| Aldingbourne Parish Council | |
|
Aldingbourne Parish Council Clerk to the Council:
|
Aldingbourne News SUBMISSION RESPONSE BY ALDINGBOURNE PARISH COUNCIL TO
ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL’S “OPTIONS FOR GROWTH” DOCUMENTS,
A CORE STRATEGY FOR THE L.D.F. MARCH 2009
Aldingbourne Parish covers 1252 hectares and has an approximate population of 3850 ( WSCC Structure Plan estimates 2006).
Most of the population is centred in Westergate, astride the A29 and mid way north to south in the parish, other smaller hamlets include Norton, Nyton, Woodgate, Lidsey and Aldingbourne itself. Apart from these settlements there are also dwellings scattered across the rural areas.
The Parish ranges from Slindon Woods ( National Trust) in the north to near Bersted in the south, bordering Tangmere airfield in the west and Eastergate in the east.
The A27 Trunk road cuts across west/east from Crockerhill central gap junction to Fontwell roundabout at the A29 junction. The large area to the north of the A27 is in the ‘ to be designated ‘ South Downs National Park and is effectively cut off from the rest of the parish by the dual carriageway A27 ( T ).
Alongside the A29, west of Fontwell Avenue is the Fontwell Park racecourse.
In the southern sector is the Lidsey landfill, stretching from the historic, disused Arun to Chichester canal to the South coast railway line at Woodgate,covering an area of roughly 80 hectares
The B2233 secondary road also traverses the parish from the A27 at Crockerhill (gap junction) to the A29, continuing through Eastergate, Barnham and Yapton to the A259 at Clymping. ( refer to parish map )The smaller settlements are accessed via narrow winding lanes. North of the railway, the western side is well served by public footpaths, but no bridleways.
The majority of farm land in the parish is arable, there is some temporary and permanent pasture, but no dairy farms and little in the way of livestock
In the past many smallholdings and nurseries existed, mostly in close proximity to Westergate, although a few still remain as businesses, most are either disused or have already been developed. ( refer ‘ Down my Way,’ Bertha Watson p.56).
In recent years there has been an increase in small parcels of land being used for equestrian purposes, in addition to the establishment of several unauthorised mobile home/caravan sites in rural parts of the parish.
History of the Parish……. A bourne is a stream or small river.
The name derives from either; Alding (old) or Elda’s (a Saxon chieftan), burne or bourne.
In Roman times the settlement was based around an area close to the Rife (bourne) on the western boundary.
The evidence for this was the finding during cleaning of the Rife in 1942, a large deposit of oyster shells, these were a staple food in ancient times. In the same area close to Park Farm a Roman’s toga pin was found. (refer ‘Around Aldingbourne 900 years’ by Cliff Mewett & Vivienne Salmon p.2,3).
Later, in early Norman times(11thc), a fortified look out tower was built on a mound by the Rife for the security of the adjacent Bishop of Chichester’s summer palace, it’s farm and watermill, now in ruins, it is called Tote Copse(Mewett’s ‘900 years of Aldingbourne’ p. 3, 11).
St Mary’s, the parish church (since 1086) is close by and it was here that the settlement grew initially.
The Black plague of 1348 and attendant pollution of the Aldingbourne Rife forced the population to move eastward to the next rife, hence creating the new settlement of Westergate next to Eastergate.
This happened again during the plague of the 17th century with small farms and crofts beginning to appear in linear form following the rife southwards towards Lidsey.
Hook Lane was the meandering cattle track joining the two settlements, with ponds for watering en route, various footpaths also connected Westergate with it’s parish Church.
Over centuries this rife was dammed to create ponds to serve the numerous, small dairy farms along the main street, starting at Nyton and ending at Woodgate.
These ponds disappeared and the Rife was piped underground to allow development of the unviable farms (Mewett’s 900 years,p.1) (‘ Down my Way’ p56)
This got the attention of the newer residents when Westergate Street was flooded in 1975, 1994 and 2000 with some homes inundated, it had though, been happening for centuries.
Park Farm, south of Hook Lane had been part of a large hunting park visited by both King John and Edward 1st, it served the Bishop’s palace and was still shown on the more accurate maps such as Budgen’s of 1724.
This park stretched from Nyton to beyond the current Park Farm and was bounded by a wooden paling fence.
A major hindrance to development in Westergate had been the lack of sewer drains, most homes had outside soil toilets. Main drainage was installed in 1975, this allowed several in fill developments to go ahead.
