Neighbourhood Plan - Residents' Feedback

 

 

The Thorney road site should continue to be regarded as unsuitable for development for the reasons:

1. It is within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and residential development would intrude on views from the harbourside and other locatios within the AONB.
2. Development of the land would erode the effectiveness of land currently forming a strategic gap between developed areas.
3. Development of the land would create an undesirable precedent for proposals to develop land immediately to the south.

 


 

Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan – New Homes

Comments following 23rd November public meeting:

Although we are generally opposed to increasing the size of our village we have been impressed by the professionalism and commitment shown by Seaward Properties.

Seaward have turned up to all the meetings we have attended, their plans have been clear and well presented.  The sites they propose (‘Orchard’ and ‘Paddock’) are not ‘Greenfield’ and their current usage is relatively unsightly.  

The main access to the Orchard site is direct from the A259 and should not cause traffic increase through the current Southbourne Station level crossing (a major bottleneck) and add to the already bad situation along Stein Road at school pickup time.

The access to Paddock site is from Cook’s lane but the design of the development may actually improve access through the narrow lane, our only concern would be that the level crossing at Inland Road should be improved and the lane on the South side widened.  We would hope the Seaward Properties would either have this in their plan already or could be asked to do something.

Seaward Properties seems to have taken this new local planning process seriously and we would like to think that they would work with the community throughout the construction phases if they were successful.

We must also add that Rydon Homes have also produced some very polished plans and have made good presentations, however we feel that this site would substantially increase traffic through Stein Road and it would be built on areas of ‘Greenfield’ sites, which we think should be avoided.

The current plans for Alfrey close, with the nursing home, appear to us to be well thought out (with potential for some local employment) but we would like to think that the warden assisted homes on that site should be part of the 300 homes allocated to the village.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the local Parish Neighbourhood Plan team for arranging these meetings and helping the residents to self-determine the building sites given the constraints imposed on them by Chichester DC.

 

 

Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan – New Homes

Comments following 23rd November public meeting:

Although we are generally opposed to increasing the size of our village we have been impressed by the professionalism and commitment shown by Seaward Properties.

Seaward have turned up to all the meetings we have attended, their plans have been clear and well presented.  The sites they propose (‘Orchard’ and ‘Paddock’) are not ‘Greenfield’ and their current usage is relatively unsightly.  

The main access to the Orchard site is direct from the A259 and should not cause traffic increase through the current Southbourne Station level crossing (a major bottleneck) and add to the already bad situation along Stein Road at school pickup time.

The access to Paddock site is from Cook’s lane but the design of the development may actually improve access through the narrow lane, our only concern would be that the level crossing at Inland Road should be improved and the lane on the South side widened.  We would hope the Seaward Properties would either have this in their plan already or could be asked to do something.

Seaward Properties seems to have taken this new local planning process seriously and we would like to think that they would work with the community throughout the construction phases if they were successful.

We must also add that Rydon Homes have also produced some very polished plans and have made good presentations, however we feel that this site would substantially increase traffic through Stein Road and it would be built on areas of ‘Greenfield’ sites, which we think should be avoided.

The current plans for Alfrey close, with the nursing home, appear to us to be well thought out (with potential for some local employment) but we would like to think that the warden assisted homes on that site should be part of the 300 homes allocated to the village.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank the local Parish Neighbourhood Plan team for arranging these meetings and helping the residents to self-determine the building sites given the constraints imposed on them by Chichester DC.

 

 Southbourne Residents

 


 

 

 We would like to raise our concerns for the proposed development of Thorney Road.
 
 The first point is the increase in traffic as this is often a single lane road and we are very concerned by the increase in cars if this development was to go ahead. This road is already a very busy road and would be worse if there was an increase of cars.
 
 The second point is this is an area of outstanding natural beauty very close to chichester harbour and marina. The fields at present are a habitat to wildlife and we are concerned by the environmental impact this development would have.

A Southbourne Resident

 


 

'Hermitage Thorney Road Development'
  
