Policy S6: Affordable Housing

The percentage of affordable housing needs to be higher in and around Chichester City than in the villages and communities without easy access onto the A27 or rail network. A one size all policy for housing density and affordable housing provision is not suitable for the district.More social housing is needed for Chichester City.

This does not go far enough. Southbourne is being inundated with large, expensive homes which are bought by people moving down from London or Surrey. This does not assist local housing needs in any way.

Resident of West Wittering
Affordable (Social) Housing has is more in need than Market Housing and the % should be 40%. However, in the Witterings the community has exceed the 'in need' demand for Social Housing.

It MUST be affordable.Very small amount now are affordable.Developers provide the bear minimum. Chichester although appears affluent, a large proportion of the population are actually earning below the national wage average. affordable is relative.£400k house is not affordable to someone earning £25k a year. Developments need to be majority affordable housing with local connection. Locals cannot now afford to stay in the city they were born in.

I think greater use could be made of existing empty properties in Chichester to provide affordable housing . My flat overlooks Chapel Street and 2 floors of the office block opposite have been empty for many years. Priority should be given to those without a car to reduce parking needs and reduce pollution

I am concerned that the affordable housing is beyond the reach of those who really need it.

How do we make sure that those who attain it are local people?

There must be insistence on a higher proportions of affordable housing.
It's downright silly to turn 'fractions' of homes into money - round up the requirement to whole homes.
Do not allow developers to wriggle out of responsibility for the percentage of affordable units they build - schemes must be properly costed initially and should not be approved if there is any doubt over whether they are viable.

Regarding new housing and its location: developments outside the immediate environs of Chichester - namely Tangmere - struggle to be filled: transport and access to schools, medical facilities and shops hinder these developments. Affordable dwellings have been prioritised for residents from outside the local area through the developers links to other counties. There needs to be clearly documented evidence of who occupies these new affordable homes, and whether they work in the local area.

The aspiration that affordable housing should be indistinguishable from market housing in terms of external appearance etc is difficult to reconcile with the existing practice which means that affordable housing is distinguished by not having garages

In view of the pressure on land for development of housing and its consequent affects on the environment for existing residents, the level of affordable housing for local people should be increased to avoid the situation whereby the land is developed for those wishing to move into the area affecting property values and disadvantaging local residents trying to buy their first homes.

Does there need to be reference to CLT in the policy as well as in para. 4.45 for this intention to be effective?

The need for more affordable homes across the country is fully appreciated, and Linden Homes and Miller Homes have already committed to delivery of a policy compliant 30% affordable housing on the first part of the West of Chichester site, equating to 225 new affordable homes. However, the new NPPF places more emphasis on testing the viability of development at plan making stage rather than on a site by site basis (paragraph 57, NPPF). This, coupled with the Council's suggested additional requirements relating to such things as optional technical standards, stricter housing mix criteria and sustainable design standards, all place significant additional burden on a sites viability than was the case when policy 34: Affordable Housing, was adopted. It also does not appear to take account of potentially high provision of infrastructure costs required on larger strategic sites, such as West if Chichester. The draft policy DM1 maintains a requirement to provide 30% affordable housing, and it is not clear whether this takes account of these additional viability burdens and the national policy shift towards assessing viability at local plan preparation stage.

4.34
Affordable housing is not defined in this document. Typically "affordable Housing" in this Council areas is unaffordable to many people.

Policy S6
A 30% provision is unacceptably low. We recommend a minimum of 35%.

Paragraph 4.39 conflicts with the 2018 NPPF definition of affordable housing which identifies various types of affordable housing which do not require that they

"should be provided or managed by Registered Providers (RP), and preferably by one of its development partners or an incorporated Community Led Housing group. However, in exceptional circumstances, the Council may use its discretion to allow other 'Approved Bodies' to deliver affordable housing units. This will, at all times, be strictly in line with the NPPF."

Examples include Build to Rent, Self Build, Starter Homes, Discounted Market Homes etc.

My objection is to section 4.40 "The Council requires affordable housing to be provided on-site, unless there are exceptional circumstances that mean off-site provision or a financial contribution of broadly equivalent value can be robustly justified and the agreed approach contributes to the objective of creating mixed and balanced communities." The should be no exception. All developments MUST offer affordable housing IN that development. We are building houses so people can live in them and have a home. There is NO exception to ensuring that happens.

Policy S6
A 30% provision is unacceptably low. We recommend a minimum of 35%.

The allocation of 500 homes in the Chidham and Hambrook area is excessive and is not supported by the Council's Sustainability Appraisal.

I object because:
1. The Local Plan promotes the joining of settlements between Chichester to Emsworth, which will adversely impact the special and unique character of these villages. This is in line with the Parish Council's response to Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy.
2. The Local Plan Review has failed to make a proper distribution of housing in the Parish. The so-called comprehensive selection process undertaken by the planners in their Strategic Site Allocation exercise, and subsequently approval by the District Councillors, is woeful, as it is simply based upon developers' estimates, which have not followed the density benchmarks as per Policy DM3, and also have not been moderated for locations adjacent to sensitive locations. (as Parish Council's response to Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy.)
3. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan -http://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31025 (Pages 106-111 for our Parish) which supports the Local Plan is not fit for purpose. It does not adequately address the transportation, educational, medical and general amenities needs of the area that will take a long time to put in place, and not in time for a community which is expected to grow by over 50% in the plan period. This also includes the ongoing debacle about plans for the future of the A27, while in the meantime the A259 takes an ever increasing volume of local traffic. See Parish Council's response AL10/SA10 S23.
4. The Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives (section 3.6 of the Local Plan) and the Sustainability Appraisal in relation to Chidham and Hambrook are contradictory. See Parish Council's response Policy S26/DM19 Natural Environment. If the latter prevails we will see the loss of key landscape views, the loss of high quality grade 1 and 2 farmland, a further deterioration in water quality, and further increased disruption to internally important migrating birds.

Whilst everyone in the parish fully acknowledges it has a responsibility to contribute to the need for more new housing in the District, there is no justification for the 500 homes slated for Chidham & Hambrook, a number which is excessive and not supported by any documentation.

Most importantly, it is also at odds with the standard method for assessing local housing need, based on the recently reduced ONS estimates of local housing requirements which, In September 2018, revised down its previous 2014 estimate of 210,000 new households per year to 159,000 per year in England, a huge reduction of 25%

It is also highly likely that there are reduced affordability ratios in the Chidham and Hambrook area compared to Bosham and Fishbourne which are closer to Chichester (this area is likely closer to the Havant figure of a 9.2 price to earnings ratio rather than the Chichester one of 13.5)

Adjustment factor equation to take account of affordability

There is also no account taken of the release of properties from landlords for sales in the area. As the affordability factor on new houses is 9.7, and existing houses 7.6, there should be a focused campaign on driving landlords to sell more houses already in the area, rather than building new ones.

For all the reasons given above the allocated number of houses it was stated should be significantly reduced by at least 50%, to 250 houses
Maximum

Finally, dealing with two specific local proposals by landowners:
1. Orchard Farm, Drift Lane - this campsite and caravan site has been offered for development. This single track road is already blocked by construction traffic for a single house currently being built. It is not conceivable that access for any construction traffic would be practicable to build any future house in Drift Lane.
2. Baileys fields - Pallant homes. Based on all of the considerations given above, this development is too large altogether at 500 homes.

Developer viability assessments

It is also notable that, when houses are built, developers do not make the most of the land that they own. Many housebuilders hide behind the viability assessment in not building a suitable number of affordable homes. The government has said that "this assessment should only be used when circumstances have made the council's requirements literally impossible." In all case developers trying to hide behind viability assessment should be made to publish their reasoning so that the local public can scrutinize it and, if the developers refuse to do this, their plans should also be refused.

Policy S 6. Affordable Housing
Paragraph 5.comment
Where a proposal is unable to meet the1 requirements for the delivery of affordable housing due to it rendering the proposal financially unviable, developers will be expected to assess options in accordance with the following

Changes Insert
1 Where the authority has been satisfied that a proposal is genuinely unable to meet the requirements

Justification
The required numbers of affordable housing are simply not being delivered.
Reports by the charities Shelter and CPRE show that developers frequently break promises about the number of affordable housing they will deliver, using a the "viability" loophole. The loophole involves paying high prices for land in the knowledge that the overpayment can be recouped by reducing the obligation to deliver a specified number of affordable houses.
The authority needs to be able to challenge any claims of non-viability, and the onus of proof should be firmly on the developer. Where the developer claim an exemption this should be thoroughtly scrutinised
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/loophole-lets-developers-halve-number-of-affordable-homes-8nn3kmcj7
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/03/affordable-housing-rural-england-planning-laws-loophole-exploited-developers-report
https://www.s106affordablehousing.co.uk/

Policy S24 Countryside. 
Section 5.36 comment
Paragraph
Areas outside settlement boundaries are defined as 'countryside' which includes villages, hamlets, farms and other buildings as well as undeveloped open land. In order to protect the landscape, character, quality and tranquillity of the countryside 1 it is essential to prevent inappropriate development. At the same time, it is necessary to provide for the social and economic needs of small rural communities, and enable those who manage, live and work in the countryside to continue to do so.

Changes Insert
1 tranquility, the natural environment and biodiversity of the countryside

Justification
The terms "landscape character, quality and tranquillity of the countryside" imply a limited valuation of the countryside- ie. as long as it looks nice and sounds nice....

This ignores the important issue of biodiversity loss and can make it easier to overlook biodiversity needs and allow developments that will increase the catastrophic losses of recent years.

The Living Planet report of 2018, published by the WWF reports that humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970.

The 2016 State of Nature Report states that the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, and that in the UK one in ten species is threatened with extinction.

The loss of biodiversity leads to the loss of the many services that they provide, ie. flood control, water and air purification, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, pest control, pollination etc.

Section 5.38
Paragraph Object
The Council also wants to find ways of enhancing the character and appearance of the countryside, the amenities and opportunities that it offers, and its biodiversity1. However, there are dwellings and enterprises in these countryside areas, and particular needs arising from rural activities.2
To support a prosperous and diverse rural economy, some limited and carefully planned development may be acceptable to enable the countryside and local rural communities to evolve and thrive. 3

Changes Insert
1 while protecting its biodiversity

2 However, there are dwellings and enterprises in these countryside areas, and particular needs arising from rural activities, which can compete or conflict with these.

3 Where these conflict with the obligations towards character, tranquillity and biodiversity, mitigation measures will be required.

Justification
We are already suffering incremental loss of the countryside. The 2018 report by the CPRE. Government data shows that the loss of greenfield land to development has increased by 58% in the last four years. The present wording in the local plan still seems to give some preference to development in such a way that it will continue this incremental loss.

https://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/4867-countryside-being-lost-to-housing-at-an-alarming-rate-increase-brownfield-development

Section 5.40
Paragraph comment
Where development is proposed in the countryside, the Council will seek the beneficial management of the countryside. This will include encouragement of proposals that enhance the woodlands and recreational links1 to and within this area.

Changes Insert
1 and ecosystem links

Justification
See above 5.36

Policy S24: Countryside
Paragraph comment
Outside settlement boundaries as defined on the policies map, development will be permitted in the countryside provided that:
1. It conserves and, where possible, enhances the key features and qualities of the rural and landscape character1 of the countryside setting; 

2.It is of an appropriate scale, siting and design that is unlikely to cause unacceptable harm to the appearance of the countryside;2 and 

Changes Insert
1 rural, landscape and ecosystem character of the countryside setting

2 cause unacceptable harm to the appearance, ecosystems and biodiversity of the countryside

Justification
See above 5.36 5.38 5.40

Policy S26: Natural Environment
Section 5.50
Paragraph comment
The natural environment is under significant pressure to accommodate a range of demands1. This includes modern farming practices which have an influence on the evolving2 landscape and biodiversity of our countryside as well as development that more directly facilitates addressing housing needs and provides for economic growth.3

Changes Insert
1a range of demands that are often conflicting

2have often contributed significantly to the loss of many native species, biodiversity and local ecosystems

3developments that address housing needs and provide economic growth contribute significantly to this loss of the natural environment

Justification
The Living Planet report of 2018, published by the WWF reports that humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970.

The 2016 State of Nature Report states that the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, and that in the UK one in ten species is threatened with extinction.

