Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Main Document
Search form responses
Results for Smith Simmons Partners search
New searchScenario 3: Mixed Scenario, Scenario 1: Land to the West, Scenario 2: Land to the East
The combined option is the only 1 that appears viable and able to deliver the objectives and vision for the Southbourne DPD in principle. However if the rail crossing could be made viable for the west option it is otherwise a strong option having the potential for a crossing in principle. The east option is neither deliverable or viable with the rail crossing. It would cause harm to the local road network if it were to come forward without a crossing. The east option should not be pursued further.
No uploaded files for public display
If the proposed gaps in the Gap Assessment are to be respected, the combined option would also best accommodate development in the area beyond the consented areas at Breach Avenue and land north of Cooks Lane; and on land around the college contained by the proposed Hermitage and Southbourne gap (Gap 9 in the Gap Assessment). A joint west and east shared extension would have sustainability benefits with both areas being close to the existing college and school and other local facilities at Southbourne itself.
This option scores 'reasonable' in terms of viability in the Assessment Framework Summary Table in Chapter 6 whereas the east and west options both score 'very poor'. Unless the bridge across the railway which scores 'strong' for the west option in the same Summary Table can be made to be viable then the combined option appears to be the only option that is viable and able to deliver the development in principle.
No uploaded files for public display
Objections are raised to east option because as presently drawn a significant part of the proposed development area encroaches into the proposed landscape gap between Southbourne and Hambrook (Ref Gap 10) in the Landscape Gap Assessment (May 2019) and the Strategic Wildlife Corridor included in the Local Plan review. These have not been referred to in the list of challenges.
The east option also has the potential to cause coalescence with consented development at Chidham and Hambrook on the corner of Broad Road and the A259. It is remote from the railway station at Southbourne. It would not deliver one of the core objectives of the DPD which (para 4.7) is to connect new and existing neighbourhoods to the train station. However the principal challenge of this option involves the proposed rail crossing. Para 5.24 of the DPD says this option envisions the delivery of a new vehicular bridge across the railway connecting the A259 with Priors Leaze Lane across land east of Inlands Road. But the performance indicator for securing a vehicular crossing across the railway line for this option in chapter 6 of the Assessment Framework Summary Table scores it as ‘very poor’. The deliverability (viability test) is also scored as ‘very poor’. The purpose of the DPD is to ensure the site option delivers the overarching policy objective of the local plan and policy A13 (para 3.5 4th bullet). Since the east option is unviable and undeliverable with the crossing, the option will not deliver the policy objectives and has to be ruled out in principle. Para 5.33 of the DPD states that one of the benefits of this option is that it has the potential to deliver land for a multi modal bridge. However the Framework Summary Table proves that it cannot deliver such a bridge in practice because it is unviable. It must rule out this option in principle.
Without a vehicular bridge the associated development would be contained to the north. It would potentially cause harm to the local road network as Priors Leaze Lane is narrow along its length. The east option therefore has fundamental challenges to its deliverability both with the bridge (not viable or deliverable) and without it (would overload the local road network).
No uploaded files for public display
I note para 5.8 says 'current evidence suggests that a multi modal bridge might be required to address traffic congestion if approximately 800 homes are delivered to the north of the railway'. The Summary Table in chapter 6 of the Assessment Framework scores the west option with a strong 'performance indicator' for a potential bridge crossing. By comparison, the east option scores 'very poor'. Therefore if a crossing is shown to be a pre requisite for development, the west option should be preferred.
Other benefits of the west option are that it could provide scope for the natural extension to existing development at Cooks Lane and be closer to existing services and facilities at Southbourne including the school, employment at Clovelly Road and the doctors at the A259.
If there was no bridge across the railway, development would potentially worsen congestion at the level crossing unless new facilities were established on the north side of the railway alongside the housing, thereby reducing the need to make trips south in principle.
No uploaded files for public display
Para 3.2 pre supposes the Local Plan review will be adopted. The Vision and Objectives should be amended to specify what role it might play in the determination of future speculative planning applications in the event the Local Plan fails to meet the Tests of Soundness following the recent Examination and is not adopted. Bullet 7 in para 3.5 and 3.6 should clarify this unless the Local Plan Examiner makes a prompt decision on the Plan and confirms that it can proceed to adoption and inform the remainder of the DPD consultation process. Otherwise the Vision and Objectives of the DPD in chapter 4 should recognise the need for development to respect the defined local gaps from the Landscape Gap Assessment (May 2019), the Hambrook Strategic Wildlife Corridor and respect the setting of the wider area, e.g. in preventing coalescence of the selected growth option with development that already surrounds it or has planning permission.
No uploaded files for public display
