Policy S4: Meeting Housing Needs

Throughout the new draft Local Plan, the District Council refer to all housing numbers as "minimums". This is new; the existing approved Local Plan does not do this.

The way we use the concept of a minimum (without setting a maximum) is invariably to suggest that as high a figure as possible is desirable: for example, when companies set minimum sales targets or the NHS sets a minimum % target for A&E. It is difficult to think of any exceptions to the rule that exceeding the target is always a good thing.

Therefore, we would strongly urge that the District Council drop the use of the word minimum or, if the Council really feels it has to use the word, then somewhere in the plan it should say what it understands by a minimum.

One possibility:

Throughout the Plan, references to minimum housing allocations are intended to mean that the authority may accept, under certain conditions, a modest increase of up to (10% or 15%??) or an absolute figure of between (50 or 75 units??), whichever is the smaller. However, this would importantly depend upon local conditions and the progress of the Plan as a whole.

In other words, if the Council uses the concept of a minimum in a non-standard way, i.e. it doesn't want as high a figure as possible, then it is incumbent upon it to set an indicative maximum figure. The truth of the matter is that the housing allocation numbers are neither minimums nor maximums.

In his decision letter on the Clappers Lane appeal (APP/L3815/14/2219554, page 10, para 30), the Planning Inspector stated that "... the allocations set out in the Plan were stated (at the EiP) not to be 'minimums' partly because a 'minimum' might imply an open ended acceptance of anything greater. But, by the same token, they are not 'maximums' either. Hence, modest additions would not necessarily contravene the housing requirements or lead to unsustainable and unforeseen patterns of travel not catered for by the Plan." (our underlining). At the appeal the appellant claimed that the housing allocations were minimums and that therefore there was good reason to well exceed the then allocation, in fact just over double. The inspector ruled that, on this basis, "... the appeal proposal might reasonably be held to be 'unsustainable' if it were to significantly breach the scale of development envisaged as appropriate in the Plan" (para 29)

Without some kind of clarification, the Council risks being exposed to developers' clever lawyers. In effect you create a loophole. For example, the housing allocation for East Wittering of 350 could well end up being 500 or more.

It is true the Inspector who examined the current Local Plan encouraged the Council to consider the housing targets or allocations as minimums in an effort to increase overall numbers. However, she approved the Plan without the allocations being described as minimums.

It is important that the Council is clear and confident about its housing targets and not create loopholes for developers to exploit. The words matter.

The difference between Option 1 and 1A is said to be that option 1A reduces the scale of development on Manhood and redistributes it to Southbourne, Hunston and Tangmere.

However for some reason Chidham and Hambrook allocation reduces from 600 in Option 1 to 500 in Option 1A and there is no explanation or justification for this reduction.

The 600 unit allocation for Hambrook in Option 1 should have been carried forward in Option 1A as it has a railway station and the 700 bus route.

Then reduce 200 unit allocation for hunston to 100 as it less sustainable location

While I support the percentage allocations in general, the numbers in total are too high for the existing infrastructure and could result in a suburbanisation of the coastal plain, adversely impacting the area as a leading tourist destination.Without a long-term, robust solution to the A27 the area will face increasing gridlock.The City needs more affordable housing in the form of apartments and long term social rental.

Please do not pretend that this plan has been developed to meet local needs. I do not know of anyone locally who thinks that 12000 new dwellings, 25000 new residents and a similar number of vehicles, meets any needs of theirs.

If we must have all these dwellings you need to prioritise brownfield sites wherever possible. Your policy of developing Portfield and similar 'out of town' 'retail offerings' is gradually stripping the town centre of shops. Therefore it would make sense to allow any empty shop which has not been sold/re-let within a certain timescale to be redeveloped into housing.

Please pay more heed to all the other developments which are proposed - such as the Southern Gateway. All these need to be integrated, not treated piecemeal.

Also, all these extra people and vehicles will need a wholesale improvement in infrastructure, from roads, cycleways, schools and medical facilities, to water and sewage and everything else. This will eat up even more land. Can you not tell the government that such large scale development in an already overcrowded coastal strip is unsustainable, injurious to health and mental well-being, and unfair?

