Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Showing comments and forms 31 to 60 of 149

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3589

Received: 07/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Diane Longbottom

Representation:

Document mentions design, sustainability, retention of historic settlements, wildlife corridors etc - all we would hope would be included in any new developments. Unfortunately it would seem to me that none of this has been followed in recent new housing introduced to the area. There has been no increase in infrastructure or affordable housing. Developers should show an interest in such matters as carbon emissions, nature conservancy and thoughtful design and councils need to show some interest in enhancing the local environment for both existing and new residents.

Full text:

Reading the policy document I see that the guidelines to be followed mention design, sustainability ,retention of historic settlements , wildlife corridors etc . Ie all the things we would hope would be included in any new developments. Unfortunately it would seem to me that none of this has been followed in recent new housing introduced to the area . I live in Chidham which has been swamped by new housing none of which appear to have “green credentials “ . There has been no increase in infrastructure , and only lip service has been given to “affordable housing requirements “ I can’t see this changing as so called “ housing developers “ will merely rush to cover areas with as many identikit houses as possible . Until such companies show an interest in such matters as carbon emissions , nature conservancy and heaven forbid thoughtful design and councils show some interest in enhancing the local environment for both existing and new residents (including wild flora and fauna) I can only imagine that the rollout of a succession of soul destroying housing will continue . I do hope I am wrong

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3590

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Garrett

Representation:

Support Bosham Association’s objection to the proposal to build 12500 houses by 2035.
Issues of flood risk and sewage draining into the harbour.
This area is wild life corridor
No housing on land used for growing food

Full text:

I fully support Bosham Association’s objection to the proposal to build 12500 houses by 2035 along the A259 at High Grove on good farmland.

There are many reasons for this objection including a flood risk and there are already problems with sewage in the area draining into the harbour.

This area is a small wild life corridor which is much needed.

I realise that where I live was once Meadows in the late 1950s and it is now no longer a pleasure to live in due to the massive amount of vehicles and their size too.

I understand the need for new housing but please not where the land is good for growing our food – which with climate change and the need to reduce carbon we need to stop the masses of planes bringing our food from the other side of the world.

The lockdown on one count was wonderful as the skies cleared and the pollution dropped……….on another count when the weather was wonderful Bosham – Quay Meadow became a ‘slum’ and that was without extra housing.

Please consider our plea.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3591

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Gareth Mealing

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 this is the moment to press home 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: 3592

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Geraldine Firmston

Representation:

Birdham is an environmentally sensitive location in the Chichester Harbour AONB.
Suggest that it would be appropriate for the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan process to be used for reference rather than the HELAA assessment.

Full text:

As a resident in the historic core of Birdham, I feel very strongly that Birdham is an environmentally sensitive location in the Chichester Harbour AONB. This seems to have been shown by the CDC’s study : Landscape Capacity Study – March 2019, and The Sustainability Appraisal – November 2018 which recommended Options 1 and 1A that proposed no additional houses in Birdham.

It seems that the HELAA bias towards greenfield sites excludes brownfield sites; our Neighbourhood Plan specifically recommends brownfield and small sites which would offer a fat more appropriate level of development for an AONB where there is not the infrastructure to support large developments on greenfield sites. I would suggest that it would be appropriate for the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan process to be used for reference rather than the HELAA assessment.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3593

Received: 16/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Emma Rayner

Representation:

Please prioritise:
• Climate change
• sustainable building in places that have centres with schools, doctors,community hubs
• protection of the precious eco-systems
• CHAONB
• Infrastructure planning which supports cycling and local walking

Full text:

I urge you to re-consider the Planning Policy for the local area, the sustainability and survival of the CHAONB and the character of the local area. All will be irrevocably damaged if great care is not taken to protect this special area which is so important to the wellbeing of many people.

It is a time of great change to how and where people work and live, and I urge you to consider the centre of Chichester and surrounding areas, how to better combine living for all age groups but particularly small households, with local amenities, shopping and work spaces, and to offer good and safe cycle and pedestrian routes to lessen the dependance on cars throughput the area and to make cycling and walking are pleasant and safe.

Please prioritise:
• Climate change
• sustainable building in places that have centres with schools, doctors,community hubs
• protection of the precious eco-systems
• CHAONB
• Infrastructure planning which supports cycling and local walking

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3594

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Douglas Flanagan

Representation:

2.3 No indication what criteria ‘Appropriate Development’ is judged eg. local housing needs
2.4.1 How will ‘prioritising’ be carried out?.
2.4.2 does ‘inviting’ developers to speed up developments change anything? What incentives?
2.4 actions do not seem to carry any weight
4.1 Piecemeal development unsustainable
6.1 publish criteria for ‘Good quality housing developments’
6.2.8 Environmental quality/high standards of construction to be defined and should exceed the minimum.
6.2.9 how is this to be achieved?
No confidence that this policy will enable CDC to exert any control. More information on how CDC intend to implement this policy

Full text:

2.2 This does not allow for cohesive development.
2.3 No indication by what criteria ‘Appropriate Development’ is judged eg. local housing needs
2.4.1 How will ‘prioritising’ be carried out?.
2.4.2 Given developers have their own time frames how does ‘inviting’ them to speed up developments change anything? What incentives will be offered? Off-site construction could improve delivery time if speed is impotant.
2.4 The actions do not seem to carry any weight in so far as speeding up development other than to the detriment of the area as a whole in which the developments take place.
3.1 Given CDC’s record on producing accurate documentation on time (hence the need for this Statement) I can have no confidence that this policy will enable CDC to exert any real control over development.
3.5 Given the current state of the overdue Local Plan Review and the information in the Council’s Planning, Health and Environmental Protection Statement, I have no confidence that the Council will be willing or able to exercise control over planning applications without a Local Plan
4.1 Piecemeal, short term development makes long term development of a community less sustainable when the Local Plan Review has been completed.
6.1 Criteria for ‘Good quality housing developments’ must be published, together with examples (of which there are many)
6.2.8 Environmental quality and high standards of construction need to be defined and, in most cases, should exceed the minimum (Building Regulations). They should not be left to the developer to decide. The Parliamentary Committee on Climate Change (2018) advised the Govt. to ‘Strengthen new-build standards…’and should be future proofed and ‘accommodate low carbon heating options’ Faster and more efficient methods of building and insulation through off-site construction would do more to speed up developments and improve carbon reduction.
6.2.9 High quality design and creating places of high architectural build and quality are excellent aims but how are they to be achieved? There are very good examples to be drawn upon from councils and developers; CDC’s Design Protocol does not appear to have been updated since published in 2013. Apart from individual homes there is no evidence that the above aims have been impressed upon recent developments and this is something that demands immediate attention if the whole area is not to become a pastiche of 20th century housing estates.
Given that this document is necessary because the Council is not in a position to complete the Local Plan there needs to be more information on how C D C intend to implement and control this policy (when finalised) if it is to be effective