Both reports state that agricultural practices are one of the main drivers of this decline, but that road building and housing are causing ever increasing fragmentation of the countryside. This leads to the collapse of viable habitats and the loss of species and ecosystems at an unprecedented rate.

The loss of biodiversity leads to the loss of the many services that they provide, ie. flood control, water and air purification, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, pest control, pollination etc.

Section 5.51
Paragraph comment/comment/object
In seeking to reconcile these1 demands on the natural environment, the Council will only support proposals that do not cause significant harm to the function2 of the natural environment. This includes ensuring the richness of the landscape and biodiversity of the area is not unduly compromised,3 with opportunities taken to enhance their value where appropriate.

Changes Insert
evaluate these conflicting1 demands

2 to the networks that are part of an integrated and functioning natural environment.

3The council will protect the richness of the landscape and biodiversity of the area.
Where developments are likely to compromise the natural environment, strategies that cause the least harm will be used, ie. using brown field sites wherever available as a matter of priority. The council will also prioritise development that have a smaller footprint and therefore require less land.

Justification
A report by the CPRE in 2016 states that there were enough brownfield sites in England to build 1.1 million new homes. There were almost enough brownfield sites for the councils participating in the report to meet their five-year housing targets without releasing any countryside for development.

https://www.cpre.org.uk/media-centre/latest-news-releases/item/4414-more-than-a-million-homes-possible-on-suitable-brownfield-land

Section 5.53
Paragraph object
Much of the undeveloped coastal plain of the plan area is high quality agricultural land which falls within Grades 1, 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. In planning for the sustainable growth of the plan area, it is recognised that there may be occasions when the loss of such land is necessary. 1

Delete and replace

1 Where loss of such land may be thought necessary, this can only be granted when all other options have been fully explored and it has been comprehensively demonstrated that there is no alternative.

Justification
The loss of agricultural land has serious consequences for our food self-sufficiency. Defra states that we only produce 60% of our food and this is declining further. Moreover, this level of production relies on intensive farming methods that harms our natural environment and is contributes hugely to biodiversity loss. A recent CPRE reports shows that intensive farming methods are seriously degrading our soil and that future productivity will consequently be reduced. Measures needed to protect agricultural soils have to be less intensive, and consequently less productive. It is important that the loss of agricultural land is kept to an absolute minimum.

https://www.foodmanufacture.co.uk/Article/2018/08/07/Food-self-sufficiency-highlighted
https://www.cpre.org.uk/resources/farming-and-food/farming/item/5013-back-to-the-land-rethinking-our-approach-to-soil

S26
Paragraph object
Bullet point 4
Cons Considering the quality of the agricultural land, with the development of poorer quality agricultural land being preferred to the best and most versatile land. 

Delete and replace
Where loss of agricultural land may be thought necessary, this can only be granted when all other options have been fully explored and it has been comprehensively demonstrated that there is no alternative. The biodiversity value of all agricultural land must be considered.

Justification
Poorer quality agricultural land may have significant biodiversity value.

Policy S28 Pollution
Section 5.60
Paragraph Object
Some forms of development can result in pollutants, but are necessary to meet the economic and social needs of the plan area. These may include industrial and commercial land uses and new transport routes. Developers must submit robust and appropriate evidence to enable assessment whether there is a likely significant adverse effect on health and quality of life as a result of the development. Mitigation measures should be included in proposals where evidence suggests a likely significant adverse effect.

Changes Insert
This needs a whole extra paragraph on the problem of air pollution. It needs to acknowledge that traffic is a major cause of air pollution and that new transport routes are likely to add to the problem as new roads end up meaning more traffic. mitigation measures are unlikely to be a solution. Its needs to make a commitment to proactive measures to promote alternatives. The local plan seems to pay lip service to promoting alternatives such as walking, cycle routes, public transport and EV charging points, but delivery of these seems poor.

Justification
Air pollution, largely due to traffic emissions, is a major health hazard. (On a personal note, a member of my family died a day before his 22nd birthday, last March, from an asthma attack. His asthma was considered under medical control. He was in Bournemouth city centre at the time, so air quality is likely to have been a contributing factor to his death)
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/air-pollution/causes

Last year the UK were referred to Europe's highest court for failing to tackle illegal levels of air pollution.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/17/uk-taken-to-europes-highest-court-over-air-pollution

A recent report by the Welsh government demonstrates the cost effectiveness of investing in alternatives to road traffic.
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sitesplus/888/news/48759

Policy DM28: Natural Environment
Section 7.169
Paragraph Comment
Development proposals must take account of international, national and local designations as part of their application. Exceptions will only be made where no reasonable alternatives are available and the benefits of development clearly outweigh the negative impacts. Where a development proposal would result in any significant harm that cannot be prevented or mitigated, appropriate compensation will be sought. 1

Changes Insert
1 However, the council also recognizes that some developments will cause irreparable harm to local biodiversity, ie ancient woodlands, and that no mitigation or compensation measures will be adequate to make up for this loss.
Where this is the case the council undertakes to
* scrutinise Environmental Impact assessments for their thoroughness and veracity.
* Consider the development along with others in the vicinity, in order to also evaluate cumulative impacts

Policy DM28

Paragraph comment
The impact of proposals will be carefully assessed to ensure the protection, conservation and enhancement of the landscape of1 the Plan area. Planning permission will be granted2 where it can be demonstrated that all the following criteria have been addressed:

Changes Replace
1 and biodiversity
2 only be considered

Paragraph Comment
1.There is no adverse impact on:
* The openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park; and 

* The tranquil and rural character of the area.1

Changes Insert
* 1 The biodiversity of the area

Paragraph Comment
3. Development of poorer quality agricultural land has been fully considered in preference to best and most versatile land; 1 

Changes Insert
Poorer quality land will also be assessed for its biodiversity potential, and where this proves to be significant the land should be subject to the biodiversity protection measures.

Justification
Biodiversity is an essential feature of the natural environment. Treating it separately in the local plan risks a conflict between what is permitted under one heading, but not permitted under the other.

The Living Planet report of 2018, published by the WWF reports that humanity has wiped out 60% of mammals, birds, fish and reptiles since 1970.

The 2016 State of Nature Report states that the UK is one of the most nature depleted countries in the world, and that in the UK one in ten species is threatened with extinction.

This is despite considerable legislation to protect our ecosystems and biodiversity, much of it reflected in the good intention that make up part of the existing Local Plan.

The Chichester area has significant populations of threatened coastal, woodland and farmland species. Some of these populations are rapidly disappearing because of the cumulative impacts of farming practices, loss of habitat, disturbance from new developments and climate change. Populations that are barely surviving under these circumstances are likely to collapse completely if one more stress to their survival is added. Any decision to allow a development that will cause such a final collapse should not be taken lightly.

Continued below in D 29

Policy DM 29: Biodiversity
Section 7.172
Paragraph Comment
All new developments are encouraged1 to take account of and incorporate biodiversity

Exceptions will only be made where no reasonable alternatives are available and the benefits of development clearly outweigh the negative impacts. Where a development proposal would result in any significant harm to biodiversity and geological interests that cannot be prevented or mitigated, appropriate compensation will be sought. 2

Changes Insert/Replace
1 required

2 However, this in the recognition that some developments will cause irreparable harm to local biodiversity, ie ancient woodlands, and that no mitigation or compensation measures will be adequate to make up for this loss.

Policy DM29:
Paragraph Comment
Planning permission will be granted 1 for development where it can be demonstrated that all the following criteria have been addressed:

Changes Insert/Replace
1 Only be considered

Section 6
Paragraph Comment
The benefits of development outweigh any adverse impact on the biodiversity on the site. Exceptions will only be made where no reasonable alternatives are available; and planning conditions and/or planning obligations may1 be imposed to mitigate or compensate for the harmful effects of the development. 

Changes Insert/Replace
1 will

Justification
Planners must not lose sight of the fact that biodiversity requires a genuine range of habitats. For instance, while the emphasis on ecological networks and wildlife corridors is important for many species, but this is not enough.

Other species need dense woodland. with a well-developed canopy and understory, that provide a range of shelter and feeding opportunities. Developments on the edge of woodland alter habitats, and incrementally we are losing our dense woodland. Old trees are an essential feature of such woodland, providing holes and crevices for shelter and a myriad of feeding opportunities. Replanting young trees is not an adequate compensation.

Environmental Impact Assessments must be scrutinised carefully. The methods used in such assessments can, at times, be superficial and some conclusions can be misleading i.e. the presence of Bechstein bats, the rarest of UK mammals, was dismissed as "only of local value" in a planning application for oil exploration at Markwells Wood.

The loss of biodiversity leads to the loss of the many services that they provide, ie. flood control, water and air purification, nutrient recycling, carbon sequestration, pest control, pollination etc.

Our biodiversity is a precious feature of the Chichester area. While protecting this biodiversity will cause conflict with genuine housing and economic development, we have to guard against more spurious justifications. To put it bluntly, should we really lose our biodiversity for the sake of massive suburban sprawl of expensive executive homes?

