Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Para 6.63
As a resident of Fishbourne for over 40 years, I have seen the village double in size by the turn of the century and grow by a further 30% since the 2001 Census. As a result, the land available for sustainable development has been used up and it was agreed that 50 homes would be an appropriate allocation for our Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029.
I was therefore surprised to find the allocation for Fishbourne in the revised Local Plan set at 250 (five times the earlier allocation) and alarmed when this seemed to be an arbitrary allocation since no-one could give me a rationale or formula for the calculation. An attempt is made in para 6.63 but the basic facts on which the argument is based are totally untrue: (1) Far from needing growth to sustain it, the local primary school is oversubscribed with children who live in Fishbourne and so families moving into the village have to search for schools further afield.
(2) Similarly the Fishbourne Centre is so well-used it is having to adapt the current meeting spaces into a flexible format so that more functions can be run at any one time.
(3) And the suggestion that Fishbourne needs to promote the vitality of the village beggars belief! In the last decade, the Parish Council has obtained a million pounds of outside money to spend on facilities including its much admired Centre and Playing Field and to contribute to the development of the Pre-School (OFSTED: Outstanding) and the new Church Hall. Fishbourne has a strong community spirit the latest example of which is the Fishbourne Companions. Through its earlier Village Plans and its Neighbourhood Plan, Fishbourne has a track record of listening to its community and finding ways of meeting these needs. Does this sound like a village that needs population growth to promote its vitality?

6.65

This is one of many examples where policy and practice are at variance. "Protecting the separate distinct identity of Fishbourne" was one of the top priorities in the Village Survey and I am pleased to see it referred to in 6.65. However, as the HELAA and the Local Plan Review have created a situation where the arbitrary figure of 250 could be met only by starting to build on Bethwines there is a sharp conflict between policy and practice since Bethwines Farm is the only gap left at Fishbourne's borders.
Policy DM8 is another example of conflict between policies and practice. The policy boldly states that "any development must minimize and not create or add to problems of highway safety, congestion, air pollution or other damage" - whereas in practice 2,300 houses are scheduled to be built along the corridor between Chichester and Southbourne. The A259 is already operating beyond its safe capacity and the delays caused at Fishbourne and subsequent roundabouts along the Chichester bypass are not only bad for the regional economy but also for the health of those breathing in the increased pollution.

6.49 Para 6.49 contains a hidden time bomb for Fishbourne (which may explain why there is no mention of it in Policy SA9: Fishbourne Parish). The proposal for a new road connecting Birdham Road to Fishbourne Roundabout looks remarkably similar to the proposal soundly rejected when it formed part of one of the options put forward by Highways England. The proximity of an extra junction to the right of the access to the Roundabout from Fishbourne would make access from the village bother slower and more hazardous. A light-controlled system might increase the safety of using the roundabout but would do nothing to reduce the queuing at the Roundabout - with the extra air pollution that would result from this. Moreover, if you take into the account the CUMULATIVE EFFECT of all the Corrridor developments and the poor sightlines there would actually be an increased risk in using Fishbourne Roundabout - contrary to Policy DM8 that "Development must not create residual severe cumulative impacts on surrounding areas".

POLICY S23 promises a travel plan to "achieve timely delivery of transport infrastructure to support new housing". A comprehensive travel plan would be welcomed but "timely delivery" would require the provision of the infrastructure before the building was completed.

Para 5.52 Future Policy for Gaps Between Settlements. Maintaining separate village identity scored very highly in the 2018 Village Survey and was the reason the Boundary Commission agreed that the new District Ward should be named "Harbour Villages" rather than "Harbour Ward". By delaying any decision on this "until the next iteration of the Plan" will be too late for some of the villages who have their borders threatened by the allocation of new building in the consultation document..

Para 4.113 There is a tendency to underplay the cumulative impact of all the individual proposals in the document. Taken alone, each proposal seems comparatively reasonable but add together the proposals in policies SA7, SA9, SA10 and SA 13 and you get a very different CUMULATIVE EFFECT of the proposals on the infrastructure. Fishbourne (250), Bosham (250 at Highgrove + 50 allocated in the existing Site Allocation DPD (2018), Chidham and Hambrook (500) and Southbourne (1,250) = 2,300 homes. Fishbourne and its Roundabout will be affected not by traffic from 250 homes but by that from 2,300 homes.