Policy S16: Development within vicinity of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 93
Received: 10/01/2019
Respondent: Dr Carolyn Cobbold
The noise buffer zone would be an excellent location for the commercial development currently allocated to an entirely unsuitable and unsustainable site to the west of Donnington and north east of Apuldram.
As the 400 m buffer zone to the north of the motor circuit includes the only part of a proposed Northern Bypass that would lie within the SDNP, this would weaken the park's objections to a Northern Bypass, thus making a long term, robust solution to the A27 more feasible in the future.
The noise buffer zone would be an excellent location for the commercial development currently allocated to an entirely unsuitable and unsustainable site to the west of Donnington and north east of Apuldram.
As the 400 m buffer zone to the north of the motor circuit includes the only part of a proposed Northern Bypass that would lie within the SDNP, this would weaken the park's objections to a Northern Bypass, thus making a long term, robust solution to the A27 more feasible in the future.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 224
Received: 19/01/2019
Respondent: Iain Burgess
As someone who lives 800m from Goodwood motor circuit I am pleased to see that the noise report undertaken by MAS Environmental Ltd and mentioned in section 4.110 identified "the potential for noise disturbance arising from activities at the Motor Circuit and Airfield to be a significant issue beyond the 400m buffer." This is indeed my experience from living here for nearly 20 years. The noise is heavily wind/weather dependent from the motor circuit, and the noise from aircraft, especially helicopters, which generate downward noise more than aeroplanes, can be significant well beyond the 400m buffer.
As someone who lives 800m from Goodwood motor circuit I am pleased to see that the noise report undertaken by MAS Environmental Ltd and mentioned in section 4.110 identified "the potential for noise disturbance arising from activities at the Motor Circuit and Airfield to be a significant issue beyond the 400m buffer." This is indeed my experience from living here for nearly 20 years. The noise is heavily wind/weather dependent from the motor circuit, and the noise from aircraft, especially helicopters, which generate downward noise more than aeroplanes, can be significant well beyond the 400m buffer.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 315
Received: 21/01/2019
Respondent: Mr Ken Burgess
As I live just outside of the 400 metre Goodwood Circuit Buffer, I am pleased that you agree with the MAS study that no development should be allowed within this boundary. I appreciate the Circuit from a personal point of view and also the fact that it benefits the local area and businesses and would not wish that any development should place restrictions on the Circuit. The removal of land from the existing allocation in Policy AL4 hopefully ensures the future of the Circuit.
Policies AL4 and S16.
As I live just outside of the 400 metre Goodwood Circuit Buffer, I am pleased that you agree with the MAS study that no development should be allowed within this boundary. I appreciate the Circuit from a personal point of view and also the fact that it benefits the local area and businesses and would not wish that any development should place restrictions on the Circuit. The removal of land from the existing allocation in Policy AL4 hopefully ensures the future of the Circuit.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 367
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Pieter Montyn
Policy S 16 . In 4.109 there is reference to a presumption against allowing residential development within the 400 metre noise buffer.
4.110 as worded is broad brush and vague in relation to off airfield development and should be amended to read that there is a general presumption against RESIDENTIAL development proposals...etc
The first sentence of Policy S16 should be amended to read the same.
Policy S 16 . In 4.109 there is reference to a presumption against allowing residential development within the 400 metre noise buffer.
4.110 as worded is broad brush and vague in relation to off airfield development and should be amended to read that there is a general presumption against RESIDENTIAL development proposals...etc
The first sentence of Policy S16 should be amended to read the same.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 485
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Zoe Neal
4.109 this section needs to state that the buffer zone is for residential development only. A new bullet point is needed to state that the buffer zone does not restrict the building of industrial/business developments.
Policy S16 is slippery. Are CDC protecting any business infill around the Goodwood Aerodrome and Motor-circuit within the huge 400m wide noise shadow? see map in Schedule of proposed changes to the policies map.
4.109 this section needs to state that the buffer zone is for residential development only. A new bullet point is needed to state that the buffer zone does not restrict the building of industrial/business developments.
Policy S16 is slippery. Are CDC protecting any business infill around the Goodwood Aerodrome and Motor-circuit within the huge 400m wide noise shadow? see map in Schedule of proposed changes to the policies map.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 502
Received: 31/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Glenda Baum
GOODWOOD: Surely the same planning rules should apply to Goodwood as everywhere else. Moreover,if and whenthe Goodwood Estyates submit future planning applications, a condition should be that they agree to a Northern A27 by-pass and, if required, making land available for it. This is in the overall public interest
GOODWOOD: Surely the same planning rules should apply to Goodwood as everywhere else. Moreover,if and whenthe Goodwood Estyates submit future planning applications, a condition should be that they agree to a Northern A27 by-pass and, if required, making land available for it. This is in the overall public interest
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 690
Received: 31/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn
WHY ? WHY ? Goodwood generates noise of their own making. Why should this exclude them from housing development. The A27 generates noise and pollution and yet it is perfectly acceptable to build even more houses around it and the villages to the east and west. Double standards !!
WHY ? WHY ? Goodwood generates noise of their own making. Why should this exclude them from housing development. The A27 generates noise and pollution and yet it is perfectly acceptable to build even more houses around it and the villages to the east and west. Double standards !!
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1027
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Mark Hitchin
There should be no buffer zone. Land in the buffer zone is ideal for Industrial development.
There should be no buffer zone. Land in the buffer zone is ideal for Industrial development.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1038
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Louise Hitchin
The buffer zone around the Airfield is ideal land for Industrial development.
The buffer zone around the Airfield is ideal land for Industrial development.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1168
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Roger Baynham
The noise pollution caused by Goodwood activities limits a large amount of land from development.
However industrial sites operating on normal working week schedule would not be subject to the same level of nuisance. Therefore this area could be used as industrial sites instead of land to the south west as proposed in AL6. The 400m exclusion would also include the proposed route for a northern relief road so no objection is sustainable about road noise!!
The noise pollution caused by Goodwood activities limits a large amount of land from development.
However industrial sites operating on normal working week schedule would not be subject to the same level of nuisance. Therefore this area could be used as industrial sites instead of land to the south west as proposed in AL6. The 400m exclusion would also include the proposed route for a northern relief road so no objection is sustainable about road noise!!
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1254
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: North Mundham Parish Council
This policy has missed the opportunity for encouraging development that is not noise-sensitive, such as commercial employment opportunities, within the buffer zone.
This policy has missed the opportunity for encouraging development that is not noise-sensitive, such as commercial employment opportunities, within the buffer zone.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1282
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: HMPC Ltd
Policy supported with minor changes
There is a general presumption against development proposals within 400m of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield, as defined on the policies map. Where development that is not for noise-sensitive is proposed within this area, planning permission will only be granted where it can be clearly and robustly demonstrated that:
1. An acceptable level of amenity, by reason of expected experienced noise and disturbance, will be provided for the future occupiers of the noise-sensitive development within both internal and external areas of the development;
2. that the above levels of amenity are achieved without an adverse impact on the design and layout of the proposed development by reason of noise mitigation measures; and
3. the development will not give rise to matters that may impede, hinder or otherwise compromise the safe and continued operation of Goodwood Aerodrome and Motor Circuit
In considering the above, the Council will be mindful of the particular noise characteristics typically emanating from the site.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1337
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Simon Davenport
It is unclear what the council is trying to protect with this policy either the residents of Summersdale or the owners of the Goodwood airfield. The area would be most useful as an extra industrial development zone.
It is unclear what the council is trying to protect with this policy either the residents of Summersdale or the owners of the Goodwood airfield. The area would be most useful as an extra industrial development zone.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1356
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr David Leah
No development should be planned that could in the forseeable future be detrimental to the operation of the airfield, motorcircuit or the Goodwood events.
Halnaker resident,
No development should be planned that could in the forseeable future be detrimental to the operation of the airfield, motorcircuit or the Goodwood events.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1550
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Pam Clingan
Agent: MR Matt Allsopp
Only a small proportion of my clients land (1.3ha of a total 3.75 ha) is within the Goodwood noise buffer. The remainder of the site is outside of this buffer and should therefore be considered for a residential allocation.
The adjacent Strategic Development Location has planning permission for 9 dwellings within this buffer, therefore a number of dwellings should be acceptable in my clients land.
Furthermore, much of the land in this buffer can be used as open space.
The site should be allocated with any incursion into the buffer needing to be justified with technical work.
The HELAA 2018 assessed my clients site, HELAA ID HWH0009, stating it would be 'suitable for development subject to detailed consideration relating to noise from Goodwood'.
Policy S16 should not prohibit development on this proposed residential site because, like the adjacent residential allocation south of Madgwick Lane (Westhampnett/North East Chichester SDL), only a small portion of the site (1.3ha) is within the 400m noise buffer. The remaining 2.45ha of the site is outside of the buffer zone, which means a large part could be allocated and developed with no harm to the new residents.
However, a Planning Noise Review was submitted in support of a planning application on the promoted land (17/02260/FUL), which concluded that 'the site would be considered suitable for residential development' and 'the noise climate is such that the site should be considered suitable in terms of external amenity'.
Therefore, it is possible to provide additional housing within the buffer zone by using mitigation to avoid harm to the new residents. This has been successfully implemented on the adjacent SDL that locates 9 dwellings within the buffer zone.
This site should be allocated in its entirety and allow future technical work to prove that it is safe to deliver housing within the buffer zone.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1624
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Philippa Hook
Local residents need to be considered when future developments are proposed.
Local residents need to be considered when future developments are proposed.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1651
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Christina Procter
This is a huge area to almost arbitrarily protect due to noise (which is not continuous!). Several business looking for storage or workshop space can utilise this area with minimal impact on traffic for events.
This is a huge area to almost arbitrarily protect due to noise (which is not continuous!). Several business looking for storage or workshop space can utilise this area with minimal impact on traffic for events.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1665
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton
Goodwood should be brought forward as a strategic site for employment buildings close to current development and accessible for the SDNP.
Land South west of chichester is wholly and totally unsuitable and the A259 is not a suitable road to support it. That and the flood plain makes this site unviable.
West Broyle and South of Lavant must include these areas to be considered for strategic development sites.
Ref section 4.110 The noise abatement area does not affect employment space and this site around Goodwood should be brought forward as a strategic site for employment buildings close to current development and accessible for the SDNP.
Ref section 4.113 This mentions the A259 corridor. This corridor is not fit for further development without an access link to the A27 and not at Fishbourne or Havant. For further development in this and the Southborne area there must be provision for another access onto the A27 both East and west near Southbourne. No consideration of this has been made in this or any transport review. This would alleviate much of the current and future pressure on the Fishbourne roundabout without having to expend money on pointless tinkering of road junctions that are the responsibility of HE, DFT and Government.
ref section 4.114 This proposed employment space area is wholly and totally unsuitable and the A259 is not a suitable road to support it. That and the flood plain makes this site unviable. The site is much better purposed as a park and ride site freeing up car parking spaces in the city to enable both residential and employment space to be built on current car parking spaces. This will also enable affordable home allocations closer to the potential need.
ref section 4.115 The position made in this statement is completely contrary to the benefits of a local plan. The area available is extensive and outside the SDNP. It is perfect land to be brought forward for strategic sites particularly in the Area of West Broyle and South of Lavant. Neither site will affect the AONB or for that matter the SDNP. The areas are outside of flood plain and perfect for the development of employment spaces and the council must include these areas to be considered for strategic development sites.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1684
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton
4.110 The noise abatement area does not affect employment space and this site around Goodwood should be brought forward as a strategic site for employment buildings close to current development and accessible for the SDNP. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan I will wish to raise this with the examiner at the appropriate juncture.
4.110 The noise abatement area does not affect employment space and this site around Goodwood should be brought forward as a strategic site for employment buildings close to current development and accessible for the SDNP. Unless this is adequately addressed in future iterations of the plan I will wish to raise this with the examiner at the appropriate juncture.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1687
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Claire Stratton
Goodwood should be brought forward as a strategic site for employment buildings close to current development and accessible for the SDNP.
Land South west of chichester is wholly and totally unsuitable and the A259 is not a suitable road to support it. That and the flood plain makes this site unviable.
West Broyle and South of Lavant must include these areas to be considered for strategic development sites.
Ref section 4.113 This mentions the A259 corridor. This corridor is not fit for further development without an access link to the A27 and not at Fishbourne or Havant. For further development in this and the Southborne area there must be provision for another access onto the A27 both East and west near Southbourne. No consideration of this has been made in this or any transport review. This would alleviate much of the current and future pressure on the Fishbourne roundabout without having to expend money on pointless tinkering of road junctions that are the responsibility of HE, DFT and Government.
ref section 4.114 This proposed employment space area is wholly and totally unsuitable and the A259 is not a suitable road to support it. That and the flood plain makes this site unviable. The site is much better purposed as a park and ride site freeing up car parking spaces in the city to enable both residential and employment space to be built on current car parking spaces. This will also enable affordable home allocations closer to the potential need.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1736
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team
4.108 to 4.11
Policy S15/S16
This area should be used for additional commercial development. It is close to Rolls Royce and the roads can be improved to accommodate new high grade businesses. The building can be built to avoid concern over noise from the airfield and motor circuit.
This site could take some if not all of the proposed building from the site at AL6
4.108 to 4.11
Policy S15/S16
This area should be used for additional commercial development. It is close to Rolls Royce and the roads can be improved to accommodate new high grade businesses. The building can be built to avoid concern over noise from the airfield and motor circuit.
This site could take some if not all of the proposed building from the site at AL6
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1995
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: March C of E Primary School
Concerned that definition of noise-sensitive properties includes reference to educational establishments. The existing noise study does not referenced educational establishments. School playgrounds are assumed to have an average decibel level of about 71dB when in use which is a lot higher than that recorded within 200m of race track during race days. Therefore there is no need to prevent primary schools from being developed within this area. Recommended change: remove educational establishments from definition of noise sensitive development
The policy S16 states that There is a general presumption against development proposals for noise-sensitive development within 400m of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield. Whilst there is no definition of noise-sensitive development there is one for Noise sensitive properties which is:
Noise sensitive properties: these include all residential properties, educational establishments, hospitals, hotels, hostels, concert halls and theatres.
Having read the full Goodwood Noise Report Dec 2017 into the justification of this policy we can find no reference to educational establishments only to residential dwellings.
Primary School playgrounds are assumed to have an average decibel level of about 71dB when in use. This is actually higher than a lot of the averaged decibel levels recorded from within 200m of the race track during race days. Therefore there is no need to prevent Primary school playgrounds from being developed within this zone.
The Glossary should have a definition for noise-sensitive development. This definition should not include educational establishment (playgrounds) for the reasoning stated above.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2030
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Summersdale Residents Assocation
We believe that the 400m buffer should be maintained from now onwards, without exception.
We strongly support the motor circuit as we appreciate the enjoyment a lot of local people get from visiting the events and also the benefits it brings to the local economy.
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the councils Local Plan. As a local residents association situated at the northern extremities of the Chichester Settlement area we feel that we should comment on the items that affect our locality rather than discussing other residential development areas.
We should firstly congratulate the CDC officers on producing an excellent and comprehensive review. We support virtually all the policies that affect our area. We were naturally disappointed that such a large development is to be built immediately to the west of our community at White House Farm but are heartened by the statements assuring the no development occurs to the north of the B2178. Whilst we welcome the local amenities mentioned and also some business uses, we would also welcome a provision for a health centre as Chichester is crying out for more doctor surgery capacity. Although there is provision in the plan for traffic calming measures in Parklands we would also like to see in the document a sentence on CDC desire to limit the impact of that development on the country lanes to the north of the B2178. There was an intention in the planning agreement to partially close Brandy Hole Lane which does not get mentioned.
With regards to Policy S16 development within the vicinity of Goodwood motor circuit and airfield we believe that the 400m buffer should be maintained from now onwards, without exception. We recognise that some new development may have encroached into the buffer and that is unfortunate, but planning permission has already been granted for that development. I understand that some of the Summersdale area is also within the 400m buffer zone. However, having been involved with the SRA for many years the noise from the motor circuit and the overflying of aircrafts continues to be a perennial problem for our members. We strongly support the motor circuit as we appreciate the enjoyment a lot of local people get from visiting the events and also the benefits it brings to the local economy. It is for those reasons that the 400m buffer zone must be protected. There is a danger that if encroachment occurs those residents may also start complaining about the activities at Goodwood, somuchso that the activities cease and the land is sold off for yet more housing, which would be a great shame.
Policy S13 whilst is further afield we do strongly support protecting the views of the cathedral. Regardless of any religious persuasion it is a beautiful building and the views of it are worth protecting. The building was designed to stand out and to sit visibly within its surroundings. Those views have been protected for many hundreds of years and should be protected into the future.
Policy S14 Chichester City Transport Strategy.
We welcome the concept of improving the A27 at grade rather than as grade separated monoliths. The transport technology is changing so rapidly that there may come a time, in the not too distant future, that the way transport currently operates is out moded. The growth of electric cars seems to be the accepted way forward which could greatly reduce emissions. It is likely, as a result of the health problems that seem to be resulting from car borne pollution that the government may act to accelerate the reduction in pollutants. An example of this may be re-introducing car buy back schemes. Autonomous vehicle technology may result in additional capacity being squeezed out of the existing infrastructure and therefore negate the need for large scale A27 works other than those detailed in the plan. None of us has a crystal ball where we can look to see what the future will be like. It is important to plan for what is likely to come about as a result of local development contained in the plan rather than looking too far into the future regarding the need to accommodate regional changes to transport patterns as we believe they are too much in flux.
A number of southern gateway supporters call for an underpass or bridge over the railway crossings. This is a detrimental solution to the queuing problems and should be resisted. It is likely only to move the queues elsewhere and result in an ugly structure that creates severance of communities. Chichester currently enjoys at grade solutions to transport problems in the central area and that should be maintained into the future.
The comment on CDCs willingness to revisit park and ride if the parking level reach a certain occupancy is welcomed but it is an expensive option. Hopefully the parking management strategy for Chichester will push back the day when that is required.
Policy S23 Transport and Accessibility
The SRA welcomes the additional policy however, we feel that the construction of the Stockbridge relief road is likely to be unnecessary because the proposals for the A27 works together with the changes in vehicle use is likely to make that redundant before it is constructed. That proposal has been mentioned for the past 30 years. It was not necessary then and it is not necessary now.
Lastly, we notice and greatly appreciate that CDC has gone out of its way to try to protect many things that make Chichester such a pleasant place to live. Protecting the green spaces is particularly important as is maintaining the vitality and viability not only of Chichester as a regional centre but also of the small parades of shops and services that are vital to many residents young and old. Protecting these will also help to reduce the need for travel. It is important that businesses thrive in the area so that there are jobs for people moving into the area as that creates economic independence. The plan has protected and allocated space for that. We feel that this plan gives officers a document that will help them protect our environment for the enjoyment of future generations. Hopefully actions will follow the good words.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2187
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Debbie Leonard
Objects to Policy S16 on the grounds that the area should be reallocated for employment development.
S16 Goodwood buffer and adjoining land to be made a strategic site for employment space as not affected by noise pollution and will not contribute further to noise pollution.
S30a & S30b are draft corridors as the biodiversity study is incomplete at the time of this consultation and will need to be re-consulted on.
Al 1 is incomplete as presented. The settlement boundary should extend to include sites to the North to accommodate the unmet housing need as an exemption site for affordable homes 100% within 5 miles of the need as required in statute (unless the unmet housing need is returned to SDNP as it should be).
AL4 the land proposed for removal should not be removed as a strategic employment site and should be included in the plan as any development will not be affected by the noise buffer and will not contribute to further light and other pollution not currently present at this commercial site. The settlement to the north should be extended as per statements in AL1
AL 6 is wholly inappropriate for development:
It affects the AONB on its border including the following:
There will be increased light pollution and noise pollution, waste water issues and habitat risk.
The only view of cathedral from the sea will be lost.
This is a flood plain and is therefore totally unsuitable for residential property.
Green buffer between Chichester and Manhood-
If the proposed link road goes ahead, the views of cathedral framed by South Downs will be lost.
Traffic congestion onto the Fishbourne roundabout moves pollution and provides absolutely no purpose and is a ruse to get option 2 delivered with no evidence of being supported by HE as there is no indication of a consultation.
Whilst there is a movement away from car use and getting both adults and children to use bicycles for transport and fitness the important, safe and tourist attracting cycle path of Salterns Way will be lost.
Requirement for infrastructure (schools) which can be met with development in North with 100% exception site to meet unmet housing need of SDNP.
The employment space is in a flood plain
This Policy is insufficiently developed to be meaningful. There is nothing in the Evidence Base (as at the last afternoon for public consultation) in relation to "the forthcoming Chichester Vision - Transport Feasibility Study", which means that no-one taking part in this consultation can be expected to know what this Policy S14 means!
This Policy is crucial to the Plan's Strategic Objectives, including for "safe, clean" communities and Health and Well-Being, as well as Environment. I strongly object to it being brought forward for consultation without adequate detail. This aspect of the Plan should be re-opened for public consultation when CDC can evidence the aforementioned Transport Feasibility Study and respondents are able to consider the full picture. SB1 map should include an employment space and residential strategic site as an exception site for the SDNP unmet housing need. South and east of Goodwood is an ideal site for employment space and then the areas South of Lavant outside the SDNP to be inserted as a strategic site for 100% affordable homes (exception) to meet the unmet need from SDNP.
The decisions on Chichester's housing, roads, employment areas and the infrastructure to support all of these cannot be done piecemeal. The various proposed housing developments, green living and areas such as Southern gate will all be affected by the roads, these issues all need to be discussed and formed as one overall, if longterm, development plan.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2383
Received: 25/01/2019
Respondent: Mr John Newman
- Housing development close to Goodwood Airfield should not be allowed
- Un-silenced racing should not be allowed
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
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2876
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
After final paragraph, insert text "Also, mindful that this area is one of few surviving truly quiet "green routes" from Chichester into the downs, and currently has a largely rural aspect, any development in this area (whether noise sensitive or not) will be sympathetic to this rural character and will enhance views from nearby paths."
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2898
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page
Policy S16: The statement about a general presumption against development within 400m of Goodwood is not understood. The airfield and motor circuit are noisy but intermittent, but the noise along the existing A27 is constant and relentless. If development is to be allowed near the A27, then there should be the possibility of development close to Goodwood.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3462
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: A + D Lygo-Baker
Number of people: 2
Use buffer zone at Goodwood for industrial development
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3481
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Colin Hammerton
Consider employment use at Goodwood airfield site.
See attachment