Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

3.1 to 3.2
It is our view that an opportunity has been missed to:
1. Look at new opportunities to develop away from existing settlements
2. Look at innovative solution to develop new dwellings. There is no provision for
a. Kit built small homes
b. Eco style properties built in a rural environment
3. Choose CDC identified sites rather than be lead by developers

3.4
The plan does insufficient to encourage students or young people to come to Chichester or for them to remain to develop careers. In the report "Know your Place" by BBC Chichester scored very badly. Going out and sports facilities scored zero. Busses scored one.

3.5
We do not accept that the wider plan has taken into account the wider range of environmental aspirations. The size and scope of planned development along the East West corridor damages the environment and fails to enhance the social aspirations of the communities.

3.6
Haphazard development as proposed does not conserve and enhance the local distinctiveness of the area.

3.7
Any significant development, as planned, between the Chichester Harbour and the South Downs will seriously damage the area.

3.10
The growth proposed will damage the villages and remove essential farmland. The villages do not need to grow to thrive. Schools, facilities and roads are already over loaded.

4.1
This plan has no provision for the building of eco communities. There are sites in the rural areas or just outside the SPA (Bosham for example) that could be used to develop high quality eco villages.

If we wish to build sustainable developments then as a Council we need to look and embrace new modern techniques to create eco friendly developments. There are opportunities in the area that this plan flatly ignores.

In terms of high quality building with standard that embrace an environmental future it is lamentable in its lack of a positive approach.

4.2
We support the need for sustainable development. This plan currently is prescriptive and does not allow local people to shape the future.

4.8/4.9
This plan does not enhance or maintain the vitality of some of the rural communities. More development in Fishbourne, Donnington, Chidham, Hambrook and Bosham will damage the communities. Other more rural communities do need more housing to ensure the shops and schools survive. Funtington and East and West Ashling are good examples.

4.18
Service villages are not sufficiently defined. Comparing Fishbourne with Westbourne or Westhamnett with Wisborough Green fails to distinguish them. They are different.

4.22
Are we meeting housing needs or delivering a government policy that we have no control over? Is this demand led? Do we need this level of housing here? Not proven. We accept we need more housing especially for our young but this policy fails to create a coherent plan that will satisfy local people.

We believe some of the smaller village should take an allocation. Funtington as an example

4.34
Affordable housing is not defined in this document. Typically "affordable Housing" in this Council areas is unaffordable to many people.

Policy S6
A 30% provision is unacceptably low. We recommend a minimum of 35%.

4.34
Affordable housing is not defined in this document. Typically "affordable Housing" in this Council areas is unaffordable to many people.

Policy S6
A 30% provision is unacceptably low. We recommend a minimum of 35%.

Policy S6
A 30% provision is unacceptably low. We recommend a minimum of 35%.

4.52
We support the need for business and employment. This must though be well paid high quality jobs. Developing land for warehousing is not acceptable.