Policy S12: Infrastructure Provision

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 57

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 88

Received: 10/01/2019

Respondent: Dr Carolyn Cobbold

Representation Summary:

Chichester District already suffers from insufficient road capacity.CDC plans for the A27 junctions and link road will not solve the problem.Without a long term,resilient, robust solution to the A27, CDC should resist the government's housing numbers.A27 has no diversionary route in the event of congestion, accidents or roadworks.Directing local traffic off the A27onto the A286 is illogical and not a solution. Spending CIL money on improving the road infrastructure, when a dysfunctional A27 is the cause of the problem, is not justifiable.

Full text:

Chichester District already suffers from insufficient road capacity.CDC plans for the A27 junctions and link road will not solve the problem.Without a long term,resilient, robust solution to the A27, CDC should resist the government's housing numbers.A27 has no diversionary route in the event of congestion, accidents or roadworks.Directing local traffic off the A27onto the A286 is illogical and not a solution. Spending CIL money on improving the road infrastructure, when a dysfunctional A27 is the cause of the problem, is not justifiable.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 109

Received: 12/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Alice Smith

Representation Summary:

I am concerned that infrastructure currently goes in last, ie not provided by developers until the last home has been sold.

Full text:

I am concerned that infrastructure currently goes in last, ie not provided by developers until the last home has been sold.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 115

Received: 12/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Hicks

Representation Summary:

Policy S12, paragraph 3, add a bullet point "waste-water treatment"

Full text:

Policy S12, paragraph 3, add a bullet point "waste-water treatment"

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 198

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Carey Mackinnon

Representation Summary:

S12. Infrastructure provision
No new large developments on the Western Manhood Peninsula should be allowed at all and certainly none until infrastructure is in place.

Full text:

S12. Infrastructure provision
No new large developments on the Western Manhood Peninsula should be allowed at all and certainly none until infrastructure is in place.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 239

Received: 29/01/2019

Respondent: Sustrans

Representation Summary:

Point 4 of this policy should refer to Sustainable transport forms including cycling.

Full text:

Point 4 of this policy should refer to Sustainable transport forms including cycling.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 287

Received: 21/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Peter Balaam

Representation Summary:

The Plan takes no account of the increased number of children of school age. Many of these children will have to driven by their parents to schools that are in Chichester, north of the A27. This will generate yet more traffic in the area on the south side of Chichester.

Full text:

The Plan takes no account of the increased number of children of school age. Many of these children will have to driven by their parents to schools that are in Chichester, north of the A27. This will generate yet more traffic in the area on the south side of Chichester.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 322

Received: 23/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Sansby

Representation Summary:

A new Regional sewerage solution is needed to replace the unsustainable use of Aldingbourne Rife for sewage disposal.With large housing allocations to the north of Chichester Harbour it will not be possible to discharge effluent from Thornham WWTW and Bosham WWTW in future. Tighter standards for Nitrates and Phosphates will make these works redundant and the only sustainable solution is to treat all the flows at Apuldram and discharge at Bracklesham. A regional solution will allow future effluent re-use if this becomes desirable.

Full text:

A new Regional sewerage solution is needed to replace the unsustainable use of Aldingbourne Rife for sewage disposal.With large housing allocations to the north of Chichester Harbour it will not be possible to discharge effluent from Thornham WWTW and Bosham WWTW in future. Tighter standards for Nitrates and Phosphates will make these works redundant and the only sustainable solution is to treat all the flows at Apuldram and discharge at Bracklesham. A regional solution will allow future effluent re-use if this becomes desirable.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 365

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Pieter Montyn

Representation Summary:

Policy S 12: the requirements expressed are laudable: however the track record so far in relation to f.i. local highways and sewage networks does not inspire confidence.
To leave it to condition this within planning permissions demonstrably does not work. In recent years one water company has managed to ignore such conditions and subsequently have these lifted or discharged on two occasions on the Peninsula.
Undertakers and LPAs must be engaged as early as possible and requirements for the funding and provision of new infrastructure must be much tougher and stringent.
There is no reference to sewage treatment works

Full text:

Policy S 12: the requirements expressed are laudable: however the track record so far in relation to f.i. local highways and sewage networks does not inspire confidence.
To leave it to condition this within planning permissions demonstrably does not work. In recent years one water company has managed to ignore such conditions and subsequently have these lifted or discharged on two occasions on the Peninsula.
Undertakers and LPAs must be engaged as early as possible and requirements for the funding and provision of new infrastructure must be much tougher and stringent.
There is no reference to sewage treatment works

