision of community infrastructurepotentially to included early years' childcare provision,community hall/centre and expansion of doctors' surgery; "
When is this infrastructure going to be put in place - it MUST be done prior to approving planning for future development


The plan states it will be "Protecting views to the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB and their settings and creating opportunities for new views;" - Unsure how adding 1250 new houses improves the views???

The plan states it will "Maximise the potential for sustainable travel links through improved public transport, including consideration of opportunities to resolve the situation relating to the various existing or planned railway crossings as well as the inclusion of cycling and pedestrian routes; "
- In fact there are no public bus routes from Stein Road, only transport by bus is on the A259. Bus routes need to be improved to support at least 1250 new residents to the area.


The Plan states it wants to "Create new areas of open space and green infrastructure through planting, including maintenance and enhancement of perimeter landscaping to screen development and reduce noise;" - The Parish Council is trying to do this with a "green ring", but existing settlement boundaries are being disregarded with planning applications, and 1250 homes will leave very little space available in which to create open space and green infrastructure.

The sewerage work which was a condition of the new development at Priors Orchard has yet to be carried out in full. This infrastructure needs to be put in place before more houses can be considered.

I am writing to submit my views on the proposed plans to build 1250 new houses in Southbourne.
I attended the evening regarding the plans on 17th January and was horrified to hear of how many houses are planned in Southbourne and that we would have about 8 times more houses planned than any of the local areas. This will destroy Southbourne village as it a small village with one main road running through it.
There are plenty of other areas that are easily accessible by road without having to dig up a beautiful piece of land in the middle of a sanctuary, which is home to lots of wildlife. I had thought that the Southbourne plan was to keep the area in the middle of Southbourne free from development for the local community to enjoy and to protect our wildlife. Would it not be better to let our wildlife thrive in this area instead of filling it with houses, roads and pollution? We live in Eastfield Close and have a family of deer who run around the land at the back of us and around the land east of Breach Avenue. We also have some pheasants that sometimes run up and down the fields. We have bats that fly around our house and many types of birds that live in all the trees around the area. We have also found slow worms on our land and we have a squirrel in our oak tree. The plot at the back of our house has been used to grow vegetables and fruit for decades and surely it is good to have produce grown locally in the village.
Bourne Community College is full, and having to increase its place numbers already due to the other houses built in Southbourne. I know that this is filtering into all our other services in Southbourne including our doctor surgery. The road in Cooks Lane is too narrow for traffic to go down and is already dangerous for the children who walk down this road to go to school. More houses will cause gridlock at the railway crossing in Southbourne and onto the A259. I am also concerned that there will be nowhere for drainage of water so are we now going to have flooding? I know that we need housing but if we are not careful, we will end up like Chichester where the roads are constantly gridlocked with cars.

Apologies . My representation ID 413 incorrectly stated "Residential areas of Broyle Rd" .
This should have stated "Residential areas of St Pauls Rd"

I am writing to raise a number of objections to the proposed building of 1250 homes(minimum) in the Southbourne area.

1. The village is already at saturation levels with traffic and particularly in Stein Road when the railway gates are closed.The traffic backs up to the A259 to the south and often as far up to beyond the shops going north.
2. The A259 is extremely busy during rush hours at present and therefore another potential 1250 cars minimum would add extreme pressure on the already crowded road.
3. The strain on any Doctors Surgery would be enormous in the area. It is already very difficult to get a GP appointment, and people often have to wait 3/4 weeks to see a GP, There is a shortage of GPs and with Brexit not far away, there will indeed be shortfall of Doctors coming from other EU countries.
4. The housing that is at present in the process of construction, is not affordable to local people, in fact what is happening is there is an influx of people from other areas coming in to Southbourne.
5. Chichester District Planning Authority should stipulate that any new housing MUST be carbon neutral and new housing must include Solar heating panels on roofing. We need to preserve as much energy as possible for future generations.
6, Instead of building on arable land which will be needed in the future as Britain leaves the EU and the food shortages predicted in years to come, a policy to build any new housing on brownfield or existing sites sites should be implemented.

The addition of 1250 new dwellings in an area that DOES not have good access to other areas. There is no provision for the road infrastructure impact that this many new dwellings would have onto the A259 and A27 and will impact the transport report. they all have to either go west to Emsworth east to the Fishbourne roundabout which is already at full capacity. Limited employment opportunities so would necessitate the need for travel.Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan. I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

The land in Southbourne is at or below the 5 meter contour and therefore at risk of flooding as a consequence of sea level rise as a result of global climate changes

1- The allocation of additional housing across the district proposed by the Chichester council is uneven and will unfairly affects Southbourne and its area. A housing increase of +50% in Southbourne (+1250 houses on a village of currently approximately 2500 houses) will significantly impact the Southbourne local environment for the worse, turning what is currently a small village with a community spirit into a commuter town. In the meantime, most other areas around Chichester are largely unaffected, with only small additional developments for a few hundreds of houses planned for here and there.
It could instead be fairer to spread the housing requirement more evenly across the district. Most areas between Emsworth and Chichester have got large amounts of agricultural land that could be converted without significant local impact. We request that a more balanced approach is selected, spreading the housing allocation more evenly, in order to maintain the character of each area.


2- Traffic, congestion and pollution along the A259 are already a major issue for local residents. There is no motorway junction along the 9-mile stretch between Warblington and Chichester, drives forces all the traffic from the villages (Emsworth, Southbourne, Nutbourne, Bosham, Fishbourne) onto the A259. We walk our children to nursery and to school along this road ; both the noise and the pollution are at times unbearable due to the constant traffic. There is regularly rush hour congestion between Emsworth and the Warblington motorway junction. We can't have a conversation while walking due to the overwhelming noise of the cars.
Adding thousands of houses along this stretch alongside similar plans between Havant and Emsworth will only add to the issue, and will adversely affect Southbourne and Emsworth in particular. In my view, a pre-requisite for additional houses should be improved access to the motorway. A new motorway junction connecting the villages to the A27 should be budgeted for in the plan and implemented before new building works can start. Southboune or Nutbourne already have part of the infrastructure (bridges over the motorway and largely empty spaces around the bridge allowing the construction of a junction without major effort). If new housing needs to be implemented in Southbourne north of the railway line, then it would make a lot of sense that this new housing development is connected to the motorway at Southbourne (Stein road). In consequence, I request that a motorway junction is budgeted for in the neighbourhood plan, as a necessary condition to the development of this large new housing area in Southbourne.
Looking at the long term and at the sustainability of this area, promises for "improved public transport" in the current draft will do nothing to ease the congestion. A budgeted committment to a new motorway junction will.

