Agenda Item no: 6

Chichester District Council

Development Plan Panel

20 November 2012

Parish housing numbers and locations consultation: Responses from parishes

1. Contact Karen Dower, Planning Policy Manager Tel: 01243 521049; Email: kdower@.gov.uk

2. Recommendation 2.1. That the responses of the parishes to the housing numbers consultation are given careful consideration.

3. Introduction 3.1. The consultation on parish housing numbers was produced as a step towards identifying a locally derived housing requirement to be incorporated into the Local Plan.

3.2. The appendices to this report present a summary of responses from the parishes that responded by 16 November 2012.

4. Background 4.1. The consultation ran from 27 September to 2 November 2012. Additional responses were received until 16 November 2012.

4.2 The purpose of the consultation was to seek the views of parish and town councils, key infrastructure providers, statutory agencies and neighbouring planning authorities about the amount of non-strategic housing to be provided in the parishes across the District over the Local Plan period to 2029.

4.3 The consultation included all parishes where Council remains the Local Planning Authority. It also included parishes where the planning authority is split between Chichester District Council and the National Park Authority (SDNPA), but where the main settlement(s) lie outside of the SDNPA’s boundary. Parishes not included in the consultation are coloured grey in Appendix 1.

4.4 To inform their responses, each parish council was sent a parish specific ‘key facts’ sheet, a general table indicating the proposed parish-wide distribution of housing, and other supporting information. These are listed as background papers.

5. Responses received by parishes 5.1. The responses were grouped together for each question under common themes, to establish common concerns and requirements. A full commentary of the responses is provided in Appendix 2. Late responses were accepted until 16 November 2012.

6. Responses received by key consultees 6.1. A total of 9 key consultees acknowledged the consultation. These were: • Arun District Council • Natural • • NHS ** Conservancy** • Southern Water** • Environment Agency • Waverley Borough • Highways Agency Council**

6.2. Consultees that provided a full response are marked with **, and a summary of their comments is provided in Appendix 3.

7. Implications for the Local Plan 7.1. In order to meet the South East Plan housing target, the Local Planning Authority must assess what weight should be given to the specific factors identified in the responses that would prevent the parishes meeting their proposed minimum number of houses, and where necessary make any adjustments to the parish housing numbers.

8. Background Papers 8.1. Parish Housing Numbers consultation – Housing numbers table 8.2. Parish Housing Numbers consultation – Letter to Parish Councils 8.3. Parish Housing Numbers consultation – Key Fact Sheet 8.4. Parish Housing Numbers consultation – Q&A 8.5. Parish Housing Numbers consultation – Questions

9. Appendices 9.1. 1. Maps 9.2. 2. Responses to parish housing numbers consultation 9.3. 3. Key Consultee responses to consultation

Singleton CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 1 West Dean CP East Dean CP CP CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL

Eartham CP

Lavant CP CP South of District

Westbourne CP CP CP Q1. Are there any specific factors that we should know about that would prevent you from achieving our CP proposed minimum figure for your parish over the Southbourne CP Chichester CP period to 2029?

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP North CP Hunston CP CP CP

West Wittering CP Key: South Downs National Park CP District Boundary CP Parish not included in consultation CP D Parish Classifications No response Information not provided Physical boundary & policy constraints Major infrastructure & socio-economic issues CP Major infrastructure issues No specific factors

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 1 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District Q1. Are there any specific factors that we should know about that would prevent you from achieving our proposed minimum figure for your parish over the period to 2029?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP CP CP CP

Lurgashall CP CP

Milland CP CP

Kirdford CP Key: CP South Downs National Park District Boundary Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications and Redford CP No response CP Information not provided CP CP Physical boundary & policy constraints with CP Tillington CP Community infrastructure CP Major infrastructure & socio-economic issues Major infrastructure issues CP No specific factors

Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP CP CP Date: 13/11/2012 CP Cocking CP CP CP CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ West Dean CP Singleton CP East Dean CP Upwaltham CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 2 CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL CP

Lavant CP Boxgrove CP South of District Westbourne CP Funtington CP Westhampnett CP Q2. Do you consider that our proposed maximum figure is a realistic upper limit for Tangmere CP new housing in your parish over the period to 2029? Southbourne CP Chichester CP

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP Bosham CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP CP Hunston CP West Itchenor CP Birdham CP

