Neighbourhood Plan - Residents' Feedback

   
FOLLOW THESE LINKS FOR MORE FEEDBACK

Feed Back from Public Meetings
Feedback re. Thorney Road Feedback re. SB01201 West of Stein Road and SB08329 North of South Lane
Feedback Land East of Breach Ave. SB08328 Land between Nutbourne East and West
Feedback South of Cooks Lane  Feedback HT08337  North of Penny Lane South

General 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

Lane, Southbourne

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

in question.


 

'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.

 Bill Wilcox


 

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:

1) Traffic has increased manyfold yet nothing has been done to make access safe
2) Because Havant have good parking control in Emsworth, those working there now park in Pagham and Sadlers where there is no control.
3) The footways near the now dangerous junction of Pagham and Sadlers are grassed (mud normally) and never maintained so are unusable by the disabled, young mothers with buggies and the elderly who must all step into the road.
4) There is no crossing at Lumley Rd/A259 despite the heavy traffic and increased pedestrian population

I could go on for ever but we have complained forever and nothing has been done, so why not learn and put your current housing in order before adding yet more housing.

In the airline safety business we have an expression "tombstone technology" - nothing gets done until you have a body. If you don't do something soon you will have your body.
Keep a copy of this warning so you can publish it after the event if you do nothing.

 

Traffic on Stein Road

I would like to bring to your attention yet another example of the congestion and traffic chaos that occurs on Stein Road, Southbourne. I was driving south on Stein Road at around 09.45 on Monday 24 February , where I waited in a queue to cross the railway line. Once I had crossed the line I was involved in another queue in the vicinity of First Avenue where a local green bus was driving north and a large white van was driving south. There were a number of cars parked by school parents on both sides of the road. This led to considerable congestion, exacerbated by the fact that neither bus nor white van were prepared or able to reverse and ease the problem. After 20 minutes I decided along with many other cars, to make a u turn and try Cooks Lane.

I am sure that I am not the only local motorist to be frustrated by the traffic chaos on Stein Road and really do urge the Steering Committee to consider most carefully before thinking of recommending any new houses to be built north of the railway line. Whether or not new houses are built in Southbourne, the railway line queuing, parking on both sides of Stein Road and the numerous school children and their parents’ parked cars, must be given some immediate attention.


 

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.
Roads & access need to be improved.Junction at bridge north of village has poor visability going out of area as it angles back from junction & road into Westbourne is narrow & there is no room to widen this.
Railway queue a major problem at various times now ie. when schools start & finish, gates open & traffic unable to move as parents have parked in the road stopping the flow, effectivly making it a one way street, if anyone can move at all! The gates shut for 15 minutes sometimes & then not to get through when they open is crazy. Perhaps residents parking only in Steiin Road near school or no parking at certain times, then there would be pull in spots to keep cars moving.
It may be possible to widen Inlands Road south of railway to take some of this non school traffic? The land is earmarked for possible deveopment by you. Or a rear access to school (Junior & Infants).
People live within 15 minutes of station now & do not walk they park in Cooks Lane.
Pavements need to be widened & improved, hedges cut back so pedestrians can walk on the pavements, road drains need to be cleared to stop road flooding in Stein Road near end of Kelsey Avenue & occasional road flooding in Inlands Road North of railway would need to be addressed. 
As the bus services to Chichester & Portsmouth are on the main road it would be logical to put the new housing near to this service.
The production of food is important & building should not be where fields are used for this purpose.

There is a piece of land in Manor Road, at the end of Manor Way, opposite Clovelly Road which could possibly be developed, unless future plans that I am not aware of, have kept it for another purpose.

Another point, I walked to Bourne School Barnes Wing to deliver this(per instructions on form handed out 23rd November) , only to be told that the Parish Council had moved to the Library, nice of you to tell everybody. Thats one way of not getting any feedback, that & having the first meeting on the night that England are playing a critical World Cup Qualifier, classic!

From PO10 8PL


 

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 Chichester.

 

 


 

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

 





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

 

 

MORE FEED BACK  

Feed Back from Public Meetings
Feedback re. Thorney Road Feedback re. SB01201 West of Stein Road and SB08329 North of South Lane
Feedback Land East of Breach Ave. SB08328 Land between Nutbourne East and West
Feedback South of Cooks Lane  Feedback HT08337  North of Penny Lane South