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3595

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr GW Lawson

Representation:

Birdham is a 'settlement village' and should therefore see only modest development of small pockets of 25 odd houses.
Concerns over infrastructure - highways, and sewage in particular. Also flood risk.

Full text:

I wish to comment on the above proposals, we all accept that there has to be new housing built but this has to be in line with existing guidelines and rules.
My understanding is that Birdham is a 'settlement village' and should therefore see only modest development of small pockets of 25 odd houses, of which there are two very good examples near the petrol station.
There is no way there should be plans for anything larger than that.
I also question the communications network, without doubt Covid 19 has made more people drive cars than before, the A286 south of the A27 is now at a virtual standstill in the rush hours, which seem to be extending, I doubt that the utilities, particularly sewage could process large developments and I do have concerns about the risk of flooding in this area.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3596

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Alan and Patricia Tull

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Oppose additional housing in Birdham

Full text:

The following comments reflect serious concerns that the views of parishioners, not least on the Manhood Peninsular, have not and are not being heard, understood and acted upon in the preparation of the local plan.They support Birdham Village Residents Association and the Birdham Parish Council in their efforts to achieve common-sense, fairness and realisation based on factual appraisal of true needs for housing and practical needs of our communities, but may not represent their views necessarily.

In summary, the cumulative effect on eg Birdham, which has taken a large amount of housing already, is potentially the end of the ‘village’. How relevant and valid is the housing needs assessment to Birdham? CDC should be firm and resolute in resisting any such interim policies allowing more development, and certainly in the run-up to and during the review of the local plan.

CDC has outlined the need for 600 homes a year for the next 10 years. This equates to some 6,000 homes, and, say, at least 15,000 people and 30,000 vehicles. And, crucially, NONE in the National Park - so ALL South of Midhurst.

Meanwhile, right now we have the need for this in the context of the bigger picture for the UK: post-EU - very soon - international trade negotiations with eg US, China, EU, Australasia, Asia-Pacific; post COVID-19 the new normal for working, at what, where, for whom and the implications for locations, offices, employees’ homes and the consequent infrastructure support.

The highly likely essential demand for the UK to be more self-sufficient not least for eg food production would have far-reaching impact on farmers, farm land, processing and distribution, all contrary to the current scramble to sell-off of farm land and greenfield sites for alleged housing requirements.

Many commentators have erupted to the knee-jerk reaction to ‘build, build, build’ to kick-start the economy when ‘the planning system is not fit for purpose’. Residential planning permissions for the most recent plan period in support of a government target of 300,000 each year by 2025 were in fact 362,00 - homes not near jobs, ie not in the right place, and in the last five years fewer than half of new homes are, or will be within a mile of a rail station.

Finally, back to parochial matters - four current planning sites/issues in Birdham could see another nearly 400 homes built - approaching a 50 per cent increase of the ‘village’. They shall and should be vigorously opposed, in any event.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3597

Received: 12/06/2020

Respondent: Mr Alistair Impey

Representation:

Document inadequate and there should be a moratorium on housing development other than affordable/starter housing. Proposed boost in housing is at odds with ideas of sustainability, and will have negative impacts on existing settlements with existing infrastructure and the environment.
IPS does not consider impacts on development caused by Brexit or COVID19.

Full text:

I live on the Manhood Peninsula and am increasingly distressed by the inability of Chichester District Council and the Government to develop housing to match the requirement for affordable housing for local families and provision for starter homes for younger people (in particular key workers) rather than the huge developments of 4 bedroom houses - presumably aimed, primarily, at those from outside the local area - that seems to be the major focus of development promoted by the local planners. There appears to be little recognition that, given the constraints limiting most development to areas in Chichester District Council that are outside the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB, there is simply no room for any major development in the limited remaining spaces (mostly high quality agricultural land or more limited areas of important environmental value) and that any permitted development should focus on the needs of local families and residents.

I believe that the Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development (IPSHD) is an inadequate document to address development in the Chichester area and that the suggestion in Paragraph 2.1 that housing supply in the area be boosted is unsustainable. Personally I believe that there should be a complete moratorium on housing development (other than plans that have already received planning permission) in the area, other than for affordable housing for local families and development of starter homes for key workers and local young people on brownfield sites (e.g Southern Gateway - para 2.4.2 of the IPSHD), until there is a sustainable environment for any such development. Such an environment would require the following steps to be taken and completed prior to any new major development being considered.

• Completion of proposed improvements to the A27 round Chichester to ensure a proper separation of local and through traffic to ensure sustainable access to Chichester and Bognor centres for surrounding communities.
• Completion of drainage and sewerage works so that there is adequate capacity to fully treat all storm and foul drainage for existing and future users and reduce flows of nitrates and other partially treated waste into Chichester Harbour or the entry to the Eastern Solent.
• Completed increases in the number and capacity of schools and medical facilities and improved public transport to match already poorly served existing needs and to be available to service any future housing for which planning permission might be contemplated, prior to any such permission being contemplated.
• Prioritising the development of small scale buildings of one bed /studio flats - to address the need to provide housing for younger people, rather than dismal estates of three/ four bedroom houses, of little architectural merit, that are inappropriate to the character of the settlements upon which they are imposed.
• Ensuring full protection of the wildlife corridors between Chichester AONB and the SDNP and wild life corridors between Pagham Harbour and Medmerry Reserves themselves and from them to the Chichester Harbour AONB and with the SDNP.
• That Planning policies be revised to formally limit developments on the boundaries of Chichester Harbour AONB and SDNP that might negatively impact these important resources. Issues might include noise, light pollution, unsustainable vehicle movements, etc.

