Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 149

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3556

Received: 15/06/2020

Respondent: Mr Graeme Barrett

Representation:

- Infrastructure plan should be provided by developers and should be be provided on site by first occupancy - suggest include wording in para 4.5 and 6.2.7
- reference AONBs, SACs, SPAs and SSSIs in para 5.3
- discount land below 7m AOD
- need policies to protect AONB, Medmerry and Pagham Harbour from development within zone of influence
- no fossil fuels to be allowed in developments of 10+ units

Full text:

See attachment for full text

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3557

Received: 15/06/2020

Respondent: Mr Joseph O'Sullivan

Representation:

I support the proposals set out in the Interim Policy Statement

Full text:

I support the proposals set out in the Interim Policy Statement

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3558

Received: 18/06/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jean Barrett

Representation:

- no second homes
- no infrastructure on Manhood
- need bungalows
- need cycle routes
- need off street parking in line with number of bedrooms
- development should have solar panels, water metres, charging points
- improved wastewater conveyance

Full text:

See attachment for full text.
I have been a West Wittering resident for 25 years and have concerns about our local infrastructure. A few small developments have been built over the time I have lived here with very little impact, except for the Northfields affordable home site which has caused a surcharge in the sewage network due to Condition 19 not being implemented to date. I would prefer that only brown field sites be released for development.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3561

Received: 23/06/2020

Respondent: Lavant Parish Council

Representation:

Lavant Parish Council supports the Interim Policy Statement as it gives robust grounds for strong opposition to any encroachment in terms of speculative planning applications for housing development on sensitive areas of concern to the residents of Lavant.

Full text:

Lavant Parish Council supports the Interim Policy Statement as it gives robust grounds for strong opposition to any encroachment in terms of speculative planning applications for housing development on sensitive areas of concern to the residents of Lavant: specifically, the Strategic Gap to the east and west of the A286, between the Chichester boundary at Summersdale and Lavant. It should be noted that this area was the subject of a planning appeal which was turned down, with LPC's active support.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3562

Received: 30/06/2020

Respondent: Earnley Parish Council

Representation:

Section 6.2 (1) to be amended to read "The site boundary whole or in part is contiguous with an identified settlement boundary (i.e. at least one boundary must adjoin the settlement boundary or be immediately adjacent to it) and not result in apparent coalescence with another settlement.”

Full text:

Section 6.2 (1) to be amended to read "The site boundary whole or in part is contiguous with an identified settlement boundary (i.e. at least one boundary must adjoin the settlement boundary or be immediately adjacent to it) and not result in apparent coalescence with another settlement.”

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3564

Received: 01/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Dick Pratt

Representation:

A comprehensive set of comments was yesterday submitted. However it has come to light that in response to section 1 (Background) an earlier draft was submitted in error. Please find attached the correct comment. Dick Pratt for the Bosham Association

Full text:

A comprehensive set of comments was yesterday submitted. However it has come to light that in response to section 1 (Background) an earlier draft was submitted in error. Please find attached the correct comment. Dick Pratt for the Bosham Association

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3565

Received: 06/07/2020

Respondent: Dr Chris Hedley

Representation:

Perhaps Section 6.2 could be expanded to include additional phrases to read:-

“….the artificial sub-division of larger land parcels OR INDIVIDUAL PLOTS will not be encouraged, NOR WILL ARTIFICIAL PROPOSALS TO CREATE MORE THAN ONE ACCOMMODATION BUILDING ON AN EXISTING PLOT”

Full text:

I realise that the policy is aimed primarily at large-scale development, but it has implications for individual builds as well. In that context, I can see a gap in the Policy document that might be exploited by the less-scrupulous.

My concern is ‘unwanted incremental development’, by which I mean:-
1. The creation of two or more new housing plots by artificial sub-division of an existing single plot, or
2. The addition of new additional housing on an existing plot (such that there are two sets of accommodation thereafter)

For both categories there will always be legitimate and sensible use of land, but there can often be speculative or inconsiderate development. There needs to be a clear statement as to what is, and what is not, expected. In particular, it is important that there is not a presumption of support for such developments because of lack of clarity.

