1. Informal Parish Council Meeting – to discuss the Old Place farm proposal of 500 houses.
Henry gave an opening welcome. Good parish representation. Here to consider as a parish 1
matter, the suggested development at Old Place farm. All other issues to be discussed at the
Parish meeting on 13th May. Meeting to close at 9.00pm
Henry introduced the Parish councillors
CDC : Councillor Andrew Smith, Amanda Jobling, David Twigg
WSCC : Mike Hall - Councillor
Goodwood : Alun Reece - Goodwood estate director
Meeting Order
• CDC
• Jean - Parish views
• Goodwood
• Open questions
2 IMPORTANT POINTS TO NOTE
Parishioners CAN submit their comments in a letter, without using the Internet or the
designated form. It is important to ensure you reference the appropriate section of the
plan to ensure your comments are considered against the correct and relevant issue.
Otherwise there is a risk that your comments will be taken as general comments and not
specific to Old Place Farm/Westhampnett
It is essential that you make your feelings/concerns/comments to CDC in whatever form
suits you best. The comments documented at the meeting will not be considered if you
do not put them in writing to CDC.
Please take the time to respond to the Plan. If you require any help or support please
contact any member of the Parish council who will be happy to support you.
CDC
Amanda introduced - series of meetings over 6 week consultation, in areas where there are
strategic growth areas, to talk about the whole area. Up to 2029, covering housing employment,
countryside, heritage etc. The site allocation will take place after the consultation and
comments received and reflected upon.
David will focus on key issues and talk a little about the Westhampnett Site, but can't talk about
it in detail until decision made, and then detailed discussions can be entered into.

2. David - Started 22nd March run to 3rd May. Normal CDC only consults on the broad plan, but
more detailed this time. Attended a number of events already around the district including
Tangmere, Selsey etc focusing on the strategic locations. Feedback today useful, but it is
important that the formal process is followed assigned to individual. Do it online or using
written forms. Consultation draft and changes will happen to develop area in the future.
Framework for neighbourhood plans, action planes.
Important to stress this is a consultation draft as a result of this exercise. Nothing is set in stone
and only broad ideas and principles. Final plan will be a high level document and will be a
framework for how requirements will be set out in future. Further work during the summer,
including looking at the infrastructure when there is more clarity about where things might be
located.
Document is broken down into sections, strategy, and 3 sub area, Manhood, North east of
national park, Corridor between Southbourne and Tangmere including the city (A27 corridor).
Consistent theme running though out the plan is the protection of the landscape, local heritage
and environmental assets of the area. Lets look at protecting those things first. Having
identified the most environmentally sensitive, steer major development away from those assets.
Those areas with the widest possible employment, infrastructure, etc therefore a lot focused
around the city. Capacity of school and shops limited by infrastructure developments.
Shopwhyke, Tangemere and Westhampnett, but are dependant on waste etc being resolved
and other infrastructure issues being looked at in the summer.
West of Chichester reduced from 2000 homes to 1000. North east Chichester 1500 to 500,
adjacent to the area itself. No longer and urban extension but and integration to the village.
Flood plan and noise constraints have reduced this. Shopwhyke 700 to 500. East Wittering and
Bracklesham 400 to 100.
Taking all these into account then the development capacity remaining in the area, the
preferred approach is to deliver 4325 in addition to existing developments and small windfall
sites.395 homes per year during the plan period assessed against our identified requirements
looking at the housing market assessment based on population change, migration, economic
change related to district as a whole in coastal West Sussex area. This is required to be carried
out by the government and plan accordingly. Lower end identified 320 homes per year, 0
economic growth to high end 750 per year based on economic forecast of potential of job
growth. Study undertaken last year. Data based on 2010 figures. CDC looking at refreshing this
data based on 2011 census and ONS household projections. Mid range is 400 and 500 homes a
year based on migration and population. CDC proposal have assessed what is achievable and
possible falls in the middle of the range.Where plans have delivered lower figures these have
failed when inspected.