Obviously such works would require significant funding, much from Central Government or its agencies. Since, however, it is Central Government that is insisting on unsustainable development in our communities, surely they should first fund the infrastructure development that might make such development sustainable.

Paragraph 3.1 of the IPSHD states that developments should be sustainable and in paragraph 3.3 states that developments should be in accordance with the development plan (as noted the Chichester Plan is now out of date) and considered for planning permission in accordance with this development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The IPSHD describes a number of criteria that should be considered when assessing any potential development. Presumably such criteria are to be considered as material to the overall objective of sustainable development, in the context of Paragraph 3.3. I believe that consideration of these matters clearly indicate that there are material considerations that prevent any further development in the area. In particular:

• Sites should be sustainable located in relation to existing settlements. (Paragraph 4.5)
• Sites should be of a scale and density appropriate to adjoining settlement (Paragraph 4.6)
• Sites should be acceptable in all other respects (e.g highway access, flood risk, affordable housing, open space and reflect the needs of local communities (Paragraph 4.7)
• Impact on the SDNP and Chichester Harbour AONB (Paragraph 5)
• Risk of flooding should not increase (Paragraph 11)

It would appear from the IPSHD that Chichester District Council and Central Government are committed to sustainable development. Sustainability focuses on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. The concept of sustainability is composed of three pillars: economic, environmental, and social. The proposed boost in development as envisaged in the IPSHD runs in complete contradiction with the goal of sustainability. Large developments have little positive economic impact on existing settlements; such developments have highly negative consequences on the social structures of local communities by imposing significant pressure on existing resources and infrastructure and development of the scale envisaged by the IPSHD will have a very negative impact on the environments of the affected communities with significant knock-on effectives of the very sensitive environments of Chichester Harbour, the SDNP, Pagham Harbour, Medmerry and the wildlife corridors that connect these areas with each other.


The IPSHD does not appear to have considered how development needs (compared to the previous Local Plan) might be impacted by the major economic changes that are likely to impact our area due to COVID 19 or the uncertainties of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union nor the rapid increase in the impact of climate change. The absence of such consideration may lead to flawed conclusions as to what if any new major development is required in our area and as to whether or not such development might be considered sustainable.


Thank you for giving me the opportunity to comment on the Interim Policy for Housing Development and I trust my comments will be helpful in the preparation of an improved document that can address the issues faced by our local communities in the face of pressures to promote unsustainable development.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3598

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Vincent Porter

Representation:

Support paragraph 2.3., Council should proactively seek sites within the city itself including the car parks.
Suggest use of brownfield land including the Tannery, and the former House of Fraser site, for residential development.

Full text:

I am in general agreement with the Council’s Interim Statement. Nevertheless, I submit the following specific comments and suggestions:

I strongly support paragraph 2.3., namely that the Council should seek to guide development to appropriate and sustainable locations. I further propose, however, that the Council should proactively seek sites within the city itself, for high quality high density housing in the most sustainable locations within the District= including perhaps the car parks.
I would refer Councillors to paragraph 8 of the NPPF 2019 whereby all sites under consideration must meet the three overarching objectives for sustainability- all of which are interdependent. First, sustainable development means economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Much development within the District completed recently or under way fails to meet the principle of sustainability. For example, Madgwick Park is neither integrated with the city of Chichester nor with the village of Westhampnett. Instead, it has destroyed the rural gap between the two. In addition, phase 1 of the Whitehouse Farm development will sit as an outlier within the rural surroundings of the city and destroy the former clear demarcation between town and country.

Further to paragraphs 2.4 (1) and 6.2 (9) I propose that the council should immediately open negotiations with the owners of two major brownfield sites within the city, namely WSCC’s Tannery site at Westgate (which s already on the register of brownfield sites) for which there appears to be no interest in commercial use, and the former House of Fraser department store, which although it is not yet on the register of brownfield sites, is unlikely to generate any interest in either major retail or commercial development. Both sites would be suitable for high quality housing development whilst safeguarding designated heritage assets.

What Chichester needs, is for the District Council to seek proactively to identify potential brownfield sites which would be suitable for housing development. This policy was advocated by the Chichester Society in its June 2018 Newsletter (issue 197, How brownfield’ sites can help solve our housing crisis’ ), which can be found on the Chichester Society’s website.

If Chichester is to preserve its greenfield sites, the District Council it needs to take active steps to encourage proactively freeing up such brownfield sites to free up such sites, rather than sitting on its hands awaiting approaches by local developers and landowners to destroy yet more greenfield sites.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3599

Received: 06/07/2020

Respondent: Hazel Boyson

Representation:

Support the increase in housing allocation from 435 to 628 per year. Hope that levels of local amenities such as shops schools and parks will be taken into account.
Support protection of Chichester Harbour Area of Natural Beauty. Such areas should continued to be protected from development.

Full text:

I am pleased that housing is being reconsidered in the Chichester area and support the increase in housing allocation from 435 to 628 per year to support the local population and economy. I hope that levels of local amenities such as shops schools and parks will also be taken into account so that overpopulation of existing facilities does not occur.
I am pleased to see that the Nature Reserve and Chichester Harbour Ares of Natural Beauty are carefully considered in the plan. Those areas have become a lifeline in lockdown to many in the community and we are pleased to see an increase in the residents enjoying our local outdoor spaces in recent months, myself and my family included. Such areas should continued to be protected from development and should not be sacrificed for future housing.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3600

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: ILJ & P Pulley

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Fails to take into account the very serious future risk of flooding in our area.
Concerned about the adverse effect likely on our precious Chichester Harbour
Impact on chalk streams and AONB
Lack of infrastructure

Full text:

Following comments against the declared Interim Housing Policy Statement.