3- Stein Road in Southbourne is very congested at times, particularly during school drop-off and pick-up times. The absence of a footbridge and or a car bridge / tunnel (contrary to Emsworth for example) makes this congestion worse. We frequently have to wait up to 10 minutes at the crossing when 2, sometimes 3 trains, arrive within the same timescale. This congestion, with cars keeping their engines on at the railway crossing, vehicles parked on the pavement, make Stein Road a very dangerous and polluted road - there is an accident waiting to happen there. With this in mind, the road network, level crossing, access to the motorway need to be addressed first before adding a large quantity of dwellings in the area. More trains or buses will not resolve the congestion issue. If anything, more trains could cause more delays at the level crossing.

As a Parish Counsellor having been very much involved with the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, originally said to be valid through to 2029, but now to 2035, I am horrified, indeed appalled, that this 6 year review is proposing an additional housing allocation of 1,250 homes, which is nearly four times the original 350 in the original Neighbourhood Plan.

I am very anti this review/imposition and also very much against any grade 1 or 2 agricultural land being used for building land, as the need for home-grown food is likely to escalate with population increase and/or possible importation difficulties. In other words it should be regarded as a strategic resource.
Furthermore it has to be borne in mind that inescapably there are Limits to Growth in a finite World. In this respect it appears that from Southampton to Brighton the coastal area is turning into one long traffic-ridden conurbation. This worries and horrifies me, as to where the future for our young people, and the natural world, is heading.

1250 houses will destroy the 'village feel' of Southbourne, which is one of the main reason for residents enjoying living here. If the residents wanted to live in a town they would have bought houses in an existing urban area. Southbourne has already taken an extra 500+ houses which were agreed as part of the recent neighbourhood plan. Stein Road is more and more crowded and the delays at the level crossing are increasing. Any new housing should not be accessed via Stein Road to preserve the existing residents' quality of life in the village.

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."

The introductory text refers to housing "to be phased throughout the plan period". This important consideration is not fully reflected in the policy wording itself, which only refers to phasing in the context of infrastructure delivery.

This strategic allocation makes a significant contribution to the District Council's overall housing requirement and furthermore it will have a strong bearing on the District Council's rolling 5-year supply of housing. Paragraph 73 of the NPPF requires strategic policies to "include a trajectory illustrating the expected rate of housing delivery over the plan period" and goes on to consider whether it is appropriate to set housing trajectories on a site-by-site basis to avoid delayed housing delivery from large strategic sites where there are complex infrastructure requirements. In this context the NPPF highlights the important contribution of small - medium sized sites and the subdivision of larger sites in maintaining a rolling 5-year supply of housing.

I live in Prinsted which is part of Southbourne Parish Council area. My comments for the supposed 1250 houses to be built are.
1) Will the A259 be able to cope with the amount of traffic for that amount of houses. There are many being built along the Southbourne stretch of the A259 at the time of writing and there is already concern about them.
2) There needs to be some kind of focal centre for new development i.e. around a village green. Which would have a community centre and doctors surgery as the surgery at the moment is not in a good place for the village.
3) Transport needs to be considered more buses more trains stopping at the station.
4) There may need to be more local shops with good parking.
5) Leisure facilities for both young children and teenagers.
6) Leisure facilities for the older residents.
7) Green open spaces within these developments.
8) The houses should not be spread around but in one area to help create a centre this would work well in the area of the Bourne leisure centre.
9) A local bus that serves the area not just along the A259
10) Village allotments.

Natural England's comments on S31 apply to potential allocations in Southbourne.

Reference should be made in the supporting text to the Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy, which maps important sites for SPA birds. These areas should be avoided when allocating sites in the Neighbourhood Plan.

1,250 houses proposed with the two access points onto A27 along the A259 corridors at the already congested Warblington and Fishbourne roundabouts will increase traffic, accident rates, congestion, noise and air pollution. WSCC Reported Accident Records state on A259 Southbourne to Fishbourne 2 Fatal 15 Serious 33 Slight. The huge increase in traffic along this stretch of A259 due to the development numbers will rise.

No mention in AL13 the protection against further air, noise or light pollution from the A259 and adjoining roads during or after construction.

Only solution, a new access point onto the A27.

Proximity to infrastructure in SE Hants makes this a viable choice for development, providing adequate steps are taken to protect Chichester Harbour AONB, and to provide effective wastewater treatment.

This makes no provision for the road infrastructure impact of a further 1250 dwellings onto the A259 and A27 and will impact the transport report.

As a local resident who lives very close to the proposed development site north of South Lane, I object to any development of the field in the strongest possible terms. We as residents of Fraser Gardens have already suffered the effects of three developments at this end of the village which have significantly increased traffic flow, noise and have severely hampered our outlook. Any further developments at the north end of the village will just make matters far worse, not just during construction (noise, mess, lorry and construction traffic, congestion, etc.) but also the impact of the occupants of 300 extra houses.
The increase in noise, traffic, congestion plus the extra strain on already overstretched infrastructure and local facilities (schools, doctors, etc.) is unthinkable. We are also aggrieved about the lack of publicity regarding this planned development. We are also very concerned about the detrimental impact a large development would have on not only our quality of life but also the negative impact on the value of our property. We have lived here since 1985 and have slowly been forced to watch our space and views eroded while powerless to do anything about it. We moved here wanting to be on the edge of a village and not swallowed within a huge housing estate. The roads through the village and also Westbourne and Woodmancote suffer from congestion at peak times especially around the schools and railway crossings. This would become significantly worse and dangerous for both parents and children. One of the worst aspects of this situation is that we have not been contacted by the council to inform us of the proposed major development.