Also undertaken studies for future employment studies based on level of growth. This has
identified 20 hectares of employment land plus 5 hectares of office accommodation. 3200 new
jobs over the plan period. Conservative estimate compared to economic forecast.
Major infrastructure issues is the impact around Chichester on A27 and local road network
connecting to A27. Study available on the website. Subject to various work along the 6
junctions along the A27 and smarter choices (alternative modes of travel). A set of proposals
have been developed and these are being worked through.

3. Funding bid to the Government for A27 improvements that go beyond those identified in the
plan. Awaiting outcome.
Waste water. Network and infiltration into network. Being address though sub group, natural
England, harbour conservancy, southern water etc. Discharge of waste into Chichester harbour.
Proposal to upgrade Tangmere works. Issues being looked at in Wittering and now Lavant
valley.
Next steps, following consultation, analysing results. Publish summary of findings in the
summer and then looking at what changes of the plan are needed. Working with parish councils
to identify specific sites for hosing an employment at hubs. Working with PC for those areas
with strategic development. In October this year, consulting on pre-submission draft of plan.
This goes to examination with a view to submitting the plan to Sec of State in May 2014.
In the meantime we want to work with local communities to understand the aspirations of the
local communities to see how these might be achieved. Analyse all results, online easy, written
has to be transcribed, publish summary of results in summer. Then working with PC to identify
sites of opportunities in settlement hubs then Westhampnett, Tangmere & Chichester.
Westhampnett 500 homes, 3 hectares of employment land next to motor circuit, provision of
community facilities, provision of open space and green links, linear country park.
Vulnerable to speculative development so it is better to have development in the right place and
brings benefit to the people. Need to have a plan in place so that not open to speculative
development
In September the draft plan to be written to go to Secretary of State in spring 2014. Keen to
work with communities to understand the concerns and how end can be achieved.
500 in Westhampnett , 3 hectares of employment land, community facilities, open space, linear
country park, cycle links to city.
Jean Hardstaff
Westhampnett proposal is subsection 12 pages 91 to 96 of the plan.
JH illustrated eastern boundary of Goodwood motor circuit, to Madgewick, RR, along paddocks,
Stane Street to Chi Hotel extends to borders of Chichester city to Graylingwell then down to
Fordwater Lane. Grey area is 400m noise buffer zone from circuit. Blue is flood plain, leaving 3
areas that may be assessed of development from Old Place Farm barns, elevated triangle
between Madgewick Lane & Stane Street.
400 meter buffer zone to protect from the noise of the motor racing circuit. Area in blue is the
flood plan of the river Lavant. 1 in city and we make no comment. 1 to north of Madgewick
lane, entire elevate triangle between Madgewick Lane and Stane Street.
Draft proposal, decision whether to allocate this site, representations need to be in before 3rd
May. Need to focus out arguments on Old Place farm, and not the other issues. We have to
give reasoned arguments why this particular land, the development should take place. Not here
to consider alternatives etc.
Why shouldn’t development take place at old place farm. In the view of the Parish Council
• Strategic gap

4. • Consider the visible impact from the Downs and the South downs national park, until 1st April
this land could not be considered for development as CDC plans were that this was a strategic
gap and could not be developed on.
• Consider the environmental impact, corn bunting, protected species of birds
• Implications of the infrastructure, March school, 700 in parish and adding an additional 500 for
an over subscribed school. Other infrastructure we don't have. Rural community, not a town
• Impact on Goodwood and motor racing circuit, problems with noise, aircraft movement etc
• Lavant environmental officers turned down a plan from Lavant as it was felt it was too close to
the Motor racing circuit
• Traffic impact, not just on A27, Madgewick LANE, would need realignment, lighting, footpaths
etc
• Flooding and the impact of the development on this land and additional surface water
• Foul drainage and surface water and the impact on the village
Alan Reece – Goodwood
Noise buffer zone does not yet exist, but it is an environmental health plan to put in protection
between
Goodwood will be submitting their response
Notes provided by Alun Reece – Goodwood Estate Director on Chichester District Council Local
Plan - Key Policies Preferred Approach
In line with the NPPF, the objective of the new Local Plan must be to ensure that sustainable
growth is promoted within the district, which includes an appropriate amount of development
in the most appropriate locations.
