Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Throughout the new draft Local Plan, the District Council refer to all housing numbers as "minimums". This is new; the existing approved Local Plan does not do this.

The way we use the concept of a minimum (without setting a maximum) is invariably to suggest that as high a figure as possible is desirable: for example, when companies set minimum sales targets or the NHS sets a minimum % target for A&E. It is difficult to think of any exceptions to the rule that exceeding the target is always a good thing.

Therefore, we would strongly urge that the District Council drop the use of the word minimum or, if the Council really feels it has to use the word, then somewhere in the plan it should say what it understands by a minimum.

One possibility:

Throughout the Plan, references to minimum housing allocations are intended to mean that the authority may accept, under certain conditions, a modest increase of up to (10% or 15%??) or an absolute figure of between (50 or 75 units??), whichever is the smaller. However, this would importantly depend upon local conditions and the progress of the Plan as a whole.

In other words, if the Council uses the concept of a minimum in a non-standard way, i.e. it doesn't want as high a figure as possible, then it is incumbent upon it to set an indicative maximum figure. The truth of the matter is that the housing allocation numbers are neither minimums nor maximums.

In his decision letter on the Clappers Lane appeal (APP/L3815/14/2219554, page 10, para 30), the Planning Inspector stated that "... the allocations set out in the Plan were stated (at the EiP) not to be 'minimums' partly because a 'minimum' might imply an open ended acceptance of anything greater. But, by the same token, they are not 'maximums' either. Hence, modest additions would not necessarily contravene the housing requirements or lead to unsustainable and unforeseen patterns of travel not catered for by the Plan." (our underlining). At the appeal the appellant claimed that the housing allocations were minimums and that therefore there was good reason to well exceed the then allocation, in fact just over double. The inspector ruled that, on this basis, "... the appeal proposal might reasonably be held to be 'unsustainable' if it were to significantly breach the scale of development envisaged as appropriate in the Plan" (para 29)

Without some kind of clarification, the Council risks being exposed to developers' clever lawyers. In effect you create a loophole. For example, the housing allocation for East Wittering of 350 could well end up being 500 or more.

It is true the Inspector who examined the current Local Plan encouraged the Council to consider the housing targets or allocations as minimums in an effort to increase overall numbers. However, she approved the Plan without the allocations being described as minimums.

It is important that the Council is clear and confident about its housing targets and not create loopholes for developers to exploit. The words matter.

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area

The South Downs National Park occupies approximately 70% of the land area of Chichester District. The remaining 30% includes Chichester City with fairly limited opportunity for major housing sites. The remainder of CDC land area includes Chichester Harbour AONB, which is a RAMSAR site and SSI, Pagham Harbour which has SPA status and Medmerry which is designated as a potential SPA. For Government to require CDC to raise its Local Plan allocation from 435 dwellings p.a. to 609 dwellings p.a. (i.e. by 40%) and then expect CDC to accommodate a further 41 dwelling p.a. from the SDNP is wholly unreasonable. This is particularly so when many Parishes in the SDNP have expressed concern about the sustainability of their communities due to the lack of housing for their younger generation.

For the Manhood (3.11) "emphasis will be mainly upon protecting and enhancing the special qualities of the coast and its rural hinterland" and there is a "need to adapt to the potential impacts of climate change and sea level rise" (4.122).
The total housing numbers for the Manhood parishes is 950, and the plan also seeks to provide new employment opportunities "to reduce out-commuting". It also acknowledges the Manhood has "Significant areas at risk from coastal erosion and flooding, which is further accentuated by a high water table and poor land drainage" (4.121). Residents would add to this a barely adequate sewer system. In view of these factors it is hard to see how the plan's housing objectives can be achieved without building on a considerable area of prime agricultural/horticultural land which is surely one of the "special qualities of the coast and its hinterland" which the plan is "protecting and enhancing" (3.11). Development in East Wittering Parish is further constrained by its settlement area adjoining and spilling over into the parish of West Wittering whose allocation is just 25 dwellings.

The existing adopted plan recognised the problems of large-scale development on the Peninsula. The Western Mannhood's allocation of 330 homes (up to 1929) has already been exceeded. It is hard to see how a further 600 homes can be justified when the previously identified problems have not been mitigated and have been made worse by the development which has already taken place.

The plan acknowledges the "unique character" of the peninsula, and its tranquil nature. Each development lowers the physical attractiveness and uniqueness of the area, while the only road with "major" noise impact identified in the Peter Brett Transport Study is Bell Lane, passing through the Somerley Conservation Area. No significant deterioration of air quality is recognised; how can this be, even with an increase in the proportion of electric/hybrid private vehicles, if commercial development is envisaged, especially that south of the A27 close to residential Stockbridge?