However, many houses are still on cesspits as the high winter ground water levels prevent installation of mains sewers.
The Brighton to Portsmouth South Coast railway was built in 1846, there was a station at Woodgate, which served as Bognor’s station until the opening of the branch line from Barnham junction to Bognor in 1864,Woodgate was then closed.
Historical and archaeological features of great importance.
St Mary’s church and the site of the Bishop’s Palace look out tower (Tote Copse) are found to the west of Westergate in the same area as Park Farm, within the former Aldingbourne hunting park which was established in the 11thc., lasting into the 17thc. when it reverted to common ground, followed by Enclosure, which was completed by 1779, so transforming the area into the field pattern bounded by hedges and fences with small lanes, crofts and cottages, some of which remain today. ( Mewett, ‘ 900years around Aldingbourne’ p.4, 26 )
Hook Lane was an ancient highway route joining Westergate with Aldingbourne and the church.
It is possible this area was inhabited in Palaeolithic times ( Boxgrove Man was discovered 3.5 kms north of here).
Park Farm had Cromwell’s soldiers camped here during the Civil War where there were skirmishes, musket balls have been found and a nearby field is named Oliver’s Meadow. The Parliamentarian soldiers sacked and levelled the Bishop’s Palace in 1642. (Mewett p. 11,72)
The Mill and pond ( still existing) in Park Lane date from Norman times, it provided flour until 1914 and was converted into a private residence in the 1950’s.
(Mewett p.29,30)
Consideration should be given to the potential for archaeological remains of importance in the general area of Park Farm and Hook Lane.
An historical feature of importance to the industrial archaeology of West Sussex is the remainder of the Arun to Chichester Canal, opened in 1823 and closed to commercial traffic in 1856.(Mewett p.30,31)
The section crossing through Aldingbourne Parish at Lidsey should be retained and restored as part of our pre railway transport history.
Of particular interest is the aqueduct crossing of the Rife.
Chichester DC have protected the section to the west in their LDF documents.
Topography of the Parish
Most of Aldingbourne Parish below the A27 is low-lying, being at or below the 10m. contour, however it rises in the north to the 40m contour ( above mean sea level), the fall towards the sea at Bognor is slight and gradual.
The agricultural land comprises mostly grade 2, the upper half being gravelly, there is some grade 3 on the rife embankments.
There is very little woodland in the parish,but due to the necessity for land drainage, many ditches remain, these are usually lined with hedgerows containing mature hedgerow trees, often of oak and ash.
There are a few copses, for example at Nyton, north of Level Mare Lane (formerly Mount Pleasant) and in Hook Lane,these, together with hedgerows form an important wildlife “corridor” from north to south through the parish.(parish map)
The rifes and smaller streams between Barnham and Aldingbourne are an important part of the land drainage network (Mewett chapter 13).
They are now part of the Environment Agency’s “Critical Watercourse system” for this part of the Coastal Plain.
Most of the parish could be described as rural in character, apart from the main Westergate settlement.
In the south, the Lidsey landfill covers an area of approximately 80 hectares. As it is a land raising facility, it rises to around 20 metres creating a hill in an otherwise flat landscape. It’s western edge borders the Aldingbourne Rife.
Westergate/Woodgate is a distinct settlement separate from it’s neighbour Eastergate.
It is the western end of what are called the Five Villages, which also include Barnham, Walberton and Yapton.
Westergate is characterised by a diversity of housing types, including small apartment blocks, Edwardian terraces, semi and detached houses from Victorian to modern, small modern estates and former Council housing. This is intermingled with old farmhouses and thatched cottages from the original dairy farming era (some are of Tudor origin).
Despite some cramming Westergate still has a village “feel”to it.
The dispersed settlements of the hamlets and rural areas have strong ties with the main settlement and are well connected to it by public footpaths.
Geology
The higher land, mainly north of the A27 overlies chalk, this is the dip slope of the South Downs which continue northwards for 9 kms. Waltham Down at 255 metres is one of the Downs’ highest points, being directly north of Westergate.
In the area between Aldingbourne and the Downs lie raised beach formations of shingle and sand, these are former coastlines. For example Norton and Slindon raised beaches ( within one near Eartham, Boxgrove Man was found).
They roughly follow a line above the A27 and are 500,000 years old.