West Wittering CP

Key: Sidlesham CP East Wittering CP South Downs National Park District Boundary Earnley CP D Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications No response Information not provided No Selsey CP Not with existing infrastructure Unsure (in context of nearby development) Yes

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 2 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District Q2. Do you consider that our proposed maximum figure is a realistic upper limit for new housing in your parish over the period to 2029?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP Loxwood CP Linch CP Northchapel CP

Lurgashall CP Fernhurst CP

Milland CP Ebernoe CP

Kirdford CP Key:

Wisborough Green CP South Downs National Park District Boundary Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications Woolbeding and Redford CP No response Lodsworth CP Information not provided Easebourne CP Trotton with Chithurst CP No Not with existing infrastructure Stedham with Iping CP Tillington CP Petworth CP Unsure (in context of nearby development) Yes Midhurst CP Yes, with infrastructure investment

Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP Graffham CP Stopham CP Date: 13/11/2012 Cocking CP Duncton CP Bepton CP Heyshott CP East Lavington CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ West Dean CP Singleton CP Upwaltham CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 3 East Dean CP CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL

Eartham CP

Boxgrove CP Lavant CP South of District Westbourne CP Westhampnett CP Funtington CP Q3. Are there any sites or general locations within the parish that you consider

Tangmere CP could be suitable for future housing development?

Southbourne CP Chichester CP

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP Bosham CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP North Mundham CP Hunston CP West Itchenor CP Birdham CP

West Wittering CP

Key: Sidlesham CP East Wittering CP South Downs National Park Earnley CP District Boundary D Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications No response Information not provided

Selsey CP No Under consideration locally Yes

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 3 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District Q3. Are there any sites or general locations within the parish that you consider could be suitable for future housing development?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP Loxwood CP Linch CP Northchapel CP

Lurgashall CP Fernhurst CP

Milland CP Ebernoe CP

Kirdford CP

Wisborough Green CP Key: South Downs National Park District Boundary Woolbeding and Redford CP Parish not included in consultation Lodsworth CP Parish Classifications Easebourne CP Trotton with Chithurst CP No response Stedham with Iping CP Tillington CP Information not provided Petworth CP No Under consideration locally Midhurst CP Yes

Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP Graffham CP Stopham CP Date: 15/11/2012 Cocking CP Duncton CP Bepton CP Heyshott CP East Lavington CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ West Dean CP Singleton CP East Dean CP Upwaltham CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 4 CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL Eartham CP

Lavant CP Boxgrove CP South of District Westbourne CP Funtington CP Westhampnett CP

Q4. Are there any issues relating to the timing of Tangmere CP future development that you wish to highlight? Southbourne CP Chichester CP

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP Bosham CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP North Mundham CP Hunston CP West Itchenor CP Birdham CP

West Wittering CP

Key: Sidlesham CP East Wittering CP South Downs National Park District Boundary Earnley CP D Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications No response Information not provided No issues Selsey CP Major infrastructure Major infrastructure & socio-economic issues Phasing of development

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 4 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District

Q4. Are there any issues relating to the timing of future development that you wish to highlight?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP Loxwood CP Linch CP Northchapel CP

Lurgashall CP Fernhurst CP

Milland CP Ebernoe CP

Kirdford CP

Wisborough Green CP Key: South Downs National Park District Boundary Parish not included in consultation Woolbeding and Redford CP Parish Classifications Lodsworth CP No response Easebourne CP Trotton with Chithurst CP Information not provided Stedham with Iping CP Tillington CP No issues Petworth CP Major infrastructure Major infrastructure & socio-economic issues Midhurst CP Phasing of development

Elsted and CP Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP Graffham CP Stopham CP Date: 13/11/2012 Bepton CP Cocking CP Duncton CP Heyshott CP East Lavington CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ Singleton CP Upwaltham CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 5 West Dean CP East Dean CP CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL

Eartham CP

Lavant CP Boxgrove CP South of District

Westbourne CP Westhampnett CP Funtington CP Q5. Are there any specific improvements or facilities that the community would like to see provided as a Tangmere CP result of the development?