See reps

Introduction
I agree with most of the points made in the Introduction, not least the points about affordable housing, (para 2.9) for which there is a clear demand and inherent because of the 0.75%pa rise in population and the yawning gap between incomes and house prices.
I will acknowledge that I am writing as a baby boomer, but I note the above average presence of senior citizens in the CDC area and your anticipation that it will rise to 35% by 2015 (para 2.8). This surely has implications for the facilities that CDC, and probably more so WSCC because of its responsibilities for social care, will need to provide, and I do not notice any focus on this in your introductory section. In fairness I am slightly more encouraged when I read paragraph 3.19
I would also ask how many of the young people educated in the area return here to live and work after qualifying. And if the number is low, why, and what do you propose to do to ameliorate the haemorrhage?
Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives
I agree with your list of items in paragraph 3.2. That said, I note that you state that people should be able to "move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel (my emphasis). This surely has major implications for public transport, for walking, and for cycling, and surely these should be highlighted in this introductory summary. I shall look forward to seeing what you have to say about these later in the document.
I agree with paragraph 3.3 - but what do you mean by your hope to "balance the ageing population"? That could sound horribly ominous!
In para 3.4 I understand the wish to diversify the local economy - but where are these new organisations to go? You talk about "new sustainable neighbourhoods on the eastern, western and southern sides of Chichester, which could, especially when one thinks of Whitehouse Farm, appear to presage a level of growth which will frighten many. I think that the example of Summersdale, where I live, does not bode entirely well, for it is largely devoid of any community centres and has no public transport in the evenings.
In para 3.6 you speak of a "highly accessible transit corridor" Do you really mean this, says he thinking of the state of Chichester by-pass, the queues that I see coming east on to the Fishbourne roundabout in the morning, and the rush-hour queues from Bognor? Perhaps I could add what the all too predictable impact of Whitehouse Farm will be on both the Fishbourne roundabout and the Northgate gyratory.
Re para 3.10, my understanding is that rather more than "moderate levels of growth" are proposed between Fishbourne and Southbourne, and I shudder at the impact on the A259, all the more so when I think of all that traffic passing through the narrow main road at Fishbourne and also coming out on to what is already a very dangerous Fishbourne roundabout, which I do my best to avoid now!
Turning to paragraph 3.19 I welcome, amongst the other points you make there, the references to affordable housing, to air quality, to the section on health and well-being, and (at a time of fears about global warming) to the reference to flood risk.
Spatial Strategy
I welcome the list of services and facilities mentioned in paragraph 4.12, as that most certainly is not the case in present-day Summersdale.
In fairness I recognise the increased demand for housing as mentioned in para 4.22, as this is inherent in an area of rising population and probably more single-person households (which I have not seen mentioned). I suspect, for instance, that I am far from alone in living singly since bereavement in the family house where I have lived for forty years and from which I have no plans to move. That said, enormous care will be needed in selecting the areas for expansion and the implications for infrastructure and community buildings. Moreover you are clearly right in para 4.30 to refer to longer term growth.
You are clearly right to talking of "meeting the housing needs of the plan area and tackling homelessness" in para 4.34. In all honesty I was appalled when I saw the numbers of people sleeping out late a night when I happened to walk home at a late hour last March. I did not think that such an inhuman state of affairs obtained in Chichester, and am horrified that it still apparently does. I strongly agree with paragraphs 4.43 and 4.44. I welcome the policy statement S6, even if I think that we really need is a return to council house building, as was used to solve even worse problems in the decades after 1945.
Re para 4.66 I have very mixed feelings. It has pleased me not to see the extent of boarded up properties that one sees elsewhere. That said:-
* I write as one who detests shopping and does very little within Chichester city centre; I probably use only about half a dozen shops and those only occasionally.
* I know that my wife always preferred to go to Worthing and can think of a friend who prefers Southampton.
* I think that you have to recognise as a fact of life that more people are going to shop on-line, not least for reasons of price, and that that inherently impacts on traditional retail shopping.
* I tend to do my shopping on the edge of town as that is where the big supermarkets are and parking is easy. I would take some persuasion to change that.
* Looking at policy S9, do you really need more shipping in the Southern Gateway at a time of decline of town centre retail shopping?
Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services
Paragraph 4.80 should also include cycle tracks and bus routes if you really want to move away from the use of private cars.
I note that paragraph 4.81 includes a reference to "appropriate revenue support". I fully agree and wish that I could believe that this present austerity-obsessed government would actually provide it.
Your policy S12 seems right to me.
East-West Corridor
I think that you are somewhat optimistic in paragraph 4.88. The 700 bus service is very good, but what about other routes, especially in the evening? The present state of the Chichester by-pass is dreadful, and the Fishbourne roundabout is a particular source of danger, moreover one likely to be made worse by more traffic coming from Whitehouse Farm and from further development along the A259.
Policy S13 seems fine to me.
Paragraphs 4.95-98 describe a situation that I know only too well. I would add that as a cyclist I find the western end of The Hornet and St Pancras to be by far the most dangerous pieces of road in Chichester, and I write as one who usually does not mind where he cycles.
I do not agree with paragraph 4.101 - I think that a park and ride is badly needed, arguably from both the west and the south.
Re policy S.14:-
* Re peripheral car parks, if you want to revive the city centre, is that really the answer? What about those who find walking difficult or who do not want to carry heavy shopping half a mile to their car?
* I shudder what the queues will be like with a bus lane up to the Bognor roundabout.
* I think that the present bus/rail interchange is quite good, though I think that you need safer crossing of the road and seats in the bus station
* I do not notice any statement about solving the problems caused by the level crossings by Chichester Station. Having had to wait there for over five minutes yesterday while a train was sitting in Chichester Station I feel bound to ask whether there cannot be some mechanism to bring the gates down just before a train is due to leave, and when you are going to have either a bridge or an underpass there.
Re paragraphs 4.103-105, wshat consideration has been given to the transport consequences of such development, especially given the absurd decision to remove the Oving lights?
Given that I live in Maplehurst road, you will not be surprised that I have noted policy S15. Essentially I welcome this policy, not least, as having some pretentions to being a musician, I am very aware of noise, and the weekends where un-silenced racing is allowed are truly a misery, which ideally would be stopped as unbelievably selfish and insensitive and at very least should not be allowed to expand beyond the one such meeting per year. In fairness the banks erected some years ago have made a difference, and for the most part aircraft do behave themselves. I also think that any housing development closer to Goodwood Airfield should be out of the question, as the noise would be intolerable to anyone with normal hearing. In policy S16, point 2 I think that un-silenced racing should not be allowed despite their loss of amenity, as the consequent noise is not reasonable.
Re paragraphs 4.111-115, what do you think is going to be the impact of 1600 new houses in that area - to amenity and the rural aspect; to the A259; to traffic through Fishbourne; and the already dangerous Fishbourne roundabout? I think that the scale of this development is highly questionable for these reasons.
Strategic Policies
Looking at policy S20, I agree with all the points that you make. I would add:-
* The need for a public transport system that does not stop in the evening, and
* The need for good bicycle access. When I think that at least twice a promised access to Centurion Way has not been delivered, I think it fair to make that point, especially if you really do want to get people out of their cars.
Re paragraph 5.16 I find it sad that you do not mention in your strategic corridors that the cycle track adjacent to the A259 going west from Chichester is part of cycle route NCN2.
Re paragraph 5.22 our roads are going to be even more over capacity with significantly more housing development. I have already referred several times to my concerns over the dangerous Fishbourne roundabout.
Re paragraph 5.27 I welcome the interest in cycling provision. Living in Summersdale it takes me less than ten minutes to cycle into the city centre - in fact by far the quickest way I can get there. For the most part it is safe, I think, but with the glaring exception of the Northgate gyratory. Whoever designed that clearly forgot that a cyclist is at his/her most risk when pulling away, so to expect cyclists to stop at each exit is a massive deterrent. This cyclist prefers not to use the cycle lane in order to have safer crossing at each exit. I find the St Pauls Road exist especially dangerous. I would also like to have paint markings on the raised kerbs at each exit for safety in the dark.
More generally, if you are in the Low Countries, it is exceptional for cyclists can have two way traffic in what it is a one-way street for motorists - I have seen so many no-entry signs there with "uitgezonderd fietser" below. In fairness there is some of this in Chichester, but I think that there is scope for more.
I also think that Chichester centre needs increased provision for cycle parking, for instance adjacent to the Little London car park, where there is plenty of potential space, and at the eastern end of East Street, where I find the present racks often to be full.
I would also like you to think how cyclists can be safer at the western ends of The Hornet and St Pancras, which are the two roads in Chichester which make me feel very chary.
With the additions of the points made in the previous paragraphs and also restating a need for evening bus services, I generally support the points made in policy S23, though I would repeat what I have already said about expecting people to park too far away from the city centre if you really want people to come there, and I would extend this point by saying that if you are going for distant parking, a park and ride becomes essential. I am agnostic about the Birdham Road to Fisbourne proposal, as I do not know enough about it to comment.
Re policy S24 I would make a particular plea for the Lavant Gap, which is important both to Lavant and Summersdale especially as an important part of our amenity. And we did not fight to save it to have a northern by-pass trundling through there!
I agree with policy S27 and would add that I can remember the floods some fifteen years ago and looking out at the River Lavant east of Maplehurst Road to see how far the waters were going to spread. That too me (besides proximity to Goodwood) would be a major factor in my opposing any development there. I am aware that the Pagham Rife project subsequently ameliorated the risk, but I still think that it needs to be borne in mind, especially given the impact of global warming.
I agree with policies S28 29, 30, and 31. I would make a particular point of air and noise pollution.
Strategic Site Allocations
I agree with policy S32,
How can you write paragraph 6.8? You will know as well as I do that cycling links are not good, and will be worse if Centurion Way is to be diverted. Also how are cyclists supposed to get into the city from the northern end of Whitehouse Farm - down St Paul's Road and coming on to the Northgate Gyratory (which will also be receiving significantly more motor traffic? Please!! I hope that you also know that the plans could well include a really dangerous junction on Centurion Way that is the entrance from Bishop Luffa Close.
As for motor traffic, the same point about St Paul's Road applies. And as for the southern end, surely you know what that is going to do to local roundabouts, not least the dreadful Fishbourne roundabout?
In terms of recreational disturbance, (para 6.12) why is there no reference to Centurion Way?
The points above all are relevant to policy AL1.
Re policy AL2 I do not know enough to comment in much detail. That said, I am concerned about transport access. I know that I am not alone in detesting coming up to the Bognor roundabout from Bognor and often prefer the safer route via the Oving traffic lights. Has any account been made of how such traffic, which is not inconsiderable will be affected, and how this will make the journey from Bognor to Chichester significantly worse than it presently is?
Re policy AL5 I accept the case for redevelopment, though was far from impressed with the last proposal I saw and commented on at the time; I thought, and still think, that the road alternations then proposed were insane and asking for more rather than less jams. I welcome the references to access for cyclists and pedestrian. I am not clear when there are references to the bus depot as to whether that includes the bus station. If you want people to come to Chichester centre, bus access needs to be close; moreover the present bus station is properly close to the railway station, which is important for integrated travel. I do not see any reference to taking away the present crossing gates, which are a serious impediment to traffic at the moment, both on Stockbridge and Basin Road; I think that that is a bad omission.
Re policy AL9 I lack the detailed knowledge usefully to comment, but would ask how far the present state of the A259 has been borne in mind in planning both in Fishbourne and further west from Chichester. It is narrow and at times congested now - major development can only exacerbate such problems.
Re policy AL10 I can comment only as one who fairly often cycles east-west along the A259. The exit from the cycle track on the southern side of the A259 to the east side of Chidham is presently dangerous because of the road layout and the warning sign about cyclists being several; yards too late and often obscured by foliage. Where there is a cycle track in Chidham, parking on that track is not uncommon. There is also a significant gap in the cycle track through much of Chidham. Moreover this is part of a national cycling route, and will become even more significant with more development in Chidham and points west.
Re policies AL11 and AL12 please bear in mind the need for cycle access and for the proposed cycle track between Chichester and Selsey (via Hunston) to develop, especially if you really mean to develop non-motor transport (and also as a valuable and healthy amenity) and bearing in mind how dangerous the B2145 is.
Re policy AL13 cycling provision to the west of the roundabout presently is reasonable; it is not good west of the roundabout. My comments about NCN2 refer here too.
Development Management
I am especially pleased to see paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8, as with an ageing population and baby bookers such as me passing 80 within ten years or so, increased specialist provision is inevitably going to be necessary. This is not to downplay other specific groups, eg students - I simply write from an area of specific knowledge. I agree with policy DM1.
The principles behind policy DM2 seem right to me and I am pleased to see recognition of the need for affordable housing. I would make specific reference to resolving homelessness, young families with not much money, and people in the twenties moving to a new area to start work.
I agree with what you are saying in policy DM8. I have raised my concerns about such issues as cycling routes, bus services, parking and the impact on existing crowded and/ or dangerous routes earlier in this response.
I can see why you are seeking to protect the city centre and prevent an excessive dominance of out of town areas, all the more so as I have seen this in the USA. That said, I find shopping on the edge of town a lot easier -things are in the same place; parking is easier; prices tend to be better. And how far are you crying for the moon as on-line shopping takes off? I for one would take a lot of persuasion to do much shopping in a city centre especially with poor parking. So, while I accept most of what you say in policy DM12, it is with this big proviso.
I agree with policies DM13 and DM14.
I think that any new building should have to incorporate solar panels (re policy DM16). I know how much electricity my solar panels have saved me, and, were I younger and further solar installation not so expensive (it would take me more than a decade to get my money back) I would seriously consider more to provide solar energy for heating and electricity storage.
We are now so aware of air quality issues that I am very pleased to see policy DM24. I also agree with policy DM25 and would add that this should be a significant issue (because of the noise pollution emanating from Goodwood) for any development east of Maplehurst Road.
Re policy DM33, last time I was there I thought that the canal towpath was very dangerous at the western end, particularly for anyone trying to ride a bicycle there.
My apologies but I do not know enough about the later policies usefully to comment.

Summary
In case it helps for me to summarise what I have been seeking to say:-
* As a cyclist I have inevitably had a lot to say about present inadequacies in the network. These need remedy if you really want people to get their bikes out in a city that is made for cycling and feel safe in so doing. Moreover there are the clear health and pollution gains from more cycling, and it is actually often the quickest way from a resident anywhere in the city to get into the centre.
* Housing is important - to resolve homelessness; to provide affordable housing; to meet the needs of young families with not much money or young singles moving here to begin a job/ career.
* There are particular issues re an ageing population and the increased needs are so predictable now even if perhaps not immediate.
* If you really want people on buses, fares have to be lower so that they are competitive with the marginal cost of a car journey for a family, which they are not at present. Services need to be good and to include the evenings.
* I think that there is a danger of Canute tendencies re retail when I think of the attractions of edge of city shopping let alone on-line trading.
* This is linked with car parking - reasonably central car parking and/or a park and ride are crucial if you really want to maintain/expand the city centre.
* The present situation over the level crossing is unacceptable.
* The Fishbourne roundabout is unacceptably dangerous, and the present "by-pass" is a denial of your hopes of an easy east-west transit.
* I am pleased to see the sections on air and noise pollution, and also the encouragement of solar electricity, and I hope that these will really mean something

S3, S4, AL13
Strategic policy should be included that consider the area west of Chichester as a whole rather than as a series of unrelated settlements along the A259 transport route, which is implied by it being referred to as the "east-west corridor". A number of common issues would benefit from collective and co-ordinated attention eg waste water treatment, traffic congestion/management, landscape protection, wildlife corridors and the need to prevent coalescence (para 6.87). The area is expected to provide for a minimum 2250 new dwellings, in addition to the allocations in the current Local Plan (475), and is under great pressure due to its being squeezed between Chichester Harbour and the National Park, both being areas having the benefit of particular protection. This pressure is exacerbated by the National Park not accommodating its fair share of new development and by substantial development in neighbouring Emsworth, Hampshire, that adds to the pressures on the Chichester Harbour AONB and West Sussex infrastructure including road traffic and the capacity of Thornham Wastewater Treatment Works.
Supplementary Planning Guidance is required to address the issues specific to this area, provide clarity of guidance for developers and enable co-ordinated solutions.
S6
Affordable housing should relate more closely to local income levels. Local residents have made the point many times, during the preparation of the current Neighbourhood Plan and more recently in connection with the Neighbourhood Plan review, that local people cannot afford local housing, either to buy or rent. The Parish Council intends to commission a Local Housing Needs Survey which could help identify the quantity and type of need in the Parish.
(add to end of para 4.34) This means housing is unaffordable to many people in the Plan area and why income levels will be taken into account in establishing house prices and rent controls. 80% of the local market rent is the maximum, but lower rents are likely to be justified in some instances.
Developers must deliver their "affordable" requirement if sufficient housing to meet local needs is to be provided. This should not be a problem if proper account is taken of the cost of land acquisitions and development at a sufficiently early stage. Subsections 1 and 5 in Policy S6 allow too much flexibility, especially the use of the word "appropriate" in subsection 1 which is too subjective.
Delete or amend subsections 1 and 5, as appropriate.