The springs which flow into the rifes have their source in these beaches, as water from the deep chalk aquifiers flows southwards towards the coast.
Much of the silty-loam gravel bearing soils on the lower plain have areas of water-bearing shifting sand strata.
These areas are characterised by high winter ground water levels, evidence of this is seen in Hook Lane, Church Road and Oving Road where surface flooding is persistent throughout the winter.
South of the railway, there is a unique strata of plasticene London clay, underlying the loam topsoil, this stretches to the Rife bank.
This has been excavated since 1990 to create a void for the Lidsey landfill.
Some of this clay will be used to cap over the waste mound and will be topped off with grade 2 soil from the overburden, enabling the establishment of pasture land for grazing.
The landfill is due to close in 2012.
SUBMISSION RESPONSE BY ALDINGBOURNE PARISH COUNCIL TO ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL’S “ OPTIONS FOR GROWTH” DOCUMENTS,
A CORE STRATEGY FOR THE L.D.F.
Introduction
It has proved to be a very complex exercise trying to match the C.S. Strategic Objectives (SA’s) with the Sustainability Objectives (SO’s) of the EDAW report against each of the three options and the various locations within them.
It was decided to consider the SO’s and SA’s together against each option and to comment generally on the options in the form of a commentary, hopefully there will be a flow to the report through Options 1, 2, and 3 enabling the reader to refer to the relevant documents.
Generally, the SO’s and SA’s have so many unknowns and gaps and the EDAW report is so inaccurate, deficient and misleading in it’s methodology and scoring that we are left with little confidence in the approach taken to provide evidence,
particularly in that the information has come from so-called local experts.
Very little is known about infrastructure needs of the three options.
Yet, Option 2 has had the benefit of evidence provided to a Select Committee for the proposed Eco town at Ford, why has there not been a similar approach with the other options to which it is being compared ?
Should local organisations and parish/town councils have been consulted for their local knowledge BEFORE the issuing of a Core Strategy ?
We also refer you to appx. 1, Villages’ Action Group’s response to the EDAW Sustainability Commentary Feb. 2009. Attached with their permission.(Appx.1)
Additionally, we raised issues with Mr Brian Bannister in 2007 over the Duckett Assoc. Landscape report, which were ignored, the report was adopted by the LDF Sub Committee with no questions raised, officers claimed it was “robust.” No doubt this inadequate evidence has been used in the selection of options, eg. in SO4.
Now we have to consider the “robustness” of other evidence.
Finally, residents have raised a matter on the public consultation question form,
Question 5 asks if they agree with the 7 Strategic Objectives, even if they do agree with them, there is no way of relating them to the Options.
The question should have asked;” If you agree with the objectives, how do you feel the Option (1, 2,or 3) meets them ? “
You would then have received a more objective response.
Commentary …Option 1
SO1, although there is a 5kms. buffer zone to the Pagham Harbour SPA, the huge development at NW Bognor Regis of 2500 homes,together with employment space will surely impact on this exceptional environment, ie. leisure activities, dog walking, water quality etc ?
The site is not on flood zone 3 land, but it does have a high winter ground water level with surface flooding, will the disposal of run-off impact on Bognor’s clean bathing water needs ? Will development at Westergate increase flooding at Bersted ?
There is a total loss of grade 1 and 2 agricultural land from all the main sites. Some PDL at Toddington, none on the other sites.
SO5, SA5, A new railway station at Toddington would disadvantage Littlehampton’s existing station.
The A259 will be over capacity at all three urban sites, the lack of a Lyminster by pass, capacity at the Crossbush junction on A27 and Arundel congestion will be very negative.
A new flyover at A259/A27 Chichester by pass is essential.
An Arundel by pass, ditto.
Angmering’s station is remote from the development.
Bus services are not close and would need to be upgraded and re routed at all 3 locations.
The A259 should be dualled from Bersted to the A27 at Chichester to take the increase in volume of traffic from all these sites (plus Site 6) and organic growth
in the District and beyond, as the A259 can relieve some coastal traffic from the A27 and B2233 through the Five Villages. In the east the A280 links to the A24 and in the west an additional link could be provided from the A259 at Drayton via a new railway bridge to the grade separated junction at Strettington A 27/ A285, (currently underused) for another route north. Could this be a jointly funded effort with Chichester DC and a development at Tangmere ?
This would relieve the A29 where much traffic is currently using it and the B2233 to avoid the congested A259.