Build it somewhere else if at all

As you know between now and 2035 there are 1250 houses due to be built in and around Southbourne. All these dwellings are due to be built north of the railway line. There is also a railway road bridge due to be built too. I can't see where this can be built. If it's built over housing there will be pollution which will affect people with lung conditions. Behind the Bourne Community College there are a myriad of public footpath's that many dog walkers and schoolchildren use to walk to and from school. Currently children are able to walk from Westbourne and Emsworth to Bourne Community College. That these footpath's it will be dangerous for them to walk the road or they would have to go by car. How are they going to be accommodated? Do you want more parents picking children up from school in their cars or do you want them to walk home in a more environmentally friendly way?
What about Inlands Road? At the moment it has an electric railway crossing and the road is very narrow with no white markings. If houses are due to be built that side of the railway then the road is going to have to be widened and a proper railway crossing built.
Also the railway crossing at Stein Road will get more and more congested. As it is, at busier times the traffic builds back as far as the roundabout at St John's church. The pollution from traffic is dreadful and again people with bronchial conditions suffer.
What about the natural environment for wildlife and birds. There are foxes badges and rabbits living in the local hedgerows not to mention a variety of birds. Where are they going to live? Where are they going to build their nests?

I appreciate these houses have to be built but nobody seems to have considered the above. They have just seem to have found land that they think they can build on without thinking of the consequences.

Policy S17:
This policy appropriately highlights the environmental sensitivity of the location within the Chichester Harbour AONB and the proximity of the Chichester Harbour
SAC/SPA/Ramsar, however, there is no mention of the Core and Supporting Areas on the Thorney Island which are within the SWBGS.

As per the SWBG strategy, Core Areas are considered essential to the continued function of the Solent waders and brent goose ecological network and have the strongest functional-linkage to the designated Solent SPA in terms of their frequency and continuity of use by SPA features. We strongly urge that development proposals which are likely to affect these non-designated sites are referenced within the policy.

Policy S26
We welcome Policy S26 and support its intention to protect and enhance the natural
environment of the Plan Area. There is however is no specific reference to designations within the policy and or the supporting text (para 5.51).
The specific conservation designations relevant to the Chichester Local Plan in respect of both international and national designations should be detailed within the Local Plan.

The inclusion of site designations; SPAs, SACs, SSSIs etc. rather than 'biodiversity of the site'. We would also recommend the outcome of the net gain consultation to be referenced in Policy S26 and reflected in the regulations 19 draft

Policy AL6
The policy for this housing allocation appropriately highlights the need to provide
mitigation to ensure the protection of the adjacent SPA, SAC, SSSI and Ramsar at
Chichester Harbour. However, the land in this policy is across the road from site 'C23' in the Solent Brent Goose and Wader Strategy (SWBGS) and has been designated as a 'Candidate area'.

As per the SWBG strategy, development proposals which are likely to affect these sites will need to undertake survey work to confirm the site's classification prior to assessing off-setting and mitigation requirements. We urge that reference to this is made within the policy.

Policy AL8
We note that allocation AL8 is proposed to be delivered through a review of East
Wittering Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which will allocate sites to meet the housing figure. The District Council have therefore not identified any sites at this stage.
The lack of detail as to where these sites (or site) will be located raises concerns given the sensitivity of area and the potential of conflict with the legislation protecting the designated wildlife interests. This also raises questions around the deliverability of the Chichester Local Plan given this allocation is roughly 10% of the overall housing target and there is currently no indication of time frames of the NP review. It could also impact on the Council's ability to undertake a sound Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan.

If the Parish are to take a lead in identifying new development site(s), attention must be drawn to the details of the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership to ensure suitable sites are identified that do not conflict with the designated site interests.

The RSPB would like clarification as to whether the sites identification process is expected to be competed in time for the submission of the Local Plan, and if not what measures are being taken to ensure that this approach will not affect the overall deliverability of the plan?

Policy AL9
We note that allocation AL9 is proposed to be delivered through a review of Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which will allocate sites to meet the housing figure. The District Council have therefore not identified any sites at this stage.
The lack of detail as to where these sites (or site) will be located raises concerns given the sensitivity of area and the potential of conflict with the legislation protecting the designated wildlife interests. This also raises questions around the deliverability of the Chichester Local Plan given this allocation is roughly 10% of the overall housing target and there is currently no indication of time frames of the NP review. It could also impact on the Council's ability to undertake a sound Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan.

If the Parish are to take a lead in identifying new development site(s), attention must be drawn to the details of the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership to ensure suitable sites are identified that do not conflict with the designated site interests.

The RSPB would like clarification as to whether the sites identification process is expected to be completed in time for the submission of the Local Plan, and if not what measures are being taken to ensure that this approach will not affect the overall deliverability of the plan?

Policy AL12
The RSPB would like to express concern over the potential impact site allocations AL12 could have on brent geese. Since 2017 the Pagham Harbour reserves team and SOS have been working together, carrying out brent geese surveys around Pagham Harbour since 2017, with the aim to map out how wintering brent geese are using land off the designated sites and to distinguish if these sites are functionally linked to the SPA.

This site is close to the Pagham Harbour SPA (approximately 350m) and over the last 10 years Sussex Ornithological Society (SOS) have recorded over 900 records of birds at Park Farm and Church Norton Greenlease, of which include brent geese.
This area currently falls outside of the SWBGS and therefore would not be picked up by this strategy. Until we have a full understanding of what fields are used by brent geese we will oppose any development on fields potentially used by them for foraging.

Policy AL13
We note that allocation AL13 is proposed to be delivered through a review of Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan (NP), which will allocate sites to meet the housing figure. The District Council have therefore not identified any sites at this stage.
The lack of detail as to where these sites (or site) will be located raises concerns given the sensitivity of area and the potential of conflict with the legislation protecting the designated wildlife interests. This also raises questions around the deliverability of the Chichester Local Plan given this allocation is roughly 10% of the overall housing target and there is currently no indication of time frames of the NP review. It could also impact on the Council's ability to undertake a sound Habitats Regulations Assessment of the Local Plan.

If the Parish are to take a lead in identifying new development site(s), attention must be drawn to the details of the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership to ensure suitable sites are identified that do not conflict with the designated site interests.

The RSPB would like clarification as to whether the sites identification process is expected to be completed in time for the submission of the Local Plan, and if not what measures are being taken to ensure that this approach will not affect the overall deliverability of the plan?

