Policy S3: Development Strategy

Chichester City has a small population for the wide range of services and facilities provided in the city which makes focussing major development in the city appropriate. In order to ensure the city thrives as a key destination and commercial centre more affordable housing needs to be built within the city and close surrounds, partially attracting young people and families. The east/west corridor has good access onto the A27, the main arterial road in the district, and public transport in contrast to communities in the Manhood Peninsula which have restricted access. Peninsula also contains important internationally designated habitat areas.

The proposed plan to build a link road in Apuldram/Stockbridge to service employment and residential use is contrary to the council statement related to risk of flooding especially as this area is on flood plain level 3.
Housing and Employment would be better placed around Lavant and West Broyle land outside of the SDNP especiaaly as (a) CDC are absorbing housing from the SDNP (b) siting affordable housing in this area, close to where it is needed, would be more sensible and would be in line with strategic objectives.

Sustainable growth of the scale proposed in the East-West Corridor can only be achieved if provision of good infrastructure for cycling and walking is achieved in conjunction with new strategic housing. The WSCC's Walking and Cycling Strategy should be complied with.

Air quality within the Stockbridge area is already lower than recommended levels. This plan will only increase the problem. This has serious health implications for local residents.

Resident of West Wittering
Sustainable development ( Manhood Peninsula)requires:
good road infrastructure - failed
adequate Primary School place - failed
Local Secondary Education facilities - failed
Addressing education some 500 Secondary students have to travel into Chichester each day. Some 500 Sixth Form students have to travel into Chichester each day. All crossing the A27.

Resident of West Wittering
The statement: Reinforce the role of Manhood Peninsula as a home to existing communities, tourism and agricultural enterprise. To uphold this statement the housing levels should be set as defined in the Adopted Local Plan.

Stockbridge already exceeds recommended air quality levels and development in the scale outlined will increase the problem with serious health implications for residents.

This policy does not have enough detail.All development seems to be focused on the east west corridor. Towns such as Petworth and Midhurst need new houses, including social housing to allow young people to stay in the area.. Villages such as Northchapel could each take at least ten houses without harming the SDNPA.
The environment will b harmed and wildlife put at rick if the A27 corridor is so built up than no animals can cross from the Chichester Harbour AONB to the SDNP.

We recently received a circular from Donnington Parish Council highlighting what they consider are key issues within the 2035 plan that significantly affect us, as residents of Donnington / Stockbridge. Whilst I do agree with a number of points that they make, this is a very extensive and far reaching plan that, if implemented, will take many years to achieve (how long have we been talking about the A27 improvements with no actual action ever taken).

No town or city is ever going to stand still and, in order to ensure that Chichester remain a prosperous area (and to comply with ever increasing demands for new housing), both commercial and residential property WILL need to be built, but does virtually ALL of this need to be on or below the A27 corridor??

Continued development below or along the A27 corridor, without the inclusion of supporting infrastructure, especially adequate provision for the vast number of additional vehicle movements that will result, just does not make sense. In addition, our local education system and our health services are at breaking point, but there does not appear to be any provision within your plans to not only provide additional facilities, but also to provide reasonable and sensible access to them.

I know that for many years, the debate about whether to include a northern bypass route has raged on and it is interesting to see, within your plan, that this has NOT been completely ruled out. The inclusion, even of a simple route (similar even to that which has been put in at North Bersted), would SIGNIFICANTLY improve traffic flow around our City and allow easy access to the North of the City, Goodwood Motor Racing Circuit, Goodwood Horse Racing Circuit, the South Downs, Midhurst and all points North. Even if the consideration remains for further changes to the existing A27, this is still likely to take over 15 years to complete and will cause gridlock for the whole duration of that time. An alternative route must be put in place before consideration is given to further changes to the existing A27. Simple repairs / upgrades to a footbridge at Donnington recently caused chaos for much of the past year.....