To a certain extent, the last sentence of sub-section 4 of section 6.2, addresses category 1 – as long as it’s clear that it applies to smaller single plots as well as larger development land parcels.

Category 2 is different and it could involve either:-
(a) converting an existing outbuilding into new accommodation, or
(b) obtaining planning permission for a new outbuilding (e.g. garage, store room, boat store, workshop), but then applying for a change of use order to enable it to be used as accommodation. (This a practice which seems much more prevalent these days!)

This could lead to over-development of the site, with the additional risk that the plot could be sub-divided and both parcels sold off separately.

I’m not an expert on appropriate wording for these documents, but perhaps Section 6.2 could be expanded to include additional phrases (both in upper case) to read:-

“….the artificial sub-division of larger land parcels OR INDIVIDUAL PLOTS will not be encouraged, NOR WILL ARTIFICIAL PROPOSALS TO CREATE MORE THAN ONE ACCOMMODATION BUILDING ON AN EXISTING PLOT”

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3566

Received: 07/07/2020

Respondent: Ms Judy Whitehead

Representation:

Concerned that there have been an excessive number of houses built within the last few years. The infrastructure cannot cope after large amounts of rain and the excess sewerage effluent is discharged into the harbour. The corridors left for wildlife have disappeared and very little affordable or social housing has been constructed.

Full text:

I live to the west of Chichester and I am very concerned that there have been an excessive number of houses built within the last few years. I hope these will count towards the vast numbers we have to accommodate. The infrastructure cannot cope after large amounts of rain and the excess sewerage effluent is discharged into the harbour. The corridors left for wildlife have disappeared and very little affordable or social housing has been constructed. The draft policy statement would be fine if we had the infrastructure and the space - but sadly we do not.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3567

Received: 07/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Roger Hitch

Representation:

Paragraph 4.6 of the Statement refers to development "that would change the character of a place". This policy should be used to carefully control the development of housing in Lavant Road to ensure that the character and ambience of the road are maintained.

I also refer to paragraph 6.2.3. This must ensure that there should be no development on the land between the northern edge of Summersdale and the village of Lavant - " the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements". To fill in this gap would be to the detriment the city of Chichester and the village of Lavant.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.6 of the Statement refers to development "that would change the character of a place". This policy should be used to carefully control the development of housing in Lavant Road to ensure that the character and ambience of the road are maintained.

I also refer to paragraph 6.2.3. This must ensure that there should be no development on the land between the northern edge of Summersdale and the village of Lavant - " the actual or perceived coalescence of settlements". To fill in this gap would be to the detriment the city of Chichester and the village of Lavant.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3568

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Clive Barrington

Representation:

125 houses in Birdham is excessive and not sustainable. It would spoil the character of the village and put the infrastructure more pressure (school, medical facilities & transport). Employment opportunities are also limited and residents have to travel off the Peninsular to work.

Full text:

With regard to Policy S5, the figure of 125 houses in Birdham (or even more if the HEELA proposal is implemented) is excessive and not sustainable. It would spoil the character of the village in an ANOB and put the infrastructure under even more pressure (school, medical facilities & transport). The A286 is already subject to tailbacks, particularly in summer months, which impacts on bus movements and with other large developments proposed on the Manhood Peninsular, the volume of traffic will increase significantly as employment opportunities are limited and residents have to travel off the Peninsular to work.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3569

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Chichester Society

Representation:

The Chichester Society regrets the failure of Chichester District Council to complete the review of the Local Plan by 15th July 2020. It supports the draft Interim Policy Statement on Housing.

Full text:

The Chichester Society regrets the failure of Chichester District Council to complete the review of the Local Plan by 15th July 2020. It supports the draft Interim Policy Statement on Housing.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3570

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council

Representation:

- Neighbourhood Plan should be treated as less than 2 years old
- seek clarification on a number of points
- suggest amendments to wording of criteria 6.2.6, 6.2.7, 6.2.10, 6.2.12

Full text:

See attachment for full text

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3571

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Realty Trustees .