Southbourne level crossing causes a huge traffic problem as the gates are closed which is quite frequent. Any developments north of that crossing will only exacerbate the problem. Roads to the north of the village are narrow country lanes and cannot sustain any further traffic flow being already heavily utilised. South of the gates is also a problem because of vehicles parked on either side of Stein Road and this is compounded when the gates open.
The propsed plans show that there will be an increase in commercial premises, this again increases traffic especially vans and lorries. With all the current developments in progress I question whether the infrastructure is sufficient? Further development can only make this worse. For example in heavy rain stein road cannot take the surface water now.
No consideration appears to have been made with regard to Doctors surgery and how that is impacted by future development.
This all seems to be village creep along the A259, Southbourne itself is already made up of 3 villages (Southbourne, Breach, Prinsted)

The main improvement required is to sort out the traffic problems caused by the level crossing. This would probably require a road bridge across the railway line.

Southbourne already has a two class entry primary school with no provision in the plan to expand this to take into account the extra population.
The doctors surgery is already busy and full to capacity and due to the difficulty in recruitment of GP's in the area it is unlikely to meet the demands of an increase in population.
The Stein Road railway crossing is already congested at peak times. It is the main route out of Southbourne to access the A27. Children attending the local schools cross this route and there is potential for pedestrian fatalities and injuries. Also the extra pollution created by the extra vehicles will increase the incidence of respiratory disease and exacerbate existing disease. It can also contribute to an increase in dementa.

What improvements or changes would you suggest?

Build along the A259 corridor. This leads to more direct access to major roads.

West Sussex County Council Officer Level Response
Introduction
The Chichester Local Plan Review Preferred Approach sets out how the future development in the District will be shaped, excluding the area within the South Downs National Park, up to 2035. It includes the overall development strategy as well as relevant strategic policies to meet the future needs of the area and development management policies to help guide development over the plan period. The Local Plan helps to:
* choose where the development goes;
* protect the character and beauty of the area;
* provide job and housing opportunities so that children can continue to work and live locally;
* support and help to boost the local economy;
* help residents to maintain healthy and active lifestyles; and,
* make sure that there is adequate services, travel options and community facilities.

The Chichester Local Plan was adopted in July 2015. At that time, the Local Plan was approved, but the Government Inspector said that it had to be reviewed again within five years, to make sure that sufficient housing was planned to meet the needs of the area.

The first part of the review process was carried out in June 2017 with an Issues and Options consultation, in which comments were invited regarding the overall development strategy and possible development locations. The Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach is the second stage of the process. It sets out the proposed development strategy and policies for the area to meet future needs.


West Sussex County Council Officer Level Comments
This note sets out West Sussex County Council's (WSCC) officer response to the consultation on the draft Chichester Local Plan Review Preferred Approach. It highlights key issues and suggested changes to which Chichester District Council (CDC) is requested to give consideration. We will continue to work with CDC in preparation of the Local Plan Review and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan regarding WSCC service requirements in order to mitigate planned development.


Minerals and Waste
A steady and adequate supply of minerals and the achievement of sustainable waste management can help to achieve a District or Borough Council's goals in relation to the economy, housing, transport, communications, strategic infrastructure and the environment. Therefore, District and Borough Local Plans should recognise the importance of minerals and waste issues as relevant to the scope of their overall strategies.

We welcome the reference to the adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plans and safeguarding in the document and the requirements in policies where a site is located within a minerals safeguarding area, or near to a safeguarded waste site. There are some missing references to safeguarding of minerals and waste sites for some of the proposed allocations, set out below and request that these references are added. It is also requested that 'Joint' is added into the references for the Joint Minerals Local Plan through the document.

Policy W23 of the Waste Local Plan applies to all Districts & Boroughs, regarding waste management within development and should be referenced in the Chichester Local Plan Review.

AL3 East of Chichester
The site is to the north of the Fuel Depot site allocation in the Waste Local Plan (Policy W10) for a built waste facility as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the site (including complimentary non-waste uses). The East of Chichester allocation is the land to the north, bisected by the railway line, of the Fuel Depot. Reference should be made to giving consideration to the allocation, and therefore its safeguarding.

AL4 Westhampnett/North East Chichester
Reference should be made to minerals safeguarding, for consistency with other allocations, as within the sharp sand and gravel safeguarding area.

AL5 Southern Gateway
Reference should be made to the mineral infrastructure safeguarding policy M10 as within 200m of the Chichester Railhead.

AL6 South-West of Chichester
Reference should be made to the mineral infrastructure safeguarding policy M10 as within 300m of the Chichester Railhead.

AL7 Highgrove Farm Bosham
Remove reference to minerals safeguarding as the site is not within the safeguarding or consultation area.

AL12 Park Farm Selsey
Reference should be made to minerals safeguarding as site is within the sharp sand and gravel safeguarding area.

Neighbourhood plan allocations
Sites are yet to be allocated though neighbourhood plans. It is considered that the Joint Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan are referenced, particularly with regards to safeguarding policies (M9, M10 and W2) and these documents and policies are given detailed consideration when allocating sites. Development at, adjacent or proximal to existing waste or mineral sites / infrastructure should be the subject to consultation with WSCC.


Connectivity and Sustainable Travel
The County council has worked with the District Council on the preparation of the transport evidence base study undertaken by Peter Brett Associates for the District Council. The recommended transport mitigation strategy, as assessed using the Chichester Area Transport Model has been demonstrated to be capable in principle to prevent the development from resulting in severe residual cumulative impacts on the highways and transport network. However, the recommended strategy has several risks to deliverability and acceptability associated with it, which require further work to be undertaken to demonstrate that the strategy can be implemented in its current form to provide the forecasted mitigation to travel conditions.

There are three locations where new highway alignments are proposed outside of existing highways boundaries. Two of these may include significant earthworks or structures to be delivered, being Stockbridge Link Road and Terminus Road diversion. The cost of the mitigation strategy exceeds a figure which could reasonably be supported by the value of the proposed development developer contributions alone, therefore the delivery of the strategy will depend upon securing of external grant funding to top up developer contributions. WSCC will work with the District Council in supporting and or applying for funding, the District Council needing to secure Highways England to support funding applications for A27 improvements. The proposed junction designs for the A27 Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts include bans to well used right turn movements off the Chichester A27 bypass which result in significant forecast changes to traffic flows on local roads in the south of Chichester and on the Manhood Peninsular.

There is a need to ensure the land outside the highway boundary is available and the plan should set out how this land will be acquired to deliver the measures, it may be that a commitment to use, if required, and therefore reference to CPO be made in the policy.