Southbourne CP Chichester CP

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP Bosham CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP North Mundham CP Hunston CP West Itchenor CP Key: Birdham CP South Downs National Park District Boundary Parish not included in consultation West Wittering CP Parish Classifications No response Information not provided Sidlesham CP Under consideration locally East Wittering CP No specific improvements/facilities Earnley CP D Community infrastructure Enhanced design & build quality Socio-economic & environmental improvements Major & community infrastructure Major infra, community facilities & socio-economic Selsey CP Major infrastructure Major infrastructure & socio-economic facilities

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 5 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District

Q5. Are there any specific improvements or facilities that the community would like to see provided as a result of the development?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP Loxwood CP Linch CP Northchapel CP

Lurgashall CP Fernhurst CP Key: South Downs National Park District Boundary Milland CP Ebernoe CP Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications Kirdford CP No response Wisborough Green CP Information not provided Under consideration locally No specific improvements/facilities Community infrastructure Woolbeding and Redford CP Enhanced design & build quality Lodsworth CP Socio-economic & environmental improvements Easebourne CP Trotton with Chithurst CP Major & community infrastructure Stedham with Iping CP Tillington CP Major infra, community facilities & socio-economic Petworth CP Major infra, socio-economic & environmental Major infrastructure Midhurst CP Major infrastructure & socio-economic facilities

Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP Graffham CP Stopham CP Date: 13/11/2012 Bepton CP Cocking CP Duncton CP Heyshott CP East Lavington CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ Singleton CP Parish Housing Numbers - Question 6West Dean CP East Dean CP Upwaltham CP CHICHESTER DISTRICT Stoughton CP COUNCIL

Eartham CP

Lavant CP Boxgrove CP South of District

Westbourne CP Funtington CP Westhampnett CP Q6. Is your community likely to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan?

Tangmere CP

Southbourne CP Chichester CP

Fishbourne CP Oving CP Chidham CP Bosham CP

West Thorney CP Donnington CP Appledram CP North Mundham CP Hunston CP West Itchenor CP Birdham CP

West Wittering CP

Sidlesham CP Key: East Wittering CP South Downs National Park Earnley CP D District Boundary Parish not included in consultation Parish Classifications No response No Selsey CP Under consideration Yes

Date: 15/11/2012 © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 ´ Parish Housing Numbers - Question 6 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL

North of District

Q6. Is your community likely to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan?

Linchmere CP Plaistow CP Loxwood CP Linch CP Northchapel CP

Lurgashall CP Fernhurst CP

Milland CP Ebernoe CP

Kirdford CP

Wisborough Green CP

Key: South Downs National Park Woolbeding and Redford CP District Boundary Lodsworth CP Parish not included in consultation Easebourne CP Trotton with Chithurst CP Parish Classifications Stedham with Iping CP Tillington CP No response Petworth CP No Under consideration Midhurst CP Yes

Elsted and Treyford CP Fittleworth CP West Lavington CP Graffham CP Stopham CP Date: 13/11/2012 Cocking CP Duncton CP Bepton CP Heyshott CP East Lavington CP © Crown Copyright and database right 2012. Ordnance Survey 100018803. Scale: 1:100,000 Duncton CP ´ Agenda Item 6 APPENDIX 2

Responses received to the questionnaire on parish housing numbers

General comments Of the 27 parishes consulted, 21 responses were received, giving a return rate of 78%.

No responses were received from the following Parish Councils:

- Bosham – Response expected in the post 19/11/12 – did not arrive in time for this report - – did not respond to chase-up email dated 05/11/2012. They were left an answer machine message 13/11/2012, no response was received - Oving – Change of parish clerk during consultation. Materials sent to new clerk for consideration 13/11/2012, but no response received by 16/11/2012 - Sidlesham - did not respond to chase-up email dated 05/11/2012. They were left an answer machine message 13/11/2012, no response was received - West Itchenor – stated they would not be responding during telephone call on 13/11/2012 - West Thorney – no clerk or chairman at present

Donnington Parish Council protested at the timescale allowed for responses.

Kirdford and Loxwood Parish Councils responded to the consultation via a planning consultant acting on their behalf. Both Parish Councils felt they were unable to provide considered and meaningful responses to the questions asked, as the subject matter was too narrow without taking into account matters such as employment and infrastructure. Their responses have been marked as ‘information not provided’ on the maps in Appendix 1.