 'I have great reservations about the development of these fields and would object to this development. It
 is in the AONB and outside the Settlement Policy Area. It would set a precedent to further develop the fields to to south and possibly east of
Thorney Road.
 1. Mr Perkins said that he would renew the field drains to prevent the rain water flooding down through the properties in
Slipper Road. He did not know if this would be sufficient to cope when a development sited several feet above Slipper Road was completed.
 2.He did not make it clear where other surface water would be discharged. Hopefully not through the existing drain into the
Yacht Harbour putting more oily and soap deposits into Chichester Harbour.
 3. He could give no indication of the amount of car parking for the residents and visitors on the site to prevent them parking in Thorney and Slipper Roads.
 4. His plan for altering the existing car parking in
Thorney Road was vague. He said that there would be 2 rows of cars parked in the slip road in front of the existing cottages. He did not say if this slip road would be widened so that cars could drive through and manouever or that Thorney Road be widened to cope.
 5.Mr Perkins said the plot is close enough to Emsworth for people to walk in on the improved footpaths to do their shopping. It is nearly a mile into the town and most people would not manage this. When I suggested a cycle path, he said people could cycle on the footpath!
 6. With increased traffic, there will be problems at the junction with the A259.
 7. With all the proposed Parish developments will the Cycle Path on the A259 be improved for the safety of cyclists coping with the increased traffic.
 8. In the Parish Plan, what is the provision for Schools and Medical facilities to cope with the increase in population?'

A Southbourne Resident


Highway Capacity

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

 


 

1. Why is agricultural land being considered for development when there are other sites in the parish that I consider to be more ‘Brownfield sites / grazing land’

2 .Infrastructure, like sewage and waste water are already a problem around the village.  e.g.  the flooding near the church when it rains. What will any developer do to improve this?

3. What is going to happen to the traffic flow to the north of the village with the developments fed by Breach Avenue & Stein road.  With the proposed volumes of housing on those sites where will the traffic go?  The only options are the roads to Westbourne & Woodmancote which are too narrow in parts (and are in need of repair) or the railway gates to the south. All make a bad situation worse especially at school times and when the gates are closed.

4. Developments that have an easier access to the A259 should be preferred.

5. Fairest way forward would be to spread the developments around the village to minimise any effects in any specific area, whilst not letting the village creep outwards maintaining a good strategic gap and rural setting.. (Southbourne is already made up of 3 villages in the past)

6. What plans will be considered to increase school places when they are already at capacity. Other developments already underway locally outside the parish will also add pressure and they are not necessarily in West Sussex..

7. Why does the area of outstanding natural beauty extend as far north to the southside of the A259. Small developments have been allowed before. . I understand it towards the harbour in the south

8. On the original pamphlet a site to the east was shown. I am led to believe that this has moved into the Chidham parish but the number of the homes identified for the Southbourne parish has not diminished. If this is so why?

9. Some developers, have it appears, already applied for outline planning permission. What guarantee is there that they will not be agreed until the referendum is complete.

10. Wherever  the final developments are, will the affordable housing be spread around as I know developers can put them together if they have more than 1 site.

11. When they have to dig up the roads for services can a clause be added that any sinkage within a certain timescale they will come back and rectify.  Stein road is a classic example of where services have dug up the road and some time later sinkage occurs and we are left with the poor condition at present which the council will eventually have to put right.            


A Southbourne Resident

 


 



We visited the 2nd presentation at the Village hall last week.

 

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

 


 



Clearly, from comments made at more than one focus group station this morning, this is not a case of whether 350+ homes are to be built within the parish, but more a case of planning for this number to ward off a possible District Council foisting up to three times that number on the area.  Therefore, this looks like 'a done deal' for the lower number, whereas I would like to see challenged whether this number is truly reasonable / achievable in the first place.   So, assuming the 'done deal', I would say:

  • Before any site begins development, the local rainwater drainage system requires upgrading.  Today was a good day to hold the meeting when roads - such as Inlands Road, Stein Road, the A259 near the roundabout with Stein Road - were all surface-covered from side-to-side. Additional building will exasperate the problem, especially as many of the sites indicated carry water courses within them (us walkers know this from experience!).

  • Before any site is developed. an additional road needs to be created between the A259 and the A27 (and, ideally, with a link onto the latter) to take the traffic away from Stein Road and Inlands Road.  This will require an additional crossing-point of the railway line.  Also, Cooks Lane and Inlands Road need to be widened to take passing vehicles (of, at least, transit van size).  Such roads require also a pavement for pedestrians on, at least, one side and provision for safe cycle usage ('the green options'!).  The timing on the Stein Road level-crossing needs to be adjusted such that the current long delays are eliminated (maybe by providing more localised control of the gates?).

  • Before any site is developed, an agreed and well-policed traffic management system needs to be in place for construction traffic and adequate parking to be provided on the site being developed for all workers there (learn from the experience of Westbourne with the current site being developed!).

  • Before any site is developed, planners must assure that adequate facilities (school places, doctor appointments, public transport, etc.) are in place to meet the needs of the additional population. 

  • With approval of any planning permissions, dates must be given for the completion of building so that the affected communities can 'heal' after the harrowing experiences of being near to the building sites.  This will also limit the period of 'price blight' on properties nearest to such sights.

