Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document: Regulation 18 Consultation Main Document
Search form responses
Results for Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council search
New searchNo answer given
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Challenges: -Inadequate sewage capacity -Water extraction -Congestion (particularly onto the A259 and around the new proposed schools). - capacity for the GP surgery
The absence of a vehicular bridge over the railway line poses several challenges and issues, o Without a vehicular bridge, the two proposed access points become less effective, potentially isolating the new development from the existing village and wider area. o Increased reliance on the pedestrian and cycling bridge may strain its capacity, especially if vehicular access is not available for residents, emergency services, and delivery vehicles. o Additional footfall and traffic from the new development may overwhelm existing road infrastructure, leading to congestion in nearby areas, particularly if alternative routes are indirect or inadequate. o A vehicular bridge facilitates seamless integration of the new development with the village, fostering access to the community hub and educational facilities. Its absence may reduce the effectiveness of the community consolidation efforts. o Without a vehicular bridge, other routes around the railway line might become overused, potentially impacting the nearby green spaces and ecological areas, including the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area. o Emergency services might face delays without a direct vehicular route, which could have serious safety implications for residents and visitors. o A lack of a vehicular bridge could hinder the overall deliverability of the development scenario, reducing its appeal to stakeholders and developers who value strong access and connectivity. Mitigation strategies would need to include: • Strengthening pedestrian and cycling infrastructure to ensure it can handle increased usage. • Enhancing existing roadways around the railway line to support indirect vehicular routes. • Coordinating with utility providers to address the constraints posed by the gas pipeline consultation zone. • Ensuring robust flood mitigation measures for alternative access points. • Balancing the development with efforts to minimize agricultural land loss and protect green spaces. In conclusion, while the pedestrian and cycling bridge offers some connectivity benefits, the lack of a vehicular bridge would create significant logistical, social, and environmental challenges that may compromise the success and functionality of the proposed development.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Challenges The location of the Community Centre, at the junction of three roads that aren’t wide enough to sustain the level of traffic. -Inadequate sewage capacity -Water extraction -Congestion.
• Without a vehicular bridge, connectivity across the railway line will be severely limited. This could result in increased traffic congestion on existing routes and limited options for crossing the railway, creating bottlenecks and hindering efficient transportation. • Emergency services, logistics, and general vehicular movement would face delays, impacting residents' and businesses' accessibility and response times. • • While a pedestrian and cycle bridge provides some connectivity, it does not address the needs of those relying on vehicles for longer or more frequent trips. This limits the effectiveness of a multi-modal approach and may discourage integrated land-use planning. • The development will lead to additional population density and, consequently, increased footfall and traffic. Without a vehicular bridge, the strain on existing roads and infrastructure is likely to exacerbate. • With parts of the potential bridge location within a future flood zone and other flood risk issues in the eastern BLD area, the planning and feasibility of alternative access routes or solutions become more difficult without a vehicular bridge. • While there are benefits associated with pedestrian and cycling connectivity, the lack of a vehicular bridge risks undermining the area's overall functionality and resilience. • Stakeholders should prioritize addressing the fragmented development issues and exploring alternative solutions for vehicular connectivity if a bridge cannot be delivered.
No uploaded files for public display
No answer given
Challenges: 1. Location of the Community Centre 2. Inadequate Sewage Capacity 3. Water extraction 4. Congestion: This option would contribute to significantly more congestion compared to the alternatives, with a substantial impact on the entire Southbourne area. Southbourne has only one primary north-south route, and during peak times, gates are closed for 30 minutes every hour. Building additional housing without constructing a road bridge would be neither an acceptable nor a sustainable solution."
No uploaded files for public display
No choices made
Scenario 1 (West) emerges as the best option when evaluated against the assessment framework due to the following key advantages: 1. Integrated, Well-Serviced Community Community Hub: Scenario 1 offers the unique opportunity to create a co-located community hub with the college, leisure center, and recreation ground, fostering a vibrant and centralized "Heart for Southbourne." This enhances connectivity and maximizes accessibility to services. Railway Barrier Reduction: It safeguards land for a multi-modal bridge, which can reduce the barrier effect of the railway more effectively than Scenario 3, and is more deliverable than the bridge proposed in Scenario 2. Access to Nature: Proximity to quality green space is ensured, meeting the expectations across all scenarios. 2. Transport and Sustainable Travel Vehicular Bridge: Scenario 1 is the only option that safeguards land for a vehicular bridge, helping alleviate rail crossing congestion, a critical issue for Southbourne. Bus Connectivity: Approximately 50% of the development lies within 400m of a bus stop, exceeding the 40% benchmark for positive contributions. This far outperforms Scenario 2 and provides better alignment with sustainable travel goals. Rail Access: While all scenarios meet the walking distance criteria to the train station, the provision for a pedestrian/cycle bridge in Scenario 1 further enhances connectivity across the railway. 3. Climate and Environment Green Ring Delivery: Scenario 1 secures the western part of the Green Ring, ensuring accessibility for people and wildlife while meeting biodiversity net gain (BNG) goals. Flood Risks: Development is confined to Flood Zone 1, minimizing flood-related risks. Though there are concerns regarding surface water flooding near critical infrastructure, these can be mitigated through design. 4. Housing and Growth Utilities Pipeline Impact: While the consultation zone impacts development space, the west offers a feasible path for meeting housing targets through careful planning and design. Housing Mix: Scenario 1 fulfills the objective of delivering a mix of housing types and tenure, including younger households, first-time buyers, and downsizing accommodation, comparable to the other scenarios. 5. Deliverability Land Ownership: Scenario 1 benefits from a majority landowner north of the railway, simplifying land assembly and facilitating safeguarded land for key infrastructure, including the multi-modal bridge. This advantage outweighs the complexity seen in Scenarios 2 and 3, which involve multiple landowners and significant collaboration challenges. Viability: While the vehicular bridge poses a high viability risk, Scenario 1’s safeguarded land and established framework (S106 contributions) provide a clearer pathway to addressing these costs compared to the higher-risk land assembly issues in Scenario 2. 6. Alignment with Village Character Balanced Growth: Though one-sided growth is a concern, Scenario 1 mitigates its impact through design-led approaches that incorporate green infrastructure and respect existing landscapes. The lack of heritage assets within the development area further minimizes disruption. Conclusion Scenario 1 (West) strikes the best balance between infrastructure delivery, community integration, environmental protection, and housing needs. Its distinct advantages, particularly the provision for a vehicular bridge, centralized community hub, and safeguarded land for sustainable infrastructure, make it the most robust and deliverable option for Southbourne’s development.
No uploaded files for public display