The wastewater and sewage system is already groaning. Many, many times in the summer months huge MTS 30,000 litre tankers - sometimes two at a time - are pumping sewage out of the mains in East Wittering to relieve the already overloaded system - and still you want to build more houses. This makes no sense.

Policy S4.
There many things wrong with this policy, mainly the damage the numbers for the Western Manhood Peninsula will do but the biggest error is the basic presumption that the figures are correct. I repatedly hear Councillors, Planners and others say with a shrug " Oh those are the figures handed down by Government; there is nothing we can do about it" Has anybody actually tried to dispute or mitigate them?

I fail to see how, by accepting 41 house from the SDNP, this policy "will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities" - quite the opposite

Section 7.1 states that the plan will give priority to previously developed land within urban areas. Why has the 'Apron' site at Tangmere not been allocated for housing in the Tangmere Neighbourhood Plan or the Draft Local Plan Review? This allocation would make the additional houses at the SDL unnecessary.

What about opportunities to build between the city and the SDNP, why is 'north of the city' not taking the area between the A27 and the SDNP into consideration?

Resident of West Wittering
This plan is based on a figure of 609 houses per year, an uplift of 40% on the current
annual delivery, which is the maximum allowed, as Chichester District Council have an
Adopted Local Plan. If an Adopted Local Plan had not been in place the HEDNA (GL
Hearn) calculates the District increase in housing for demographic growth to be 517 houses
p.a, based on the 2014 Household Projections. This figure includes the South Down National
Park. There has been an updated 2016 based Household Projection, which decreases the
forecast housing required nationwide over the next 25 years by 24%. This means that the latest
available household growth projection growth over the plan period is likely to be in the order
of 392 houses p.a. The South Downs National Park are planning to supply 84, leaving 308
needed for demographic growth in the Plan area. Even adding the ridiculous 51.5% multiplier
for earning/house price ratio still only gets to 466 houses per year. It is most unlikely that 609
houses are going to be needed every year until 2035. The Plan should be more realistic and
reflect this fact.

There is no additional housing allocation for areas within the South Downs National Park.
The SDNP should take its fair share of the allocation - otherwise, the villages in the SDNP will not thrive, more village schools will be closed and communities will suffer as a result.
Also refers to S5 & S19

I share a concern, with many many other residents in The District, with the Central Government Directive of the need to build any more than the already excessive 435 New Homes per annum.

Since the existing Local Plan was made and adopted in 2015, nothing has been achieved to mitigate the impact of any additional house building on the already severely stretched infrastructure. Most importantly the effect the ever increasing road traffic will have on the transport network in the Plan Area. As each year goes by this will only worsen to the stage where gridlock will occur on most of the roads around Chichester, for most of the day!

I firmly believe that CDC is in a strong position to challenge this Directive to build yet more homes which the District cannot structurally accommodate.

Similar concerns are expressed regarding the strain on our Doctors Practices, with disturbingly long appointment waiting times, and our Hospitals with ever lengthening waiting times. And, to some degree, places for children and students in our overcrowded Schools.

There appears to be NO proposed investment in any of these flaws in the future of this LP Review and if this Government Directive goes ahead it will be a disaster for us all.

I am a resident of Donnington and am disappointed with the ridiculous scheme which you are proposing. In addition, I have not the slightest confidence that the scheme will be completed within budget and on time. The footbridge at the Stockbridge roundabout was a fiasco and if you cannot complete such a relatively small project, I am not convinced any of you are capable of taking on a much larger scheme.

I agree with all of our parish council recommendations and comments below.

DONNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL OBJECTIONS
Donnington residents will be hugely disadvantaged by proposed changes to A27 access arrangements under Policy S23 and the Peter Brett Associates report - effectively no access to the East from Donnington (or the Manhood Peninsula) via A27 unless residents either head West first, encountering the amended Fishbourne Roundabout which will prioritise through traffic and will include an additional junction. Alternative routes to the East are either through the City or via unsuitable "back roads", increasing traffic levels through Hunston and North Mundham. Increased traffic from Whyke (facing the same issue) will cause even more congestion between Donnington and Fishbourne.
* Site AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington parishes) includes a flood plain. Using data from CDC's flood plain assessment, the average height of flood water on the River Lavant is 2.05 metres (6.07 feet) above datum (sea level). This means that the road will have to be elevated by at least 2.5 metres and more with the supporting structures and road thickness itself. Therefore nearer 4 metres (13 feet). This would destroy the iconic views of the cathedral framed by the South Downs. The protection proposed by para 3 of Policy AL6 is unachievable. REMOVE POLICY AL6
* Each of the five junction modifications will require three years of work. This means 15 years of misery for Chichester residents whilst the junction works take place. We all remember the chaos caused by the replacement of one footbridge in Stockbridge, bringing gridlock to the area. (Policy S23 and Peter Brett Associates Transport Assessment)
* Overall, the plans for improvements to the junctions are to the advantage of through traffic not local residents. The proposals bear a marked similarity to Option 3a from the Highways England Improvements to the Chichester A27 Bypass consultation, which were emphatically rejected by the local community - in Donnington and across the whole of Chichester. (Policy SP23 and Peter Brett Transport Assessment)
* Air Quality will further deteriorate as a result of the proposed plans. Stockbridge already exceeds the recommended air quality levels and development on this scale will increase the problem. This has serious health implications for residents. (Policy DM24 & SP28)
* The South Downs National Park should take its allocation of 41 dwellings per annum - without some low level development in the Park, particularly social housing, communities there will not thrive. (Policy S3, Policy S5 & Policy S19 )
* There are no proposals for any new primary schools in the Manhood Peninsula. This will only increase pressure on current schools to provide more places, and lead to increased traffic on the roads as parents are forced to commute to schools outside their local area where spaces may be available.
* Impact on ecology - the Chichester Harbour and surrounding area are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have the status of being a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Site of Special Scientific Interest and is a Ramsar site. It is wholly inappropriate to consider development on this scale in such close proximity to an area with this status. There will be a significantly adverse impact on the ecology of the area and mitigation is not sufficient. (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
* Green tourism is a very important part of the Manhood Peninsula economy and to overdevelop and spoil the natural environment which attracts this trade would be inappropriate and hugely detrimental (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
* A viable alternative site is available for industrial development within the buffer zone at Goodwood and the employment land should be allocated there. (Policy AL6, S15, S16)

Housing figures need to be realistic with the land and infrastructure available and must include SDNP using their allocation within the SDNP otherwise the park becomes unsustainable to people living their. It becomes a museum. Small scale affordable local connection housing is vital to sustain the parks human viability

I strongly feel that the the housing targets set by the government should be reviewed. The A27 is at s stand still most day and at capacity. Even with any of these planned A27 improvements on line, we will reach capacity again immediately. The pollution through built up areas and several local schools surrounding the A27 is only set to get worse. We need a real solution to the pollution and congestion and strongly feel only a northern route is the solution. How can we approve all these new builds when we clogged with pollution?

That proposing 1933 new dwellings on the Manhood is excessive because of its dependence on only two access roads from the A27 and the distance of travel needed to schools, employment, retail, banking and other essential services in Chichester.

I appreciate that the housing numbers proposed in the LPR have been imposed by central government, but for CDC to refer to the housing target numbers as minimums appears seriously flawed. This will surely encourage developers to submit plans for greater numbers than might otherwise be the case. It also makes it very difficult for local communities to resist further development when the "minimum" figure has been reached. The housing numbers imposed are already greater than the district can reasonably bear, so for CDC to set minimum targets is doing a great disservice on all counts, and particularly on environmental grounds.

Chichester district already suffers from insufficient road capacity and the plans for the A27 junctions and link road will not solve the problem. The junction changes will not solve the lack of road capacity for through and local traffic, and restricting right-hand turning at junctions will make local journeys more difficult. The proposed AL6 link road would direct more traffic off the A27 on to the A286, one of the most congested roads in the district, providing access to some of the most popular tourism destinations on the Manhood Peninsula. For this reason alone it should be resisted.

