Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Hunston Parish Council is writing to object to the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 Preferred Approach - December 2018 with the following issues:

Housing Allocation:

Policy AL11 states that:

Land will be allocated for development in the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan for a minimum of 200 dwellings, including any amendments to the settlement boundary.

We would strongly suggest that the wording above should be changed for "a minimum of 200 dwellings" to "a maximum of 200 dwellings". Failing that, to change the wording to: "about 200 dwellings".

We do this on the grounds that there is uncertainty about the identified sites and their capacity to deliver 200 dwellings is not proven. There are issues concerning flood risk and threats to Ancient Woodland (Hunston Copse). Additionally, Section 4.121 The Manhood Peninsula of the Local Plan states that:

Environmental designations cover, or impact on, most of the Peninsula, including the Chichester and Pagham Harbours SAC/SPA/Ramsar sites, the Chichester Harbour AONB and the Medmerry realignment

Whilst we understand that the continuing lack of resolution to the problem of the A27 is not within CDC's control. We believe that the likelihood of increased air pollution caused by the cars associated with 200 new dwellings, when they reach the roundabout north of Hunston where the B2166 and B2145 meet and then onto the A27 must be taken into account.


The Planning Process:

1. The Housing Economic Needs Availability Assessment (HELAA) published in August 2018, allocated 176 houses to Hunston and 375 to Mundham. In October, CDC planners announce that 200 houses will be allocated to Hunston and 50 to Mundham. This reversal of the HELAA, with no rationale given is unacceptable.

2. The Sustainability Appraisal of the Site Allocation: DPD January 2018 states that there "are multiple options for Hunston - for a relatively small amount of housing to meet a local housing need". The local housing need is 22, with 14 in Bands A - C.

3. The CDC Landscape Capacity Study November 2018 identifies at section CH30 that sub-area CH30 is medium capacity but it is recommended that only a small amount of development may be accommodated around the existing settlement and provided it is informed by further landscape and visual impact assessment and sensitively integrated into the landscape. Once again what has changed? The development on land proposed by the Church Commissioners is not a small development.

Housing:

1. Hunston is a semi-rural village, increasing its size by 35% would change its identity to a dormitory for Chichester.

2. The suggested sites are currently arable land, used both for grazing cattle and crop production. UKs environmental footprint is already 2.4 times it's land area. We can only produce enough food for about 60% of our population.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/food-statistics-pocketbook-2017/food-statistics-in-your-pocket-2017-global-and-uk-supply

3. Using green field sites is not only detrimental to the village, it is also detrimental to the county and the country.

4. The size of this development on CDC's preferred sites would result in creep towards joining Hunston to Mundham and then Hunston to Chichester. This is social engineering, which will overcrowd the already overcrowded area.

Traffic:

1. The problem of the A27 remains unresolved at present. Currently it is increasingly grid-locked and access from the B2145 becomes more and more difficult.

2. Building 250 houses in Selsey, 200 houses in Hunston and 400 houses in Pagham will result in around 1700 more cars using the B2166 from Pagham and the B2145 from Selsey.

3. At present, the B2145 is the fourth busiest B-road in the UK. How can planners contemplate adding 900 cars to the B2145 and 800 cars to the B2166, all meeting at the roundabout north of Hunston?

4. The population of the Manhood Peninsula doubles in the summer, the current road infrastructure cannot cope, building more houses will result in permanent traffic jams and increased pollution

5. Local Plan P.130 states that the following should be considered: "Providing adequate mitigation for potential off-site traffic impacts upon the B2145". As CDC seem to have no effective engagement with Highways, and no recognition of the traffic pressures on Hunston, this seems like wishful thinking.

6. Chichester Free School has created serious traffic problems in the afternoons, when children are being collected. Adding 1700 cars will mean traffic becoming increasingly delayed along the A27 as well as the B2166 and B2145

Air Pollution:

1. This increase in traffic and housing will result in increased air pollution, damaging people's health and breaking environmental guidelines

Infrastructure:

1. Parts of Hunston are already in a Flood Risk Area. The water table is high and 200 more houses will only increase the flooding risk.

2. There are no indications that the current sewage, drainage and water utilities will be able to cope with this development

Services - Schools:

1. Currently Mundham, Sidlesham and Chichester Free School are full at entry level. The Free School has a county wide catchment, so there is no guarantee of places for any children from the new housing proposal. As a result, children will need to be driven to schools further away, resulting in yet more traffic problems

Medical Services:

2. There are two GP surgeries on the Manhood Peninsula, one in Selsey and one in Witterings. All residents in Hunston use GP surgeries in Chichester. Where will 200 new families register?

Sustainability

The Chichester Local Plan Review - Sustainability Appraisal - October 2018 lists the following: http://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=30955

1A Does the option prevent biodiversity loss and habit fragmentation?
Within the zone of influence for Pagham and Chichester Harbour. Close to the Canal and Hunston Copse SNCIs. Potential impact on components of ecological networks.

3A Does the option reduce air pollution from industrial processes and transport?
Added congestion on the A27 likely to have negative impact on air quality

3D Does the option require new Waste Water Treatment capacity?
Negative impact until WWTW is upgraded or new capacity is found

5A Does the option reduce the risks of coastal, fluvial surface water and groundwater flooding?
Sites to the South East of Hunston likely to increase flood risk and other potential sites located close to flood-zones

6C Does the option reduce congestion?
Likely to add to congestion on A27

7A Does the option encourage sustainable land management practices to conserve landscapes?
Local impact is likely to be significant

7B Does the option ensure protection of traditional urban forms?
Negative impact on village form.

7C Does the option ensure conservation and enhancement of the historic environment, heritage assets and their settings?
Potential negative impact on the Archaeological Priority Area

13B Does the option avoid the loss of the Best and Most Versatile agricultural land?
Potential loss of Grade 2 agricultural land. However, some options for developing Grade 3 land.

It would appear that the Local Plan proposal for 200 houses is completely ignoring all of the above.

Environment: Ancient Woodland:

1. The Local Plan on P.130 states that the following should be considered: "Protecting existing views and particularly those of Chichester Cathedral spire and Hunston Copse"

2. Current residents of Southover Way and Meadow Close will lose their existing views of Hunston Copse with the proposed new housing.

3. The proposed 15 metre margin to protect Hunston Copse is woefully inadequate

Environment: Wildlife

1. Hunston Copse and surrounding fields support a wide range of wildlife from water voles, adders, grass snakes and slow worms to hares, deer, foxes. People move to Hunston for green spaces, not to have them taken away.