Neighbourhood Plan - Residents' Feedback
Objection letter for Planning Application 14/00661/OUT; 14/00662/OUT; 14/00663/OUT
Objections are raised to the proposed developments of:
•14/00661/OUT |112 dwellings with associated access onto land on the south side of Cooks
•14/00662/OUT | Development of the site by the erection of 127 dwellings with associated
access from Main Road, parking, open space and landscaping. | Land North Of Main Road
And West Of Inlands Road, Southbourne, Emsworth, Hampshire, PO10 8JH
•14/00663/OUT | Development of the site by the erection of 30 dwellings, with associated
access from Inlands Road, parking, open space and landscaping. | Loveders Camping And
Caravan Site, Inlands Road, Nutbourne, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 8RH
The implications of: development of a green field site; traffic and congestion; pressures on local
drainage infrastructure; and wildlife . . . all form part of this OBJECTION.
This narrative concentrates consideration of School Places in the neighbourhood.
I live within the catchment area of Southbourne Infants and Junior Schools and have seven
children. All of my children are home educated, thus whilst potentially are not a burden on local
resources would be eligible for school places.
I contacted the two schools last week to enquire whether there were spaces to allow my children to
attend, the results are as follows:
Southbourne Infants School
Sept 14 (New Entry) A few places at present
Current Year R No spaces OVER SUBSCRIBED
Current Year 1 No spaces
Current Year 2 No spaces
Southbourne Junior School
Current Year 3 No spaces
Current Year 4 No spaces
Current Year 5 One space
Current Year 6 One space
Consequences of Limited/No School Places
If there is not joined up thinking in the review of all housing schemes with regards to the local
schools – with a planned expansion of these schools ahead of the pace of any approved housing
development – parents will be forced to commute out of the area for the ‘school runs’.
This factor is not considered in the Traffic Assessment – that clearly states that local schools are in
walking distance of the proposed sites. Strictly speaking this statement is misleading – as there
are no spaces at the schools . . .
Unless this matter of traffic and trafficking is dealt with in a holistic manner (with committed and
planned expansion of the schools in advance of any development) – Southbourne will not be the
sustainable community that is being promoted as the reason why the applications are on the sites
'The emerging Southbourne Parish Plan is the result of a lot of hard work and consultation undertaken by many residents and Focus Groups with the Parish Council.and AIRS who are the consultants for the plan. Its content bodes well for the future growth of the Southbourne Community, and while it does not address all the concern expressed over the past year or so, it will act as guidance document, when the next parish plan is considered in 15 years time.
I find the whole concept of developing greenfield spaces disappointing. CDC have failed to look at residential communities holistically and so are allowing development in areas that cannot sustain them. Southbourne Parish has serious drainage problems that are not being addressed by the bodies set up to maintain and take care of the environment. Increasing the population in this area without first improving the infrastructure could be disastrous. It is ridiculous to nominate areas as being of Outstanding Natural Beauty if nothing real is done to protect them. The projects that have recently received publicity have been drops in the ocean. I used to swim regularly off the foreshore in Prinsted. Now I know more about the sewage system and what is allowed to go directly into the harbour I don't.
The plan drawn up by the Neighbourhood Plan are the best of a series of bad options.
Fully approve of the plan and hope that it will address the need in the parish for affordable housing. We have concerns over the sewage capacity as described in the MWH report 2010 which contradicts the headroom capacity indicated by Southern Water. We trust that MWH will be commissioned to update their report with regard to the Thornham WWTW.
I have just read the neighbourhood plan and would like to offer my congratulations for such an excellent document to all concerned.
Some General Comments
intentioned document, the fact remains that nothing is ever done in response to representations made by existing residents. The extension of Sadlers Walk is a prime example:
Traffic on Stein Road
Building should be spread around not all in one place, will put too much pressure in one area re traffic. Parking allocation on new developments shows how many cars they believe will increase by, people do not have cars unless they intend to use them. Most parents don't walk the children to school now, they drive & park in Stein Road causing traffic hold ups, this will only get worse.
Road transport: When additional traffic created by the extra development for Southbourne Parish is added to additional traffic created by development in Emsworth, Westbourne, Chidham, Fishbourne and Bosham, then the already overloaded Fishbourne roundabout at the junction between A259 and the A27 will become even more intolerable especially in the morning rush hour.
Bus transport: with the extra developments, we would hope to have improved bus service, in particular, to the north part of Southbourne and later evening buses from
Some of the assumptions made by i-Transport are very contentious and should be vigorously challenged.
There is no possible solution to the queuing at the level crossings but the problem could be eased. At the moment just one vehicle parked legally on the
east of Stein road just north of the crossing can cause a holdup stretching beyond Cooks lane. It would be unfair to paint yellow lines on the east side as the householders do not have parking facilities but by widening that side by half a cars width, traffic would be able to pass in both directions. There is ground space available.Yellow lines should be painted along the west side.
North of South lane
The field where development is planned has a number of problems.
The field itself was a “Borrow Pit” resulting in the ground being unstable to a depth of about ten feet.
During infilling various remnants of road building were dumped in the field.