These improvements would also help the bus services.
It is not clear how SAFE walking and cycling will connect with the town centres in any of the locations.
SO3, SA2, Access and delivery of quality employment.
Does the District Council have an Economic and Employment Strategy in tune with the 21st century ?
Merely providing employment land for each site and letting the housing development go ahead will not be the answer, as has been shown by the Site 6/Oldlands Farm example.
Investors will need to be very well convinced that Arun has something exceptional to offer, it has many disadvantages, for example; being at the bottom of the country, away from main motorway routes, airports and sea ports, no likelihood of rail freight facilities, not having a pool of highly educated young people ready for work, a history of low-pay employment and a dormitory for the elderly.
There are the advantages of a nice place to live and to bring up a family,but at present the incomers prefer to live here and work elsewhere, this cannot continue if we are to develop a fully inclusive and cohesive society in Arun, meeting the environmental challenges ahead.
Access to employment, “very good” is misleading and uninformative.
Option 1 starts by losing at least 120 jobs at Toddington,with 150 new jobs in the Bognor Regis regeneration proposals, and possibly another supermarket doesn’t do enough for the 11500 new homes to be built.
Will an eco quarter attract new investment in jobs, if so how will funding be provided to facilitate this ?
The EDAW report says; “Arun needs an overarching Economic strategy, if it is to attract large scale inward investment and develop new growth industries”.
One statement we would agree with.
SO4, SO7, SA6, on this we would merely comment that this is more of the same urban sprawl that we have had since WW2, it is doubtful they will be distinctive or even interesting, maybe a few water features, fountains, parks with ponds, trees etc. might take us back to the days before all that developers were interested in was cramming in as many houses as possible.
Experience with recent extensions demonstates that little integration or cohesion occurs with the present community, even in villages.
If the points we have raised are addressed, Aldingbourne Parish Council would support Option 1, provided it meets all sustainability objectives, particularly in transport, employment, education and health, but we add one caveat;
With regard to the balance of 400-900 homes, these should be distributed equitably throughout the inland villages from Westergate to Clymping .
Adequate land is available and facilities at Yapton more than match those at Westergate and Barnham, apart from the railway station, however Yapton has a better bus service ( no. 700 ). We refer to our review of SO’s ( see appx. 2
attached).
Angmering’s 500 should be included in this distribution.
Option 2
As this option is rejected by Arun and a decision will be taken by Central Government, there seems to be little to say.
If the Ecotown is selected, then the time to comment will be at the planning application stage.
In the meantime there seems to be much evidence acquired by Arun and the Government, no doubt this will be available for consideration when/ if the option is selected.
In the event that it is not selected, then Ford Airfield should take some housing and employment space. It is not clear to us how this could be achieved unless the options are re considered or would this be a matter for the EiP ?
SO1, It is of note that there is PDL on the site, mainly concrete runways, some of which could be recycled and re used on site.
SO5, there is a railway station at Ford, ( eventual location disputed).
SO3, SA3, there is nearby employment, EDAW state that the Eco town status could attract businesses, but a Science Park was discounted by the ADC Select Committee.
SA5 there is potential for improved public transport, with the station as a hub.
An A27 Arundel bypass and a north/ south link road to the A259 will be essential for this option.
Walking and cycling could be well- integrated with existing routes, to Littlehampton and planned to Bognor Regis.
There is good access to footpaths and the Arun tow path, but a safe crossing of the A27 would be essential to access the Downs.
The existence of a modern WWTW on-site, with outfall well beyond low tide
should enable relatively low-cost, convenient connection and treatment.
Aldingbourne Parish Council does not support or oppose Option 2, some residents have commented that Ford should be developed , similarly some say Tangmere should also be developed , possibly not being aware that it is in Chichester District, but there is a view that these sites are more degraded than pure agricultural land and traditional unspoilt countryside.
There have been no expressions of opposition to the PC by members of the public,despite the publicity generated by the Eco town process. If Ford is selected as an Eco town, then the small balance of 400-900 houses should be spread evenly throughout the other villages and towns.
Option 3
Despite the scoring by EDAW of the Eco town as having the worst sustainability, in our opinion Option 3 is the worst, due to the huge negative impact it would have on the villages of Barnham, Eastergate, Walberton and the majority of the Parish of Aldingbourne.
SA 1, in addition there would be an equally harsh impact on Angmering, planned for another 1500 homes on top of the almost completed 800 at Bramley Green.