Firstly and most importantly the statement fails to take into account the very serious future risk of flooding in our area, which you are duty bound to do under the National Housing Policy Statement. We will have enough problems without the danger being increased by the proposed developments and it would be criminal to ignore this aspect from the National Housing Policy Statement.

We are also very concerned about the adverse effect likely on our precious Chichester Harbour plus its ecological systems which are already suffering from increased pollution and coastal development.

In addition the policy is failing to take into account there are threats it will make on the eco system of our five world-renowned chalk streams within the South Downs National Park and which effect the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

And finally there is a lack of infrastructure in place to support much of the plans.

All of the above are very serious considerations which are not properly considered in the Policy Statement.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3601

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Philip and Isabel Hood

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Oppose additional housing at Birdham

Full text:

1. The proposed housing numbers for the village of Birdham are nonsensical! There is no way the area can cope with such an increase and surely CDC can see and understand this! This kind of never-ending growth and development is simply unsustainable.
2. Birdham is a designated Area of Outstanding Beauty and the continuous development of new housing is in direct conflict with this designation which was created to protect the beauty of the area and its wide and varied wildlife.
3. Every new house which is built in the area brings with it the likelihood of an additional two cars on the roads every day. We already have huge traffic problems, particularly first thing in the morning and at the end of the working day, and such an increase in traffic is making the whole area a grid lock, with daily journeys of more than one hour to cover just five miles. Furthermore, the seasonal traffic is fast becoming an environmental issue which cannot be ignored. We would urge the CDC councillors to actually experience the traffic issues for themselves, by travelling from Birdham into Chichester during peak hours – this would enable them to actually see for themselves and understand the increasing traffic chaos which is already affecting local residents and motorists.
4. Foot traffic is also fast becoming a real issue which is also adding to the pressure on the environment and wildlife.
5. The local infrastructure simply cannot be stressed and pressurised any further and it is utterly ludicrous to even contemplate adding to the strain even further.
6. It is also impossible to extend the current education/schooling systems and facilities to cope with the addition of countless more children.
7. And the same goes for services such as drainage and sewage.
8. The Birdham area simply does not have the facilities to handle all this extra pressure – it is already becoming unmanageable.
This area simply CANNOT accommodate more housing and residents and we URGE CDC to have the wisdom and good judgment to not allow any further development which will inevitably destroy this Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as well as push our whole community to breaking point.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3602

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr James Roundell

Representation:

- Oppose development of 12,500 homes by 2035
- Plans do not account for Chichester Harbour and biodiversity
- Flood risk and climate change issues
- Development on brownfield sites only or sites within boundaries that can be repurposed
- Change retail to housing
- Prevent coalescence
- Preserve wildlife and habitats

Full text:

I wish to register my dissatisfaction with the proposed policy calling for 12,500 houses by 2035 .
The plans take no account of the unique nature of Chichester harbour with its biodiversity and utility for harbour users . There is a substantial risk of flooding in the area in coming decades . House building in numbers on flood plains will just exacerbate the problem . Climate change cannot be ignored.
Good green field farming land should not be turned over to house development .
Development should be accommodated on brown field land and on plots within village boundaries that are abandoned or can be repurposed . One thing COVID-19 has taught us is that there is a real danger to town and city centres as ships disappear . They can be given over to housing to bring vitality back to the centres .

Please re-examine the policy and help save the unique character of the harbour and its villages . Do not allow coalescence of villages , preserve our wildlife and habitat

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3603

Received: 18/06/2020

Respondent: Mr Jamie Stevenson

Representation:

Nice of you to share through the Let’s Talk gateway, but honestly it looks like a tick box exercise.. e.g. throw some baffling waffle out in to the community, which will only get responses from the usual candidates who understand the language, and overlooks the majority.

This approach is undemocratic and needs to engage people in a real way not just in a tokenistic way.

Full text:

Just trying to dig my way through the rather acronym riddled, virtually unreadable Policy Statement.

Nice of you to share through the Let’s Talk gateway, but honestly it looks like a tick box exercise.. e.g. throw some baffling waffle out in to the community, which will only get responses from the usual candidates who understand the language, and overlooks the majority.

I strongly feel that this approach is undemocratic and needs to engage people in a real way not just in a tokenistic way.

Please accept these comments from a literate person with two degrees who works for a university conducting health research – and I find it baffling.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3604

Received: 04/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Jeremy Grindle

Number of people: 2

Representation:

- Inadequate emphasis on flood risk in coastal areas.
- Infrastructure already overloaded, should be made good before new development
- Make use of brownfield land.
- Prioritise reduction of CO2.

Full text:

"CDC requirement

We appreciate that CDC , after allowing for the Country Park and the AONB, has only some 35% of its total area in which to meet the national need for more housing (which we support).

But we believe that totally inadequate emphasis has been given to the flood risk in the coastal area. We understand that Planning authorities have already been advised to consider the risk in the next 50 years, but that is surely far too short for planning future housing development. There can be no valid case for building in the extremely low areas of the coastal villages.

Our very low-lying area is itself an asset for its ability to absorb carbon dioxide, on which further building should be restricted, remembering that, at the same time, its available area will be further reduced by the advancing sea level.

Priorities for development

The infrastructure of the coastal strip is already seriously overloaded, particularly its drainage and sewage disposal. These deficiencies must be made good before development is authorised.

There should be much more emphasis on using every bit of available brownfield, and every opportunity should be taken to redevelop redundant commercial and industrial sites for accommodation, including for instance, surplus shopping areas in Chichester, which will offer opportunities to revive the liveliness of the city centre, as retailing moves to areas with easy parking, and to on-line shopping.

Maximum priority should be given to enabling anything which reduces the need for CO2. For example, solar panelling, now more cost-effective, should be encouraged, even within conservation areas.