Funding for the mitigation strategy is uncertain. It is considered that the Plan should set out how it will deal with this uncertainty. This could include trigger points in the monitoring framework to trigger a change of approach or alternative options to deliver the required development.

These factors mean that feasibility work is necessary to be undertaken prior to Plan submission, to reduce as far as practicable risks to costs, land take, impacts and deliverability of the proposed transport strategy in order to show that the strategy can be implemented within the plan period and that the funding strategy will be sufficient to meet the design requirements. In particular the following will need to be addressed:

* Statutory undertakers equipment under the roads junctions to be impacted.
* Extent of earthworks required to create a vertical and horizontal alignment compliant with design standards. Design audit to identify any required departures from standard.
* Designing for drainage and flooding issues, including compliance with the WSCC LLFA Policy for the Management of Surface Water, November 2018.
* Designs for structures to cross watercourses - Stockbridge Link Road
* Design should include suitable provision for rights of way and footway crossings
* Scoping for whether and at what level further Environmental Impact Assessment will be required.
* Stage 1 Road safety Audit, designers response report and resulting amendments to designs.
* Land take required after feasibility level designs have been developed and availability of required land.
* Wophams Lane - impacts of forecast changes to flow patterns to take B2201 southbound traffic on requirements for highway width, alignment, footway provision and junctions with A286 Birdham Road and B2201 Selsey Road; design solution required.
* Quarry Lane, Kingsham Avenue /Road, Terminus Road; impacts of forecast flow changes on highway users, residential and commercial frontagers and measures to manage through traffic whilst maintaining local access

Sustainable transport measures will also be required to mitigate planned development. These will be identified through more detailed assessments of sites including pre-application consideration. Funding will need to be identified through development and other sources as well in some cases.

Public Rights of Way
There is support for the Local Plan Review's approach to Public Rights Of Way (PROW), not just for the potential to impact on existing public off-road access but also the opportunity it brings to enhance this access for the benefit of future residents, communities and visitors. PROW deliver benefits for personal health and wellbeing; sustainable transport; reduction of air pollution and road congestion; are able to support local economies; and they connect communities.
WSCC PROW welcomes several aspects of the Vision statement, which give support to the protection and enhancement of the PROW network, and provision of safe and convenient off-road access opportunities for residents and visitors:

* Pursue a healthy lifestyle and benefit from a sense of well-being supported by good access to education, health, leisure, open space and nature, sports and other essential facilities;
* Live in sustainable neighbourhoods supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities;
* Move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel.

The Local Plan Strategic Objectives offer further support to enhance off-road access, particularly to 'Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for all, developing accessible health and leisure facilities and linked green spaces'. However, the objective to 'Achieve a sustainable and integrated transport system through improved cycling networks and links to public transport' should recognise walking also as an important mode for many people; some strategic enhancements will significantly improve walkers' safety and convenience.

It is considered that West of Chichester the A259 could act as a corridor for increased volumes of non-motorised access, particularly cycling. Improvement of the existing on-road facility and development of a various 'feeder' routes to connect with the many settlements, perhaps using quiet lanes in places, would encourage cycling particularly to be a natural alternative to vehicle use. Policy S18: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula, gives regard to such an ambition in stating it will 'Improve infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Coastal Footpath'.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Open Space and Recreation, para 97b) states:
the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location.
The NPPF para 98 also 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 including National Trails.'
There is support for Policy S20: Design, that recognises these requirements in stating development 'is well connected to provide safe and convenient ease of movement by all users, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements both within the scheme and neighbouring areas and ensuring that the needs of vehicular traffic does not dominate at the expense of other modes of transport, or undermine the resulting quality of places' and 'incorporates and/or links to high quality Green Infrastructure and landscaping to enhance biodiversity and meet recreational needs, including public rights of way'.


Education
As the local education authority, WSCC has the statutory duty to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of suitable school places to meet statutory requirements for early years, primary, secondary and sixth form provision (including up to age 25 for those with special educational needs and/or disabilities). Education infrastructure, or contributions to provide infrastructure, will be required in order to mitigate proposed development. We will continue to work with CDC in preparation of the Local Plan Review and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan regarding education and other service requirements in order to mitigate planned development.

The table below sets out the primary, secondary school and sixth form requirements to mitigate proposed development. SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

AL1 Land West of Chichester

It should be noted that phase one of this development will provide the primary school with the core of the building being built to the specification for a 2 form entry (FE) school and 1FE teaching accommodation. Phase 2 as per 6.10 on page 93 should include expansion of the primary school for the further 1FE of teaching accommodation.

AL2 Land at Shopwhyke (Oving Parish)

No update to original response for this allocation is required.

AL3 Land East of Chichester - previously South of Shopwhyke

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there is insufficient space within the primary schools that serve this proposed development. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Land for a 1 FE expandable to 2FE and pro rata share of the build costs would be required.

If numbers were to increase on the east side of the city, education provision will need to be reviewed, potentially a further 1FE may be required including land provision, this could be in the form of an expansion or a new school being built capable of expansion to 3FE.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL4 Land at Westhampnett / North East Chichester

The remaining 200 dwellings will impact on the education provision in the area, financial contributions towards expansion of existing or pro rata costs towards the expansion of the school within AL3.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL5 Southern Gateway

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from the strategic allocation of 350 dwellings in the Southern Gateway. However, consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of housing in the area Land South West of Chichester (AL6) to allocate land within the area for a 1FE expandable to 2FE primary school. Pro rata financial contributions towards the build costs would be sought from developers to mitigate their impact.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram & Donnington Parishes)

It should be noted that the primary education provision in this area is either in Chichester City Centre which means crossing the main A27 or by travelling south towards the peninsula. Consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of further housing in the area along with the Southern Gateway allocation (AL5) to allocate land within the strategic allocation site for a 1FE expandable to 2FE primary school. Pro rata financial contributions towards the build costs would be sought from developers to mitigate their impact.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL7 Bosham

The current primary provision serving the area is at capacity, expansion of the school on its existing site is not possible. As part of the strategic allocation, it is proposed that land for a 2FE primary school be provided. The strategic allocation of 250 dwellings in isolation does not require a new school to be built. Certainty over the land allocation and sufficient funding will be key drivers in realising this proposal.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL9 Fishbourne

The primary school serving the area is currently at capacity, expansion of the school may be possible, feasibility / options appraisals would need to be undertaken.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of primary and secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

AL8 East Wittering

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development.