It has become apparent that the latter has not integrated well with the existing community.
The development will be remote from Angmering railway station.
The school is in the south of the village, meaning that cars with children avoid the new A280 bypass to access it, the village is overwhelmed at weekends with shoppers trying to park in a very constrained area, a poor recipe for further large scale expansion.
SA2, there is little local employment and limited scope for a new business area close to the village.
With regard to Westergate/ Eastergate/ Barnham, the option affecting our Parish, it was considered that to evaluate all the sustainability issues indicated on EDAW’S ‘ unique’ histograph and comment on all 38 of them would be a pointless exercise, however please refer to the V.A.G report on this doc. (appx.1.)
So, four have been chosen as the most important, and which would need to be proven, beyond doubt, to make Option 3 sustainable.
Firstly, employment, SO3, SA 2 and 3
Rated as poor and limited in both documents and showing limited potential for attracting business investment. This is probably an understatement.
Where would the land be located that could take 50,000 sq. metres of business space ? ( to equate with NW Bognor’s site )
In order to be central within the villages, it could, for example be north of the Barnham road, near Poling Motor’s existing site, but how realistic or sustainable would that be in the middle of a residential area ?
The location of a sustainable, large employment site, accessible to HGV transport and central to the three villages, which would be attractive to investors would be a very difficult problem to solve.
The suggestion that the residents from 2500 homes in the Barnham/ Eastergate/Westergate area could work in a new business park at Oldlands Farm needs little consideration, as it will be neededfor the residents of Site 6 at Bersted and Felpham (1350 homes) and from the new homes resulting from the regeneration of Bognor.
It will be unsustainable on transport grounds, (SO5).
It has failed to attract any investors so far, apart from the ASDA interest.
It has been suggested to create a technology park here. How will this happen ?
Such a development would be better placed alongside the A27, as at Tangmere.
We again mention EDAW’s comments on the need for an economic strategy, surely this needs to be in place before the consideration of housing development.
As would the availability of a skilled work force.
Education and higher skills, SA2, access to our villages’ schools is fairly good, however, they are at capacity and with very limited potential or desire to expand.
They have an excellent record and are popular, with students coming in from outside the villages’ area and parents moving here to access our schools.
The two secondary schools are small at around 750-800, compared to those in the towns, this is an advantage in terms of focus and quality of learning.
These schools would be degraded if they were to expand to the 2000 plus size favoured by County education experts, on an economy of scale basis.
St Philip Howard at Barnham is a Roman Catholic school which offers families of this faith, an education with Christian values and from a wide catchment.
Westergate Community School has no sixth form.
Expansion of our villages’ schools would impact badly on transport sustainability, all of them have congestion problems in peak hours, at Westergate the A29 in the school zones is at capacity now, let alone if more than double the number of students were transported.
At Westergate there are currently 5 buses at each a.m. and p.m. peak, plus parent’s cars for the remaining pupils.
School bus use should become mandatory on sustainability grounds.
Westergate School should not lose any more of it’s outside recreation area, this is vital to develop a healthy life style in young people, ref. SA1.
Transport and traffic SO5, SA5 concerning the three villages, the statements under these objectives (p.35 EDAW report) need to be challenged.
1/ Does not create any capacity issues.
How can this be with an additional 2500 houses in the area?
It would need a massive shift in public transport use for this to be true.
Current bus services are; no. 66 along A29/B2233 to Bognor, less than 1 per hour, nos.84/ 85 to Chichester along Nyton Road/ Oving Road, 6 per day.
The B2233, A29 and the Fontwell junction at A27, Barnham centre and the junctions at the ‘Island’ are already heavily congested at times with lines of stopped traffic and will be more so with a Westergate by pass, which will attract more traffic to the A29, even if it is faster - moving.
2/ Congestion on the A29 between Eastergate and Westergate already exists and will remain similar with development.
In recent years there have been huge increases in traffic on the A29/B2233, it will
continue to increase until a co ordinated highways improvement programme for the whole of Arun and Chichester Districts, south of the Downs is implemented, until then drivers will avoid the A27 and A259, when they can, by using the unsuitable roads through our villages.
An Arundel bypass and improvements at Chichester on A27, the A259 Bognor relief road together with our suggestion under Option 1 will be the minimum requirements to ease traffic through the Five Villages.
The proposed development will INCREASE traffic not remain similar, as suggested.