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 433

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Graeme Barrett

Representation Summary:

Even though the Manhood Peninsula has nearly provided its allocated number of new homes against the adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 the following bullet point has yet to be undertaken:
Phase development to coordinate with the delivery of necessary infrastructure, facilities and services.
Until the mitigation has been put in place to meet the current supply of new homes additional numbers must be withheld.
Already we have issues with:
School Places
Medical Centre
Sewage infrastructure
Access on and off the Peninsula, in particular during the holiday periods

Full text:

Resident of West Wittering
Even though the Manhood Peninsula has nearly provided its allocated number of new homes against the adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 the following bullet point has yet to be undertaken:
Phase development to coordinate with the delivery of necessary infrastructure, facilities and services.
Until the mitigation has been put in place to meet the current supply of new homes additional numbers must be withheld.
Already we have issues with:
School Places
Medical Centre
Sewage infrastructure
Access on and off the Peninsula, in particular during the holiday periods

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 483

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Zoe Neal

Representation Summary:

What do you actually mean by "safeguarding"- the word itself means a measure taken to protect someone or something or to prevent something undesirable? What measures will you take? This needs to be clearer as it is a woolly statement especially with a focus on educational facilities, considering Westminster's policy on new school provision.
In addition there is no mention of a requirement here of constructing new sewage infrastructure provision.

Full text:

What do you actually mean by "safeguarding"- the word itself means a measure taken to protect someone or something or to prevent something undesirable? What measures will you take? This needs to be clearer as it is a woolly statement especially with a focus on educational facilities, considering Westminster's policy on new school provision.
In addition there is no mention of a requirement here of constructing new sewage infrastructure provision.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 584

Received: 30/01/2019

Respondent: Julia Smith

Representation Summary:

It is vital that this is done to the letter of the policy, and on that basis I support. CDC must learn the lessons from other developments and poor infrastructure provision.

Full text:

It is vital that this is done to the letter of the policy, and on that basis I support. CDC must learn the lessons from other developments and poor infrastructure provision.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 635

Received: 25/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Philip Waters

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

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

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

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 683

Received: 31/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn

Representation Summary:

"timely adequate infrastructure" where is the detailed evidence. Where is the details of funding? What are the transport modes ? Very little evidence so far that developers contribute to infrastructure on new developments other than odd football pitch or play park !4.88 There are not good transport links all traffic has to go west to Emsworth or east to Fishbourne roundabout.Already at capacity.Trains only stop at small stations now once an hour. Insufficient bus service out of peak hours & unaffordable. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations,i will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Full text:

"timely adequate infrastructure" where is the detailed evidence. Where is the details of funding? What are the transport modes ? Very little evidence so far that developers contribute to infrastructure on new developments other than odd football pitch or play park !4.88 There are not good transport links all traffic has to go west to Emsworth or east to Fishbourne roundabout.Already at capacity.Trains only stop at small stations now once an hour. Insufficient bus service out of peak hours & unaffordable. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations,i will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 938

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Barrie Allsop

Representation Summary:

This plan should be revised in order to avoid to get the infrastructure matters on the Manhood Peninsula resolved before any further housing development is started.

Full text:

This plan should be revised in order to avoid to get the infrastructure matters on the Manhood Peninsula resolved before any further housing development is started.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 955

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Robert Lock

Representation Summary:

Cuts to the Sussex Police budget have resulted in a significant reduction in Officers involved Neighbourhood and Roads policing and the closure of local Police Stations. Simply put, there are not enough police officers to cope effectively with current population numbers.
This plan, which is only one of the proposals for the area, will exacerbate this problem and place both public and Officers in greater danger. The same can be said of Fire and Ambulance Services

Full text:

Para 10.

Cuts to the Sussex Police budget have resulted in a significant reduction in Officers involved Neighbourhood and Roads policing and the closure of local Police Stations. Simply put, there are not enough police officers to cope effectively with current population numbers. This plan, which is only one of the proposals for the area, will exacerbate this problem and place both public and Officers in greater danger. The same can be said of Fire and Ambulance Services

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 981

Received: 03/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Margaret Holdstock

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Vague lipservice on how infrastructure will be funded or implemented.