DM2
The Parish Council fully supports Policy DM(2). It considers that there is likely to be a need in the Parish for more rented accommodation, especially social rented, than is proposed in Policy DM2. It is understood that this is one of the most expensive areas for housing in the country and young people, in particular, struggle to find accommodation they can afford close to their families. A Local Needs Housing Survey of the Parish is likely to be undertaken in preparing the review of the Neighbourhood Plan to help identify the extent of local need and investigate ways to meet it. Accordingly, an alternative housing mix may be prepared for Southbourne Parish (para 7.19)
Local consultation has revealed a shortage of specialist housing, especially for the elderly and the disabled. It is considered that creative policies promoting adaptable "lifetime" dwellings are required to enable the elderly to remain in the community for longer. The Local Housing Needs Survey of the Parish is expected to confirm this.
The market housing 4+ bedroom % needs to be reduced in favour of more single person accommodation. The Parish Local Housing Needs Survey is expected to confirm this
S20, DM1, DM2
Local consultation has revealed a shortage of specialist housing, especially for the elderly and the disabled. It is considered that creative policies promoting adaptable "lifetime" dwellings are required to enable the elderly to remain in the community for longer. The Local Housing Needs Survey of the Parish is expected to confirm this.
Add "the disabled" into the policy.

AL13

It seems likely that most of the 1250 dwellings proposed (and this is a minimum figure) will be in Southbourne village. Some sections of the local community are very concerned about the change that an over 50% increase in households, over and above the current new development of 300 dwellings, will bring. Some consider that it provides an opportunity to bring some creative thinking to the future format of the village. Whatever increase in development may come, it appears that most residents do share the view that the 30% "affordable housing" proposed in the Local Plan should be truly affordable for those people in the Parish who are in housing need, and the Parish Council has made comments on the relevant policies in this Plan accordingly.
However, at present, it is clear that Southbourne is not in a position to successfully accommodate 1250+ further dwellings due to inadequate infrastructure. While it is recognised that Southbourne village may qualify as a "hub" due to existing services, it must be recognised that a number of these are currently inadequate and substantial improvement is required before development on this scale is delivered. It is understood that new development cannot be required to pay for current deficits, but it is unacceptable to add to these problems without some "up-front" provision to cater for increased needs. Three examples serve to make the point:-
(1) Crossings over the railway, both road and pedestrian, are required before any delivery of 1250 new dwellings. Even if this development is phased, it could be assumed that there will be a completion rate of some 80 dwellings a year (1250÷15). The additional pressure on the Stein Road level crossing arising from a combination of construction traffic and new residents will create unacceptable congestion, pollution and waiting times at the barriers. Inlands Road and Cooks Lane are not suitable for lorry routing. AL13(4) "Opportunities as they arise to improve the situation relating to the various existing or planned railway crossings" is much too weak to secure timely delivery. While this may be addressed in the review Neighbourhood Plan Masterplan, support at District level is required with appropriate priority in the CDC Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (Policy subsection 14).
In addition, no attention has been given to traffic management, either on the A259 or within the village, in the Preferred Approach. Strategic sites of a broadly similar scale around Chichester have integral transport proposals, but they are lacking in Southbourne. One key issue is that all along the A259 from Emsworth to the Apuldram junction it is becoming increasingly difficult for traffic entering onto the A259 (whether heading east or west) due to the high volume and at times seemingly continuous flow of traffic in either direction: this is a cause of driver frustration and potential cause of road accidents.
(2) The Parish Council has raised the issue of Wastewater treatment many times, and there have been difficulties arising from the current development sites. Reassurance is required that AL13 subsection 16 will be adhered to (16 - Ensure sufficient capacity within the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works before the delivery of development as required).
Stormwater discharges to Chichester Harbour appear to be on the increase and this is not satisfactory. The issue needs to be addressed and resolved by the Wastewater Water Quality Group (para 5.71).
(3) The Parish requires a significant increase in Public Open Space. The proposed Green Ring has received considerable public support and a Trust has been established by the Parish Council to deliver it. Some sections of the Green Ring will not be able to rely on developer delivery and while the project is included in the IDP it is accorded almost no priority (Policy subsection 14). This needs to be remedied.
Specific commitment in the Preferred Approach to the delivery of crossings over the railway, assured delivery of timely and appropriate Wastewater Treatment and specific commitment to the delivery of the Green Ring.
6.88 - To sustain and enhance Southbourne's role as a hub it is VITAL that development is properly phased AND that necessary infrastructure provision is made prior to new occupations.
Policy AL13 item 12: the protection of the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site at Chichester harbour necessitates the reinstatement of the Ham Brook wildlife corridor as part of giving the harbour and wildlife that uses it 'breathing space' and a ladder to the SDNP and as part of the strategy to relieve the pressure imposed upon the harbour by walkers and dogs.
7. Expansion and provision of community infrastructure potentially to include early years' childcare provision, community hall/centre and expansion of doctors' surgery plus flexible space for employment/small-scale leisure use;
As the open space and pitch reports put the improvement of the Bourne college facilities and the recreation ground improvements as a high priority project, this should be mentioned in this point
7. Expansion and provision of community infrastructure potentially to include early years' childcare provision, community hall/centre and expansion of doctors' surgery plus flexible space for employment/small-scale leisure use;

As the open space and pitch reports put the improvement of the Bourne college facilities and the recreation ground improvements as a high priority project, this should be mentioned in this point

DM3

The Preferred Approach advocates a flexible approach to housing density. While an average of 35 dwellings per hectare is recognised as a reasonable guideline, the Parish Council considers that some areas of a higher density would be appropriate, especially where single person accommodation could include small privet patios, terraces or balconies (for flats) in recognition that not all householders want a large private garden, provided that appropriate public open space is delivered as an alternative. Higher densities, as appropriate, also reduce land take.
S23
Southbourne Parish Council responses on the Jacobs Chichester Area Transport Model Report (March 2013), Chichester District Council Chichester Local Plan - Key Policies 2014-2029 and Chichester Local Plan Issues and Options Consultation has consistently drawn attention to the restricted scope of the transport studies undertaken to establish the impact of proposed development allocations within the Plan area. Studies have been concentrated on establishing the effects in the immediate vicinity of Chichester, particularly on the junctions of the A27. Traffic movements generated within/or destined for Southbourne Parish are assigned to a single Traffic Zone (TZ73). These movements are aggregated with other movements in the other TZs of the Western Corridor in order to assess the impacts at the cordon boundaries of the County boundary with Havant/Hampshire but most significantly the point of contact with the A27. Mitigation requirements have been assessed solely in respect of reducing increased congestion at A27 junctions. In respect of Southbourne generated movements these relate to the Fishbourne Roundabout.
CDC, in association with WSCC Highways, has failed consistently to examine local network impacts other than those projected to arise on the 19 junctions in the immediate vicinity of Chichester and the A27. This remains the situation with the update by Peter Brett associates of the Jacobs Study. However, in respect of the Bourne Villages this approach fails to take into account the impacts likely to arise within the local road network of the respective traffic zones. In particular, this lack of examination fails to take account of the potential impact arising from the scale of proposed housing allocations in this corridor. The adopted Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014 - 2029 document allocated a total of 620 additional houses comprising: Westbourne 45, Southbourne/Nutbourne 350, Chidham & Hambrook 35, Bosham 70 and Fishbourne 70. The Review Document proposes additional housing allocations (minimum) at Southbourne 1250 houses, Chidham & Hambrook 500, Fishbourne 250, Broadbridge/Bosham 250 - a total of 2,250 additional houses, an increase of + 246% over previous allocations and with these villages taking a 46% share of proposed total additional allocations in the Local Plan Review area.
CDC together with WSCC Highways should undertake to provide specialist advice to those Parish Councils chosen to implement proposed strategic housing allocations through Neighbourhood Plans in order to assess the impacts of the scale of such allocations on the local highway network. Such advice should be provided in order to aid site selection prior to any master planning of the subsequent development proposal and to help find solutions to traffic problems arising.
The above comments/representations also relate to the following Plan references:
Strategic Development/Design Strategies, pages 92-93, paras 6.1-6.6. Policy S32
Strategic Site Allocations - Southbourne, pages 127-129, paras 6.68-6.90; Policy AL13
Transport & Accessibility, pages 148-149, paras 7.4-7.52; Policy DM8.
Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives
Objection
3.4 Given the huge amount of development proposed for the settlements to the west of Chichester we object to the emphasis placed on Chichester in the special strategy at the expense of the settlements on the receiving end.
There needs to be a fresh look at the cumulative impact on the settlements along the A259. We are not primarily an East-West corridor; we have our own distinct identities and histories. While the term 'East-West corridor' describes the road and rail links to the west of Chichester it is not a sufficient description of the Bourne villages.

3.7 Maintaining and enhancing the relationship between the SDNP and the Harbour AONB requires the reinstatement of the proposed Wildlife Corridor at Ham Brook. Without this corridor, this aspiration has no teeth.
3.8 Southbourne's "good transport links" have recently been downgraded with loss of all north-south buses which will be needed to connect any new housing growth north of the railway line to both the station and the A259. The station itself needs nearby parking and/or drop-off points, electric car chargers and secure cycle storage.
We suggest that the Bourne villages area be considered a 'green / blue ladder' between the AONB and the National Park rather than an East-West transit corridor. Varied countryside views from the Bourne villages towards the SDNP and AONB should be protected, as should views from the A259 and railway of the local countryside and countryside gaps. This will require properly contoured development and good screening.
Sustainable Development Principles
Objection
A reliance upon national 'sustainable development' principles is insufficient as these national policies are inadequate for delivering genuinely sustainable development.
There needs to be an emphasis on economic, social and environmental sustainability. The built environment and history, so frequently lumped in with environmental sustainability, should be considered as part of economic and social sustainability where this conflicts with natural environmental sustainability.
The construction industry is a significant contributor of carbon emissions and while we recognise that there is limited scope to make requirements beyond those mandated by national legislation the Local Plan should nevertheless indicate the direction of travel. It should set out what the community will increasingly come to expect from the industry in the years ahead, including the increasing weight that may in future be given to developments and developers which are making serious attempts to become carbon neutral.
The objective of the Local Plan should be to aim higher. While recognising that not everything is possible, we suggest referring to the principles set out in the Wildlife Trust's 'Homes for People and Wildlife' policy guidance: https://www.wildlifetrusts.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/homes_for_people_and_wildlife_lr_-_spreads.pdf and the World Health Organisation's 'Urban Green Spaces - A Brief For Action': http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/urban-health/publications/2017/urban-green-spaces-a-brief-for-action-2017 .
See comments in section above.
S17
Object
We welcome the presence of the military base and recognise that the needs of the military will determine policy while the base is maintained, including the need for an upgrade of the housing stock on the base.
However, should Thorney Island cease to be required for military purposes, rather than masterplanning for new development, the island should receive at least equal protection to other areas within the AONB, including the presumption against new development. Any proposed development should follow the principles laid out in the Chichester Harbour Conservancy's Planning Principles policy: www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning.
In addition, while not seeking anything that would compromise the base's security, the policy should be to expand the Dark Skies sites and, where necessary, to take additional steps to support the existing ones e.g. by upgrading or redirecting street lighting. It should be possible to reduce vertical light pollution without any negative consequences for the existing use of the base. Further information on possible measures that could be considered may be found in the SDNP Technical Note here: https://www.southdowns.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/TLL-10-SDNPD-Dark-Skies-Technical-Advice-Note-2018-2018.pdf
We welcome the presence of the military base and recognise that the needs of the military will determine policy while the base is maintained, including the need for an upgrade of the housing stock on the base.
However, should Thorney Island cease to be required for military purposes, rather than masterplanning for new development, the island should receive at least equal protection to other areas within the AONB, including the presumption against new development. Any proposed development should follow the principles laid out in the Chichester Harbour Conservancy's Planning Principles policy: www.conservancy.co.uk/page/planning.
In addition, while not seeking anything that would compromise the base's security, the policy should be to expand the Dark Skies sites and, where necessary, to take additional steps to support the existing ones e.g. by upgrading or redirecting street lighting.
S24
Support
However, much of the language in this section is weak and aspirational rather than strong and definitive.
5.37 The coastal, alluvial agricultural plain has a particular historic and environmental character which we value greatly. This includes, but is not limited to recognition of its value for agriculture / food production. While we do not expect that this landscape will have the same protection as that inside the SDNP, it forms part of the setting for the National Park and deserves some recognition of the threats facing it from piecemeal (though rapid) development.