3/ Main capacity issue at A27/B2233 junction.
Since the feeder lane for right turning traffic has been extended on safety grounds, it is not currently over capacity.
This is a hazardous gap type junction,which should be closed, but until other improved alternative routes are available this would not be desirable.
It is assumed that an A 29 Westergate by pass could be the reason for this statement, although there is no mention of it anywhere in the LDF documents.
This would not be a sustainable solution as a new fly over junction would be needed to avoid another roundabout merely 1.5 kms. from the ever busier Tangmere one and 2.5 kms. from the one at Fontwell.
Routing A29 traffic so far westward would invite more drivers to use the Fontwell junction and increase congestion in the villages.
If an alternative northward route for Bognor traffic is required, then it would be better to consider our proposal made in Option1.
The A29 Fontwell junction needs improvement, it is not even mentioned in the EDAW report.
4/ Improvements to A29 at Barnham.
There is no A29 at Barnham,this is a nonsense, how has it come into the report ?
Nothing has been mentioned about congestion specific to Barnham centre, a serious omission surely ?
How will the increased population of the villages and surrounding area cope with
parking for the station and shops, with increased public transport use, how will more frequent buses negotiate/ stop here at peak times in this currently chaotic area ?
The improvements to the station have been quoted as a reason why expansion could take place in the villages.
It is hard to imagine how another 7000 plus locals could access the station with current roads, parking and bus services.
Biodiversity and landscape.
Re SA 6, we have attached appendix 3 Villages Action Group response on local biodiversity.
Additionally we wish to make further comments;
With reference to the recently (late March) published EDAW Habitats report, we note that Westergate Woods north of Level Mare Lane(formerly Mount Pleasant) is recommended for SNCI status, these woods are the last in our parish and not only are they frequently visited by the public, but they form a vital ‘reservoir’ of wildlife for the ‘green corridor’ which runs southwards along an old hedgerow bordering Northfields Lane (a footpath) to Nyton with it’s two ponds, through Nyton Spinney, again following a stream and hedgerows to cross Hook Lane, still following the watercourse and two more ponds to meet the Aldingbourne Rife at Park Farm, eventually reaching another wild area at the old Arun to Chichester Canal.
This important artery for wild life is the principal one in the parish within a mainly arable farming landscape.
The Parish Council will be arranging a biodiversity survey of the area to the west of Westergate to be carried out by the Sussex Wildlife Trust.
Also, a hedgerow/ditches survey will be undertaken for the Parish under the
D.E.F.R.A Scheme.
An A29 bypass will cut across historic Hook Lane and together with the railway bridge and it’s embankments, will blight the area.
The parish will be divided into segments by this high-speed road, which will be illuminated throughout the night hours, all the principal rural footpaths will be lost or modified to create urban ‘footways’, which, for safety will require a footbridge or a light-controlled crossing.
Westergate village will become separated from it’s parish church of St. Mary’s by the addition of this new road and the large housing development.
The Parish Council disputes the findings of the Landscape Study by Duckett Associates from 2007, which stated that the land to the west of Westergate has a medium/high capacity for change. This area close to the existing settlement retains it’s traditional form of small fields, hedgerows and ditches which has more or less remained since Enclosure from common land in around 1779.
Hook Lane does not fit the description in the study, ‘ post war linear development’, it is the oldest lane in the parish, dating from Saxon times.
This area will not be able to adapt to a large-scale development, which would be prominent in the landscape.
Views from Halnaker Hill, with it’s iconic windmill and from Selhurst Park on the Benges road to Goodwood, both to the northwest will be degraded by such a development.
Summary.
In summary, Aldingbourne Parish Council supports Option 1, with a caveat that any housing over and above that allocated to the Urban extensions should be distributed throughout all the inland villages.
These small-scale developments should be allocated according to each village’s current population and land availability.
Most of the housing should be affordable and meet local need on a long-term basis.
The Council neither supports or opposes Option 2, however in the event that the eco town should be selected, we would again caveat that any remaining allocation should be spread evenly across other villages , away from the eco town area, this should include Angmering, some at N. Littlehampton and some in small-scale developments around Barnham/ Eastergate/ Westergate.
The Council is opposed to Option 3, as it is the most unsustainable of the options, for the reasons given.
The District Council’s documents and supporting consultant’s reports are flawed, lacking in substance and are therefore not credible.