Full text:

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

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 993

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Birdham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Whilst Birdham Parish Council, in the main, supports Policy S12 there is no indication as to how this will be implemented.
We are continually told that the infrastructure will follow the development, in our opinion if the infrastructure is required to support the development than this must come first and enforced.

Full text:

Whilst Birdham Parish Council, in the main, supports Policy S12 there is no indication as to how this will be implemented.
We are continually told that the infrastructure will follow the development, in our opinion if the infrastructure is required to support the development than this must come first and enforced.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1010

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Keith Martin

Representation Summary:

Safeguarding the requirements of infrastructure providers includes a list of providers in a curious order. It's not alphabetical which suggests that maybe it is in priority, Broadband surely does not come top of such a list.

Although addressed elsewhere, roads should be included in the list.

Full text:

Safeguarding the requirements of infrastructure providers includes a list of providers in a curious order. It's not alphabetical which suggests that maybe it is in priority, Broadband surely does not come top of such a list.

Although addressed elsewhere, roads should be included in the list.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1156

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Iain Dodson

Representation Summary:

Put in required infrastructure especially sewage disposal before development.

Full text:

I am a retired FRICS and have some knowledge of Housing Matters. The need for more affordable/social housing is accepted by most people who want to see a settled and fair society. How this is achieved is the issue. The current proposals achieve nothing, mainly due to how the big builders manage to manipulate Government policy to suit themselves at the expense of local needs and in this locality create problems listed as follows.

1.Flooding. Increase in surface water drainage ends up in the water meadows and harbour AONB.
2.Pollution. Most surface water drainage is polluted and I draw attention to a recent hydrocarbon spillage in Fishbourne which gravitated as always into the Millpond Water Meadows and Harbour all of which are protected areas and home to endangered species including water vole.
3.Capacity issues at Appledram Sewage Works and others. A recent Freedom of Information Act enquiry confirmed the system cannot cope with the current volume of waste and now admitted by Southern Water. On site treatments are unreliable and failure in this locality could be catastrophic.
4.Traffic. More development of the type proposed will just exacerbate current well documented problems around the A27 and local roads.

There needs to be new thinking by both Central and Local Government on where to put extra housing and stop the obsession of building on green belt and creating urban sprawl.

1.Chichester centre. Online shopping is destroying secondary/tertiary retail areas. Grasp the nettle and use these areas for apartments. Stop the influx of Charity shops the usual death knell of shopping areas. Incentivise change of use to residential. Get the Housing Associations involved with Government support.
2.Put in required infrastructure especially sewage disposal before development. This is just plain common sense.
3.Remove the rules that favour developments of more than 100 units
4.Rein in the South Downs National Park Authority. Many communities in the South Downs would welcome small pockets of affordable housing so that younger people with families can remain and ensure the survival of local primary schools, village shop, real communities. Again get the Housing Associations involved with Government support and make it less of an attraction for 2nd home owners.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1160

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Thames Water Utilities Ltd

Agent: Savills UK

Representation Summary:

Thames Water support the policy in principle where it refers to water supply and foul sewer infrastructure, but consider that it can be improved with more detailed reference to wastewater/sewerage infrastructure requirements.

The new Local Plan should therefore seek to ensure that there is adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to serve all new developments. Thames Water will work with developers and local authorities to ensure that any necessary
infrastructure reinforcement is delivered ahead of the occupation of development. Where there are infrastructure constraints, it is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary infrastructure.

Full text:

Thames Water Utilities Ltd (Thames Water) Property Services function is being delivered by Savills (UK) Limited as Thames Water's appointed supplier. Savills are therefore pleased to respond to the above consultation on behalf of Thames Water in relation to their statutory undertakings.

Thames Water are the statutory sewerage undertaker for a small part of the northern area of the District around Haslemere and are hence a "specific consultation body" in accordance with the Town & Country Planning
(Local Planning) Regulations 2012.

We have the following comments on behalf of Thames Water:

Policy S12: Infrastructure Provision - Comments In Relation to Sewerage/Wastewater Infrastructure

Thames Water support the policy in principle where it refers to water supply and foul sewer infrastructure, but consider that it can be improved with more detailed reference to wastewater/sewerage infrastructure requirements.

Thames Water seeks to co-operate and maintain a good working relationship with local planning authorities in its area and to provide the support they need with regards to the provision of sewerage/wastewater treatment
[and water supply] infrastructure.

Water and wastewater infrastructure is essential to any development. Failure to ensure that any required upgrades to the infrastructure network are delivered alongside development could result in adverse impacts in the form of internal and external sewer flooding and pollution of land and water courses and/or low water
pressure.

A key sustainability objective for the preparation of Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans should be for new development to be co-ordinated with the infrastructure it demands and to take into account the capacity of existing infrastructure. Paragraph 20 of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), July 2018,
states: "Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for... infrastructure for waste management, water supply, wastewater..."

Paragraph 28 relates to non-strategic policies and states: "Non-strategic policies should be used by local planning authorities and communities to set out more detailed policies for specific areas, neighbourhoods or types of development. This can include allocating sites, the provision of infrastructure..."

Paragraph 26 of the revised NPPF goes on to state: "Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary...."

The web based National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) includes a section on 'water supply, wastewater and water quality' and sets out that Local Plans should be the focus for ensuring that investment plans of water and sewerage/wastewater companies align with development needs. The introduction to this section also sets out that "Adequate water and wastewater infrastructure is needed to support sustainable development" (Paragraph: 001, Reference ID: 34-001-20140306).

It is important to consider the net increase in water and wastewater demand to serve the development and also any impact that developments may have off site, further down the network. The new Local Plan should therefore seek to ensure that there is adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to serve all new
developments. Thames Water will work with developers and local authorities to ensure that any necessary infrastructure reinforcement is delivered ahead of the occupation of development. Where there are infrastructure constraints, it is important not to under estimate the time required to deliver necessary
infrastructure. For example: local network upgrades take around 18 months and Sewage Treatment & Water Treatment Works upgrades can take 3-5 years.

The provision of water treatment (both wastewater treatment and water supply) is met by Thames Water's asset plans and from the 1st April 2018 network improvements will be from infrastructure charges per new dwelling.

From 1st April 2018, the way Thames Water and all other water and wastewater companies charge for new connections has changed. The changes mean that more of Thames Water's charges will be fixed and published, rather than provided on application, enabling you to estimate your costs without needing to contact
us. The services affected include new water connections, lateral drain connections, water mains and sewers (requisitions), traffic management costs, income offsetting and infrastructure charges.

Information on how off site network reinforcement is funded can be found here
https://developers.thameswater.co.uk/New-connection-charging

Thames Water therefore recommends that developers engage with them at the earliest opportunity (in line with paragraph 26 of the revised NPPF) to establish the following:
 The developments demand for water supply and network infrastructure both on and off site;
 The developments demand for Sewage/Wastewater Treatment and network infrastructure both on and off site and can it be met; and
 The surface water drainage requirements and flood risk of the development both on and off site and can it be met.

Thames Water offer a free Pre-Planning service which confirms if capacity exists to serve the development or if upgrades are required for potable water, waste water and surface water requirements. Details on Thames Water's free pre planning service are available at: https://www.thameswater.co.uk/preplanning

In light of the above comments and Government guidance we consider that the New Local Plan should include a specific reference to the key issue of the provision of water and sewerage/wastewater infrastructure to service development proposed in a policy. This is necessary because it will not be possible to identify all of the
water/sewerage infrastructure required over the plan period due to the way water companies are regulated and plan in 5 year periods (Asset Management Plans or AMPs). We recommend the Local Plan include the following
policy/supporting text:

PROPOSED NEW WATER/WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE TEXT

"Where appropriate, planning permission for developments which result in the need for off-site upgrades, will be subject to conditions to ensure the occupation is aligned with the delivery of necessary infrastructure upgrades."

"The Local Planning Authority will seek to ensure that there is adequate water and wastewater infrastructure to serve all new developments. Developers are encouraged to contact the water/waste water company as early as possible to discuss their development proposals and intended delivery programme to assist with identifying any potential water and wastewater network reinforcement
requirements. Where there is a capacity constraint the Local Planning Authority will, where appropriate, apply phasing conditions to any approval to ensure that any necessary infrastructure upgrades are delivered ahead of the occupation of the relevant phase of development."

Local Authorities should also consider both the requirements of the utilities for land to enable them to meet the demands that will be placed upon them. This is necessary because it will not be possible to identify all the water and wastewater/sewerage infrastructure required over the plan period due to the way water companies are regulated and plan in 5 year periods (AMPs). We are currently in the AMP6 period which runs from 1st April 2015 to 31st March 2020 and does not therefore cover the whole Local Plan period. AMP7 will cover the period
from 1st April 2020 to 31st March 2025. The next Price Review, whereby the water companies' AMP7 Business Plan will be agreed with Ofwat, takes place in 2019.

We therefore request that the new Local Plan include the following policy/supporting text:

"The development or expansion of water supply or waste water facilities will normally be permitted, either where needed to serve existing or proposed development in accordance with the provisions of the Development Plan, or in the interests of long term water supply and waste water management, provided that the need for such facilities outweighs any adverse land use or environmental impact that any such adverse impact is minimised."

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1252

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: North Mundham Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Past performance and evidence from the local foul sewer performance indicate that the local planning authority has been far too ready to accept the assurances of the utility provider that adequate capacity exists.

Full text:

Past performance and evidence from the local foul sewer performance indicate that the local planning authority has been far too ready to accept the assurances of the utility provider that adequate capacity exists.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1277

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: HMPC Ltd

Representation Summary:

Policy S12 should go further to provide a clear expectation on developers of large sites to plan and provide for their full infrastructure impacts, before or in parallel with implementation.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.81 states the delivery of infrastructure to support new development is dependent upon maximising the contribution from the development process whilst recognising that a contribution from both the public and private sector will frequently be necessary. This is a well-recognised position and cannot be criticised, yet when any new development proposal comes forward there is an inevitability that the community will oppose on grounds of the lack of existing local services and infrastructure and the all too often lack of early provision making good the shortfall. The reasons are well rehearsed and unlikely to change without a robust policy position in the local plan. It is recognised in recent local developments some infrastructure has been provided, generally on-site, but Policy S12 should go further to provide a clear expectation on developers of large sites to plan and provide for their full infrastructure impacts, before or in parallel with implementation.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1308

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Bosham Football Club

Representation Summary:

It should be noted that following the District Council proposal to work with stakeholders - Bosham Football Club; should be engaging with us and co-ordinating on providing support to develop the plan. Co-ordinating a working group that is elected by the Parish/Parishes of the Bournes' to identify a site and have a facility that is for multi-sport use.

Full text:

It should be noted that following the District Council proposal to work with stakeholders - Bosham Football Club; should be engaging with us and co-ordinating on providing support to develop the plan. Co-ordinating a working group that is elected by the Parish/Parishes of the Bournes' to identify a site and have a facility that is for multi-sport use.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1341

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Simon Davenport

Representation Summary:

Schools development in the area as housing has increased, would avoid the need for primary school pupils in particular to commute to schools in the city of Chichester.

Full text:

Schools development in the area as housing has increased, would avoid the need for primary school pupils in particular to commute to schools in the city of Chichester.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1450

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Graham Campbell

Representation Summary:

Environmental, and infrastructural constraints were recognised when allocating housing on the Manhood Peninsula in the adopted Plan. Additionally, building on the Manhood Peninsula was front loaded because of capacity limitations at the Tangmere Water Works. The Manhood's requirement until 2029 has already been exceeded by a large margin. The environmental, and infrastructural constraints remain unchanged, with the A27 improvements seemingly further than ever from resolution. As there is a huge oversupply of development sites, no housing should be allocated to Birdham, Bracklesham or West Wittering in this plan cycle, or until infrastructure improvements are complete.

Full text:

I wish to object to this plan, for the following reasons:
1. There has been no attempt to justify the increase in annual housing numbers from 435 in the Adopted Plan to 650. The Adopted Plan cited environmental and infrastructural constraints as a reason for using 435 as the annual figure. None of these constraints have changed, yet the housing figure has increased by nearly 50% without a word of justification. No houses should be accepted from the SDNP, and the housing figure should be reduced to reflect the 2016 ONS household projections. Chichester does not need 609 houses every year until 2035, and is under too much environmental pressure to accept houses from a vast National Park.
2. Using the figure of 650 houses per year, the plan calculates that 4400 houses are needed from strategic locations. It then lists the strategic locations, which adds up to a total 7985 houses. Considering that the total figure should be more like 550 houses pa, the figure of 4400 is itself too high, and should be more like 2900. This means an excess of 5000 houses has been allocated. I may be reading these figures incorrectly, but it seems to me that a large number (I would suggest at least 2500) be removed from the proposed sites. A large number of the houses proposed are more or less immediately adjacent to the Chichester Harbour AONB. I suggest removing those doing most harm to the AONB.
3. Far too much building has been proposed that damages the Chichester Harbour AONB. Especially Policy AL6 (Land South-West of Chichester, Apuldram and Donnington Parishes) which proposes a new link road which cuts the harbour off from the city, and a major commercial development within a few hundred metres of the AONB. Any plans for a link road should be abandoned, and the commercial site should be moved to the East of the city. Airfields usually provide a good hub for commercial sites, so close to Goodwood airfield would be a suitable place. The houses proposed for this site are not needed.
4. Environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints were recognised when allocating housing on the Manhood Peninsula in the adopted Plan. Additionally, building on the Manhood Peninsula was front loaded because of capacity limitations at the Tangmere Water Works. The Manhood's requirement until 2029 has already been exceeded by a large margin. The environmental, and particularly infrastructural constraints remain completely unchanged, with the A27 improvements seemingly further than ever from resolution. The A286 is becoming busier and noisier, with complete gridlock on holiday weekends. As there is a huge oversupply of development sites, no housing should be allocated to Birdham, Bracklesham or West Wittering in this plan cycle, or until infrastructure improvements are complete.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1454

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Donnington Parish Council

Representation Summary:

There are no proposals for any new schools in the Manhood Peninsula. This will only increase pressure on current schools to provide more places, and lead to increased traffic on the roads as parents are forced to commute to schools outside their local area where spaces may be available. Specific provision needs to be made if the Manhood Peninsula is to take the number of houses proposed.
Specific provision must also be made for additional doctors and other medical services if this level of housing on the Peninsula is to be considered.

Full text:

There are no proposals for any new schools in the Manhood Peninsula. This will only increase pressure on current schools to provide more places, and lead to increased traffic on the roads as parents are forced to commute to schools outside their local area where spaces may be available. Specific provision needs to be made if the Manhood Peninsula is to take the number of houses proposed.
Specific provision must also be made for additional doctors and other medical services if this level of housing on the Peninsula is to be considered.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1480

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Ms Paula Chatfield

Representation Summary:

It is really important that development sustains existing infrastructure assets and comes with the necessary additional infrastructure to support this Plan's Strategic Objectives for all of our communities.
Thank you for a Policy that I can unreservedly support.
Should it change as a result of consultation, I may wish to object.

Full text:

It is really important that development sustains existing infrastructure assets and comes with the necessary additional infrastructure to support this Plan's Strategic Objectives for all of our communities.
Thank you for a Policy that I can unreservedly support.
Should it change as a result of consultation, I may wish to object.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1635

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Anna Khoo

Representation Summary:

Consider adding EV charging facilities as a key infrastructure requirement for developments. New cars from 2040 will have to be hybrid at least.
Particular pressure exists on GP surgeries to meet demand in a typically older demographic. Dementia care provision will also need to increase and should be given policy protection to ensure communities are not left without provision due to development (see West Sussex County Council's representations on the Whyke Lodge care home planning application 17/01712/FUL - objection dated 26 Jul 2017)

Full text:

Consider adding EV charging facilities as a key infrastructure requirement for developments. New cars from 2040 will have to be hybrid at least.
Particular pressure exists on GP surgeries to meet demand in a typically older demographic. Dementia care provision will also need to increase and should be given policy protection to ensure communities are not left without provision due to development (see West Sussex County Council's representations on the Whyke Lodge care home planning application 17/01712/FUL - objection dated 26 Jul 2017)

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1648

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Christina Procter

Representation Summary:

Make effective use of existing infrastructure, facilities and services, including
opportunities for co-location and multi-functional use of facilities

THIS is vital, but requires working closely with existing stakeholders.

Full text:

Make effective use of existing infrastructure, facilities and services, including
opportunities for co-location and multi-functional use of facilities

THIS is vital, but requires working closely with existing stakeholders.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1679

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: MRS MIREILLE ANNICK

Representation Summary:

I mostly support the principle. The infrastructure must be shown on maps of future developments and started before any development

Full text:

I mostly support the principle. The infrastructure must be shown on maps of future developments and started before any development