I am concerned that East Wittering/Bracklesham have been classed as a "settlement hub". The definition of a settlement hub should include good access to the main road network, the rail network, employment and secondary and higher education facilities. These villages do not have easy access to these services, being situated in a "cul-de-sac", on the congested A286. They are essentially rural, seaside communities which rely heavily on tourism for their economy and it is their rural nature which attracts so many visitors. The 350 minimum homes proposed for these two villages would have severe implications on all aspects of the local infrastructure, particularly the roads.

Living off Bell Lane in Somerley, I would like to draw your attention to the findings of the Peter Brett Transport Study for the LPR. It states that the forecast for the increase in road noise arising from a further 350 homes in East Wittering/Bracklesham along the length of Bracklesham Lane, the B2198, is "major". Bracklesham Lane leads into Bell Lane as it passes through the Somerley Conservation Area and it is vital that mitigation measures should be taken to reduce the effects of the additional traffic noise, preferably in the form of a speed limit reduction to 30mph. The accident rate on this road is already higher than average, including fatalities.

Selsey, another "settlement hub", has been badly affected by excessive suburban development in recent years with no improvement to its local infrastructure. The further extensive housing numbers proposed for this fishing and seaside village risk undermining its attraction to tourists. It is important that development of these seaside communities is carefully designed and limited in numbers to prevent over-suburbanisation. It should also be recognised that the geography of the peninsula means that access to and from the coast will always be restricted and subject to severe congestion. Additional housing on the Manhood Peninsula will only worsen this unresolvable situation and must be considered with caution to maintain its attractiveness to tourists who contribute so greatly to the economy of the Chichester district.

The Manhood Peninsula is also one of the last remaining rural hinterlands on the south coast plain. It contains several internationally designated habitat sites which are among the most important wildlife areas in the Chichester district. CDC should consider strengthening the ICZM to recognise the international importance of the peninsula, further safeguarding its environment and associated green tourism. The provision of wildlife corridors are probably more important here than anywhere else in the district. In addition, the AL6 proposed link road and commercial development would be adjacent to internationally designated habitat sites, cross two flood zones, and impair significant views of the cathedral and the Downs, contrary to CDC's ICZM policy. This proposed road appears to fail on all counts.

In conclusion, therefore, I would ask CDC to abandon proposals for the AL6 link road and junction changes on the A27, which are a waste of money, and instead urge the government to invest in a long-term, sustainable solution for the A27 so that the district is more able to accommodate the increased housing numbers being imposed on it. I would also like to see the minimum housing target numbers changed to maximum and remove East Wittering/Bracklesham as a settlement hub for the reasons set out above.

I write as a resident of the Witterings. I am writing to beg you to consider the following when deciding upon the future housing predicted at the local meetings to be far in excess, in my opinion, of what the area can take and i list the reasons

1) there are no jobs
2) the potential 2000 new homes will most likely get sold to DFL (down from London) or 2nd home owners so not helping the Government's need for more housing
3) the increase of potentially 4,000 more cars on the single carriageway A286
4) the increased issues of air pollution with the extra traffic
5) the issues of the 1000s of cars driving to and from the beach when the sun shines, not when its hot you understand, simply when the sun shines
6) if the Manhood simply ends up as a housing estate the drop off of tourism will be effected
7) more cars at Stockbridge roundabout!...someone is having a laugh!
8) the issues of water table (Birdham new houses experienced dreadful issues with this i understand with toilets not flushing and resultant problems)
9) what does Special protectection Areas mean - Chichester Harbour an asset in danger
10) complete loss of character of this beautiful area - we must keep it safe - or lose existing holiday industry and jobs
11) no Banks in Witterings...i think the Bank in Selsey is now closed..can you imagine the trips into Chichester that this causes already?

In essence i am against the pludering of the land and gardens to make way for such excessive house building.

I do not understand the sense of absorbing 41 homes per annum into Chichester from the SDNP allocation. Surely the folks living within the SDNP would welcome affordable homes for their children/grandchildren and enable them to bring vitality into the villages, eg adequate schooling intake without the need for schools to remain functional by being dependant on absorbing kids from south of the SDNP boundary. I believe Chichester should not accept this allocation but with so many of the Councillors living north of the city, I really wonder how unbiased a vote would be to make this happen.

