Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Main Document

No choices made

SWT is not in a position to select a preference, however for the most part we agree with the benefits and challenges listed for each of the three scenarios. We are concerned about the scenarios impacting the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area and would like to see more information about the reality of trying to mitigate for this loss. For example, what are the options for like-for-like replacement of this habitat in the local area? One overall concern we have is that regardless of the scenario chosen, the multiple landowners to the east of Southbourne will still put in applications for speculative development outside of the masterplan area - particularly in light of the increased housing targets and the reinstatement of the 5 year housing target suggested in the Government’s recent NPPF consultation. SWT would like to see robust wording in the DPD to ensure that development coming forward is cohesive, respects the environmental capacity of the area and particularly provides appropriate buffers to the wildlife corridors identified in the Southbourne NP and Chichester LP. Given that this will be a strategic development of a large scale, we would also expect to see a more ambitious biodiversity net gain target that goes beyond the mandatory minimum of 10% and aims for at least 20% BNG.

No uploaded files for public display

No

We are pleased to see the need to connect people to nature included in the vision and objectives. In light of the biodiversity and climate crises, we would expect to see the vision include a proactive commitment to enhancing the natural environment. We recommend that the second line of the vision is amended to: It will be well supported by services and new and existing development will be seamlessly integrated, while embracing and enhancing its existing character, landscape and ecological assets. We support the inclusion of an Environmental objective, along with the references to green and blue infrastructure and climate resilience under ‘climate change’. We believe the ‘Environment’ should explicitly reference the wildlife corridors and the need to provide appropriate buffers. Please note that when referencing the wildlife corridor, this must include the wider corridor identified in the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, not just the strategic wildlife corridor identified in the emerging Chichester local plan. We would support the targeting of BNG within the adjacent wildlife corridor as suggested in paragraph 5.7. This should be separate from any SANGS/green infrastructure development.

No uploaded files for public display

No choices made

SWT is not in a position to select a preference, however for the most part we agree with the benefits and challenges listed for each of the three scenarios. We are concerned about the scenarios impacting the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area and would like to see more information about the reality of trying to mitigate for this loss. For example, what are the options for like-for-like replacement of this habitat in the local area? One overall concern we have is that regardless of the scenario chosen, the multiple landowners to the east of Southbourne will still put in applications for speculative development outside of the masterplan area - particularly in light of the increased housing targets and the reinstatement of the 5 year housing target suggested in the Government’s recent NPPF consultation. SWT would like to see robust wording in the DPD to ensure that development coming forward is cohesive, respects the environmental capacity of the area and particularly provides appropriate buffers to the wildlife corridors identified in the Southbourne NP and Chichester LP. Given that this will be a strategic development of a large scale, we would also expect to see a more ambitious biodiversity net gain target that goes beyond the mandatory minimum of 10% and aims for at least 20% BNG.

No uploaded files for public display