Contributions would be required for expansion of primary and secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL10 Chidham and Hambrook area

The current primary provision serving the area is at capacity, expansion of the school on its existing site is not possible. As part of the strategic allocation, it is proposed that land for a 2FE primary school be provided. Certainty over the land allocation and sufficient funding will be key drivers in realising this proposal.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL11 Hunston

Any development within this area cannot currently be accommodated in the existing primary school at North Mundham. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development, CDC will need to work with WSCC to determine how additional capacity in the area could be accommodated if land is to be allocated.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

AL12 Selsey

Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Contributions (and possibly land if required) would be sought to meet the pupil product from the development in the most appropriate form once this can be clarified.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL13 Southbourne

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there is insufficient space within the primary schools that serve this proposed development. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Land for a 2form entry expandable to 3FE primary school and pro rata share of the build costs would be required.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL14 Tangmere

The current allocation of 1,300 dwellings will bring forward the requirement for land for a 1FE expandable to 2FE and financial contributions would be sought to meet the pupil product from the development in the most appropriate form once this can be clarified.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

Footnote: - if all of the proposed sites were to come forward the secondary school and sixth form provision would be full in the Chichester Planning Area. Expansion of the secondary schools in the Chichester Planning Area to cater for the increased demand would need to be sought from the academy sponsors, where appropriate and the Local Authority.


Lead Local Flood Authority
The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is concerned about the approach being taken with regard to ensuring potential wastewater treatment for proposed new sustainable development.

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states:
8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):

a) An economic objective - to help build a strong, responsive and competitive
economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the
right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved
productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

Paragraph 20 of the NPPF states:
20. Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for:
a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development;
b) infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

In the LLFAs view, the Local Plan Review is not setting out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development in relation to arrangements for wastewater management. The LLFA considers that CDC needs to go further in incorporating within the Local Plan Review how this provision is being made.


Additional Policy Comments

Policy S12: Infrastructure Provision
Support the requirement that all development must provide or fund new infrastructure, facilities and services required, both on and off-site (including full fibre communications infrastructure) as a consequence of the proposal. The explicit reference to full fibre communications infrastructure is supported as this will provide gigabit-capable and future-proofed services to all development, existing and new. The reference to provision of facilities and services on and off-site is also supported as in the case of broadband for example, all development will be adequately equipped with the necessary infrastructure installed for the purposes of connecting to full fibre gigabit-capable broadband services. This policy supports the County Council's aim for increased digital infrastructure that will provide for gigabit-capable broadband and future technologies such as 5G.

Support the reference to safeguarding educational facilities under section 3 of the policy.

The policy includes the requirement to 'Facilitate accessibility to facilities and services by a range of transport modes'. PROW can offer vital access means for walkers and cyclists, such as for employment land use (e.g. commuting by bicycle) and in support of the high street, both for employees and customers. IT is considered that this Policy, also Policy S13: Chichester City Development Principles, should aim to encourage such access to be the natural and preferred modes of access, thereby helping achieve the benefits previously described. It is noted Policy S14: Chichester City Transport Strategy, does acknowledge cycling and walking and lends support to their improvement.

The supporting text, paragraph 4.81 makes reference to the Strategic Infrastructure Package (SIP). It is requested that this wording is removed and replaced with West Sussex County Council identifies service infrastructure requirements necessary to support new and existing communities, where strategic development and growth is proposed in Local Plans. These are required to deliver the County Council's statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives and current policy and feed into the preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.


Policy S13: Chichester City Development Principles
This policy, like policy S12, it is considered should aim to encourage such access to be the natural and preferred modes of access, thereby helping achieve the benefits previously described. It is noted Policy S14: Chichester City Transport Strategy, does acknowledge cycling and walking and lends support to their improvement.


Policy S23: Transport and Accessibility
The policy and supporting text paragraphs 5.15 - 5.33 refer to Transport Infrastructure. Understandably much consideration is given to the A27 around Chichester; however, in addition to seeking new infrastructure from new development, it is recommended support in principle is given to maximising the value of existing infrastructure so as to facilitate off-road user modes accessing either side of the A27.


S24: Countryside
Supporting text paragraphs 5.34 - 5.43, acknowledges 'it is necessary to provide for the social and economic needs of small rural communities, and enable those who manage, live and work in the countryside to continue to do so'. It is recognised in para 7.205, supporting text to policy SM35 Equestrian Development, the high numbers of liveried and stabled horses. A considerable network of businesses are supported by such a high equine population, and in addition to financial value within the local community there is considerable benefit in terms of health and wellbeing of individuals. It is suggested that Policy S24: Countryside, could recognise this specifically.


S27: Flood Risk Management
Supporting text paragraph 5.54, requested amendments underlined - as a consequence of the rise in sea levels and storm surges, parts of the plan area will be at increased risk from coastal erosion, groundwater, fluvial and/or tidal flooding. Hard defences may not be possible to maintain in the long term, therefore development needs to be strongly restricted in areas at risk to flooding and erosion, whilst ensuring that existing towns and villages are protected by sustainable means that make space for water in suitable areas. Development must take account of the policies of the relevant shoreline management plan

Supporting text paragraph 5.58, requested amendments underlined - Built development can lead to increased surface water run-off; therefore new
development is encouraged to incorporate mitigation techniques in its design, such as permeable surfaces and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Where appropriate, SuDS should be used as part of the linked green infrastructure network to provide multiple functions and benefits to landscape quality, recreation and biodiversity. This can be achieved through habitat creation, new open spaces and good design. SuDS should be designed to help cope with intense rainfall events and to overcome any deterioration in water quality status. In determining the suitability of SuDS for individual development sites, developers should refer to guidance published by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA): West Sussex LLFA Policy for the Management of Surface Water: https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/12230/ws_llfa_policy_for_management_of_surface_water.pdf and, if necessary, seek further advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority LLFA.

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 1 - a. through a sequential approach, taking into consideration all forms of flooding, it is located in the lowest appropriate flood risk location in accordance with the NPPF and the Chichester Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA); and

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 2. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be required on major developments (10 or more dwellings or equivalent) and encouraged for smaller schemes. SUDS should be designed into the landscape of all new development and should be included as part of a District wide approach to improve water quality and provide flood mitigation. A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment will be required for sites within or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding as identified in the SFRA. There should be no increase in either the volume or rate of surface water runoff leaving the site.