It is believed that the current strategy attempts to accommodate too much growth within the
district given the environmental constraints, and that contrary to the objective of relieving
pressure on Chichester city, it will serve to exacerbate the growing pressure on the City’s
infrastructure and heritage assets. The latter are nationally and internationally significant and
include the cathedral, the city centre heritage, may I note, the Goodwood Estate.
As a result of failing to take local considerations sufficiently into account, the plan will not
deliver sustainable growth. On the contrary, the strategy will harm the very heritage and
tourism assets that underpin the local economy.
The following objections can be levelled against the emerging Chichester District local plan.
Firstly, the overall growth strategy may be challenged: one could argue that the housing needs
have not been assessed objectively; Chichester’s Heritage has not been evaluated properly,
and; the physical capacity of Chichester for growth has not been determined. Additionally, the
Council hasn’t reported upon, and had regard to the findings of, cooperation with adjoining
authorities (i.e. the duty to cooperate), particularly regarding housing need, and the strategic
allocation of this, given travel to work and sub-regional considerations.
Setting aside these overarching concerns, the important point to make is that the proposed
strategic allocation at Westhampnett, when the acknowledged flood plain and motor circuit
noise constraints are taken into account, is neither strategic nor sustainable.

5. When the land affected by these constraints is removed, the remaining land is disparate, poorly
related to Westhampnett, and will be insufficient in scale to support public transport
improvements, affordable housing, or social infrastructure such as schooling. It is nether a
suitable extension to Chichester city, nor to the community of Westhampnett.
The allocation also threatens the historic setting of the city and important views of the
cathedral from the Trundle and South Downs National Park. In addition, the land is critical to
the setting of the Goodwood Motor Circuit, which is a global brand and attracts visitors from
around the world. Any development that detracts visually from this setting puts at risk the
future success of the events hosted. Additionally, any noise sensitive development that could
restrict the future operation of the circuit must be resisted to safeguard this important
economic generator for the district.
Now this is a challenging statement, although perhaps no more challenging the districts
development proposals, but something worth thinking about is the fact that the west of
Chichester allocation, i.e. White House Farm, already has an additional capacity of 600 homes
identified for development after the current plan period i.e. after 2029. If these 600 units are
brought forward into the current plan period, i.e. before 2029, this would render the
development of up to 500 homes to the East of Chichester as unnecessary at this time. This
would allow a more measured approach to be taken in respect of Westhampnett in due course.
It is another challenging statement, but also worth considering, whether a fully integrated,
properly planned strategic expansion to the south & east of Westhampnett village would meet
the objectives of developing along the east / west corridor and relieve pressure on Chichester
city. This could potentially deliver real benefits to Westhampnett such as local shops, services,
improved public transport and additional schooling.
If it is concluded that development is required to the north east of Chichester, Policy 18 (which
talks about the north east site) should, as a minimum, provide more definitive principles for the
proposed development of land at Westhampnett. As currently worded, the policy fails to give
adequate protection to the future operation of, and flexibility at, the motor circuit which is a
significant economic generator for the district.
The boundary of the proposed allocation must be amended so that it clearly identifies the land
that is suitable for development. Any development, industrial or residential, is considered
inappropriate in the setting or noise buffer of the motor circuit, because it will be harmful to
the circuit which is an economic enterprise of fundamental importance to the district. A new
policy should also be inserted into the plan relating to the motor circuit and it’s setting, which
precludes any development on land abutting the circuit and encourages development that
supports the future operation of the circuit. A countryside protection or gap policy should also
be considered.