One of the points of note from the Parish Council circular is that you are proposing that traffic will not be permitted to either cross the A27 (North or South) nor will right hand turns be permitted either onto, or off of, the A27 at three key junctions. Whilst, in theory, this might improve the general flow along the A27, this will also HUGELY increase the number and volume of traffic movements along the stretch from Portfield to Fishbourne as the thousands of vehicles based South of the A27 attempt access to our City and also East / West of it. Each vehicle will be forced to cover significantly more miles than currently required and all that will happen will be the gridlock points will refocus elsewhere along the A27.

I would add, that no thought has been given at all to the residents of Watery Lane, Queens Avenue and Queens Gardens, whose existing access to ANYWHERE is already directly onto the A27. To get into the City we already have to cross three lanes of busy traffic and to return to our homes means an additional two mile trip to the Selsey roundabout and back. During the bridge repairs, and at times when the Free School is finishing for the day, delays can add over 20 minutes to our return trip home. If there are accidents or other incidents on this stretch of road we are effectively blocked from access to our homes. The proposal to close access across the A27 would mean an additional TEN MILE round trip for the 30-40 residents vehicles that would be affected daily. This is an additional 100,000 miles of unnecessary road miles (based on only 30 vehicles, each day at 10 miles per day) just for those few vehicles. What does that equate to when multiplied by the 1000's of vehicles already on, or proposed to be added to, the Donnington area and Manhood peninsular? Just adding 5 miles to 1,000 vehicles each day adds an additional 1,825,000 unnecessary miles (and emissions) in the immediate area each year.

Much better public transport links, cycle paths and footpaths would greatly improve access to our City Centre and reduce vehicle movements. Whilst the footbridge was being repaired, a tarmac footpath was put in place between Queens Avenue and the canal (this is a route that, albeit a mud path, has been used for over 20 years by local residents) giving improved access to the canal, the High School, Kingsham Primary and the Free School. Perfect.. finally something of benefit to local residents.. but no.. it was dug up again this week because (according to The Highways Agency) no one would take responsibility for its future upkeep and repairs.... The cycle route from Donnington to the centre of town for example now runs along a pavement, get off at the bridge (no cycling!!), back onto pavement, cross the busy traffic, back onto the pavement, get off at the traffic lights at Terminus Road back on the busy pavement, onto the road at the railway crossing, before being squeezed off your bike up through South Gate and South Street by busy traffic (there is no clear, unambiguous return route)!! The cycle route to the High School, Kingsham and the Free School is now (again) restricted by no cycling on the bridge(??) before joining a narrow, busy, footpath past the petrol station. This does not encourage safe cycling so we use the car...

Between The Ministry for Transport, Highways England, The Highways Agency, WSCC, Chichester District Council and all of the parish councils and individuals involved in this process, is it any wonder that nothing actually ever gets done. There are simply too many factions involved.

Flyovers across the A27 from Donnington and the peninsular still remain a good idea, but only if they also permit easy access to / from the A27 by residents living south of the A27. I believe the process previously failed due to lack of proper consideration for the residents living south of the A27 and this will remain the case again unless further / better consideration is given as part of your '2035' proposals. Please, bite the bullet and do this properly, not piecemeal because of ineffectual politicians and bureaucrats arguing about which budget this might be funded from or other political considerations.

"seek to disperse development across the plan" This is a joke. The majority of houses 1100 along the Fishbourne /Chidham corridor. 1600 at Whitehouse Farm. 1000 at Tangmere. GOODWOOD, BOXGROVE, LAVANT, HALNAKER...NONE. This is not a local plan. Even local brown field sites around Rolls Royce are available but surprise surprise have been removed !!!! Flawed and biased plan.Manhood cannot sustain anymore large scale development. Already building on land liable to flood in the next 50 yrs !!! Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, i will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

To the exclusion of Westbourne as one of the identified Service Villages to accommodate some of the District's Housing needs. Westbourne is not constrained, it is well located and it can deliver much needed housing in this part of the District.