Wisborough Green Parish Council also raised the issue of wider issues arising from housing development, and noted that their comments are severely qualified in relation to school capacity, traffic flows, flooding and sewage and pedestrian safety. Their comments are provisional, subject to the outcome of their Neighbourhood Plan, intended for publication in 2013.

Q1. Are there any specific factors that we should know about that would prevent you from achieving our proposed minimum figure for your parish over the period to 2029?

South of District: Earnley, Tangmere, Westbourne and Westhampnett Parish Councils and Selsey Town Council did not identify any specific factors that would prevent them from achieving the proposed minimum housing figure.

Boxgrove Parish Council is currently undertaking a physical survey of the parish to determine land availability, and believe there is only one site suitable for housing development. Chichester City Council believe the Settlement Policy Area boundary makes it difficult to achieve any more than the minimum proposed figure (200), with the natural physical boundary of Centurion Way prohibiting future extension of the urban area.

Fishbourne Parish Council identified over-capacity at Wastewater Treatment Works, flooding, and inadequate highways capacity as factors that would prevent achieving the proposed minimum figure (50). Donnington Parish Council also identified increased pressure on the transport network, as well as the cumulative effects of planned developments on the as factors that would prevent them achieving the minimum proposed figure of 50 dwellings.

Apuldram (0) and Birdham (50) Parish Councils recognise the need for growth, and support the proposed minimum figure for development; however the Parish is concerned with flooding, drainage, transport, inadequate and failing infrastructure, and over-development degrading the environment and the tourism industry. Birdham also lists the above factors, as well as excessive development having an adverse impact on the economy and social wellbeing.

East Wittering Parish Council identify inadequate infrastructure, lack of full-time employment opportunities on the West Manhood Peninsula, poor sewerage systems, lack of school places and traffic congestion as factors that would prevent meeting the minimum proposed figure. The Parish Council refers to a 2004 report stating there is a surplus of market housing in the parish.

Hunston and North Mundham Parish Council identify lack of sewerage capacity, surface water drainage, lack of school places and inadequate roads for the volume of traffic, especially the A27, as factors that would prevent achieving the minimum proposed figure of 25 each. North Mundham also highlighted the lack of a shop.

Southbourne Parish Council identified lack of capacity generally, including schools and doctors’ surgeries. They also questioned whether Thornham sewage works is capable of accepting the minimum proposed figure of 350 dwellings.

West Wittering Parish Council identifies inadequate sewerage, inadequate roads, lack of employment opportunities and disturbance to the Chichester Harbour AONB, SSSI, SPA, SAC and Ramsar sites. Tourism and farming economies will be destroyed by greenfield development. The increase in demand on infrastructure from caravan sites is underestimated. The majority of demand for new housing comes from people wishing to retire or have a second home, neither of which contributes to the economic viability of the village.

North of District: Plaistow & and Wisborough Green Parish Councils identified major infrastructure and socio-economic issues as factors that may prevent them from meeting the proposed minimum figures for these parishes (Plaistow & Ifold 25, Wisborough Green 60). Both parishes made reference to lack of availability of school places, and problems with sewage and surface water drainage. Plaistow and Ifold noted the lack of broadband in the parish. Wisborough Green noted the lack of public transport, problems with traffic flows/parking and footpaths, and provision of healthcare services, especially in relation to the elderly.

Linchmere Parish Council did not identify any specific factors that would prevent them achieving the proposed minimum housing figure (10).

Q2. Do you consider that our proposed maximum figure is a realistic upper limit for new housing in your parish over the period to 2029?

South of District: Boxgrove, Earnley, Tangmere and Westhampnett Parish Councils and Selsey Town Council believe the maximum proposed figures for their parishes are realistic.

Apuldram, Birdham, Donnington, East Wittering and North Mundham Parish Councils listed the issues identified in Question 1 as making the proposed maximum figures unrealistic. East Wittering Parish Council also highlights a reduction in the housing list between August and October 2012, and the lack of social housing built in the parish. North Mundham Parish Council feel overdevelopment would ‘swamp the village quality’.

Westbourne Parish Council considers the provision of 250 dwellings being built within a quarter of a mile of the centre of Westbourne (in East Hants) as having a significant impact on the village, and to go above the proposed minimum would be ‘at best unwise’.

Chichester City Council believe the Settlement Policy Area boundary makes the maximum proposed figure (350) unrealistic, with the natural physical boundary of Centurion Way prohibiting future extension of the urban area.