  • With approval of any planning permissions, due regard must be given to the local communities affected by such practices as pile-driving, heavy machinery usage and dust creation.  Certainly, limits of starting (08:00) and finishing  (18:00) times per weekday and no weekend working must be considered. 

  • Sites proposed must be for 'small' developments only.

  • Sites proposed must only be on land that cannot be used for food production (in line with the Government statement of needing to produce more food ourselves).

  • Sites proposed must be of mixed housing stock, including bungalows (might release larger properties for families!).

 
Finally, may I say thank you to the parish councillors and helpers for all you are doing for the community.  Appreciated.
 

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

 


Sites SB1201/SB08329

Are the developers prepared to enter into a binding legal agreement to back up their assertion that they will not seek to develop the remainder of the site at a future date? Have the developers entered into an agreement for all of the land owned by the Church commissioners or only the identified SHLAA site? If it is only this site, what is to stop the Church Commissioners engaging with other developers in the future?

These are the most open , least well defined sites and therefore I was disappointed that no mention was made of strategic landscaping to strengthen or create boundaries, and unlike some of the other developers no mitigation measures to protect the privacy and amenity of properties adjoining the site. I note another resident has queried developers intentions with regard to landscaping but surely a landscaping and maintenance plan would be an integral part of any planning application and would have to be agreed by the Local Authority and implemented before the site could be occupied. I think it is a pity that this aspect was missing from this developer’s presentation. They only made reference to the central coppice which I would hope the Local Authority would make subject of a blanket TPO anyway if the site was to come forward. Unlike others they did not appear to have gathered a good background knowledge of the site itself, being unaware that this is grade 1 agricultural land for example.

I would have liked to have been given some idea of the style of housing proposed, other than the vague proposal of fairly low scale development. Given how visible these sites are from a number of footpaths the impact of any development would be substantial. It would have been helpful to have had some conceptual ideas of how the developers intended to integrate any new housing into the existing landscape to minimise what would clearly be significant visual impact on the surrounding countryside.

None of the developers appears to have taken into account the wider highway implications,  such  as the increase in traffic at the T junction at the northern end of Stein Road which has inadequate visibility to the east, no lighting and the lack of footways to South Lane/Woodmancote Lane.





Thanks to everyone for the work to put this event on!

 

I have some comments:

  • The different responses from the developers was interesting - seemed to be three levels, that is: no interest at all (didn't turn up); standard time-wasting sales pitch including telling us all where our local shops are; professional and well-directed presentation responding in some degree to the brief.  I wonder if possible future dealings with these companies will correspond to their early attitudes?

  • Only one, the first, developer talked about drainage in spite of it being a primary concern.   When questions were asked in the interval they all said stuff about retention on site then gradual release but I think it is important to know where it will go after release because the  existing ditches and drains are inadequate now.  If we choose, say, three sites and they ALL release surface or foul drainage at once it'd be little better than just letting the whole lot flood across Main Road unchecked.  Yesterday and today there have been deep puddles partly blocking Prinsted Lane and ditches are full.  Maybe a management system (booking time slots?) across all sites should be set up if a proper solution is not created.

  • One wasted most of his talk expanding on the lovely trees they would plant - I expect these would be the first thing to be dropped when the budget over-ran.

  • Only one developer really was definite about community improvements - the Gosden Green one who said it was too small to contribute!

  • Do we know what the Highways people's views are on access - along Penny Lane or out onto Stein Road from the two northern sites or from Cooks Lane, and then onto Main Road?  Traffic from 300 houses at work/school run time, say in excess of 350 vehicles onto Main Road is likely to mean something more than the existing mini-roundabout will be needed and the present level crossing will be a joke.  If the site on Thorney Lane is chosen then the current face-off along past the cottages will need to be resolved properly as well as turning right out into Main Road.  (Would housing on this site be on stilts?)  Is planning likely to be granted without firm commitments on these matters?

  • Although from our point of view part development of a number of these sites might be the nicest option, you can see that the Developers would be less than keen as only a full scheme is likely to give them reasonable returns once they have dealt with groundworks etc and they'd be unlikely to offer community improvements unless they got maximum density.

  • I think it is likely that all of these sites are difficult ones to develop if only because of drainage and other infrastructure being at full capacity already.  That being so the schemes are likely to be working on small margins.  I think we will have to work hard at getting community benefits, be lucky to get sewage farm upgrade contributions and hope that the reputation benefits to the developers from being a presence in the area make it worth their while to give us quality.  Where the developers promise that they will be looking at surgeries, shops, etc. this is likely to be less than a promise and if included in a scheme could well be a form of secondary contingency.

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!

 

Judy Faulkner

 

 


 

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.


16th June 2013