Total contradiction !! "protecting and enhancing the natural environment" and have "no adverse impact on the openess of views in and around the coast". So sticking 100 + houses and industrial units (AL6) along with a 4mtr elevated road.Along with swamping small villages like Chidham that border this sensitive area is going to achieve these goals.Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of this plan, I will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

I am writing to Object to CDC Local Plan. The Plan as it stands , is not a Local Plan. It is a plan to destroy large areas of Chichester's historic and environmentally sensitive areas in the South, east and west,whilst leaving the Northern part of the city completely untouched. Chichester Harbour has the same protection afforded to as the SDNP and yet there has been absolute no regard to its preservation. In fact that exact opposite. The plan aims to build on the flood plain and right up to the Chichester Harbour boundary with no viable detail or acknowledgement of just how destructive this would be. The inclusion of AL6 Apuldram/Donnington link road and proposed development is tanter mount to vandalism of the highest degree and I am appalled that it is even being considered. The fact that there is no detail or consultation within the document to show the required consultation with Highways England that should have taken place prior to it's inclusion just shows what an inaccurate and shoddy piece of work this plan is. AL6 is on a category 3 Flood Plain that according the Governments own recommendations should never be built on because of the environmental damage that can ensue, never mind the risk to flooding of any buildings on such a site. The suggested link road would have to be raised to at least 4 mtrs in order to alleviate the risk of flooding this would then lead to a complete eyesore and desecration of historic views of the Cathedral from the sea (the only one in England ) towards the Downs, something that the Local Plan states must be protected at all cost. There is no mention of the increased traffic, air pollution, noise and light pollution that such a development would cause. Councillor Dignum has lied, " NOT...embracing any 2016 options for the A27", but this plan clearly has. Where is his integrity and impartiality ? I allege that he has shown time and again that he has a much greater interest in preserving the North to the detriment of all other areas of Chichester !!! AL6 should be removed with immediate effect.Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, then I will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.
The plan also fails to address/acknowledge the huge increase in traffic volume now and in the future. There is no viable transport data/ study included within the Plan. The only reference is the Peter Brett Assoc report which was issued in 2010 and has been shown to be incorrect. It is also now completely useless as it is so outdated and claims there is no risk of air pollution from vehicles. We all know that Chichester has one of the worst hotspots for car pollutants/air quality on the South coast. Unless this is addressed in any future iterations of the plan then I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.
I OBJECT to the CDC Local Plan in its present form and unless the Plan is rewritten to take into account the huge inaccuracies and biased, in future iterations then I will be raising it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

We support the acknowledgement that Service Villages are suitable places for new housing. In many instances such locations are dependent on population growth to support existing services so this approach is welcomed.

We also support the strategy of dispersing development across the plan area.

However, we do consider that the Service Village of North Mundham / Runcton is suitable for strategic scale development being located close to the A27 and south-east connections to Bognor Regis/Littlehampton, with good access to employment facilities; primary, secondary and sixth form education services; Chichester train station within 2.5 miles and regular bus services.

There is no definition of what a service village is. It suggests a utilitarian dormitory suburb. This makes no attempt to recognise the special character of each of the different locations that make up the areas in the so called East West Corridor or to ensure that they are regarded as separate entities. The term should to be used to
designate a transport route.

In 2014 at the last iteration of the Neighbourhood Plan there were 850 households in the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook. By the time the new Local Plan is published there will have been an increase in the number of properties in the region of 150 to a total of 1003 in the Parish, an 18% increase. The previous Local Plan hWhilst absorbing this number of properties there have been no changes to the infrastructure and services in the area to support the additional population apart from a charity shop and expansion of the Primary School.
Reconsideration needs to be given to the number of houses required in the so called Service villages.

It should have been 'carefully'assessed' before inclusion in the plan/ There is no way that AL6 would have anything but a detrimental effect on the AONB. It is appalling that it along with the link road was even included.Other planned developments along the A259 flood plain with also destroy the fragile and uniqueness of the AONB.