A former inhabitant of Southbourne and a former Southern Electricity manager stated to me that a main electricity cable and a main gas pipe cross the field.
The Church Commissionners representative at the meeting admitted that the field would need to be made suitable for development because of the above restrictions and their presentation was consequently uninformative.
A Southbourne Resident
A Southbourne Resident
Thanks again to everyone working on the important plan.
Our thoughts have not changed radically from our last set of comments but we understand that the Church commissioners are considering a link to the west bound carriageway of the A27. This would make these 2 northern sites far more feasible as it would help with the railway crossing issues.
We are still concerned with the most easterly plots in view of the change in the Chidham boundary that there is the potential for ribbon development along the main road at the junction of the 2 boundaries.
We understand the Alfrey Close proposal has been reconsidered by the planners but we are unaware of the outcome. We would hope if this goes ahead, the planned houses could be deducted from the 324 total advised.
Finally, where are the people coming from that need these new houses and where are the work opportunities?
Has Chichester Council reviewed how many empty properties there are in the area, as surely these should also be taken into account?
A Southbourne Resident
A Southbourne Resident
The main bone of contention in the village is the level crossing in Stein Road. Nothing has been done to alleviate this problem when new development has taken place in the past and it would be a tragedy if nothing is done this time round. Thinking beyond the present plans it seems certain that further development will be required of the village in years to come. It is therefore essential that a road system between north and south of the village be created which will cater for traffic flow until the village is too large to expand any more. I am told that a road bridge would cost £6million and asked who would pay for it? The question is not who will pay for it but can the village afford to do without it? To create a village community the answer is a resounding no!'
A Southbourne Resident
First of all, thank you for organising the evening; Well done!
Secondly, what an absolute disgrace that half the invited developers didn't show. Did they think that not many residents would be interested and that they would be wasting their time in showing up? How wrong they were in assuming that!
Comments on those who did show are mainly the same.
1. All went on about the open green spaces that the developers would include on their developments. Just words to sound as if they care.
2. Carter Jonas' presentation for the land bordering the A27, building 300 homes on the west and east of Stein Road appears to be the most probable site incorporating all the housing needs for the next few years. But, having identified that the land is lower than the water table, they have incorporated swales/ponds to take the excess water. They did not mention the fact that the A27 regularly floods, because of initial bad surveying and design for the excess water drainage, which leads to even more water needing to be dispersed. As this site is bordering onto the A27, the water problem will be much greater than the developer identified at the meeting. Two or three swales will never cope with all this water that the development and the A27 will create. There was no provision for a Doctors Surgery, chemist or a retail shop on the site, which with the prospects of a minimum of 300 to a possible maximum of fifteen hundred people (possibly more), would be creating bedlum for the existing oversubscribed facilities. These have to be included.
3. The drainage and sewerage problems already exist in Southbourne. How will this be rectified to cope with all this new development? Three of them didn't even mention this and the fourth just touched on it.
I noted on the Southbourne State of the Parish Report Part 1 that Southbourne Surgery could build on land that they have at the back of the existing surgery to supply one more doctor. That's just not enough! The surgery is already at breaking point and the Boots Chemist is a joke.
I care about the design and type of new buildings that have to be built, but much more thought on the infrastructure of the village is needed before putting 'dog walking paths' onto a developers plan ( Nutbourne West site)!
A Southbourne Resident
I have lived at in Southbourne since 1989 & know the roads around here well. In the presentations by the relevant builders hoping to build North & South of Cooks Lane, they made no reference about needing to upgrade some local roads.
Cooks Lane is narrow & straight with a few passing places, but is not suitable for an increase in traffic. At one end it leads onto Stein Road where there are already issues with the level crossing & parking nearby. At the other end there is Inlands Road which is narrow to the North, not suitable for larger vehicles. To the South there are often parked vehicles before the level crossing, making it one car wide. From the level crossing to the caravan entrance it is one vehicle wide with one passing point in the centre, but because the road is not straight drivers cannot see if it is clear to enter. This sometimes leads to one car needing to back up to a suitable spot, but this is not easy because of the curve & the overhanging bushes, which will scratch a car if scraped.
I hope the powers that be can insist on road upgrades being carried out to ensure minimum disruption in this area.
Furnston Grove resident
I have some comments:
Living in Prinsted as I do, naturally I would prefer development to take place on the northern sites - this would have the benefit of a longer run for surface water to soak away before it reached the Main Road drainage disaster and a better chance of rail passengers being filtered out of the southbound traffic before it reaches Main Road. It's worth considering that 'walking distance' is only relevant for fit people not carrying heavy bags and probably only in nice weather. Proper drop-off areas for trains would help safety.
What worries me most is that all these sites will be developed with an eye to the new houses being just fine, but no care will be given as to whether the existing housing is badly disadvantaged.
That's it, thank you. I know you'll do your best!
Thanks for the leaflet through the door. A couple of months ago I waded my through some of the links on future plans and made some brief comment of concern on green spaces being important to retain and brownfield sites being preferred locations. I also mentioned the worry of increased traffic on the A259. My real point is that most residents will have simply found it too difficult to know what is happening or to engage appropriately with their views.