Fishbourne Parish Council feel the proposed maximum of 100 is aspirational, rather than realistic, as not all the necessary infrastructure will be in place by the end of the plan period.

Hunston Parish Council considers that any potential sites to meet the maximum figure (50) would be outside the main village centre and would be too isolated, therefore the figure is unrealistic.

Southbourne Parish Council considers the infrastructure of the parish incapable of absorbing a maximum of 600 new dwellings. They believe the number of new dwellings is disproportionate to the numbers for the other parishes in the District.

West Wittering Parish Council consider there is no housing need for the maximum figure of 100 dwellings, as one third of affordable homes at Summerfield Road exception site went to Band D. 30% of village housing is estimated to be second homes, and there are no plans for employment sites to make the village economically sustainable.

North of District: Linchmere Parish Council stated that although the maximum figure (25) may be difficult to achieve, as no sites are currently identified in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, the Parish Council are actively seeking new sites to meet the maximum figure.

Plaistow & Ifold Parish Council listed the infrastructure issues identified in Question 1 as making the proposed maximum figure (50) unrealistic.

Wisborough Green Parish Council does not consider the maximum proposed figure (100, 6.7pa) to be realistic. They consider the figure unsustainable as it is 5 times higher than the annual rate of new dwellings over the last ten years. It is higher than any figure previously discussed and would increase the size of the village by 15%.

Q3. Are there any sites or general locations within the parish that you consider could be suitable for future housing development?

South of District: Apuldram and Fishbourne Parish Councils do not consider there are any sites within their parishes that are suitable for future housing development.

Birdham Parish Council is considering potential housing sites through the Neighbourhood Plan process. Earnley Parish Council is currently investigating the possibility of a rural exception site for affordable housing.

All other Parish Councils in the south of the District that responded to the consultation have sites they consider suitable for future housing development.

North of District: Linchmere, Plaistow & Ifold, and Wisborough Green Parish Councils are considering potential housing sites through their Neighbourhood Plans.

Q4. Are there any issues relating to the timing of future development that you wish to highlight?

South of District: Earnley Parish Council did not raise any issues relating to the timing of future development.

Tangmere and Westbourne Parish Councils highlighted the phasing of development as an issue, with Tangmere requesting a site they consider suitable for housing to be developed in conjunction with the former grain store site; and Westbourne do not want further development until the impacts of previous developments have been carefully monitored.

Birdham Parish Council do not wish to see further development until the Neighbourhood Plan is complete, flooding/drainage issues have been mitigated, accessibility issues addressed, and pedestrian crossings provided. They also expect development to be phased over the plan period, rather than front loaded.

East Wittering Parish Council highlighted A27 improvements, sewerage capacity increases and the provision of employment land to ensure there is not an ‘over- supply of housing’ in future.

North Mundham Parish Council wish for all major infrastructure and socio-economic issues raised in Questions 1 and 2 to be addressed before further development takes place.

Southbourne Parish Council wants new development to be accompanied with improvements to local infrastructure.

Westhampnett Parish Council highlighted surface water, sewerage and roads as issues that need to be addressed prior to development, as well as education, medical and policing expansion to cope with increased populations.

West Wittering Parish Council want capacity issues regarding the pumping of wastewater to Sidlesham resolved before there is any increase in housing. Water pressure needs to be resolved before new housing can be considered. The Parish Council wish to see job creation before increasing the amount of housing, and a resolution to the periodic power failures and frequent voltage fluctuations.

Apuldram, Boxgrove and Fishbourne Parish Councils, and Chichester City Council do not wish to see any development until flooding/drainage, sewerage and transport issues are resolved.

Donnington Parish Council wish to see key infrastructure improvements before any sizeable development takes place in the parish.

Hunston Parish Council would also like to see the introduction of a separate road that would link the A27 directly to Selsey, removing HGV traffic from the road through Hunston.

Selsey Town Council wishes for plans to be put in place for the requisite infrastructure to be implemented during or following the completion of development. This includes highways, sewerage, health facilities, education, employment opportunities, socio-economic facilities and sea defences. In addition, they wish to see a buffer time period following completion of the Medmerry Realignment Scheme to ensure sea defences are working and their impacts are assessed.

North of District: Linchmere Parish Council did not raise any issues relating to the timing of future development.