Policy S3 (Development Strategy) sets out the Council's proposed approach to general development across the District through the Plan period. The first objective is to focus development around Chichester and the east-west corridor. Whilst is it accepted that this is the most sustainable location in the District, this strategy will result in a.) an excessive burden on an already challenged infrastructure network (the A27 and poor quality rail services) and b.) mean that other more remote areas across the District will not keep pace with the development of services and facilities in proportion with the amount focused in Chichester itself. Furthermore, it is commonly the case that the complexities around strategic allocations can result in delays to development which can have a consequential impact for housing delivery across the District and consequently the objectives of Policy S4 (Meeting Housing Needs). To address these issues the Council should give consideration to better dispersing development across the District on a higher number of smaller sites. These types of sites should be located towards the periphery of the District whereby settlements can sustain the prospective occupants of new developments. There are a number of benefits to this approach. In the first instance, smaller sites are more likely to come forwards early in the Plan period and ensure that Chichester can deliver the amount of housing required. Delays in land negotiations are less likely to affect the deliverability of sites of this type. Secondly, by locating those sites on the periphery of the District, a proportion of the residents would use local facilities on a daily basis thereby supporting the sustainability of these settlements. Furthermore, the use of local facilities would lessen any immediate burden on infrastructure in the vicinity of Chichester and allow time for it to be developed and improved over the longer term which would avoid compounding an existing problematic situation. Thirdly, the development of smaller sites at the edge of the District would better encourage more widespread infrastructure improvements across the District rather than focusing solely on Chichester. Finally, this approach is fundamentally more sustainable. The focus of a District's housing requirement in a central area will not lead to sustainable patterns of growth over the longer term.

Development proposals will cause further deterioration in the air quality for residents of Donnington and pedestrians.

Air quality in the Stockbridge area already exceeds the recommended air quality levels. Development on the scales proposed and with the resultant impact will only cause the problem to increase. This will have serious health implications for residents.

Air quality will further deteriorate as a result of the proposed plan. Stockbridge already exceeds the recommended air quality levels and development on this scale will increase the problem. This has serious health implications for the residents

4.18 Wisborough Green Parish Council is concerned that the plan seems to turn the focus of development in Service Villages to be driven by opportunities. Villages do need to adapt and grow but to be successful this has to be sustainable - both in context of infrastructure as well as small scale in context to the community size. There seems to be no demonstration of why an opportunistic approach will better serve the service village communities than the more even distribution approach in the current plan.

See attachment

Birdham has a similar level of services and facilities (as defined in paragraph 4.12), to those found in the identified Service Villages of Bosham, Fishbourne and Hambrook/Nutbourne. Moreover, Birdham has a greater level of services/facilities than those in the other identified Service Village of Hunston (please see attached Settlement Comparison table).

The Service Village of Birdham should therefore be considered as a larger more sustainable settlement suitable for a greater proportion of new residential development and should be included in the list of Service Villages identified in Policy S3.

The development strategy set out in Policy S3 aims for most of the development to take place along the east-west corridor. Whilst we do not object in general to the approach, we do object to the form of its delivery and believe it does not reflect the 'Main Issues raised' in the Issues & Options consultation of June 2017. Question 3 requested feedback on the Vision and comments were received by the Council that there is 'Already too much development in East/West corridor; too much congestion; issues with A27; train links are slow'. The responses also state that it should include the need to protect the 'individual identities of villages' and development must be concentrated in areas 'closer to the city which has all the amenities'.

Question 4 discussed the sub-areas, which highlighted the East-West corridor as the best option but also notes that 'City will need to expand to accommodate the required housing and associated growth' and that there is a 'Risk of adjacent villages and towns coalescing into each other'.

Question 6 states that 'Chichester is the most appropriate location for new development; provides access to a full range of employment, education, transport, medical, retail and entertainment; support east/west corridor strategy. Parish boundaries should not limit proposals.'