Finally, if further building in the Bosham area is inevitable, we would enter a plea (which we know is not fully supported in the local community)

More building on the Highgrove Farm site would exacerbate still further the ribbon development along the A259 which is already blurring the division between the various village communities. Furthermore, it would increase the division between the two parts of Bosham village, the proposed site for a larger village school being especially unhelpful and divisive. A much more sensible choice would be the equally level area between Delling and Taylors Lanes. This would make obvious sense for the village and its amenities, and do much to unify the village geography..

Although we recognise that this would conflict with the guidance for AONBs, surely we are being encouraged to treat such rules flexibly, for the common good. The alternative central site which we are proposing is, of course, agricultural land, but so is the Highgrove Farm area. As for the visual benefits, the Highgrove site is actually more generally visible.. The Delling/Taylors Lane area provides an obviously better location for central features such as a new school - subject, of course, to the flooding considerations already mentioned."

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3605

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Dr Jeremy Matcham

Number of people: 2

Representation:

4.2, 4.5 – 4.7:
provide formula for estimating an appropriate initial dwellings quantity into this section of the IPS so that new households can be introduced sustainably into an area. Place limit on distance of travel between new development sites and existing infrastructure .

6.2.6: little recognition of the shrinking size of the terminal habitat areas. For the benefit of wildlife sustainability, habitat areas need to be recognised by fixed boundaries that are monitored for encroachment.

6.2.8 & 6.2.10: opportunity to emphasise importance of cycle paths, footpaths, and public transport

Full text:

Concerning Section 4.2 “Local Context” and 4.5 – 4.7 “Locational Sustainability”

My concern with the existing housing developments (proposed and ongoing) to the North and East of Chichester City is that they are of a scale (dwellings numbering several thousand in total) that introduces a very significant additional number of households to an area that may already be unsustainably trying to support the existing 25,000 or so district households. It isn't clear, to a general public audience, how the current number of dwellings being delivered has been reached with sustainability in mind.

It may be useful to provide a transparent and practical formula for estimating an appropriate initial dwellings quantity into this section of the IPS so that new households can be introduced sustainably into an area without overloading the existing local infrastructures that are already under stress (e.g. GP surgeries, dental practices, post offices, schools, and employment opportunities).

Further, there should be a clear limit placed on the distance of travel between new development sites and the location of existing local infrastructure that households within these new developments are expected to depend upon. For sustainability purposes, existing infrastructures beyond a defined walking distance should be considered out of reach of new development sites, demanding the inclusion of such infrastructures within the development site.


Concerning Section 6.2.6 - Wildlife Corridors

In general, although acknowledgement of wildlife corridors alludes to the existence of wildlife habitats at either end of them, there is little recognition of the shrinking size of the terminal habitat areas. For the benefit of wildlife sustainability, habitat areas need to be recognised by fixed boundaries that are monitored for encroachment as each new housing development is proposed.

For each of our critical species it is possible to calculate a “stock” density above which they will begin to suffer from habitat stresses and fall under threat. Although some of our semi-rural species may tolerate expansion of the Chichester City conurbation (e.g. urban foxes, garden birds), or be able to migrate safely into the neighbouring South Downs National Park (e.g. deer, buzzards, sparrowhawks), there are many more species dependent upon the lakes and waterways of the lowlands outside the National Park. These latter species will find it harder, if not impossible, to thrive or survive as their habitats are encroached upon and modified by housing developments and the change in the nature of land use.

At present, there appears to be very little acknowledgement of where wildlife is expected to move to as new sites are proposed for housing development, and little concept of how their population sizes should be preserved or managed. Sustainable developments demand that the area of land available for all uses is finite, and we should be encouraging the protected management of lands that lie between our existing conurbations (at the centre of our interests) and our geographical or authoritative boundaries around the periphery.


Concerning Sections 6.2.8 & 6.2.10 – Sustainable Transport Infrastructure

There appears to be the opportunity to emphasise the importance of cycle paths, footpaths, and public transport infrastructure within these provisions of sustainable transport. The latest housing estates in the area remain very focussed on layouts and features specific to private car ownership (parking bays and garages), whereas it would be forward-looking to design roadways with covered/sheltered bus stopping zones and housing with better provision for the secure storage and ease of access for bicycles.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3606

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Jerrold Alexander

Representation:

Object to additional housing at Birdham - specifically Whitehouse Farm. Poor infrastructure on Manhood

Full text:

I disagree strongly with the suggestion of a further large housing development in Birdham and specifically at Whitehouse farm which floods regularly.

Birdham is classified by yourselves as a Settlement village which should spare it from disproportionally large development.

In addition the infrastructure of the Manhood peninsula has been neglected for years:

Birdham school is full & Crooked lane is blocked twice a day by parents leaving & collecting their children.

The main road is inadequate for the traffic load it is required to take. As a minimum it requires a cycle lane in each direction but better yet would be a
moratorium on further development south of the A27 until a scheme to separate north/south and east/west traffic on the A27 was up & running or a northern
Chichester bypass had been built.

Both surface & waste water drainage is poor. In Court Barn lane, at the bottom of our garden, sewage bubbles out of the drain covers after heavy rain.

I think it is disgraceful that our village plan, 2 years in preparation, is discarded as out of date after 2 years.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3607

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Jillian McGregor

Number of people: 2

Representation:

- Infrastructure to be in place before development begins.
- Loss of agricultural land
- Impact on wetlands
- No account of climate change and flood risk
- Proposes unsustainable construction

Full text:

Essentially, the document does not plan for the necessary infrastructure to be in place before development begins.
• As a nation we require greater food security and reduction in food miles. It is wrong to turn over good farming land. Two of CDC land allocation proposals (Highgrove Farm and Apuldram/Donnington) breach this principle.
• The Harbour’s wetlands are of international importance because of their biodiversity and high capacity to absorb CO2. Rising sea levels plus development will result in serious coastal squeeze.
• It takes no account of climate change and the Environmental Agency’s own prediction as to flooding levels in our area. Indeed, the NPPF states that development in areas of risk is inappropriate and should be avoided.
• It proposes construction of houses in an unsustainable manner. CDC should ensure that future building must get much closer to being carbon neutral.
• Parliament has urged local authorities to take into account in future planning that, because of the risk to our coastal settlements, our coastal settlements will face a significant flood risk by 2065.
Suffice it to say that others have lucidly objected to this emerging CDC policy and are alarmed at this apparent deafness of the views of the electorate. We all deserve to be taken seriously.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3608

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: John and Jennifer Lippiett

Number of people: 2

Representation:

- Document unsustainable
- Development should be near carbon-neutral
- Development should be nutrient neutral
- Protect chalk streams
- No consideration of flood risk

Full text:

We wish to express our deep dissatisfaction with your Draft Interim Housing Policy document. We have lived in Bosham for the last 23 years, sandwiched between the Harbour AONB and The South Downs National Park. The ribbon development of housing within this thin corridor has been accelerating over the past few years, to the detriment of the environment and quality of services and life in general.