S27 policy text requested additional bullet point as number 4 - Clear management arrangements and funding for their ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development should be proposed. Planning conditions and / or obligations will be used to secure these arrangements.

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 2, but would be section 5 - Development should not result in any property or highway, on or off site, being at greater risk of flooding than the 1 in 100 year storm return period, including an allowance for climate change.


Policy S29: Green Infrastructure
The Green Infrastructure policy is welcomed, including provision of new Green Infrastructure as an integral part of the development at Strategic Development Locations. It is recommended that measures are put in place to secure the long term management of such Green Infrastructure.


Policy S30: Strategic Wildlife Corridors
The identification of Strategic Wildlife Corridors and inclusion of a policy to safeguard them from development is welcomed. It is recommended that CDC promotes positive conservation management within these corridors to maximise their contribution to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. As stated in Section 5.66, 'These corridors do not stop at the plan area boundaries.' Thus, it is recommended that CDC works in partnership with Chichester Harbour Conservancy and The South Downs National Park Authority to ensure that these Strategic Wildlife Corridors continue to provide effective corridors and connectivity across the wider landscape.

Section 5.66 refers to four Strategic Wildlife Corridors connecting Chichester Harbour with the South Downs National Park but it is noted that there is no mention of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors to the east of Chichester which connect Pagham Harbour with the South Downs National Park (as seen in Policy Map S30b). It is also noted that the maps referred to in Section 5.66, Maps 5.1 & 5.2 are missing.

WSCC and CDC promoted a Mitigated Northern Route for the A27 at Chichester as the preferred option, subject to the inclusion of important mitigation measures that are needed to make the scheme acceptable in environmental terms and the 'full southern route' as a reasonable alternative. Both routes could impact on the identified Strategic Wildlife Corridors. As currently drafted, Policy S30 would seem to prevent a mitigated northern route from coming forward in the future. Therefore, the District Council should consider whether the policy is overly restrictive (for example should it refer to 'significant adverse impacts' or 'unacceptable adverse impacts'?) and how it would be applied if a northern route for A27 were to come forward in the future.


Policy S31: Wastewater Management and Water Quality
S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 3, this - Where appropriate, development should contribute to the delivery of identified actions to deliver infiltration reduction across the catchment. Where appropriate development should contribute to the delivery of identified actions to deliver a reduction in the level of infiltration of groundwater into the sewer system.


Policy AL1: Land West of Chichester
AL1 policy text requested additional bullet point as number 8 - Increase capacity to attenuate surface water on site, thereby reducing the discharge flows off the site below current rates and reducing the risk of flooding to residential areas downstream.

AL1 policy text requested additional bullet point under 15 as 15 b- Provide mitigation for any loss of watercourse habitat resulting from culverting for highway provision in the development;

AL1 policy text in supporting 'improved cycle and pedestrian routes linking the site with the city, Fishbourne and the South Downs National Park', a new key link for cycling will be to Salthill Road, thereby enabling cyclists to benefit from the existing bridge crossing of the A27 for journeys to and from the west.


AL2: Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish)
The policy acknowledges need 'for foot/cycle bridge across A27 to Coach Road'. There is also need for equestrian users to cross the A27 and WSCC PROW has received several enquiries seeking support for such infrastructure. Consideration could be given to the proposed bridge providing for all three modes.


AL3: East of Chichester (Oving Parish)
AL3 supporting text requested amendments underlined for paragraph 6.22 - The site is identified for 600 dwellings, however, there may be potential to deliver a large strategic development of 1000 dwellings, subject to further evidence, including the testing of additional growth on the local highway network and capacity of the site to provide flood risk attenuation for the increased housing density. The site should be master planned as a whole, and delivered through a phased development over a ten year period. Although the site is physically separated from the city by the A27 Chichester Bypass, the development should form a planned extension to the city, forming a new neighbourhood. This will involve opportunities to provide new facilities to serve the wider local community with good off-site access, particularly by walking and cycling to existing local facilities and facilities in the city.

AL3 policy requires exploring integrated green infrastructure with other strategic sites to the north east of the city, Tangmere and the wider countryside. It is considered that future residents will have expectations for provision of safe and convenient links towards Oving and also across the railway to link to the A259 cycle path and PROW south of the A259. It is considered that the policy should be strengthened to ensure such provision.


Policy AL4: Land at Westhampnett/North East Chichester
AL4 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 3 - Open space and green infrastructure, including a linear greenspace with public access along the Lavant Valley.

Taking into account the site-specific requirements, proposals for the site should satisfy the following requirements:

Policy AL4 policy, it is welcomed that 'provision should be made for green links to the South Downs National Park and Chichester City.' Safe and convenient walking and cycling to Lavant, from where people will access the South Downs, will provide for sustainable transport use.


Policy AL5 Southern Gateway
AL5 supporting text requested amendments underlined for paragraph 6.38 - The area has been identified as suitable for comprehensive regeneration with the aim being to make it a more attractive and welcoming gateway for the city, providing new housing, business and retail space and leisure and tourism facilities. Opportunities will be identified to improve transport links with a focus on cycling, walking and public transport and the removal of non-essential traffic from the area. There is also scope for significant public space enhancements and new landscaping incorporating blue / green infrastructure delivering multi-functional benefits.

AL5 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 5 - Provision of open space that:
* Is in accordance with Policy DM34, including retention of the existing playing pitch unless suitable re-provision is provided;
* Reinforces / enhances green and blue infrastructure consistent with Policy S29 and fully exploits the opportunities for sustainable drainage.


AL5 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 8 - Provision of both a surface and waste water management plan which demonstrates no net increase in flow to Apuldram Waste Water Treatment Works would result from this development, unless suitable alternative provision is agreed;


Policy AL6: Land South-West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes)
The LLFA has concerns regarding the lack of reference to flood risk constraints of the site in Policy AL6. There is reference to flood risk in paragraph 6.47. However, the policy itself makes no reference to these constraints.
The constraints arise from a combination of the following:

* Current tidal /fluvial flood risk extending from Chichester harbour to the west and up the River Lavant floodplain; (Map 1)
* Future tidal /fluvial flood risk associated with climate change; (Map 1)
* Constraints on infiltration of surface water run off because of high seasonal groundwater levels (<0.025m below the surface) (Map 2); and
* Constraints on gravity outfalls because of the low relief and long-term reduction in tidal window for discharge.