The draft Plan in its present form does not give sufficient recognition to the inherent value of the land. It would make sense for this to be rectified as part of a strategy or vision for the whole of the Bournes area, perhaps in a supplementary planning document.
We would like to see the preservation, protection and even reintroduction of bees and their habitats be given real consideration, given their ecological importance. It makes sense to do this as part of a policy covering countryside gaps so as to avoid conflict with humans.
We call for greater support to be offered to the establishing of community orchards and nut plantations. Doing so would also contribute to improving the balance between people and nature, enhancing social sustainability goals and promoting wellbeing.
5.40 We strongly support the "encouragement of proposals that enhance the woodlands and recreational links to and within this area."
5.41 There needs to be greater engagement with the SDNP and greater recognition from the SDNP that it is at risk of becoming an island, which will have serious negative impacts upon the park. We need the National Park to be more flexible in accepting a greater amount of housing within the park in order to relieve some of the pressure on the park's surroundings. While development is concentrated around the Park, we need to know that the Park will not object to the provision of infrastructure that such development needs to be sustainable, provided that it is planned sensitively.
5.42 We strongly support the maintenance of individual settlement identities. Southbourne would like to have a significant input into the formation of a settlement gap policy (and expects other communities along the A259 to feel the same). We would like a meaningful input at an early stage so that we can help shape a policy that commands wide public support.
S25
Object
This policy is very weak. A policy for protecting and managing the coast simply must address the wholly inadequate waste water infrastructure capacity and the frequent discharging of untreated waste into the Harbour.
It must also include a robust strategy for mitigating pressure on the harbour and coastal habitats from walkers and dog walkers by providing for alternative, attractive routes. This should clearly link up with policies promoting wildlife corridors, countryside gaps and green/ blue space.
The Plan should also seek to work with agriculture and horticulture businesses to reduce the impact of chemical and nutrient run-off into the Harbour. We recognise that there are constraints both in terms of national policy and market forces but the Plan should make clear that the direction of travel is towards greater environmental sustainability and reducing the environmental impact from businesses.
S26
Object

This policy is too weak.
5.52 & 5.53 The Plan should seek to work with agriculture and horticulture businesses to reduce the impact of chemical and nutrient run-off into the Harbour. We recognise that there are constraints both in terms of national policy and market forces but the Plan should make clear that the direction of travel is towards greater environmental sustainability and reducing the environmental impact from businesses.
We note that the adopted Local Plan links its Natural Environment strategy to that which protects and promotes biodiversity, but this link seems to have been dropped in the draft proposal. We recognise that there is a section on biodiversity but question the implication of the breaking of this link.
The policy needs to be strengthened.
S27 and S30
Object
It is very disappointing not to see a much stronger role for the use of green / blue space in mitigating flood risk. E.g. reed banks and areas designated for wildlife can form both a natural flood defence and promote other environmental goals of the Plan. Tree planting should also form part of this strategy, as should other measures to strengthen the land's resistance to flood degradation.
The reinstatement of the Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor would provide an opportunity to introduce many of these features in a part of the District prone to the flooding of homes and to storm-related discharges of untreated wastewater into the harbour.
The policy must think beyond what individual sites can do to mitigate the risk of flooding on small areas of land and look at the wider picture and what a more ambitious strategy could achieve.
The reinstatement of the Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor would provide an opportunity to introduce many of these features in a part of the District prone to the flooding of homes and to storm-related discharges of untreated wastewater into the harbour.
The policy must think beyond what individual sites can do to mitigate the risk of flooding on small areas of land and look at the wider picture and what a more ambitious strategy could achieve.
S28
Object
We are astonished that this policy is so thin. There needs to be a strategy which recognises different forms of pollution, including air quality, inland and coastal water and carbon emissions (not least from the construction industry). We need more detail on strategies to address the different forms of pollution and to be looking to a less polluted future, not simply mitigating against the deterioration of the status quo.
S29
Support
However, there needs to be an explicit recognition of the sometimes conflict of interest between green infrastructure primarily intended to be of human / community use and enjoyment and that intended to protect natural habitats and which may require restrictions upon access by the community.
There also needs to be much more thought given to coordinating the creation and protection of multiple green / blue infrastructure sites across the Plan area (or sub-sections of it). Many opportunities will be lost if sites are considered separately rather than as part of something larger. 'Islands' of green space are of much less benefit to humans and wildlife than larger, linked green and blue infrastructure. Again, this supports the reinstatement of the Ham Brook Wildlife corridor.
S30
Support
We are delighted to see a wildlife corridor policy included within the Neighbourhood Plan, as this builds upon the aims pursued in the made Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and the work of the Southbourne Environment Group. We do however very strongly object to the removal of the previously proposed Hambrook Wildlife Corridor, referred to only obliquely in the Background Paper. It should be reinstated.

Doing so would work towards the policy objectives of S30 and complement its specific proposals.
1) There are a great many "preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor" so reinstatement would not hinder the District or Parish's ability to meet its housing target.
2) Without prejudging the community consultation, it is conceivable that proposed development sites WITHIN the proposed corridor could be approved provided they do "not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor".

In considering alternatives to the Chidham / East of Nutbourne Wildlife Corridor, paragraph 5.5 of the Background Paper states that "West of Nutbourne there are a number of ecological features but the close proximity of residential areas and proposed development, mean that the [proposed] corridor may be too narrow to act as a suitable functional strategic corridor." This actually prejudges the review of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and we reject this argument. The proposed Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor is or could easily be as wide as others in the policy paper and it is for the community - through the Neighbourhood Plan - to determine where development goes ahead. The community cares very deeply about the local environment and could easily choose to focus development outside of the proposed route of the Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor.

There is no national or local policy reason why there should be no more than one wildlife corridor in a single Parish, especially where there is no conflict with the points above / in policy S30 and where the parish is one of the largest in the District and is home to several distinct communities. On the contrary, reinstating the Ham Brook corridor would strengthen the goals set out in paragraphs 5.64 and 5.65 of the Local Plan, namely, allowing the "movement of species between areas of habitat by linking wildlife sites and reducing the risk of small, isolated populations becoming unsustainable and dying out... They also function as green infrastructure."

This last point is itself emphasised by the Plan's policy AL13 for Southbourne and many objectives would be advanced by reinstating this particular Wildlife Corridor. i.e.:

8. It COULD provide for some public open space for the Parish (not all of which is, will be part of or will be connected to Southbourne VILLAGE's Green Ring).
9. It would enhance the setting of the SDNP and reduce settlement coalescence (without restricting development elsewhere in the Parish).
10. It would expand provision for green infrastructure.
11. As per background paper paragraph 5.5. referenced above, it would reconcile the need to avoid an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of identified sites and habitats while maintaining a wildlife corridor wide enough to be of ecological value.
12. It would provide mitigation to ensure the protection of the SPA, SAC, Ramsar site at Chichester Harbour.

As per Supporting Document 024, Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy, paragraph 2.12, there is a requirement for the creation of a Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). Furthermore, Southbourne's made Neighbourhood Plan's Green Ring policy specifically aims to provide alternative routes for dog walkers to relieve pressure on the harbour. As per paragraph 4.12 "these could be created by a developer as part of a very large housing scheme [such as is proposed for Southbourne] or alternatively will be implemented through the Solent Recreation Mitigation Partnership."

The Background Paper does not present any, let alone the full picture of the area's ecological importance. The Ham Brook follows a natural environmental feature from the AONB to the SDNP. This natural water course is home to water voles (seen by CDC Wildlife Officer and local environmental volunteer as recently as January 2019) and the land north of Priors Leaze Lane is a Barn Owl Habitat (as referenced in Chidham and Hambrook Parish's made Neighbourhood Plan). There is ancient woodland either side of the railway line next to the trout farm and this is a dormouse habitat too.

In conclusion, S30 is an excellent policy but it MUST be strengthened by the reinstatement of the Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor. Doing so would not compromise any development objectives of the Local Plan. Indeed, doing so would advance several objectives and policies within it.

S23 and AL6

Object
To the proposed Birdham Road to the A27 Fishbourne Roundabout.
With so much new development - and traffic - proposed for settlements along the A259, our road is going to be the focus of a huge amount of new congestion, with all of the associated negative impacts on air quality and sustainable transport goals. Feeding more traffic into the Fishbourne roundabout will only make it harder for drivers from the A259 to get onto / across the A27.
In addition, the proposed link road goes straight through a flood plain and site of great environmental importance - one which links the coast to the city of Chichester. Furthermore, the proposed link road would have a significant negative impact upon views from the coast to the city and the SDNP and from the city and SDNP to the coast and Manhood Peninsula. It would also negatively affect the setting of the proposed Fishbourne Wildlife Corridor.
We support creation of an integrated and sustainable transport plan for the District, or at the very least for the area west of Chichester. This plan should draw upon the ongoing work of the ChEmRoute group's investigations and proposals for the National Cycle Route 2 (NCN2) and be coordinated with WSCC with the goal of introducing high quality and separated cycle links between the villages along the A259 and Chichester. The route or routes may include a fast but safe link along the A259 aimed primarily at experienced cyclists and commuters as well as a slower, more meandering and leisurely route north of the A259 (and perhaps the railway). To make these cycle routes sustainable they will need connections and feeder routes from new and existing developments.
In developing a more ambitious and safer scheme for cyclists care must also be taken to ensure that pedestrian routes are protected too. The vision must be to ensure that both cycle and pedestrian traffic is encouraged and supported and not brought into competition with each other.

