Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework
Search form responses
Results for Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council search
New searchEstablishment of a steering committee with stakeholders (local authorities, developers, transport agencies, and community groups). Implement projects in alignment with housing delivery schedules to match demand. Utilize mixed funding models, including public funds, developer contributions, and grants. Set up performance indicators to track progress and adjust plans dynamically.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
There is insufficient evidence to confirm that Southern Water has the sewage capacity to support the proposed number of houses, and it appears they have not been consulted. Narrow lanes in the eastern part of the village (Cooks Lane, Inlands Road, Prior’s Lease Lane) are prone to traffic congestion, as some are only wide enough for a single car. These conditions pose safety risks to cyclists and pedestrians, with traffic frustrations likely increasing the potential for accidents.
No uploaded files for public display
The assessment lacks prioritization of key considerations and overstates the benefits of the mixed scenario. Detailed feedback on specific aspects is outlined below: ________________________________________ Integrated, Well-Serviced Community Reduce the Barrier Effect of Rail Tracks • Grading should be revised to Strong/Very Poor/Very Poor rather than the current assessment. • Scenario 1 (West): A pedestrian/cycle bridge benefits a limited group; a vehicular bridge commitment would significantly enhance outcomes (Very Strong). • Scenario 2 (East): A pedestrian/cycle bridge offers minimal impact due to ownership issues, pending applications, and flood risk; vehicular bridge feasibility is limited. • Scenario 3 (Mixed): Absence of a bridge renders this scenario unviable. Support Delivery of a Community Hub • Grading should be Reasonable/Very Poor/Very Poor. • Scenarios 2 and 3: An eastern hub risks separating Southbourne and Nutbourne West and undermines the consolidation of facilities, increasing local traffic. • The East hub is not closer to existing facilities compared to the West hub. A consolidated hub adjacent to the leisure center would minimize traffic and support integration. ________________________________________ Promote Access to Nature and Open Space • Assessments are overstated; all scenarios should be Reasonable as the green ring offers limited nature access compared to current open spaces. • External access to nature and open spaces must also be considered. ________________________________________ Support Local Employment Opportunities • Benefits are overstated in all scenarios. Lack of evidence on job creation, combined with the inaccurate assumption that an eastern hub is preferable, necessitates revision to Reasonable/Poor/Poor. ________________________________________ Housing for All Site Capacity for 800 Homes • Grading should be Reasonable/Very Poor/Poor due to challenges with a vehicular bridge in the east affecting Scenarios 2 and 3. ________________________________________ Transport and Sustainable Travel Active Travel Connectivity • Grading should be Reasonable across all scenarios. Existing routes cannot be sufficiently improved to ensure safety for pedestrians and cyclists, especially young people. Increased traffic will exacerbate these challenges. Access to Train Station • Reassess as Reasonable across all scenarios. The stated improvements are contingent on developments like the Elivia site and do not adequately address broader connectivity challenges. ________________________________________ Climate Change and Sustainability High Environmental Performance Buildings • Current developments fail to meet high standards. Detailed plans to enforce Future Homes Standards are necessary. Green Ring for People and Wildlife • Scenarios 2 and 3 are overstated as Very Strong. The green ring must connect all areas of the village with safe pathways and access open green spaces. The east-end development is already under construction, and most proposed areas lie outside the intended green ring zone. Wildlife and Biodiversity • All scenarios should be Very Poor due to habitat loss and lack of mitigation measures. ________________________________________ Flood Risk Development in Flood Zones • All scenarios should be rated Very Poor. Flooding risks extend downstream and threaten areas beyond the immediate development zones, including the Ham Brook and nearby lands. ________________________________________ Character and Village Growth Impact on Views and Landscape Gaps • Grading should be Poor for all scenarios. Development would drastically alter views and eliminate gaps between Southbourne and neighboring settlements. Village Form and Structure • Scenario 1 and 2: New road links create a functional two-spine structure better suited for growth, earning Reasonable. • Scenario 3: Maintains the current layout but limits traffic flow to one main road, causing congestion. Grade as Poor. ________________________________________ Deliverability and Viability Grading inconsistencies must be addressed: • Section 5: Scenarios ranked Poor, Poor, Poor. • Section 6: Scenarios graded Very Poor, Very Poor, Reasonable. • Scenarios 2 and 3 should be revised to Very Poor due to complex multi-landowner dynamics. ________________________________________ This revision ensures the assessment reflects realistic benefits and challenges while aligning with the overarching goals of the community.
No uploaded files for public display
