Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services

4.85 When will the secondary school capacity forecasts be reviewed next?

This plan appears to be supporting a backdoor approach to reintroduce the discredited option 2 from the HE plan. This has been shown to be a sticking plaster for the need to provide junction free flows east and west of the city. This approach would allow the existing roads to remain unchanged to provide access to the planned developments and enable far greater access to the city from the manhood peninsula, further increasing benefit to the majority of local residents. It would in addition enable easier transit access for the planned developments to the west of the city. With the current plans the access to the Fishbourne roundabout will become a major bottle neck. The enabler required here is the northern bypass - once in place only minor changes to the current transport infrastructure will be required - how do CDC and HE unblock this huge dependency? Any changes tot he existing A27 are a) lengthy b) have limited cost benefit c) are transitory in solving the problem d)

Infrastructure should be as standard not dependant on funding. No evidence in report of funding source.No Detail. No funding then no development ! 4.83 no funding identified.4.84 where is the evidence that A27 funding has been obtained. No evidence of statutory meeting with HE in the Local Plan.HE not consulted.Existing schools already expanded unsatisfactorily ie Parklands closed to pupils in the summer due to excessive heat ! Schools need to be built near developments. Unless these issues are adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan, I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Paras 4.84/4.86. Given estimated scale of cost of the proposed A27 by-pass works will be beyond that obtainable via S106/S278 Agreements and as those works are viewed as a critical priority, does this mean that the new Local Plan could fail the viability tests in NPPF paras 34 and 57?

Para 4.84. Is proposed scope of contributing developments consistent with Highways England's current approach of requiring contributions from not only new housing development identified in current LP but also significant new economic/business development, as well as significant "windfall" housing development not specifically identified in LP? Could therefore significant windfall/not identified in LP developments avoid contributing to A27 junctions package? Comment also applicable to first sentence of Policy S23's penultimate para.

Note comments submitted on Transport Infrastructure section.

After "S278" insert "Agreements" for clarity.

Para 4.85. Primary Education. Currently in the Chichester school place planning locality there is spare capacity in some of the within City schools, but limited or no capacity in those in surrounding Parishes. Consideration is needed with regards the transport and family management implications of pupils living in adjacent (to City) Parishes having to attend within City schools, particularly as major growth is proposed to East of the City, away from schools with current spare capacity and the degree of road network congestion. This issue would appear to require some reference in this paragraph and reinforces the requirement for early provision of enhanced primary education facilities within and/or adjacent to allocations at Hunston, Oving/Shopwyke, Tangmere and Westhampnett.

4.85 - with allocations of over 1000 homes for the Manhood peninsula it is inevitable that there will be a need for additional schools, both primary and secondary, in the area. Whilst "large scale" sites will have schools included, the cumulative effect of smaller scale developments must also be considered. Without this, additional traffic will be generated as parents are forced to transport their children to the available school places which may well not be local to their homes. It is not sufficient to say that the secondary school situation will be "kept under review". Land should be identified for the school site at the earliest possible stage in order that it can be built. The location will be key to where developments are best suited. There cannot be sufficient secondary school places available once the current sites with permission are taken into account.

The difficulty of finding funding for the necessary infrastructure provision is difficult to reconcile with the need for affordable housing in the district, particularly in the parishes identified as Service Villages. Without a viability study it is difficult to justify the projected housing figures in the Plan

There are no proposals for any new primary schools in the Manhood Peninsula. This will only increase pressure on current schools to provide more places and lead to increased traffic on the roads as parents are forced to commute to schools outside their local area where places may be available.

This does not cover enough detail.
Local communities have requested a new strategic route for the A27 and have quite clearly vetoed the proposed changes at Whyke, Stockbridge and Fishbourne roundabouts.
Local road users should not be forced to take longer routes to go about their daily life.

This mentions "the A27 junctions package of improvements" as if this is some preferred solution for the A27. It is not. The plan should be supporting the preferred WSCC/CDC scheme for a new northern bypass. S106 and 278 money can be used towards the DfT northern bypass.

Paragraph 4.98 confuses me. WSCC is the Highway authority for non motorway and non Trunk Roads so who are Peter Brett Associates employed by? Why is this in CDC's local plan? Regarding the A27 (Trunk Road, the responsibility of the Department for Transport), the statement "..improvements to the A27 junctions are discussed further on pages 79-83" Is not helpful when reading the plan on-line. There are no page numbers. This policy of tinkering with the junctions will not resolve the issues of the A27. This approach was rejected by the public at Highways England's formal consultation.