The South Downs National Park occupies aproximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportuniy for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Habour which has SPA staus and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particulary so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainabilty of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

Resident of West Wittering
Addressing bullet 'place housing in locations which are accessible by public transport to jobs, shopping, leisure, education and health facilities'

The Western Manhood lacks jobs, schools (in particular Secondary and Sixth Form), Health Centre over capacity and causing even more transport issues there has been a very significant increase in home deliveries.

Para 7.5 refers to retirement housing on the Western Manhood there is a surplus of Retirement Flats and nursing homes have closed.

Mention of housing needs must be in areas of need so that local connections can be maintained. so why is there no housing allocated for Lavant, Halnaker, Goodwood, West Dean etc. Even small developments need to take place in these areas to allow continuity and diversity of communities ie mixed demographics from all groups. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the the plan, i will raise it with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Is there any way of ensuring that the substantial housing developments which are proposed are used primarily for the relief of the local housing shortage rather than being bought as weekend residences? Also, given the projected aging population of the area, has there been adequate provision of affordable sheltered accommodation?

Until there is some proper control over holiday home purchases we will forever be building homes for people who already have a house. What about a refusal to allow new homes to be sold to anyone not resident for the first year that said home is on sale? People should be able to have second homes but should not have them at the expense of those who have no home by artificially increasing the call for houses and thus their prices.

Birdham Parish Council objects to the following aspects of the Local Plan Review 2019-2035.
1. This plan is based on building 650 houses per year, 609 for the Plan Area, and 41 from the South Downs National Park. Not a single sentence in the entire plan tries to justify the increase from the Adopted Plan figure of 435, to this new figure, an increase of 49%. The adopted plan explained at length the difficulties of balancing the environmental and infrastructural constraints with the need to build houses. Considerable justification should be needed to increase the housing requirement so much, and none is provided. This figure must be revisited.
2. This plan is based on a figure of 609 houses per year, an uplift of 40% on the current annual delivery, which is the maximum allowed, as Chichester District Council have an Adopted Local Plan. If an Adopted Local Plan had not been in place the HEDNA (GL Hearn) calculates the District increase in housing for demographic growth to be 517 houses p.a, based on the 2014 Household Projections. This figure includes the South Downs National Park. There has been an updated 2016 based Household Projection, which decreases the forecast housing required nationwide over the next 25 years by 24%. This means that the latest available household growth projection growth over the plan period is likely to be in the order of 392 houses p.a. The South Downs National Park are planning to supply 84, leaving 308 needed for demographic growth in the Plan area. Even adding the ridiculous 51.5% multiplier for earning/house price ratio still only gets to 466 houses per year. It is most unlikely that 609 houses are going to be needed every year until 2035. The Plan should be more realistic and reflect this fact.

3. There is a fundamental unfairness in the Local Plan Review, in that the South Downs National Park is treated as more worthy of protection than the Chichester Harbour AONB, Pagham Harbour SPA and Medmerry designated SPA, which has led to an imbalance in the way the whole plan has been developed. This is made very clear by the proposal to accept an allocation of 41 houses per year from the South Downs National Park. This proposal should be rejected. The South Downs National Park covers 1796 sq. km, has 39 villages and towns listed in its local plan, including substantial towns like Petersfield, Midhurst, Lewes and Petworth, The National Park needs to build its own share of houses, otherwise it will become fixed in a time warp. The Duty to Co-operate should work both ways.
4. A Plan housing figure of 650 houses p.a. will make it extremely difficult to show a 5 year land supply. CDC have only just managed to prove a 5 year supply based on 435 houses p.a. Without a 5 year land supply, the whole point of a local plan is moot.
5. Strategic site AL6 is situated immediately adjacent to the Chichester Harbour AONB. This cannot possibly meet the requirements of Policy DM19. The commercial part of this site is located between the Fishbourne and Stockbridge roundabouts, two of the most congested and polluted roundabouts on an already congested road, which contravenes Policy DM8: Transport, Accessibility and Parking. The location of this site should be moved to the east of the city, where there are already substantial commercial developments. Another possible location is around the Goodwood Race Track, which would act as a noise barrier to protect local housing in the area.
6. This disregard for the Chichester Harbour AONB is further evidenced by the proposal to build a link road between the Fishbourne Roundabout and the A286. This road will be within 300 metres of the AONB and will be elevated because of the low lying ground which it crosses. This will ruin the view of the Cathedral from the harbour and generate large amounts of noise and pollution, thus disturbing the harbour, and further cut off the harbour from the city.
7. Birdham Parish Council objects to the housing allocation proposed for the Western Manhood Peninsula generally (the section of the peninsula accessed by the A 286), and Birdham in particular. The Adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 states in Para. 4.9 "More limited new development is proposed for the Manhood Peninsula, in recognition of the significant transport and environmental constraints (including flood risk) affecting the area. Policies for the peninsula follow the principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management, which seeks to protect the area's sensitive environment and adapt to climate change." For these reasons, the total number of houses for the Western Manhood was set at 330 by 2029, a target that has already been greatly exceeded. Now, another 600 houses (Donnington 100, Birdham 125, West Wittering 25, Bracklesham 350) are proposed, and the transport and environmental constraints, which have not changed in the slightest from the adopted plan, are simply ignored.