Agent: Batcheller Monkhouse

Representation:

- Para 6.2.1 - amend wording to ",,,the site boundary in whole or in part is contiguous with either an identified settlement boundary, established built form, or a committed site allocation"

Full text:

See attachment for full text.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3572

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Miss Eleanor Fitton

Representation:

- Supports approach
- support criterion 2
- criterion 3 - reference should be made to areas identified as designated gaps, development within these areas would be acceptable provided they do not cause actual/perceived coalescence
- criterion 8 - should be introduced through Local Plan Review
- promote Land at Raughmere Farm

Full text:

See attachment for full text.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3573

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver, Eurequity IC Ltd, SUEZ

Agent: Quod

Representation:

- Support IPS
- suggest amendment to criterion 1 re settlement boundaries
- clarify calculation of housing figure
- clarify that implementation of permission is required rather than delivery of whole scheme
- recognise that sub division is ok if constrainted by land ownerships

Full text:

Please see letter dated 10 July 2020

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3574

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: East Wittering & Bracklesham Parish Council

Representation:

No additional development in East Wittering/Bracklesham:
- lack of infrastructure including schools and sewerage system
- transport impact
- impact on air quality
- impact on character of area
- climate change induced flood risk
- reclassify East Wittering as a service village

Full text:

We have concerns about over development in East Wittering and Brackelsham.
See attachment for full text

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3575

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mr David Williams

Representation:

Birdham is a settlement village that does not have a high capacity for development. HELAA map has a very large site identified as suitable for 250 houses, so the reality for Birdham could be 250 houses, whether it has the infrastructure to support it or not. The HELAA map should be revised to include small sites suitable for 30 or so dwellings.

Full text:

10th July 2020
10th July 2020

I wish to make comment about CDC’s draft Local Plan in relationship to Birdham.
From your own documentation Birdham is a settlement village that does not have a high capacity for development. In the previous 5 year plan period Birdham’s housing allocation was 50, but in this draft it is 125, if that percentage increase covered the whole of the Plan area, Chichester would be swamped by housing. Also on your HELAA map a very large greenfield site in Birdham is identified as suitable for 250 houses, so the reality for Birdham could be 250 houses, whether it has the infrastructure to support it or not. The HELAA map should be revised to include small sites suitable for 30 or so dwellings which is in keeping with the historic development of the village.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3576

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Nova Planning

Representation:

Support with suggested amendments/clarifications to criteria 4 and 12.

Full text:

On behalf of Metis Homes

We support the Interim Policy Statement (IPS) which seeks to positively address the acknowledged housing land supply shortfall.
We are supportive of the intention to focus development in accordance with the settlement hierarchy and to promote higher densities in Settlement Hubs.

Criteria 4 emphasises the need to make efficient use of land and references paragraphs 123 and 137 of the NPPF in this context. Whilst clearly the existing shortfall cannot be made up without development on greenfield land, we feel that the criteria should be more explicit in prioritising development on brownfield land where possible.

In relation to Criteria 12, the delivery of housing through the IPS should be supported by the early advancement of a CDC administered nitrates mitigation scheme which can be accessed by developers seeking to bring forward suitable sites. We strongly encourage CDC to progress such a scheme in order that the IPS is effective in achieving its stated objectives.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3577

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Sue Milnes

Representation:

Housing development should take into account the distance from employment and secondary education. The focus of affordable housing should be on housing for rent. Development should not be approved in areas with present or future flood risk.

Full text:

The policy statement needs to refer to the interaction between employment and education opportunity and housing provision. Although it is likely that home working will become far more of a norm post Covid 19, housing development does still need to take into account where employment and secondary education is available to ensure that new developments are appropriately sited to minimise commuting journeys. Therefore this should be a factor in any decision making on new development.
The focus for affordable housing should now be on providing housing for affordable rent and the interim statement should make this clear, given that it is likely post Covid that more people will struggle to get on the housing ownership ladder.
The restrictions on building in areas that are deemed liable to flooding risk in the near future e.g. the Manhood peninsula, should be more stringent to avoid future disasters.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3578

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Crownhall Estates Ltd

Agent: Henry Adams LLP

Representation:

The representation highlights the following matters:

