Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document Regulation 19 - Supporting Documents

Comment

Representation ID: 8114

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

Methodology
With respect of the methodology deployed by the SA to appraise the development Options and the Development Plan Document (DPD), Wates Developments remain supportive of that deployed but do request that the submitted version of the plan and specifically its supporting SA incorporate these representations and any additional evidence submitted to ensure the assessment is as accurate and robust as possible.

Comment

Representation ID: 8115

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

Section 4.3 - fully support the scoring within the SA. The minimum 10% BNG can only be confirmed during design phase of development. It is also important to note that only Option 2 will not lead to loss of land within the Brent Geese Secondary Support Area.
Pleased to confirm that Option 2 will meet the 10% BNG as a minimum and will target improvements above this where viable. Considers this justifies the SA scoring but also that the effect should be converted to 'positive' given BNG commitment and lack of impact on Brent Geese area.

Comment

Representation ID: 8116

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

Section 4.4 - Pleased to see significant improvements in this SA objective since Reg 18. SA now confirms Option 2 and 3 are most sustainable, followed by Option 1 which is regarded as the least sustainable. The SA also records no significant effect for all three options.
Based on evidence within the SA, Wates Developments conclude that Option 2 should receive a significant positive score on the basis that a higher risk flood area is not included and the SPD requires all homes to be built with adaptation measures. Option 2 should receive a 'significant positive' score.

Comment

Representation ID: 8117

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

4.5 - SA scores/ranks all the development the same in terms of access to services, energy efficiency and proximity to Southbourne. Assessment Framework is clear on why Option 2 should be the preferred option from the point of view of climate change mitigation - including 2 vehicular accesses north of the railway line, and better connections. Option 2 can also accommodate more homes without unacceptable impacting the highway network, and has potential to achieve higher up-take of sustainable travel. As such, it should be identified as preferred site in regards to climate change mitigation.

Comment

Representation ID: 8118

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

4.8 - Acknowledge that there are listed buildings within all three development Options with Options 2 and 3 close to buildings on Inlands Road and Priors Leaze Lane respectively.
Wates Developments do not believe that these heritage assets will be a barrier to development and consider that suitable mitigation can be incorporated into the detailed design to ensure that development can proceed. On that basis they consider that the score for Option 2 should be reduced to a '2' from a '3'.

Comment

Representation ID: 8119

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

4.10 - Acknowledge that all three options will result in the loss of greenfield land some of which is classed as BMV. Impact is necessary given the lack of brownfield land and the need for affordable and private housing. It is important to note however that the Landscape TN confirms that there is more high value agricultural land to the west where as to the east it is a mix of 1, 2 and 3. It is positive however that the SA still regards Option 2 as the most sustainable along with Option 1.

Comment

Representation ID: 8120

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

4.11 - Considered that Option 2 clearly performs better than Option 1 in landscape and settlement separation terms. Wates remain of the opinion that, with the evidence presented in the TN at Reg 18, Development to east would be most appropriate in keeping with existing growth whilst development towards west would be 'breaking out' into open land and would fundamentally change the form of the settlement. Option 2 should score a '1' with Option 1 being the least favourable at a '3'. Option 3 should score a '2'.

Comment

Representation ID: 8121

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

Table 4.1 of the SA summarises the scoring of the three development Options and which cumulatively result in the following scores:
Option 1 = 20;
Option 2 = 15; and
Option 3 = 17

Collectively these scores confirm that Option 2 is the most sustainable of the three potential development options and with the suggested enhancements in these representations further enhancing Option 2 as the most sustainable.

Comment

Representation ID: 8122

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

Section 5 - confirms the Council consider that the performance of Option 2 against the Transport and Biodiversity objectives to have major sustainability benefits.
With respect to biodiversity, it is noted that Option 2 will not have any impact upon the Brent Geese area which only Option 2 can guarantee. It is also noted that Option 2 is likely to deliver a more sustainable transport solution, and thus encourage more modal shift.
Wates fully support the conclusions of the SA and consider that Option 2 presents the most sustainable and deliverable development option for Southbourne.

Comment

Representation ID: 8123

Received: 17/07/2026

Respondent: Wates Developments

Agent: Turley

7.1 - SA identified minor to moderate negative effects are predicted in relation to air quality, transport and accessibility which arise from an increase in traffic resulting in potentially lower air quality impacts. Wates acknowledge that these impacts are possible however with respect to air quality, a full assessment of any potential impacts will be undertaken in support of any planning application with appropriate mitigation identified accordingly. With respect of transport and accessibility, the SA notes that the development option chosen is ranked the most sustainable option given its accessibility to nearby services and a train station.