8. These environmental constraints are:
i. Proximity to the Chichester Harbour AONB Pagham Harbour SPA and Medmerry
designated SPA
There are no accepted proposals to improve traffic flow on the A27, apart from some improvements to junctions. Proposals very similar to these were roundly condemned during the Highways England A27 consultation process. The improvements which will have to be funded by the developers will take 15 years to complete at a rate of one junction every 3 years.
This means 15 years of disruption and delays.
iii In addition, the A286 is an extremely busy road at all times, but especially during the summer, when it becomes completely gridlocked. There have been 2 traffic fatalities in Birdham on the A286 in the last 2 years. There has been a considerable loss of jobs from the peninsula over the last few years, so most residents of newly built houses will be using the A286 to travel to work, increasing the burden on the road. In addition, the majority of secondary school pupils need to travel into Chichester, using the A286. All that attend Sixth Form College from the Peninsula have to travel into Chichester. This accounts for in all at least 1000 students.
iv There is considerable pressure on primary (junior) school places on the peninsula.
v The sewerage network is close to capacity, with sewerage overflows not uncommon in wet weather.

9. The Western Manhood's requirement for affordable housing is fully met, we understand.
10. In the first 4 years of the adopted Local Plan Birdham has provided 94 (79 in Neighbourhood Plan, 15 windfall) houses built, under construction, or with planning permission, 88% more than our requirement of 50. If we are required to build another 125, we would have a total increase of 220, which is an increase of about 33% on our pre Adopted Plan housing total. The total district requirement, using the proposed figures, seems to us to be about 20% for the whole district. It seems to us as unreasonable that Birdham should accept more than its share of the District burden, especially as these houses would have to be built within a few hundred metres of the Chichester Harbour AONB, a very small AONB already under enormous pressure. It seems to us that a reasonable number of houses for Birdham to be allocated in the review period would be 50, as that would keep our village's growth in line with the district as a whole.
11. Para 17 of the Adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 stated that because the Tangmere Water Works upgrade would only be operational from 2019, the proposed strategic allocations in the Chichester/Tangmere area were not expected to be deliverable until after 2019. To compensate for this, the Plan strategy sought the early release of housing land in areas where wastewater capacity was available, i.e. the Manhood Peninsula. Building on the Peninsula was front loaded for this reason. In the event that it is decided to retain the proposed numbers in the Plan Review, the requirement to build should be deferred until there improvements to the A27 have been implemented.

Conclusion
Birdham Parish Council object to the proposal to build 650 houses per year in the Plan area. The request to take 41 houses from the SDNP should be refused.
In addition, the Plan figure of 609 should be revisited in the light of the 2016 Household Projections, and the environmental and infrastructural constraints highlighted in the Adopted Plan.
Site AL6 should be moved, and any plans to build a link road should be abandoned
Birdham Parish Council objects to the proposal to build 600 houses on the Western Manhood Peninsula, due to the lack of a credible plan to improve the transport network, and environmental constraints outlined in the 2014 Plan.
Additionally, we object to the proposal to build 125 houses in Birdham, on the grounds that this is a greater share of the overall burden than average, in an environmentally sensitive area that straddles the AONB border.