- Requirement to update the housing figure identified
- Nitrate constraint - give weight to proposals that will not impact on nitrates e.g. in the north
- criterion 8 seeks to introduce new policy

Full text:

The representation highlights the following matters:

- Requirement to update the housing figure identified
- Nitrate constraint
- Amendments to currently adopted Local Plan policies that would require energy consumption to achieve at least a 19% improvement in the Dwelling Emission Rate

See attachment for full text

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3579

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Simon Davenport

Representation:

I feel that this document should recognise, amongst the many strategic concerns noted e.g. wildlife corridors, the importance of maintaining the routes selected by Highways England as strategic to the potential development of the A27 especially the northern routes favoured by the CDC in the recent past.

Full text:

I feel that this document should recognise, amongst the many strategic concerns noted e.g. wildlife corridors, the importance of maintaining the routes selected by Highways England as strategic to the potential development of the A27 especially the northern routes favoured by the CDC in the recent past.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3580

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Alan Aldridge

Representation:

Housing target is nonsense when houses are used as second homes and buy to lets. Make better use of existing housing stock instead of increasing housing target.

No new building can be considered in isolation of A27. Only solution is northern bypass.

Full text:

You say that new housing should now be built at 628 pa instead of 435 pa. As far as I can discern from the alphabet soup of abbreviations in your policy statement, this is ultimately a central government demand?

Just two comments. Firstly, any increased new-build target in the Chichester area is a nonsense when so many houses and flats are used as second homes and buy-to-lets. The ultimate absurdity is a block of appartments on the old pub site in East Wittering which right now is fronted by a huge billboard advertising a potential 29,000 pounds pa rental return to investors. So much for affordable housing or starter homes. Don't increase the new-build target: make better use of the existing stock.

Secondly, no new building in the area can be considered in isolation from the question of the A27. It's just daft to cram more and more housing where its occupoants will have to use or cross the present defensive moat that is the A27 Chichester bypass. The only solution that makes any sense at all is a straight-through northern bypass with no intermediate junctions whatsoever. That would entirely separate though traffic from local traffic and money that would otherwise be spent on intermediate junctions could be applied to imaginative lanscaping and noise suppression to render through traffic largely invisible and inaudible to the northern suburbs, the Goodwood Estste, and the South Downs.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3581

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Ms A Terry

Representation:

Object to building in Birdham

Full text:

It seems that Birdham is being targeted as an easy area to develop even though it is considered to be part of the ANOB.
Proposed housing numbers in Birdham appear significantly higher than other Parishes in the area, the dramatic increase in numbers of houses and planning applications for the area is highly disproportionate.
There are ongoing large developments in Bracklesham Bay and all traffic from these and the Wittering’s must pass through Birdham on the A286, already an extremely busy and dangerous road, exacerbating extensive traffic issue.
There is a substantial lack of infrastructure to support these developments, including, schools, drainage, footpaths and decent cycle routes.
The HELAA has proposed Whitestones Farmland ( which regularly floods) as a large development potential for 250 houses. This development alone does not fit the S5 2016 - 2029 Parish Housing requirement criteria as a small housing site or CDC Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development.
The proposed housing numbers are not consistent with the Local Plan Review.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3582

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Anita Geser

Representation:

The Draft Interim Housing Policy Statement is unsustainable:
1. no account of climate change/flood risk
2. proposes unsustainable construction
3. impact on ecosystems
4. ignores the need for nutrient neutral development.
5. ignores the need for effective placemaking

Full text:

I believe the that the Draft Interim Housing Policy Statement is unsustainable in these respects:
• It takes no account of climate change and the Environmental Agency’s own prediction as to flooding levels in our area. Indeed, The National Policy Planning Framework states that “development in areas of risk is inappropriate and should be avoided”.
• It proposes construction of houses in an unsustainable manner. Building must get much closer to being carbon neutral. It must be much more energy efficient than units currently being built.
• It will impact on precious eco systems; of most significance our five chalk streams (to remind: there are only 210 of these worldwide). All must be included in the CDC’s plan. One, Newells Lane, has been omitted entirely. There is only a 200m buffer zone around the others. They are essential to continue the historic connectivity of the SDNP and CHAONB and the concomitant species survival on which, in turn, depends human existence.
• It largely ignores that in this area all future development must be nutrient neutral. A recent study by Natural England into the condition of Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest reports 80% of the area is classed as “unfavourable declining” with consequential disturbance to habitat and species, increased nitrates and coastal squeeze.
• It currently ignores the need for effective place making. It does not plan, as it must, for the necessary infrastructure to be in place before development begins.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3583