4.84 states that "Some funding for the A27 junctions package of improvements has already been secured from planning permissions granted to date." This does not cover enough detail to be a statement in the local plan. Unless the detail is provided of the funds and the plan for the funds then this is irrelevant. Key is that the population of Chichester have asked for a new strategic route for the A27 endorsed by both CDC and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) in a democratic process. This needs to be incorporated into the plan. We should NOT be using development money to improve a Highways England (HE) road. If the main strategic road for the south coast is not fit for purpose, the government needs to provide sufficient funds from its increased roads budget to build one that is. If it can't afford to then it must reduce the housing quota for the district. CDC should go back to government and state that the allocation of housing numbers within a very constrained area is not deliverable unless an acceptable solution to the A27 is provided within the life of this revised plan.

With refernece to section 4.85 There is known capacity with schools to the North of the city in the SDNP. Provision should be made for housing where vacancies currently exist and where the school PAN can easily be increased without resorting to further building. As a result options to the North of the local plan must be part of a strategic development site.

Support paragraph 4.91.
The city centre is the historic heart of Chichester and the main location for shopping, entertainment, visitor attractions, and a large proportion of the city's employment. In order to maintain and enhance the vitality of the centre, it is desirable to plan to accommodate a mix of uses including some new retail, other business uses such as offices, and residential development...

4.8
No mention is made of supporting the Marine Industry within the confines of Chichester Harbour. This is essential and a new paragraph must be added. There is pressure on Northshore, Dell Quay and other smaller sites. The old Burnes site is left in ruin. This could be run as a successful business maybe with a few week-end retreats to help fund. All sites can thrive with clear policies by CDC. We must retain and encourage our marine industry. We lost Coombes many years ago due to CDC inability to support local business.

4.86
This is not acceptable as a clause. Infrastructure is critical. We cannot build if the roads, water or mains drainage is insufficient.

Chichester District Council
Local Plan consultation 2018/19

Comments by
Anthony Tuffin

1. There is no simple and intuitive way to comment online. A cynic could be forgiven for suspecting that the web designer had been instructed to make it difficult for the public to comment. So, I am commenting by e-mail.

2. Summary:
2.1 Selsey is not a hub.
2.2 Opportunities have been missed for development north of Chichester.
2.3 Manhood cannot cope with more development until a new A27 has been built north of Chichester.

3. 6.79 describes Selsey as 'settlement hub', but goes on to state that "it is located at the southern end of the Manhood Peninsula (Selsey Bill)" and 6.81 states, "The B2145 is the only road connecting the town to the north" As there is sea to the east, south and west of Selsey and only one road to the north in and out of the town, it is not a hub. Indeed, it is at the circumference end of just one spoke.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "hub" means;
* The central part of a wheel, rotating on or with the axle, and from which the spokes radiate.
* The effective centre of an activity, region, or network.
* A central airport or other transport facility from which many services operate.

I.e., "centre" or "central" is the key part of the meaning, but Selsey is neither a centre nor central.

4. The Council should not import housing need that the South Downs National Park (SDNP) refuses.

5. The Chichester District cannot accommodate future housing or employment space until the A27 uncertainty is ended. The local population rejected Highways England's last proposal.

6. Para 3.4 omits development opportunities north of the city. Including these would help us reduce the pressure to the south where there is a lack of appropriate space because of the flood plain.

7. Para 3.7 states, "The relationship between the National Park and significant natural areas to the south, especially Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, will be carefully managed by maintaining and enhancing the countryside between settlements." How, then, can you justify the proposal at Apuldram, which would remove the only view of a cathedral from the sea in the country and long-distance views of the downs?

8. Para 3.19 Strategic infrastructure excludes the Mitigated Northern Route. Tweaking the existing A27 lacks local community consensus and would prevent us from getting a long-term solution; i.e., a strategic northern route.

9. Policy S4 Why is there no housing planned for the area between the city and the SDNP to relieve the pressure south of the city?

10. Para 4.84 "Some funding for the A27 junctions package of improvements has already been secured from planning permissions granted to date." The population of Chichester have asked for a new strategic route for the A27 endorsed by both CDC and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) in a democratic process.
We should not spend money to improve a road that is Highways England's responsibility.
It is Highways England's responsibility to provide a suitable trunk road for the south coast and it is the Government's responsibility to fund it.
CDC cannot accept housing allocation for the Manhood Peninsula surrounded by the sea and the congested A27 until the congestion is relieved.
11. DM24 air pollution. There seem no recommendations for the reduction in air pollution. As the prevailing wind is from the south-west, the best long-term solution would be to site the A27 north of the city.

End.

See attachment

See attachment