We have great concern over SO1 and SA6, Flooding and sewage treatment/water quality. These are the only two issues showing maximum negatives, possibly beach quality should be considered as a max. negative also, in the scoring matrix?
Surface and ‘flash’ flooding in the Westergate/Eastergate/Barnham areas are frequent and re occurring. See’Around Aldingbourne’ Cliff Mewett, ch.13‘Water, Water, everywhere’ and various photos, also, ‘Down my Way’ Bertha Watson p. 15.
Recent serious flooding has occurred in 1975, 1994 and 2000, in the latter year three out of four of the access routes into Westergate were impassable.
Our emergency team needs to keep a permanent supply of sandbags available.
The whole of this area south of the A27 has high ground water levels in the winter, these are surcharged by high rainfall.
There are two reasons for this; The rainwater which percolates through the higher land to the north flows southward and adds to spring water from the stream’s sources which flow into the main rifes. This flow is limited by their capacity, some are not cleaned out like they were many years ago by the Sussex River Authority.
The second factor is the man-made introduction of water-filled gravel pits to the east and south of Chichester, these block and divert ground water flows towards Aldingbourne and Westergate, hence raising levels.
Despite recent, major drainage work by WSCC in Hook Lane, Oving Road and Nyton Road, the areas around Church Road and Hook Lane still had standing water on roads and adjacent fields this past winter (2008/9).
In recent major floods,when the Aldingbourne Rife inundated Shripney and Bersted to the south,concern was raised that large-scale development in the Westergate/Aldingbourne area would worsen the situation.
National planning policy states that no development should be the cause of flooding in another area.
Aldingbourne Parish Council also has concerns that the Southern Water Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) at Lidsey, even if expanded could not achieve the high standards of outfall water quality that will be required, particularly in high rainfall periods.
This plant discharges into the Eastergate Rife which joins the Aldingbourne Rife at South Bersted ,to then flow into the sea near South Coast World (Butlins).
Would this WWTW be able to meet current and expected water quality standards, in addition would Blue Flag bathing water quality be maintained at Bognor Regis (vital for tourism) in the event of major development at Westergate /Eastergate/Barnham?
Assurances would need to be guaranteed by both Southern Water and the Environment Agency that this would be the case.
Past enquiries to the E.A and S.W have proved fruitless.
Other points of note are; the toxic liquor draining from the Lidsey landfill are treated at the Lidsey WWTW to outfall into the rife, this will continue for many more years.
Farms at Lidsey have E.A permitted irrigation extraction licences from the rifes.
Salad crops grown at Lidsey have been irrigated from these sources
Raw sewage has been seen in the upper part of Eastergate rife, recently and the same polluted a resident’s lawn in Church Lane Eastergate at around the same time.
In view of the the recent announcement by Chichester D.C and the E.A that problems with capacity/water quality at the S.W Apuldram WWTW have caused a delay in the progress of their LDF, it would be essential to see evidence from the authorities that no such likelihood would apply at Lidsey in the event of large – scale development in Westergate, Eastergate or Barnham.
Similarly, assurances will be required that flooding, both here and downstream will not worsen as climate change effects become more prevalent.
Local housing need.
Current local housing need in Aldingbourne is around 30, with 22 in Eastergate.
It is unknown how many are category A or B, however we support the provision of affordable housing in the parish, with some for the market.
It is worth noting that some 80% of those on the ADC waiting list in the west of Arun would not be able to live in the area of their choice if Option 3 is selected.
To build a bypass round Westergate funded by housing development in order to benefit Bognor Regis, to quote an often repeated slogan, would be “ taking a sledge hammer to crack a nut” and would be no justification for such a decision.
Finally, it has taken nearly 1000 years for Aldingbourne to reach it’s current size, it would be catastrophic to increase it 2.5 times in just 17 years.
Aldingbourne Parish Council March 2009.
Attachments;
Appendix 1; Villages Action Group (VAG) response to the EDAW Sustainability Commentary.
Appendix 2; Comments on LDF Core Strategy document Appendix 3.
Appendix 3; VAG’s response to EDAW document Biodiversity/ Habitats.
References; Map of Aldingbourne Parish.
‘ Around Aldingbourne, 900 years of social history ‘ Cliff Mewett/ Vivienne Salmon 2006.
‘Down my Way’, shared memories of my life in Aldingbourne Bertha S. Watson
2004.