A further disincentive to living, working, and holidaying on the Manhood is the difficulty of access, which gets worse as the A27 traffic increases, as it must do with further large-scale development along the East-West corridor. The planned mitigation in the form of a Stockbridge by-pass is at best a short-term solution, improving the problems with the Stockbridge Road roundabout. But any commercial development in the same area, south of the A27, would further raise traffic levels attempting to reach the A27 from the new route. So
at worst, if the proposed commercial development at AL6 is taken into consideration, the proposed new Link Road from the western end of the by-pass to Birdham Road is likely to create a new "Vinnetrow Road" situation at the Fishbourne roundabout.

The proposed industrial / housing development at AL6 is largely within an area of agricultural land prone to flooding: it is close to the R. Lavant and susceptible to further damage from rising sea-levels. AL6 does not mention these major risks, though AL4 specifically mentions the need to avoid the flood-plain of the Lavant in relation to Madgwick Lane. Further, such a development contradicts DM28, there being "adverse impact on the openness of the views in and around the coast, designated environmental areas and the setting of the South Downs National Park"; and the tranquil and rural character of the area. Salterns Way cycle route would be alongside the development; the much prized peacefulness of the route and the views of the cathedral and Downs would be destroyed. Furthermore, AL6 is adjacent to Chichester Harbour which as previously mentioned is not only an AONB but is a RAMSAR site and SSI. There is evidence of Winter grazing by migratory birds in the area designated as AL6.

Traffic levels within the Manhood are already such that heavy commercial vehicles choose to use country lanes which were not built for the capacity, while the transport of agricultural/horticultural produce, particularly on the B2145, and the movement of agricultural machinery has a significant impact on journey time. Further housing and commercial development will require mitigation on the Peninsula itself.

Turning to the Brett Transport Study and the Appendix dealing with Air Pollution, given what they say in 3.2.22 and particularly in 3.2.23, it is staggering that in 3.2.24 they make their glib 'standard' statement when we know already that 4.1% of deaths in Chichester are due to PM2.5 pollutants from vehicle emissions.

How can 3.2.24 consider future vehicle uncertainties ref 3.2.22, if they are uncertain? There is no risk analysis in the Brett report to support the assertion that: the report is 'an appropriately conservative assessment.' The real risk to lives in this area is too significant to be dealt with in this superficial way.

In considering alternative industrial / housing sites to AL6, AL4, which is included in the current CDC Local Plan, is ideal. It is recognised that this has been withdrawn from the HELLA; consideration should however be given to using compulsory purchase powers to acquire this site for industrial use. Most airports / airfields in the UK have industrial area on their boundaries.
The Peter Brett Transport Study estimates that the cost of mitigation measures at £68m, this level is clearly way beyond the level at which it could be funded by developer contributions. Without defined future funding plans, housing development should be phased in line with actual funding.

It is encouraging to see the proposed introduction of "wildlife corridors" to the east and west of Chichester linking the Downs with Pagham and Chichester Harbours respectively. However they should not be positioned where they conflict with 5.24 which addresses the possibility of an A27 northern relief road. They should also be wider at the coastal end: the two to the east of the city could even be joined to form one.

As the plan recognises the international importance of the two harbours and the Medmerry Realignment for wetland habitat (2.25), it would be a positive step to designate a protected area to link Chichester and Pagham Harbours in the same way.

Earnley Parish Council is pleased that small-scale Horticultural Development will still be focussed on the two former LSA sites in Almodington and Sidlesham, and applauds DM21, which sets out the conditions for redevelopment of buildings in the countryside, where currently there seems to be a presumption in favour of housing.

Currently there is a demographic imbalance on the Manhood and in CDC in general. Locally we are all aware of the need to provide accommodation which attracts younger people into the area and gives our own young people the opportunity to make their homes here. How can this happen? To use the term "affordable housing" is a deception. In an area with such high market-rate housing, "affordable" is simply not affordable. In a holiday area, the rental market is limited and distorted by the high number of holiday lets; there is no guarantee that new housing would not benefit tourists rather than prospective residents. The proposed Plan is, of course, moulded and constrained by government policy, but there is nothing in it which comes close to solving this part of our "housing crisis".

To sum up, Earnley Parish Council:
* Is opposed to the scale of development proposed for the Manhood Peninsula
o Believes this level of development to be unsustainable
o Believes it to be incompatible with maintaining the rural character of the area and the mixed nature of the local economy
* Finds the mitigaton propsed for the A27 to be insufficient and ineffective
* Is opposed to the AL6 development
* Is concerned by the increases in air and noise polution
* Urges CDC and WSCC to consider more closely the social housing needs of the area