Plaistow & Ifold Parish Council raised the infrastructure and socio-economic factors identified in Question 1 as issues relating to the timing of development, saying that although there is significant housing need in the parish, this can only take place once these issues have been addressed.

Wisborough Green Parish Council highlighted the phasing of development as an issue, confirming the community’s wish for small scale development phased over time in order to be sustainable.

Q5. Are there any specific improvements or facilities that the community would like to see provided as a result of the development?

South of District: Earnley Parish Council did not highlight any specific improvements they would like to see as a result of development.

Apuldram and Birdham Parish Councils referred to their answers to Questions 1 and 2. Fishbourne Parish Council would like to see improvements to Apuldram WwTW, a comprehensive review and action on drainage, a GP surgery, increased primary school places, and ‘an end to Blackboy Lane, Salthill Road and Clay Lane being used as a rat run’. Westbourne Parish Council also wishes to see road improvements and school places, as well as retaining the character and integrity of the village through maintaining a gap between the village and nearby communities.

Chichester City Council wish to have a community hall in the Whyke area, and improvement to the A27 and local roads, especially prior to the development of identified strategic sites adjacent to the City. Westhampnett Parish Council would like to see provision of a community hall, enlargement of the local primary school, traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossings, and off-road parking provision for the primary school and residents of ‘The Grange’ development.

Boxgrove Parish Council wishes to see a toll road from the Tesco roundabout through to Arundel, in partnership with the construction industry. North Mundham Parish Council wishes to see a reduction in heavy vehicles through the village, and a dedicated car-free cycle route into Chichester.

Donnington Parish Council wishes to see a GP surgery, schools, road improvements, a pharmacy and a post office as a result of development. Tangmere Parish Council referred to their Community Facility Audit (August 2012) for a wish list of improvements and facilities they would like to see, including schools, roads, community halls and playing fields.

Hunston Parish Council wishes to see improvements to the village hall and playing fields, and Southbourne Parish Council wish to see the relocation of the library to a new building, the relocation of Age Concern to more suitable premises, and a new community centre in keeping with the size of the parish.

East Wittering Parish Council wish to see a second GP surgery in Bracklesham, seafront improvements in Bracklesham and East Wittering, shopping area improvements in Bracklesham and East Wittering, a pedestrian crossing on Bracklesham Lane, provision of pavements on main roads, and improved cycle routes to Birdham from Bracklesham.

Selsey Town Council wishes to see properties of a quality design, with off-road parking facilities and a 6 star rating in the Code for Sustainable Homes.

West Wittering Parish Council wishes to see further tree planting on the edge of the settlement area to main the rural appearance of the landscape. They also wish to have better broadband provided, especially for local businesses.

North of District: Linchmere Parish Council would like to see a new community owned hall, and is actively seeking ways to achieve this.

Plaistow & Ifold Parish Council are currently undertaking a review of improvements or facilities the community would like to see as a result of development.

Wisborough Green Parish Council does not feel any community facilities would be required as a result of future development, as the community is well served. However, the Parish Council feels some sites would require highway improvements for access and traffic management, and pavements.

Q6. Is your community likely to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan?

South of District: Apuldram and Tangmere Parish Councils, and Chichester City Council are not likely to prepare Neighbourhood Plans.

Earnley, Hunston, Westbourne and West Wittering Parish Councils are currently considering whether to prepare Neighbourhood Plans.

Birdham, Boxgrove, Donnington, East Wittering, Fishbourne, North Mundham, Southbourne and Westhampnett Parish Councils and Selsey Town Council are all either in the process of, or likely to, prepare a Neighbourhood Plan.

North of District: All five parishes consulted in the north of the District are either in the process of, or likely to, prepare a Neighbourhood Plan. Agenda Item 6 APPENDIX 3

Responses from Key Consultees received to the questionnaire on parish housing numbers

General comments Under Duty to Co-operate, the following 18 organisations were informed of the consultation:

Arun District Council Horsham District Council Chichester Harbour Conservancy Marine Management Organisation Coastal LEP Natural England East District Council NHS Sussex English Heritage South Downs National Park Authority Environment Agency Southern Water Havant Borough Council Stagecoach Bus Highways Agency Waverley Borough Council Homes and Communities Agency West Sussex County Council

A total of 9 key consultees acknowledged the consultation. These were:

• Arun District Council • Natural England • Chichester Harbour • NHS Sussex** Conservancy** • Southern Water** • Environment Agency • Waverley Borough Council** • Highways Agency

The four organisations marked with ** provided a full representation. These are summarised below.