Spatial Strategy, Transport Infrastructure , Page 78 s5.27
In addition, the County Council is expected to continue to support new development through a package of transport improvements which will continue to aim to reduce congestion and encourage people to use sustainable modes of travel such as walking, cycling and public transport.
This supports Southbourne's desire for a pedestrian bridge over the railway line as that will encourage people to walk rather than drive, as well as supporting a road over the railway line as this will also reduce the walking time for many residents wherever the road is placed. It may avoid current routes which involve walking through fields and over unmanned rail crossings. A road would be safer and more useful to pedestrians. The requirement for bridge should be included in policy S23.
DM34
Object due to issues in the supporting evidence.
Chichester Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Southbourne Parish - Local Plan Review Policy SA13 page 90 section 15.4
In the title, play space (children) is given, when the project is actually children and youth combined.
The heading needs to be amended to Play Space (Children and youth)
Chichester Open Space, Sport Facilities, Recreation Study and Playing Pitch Strategy: Open Space Study Sub Area Analysis (Part 2 of 2) Page 13 table 4
This table says there is good provision for childrens play space, when section 2.3 table 3 shows there to be a shortfall throughout the district.
Object due to issues in the supporting evidence.
Chichester Infrastructure Delivery Plan, Southbourne Parish - Local Plan Review Policy SA13 page 90 section 15.4
In the title, play space (children) is given, when the project is actually children and youth combined.
The heading needs to be amended to Play Space (Children and youth)
Chichester Open Space, Sport Facilities, Recreation Study and Playing Pitch Strategy: Open Space Study Sub Area Analysis (Part 2 of 2) Page 13 table 4
This table says there is good provision for childrens play space, when section 2.3 table 3 shows there to be a shortfall throughout the district.
Water Quality Assessment
Housing allocation: The Thornham evaluations have been based on a housing increase in the Thornham catchment area, over the period covered by the report (2020-35), of 1,000-1,500 dwellings. In view of the fact that the Havant-Emsworth plan also has many hundreds of new builds planned in this catchment area, this estimate would seem to be grossly under-estimated ref. Page 25, Table 26. Page 15: "Westbourne" should be added to Table 1.1. Page 60 para. 3.10.2 claims to include Havant but Havant is excluded in other parts of the report e.g. Table 1.1.
Climate change: it is disappointing that any effects of climate change have been specifically excluded (page 28).
Assessment of Headroom: in assessing headroom, AMEC's report states that the Environment Agency guidelines, specify 150 litres/person/day and five people per dwelling. The report has used different figures i.e. 120 litres/person/day and 21/2 people/dwelling. Their justification for this (para. 3.2.12) is that Southern Water prefer these figures. The effect is to reduce the Thornham WwTW's current headroom from 1,063 dwellings down to 400. Any calculations must be formally agreed with the Environment Agency. Page 29 para 3.2.4 suggests that this has yet to be agreed. There is considerably inconsistence in the quotation of dry weather flow (DWF) and Headroom. Page 60 para. 3.10 indicates that consented DWF (hence Headroom) is already in excess of consent (consented DWF 6,565 m3/day, current DWF is 6,580 m3/day). Statement of headroom, without dates, or methodology are meaningless.
Discharges: some assessments are omitted on WwTW, which discharge directly into estuary/coastal waters and Thornham WwTW has been put into this category (table 2.2). In practice, Thornham discharges onto Eames Farm from where it flows through Little Deep, into Great Deep before discharging into the shellfish beds (already classified as "unfavourable") at Prinsted (Chichester Harbour) as in Page 61 para. 3.10.13. Page 21, Table 2.3 is incorrect. In its objectives (page 10), the report indicates that it should be considering any impact on shellfish. No impact on these shellfish beds seems to have been assessed.
Storm discharges and shellfish: the report (Page 61 para. 3.10.9) states that storm discharges have been a significant problem for the Thornham WwTW. However, it specifically excludes any consideration of storm discharges over this period (2020-2035). It does not assess the effect of large quantities of primary-treated sewage (filtered only) on the Eames Farm marshland or the Prinsted shellfish beds (Page 23 para. 2.2.12, Page 25 para. 2.2.19). The AMEC report seems to suggest that the discharges processed through Thornham WwTW will have a minimal affect. This observation does not take into account, the very large levels of (Grade 1) untreated storm discharge.
Data: There are significant areas, where Thornham WwTW's data has not been provided and National Average data used instead.
Objectives not met: Page 9 Objective "investigate demonstrably deliverable ways of dealing with Wastewater treatment capacity". The MWH Report (2010) page 17 clearly indicates that expansion of Thornham WwTW was not viable. No comment or way of dealing with capacity limitation has been investigated.
Clear statements of exactly what additional works and what realistic dates are required.
5.69-5.72 , Section 9.1 of the Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD and its referenced Headroom Tables are out of date, need to be updated, and its guidance amplified, to cover the timescale of the Local Plan Review 2019 to 2035 and the impact of future housing development.
Reasoning
Headroom Table 2 of the Water Quality Assessment Report states that as at 31st October 2018 the Estimated remaining headroom (households) was 1,020. This is well below the combined Southbourne and neighbouring West Sussex parishes Local Plan Review planned housing development numbers without even taking into account that Thornham WwTW also serves the Emsworth area in Hampshire which is is the subject of increased and significant additional housing development.
This issue is of particular importance given the large scale development proposed for the Southbourne Parish under the Local Plan Review, that this SPD is "a material consideration when assessing planning applications or appeals for any new dwelling(s)" and that the Local Plan Review itself states that "measures will need to be put in place at each WwTW and their associated catchments and sewer networks in order to tackle current and future water quality issues to support future housing growth." These measures include "Upgrades to physical capacity and Upgrades to sewer networks".

5.72, Policy S31 states that "Proposals for development within the Plan area should be able to demonstrate no adverse impact upon the quality of receiving waters" It is proposed that this statement should be amended to be clearer and more appropriate to local circumstances, as follows: "Proposals for development within the Plan area must be able to demonstrate no adverse impact upon the quality of receiving waters including with regard to the capacity and condition of existing wastewater and sewage systems, local storm discharge risk and the capacity of the Wastewater Treatment Works. The Council as planning authority will look to satisfy itself on these matters including to ensure sufficient capacity within the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works before the delivery of development as required."
Reasoning
The referenced Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD is out of date and insufficiently clear and rigorous in its guidance and requirements. The SPD needs strengthened with regard to new development requirements and potential adverse impacts on Chichester Harbour AONB, on the small watercourses feeding into the Harbour waters, given known local problems with the sewer network (as referenced in Para. 2.4) e.g. at Nutbourne, and as Para. 2.3 of the Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD states "The condition of the water environment is not currently good enough to meet the required standards (of the European Water Framework Directive). Policy AL13 for Southbourne Parish also states that "Development will be expected to address the following requirements (including), !6. Ensure sufficient capacity within the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works (i.e. Thornham) before the delivery of development as required".

Characteristics of the Plan

Proposed Supplementary Planning Guidance
Object
Objection is raised to the use of the term East-West Corridor with regard to west of the City of Chichester. The use of the term corridor implies the focus of policy is on transport and through movement to the detriment of a more balanced focus on local settlement, existing residential, local countryside and amenity issues.

There is a lack of vision, clarity and coherence of planning policy towards the Bourne Villages, their character and the surrounding countryside that lies between the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB. The current piecemeal policies approach that focuses on the individual settlements and individual thematic policies is detrimental to the coherence and effectiveness of planning policy, the character of these settlements and their surroundings and to the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB.
The Preferred Approach fails to take account of the potential impact arising as a result of the scale of proposed allocations. The adopted Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014 - 2029 document allocated a total of 620 additional houses: Westbourne 45, Southbourne/Nutbourne 350, Chidham & Hambrook 35, Bosham 70 and Fishbourne 70. The Review Document proposes additional housing allocations (minimum) at Southbourne 1250 houses, Chidham & Hambrook 500, Fishbourne 250, Broadbridge/Bosham 250 - a total of 2,250 additional houses, an increase of + 246% over previous allocations and with these villages taking a 46% share of proposed additional allocations in the Local Plan Review area.
The absence of a Countryside Settlement Gaps Policy at Local Plan Review stage is regretted and one is only verbally promised for June 2019. The lack of a coherent vision for the Bourne Villages is at odds with the approach taken to other Chichester areas and their communities which is reflected in a statement made by Cllr Tony Dignum (Leader of CDC) on 18 October 2018 in the Chichester Observer: "there is no doubt that we live and work in one of the most beautiful areas of the country and we want to keep it that way. We aim to deliver improvements within our city and towns so that our area continues to be one of the best places to live, work, and visit in the UK. These improvements are being expressed through 'vision' projects for the city and for each of our towns" (Selsey, Midhurst and Petworth are cited as examples).
There is at least an equally strong case for there to be a vision for the Bourne Villages, the band of settlements, countryside and amenity land that lies between Emsworth and Chichester, the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB. Not to have a coherent vision for this area is detrimental to the Bourne villages and to the neighbouring areas. Much of the character of these settlements, especially Southbourne, derives from the wider area within which they are situated.
1 Chichester District Council should prepare Supplementary Planning Guidance on a vision for the Bourne Villages, comprising Westbourne, Lumley, Hermitage, Prinsted, Southbourne, Nutbourne, Chidham, Hambrook, Bosham and Fishbourne, the surrounding countryside and their relationship with neighbouring Emsworth/Havant, the City of Chichester, the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB.
2 The use of the term East-West Corridor with regard to west of the City of Chichester be restricted and only be used for transport issues and the A27 itself, and not be applied to the Bourne Villages and their surroundings..
The above comments/representations also relate to the following Plan references:
i) Page/para nos: page 22 §2.29
Policy reference: Character of the Plan Area.

ii) Page/para nos: p24 - 25; §3.3 - §3.10
Policy reference: Spatial Vision & Strategic Objectives: East-West Corridor
iii) Page/para p35
Policy reference: Spatial Strategy - Policy S3: Development Strategy
iv) Page/para nos: p82 - 84; §5.34 - §5.42 & §5.44
Policy reference: Strategic Policies - Countryside S24: Coast S25
v) Page/para nos: p 92; §6.4 - §6.6
Policy reference: Strategic Development - S32

Characteristics of the Plan Area: a spatial portrait
The term East-West Corridor used with in regard to west of the City of Chichester is ill defined and the use of this term implies the focus of policy is on transport and through movement to the detriment of a more balanced focus on local settlement, existing residential, local countryside and amenity issues.
There is a lack of vision, clarity and coherence of planning policy towards the Bourne Villages, their
character and the surrounding countryside that lies between the South Downs AONB and Chichester
Harbour AONB

Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy
Object
Chidham & Hambrook, among the other Bourne villages, is characterised as a 'service village' with no definition or explanation of what this means. This term does not reflect the special and unique character of any of these areas, it designates them as no more than utilitarian dormitory communities.
"The largest level of growth is expected in the service villages and settlement hubs, able to accommodate higher levels of growth without adversely impacting the character of the settlement". An increase in growth of housing stock by 55% will undoubtedly negatively impact Chidham & Hambrook.

Policy S3 development Strategy
We believe the rationale for how the number of 500 dwellings for Chidham & Hambrook was arrived at to be wanting and the supplementary evidence to be inconsistent and contradictory. Figures in the 2018 HELAA report suggest that there is available land from achievable sites for 565 new dwellings. This is a completely unrealistic expectation. If these are assessed against the suggested CDC figure of 30- 35 per hectare and 80% developable this gives a total of 360 - 420. The figures seem to be almost entirely based on projections put forward by promoters. Consequently, we were told to put a call out for additional sites. Several of those that have come forward are on sites previously rejected by CDC on the grounds of impact on the AONB, significant access constraints, adverse impact on the landscape and detachment from the settlement boundary.
The Sustainability Appraisal sets out to select numbers in the Potential Distribution Strategies. Assuming a figure of 650 pa, across Chichester District, the predicted numbers for Chidham & Hambrook stay within a narrow range of 500-750, whereas other Parishes fluctuate widely eg Fishbourne 250-1000, Hunston 0-1000.Unlike other parishes, it did not consider a figure of less than 500 for Hambrook.
The Strategic Development Location Assessments seek to assess each district against sustainability criteria. Chidham & Hambrook has been scored with 11 negative and 7 neutral with only 12 positive.
We agree with your judgements with the following additions:
1a in addition to the bat population North of Priors Leaze Lane the Ham Brook is home to water voles.
4b This is a significant constraint. Without adequate public transport and no local facilities or services this will put considerable strain on both the A259 and A27 at both Emsworth and Fishbourne.
5a There is considerable risk of surface water flooding on a number of identified sites.
6a This should be a negative score. To speculate that Southern Rail might increase the service is no justification for assuming a shift to sustainable transport. The hourly service east and west is not adequate for commuters.
9 This should be a negative. There are no local shops apart from a very small and poorly stocked Post Office, which has erratic opening hours, and a charity shop. This doesn't constitute some shops. There are no medical facilities, sports facilities or recreation ground.
10a-12b There are extremely limited employment opportunities in Chidham & Hambrook so difficult to see how any of these would apply.
13a The Local Plan diminishes our rural economy by taking farmland and nurseries for development
13b We have high quality Grade 1 and Grade 2 agricultural land .
We believe these judgements demonstrate that Chidham & Hambrook is less suitable for large scale housing numbers than other areas.