It is clear from the responses above that development should be concentrated primarily in and around Chichester with a proportional quantum of development in the settlement hubs along the East-West Corridor. This would also be the most sustainable strategy for the future development of the district because Chichester is the sub-regional centre, but at the moment we believe the distribution of development is unbalanced. This will lead to increased road congestion and therefore pollution as people travel from the settlements to Chichester for work, leisure, and entertainment.
It is evident that most strategic allocations surrounding Chichester are existing allocations from the current Local Plan, with only 1050 new dwellings proposed around Chichester. Of the 4,400 new dwellings identified in the new local plan through the proposed strategic locations adjoining Chichester itself only counts for 24% of the total; with 76% in outlying areas. The new allocations in the East-West Corridor total 3300 new homes, of which 2250 (68%) are proposed to be delivered in the Settlement Hubs (Southbourne, Chidham and Hambrook, Bosham and Fishbourne) and only 1050 (32%) in and around Chichester itself. While it is agreed that other settlements should have some development, this appears to be disproportionate when there are other sites adjoining Chichester that are available.

The Local Plan spatial strategy should be changed to ensure any deliverable sites that are located close to Chichester itself are included and only then should other sites in the outlying settlements along the A259 corridor be considered. This will ensure a more sustainable pattern of development that focuses attention on Chichester but also delivers some development in the smaller settlements that will support services but not overwhelm them. It is important to allow settlements to expand proportionately and for new communities to integrate with the existing population. It is considered that the scale of development along the A259 corridor is excessive, particularly at Southbourne, as it will result in an increase of over 40% of the number of houses (Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, 2014 records 2,927 dwellings in the Parish). It is also questionable if it is appropriate or possible to deliver such a large number of new dwellings through a Neighbourhood Plan.

Given the existing local plan does not meet the housing requirements required, it is also considered to be a retrograde step for the new local plan to leave so many houses to the Neighbourhood Planning process as this will inevitably take additional time to progress. This site is available and can be delivered within the first 5 years of the new Local Plan but it is unlikely that sites the size of those being proposed along the A259 corridor could be allocated in a NP and then built within the first 5 years. This would exacerbate the under supply of houses needed by the local community.
As demonstrated above, suitable sites surrounding Chichester should be allocated before looking at smaller settlements to meet the housing need. My clients land is such a site and it meets the NPPF requirement of sustainable development to a much greater degree than other allocated sites. For example, the land is less than a 10 minute drive and under half an hour walk to the city centre; which can be achieved on safe footpaths. The site is also located near to the Westhampnett Crossroads bus stop on Stane Street, which has 3 buses an hour that travel directly to Chichester Bus Station in 17 minutes. There are no technical reasons why the site cannot be allocated as it is outside the National Park, not in a Statutory designation, not in flood zone 2 or 3 etc.

It is ridiculous to be planning in detail for settlements when the major problem in the area ( the elephant in the room the A27 upgrade) has not been agreed in any way and has not been funded. This must be resolved before progressing to the sort of detail included - for example -in the Transport Study of Strategic Development incorporated here as part of the Local Plan. It is also a nonsense that the Transport Study includes a road (the Fishbourne-Birdham road that was never included in any previous study of the A27 junctions. Remove it!

Whilst Lavant itself is in the SDNP it should still be considered as a settlement hub or at least a service village for the purpose of the plan. Development can be considered South of the village and meets the remit of the requirements of the CDC strategy. Lavant itself can support the housing requirement and should be considered as a development area within the plan as it does not impact the SDNP if that development is outside the SDNP which it would be.

AL7 Bosham could take significantly more housing to the North of the Railway alleviating pressures on Manhood Peninsula, Chidham, Hambrook and many other Parishes. As the Land Owner I would like to formally submit the entire 6ha site for development if required for up to 150 houses.

Map of land submitted as potential for increase in Bosham allocation.

Whilst Lavant itself is in the SDNP it should still be considered as a settlement hub or at least a service village for the purpose of the plan. Development can be considered South of the village and meets the remit of the requirements of the CDC strategy. Lavant itself can support the housing requirement and should be considered as a development area within the plan as it does not impact the SDNP if that development is outside the SDNP which it would be.