9 years ago our house was flooded, not by the Bosham stream which runs through our garden but off Ratham Lane, where flooded fields and blocked road drains caused water to run down the lane to flood our garden and then our house. We note your plan 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”.

Our five chalk streams, of international importance as a rarity and vital to the environment and natural wildlife, are not sufficiently protected by your plan. They form the connectivity required between the Downs and the Harbour protected areas, particularly with regard to corridors for wildlife to be able to access both sides of the ribbon development.

It is believed your plan for future developments should be to require much nearer carbon-neutral constructions, as well as being nutrient-neutral, especially as the Harbour is an SSSI, and is reported by Natural England as declining unfavourably in its condition.

For all these reasons we believe your Draft Interim Housing Policy Document is unsustainable and therefore requires considerably more work and adjustment.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3609

Received: 04/07/2020

Respondent: Mr John Newman

Representation:

Concerned at:
- lack of affordable housing in area
- shortage of public transport

Need to consider:
- better provision for cyclists
- linkages with amenities
- provision of bungalows

Full text:

The comments that follow are based on my having been working through your document at https://chichester.oc2.uk/document/6/31#topofdoc I write as an ordinary citizen with no expertise in planning and with very little knowledge of actual proposed developments. Which leaves a problem in meaningful comment at this stage, as the devil in planning is so often in the detail. I have lived in Chichester for over forty years, and propose simply to pass on a few thoughts about general principles, and I do not intend the order that follows to reflect any perceived relative importance. Nor do I seek to comment beyond Chichester itself.
I can see that you have clearly considered the general principles in considerable detail, and I am appreciative of such a comprehensive analysis. I appreciate that there are references to much of what follows in that analysis, but I hope that a few comments on particular issues may help.
I am concerned at the lack of affordable housing in Chichester, as in so many other places. To be honest, I think that the root of the problem goes back to the sale of council houses from the 1980s, which I can understand, but what I cannot forgive is the failure of that government in particular and its successors to provide the funding for that essential stock to be replaced. To develop this issue a little:-
• Every resident of Chichester is not affluent, and there is need for sufficient housing that all can afford either to buy or rent.
• I think that this applies, for instance, to young people starting a career in this area. I know that in 1970 it helped me to have a couple of years in a teacher’s council flat in Midhurst, which enabled me to build up the means of moving on into the housing market. Sadly such provision no longer exists.
• I think of someone I know (not in Chichester) who told me that once he was able to buy a house in his early thirties his mortgage payment was half the rent he had been paying
• I also think of those retiring with perhaps not that much savings who could well need affordable housing – and since your own analysis mentions the rising percentage of senior citizens, I think that this is a significant point, not least for widows or widowers. finding themselves on a single pension.
One point I did not notice in your analysis – perhaps this is my oversight in reading – was any mention of the provision of bungalows, of which it seems to me that there is a real dearth in Chichester. Again I think it is of particular relevance to Chichester having an ageing population, and I write as one thus affected. I am a pensioner and was widowed seven years ago now; my obvious next move would be to a bungalow. But where would I find one in Chichester? I do not want to move to Bognor nor go down to the coast So because of this dearth, (and partly also for family reasons), I remain in a family house which could otherwise be freed up for a younger family to move into, as we did when my wife and I were in our thirties. I think that this is an issue that the planners need rather more thought about.
I think that the linkage with amenities is an important consideration, of which I have seen little sign in Summersdale, where I live. There is still just the one doctor’s surgery; there has been no extra school; there is the one shop in The Broadway; there is (not that it concerns me) no pub.
I am concerned about the shortage of public transport. Where I live there is one bus per hour and nothing in the evenings or on a Sunday. This leads me to ask how far you really want to cajole people out of their cars, and I also think of the implications for those who cannot afford a car or are getting too old safely to drive. Cycling is reasonable from here, but I am writing as a regular and experienced cyclist, and I know of others who are frightened at the absence of separate cycle ways and especially by the Northgate gyratory.
I think that much better provision for cyclists should be an important part of planning policy. Some aspects of Chichester’s cycling is quite good, for instance bike parking and some cycle ways. But so much more needs to be done, and I am far from persuaded that the Whitehouse Farm project, for instance, has afforded anything like enough attention to cycling, especially if it means that we are to lose the present southern exit to Centurion Way.
Indeed the transport aspects of Whitehouse Farm worry me, not only about the lack of cycling provision, but also the impact that that will have on traffic on the already crowded Northgate Gyratory or also on West Street.
I accept that there is a need for expanded housing provision in Chichester. People are moving into the area for work or retirement, and those of us in retirement are living longer. Also there are more single person or single parent households than of yore, so provision is needed. I know that some will object to this view, and I can play NIMBY with the best of them; I also understand and value the desire to protect the present environment, which is important. Somehow this must be reconciled with the inescapable need for housing and a need for the younger generation not to feel that they are being excluded by the absence of housing or the exorbitant price to buy or rent locally. Any community is inherently dynamic, and housing provision has to match this.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3610

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Mr John Templeton

Representation:

Generally agree, with following comments:
1. Support para 2.3
2. Paragraph 2.4 and 6.2 - suggest use of brownfield sites within Chichester city for residential development
3. Suggest freeing up existing sites within city for residential development by relocating current uses.
4. Some new sites do not meet principle of sustainability