Policy S12 Infrastructure Provision
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
This gives us no confidence that the development of 500 homes in Chidham & Hambrook will give us the infrastructure we need at the time it is required.
Despite the rapid growth in housing numbers over the last five years there has been little infrastructure development. We have no medical centre, local convenience store, employment opportunities, early years or child care provision ,sports or recreational facilities.
Transport: there is no mention of any upgrades to any of the roads or junctions serving the Parish to alleviate congestion and to improve safety. There is no mention of cycling routes and walking provision to provide safe routes. This will be exacerbated by the 1,110+ homes proposed in the Southbourne Parish which will have a coalescent impact on Chidham & Hambrook, particularly Priors Lease Lane and Broad Road.
Education: the suggestion here is that Chidham & Hambrook will be contributing funding to a new school in Southbourne rather than a replacement school in Policy AL10. This represents yet another contradiction. It is unclear where or at which development Early Years and Child Care places would be accommodated.
Health: The nearest provision would be Southbourne

Policy S8 Employment
Object
7.1 Part Two Development Management states " place housing in locations which are accessible by public transport to jobs, shopping, leisure, education and health facilities."
There are limited employment opportunities in Chidham & Hambrook and it appears there is no demand for commercial premises in the area. Industrial units built by Taylor Wimpey on the Lion Park development were not taken up and consequently converted to housing. In the last few years three employment opportunities have closed down to be replaced by housing - two garages which sold, serviced and repaired vehicles, one of which sold petrol and a small stock of essentials, and a plant nursery. This will put an added pressure on traffic as more people drive to their areas of employment west or east using the A259. Public transport is limited and expensive.





Policy S23 Transport /DM8
Object
In Chidham & Hambrook the vast majority (80%) of the proposed new dwellings would be built off Broad Road and some sited on the adjoining Main Road, the A259. There is no provision for the road infrastructure impact of 2250 new homes along this road between Southbourne and Fishbourne. And this will impact the travel survey.
Currently Broad Road has significant safety issues for pedestrians, drivers and cyclists. There is limited visibility due to lack of off-road parking facilities for current residents which has resulted in a number of near accidents. Where it meets the A 259 there is a staggered junction with Cot Lane which, even at present, is difficult to negotiate. The combination of new housing leading to increased traffic in Broad Road and the potential significant volume of increased traffic coming from the 1100+ new dwellings in Southbourne will make this junction dangerous and untenable.
To the North of the Parish there will be increased traffic on the Common Road to Funtington and then the B2178 as a route into the city. Opportunities for any access to housing developments without using Broad Road or Main Road are extremely limited. All other roads in the Parish are essentially lanes, mostly restricted to single lane traffic and could not be used as access to developments.
Pedestrian access in Broad Road is very poor with footways in places too narrow to accommodate buggies, wheel chairs or motorised disabled scooters. As a consequence residents are heavily reliant on cars.

The added volume of traffic will cause significant congestion and decreased air quality. Accessing the A27 at Fishbourne will be further exacerbated by the lack of plans to introduce an additional junction and slip roads onto the A27 between Emsworth and Fishbourne, and for no right turns from the Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts. The only suggested mitigation is to create a hamburger junction. The increased commuter traffic combined with beach traffic in good weather, will cause gridlock at this roundabout at every junction.
We object to the proposal to build a link road to Birdham which would go straight through a flood plain and a site of environmental significance and would have a negative impact on the views from the coast to the City and SDNP.
Public transport is limited to one bus service along the A259 and an hourly train in either direction from Nutbourne station. The bus is very expensive and the vast majority of passengers are those with bus passes. There is no bus service south to north. The train frequency is too limited as a viable alternative to car travel. We would like to see a more robust policy focussing on public transport links.

We support the creation of an integrated and sustainable transport plan for the District, or at the very least for the area west of Chichester. This plan should draw upon the ongoing work of the ChEmRoute group's investigations and proposals and be coordinated with WSCC with the goal of introducing high quality and separated cycle links between the villages along the A259 and Chichester.

CDC together with WSCC Highways should undertake to provide specialist advice to those Parish Councils chosen to implement proposed strategic housing allocations through Neighbourhood Plans along the A259 in order to assess the impacts of the scale of such allocations on the local highway network. Such advice should be provided in order to aid site selection prior to any master planning of the subsequent development proposal and to help find solutions to potential traffic problems





Policy S6 Affordable Housing
Support
There is a disproportionate number of detached and 4 bed houses currently in our housing stock. We would like to see a commitment for Social Housing in addition to Affordable Housing, which many local people cannot afford to rent or buy. This means many young people leave the area. There is too much flexibility given to developers here in delivering the housing need for the area. They must deliver their "affordable" requirement if sufficient housing to meet local needs is to be provided.

Policy DM 2 Housing Mix
Support
As above we have a high number of 4+ bed and detached homes. Young, low income and single households are being priced out of their neighbourhoods.

Policy DM3 Housing Density
Support
Specialist housing and housing for the elderly will require a lower density as it will be single story. It is essential that there are robust measures that will enable high quality homes to be built to enable elderly people to remain in their community should they need to move into adapted housing more appropriate to their needs. Similarly, life long homes for those with a disability who need specialist housing.

Policy S26 / DM19 Natural Environment
Object
The Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives 3.6 states that any development west of the city will
" conserve and enhance the local distinctiveness, character and cohesion of existing settlements".
The Sustainability Appraisal states, in relation to Chidham and Hambrook " The scale of the development will completely alter the existing development and there will be significant impact to the existing historic village" These two statements are contradictory .
The magnitude of an additional 500 homes {growth of 55%) will patently alter the local distinctiveness and character of Chidham & Hambrook and risk coalescence with Southbourne. The landscape is characterised by extensive arable land with some nurseries and pasture. Hedges, bushes, orchards and groups of trees contribute to the landscape, as do streams which pass through the Parish. The South Downs National Park is to the North and the AONB of Chichester Harbour to the South.
The CDC Landscape Capability Study reinforces the detrimental effect development will have on the landscape and character in all areas within the Parish
Nutbourne East - Ham Brook Mosaic
Potential development is said to impact on:
valued views, visual corridor for views from Nutbourne Channel towards the SDNP, separation of Southbourne, Hambrook, Nutbourne East, the rural landscape setting, existing pattern of low density settlement.
It will also contribute to the loss of:
Pasture, arable fields, hedgerows, trees, woodland (ancient and semi natural) copses. The area is constrained by its remaining rural character.
Nutbourne West-Nutbourne East Coastal Plain
Potential development will impact on:
valued views, characteristics views to the harbour and the SDNP, views from the AONB and nearby peninsulas: wider separation between Nutbourne West and Nutbourne East, the rural landscape setting,of the AONB, the existing pattern of low density settlement, the well treed landscape setting.
It will also contribute to the loss of:
Pasture, arable fields, hedgerows, trees, woodland copses, characteristic landscape field patterns. The area is constrained by its rural and treed character which contributes to the open setting and character of the AONB.
Upper Chidham Coastal Plain
Potential development will impact on:
Valued views- to the harbour, hills of the SDNP, Bosham Church, setting of Nutbourne Channel and Bosham Harbour, setting of listed buildings, strong rural and tranquil character, views from the SDNP.
Contribute to the loss of:
Arable and paddock fields, hedgerows, trees, tree belts, patches of coastal grassland and wetland, characteristic landscape field patterns.
The area is constrained by its rural and tranquil character, the visually sensitive open large scale fields, its contribution to the open, rural setting of the settlements of Chidham, Nutbourne East and West and their wider separation and its contribution to the wider AONB landscape, including the setting of Nutbourne Channel and Bosham.
Nutbourne East North - Eastern Coastal Plain
Potential development will impact on:
Valued views, rural character, separation between Hambrook and Nutbourne East, semi enclosed and more open character,
Contribute to the loss of: pasture and arable fields, hedgerows, trees, and characteristic field patterns
Nutbourne East Nurseries
Potential development will impact on:
Valued views, characteristic views to the Harbour and SDNP, rural character, separation between Bosham and Nutbourne East, semi enclosed and more open character, the pockets of orchards and small copses.
Contribute to the loss of: pasture and arable fields, hedgerows, trees, and characteristic field patterns

There are clearly significant constraints on the landscape and character if large scale development were to take place in Chidham & Hambrook. The principles in the AONB Management Plan must be rigorously applied to any new developments.

Policy S29, S30, DM 32 Wildlife Corridor
Support
We welcome a specific Policy on wild life corridors located between the SDNP, the Chidham peninsula and Chichester Harbour. The Chidham / East Nutbourne wild life corridor linking important Green Infrastructure, is of special sensitivity.
A variety of species commute or forage between the harbour area and the SDNP including mammals, both deer and bats, of which 10 or more species have been recorded. Badgers, while not normally found on the peninsula, have been seen. Smaller species like Hedgehogs, stoats, weasel, moles, and small prey species, including tawny and barn owls, grey heron and migrant species such as Fieldfare and Redwing use these corridors .
The Ham Brook follows a natural environmental course from the AONB to the SDNP. This natural water course is home to water voles (seen by CDC Wildlife Officer and local environmental volunteers as recently
as January 2019) and the land north of Priors Leaze Lane is a Barn Owl Habitat.There is ancient woodland either side of the railway line next to the trout farm and this is a dormouse habitat too. Development in this area should be constrained by proximity to the wildlife corridor identified by CDC.




AL10/SA10 Chidham & Hambrook
Object
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 had set a target increase of 25 houses. Whilst 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 which is now at capacity and has been for the last year. The new Local Plan requires us to accept a further minimum of 500 properties. This will increase our local housing stock by 50% and will undoubtedly increase the population area by a greater percentage given the age demographic of the area.
6.68 states that" opportunities to relocate and expand the school to two form entry will be sought.". We note that there are similar plans for a relocated and expanded school in Bosham with a site allocated for that purpose, in addition to a new school in Southbourne. Discussions with WSCC have made it clear they would not support the creation of two new schools in such close proximity. It is therefore nonsensical to suggest these two schools could be realised. WSCC data does not support it. Their calculations for schools are based on 210 Primary children for 1000 homes so patently 750 homes would not meet support for two 2 form entry schools. However, the current school is at capacity and cannot on its current site be expanded. If a school project is not forwarded in Chidham & Hambrook the additional children coming from 500 homes would need to travel to Bosham or Southbourne to attend school, along with children from 1100+ homes proposed in Southbourne. There needs to be some clarity and certainty on which of these proposed schools can be achieved and how they would be funded. We find it extraordinary that there is no policy statement on Education.


The Parish Council fully acknowledges that it has a responsibility to contribute to the need for more new housing in the District. However, in view of the above, and having carefully scrutinised the evidence, we believe that 500 homes for Chidham & Hambrook is excessive and is not supported by the documentation. The low provision of amenities, the absence of planned sustainable transport, the proximity of the AONB, the sensitive nature of the landscape and the density of housing proposed, limits the development capacity of the land.
For the reasons given we would like this number significantly reduced by at least 50% in line with Bosham and Fishbourne.

INTRODUCTION - strategic and local importance of A27 improvement

The PC is concerned that the strategic context of the Plan, whilst making reference to the importance of the A27 trunk road, fails to realise the impact of the lack of the implementation of a scheme has on the future sustainability of new development proposed, let alone the completion of those proposed under the current plan.

Reliance on S106 and CIL contributions to mitigate, for instance increased traffic, will have little impact on alleviating the problem that the current A27 represents to communications and, importantly, the city of Chichester's future economic viability.

The plan makes little attempt to future proof Chichester and its hinterland with its continued reliance on relatively low paid employment in tourism, horticulture and areas such as retail.
The Coastal West Sussex and Gt Brighton Local Strategic Statement makes strong reference to the
Inter-relationship between the Bognor Regis northern bypass on the A259, the Arundel bypass and the A27 improvement at Chichester - the impact of these two schemes on Chichester, already apparent at the Bognor roundabout, could be catastrophic congestion.

Comments on Main policies.

S4 Meeting housing need

The Manhood Peninsula is expected to deliver 1993 units during the Plan period. Of this figure, 600 are in Selsey, East Wittering and Hunston, 175 as parish housing requirement in Birdham and North
Mundham. It is not clear what proportion of the residual 1208 fall into the category planning permissions, committed or made as of 2017 and what are expected to be small windfall sites.
Without this breakdown the potential impact on parishes such as Sidlesham, that are deemed unsustainable for housing, cannot be assessed. This is particularly important in Sidlesham where, due to prior consent approvals through the conversion of agricultural / horticultural buildings there is potential for 100 plus new units. This potential that would appear to be categorised as "windfall" obviously does not fit the definition, especially as to date (32 approvals in Sidlesham and Earnley), none are social housing but all are full market and some, costing £600k, are beyond any prospect of meeting the needs of first time buyers. The parish considers the majority of the conversions inappropriate and the potential scale of the number of conversions challenges the District's sustainability definition that is well founded for the parish. Whilst the Parish Council appreciates that the guiding legislation stands outside the local plan process, the potential distortion the developments, which are essentially on the ex Land Settlement Estate, needs to be specifically addressed in the local plan. Additionally, there are implications for policies S11 and DM15.

