Policy S3: Development Strategy
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2783
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Fishbourne Developments Ltd
Agent: ICENI Projects
Support proposed devt strategy although housing figure needs to be increased so strategic allocations should be increased
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2785
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Antler Homes Ltd
Agent: ICENI Projects
Promoting sites:
Black Hall, Loxwood
Land at Loxwood House, Loxwood
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2788
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Antler Homes Ltd
Agent: ICENI Projects
Support distribution and provision of small-scale housing development.
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2798
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited
Agent: LRM Planning Ltd
Support distribution with greater level of development at Southbourne.
Complies with NPPF - positively prepared and justified.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2811
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Pam Clingan
Agent: MR Matt Allsopp
Promoting site Land south of Madgwick Lane, Westhampnett for housing.
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.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2820
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Asprey Homes Southern
Agent: WS Planning & Architecture
Promoting sites:
Lansdowne Nursery, Oving
Sherwood Nursery, Oving
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2833
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Casa Coevo
Agent: Verve Planning
Object that Camelsdale is not identified as one of the service villages in the table under para 1.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2836
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Casa Coevo
Agent: Verve Planning
Promoting site:
Land to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2846
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
Chichester's role as a tourist destination significantly underplayed; oversimplification to regard the larger settlements as inherently more sustainable for all forms of development;
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2847
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
Section 2b
SUPPORT
Local community facilities, including village shops
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2865
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Persimmon Homes
Welcome approach but believe there is a missed opportunity in terms of role of lower order settlements - may be pertinent for Council to explore potential of E-W corridor to help meet unmet needs of the wider sub-region.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2890
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page
Policy S3 Development Strategy, 1st two bullets: Sustainable growth can only go ahead if improvements are made to the A27 and many on the minor roads in the east west corridor and Manhood peninsula. Even so, the Plan seems to be a recipe for an overpopulated conurbation from Southbourne to Bognor to Tangmere, while the area of the SDNP remains largely untouched. This is borne out in Policy S4,table 2, where it shows that the E/W corridor takes more than 12000 houses and the SDNP, three or four times the size, fewer than 500.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2919
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: N/A
Agent: Genesis Town Planning Ltd
Promoting sites:
Land north of Brandy Hole Lane
Land west of Plainwood Close
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2936
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Use of Green Spaces: We believe that the destruction of green spaces for housing and other development should be a policy of last resort. The document hardly mentions the use of brownfield sites, or the possibility of creative ideas to make brownfield sites available for housing development. No obvious policies within the document which show how that sequential test has been used in relation to brownfield sites, other than a general approach of guiding development towards larger towns. No reference is given to the Council's Brownfield register and unclear how this fits into the overall strategy for development.
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3005
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Danescroft Land Ltd
Agent: Neame Sutton Limited
Support approach that Chichester is best location for strategic growth.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3008
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Danescroft Land Ltd
Agent: Neame Sutton Limited
Promoting site Portfield Quarry
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3012
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Castle Properties
Agent: Neame Sutton Limited
Promoting site Loxwood Farm Place
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3017
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Sunley Estates Ltd
Agent: Neame Sutton Limited
Promoting site:
Land east of Broad Road, Hambrook
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3019
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Charities Property Fund
Agent: Savills (Commercial) Limited
Promoting site:
12 - 18 West Street and 51-55 Tower Street
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3020
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Thakeham Homes
Promoting site:
Land West of Guildford Road, Loxwood
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3025
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Promoting site:
Land at Blackboy Lane and Clay Lane, Fishbourne
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3038
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr G Rudsedski
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site:
Land at Herons Farm, Kirdford
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3040
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Bell
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site:
Land at Stoney Meadow Farm
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3042
Received: 28/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Seymour
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site: Land at Orchard House, Loxwood
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3043
Received: 28/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Sadler
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site: Land south of Salthill Park
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3044
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Pick
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site:
Land to the west of Chaffinch, Burlow and Florence Closes
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3045
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Green
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site:
land west of Delling Lane, Bosham
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3048
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Chitty
Agent: Henry Adams LLP
Promoting site:
Land east of Hermitage Close
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3056
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy
Above all else, Chichester Harbour Conservancy is concerned that CDC has not adequately discharged its landscape duties under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000).
Major developments are proposed directly outside the AONB boundary at Apuldram and Bosham, with potential for further major developments, pending the provision of maps, at Fishbourne, Chidham & Hambrook and Southbourne.
Conservancy raises a high-level objection to the overall Local Plan because there is insufficient evidence CDC has considered the potential cumulative effects these developments will have on the AONB.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3121
Received: 07/03/2019
Respondent: Brookhouse Group
Agent: Savills (UK) Ltd
Promoting site: Land at Barnfield Drive - should continue to be allocated through the LPR as part of the site does not yet have planning permission
See attachment