We now know that Chichester is the 5th most expensive place in the country to buy a house compared with the gross average earnings. (The Independent) Therefore it is unlikely that these proposed houses will sell successfully. The Government needs to reconsider its local plan for this area.

We wish to raise our OBJECTION to the Local Plan under consultation at this present time.
The Plan is fundamentally flawed. To be able to comment and analyse the plan correctly, there is one glaring fault which makes the plan invalidate. The transport model used for the plan is the Peter Brett Assoc report of 2010. This PBA consultation has been proved to be incorrect when issued and has not been changed so it is now incorrect and woefully outdated. You cannot produce a plan that has no up to date valid transport infrastructure/data included in it.
Furthermore, you have included a link road and development in AL6 Apuldram/Donnington which cannot be included as there is no funding for it or the upgrade of junctions that would be required at Fishbourne roundabout and there is no evidence that the correct and proper consultation with Highways England has taken place.
For a Local Plan to exclude all development however small in the North of the city is an unfair and makes the rest of the plan a nonsense and smacks of undue influence from certain quarters. To state that the SDNP means that no development can take place because of its special status is absurd. Chichester Harbour has the same protected status as an AONB, SSI, SAR etc and yet you are happy to include plans to concrete within 100mtrs of it. The SDNP is at least 1km from any area that was identified in previous drafts of this report and then mysteriously removed !!
This Local plan is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, with very little details on how mitigation would take place for these vast developments planned along with very vague lip service to how the infrastructure of Schools, doctors and other such services are going to be implemented or funded, or if in many cases like Graylingwell, who were promised a school, put in at planning and then ignored.
Therefore we wish to OBJECT to the plan and will seeking to raise our concerns with the examiner at the appropriate time if these failings are not addressed

The figure of 1,933 dwellings for Manhood Peninsula does not match the sum of the respective areas. Mike Allgrove gave 950 as the figure when speaking to the Peninsula Forum. This is matched by the figures in para 4.126 plus 25 for West Wittering and 125 for Birdham. Why the discrepancy?

1.Fishbourne has already absorbed a good deal of new housing and the detrimental effect of this is so apparent on the infrastructure of the village.
2. The extra strain of more housing, more cars and the strain on schooling, dentists and doctors surgery is all too apparent, and is placing an intolerable burden on the inhabitants of Fishbourne.
3. The ghastly mess being created on Clay Lane to the east from a building site that is clearly severely waterlogged which will throw even more traffic onto an existing dangerous rat run.(even though this is a Chichester development it affects the people of Fishbourne).
4. Any attempt to gain planning consent for 250 houses on Bethwines Farm should and will be be strenuously opposed by the residents of Fishbourne. 250 houses equal 500 car these days so where on earth will this traffic go! The very thought of a 1000 homes fills me with horror. Do you planning people not care about the effect on the lives of residents in Fishbourne.
5.I attended the meeting on the 16th of January and was shocked to see the scale of development proposed on going on the road to Emsworth. 1500 houses in Southbourne- its quite shocking. I asked one of your staff present whether surely a further access road to the A27 was a necessity but no answer was forthcoming.
What can happen at the Tescos roundabout I ask? It is living hell now and so hated by everyone in the village yet nothing happens- I think the word disgrace sums it up!
6.I think the comments raised in the open meeting on the 4th December are so very relevant and I endorse everything mentioned.

LASTLY, I THOUGHT THAT THE POWER WAS BEING GIVEN BACK TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SO HOW CAN CENTRAL GOVERNMENT FORCE THEIR WILL ON US ALL BY INSISTING UPON ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT.

Waverley Borough Council has no major concerns regarding this review of your Local Plan. We wish to ensure that Chichester DC can achieve your housing target without the need to seek assistance from Waverley Borough Council.
However, if indications are that you will not be able to accommodate all of the identified housing need within your borough, you will need an evidence base to demonstrate clearly that all possible options for meeting this need have been fully explored and that you will have active discussions with other authorities within your Housing Market Area to examine how any unmet need could be accommodated elsewhere within the HMA.