Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Assessment Framework

Nothing chosen

No answer given

Education Appendix A: Assessment Framework: Education (Pg 23) Reference is made to the potential expansion to Bourne Community College, including its sixth form. It should be noted that there is not a sixth form at Bourne Community College, and reference should be amended. [See attached document for full submission]

Para 3.12 / Q13 The DPD must include a very clear mechanism concerning the delivery of any new or improved railway crossings. Reference is made regarding the road bridge to significant financial contributions. If the new/improved railway crossings are deemed essential to the proposed allocation, these must be provided by the developer to enable these to be delivered in a timely manner. The need for contributions towards this infrastructure is therefore irrelevant. Active travel aspirations should be consistent with the West Sussex Transport Plan which promote active travel strategies to improve connectivity around the Bourne area and beyond. The ChEm route active travel improvement is expected to play a significant role in achieving this; any proposed development should include connections with the ChEm route. Extension to bus services should also be agreed with relevant operators especially where this involves commercial services. The need to design road infrastructure to accommodate potentially two-way bus services is a significant element to include within any master plan. Infrastructure improvements to existing stops on the A259 could still otherwise be referenced in the DPD. This could include the provision of cycle parking alongside bus stops. The provision of cycle parking would in some way assist in overcoming any excessive walking distances from parts of the allocation to existing stops on the A259. Within ‘Cycling’, this should be broadened to include improvements to cycle routes on the A259 too. The wording included is a little unclear as to whether this is meant or not. [See attached document for full submission]

Chapter 5 Assessment Framework Reduce the barrier effect of rail tracks: as well as benefits consideration should be given on how to reduce any unwanted side effects such as the attraction of through traffic. Support delivery of a community hub - a ‘Heart for Southbourne: consideration should be given to the use of an accessibility tool to compare walk distances for users of the facilities resident in the development and existing village residents who would use the new facilities. Support local employment opportunities: consider the overall impact of each option on minimising distance to travel for commuting and maximising the proportion within normal walking and cycling distance. Influence of vehicular bridge on traffic congestion: consider also if there would be any changes elsewhere by some existing traffic choosing to re-route, such as that to Westbourne. [See attached document for full submission]

Para 6.1/Q15 With respects to the following points within the table, the following comments would be made, ‘Potential for a bridge crossing the railway for pedestrians and cyclists’: The various scenarios refer only to the potential to deliver land for a bridge; the assessment does not refer to delivery of the bridge itself. The development scenarios should be required to deliver the bridge. ‘Potential for a bridge crossing the railway for vehicles’: Similar comments would be made to those made above with references to land but not delivery of the bridge. It’s noted that two of the scenarios would potentially not allow for a vehicular bridge in any case. ‘Influence of a vehicular bridge on traffic congestion’: No detailed transport work appears to have been undertaken to demonstrate the requirement for a bridge or demonstrate what benefit this may have. In principle, a bridge may assist but this is as yet unquantified. ‘Development within 400m of a bus stop’: 400 metres is a useful guide for walking distances but it should not be viewed as an absolute upper threshold. Longer direct walking routes to bus stops may still be acceptable. Direct cycle routes to bus stops may also enable services to be accessed. ‘Deliverability (viability) considerations’: The delivery of the bridge must fall to the developer; WSCC would not accept s106 contributions and the associated risk of delivering a bridge associated with this development. This should be factored into the assessment. Para 6.10 There is concern on the reliance on the vehicular bridge with the ability to deliver which has not seemingly have been tested. Para 6.11 There would appear to be apparent issues with the ability to deliver the road bridge due to the recent planning application. There is no transport evidence to suggest whether or not a bridge is required. The is a concern in terms of connectivity if a bridge is not provided, particularly to existing bus services on the A259 and potentially to other services within the village. This in turn may force reliance on the use of the private car. Para 6.12 The concern with this option is the potential accesses onto rural lanes north of the railway and the ability for these to be improved to safely accommodate increased traffic alongside other non-vehicular road users. Similar to the other options, there is no transport evidence to demonstrate the impact on the highway network in the absence of the road bridge. Paras 6.20, 6.21, 6.22 For all options there are clear deliverability issues linked to the bridge. As noted above, there is no transport assessment having been undertaken for any of the scenarios to demonstrate the consequences for or against providing the bridge. It seems fundamental to understand whether any of the development scenarios are deliverable either with or without a bridge in place. [See attached document for full submission]