No responses were received from:

• Coastal West Sussex LEP • Marine Management • East Hampshire District Council Organisation • English Heritage • South Downs National Park • Havant Borough Council Authority • Homes and Communities • Stagecoach Bus Agency • West Sussex County Council • Horsham District Council

Of the 9 acknowledgements, 4 organisations (marked in the table with **) provided a full representation. These are summarised below:

Chichester Harbour Conservancy Chichester Harbour Conservancy are very concerned that a large proportion of parishes where significant numbers of houses are being proposed lie within, partly within, or in close proximity to the Chichester Harbour AONB. They are particularly alarmed at the proposed figures for Southbourne (350-600 dwellings), given that it lies partly within the AONB. The Chichester Harbour Conservancy wishes the Council to review the South East Plan housing targets, given the ‘unusually high level of environmental constraints affecting the south of the District’. They question the Council’s approach of not including housing developments of less than 6 towards the total for each parish.

Recreational pressure – Phase III of the Solent Disturbance and Mitigation Project, due early 2013, will outline an avoidance and mitigation strategy to address the impacts of housing development within 7km of the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA. In the absence of this strategy, the Harbour Conservancy feel a precautionary approach should be taken to new housing development within close proximity to the harbour.

Water quality – the number of houses proposed in the Chichester and Fishbourne area will have potential cumulative impacts on the Apuldram WwTW, storm discharges and surface drainage.

Impact on the AONB landscape – Development within, or within close proximity to, the AONB can have significantly detrimental impacts on the natural beauty of the landscape and/or its rural setting through the increasing urban character and appearance of areas surrounding the AONB, visual intrusion the loss of green spaces and the erosion of gaps between settlements.

As well as taking the first opportunity to review the South East Plan target, the Harbour Conservancy feel the Council should ensure selection of sites where the potential scale of impacts are likely to be lower, through appropriate phasing/prioritisation of sites, to allow greater emphasis on delivery in the least sensitive locations.

NHS Sussex NHS Sussex considers there is likely to be capacity to cope with new residents and patients on a progressive basis in the rural areas, where there are up to 100 dwellings as a maximum.

In the Witterings and Tangmere Surgeries, there is already capacity and NHS Sussex knows that those practices welcome new patients.

However, in Chichester and Southbourne, there are existing or potential capacity issues. NHS Sussex would want to include these areas with the strategic allocation numbers in the Community Infrastructure Levy draft charging schedule. It is vital for the NHS to be part of these calculations and provide input into the funding needed from developer to supplement NHS budgets for healthcare infrastructure improvements.

Southern Water Local infrastructure such as sewers, required specifically for development, will need to be funded by the developers. Southern Water will be able to advise further when the precise location of development is identified. Investment required for strategic infrastructure in order to service the development proposed (e.g. extensions to wastewater treatment works) can be planned and funded through Ofwat’s price review process, and delivered in phase with the development.

Solutions to overcome wastewater treatment constraints would need to be found in advance of development taking place in the catchment of Apuldram WwTW.

Southern Water estimate the level of development proposed in the Sidlesham WwTW catchment area may exceed the headroom currently available in the existing environmental permit at the WwTW. The current estimated headroom is 945 dwellings. Southern Water would need to investigate provision of additional capacity should the level of development proposed in the catchment exceed this level, but will be able to advise further when the precise location of development is known.

The issues identified by Southern Water can be overcome by strong planning policies that seek to co-ordinate development with the provision of wastewater infrastructure, including local sewers and pumping stations.

Waverley Borough Council Waverley Borough Council reiterated their comments made during the previous Housing Numbers and Locations consultation, dated 22 September 2011. This highlighted that although proposed housing numbers in the north of the District (outside the National Park) were relatively low, the close proximity to Waverley could result in a cumulative impact on cross-boundary infrastructure, especially in Haslemere.

Waverley also continues to request that officers from Chichester District Council work with Waverley officers to give careful consideration to any potential cross- boundary impacts arising from the scale and location of development in the northern part of the District.