S6 Affordable Housing, DM4 Affordable Housing Exception Sites (S12 Infrastructure Provision)

The policy and supporting text gives too great a flexibility to developer, especially in terms of the economic viability of development. The renegotiation by developers of the proportion of social housing post original consent appears to have characterised many developments arising from the existing plan and consents that were granted prior to its approval. The fact that the plan seeks to control the artificial sub division of sites to avoid the social housing "trigger" gives a strong indication of many volume builders' reluctance to truly engage in meeting the true scope of overall housing demand. Whilst the hybrid of shared ownership meets a particular aspect of overall demand, it fails to address the increasing necessity of proper social housing. The true economic viability of sites needs rigorous independent assessment and, if not viable as market led development, the appropriateness of the site for development should be reassessed or its consideration for acquisition by, for instance, a community land trust scheme or compulsory purchase to provide social housing should be considered.

Policy S12 is welcomed, but the range of provision to be supported, especially if whole life costs are to be met will place great demands on funding streams such as S106, CIL and other funding streams and there must be doubt as to whether your council's Infrastructure Development Plan can be fully met.

S7 Gypsy and Travellers and Travelling Show People, DM5 Accommodation for Gypsies

It is noted that separate provision is required in the 5yr housing supply for this category. The eligibility for inclusion is that the individual still has an itinerant life style, ie travelling from place to place. Many of the gypsy families/individuals that seem to qualify under this category patently do not exhibit this form of life style. Local experience fully supports this position with gypsy communities simply using their caravan homes as a base to engage in trade, with the site often becoming the builders' type yard for the storage of materials or the waste from their trade. This form of occupation does not distinguish the use from any other individual living in an area and consequently should not qualify for any special recognition; in fact, in many cases such use under normal planning powers would be contrary to policy.

This "special treatment" causes a great deal of resentment in local communities especially where there is a social housing need - that is most areas - and where school places are under pressure.
The qualifying criteria must be fully investigated and a change in status over time reviewed as many sites, originally for itinerate use, simply become settled locations and do not therefore meet the criteria. It seems that the process from itinerant to settled status is a common progression and has the result of the "need" for new pitches continually increasing.

The substantial increase from the 2015 plan requirement to the 90 plus gypsy pitches now identified illustrates how the process is being used to bypass Planning that would restrict the provision of such "housing" if it were built development and that areas become favoured by gypsy communities as other gypsies are already located there and a sub community established. The criteria for assessment of eligibility must be reviewed together with the transition to settled status and additionally the degree to which concentrations of gypsy and other travellers are occurring in specific areas - this is considered to be the case in Sidlesham.

DM6 Accommodation for Agricultural Workers

The reintroduction of this qualifying criteria is welcomed. However, there is a major issue with enforcement and the policy needs to be strengthened to ensure the occupant continues to be employed in agriculture or horticulture. The change away from agricultural/horticultural occupation is often not declared and after the requisite elapse of time, ELD status is applied for. The need to register agricultural/horticultural occupation on an expiry time basis that would exclude qualification under ELD should be considered in the policy and/or the surrounding text. The subdivision of land and the separation of the original accommodation from the land is an increasing aspect of land holding in areas such as Sidlesham. On many sites an agricultural viability assessment is made as to whether a subdivided holding is viable and whether a constant presence on site is required to maintain the use and therefore accommodation required. However, this potential position should be a consideration at the original point of separation and a condition made that the subdivided land should not benefit from a subsequent consent for another house/residential caravan. This subdivision has and continues to be a trait on the ex LSA estate and, particularly within the HDA's, undermines their priority for horticultural production. At least in the HDA's the approval of agricultural worker accommodation should be restricted and perhaps limited to a residential caravan on a temporary consent and not lead to a progression to a permanent building as currently happens.

S11 Horticultural Need, DM15 Horticulture

There appears to be a weakening of the distinction between what in the 2015 Plan were termed
"hub" sites at Runcton and Tangmere and the other HDA sites in Sidlesham and Almodington.
Para 7.92 is particularly troubling ". It is not expected that large scale glasshouse development
(228,000 sq m required) will occur in Sidlesham and Almodington HDA's to the same extent as at
Runcton and Tangmere. The statement introduces doubt over the distinction between large scale industrial type of production and what is termed "market garden" horticulture expected at Sidlesham and Almodington.

The statement about "land adjacent to an HDA" previously related to Runcton and Tangmere. Its extension to Sidlesham and Almodington again introduces doubt over your council's true intentions about the scale of the industry envisaged outside the old hub sites and undermines the strong position it took on large scale such the Madestien proposal in Almodington. Your council stresses the importance of the HDA but continues to allow the break-up of the land within the smaller ones through conversion of buildings to residential and the take of land for gardens under "prior consent" as mentioned above. This approach is contrary to the proposed policy and will lead to further fragmentation and inefficient use of the land that remains. This approach could lead to requests for land outside the current smaller HDA's and bring glasshouse development into conflict with the overall environment. Many of the largest glasshouse developments are outside the HDA's but in established glasshouse areas and lead to the possibility that the HDA's need review and at least two new areas established based on the Fletchers Estate and Jakes Nursery and on Street End Lane. These area are equal or probably exceed production in many parts of the two HDA's.

S23 Transport and Accessibility

The strategic need for a solution to the A27 has already been mentioned but the impact locally cannot be overstressed in respect of the Manhood Peninsula. The high levels of out commuting for employment and many services are all dependent on a functioning A27 and further development in reality can only aggravate a non-functioning situation.

The cul-de-sac position of Selsey presents major problems for the town - the second largest in the district - in terms of emergency services and, for instance, the levels of congestion when heavy domestic traffic flows are combined with the summer tourist traffic that swells the population to approaching four to five times its winter levels. The sustainability of this situation in terms of environmental impact, the economic viability and overall acceptability must be doubtful. This is apparent to the road users but increasingly the areas that the road passes through, such as
Sidlesham, suffer pollution from exhaust emissions, noise, unacceptable delay in access from adjoining roads and properties, just simply crossing the road by pedestrians is made almost impossible as traffic is so often two way with no gaps. This situation cannot be ignored and just allow the road to be loaded with more traffic. The carrying capacity of the B2145 must be seen as a limiting factor in any future development in Selsey. This situation is mirrored on the A286 with The Witterings and Bracklesham.

It will be important that development in Selsey contributes to traffic management on the B2145 and that the whole of the road is eligible for any S106 and CIL contributions and not just the immediate locality of Selsey. The overall intention should be to improve safety, ensure speed is observed and allow safe road crossing. These factors will be considered within the Sidlesham Neighbourhood Plan.

Pollution is an increasing concern and in line with the Plan's policy objectives for greening of the environment, structural tree planting will be proposed within the B2145 corridor. The plan makes reference to sustainable transport but there are no specific proposals. It is suggested that for the Manhood Peninsula the proposed Greenway Selsey to Chichester is part of a specific policy that seeks to protect the adopted route and that Neighbourhood Plans for Hunston, Sidlesham and Selsey then adopt the route into their plans.

S24 Countryside, DM22 Development in the countryside, DM31 Trees, hedgerow and
woodland, DM29 Biodiversity

These policies and accompanying text is supported and will form the basis of Sidlesham's Neighbourhood Plan. Para 5.39 indicates conversions of existing buildings will be favourably considered where they lead to uses needed to support the rural economy and create 'rural affordable housing'. Currently, many conversions do not meet these criteria, especially the latter where often large upper market houses are developed way out of the range of meeting any local social need. The policy needs to reflect this problem with more specific criteria covering what is acceptable within the scope of any conversion.

The identity of the rural areas is an important consideration in maintaining their character if they are not to become just the spaces between larger settlements. This is particularly important on the
Manhood Peninsula and in the countryside associated with the transport corridors of the A286 and
B2145. The open countryside along these routes with their small settlements are in danger of encroachment by development and urbanisation. A specific policy is suggested to protect such areas and enhance their character by schemes of tree planting, improvement to the roadside environment and strong traffic management. Again, this approach will feature in the Neighbourhood Plan.
Whilst it is appreciated that agriculture is currently in a state of uncertainty, a policy that seeks to promote the balance between agricultural production, the environment and amenity would be welcome as a basis for whatever system of agricultural subsidy eventually is formulated. Particular emphasis should be placed on the protection of high grade agricultural land (grade 1 - 3a), biodiversity , and for instance structural tree planting for drainage and co2 reduction. A positive approach to recreational access in support of green tourism should also form part of a strengthened countryside policies.

S25 The Coast, S30 Strategic Wildlife Corridors

The policy makes reference to Chichester Harbour Management Plan but should also make reference to the Pagham Harbour Management Plan - although this currently only covers the period to 2018, the RSPB can be expected to bring forward a new plan for the next 5-10yr period.
The significant changes to the Pagham Spit over a relatively short period of time could have significant impact on the drainage of the harbour and particularly the surrounding land and including the R. Lavant flood relief channel. The importance of the Harbour's drainage function should be reflected in a specific policy that balances the significance of the habitat with the land drainage issues.

The Medmerry Scheme has created a significant change in the coastal geography creating a significant new coastal habitat extending westward from the margins of Pagham Harbour to within a short distance of the edge of Chichester Harbour AONB. An important corridor for wildlife is developing over the short distance between the two and should be considered as a designated area under policy S30.

S27 Flood Risk Management

The plan makes reference to flood risk but does not fully realise its significance to the Manhood
Peninsula and the constraints it places on development, the future of its economy and the resilience of its communities.

Whilst SUDS has its uses in localised drainage it often simply drains an area into a downstream network that has to cope with the additional run off. The Peninsula has an extremely high water table for the majority of the year that makes most soakaway drainage ineffective. An integrated network utilising the existing ditch system and augmenting this with attenuation areas with good clear outlets to the sea must be developed and maintained.

Many new housing developments rely on SUDS but simply only cover the development site. Developers have to be responsible for the water they produce from the point of generation to its disposal to the sea or main river. This should form a requirement of any planning agreement and a policy within the plan should reflect and formalise this responsibility. Realisation of the true infrastructure cost of drainage should be fully reflected in the site evaluation process and its economic viability. The development of many coastal locations or those on flood plain may be proven uneconomic if the real cost for drainage were realised and not the passing on of the problem
downstream as currently occurs.

Reference is made to Surface Water Management Plans. It is the responsibility of the lead strategic flood authority (in this case WSCC) to produce and maintain these plans. As a material consideration there should be policy and text to ensure the plans are kept up to date and that priorities identified in plans are brought forward for action and funding such as CIL directed to their implementation.

S31 Wastewater Management and Water Quality

Southern Water needs to have information on future demand foul drainage - detailed discussions with SW have shown that the levels of development known to them, especially in respect of
Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment Works, do not appear to reflect the development levels and question the capacity of the facility. Additionally, the size and overall functioning of the pipe network is very troublesome, for example, the "trunk main" from the Witterings. It would appear that calculations are primarily based on dry flow rates where much of the pre 1960's housing on the
Peninsula has mixed drainage and the foul system suffers from ground water inundation. The Parish requests that a clear reappraisal of the wastewater capacity of SWWTW and of the network is made and the infrastructure costs of a system that has the required headroom and a network that will support existing and any new development is made and factored into the plan.

DM35 Equestrian Development

The parish is concerned about the high level of horse related development that is occurring on the
Peninsula, especially on the settlement boundary margins, within the ex LSA estates, and associated with gypsy sites. Much of this development is often deemed as "agricultural use" when it is really a "change of use" as the livestock are not supported by grazing of the land. The use for "horse culture" often removes high quality land form agricultural/ horticultural use, despoils the land creating a strong visual intrusion often close to residential areas. The Plan policy should ensure that the change of use is properly applied and enforced. Clarity should also be sought as to the true recreational nature of much of the horse keeping and as there is no bridleway network on the Peninsula how often large numbers of horses kept on a small acreage might be exercised.

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status 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 particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment