Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 3935

Received: 09/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Southbourne Parish Council recognises the existing function of Southbourne village as a settlement hub and the potential for expansion which, if properly masterplanned as a whole, would deliver housing for local people accompanied by urgently needed improvements to local infrastructure. These should include both a road bridge and a separate pedestrian bridge over the railway, improved community facilities, more and better quality recreational open space and better protection for wildlife.

The infrastructure required to support the proposed development at Southbourne has been assessed and is reflected in the IDP.

The findings of the Council’s evidence in respect of the need for a railway bridge is that there is no conclusive requirement in transport terms for a bridge. The modelling undertaken indicates that beyond a certain amount of development a new rail bridge is likely to be of some benefit if the forecast traffic conditions cannot otherwise be mitigated by other traffic management measures.

Support

Representation ID: 3947

Received: 09/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

The PC recognises the existing function of Southbourne Village as a Settlement Hub and supports the delineation of Settlement Boundaries as a means of directing development to sustainable locations which: respect the setting, form and character of the settlement; avoid actual or perceived coalescence of settlements; and ensure good access to local services and facilities. The PC agrees that development in the “Rest of the Plan Area” should be restricted as set out in Local Plan Policy S2 in order to reinforce the character and function of the built-up areas and prevent piecemeal development which fragments the countryside.

Noted.

Support

Representation ID: 3948

Received: 09/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

In principle, the PC supports the proposed BLD at Southbourne. Southbourne village has been identified as a settlement hub due to the facilities it offers, even though a number of these are currently inadequate. Paragraph.6.89 of this Local Plan states that the proposed development provides the opportunity to make good the existing shortfalls (eg open space, para.6.85) and to provide well-serviced new development. This development must be achieved through comprehensive masterplanning. There has been, and continues to be, pressure for piecemeal proposals. These must be rejected to secure a properly planned expansion which maximises the provision of timely accompanying infrastructure.

Comments noted. For clarification it should be noted that underlying infrastructure deficits cannot be addressed unless these are also required to support the new development.

Object

Representation ID: 4028

Received: 13/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This specifically relates to point 1. An assessment of need for the Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan demonstrated that considerably more than 16 serviced self/custom build plots are likely to be required in future. The requirement for 16 may have been sourced from the CDC current register which may be unreliable. The Southbourne housing allocation is not anticipated to come on stream until 2028/2029 (see Local Plan Appendix E – Housing Trajectory) therefore it is currently too early to be so specific about numbers.

The number of self-build/custom plots is based on the current evidence of demand from entries on the Council’s Custom and Self-Build Register. The Council have recently undergone a process of updating the Register and this, combined with additional data on the level of self/custom build need in the Plan Area, has indicated a strong demand for self-build/custom plots. To address this, the Council are proposing to increase the level of self-build/custom provision on strategic sites. In the case of Southbourne BLD the number of plots required is proposed to be increased to 53.

Object

Representation ID: 4030

Received: 13/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There is no reference to the ChEm route - a route for cyclists linking Emsworth and Chichester. It is an initiative being gradually implemented, as opportunities arise, to provide a safe route alongside the A259 to encourage cycling as a sustainable means of travel. ChEm route will eventually form part of the local network of cycle routes to which the proposed new allocation will be connected. The Local Plan gives weight to sustainable forms of transport including new cycle networks (Policy T2c) and as this Policy A13 is site specific it would be appropriate to include this initiative by name.

A reference to the ChEm routes is proposed to be added to paragraph 10.56.

Object

Representation ID: 4032

Received: 13/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ref A13 point 6. Infrastructure - its current shortfalls and poor quality - is another major issue locally. Education and medical services are overstretched and this was evident long before the pandemic. This site specific policy, not just the supporting text, should be clear about what type of facilities will be required and should include reference to medical/health services and retail. “Local employment opportunities” are mentioned in para. 10.52 but not in the policy, so has less weight. Work on the Neighbourhood Plan has shown potential for an enterprise hub with flexible working space.

Paragraph 10.56 refers to provision of flexible space and in the policy itself local employment opportunities are referenced in the first paragraph. Other uses are encompassed by phrase ‘community facilities’ (which is defined in the Local Plan Glossary) and it is considered that reference to the IDP is more appropriate as specific requirements may change over time.

Object

Representation ID: 4042

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ref point 5. Wording of clauses 4 and 5 in Policy 13 is vague, and it is particularly hard to understand what is meant by clause 5. Delays created by the railway crossings in Southbourne are already a major issue. The Southbourne allocation will require at least the provision of a pedestrian footbridge over the railway line east of the station to facilitate the Green Ring access around the village (land has already been safeguarded at Priors Orchard, see Neighbourhood Plan, Policy SB13c). At best, a road bridge will be required to facilitate traffic movements from the proposed allocation.

The findings of the Council’s evidence in respect of the need for a railway bridge is that there is no conclusive requirement in transport terms for a bridge. The modelling undertaken indicates that beyond a certain amount of development a new rail bridge is likely to be of some benefit if the forecast traffic conditions cannot otherwise be mitigated by other traffic management measures.

Object

Representation ID: 4043

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ref point 16. Infrastructure - its current shortfalls and poor quality - is another major issue locally. Education and medical services are overstretched and this was evident long before the pandemic. This site specific policy, not just the supporting text, should be clear about what type of facilities will be required and should include reference to medical/health services and retail. “Local employment opportunities” are mentioned in para. 10.52 but not in the policy, so has less weight. Work on the Neighbourhood Plan has shown potential for an enterprise hub with flexible working space.

Paragraph 10.56 refers to provision of flexible space and in the policy itself local employment opportunities are referenced in the first paragraph. Other uses are encompassed by phrase ‘community facilities’ (which is defined in the Local Plan Glossary) and it is considered that reference to the IDP is more appropriate as specific requirements may change over time.

Object

Representation ID: 4048

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Ref.point.16 Evidence shows that Green Infrastructure in Southbourne is currently well below the amount required, and the policy should refer to this to ensure that the new development provides for this to be made good as well as providing for the needs of those occupying the new development. LP PolicyP14, in particular subsections 1&2, sets out how the need for new Green Infrastructure should be incorporated into new allocations requiring that it “…. is integrated into the development design and meets the needs of the communities within and beyond the site boundaries” (i.e. those residents living outside the Southbourne BLD).

Green infrastructure and open space provision should be made in accordance with Policies P14 and P15. Underlying infrastructure deficits cannot be addressed unless these are also required to support the new development.

Support

Representation ID: 4052

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Southbourne Parish Council

Ref.point.13 Provision of appropriate waste-water services is fundamental. Lack of capacity at ThornhamWWTW is the subject of considerable concern. Southern Water has been using storm-water discharges into Chichester Harbour to overcome capacity problems for years and this has contributed to the declining water quality. While the issue of nitrate discharge may be more difficult to resolve, it is not an excuse for allowing primary treated human waste to exacerbate the problem. Delivery of the proposed development at Southbourne is at least 6yrs away, and the PC will expect appropriate waste-water treatment to be available in good time to serve it.

Comments noted. The current position on wastewater infrastructure is set out in the Statement of Common Ground with Southern Water and the Environment Agency (April 2024).