Yapton
SO 1.....Main objectives not addressed. If a large area of FZ 3a exists to the south west( Drove Lane area) why not consider land to the northwest, north east or south
east, partly Ford Airfield ?
SO2.....Yapton and Barnham together have a high housing need, 153, this could be addressed with development on the northwest, close to the Primary school, shops and
central facilities.
SO3.....Accepting there is low current employment provision in Yapton itself,it adjoins Ford Airfield and Ford Lane existing employment areas with potential for expansion,
employers here say their workers have to commute considerable distances. More local, affordable housing would improve this situation.
SO4.....The Landscape Capacity Assessment is open to criticism, in itself and in comparison to other sites. In our view the Assessment has not been properly considered.
It also impacts on SO1 objectives.
SO5.....The distance to Barnham Railway Station of 2.3--3.0 kms. Sites to the west of Yapton would be no more than 2.0 kms.Sites to the east would be 2.0--2.3 kms. from
Ford Station. With new development and an improved bus service, this main line station could be upgraded.
No road capacity issues ? This is surprising, considering the B2233 usage by through traffic avoiding A259 and A27, does this make Yapton favourable In this context ?
Yapton has the best bus services of the Five Villages, the 700( to be Coastal Fastway ) and the 66, which could be enhanced with an increased population and maybe extended to Littlehampton, to include Climping and Ford station.
There is also a taxi service operating from Yapton Road premises.
SO6.....No comment.
SO7.....Yapton has good local and central facilities, including a Co- Op supermarket,butcher’s shop, hairdressing salon and a fish/chip shop. There is no fuel station( as in Barnham also ), but the Tesco at Littlehampton is only 3.5 kms. away ( depending on location ).
There is a large village green/ sportsground with excellent play facilities and the ’ Flying Fortress ’ organised play area close by.
The Ford Open Market ( twice weekly ) is within walking distance of Yapton, this is very popular with low income families.
The Parsonage Farm retail outlets, including a butcher’s, greengrocer’s and a cafe are less than 1600 metres from the centre, these would be closer to a western site.
We believe the Primary School has spare capacity or could be expanded.
A number of issues in the Summary have been covered above and in view of these we consider Yapton should go into Appendix 4 with amendments, to be a potential location for some of the houses in Options 1 and 3.
Horsemere Green Lane/ Climping
SO1....The objectives have not been fully addressed e.g. biodiversity. It is noted there are no flooding constraints.
SO2....Although housing need in Climping is zero,has consideration been given to employees who currently commute to Ford employment areas and the Prison ?
When an application was refused a few years back for affordable homes opposite the church, employers had stated a need for workers who wished to move nearer.
SO3....Admittedly there is little employment provision in Climping itself, but with the Rudford, Airfield, Ford Prison,MRF, WWTW, Ford Lane and Victoria Business Centre areas, all within 1--1.5 kms. distance, this surely warrants consideration ?
Was nearby employment a consideration when the greenfield land development in Horsemere Green Lane was permitted 20 years ago ?
Also, one has to ask, have the Eco town economy/employment studies by Vail Williams and SQW Consulting been taken into account in the assessments?
SO4....The landscape of the arable field south of the existing development cannot possibly be regarded as low/ negligible for change. It is bounded by tall trees and thick mature hedgerows on all sides and fronts the A259 on it’s southern edge with the B2233 on the west, both would give good access, if it is low now,how was the original development permitted ?
SO5....Why only select Littlehampton Railway station, when Ford station is only 2kms. distant and is on the main line ?
This location is on the 700 bus route with existing stops. With additional population a new bus service could be re-introduced to Arundel via Ford on a circular route through Littlehampton to include any new development there.
SO6....As Yapton, this location is on the 700 bus route, but 1.5--2kms.closer to Littlehampton and Worthing.
SO7....New facilities would be needed for an increased population, but Yapton is on the regular 700 bus route and 2 kms.distant.There are two pub/ restaurants and a top- class hotel in the village, the beach is highly accessible by cycle and on foot.
In view of the comments above,which challenge your assessment, this location should be in Appendix 4 with amendments, for consideration to take some of the 400--900 houses in Options 1 and 3. Further development here could enhance social cohesion with an increase in social and cultural facilities, or is it the case that existing residents would prefer to be left in semi isolation?
 This page was last updated on 03/02/10 at 17:12:39 Office Use Only: 5049/31-07-10/Rod Cooper |