Full text:

Whilst I am in general agreement with it I have the following specific comments and suggestions:
I strongly support paragraph 2.3 – to guide development to appropriate and sustainable locations. I propose that opportunity sites should be proactively sought within the city itself, for high quality high density housing at this the most sustainable location within the District.
I would refer to paragraph 8 of the NPPF 2019 whereby all sites under consideration must meet the three overarching objectives for sustainability- all of which are interdependent. Sustainable development means economically, socially and environmentally sustainable. Much development within the District completed recently or under way fails to meet the principle of sustainability. To take just two examples, Madgwick Park is neither integrated with the city of Chichester nor with the village of Westhampnett and has destroyed the rural gap between the two. And phase 1 of Whitehouse Farm will sit as an outlier within the rural surroundings of the city and destroy the former clear demarcation between town and country.
Paragraphs 2.4 (1)and 6.2 (9) I suggest that the council should immediately open negotiations with the owners of two major brownfield sites within the city, ie WSCC’s Tannery site at Westgate (already on the register of brownfield sites) for which there appears to be no interest in commercial use, and the former House of Fraser department store (not yet on the register of brownfield sites) where it seems unlikely that there will be any interest in either major retail or commercial development. Both sites would be suitable for high quality housing development whilst safeguarding designated heritage assets.
And finally, I would draw your attention to an article I wrote in 2018: ‘How brownfield’sites can help solve our housing crisis’ (see the Chichester Society website: newsletters, issue 197, June 2018) where I propose identifying what I called ‘potential brownfield sites’ i.e. sites which would be suitable for housing development if the present uses were moved to other more suitable locations. Much of the city’s housing development has in fact been on just such sites but I am suggesting the proactive encouragement by the council to free up such sites, rather than to await responses by developers and landowners of yet more greenfield sites to the council’s next ‘call for sites.’

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3611

Received: 03/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Karen Swann

Representation:

- stipulate use of low carbon heating
- para 4.2 - concerned that not making approval contingent on off-site infrastructure will result in infrastructure not fit for purpose
- para 6.2 - words 'should' and 'shall' not strong enough

Full text:

I have been very reassured by the approach of our council in its handling of the Covid 19 pandemic and in its declaration of a climate emergency. However, neither of these approaches appear to have been extended to this draft policy and I believe it needs to be reviewed in light of this. In this document we have an opportunity to be at the forefront of change, yes we need to deliver housing but let us use the difficulties we are facing to demonstrate we can do this in a positive and creative way that will benefit society and the environment.

The Committee on Climate Change Green Recovery document states that buildings and transport are key priorities and I believe it is imperative the proposal document is aligned with this. For example; low carbon heating must be stipulated from the outset to ensure developers are not able to save money by installing obsolete systems as they are with current builds (I understand gas heating is being used throughout the Whitehouse Farm site).

On specific points:
4.2 I understand the need for developers not to be able to hold up the supply of housing. I am concerned that not making approval contingent on off-site infrastructure will result in roads and amenities no longer being fit for purpose or compromised due to the increased housing that it is expected to support.

6.2 Throughout the policy statement, the words 'should' and 'shall' are not strong enough to ensure compliance to environmental concerns 'must' is an imperative. Developers will always find excuses or change things to save money or cut corners and we MUST remain firm in protecting our District. I understand the word should allows some flexibility that is sometimes necessary from a legal standpoint but mitigation could be used on a case by case basis rather than accepting the minimum from the outset.

In summary, a comprehensive document that is sadly lacking in aspiration, imagination and leadership.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3612

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs Lindy Riesco

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Object to IPS:
1. Involves building between National Park and Chichester Harbour
2. Prevents movement of wildlife and causes loss of biodiversity
3. Inhibits flow of chalk streams
4. No account of flood risk and climate change
5. No commitment to sustainable/carbon neutral housing
6. No plan to make infrastructure resilient

Full text:

We write to object in the strongest possible terms to the current draft Interim Planning Policy Statement for Chichester.

This is for the following reasons:

• It involves excess building between the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour SSSI, to the huge detriment of both
• it creates a line of building which prevents the movement of wildlife between these two areas of local and national importance, thus seriously reducing their ability to survive at a time of critical loss of biodiversity.
• it will inhibit the flow of internationally important chalk streams, flood water and other water courses across this boundary
• it takes no account of the continuing rise in sea level and climate change which will have a major impact on this area of the south coast which is at special risk of sustained flooding as well as adverse weather events
• there appears to be no commitment to sustainable or carbon neutral houses, contrary to national imperative to be carbon neutral by 2030
• the infrastructure (sewage, water, power, etc) in the areas proposed is already at breaking point due to piecemeal development and there appears to be no plan to make this resilient and sustainable

The whole plan needs to be reconstructed taking these considerations into account.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3613

Received: 03/07/2020

Respondent: Liz Sagues

Representation:

6.2 section 8: 10% renewable energy is far too low - given the sunny/windy climate we have in Chichester district, a higher figure is perfectly realistic.

Also, that section makes no reference to cycling, despite referring to the West Sussex Cycling Design Guide. I know section 10 refers to cycle link, but for example provision for cycle storage should be referred to in section 8.

Full text:

6.2 section 8
10% renewable energy is far too low - given the sunny/windy climate we have in Chichester district, a higher figure is perfectly realistic.
Also, that section makes no reference to cycling, despite referring to the West Sussex Cycling Design Guide. I know section 10 refers to cycle link, but for example provision for cycle storage should be referred to in section 8.

Good luck with turning these words into positive action and avoiding such horribly long-drawn-out exercises as some of the current developments, ie Whitehouse Farm.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3614

Received: 06/07/2020

Respondent: Ms C L Younger

Representation:

1.Should take account of floodrisk/climate change

2. New houses must get much closer to being carbon neutral, energy efficient

3. Wildlife corridors and linkage between the SDNP and CHAONB must be maintained, including chalk streams.

4. Ignore the requirement that all future development must be nutrient neutral

5. Good infrastructure must be in place before development begins.

Full text:

I am writing to express anxieties about the above for the following reasons:

1.Flooding is a constant in our area...I live in Bosham but this applies to the wider area too... and likely to get worse because of climate change. The National Policy Planning Framework states that "development in areas of risk is inappropriate and should be avoided." Surely only safe sites should therefore be considered?