The above limits the options for how the site can be effectively drained without a step change from typically employed methods to embrace more innovative and currently expensive options e.g. blue roofs and rainwater harvesting.

The LLFA recommends that the policy sets out both the above constraints and the type of innovative drainage that will be required to achieve the development objectives for the site.



Key: Projected medium projection extent of SLR based upon 4m contour

AL6 extent

Current Flood Zone 3 extent.

Current Areas of high (1:30) surface water flood risk

Map 1 Existing and projected Tidal and surface water flood risk for AL6.

Consistent with paragraph 3.2 of the SFRA, given the high risk of flooding both now and into the future for this site, it is recommended that CDC gives consideration to the climate change maps to understand how the flood zones are predicted to change over the lifetime of the development.


Key:
AL6 boundary.

Groundwater levels are either at very near (within 0.025m of) the ground surface.

Groundwater levels are between 0.025m and 0.5m below the ground surface

Map 2 Groundwater flood risk JBA

Policy AL6 WSCC PROW considers 'necessary highway improvements to adequately mitigate the likely impacts on the highway network' to include a bridge crossing of the A27 for convenient walking and cycling access to the Terminus Road industrial estate and the city. There is an existing public footpath but, as this crosses the A27 at-grade, this will not provide the safest facility and not encourage people to minimise use of vehicles for local access. Provision of a bridge and access through the site could also establish a valuable link to the popular Salterns Way walking and cycle path. An additional link to Salterns Way should also be provided off the A286 for the benefit of Stockbridge residents as a safer alternative to the A286.


AL 7 Highgrove Farm, Bosham
The LLFA notes that the above site has the potential for a moderate risk of groundwater flooding. It is likely that this is perched groundwater draining from higher ground / springs to the north that lies in the superficial mixed sediments underlain by Lambeth Clay.


Policy AL8: East Wittering Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The policy requires 'Opportunities ... for the expansion and provision of green infrastructure into the wider countryside including between settlements and facilities'. Existing and future residents and the local visitor economy would benefit by delivery of an off-road route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to and from the Medmerry development and towards Selsey. It is considered that Policy AL8 should aim to deliver this enhancement specifically.


Policy AL9: Fishbourne Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

It is considered that off-road cycling links to land West of Chichester (off Salthill Road) and to Bosham (off Park Lane) would benefit this community with enhanced sustainable connectivity.


Policy AL10: Chidham and Hambrook Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The policy requires 'opportunities' to develop green infrastructure and links to other communities. An opportunity, in conjunction with Highways England, exists to maximise the value of existing infrastructure by creating a new bridleway (for walkers, cyclists and horse riders) on a path using an existing A27 overbridge.


Policy AL11: Hunston Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The village is already well connected for walkers to access the surrounding countryside but there are presently no local cycling or horse riding facilities on the PROW network. A bridleway link to South Mundham (with the potential for future cycle links to Pagham and towards Bognor Regis) and to Sidlesham via the golf course and Brimfast Lane would provide residents and visitors with improved access to the countryside and services.


Policy AL12: Land North of Park Farm, Selsey
It is unclear why the policy map shows the proposed strategic allocation lies outside of the Neighbourhood Plan proposed settlement boundary. Some explanation for this anomaly would be helpful in the text.


Groundwater flood risk as depicted by JBA mapping (Brown = seasonal groundwater level lies between 0.025 and 0.5m below the surface).

The principle concern that the LLFA wishes to highlight is the need to ensure that the necessary foul sewerage infrastructure to support development is in place. It is the LLFA understanding that the Siddlesham WWTW experiences capacity issues currently, in part exacerbated by groundwater infiltration. While Policy AL12 states: Development proposals will need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity will be available within the sewer network, including waste water treatment works, to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with Policy S31.

The policy proposes only to provide 'pedestrian links between the site and new development south of Park Lane'. It is considered that cycling links should also be provided.


Policy DM8: Transport, Accessibility and Parking
The PROW network can provide vital means for communities to interact and encourage sustainable local access. The policy requirement to create 'links between new development and existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport networks' is welcomed. However, establishing links into surrounding existing development should not be overlooked also - the greater the permeability, the greater the use.


Policy DM10: New Employment Sites
Whilst mentioned earlier in the Plan in respect of a number of specific sites, this policy should specifically aim to provide, as a matter of course, suitable walking and cycling infrastructure to encourage local sustainable access. This infrastructure may need to extend outside a site boundary so as to provide safe and convenient connection to existing infrastructure. This principle should apply also to Policy DM13: Built Tourist and Leisure Development and Policy DM14: Caravan and Camping Sites.


Policy DM32: Green Infrastructure
Whilst it is recognised the policy proposes support subject to not 'dissect[ing] ... the linear network of cycle ways, public rights of way, bridleways ...', the policy could lend support to establishing new routes as part of the Green Infrastructure network itself.


Policy DM35: Equestrian Development
It is appreciated why the Plan would wish to require future equine development to be 'well related to or has improved links to the existing bridleway network'. However, this will add to the pressure of use on the existing bridleway network, which is not extensive outside of the South Downs, so will increase degradation of paths. Future developments must, therefore, accept to contribute in some way, acceptable to the local highway authority, to mitigate the additional impact to be created so all lawful users are not disadvantaged.


Policy DM29: Biodiversity
The measures to safeguard and enhance the biodiversity value of development sites are welcomed, including seeking net biodiversity gain.


Schedule of proposed changes to the policies map
S30a West of City Corridors -suggest title should be West of City Strategic Wildlife Corridors (to match S30b: East of City Strategic Wildlife Corridors. The Strategic Wildlife Corridors are depicted in different colour patterns on the two plans which is somewhat confusing.


Strategic Wildlife Corridors Local Plan Review Background Paper
Proposed Hermitage to Westbourne Strategic Wildlife Corridor
A large area depicted as Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) in Fig. 1 (immediately to the south of the Rivers Ems & Meadows Local Wildlife Site, Westbourne) is in fact housing and forms part of the settlement of Westbourne. You should consider if this land should be included as having potential for biodiversity enhancement.


Glossary
Includes Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) but not Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs). SNCIs are now known as LWSs.