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Barry Reedman

Representation:

As a resident of 21 years whose house fronts onto Main Road we have taken the brunt of traffic on what is a narrow single lane highway. The thought of 250 houses being built on farmland to the south, is devastating , to myself and my neighbours.
The village school I am informed is at full capacity and the drainage system simple would not cope under storm conditions. My home flooded 8 years ago ,it was caused by the drainage system being overwhelmed .

Please accept this as a plea to reject this application and any future applications of this magnitude in Birdham.

Full text:

As a resident of 21 years whose house fronts onto Main Road we have taken the brunt of traffic on what is a narrow single lane highway. The thought of 250 houses being built on farmland to the south, is devastating , to myself and my neighbours.
The village school I am informed is at full capacity and the drainage system simple would not cope under storm conditions. My home flooded 8 years ago ,it was caused by the drainage system being overwhelmed .

Please accept this as a plea to reject this application and any future applications of this magnitude in Birdham.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3584

Received: 03/08/2020

Respondent: Mr and Mrs C Woodburn

Number of people: 2

Representation:

We wish to register our concerns about some aspects of the Draft Interim Housing Policy Statement , particularly concerning environmental matters:

1. It does not appear to make adequate provision for wide enough wildlife corridors following all the chalk streams that connect the South Downs National Park with the Chichester Harbour AONB.

2. It does not seem to address the issue of making all future developments in this area nutrient neutral. And all new housing should be built so as to be as near carbon neutral as possible.

3. It does not take account of climate change and future flooding possibilities.

4. It should insist that all necessary infrastructure is in place before houses are built.

Full text:

We wish to register our concerns about some aspects of the Draft Interim Housing Policy Statement , particularly concerning environmental matters:

1. It does not appear to make adequate provision for wide enough wildlife corridors following all the chalk streams that connect the South Downs National Park with the Chichester Harbour AONB.

2. It does not seem to address the issue of making all future developments in this area nutrient neutral. And all new housing should be built so as to be as near carbon neutral as possible.

3. It does not take account of climate change and future flooding possibilities.

4. It should insist that all necessary infrastructure is in place before houses are built.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3585

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Candida Stevens

Representation:

It has come to our attention that a large housing development is planned for the few areas left free of housing in the area. The village already floods with high rains and high tides and it has been known for some time that increased housing stock will reduce the available land that currently absorbs rainfall coming off the downs and increase this threat.

Full text:

It has come to our attention that a large housing development is planned for the few areas left free of housing in the area. The flood risk associated is plain for all to see. The village already floods with high rains and high tides and it has been known for some time that increased housing stock will reduce the available land that currently absorbs rainfall coming off the downs and increase this threat.

It would be reassuring to know that the council has thoroughly researched the requirements to protect a village already at risk, a risk that increases with every year that passes.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3586

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Miss Cathryn Leng

Representation:

Issues with:
1. sustainability - sewage, hospitals/GPs, delivery of infrastructure
2. highways impacts - A27, pollution, and need for better public transport
3. prevent building on greenbelt and floodplains
4. need for affordable housing

Full text:

I have the following comments to make:
General
The local authority must keep up pressure and continue to challenge the government on the calculation of so-called housing need based on flawed logic and designed to service unsustainable growth rather than dealing with the actual needs of the area. It is an outrage that the area might be forced to take an increased allocation of housing due to a technicality as it cannot cope with the current allocation as it is.
I was concerned to read in last week's Chichester Observer that CDC, before the end if the consultation, has stated that it wishes to streamline and support the planning application process so as not to present a barrier to development and wants to invite developers to intensify and speed up development, proposing a number of dubious schemes to expedite this. This does not bode well and one wonders if this consutation is simply about paying lip service to the process as major developers have demonstrated that they have much greater power than the electorate (and sometimes the Council itself).
Sustainability 4.6 & 7
The scale and density of the current sites would already seem to go against the wording of the plan, even before the increase.
The current sewerage issues are well documented but I am concerned about the longer term impact of this, despite the Tangmere project, and also water supply sustainability with open-ended housing allocations. Just at what point from a sustainability perspective will enough be enough?
The area currently has issues with availability of GP surgeries, dentists etc and yet housing is already being built without these agreed additional facilties. How is this allowed to happen.
With a proposed increased population in the Chichester and Arun districts, how long can current services at St Richards remain sustainable? What steps are being put in place to ensure that current residents do not suffer any loss of services because of this?
Access to Highways
Given the current A27 issue this is, frankly, risible and access is set to be at the expense of current residents, eg the closure of the Oving traffic lights and changes due to the Whitehouse Farm development. Little or no mitigation is proposed to deal with the chaos and gridlock the additional traffic will have on the A27 and surrounding roads, also bearing in mind the overdevelopment in Arun and east Hampshire. No account seems to have been taken of the increased pollution levels all this will cause, going against green policies. Indeed, scheduled bus services such as the one covering Graylingwell have already been reduced as residents need or still prefer to use their cars. This is a human reality which needs to be addressed and won't be mitigated by providing more cycle lanes.
Affordable housing
Developers have already made use of planning loopholes to reduce the allocation of affordable and social housing. Pressure needs to be put on the government to tighten this up as is it is the one area where there is already a genuine local housing need. It is unlikely that in this area, flooding the market with housing will cause a marked reduction in house prices.
Greenbelt land and other location issues
I have serious concerns about the ease with which developers are given permission to build on greenbelt land. I have it on extremely good authority that it is the deliberate intention by the government that this will happen. Developers certainly seem to have the upper hand when it comes to appeals and there are numerous sites on the internet on how major developers in particular can get round planning loopholes. To prevent (mitigate) even more urban sprawl, this should always be challenged. The same should happen for proposals to build on floodplains or, given climate change, potential floodplains, and this doesn't seem to be happening.
Conclusion
Whilst the interim plan clearly sets out worthy intentions, it is the application of these when dealing with developers that I am sceptical of, with particular reference to environmental and infrastructure issues, and I would argue that CDC has already failed to quite an extent with the current plan.
If all goes ahead as the government plans, as it inevitably will, to the permanent detriment to the area, as a quid pro quo for being forced to provide housing for growth purposes, the authority needs to demand that Highways England builds a northern by-pass whilst continuing to fund the A27!

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3587

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr David Thompson

Representation:

Object to proposal to build 250 homes in Birdham. No further housing should be approved south of the A286/A27 junction

Full text:

I write to object to the plan, specifically the proposal to build 250 houses in Birdham. There are a number of reasons, surface water, drainage and sewage, changing the overall character of the village with such a large number and school capacity.
However my main objection concerns the capacity of the road network, the A286 and its tributaries, Bell Lane and the B1279. There have been 5 fatal accidents on these roads in the last 5 years, 19 seriously injured and a total of 71 recorded injuries. This is a very dangerous road for it's users and to knowingly add more traffic borders on negligence.
The Peter Brett study also showed that traffic would excede capacity by over 110% at several junctions in the period to 2035. This did not include the additional houses in Brackesham/East Wittering which have already been approved.
No further houses should be built south of the A27/A286 junction. Stockbridge already has an AQMA and traffic during the holiday periods regularly see traffic essentially stationery the length of the A286, causing traffic jams at the Stockbridge roundabout and causing further problems on the A27
No further housing should be approved south of the A286/A27 junction

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3588

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Derek Tavender

Representation:

Please do not destroy good farming land like Highgrove farm for housing. If you must build additional houses in this area please ensure all brown field sites are utilized first.

Full text:

Please do not destroy good farming land like Highgrove farm for housing. If you must build additional houses in this area please ensure all brown field sites are utilized first.