2. New houses must get much closer to being carbon neutral, energy efficient etc. Proposed construction does not seem to be in line with this. Why not?

3. Wildlife corridors and linkage between the SDNP and CHAONB must be maintained, including our five chalk streams. The Newells Lane one does not appear in this paper, nor do sufficient buffer zones around others?
This rides roughshod over ecological and environmental priorities.

4. Also from the crucial environmental perspective, the paper seems to ignore the requirement that all future development must be nutrient neutral. Habitats and wildlife are already suffering badly in this respect.

5. Good infrastructure must be in place before development begins. This seems to be ignored?

I believe that all these points make the statement unsustainable. I know housing is sorely needed, but with commitment and imagination, this can and must be achieved in line with the above. PLEASE look at it again and make it fit for purpose.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3615

Received: 09/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs M Evans

Representation:

Oppose development in Birdham.
Infrastructure cannot cope with new developments.
Use brownfield sites

Full text:

As a longstanding resident of Birdham I am horrified to learn that CDC have already identified a site, a greenfield site, opposite the Birdham Stores, as suitable for a 250 strong housing development. This will increase the size of the village by over a third and change the character of Birdham for ever.
The problem of the congestion on the roads, and flooding in the area, are well documented. The infrastructure cannot cope with huge developments. I ask you to please reconsider your proposal, and if necessary, look at brownfield sites with smaller numbers of dwellings.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3616

Received: 02/07/2020

Respondent: Mrs M Devitt

Representation:

Concerns over development in Bosham:
- impact on sewerage infrastructure
- increase floodrisk
- loss of grade 2 agricultural land
- impact on water quality in the Harbour
- damage to dark skies

Full text:

Having experienced flooding in my house direct from the run off from Highgrove into Brooke's Lane five years ago, I am writing to express my deep concern about this development & its impact on the waste removal from this part of upper Bosham. The existing system is already overloaded taking effluent as it does from Funtington & the proposals to deal with the added pressure from the large number of new houses is quite inadequate.
The development will markedly decrease the absorbancy of rain water & the hard standings etc will increase runoff into the drains further exacerbating the situation.
The field is grade 2 agricultural land & if the Coronid virus scare has taught us anything it should be to treasure what food we can grow for ourselves. How much more use to the community that land would be as allotments, with 10 or 20 3 bedroom houses for sale to local people, either already resident in the area or the children/grandchildren of such.
There are many other reasons to BEG you to review your plans in the context of global warming (demanding better choice of materials); night sky disturbance (demanding serious controls on the type of lights to be used & for how long at night); Chichester Harbour water quality degradation (demanding serious control of effluents & run-off & the extreme decline in native species in West Sussex in my lifetime (I am 81).

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3617

Received: 10/07/2020

Respondent: Martyn Chuter

Representation:

1. Inappropriate for the Council to be required to increase housing in pandemic. Unimplemented permissions and local plan allocations should be developed before further land released. Para 4.3 welcomed but should be enforced.
2. Section 8 - welcome inclusion of West Sussex Cycle Design Guide - should be standard
3. Section 10 - remove word 'should' and replace with 'will'.

Full text:

I thank you for inclusion on the consultation and the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned document.
Firstly, I think it is totally inappropriate for Chichester District Council to be required to increase housing land availability at a time when the Covid-19 pandemic has so affected the house building industry. It would seem most appropriate in the circumstances for the Council to request that the Governments Planning Policy Guidance be put on hold and that all councils in a similar position (where a Revised Local Plan is in preparation and likely to be subject to a public examination within 12 months) be allowed to continue with its current adopted housing target. In any event, the Governments own reassessment of what the countries new ‘normal’ looks like may require total revision of its current planning guidance. For example, the freeing up of vacant town centre properties from planning controls for conversion to residential use will produce a whole new supply chain to impact on delivery numbers. This should be allowed to work through and to impact on the required numbers before further green field land release is allowed.
There are many unimplemented planning permissions and local plan allocations which need to be developed before the need to release further land. In that regard the Council needs to use all of its powers, including, if necessary, the use of Compulsory Purchase Order procedures. In that regard, the proposal in 4.3 to prevent land banking is welcomed but it is necessary to see firm, resolute and effective action applied for the objective to be realised.
Going back to point 3.1, a “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, there needs to a strengthening of resolve that sustainable development is a given.
In section 8, it is a welcome and positive matter to see the West Sussex Cycling Design Guide included but I would ask that this should be regarded as the basic standard.
In section 10, I would ask that the word ‘should’ be removed and the word ‘will’ be substituted. Similarly, the words ‘where appropriate’ which provide an element of wriggle room, be removed from the proposed policy statement.
I thank you for attention and look forwards to seeing progress of the document.

Comment

Draft Interim Policy Statement for Housing Development

Representation ID: 3618

Received: 08/07/2020

Respondent: Mr Michael Robinson

Number of people: 2

Representation:

Object to development in Birdham unless it is of less than 30 dwellings - problems with existing infrastructure

Full text:

We wish to record our concern that it appears from the HELAA map in the CDC draft plan that there is an intention to encourage the development of up to 250 houses on a site opposite the stores on the A286 in Birdham.
Birdham is classified as a settlement village which should only have modest development permitted within the parish boundaries.
The problems associated with any additional development on the Manhood Peninsula are obvious to all who live here – continuous traffic congestion, lack of schools and medical facilities and a serious flood risk exacerbated by over development.
The quality of life for the residents of Birdham, and indeed all who live on the Manhood Peninsula, continues to steadily decline.
We would ask that the Council Planning Committee adhere to the original policy guidelines that only modest development of less than 30 houses will be permitted in Birdham.