Mike Hall - WSCC
Mean a significant change to peoples lifestyle. CDC should hang their heads in shame.
Assumption that local people all use computers.
If it went to a planning barrister it would be pulled apart on the consultation alone as it fails to
met its statutory obligations
Urge everyone to make their thoughts heard and put their comments in writing to CDC.
Open forum

6. Henry Adams - Are people able to write letters. Please see important note at the head of the
notes.
Amanda - complete the form and then this can be attributed to the appropriate section of the
policy. Community can comment on the whole policy. You can write letters but these will need
to be transcribed but there is a risk of ambiguity.
Alan Dickinson - Discussed the local plan. Submit a letter and reference the section in the plan.
Makes is easier for the CDC but not the parish.
CDC preference is to use the form online
But letter can be written, but must reference the particular section
Charmaine Pickering - What is the risk of ambiguity. In experience there is no point. If it is
identified back to the specific paragraph.
Roz - Drive out of Chichester and the beauty of driving out of the city. How is this going to make
us feel. Just be joined up with city and be sprawl coming out of city.
Ernie - Rolls Royce went to a lot of trouble to hide their development, now we are looking at
putting in a lot of industrial buildings, and a lot of people will start to see this really ugly
urbanisation of the city that will be seen by thousands and thousands of people. Huge traffic
problems and getting in and out of village. Can’t put a cap on the number of houses being built
in the site once it has been approved. Original Bellway only 45 houses, now 120 .Allow 11/2 cars
per house, yellow lines down street. Going to Goodwood events, Madgewick Lane Worried that
it will just increase
Pam - Development impacts on them as it goes right along where they have lived. Enjoyed the
view and the facilities of custom and practice. lived here since 1965, horses lived here 40 years,
custom and practice, very distressing to horses. Dead against it and it should not go ahead.
Bill Harding – CDC are proposing a development of 500 houses with no consideration for the
infrastructure that exists within Westhampnett. The existing systems inability to cope with the
current demand subjects residents to fountains of effluent in gardens and flooding. How can any
planner put forward a proposal to dramatically increase the demand by 500 houses without
taking into consideration the method of dealing with the current problem let alone the
proposed development.
Simon - Tankers pumping away sewage for months. Southern water have been asked by the
council to upgrade the works for 1500 houses and not the proposed 500 houses.
Ernie - All houses point down to the hotel. Has anyone calculated the water run off into this
area when there is heavy rain. 3 inches of rain in 12 hours has been seen this year. What is the
impact.
Alan Pickering - There must be priorities in the plan, what are they as there must be some that
are more important than others and most concerning. Other developments are already taken
place and are in train. Bellway, plus nursery with 25 to 50 coming along.
Henry - We cease to be a parish. New government props

7. David Thomas - Unprecedented amount of rain water. Flood warning, more extreme weather
conditions etc. How much of this is being taken into account on the additional rainfall. How will
the new infrastructure cope with this with the impact of the moving of the flood plan.
Amanda - Feedback
Employment use. Look at employment use, could be small office accommodation, whatever is
chosen will have to be within keeping in this area.
Issues around infrastructure. If the bid goes forward to OFFWAT, Southern water, environment
agency and CDC have to put forward a proposal to borrow a level of investment of 19M which
will be used to upgrade Tangmere water works. November this year, with considerations early
next year. Promising discussions undertaken so far. If Tangmere doesn’t get through OFFWAT
them all the plans would fail.
Bill Harding - If the development goes forward there is no provision for road drainage in
Madgewick lane, there is no drainage at all. How will the surface water be catered for.
No answers being given at the moment.
How can the original proposal for 1500 homes in Westhampnett now be reduced to 500 homes
at a stroke, what was the decision base on.
Amanda - based on discussions with promoters/land owners. Similar concerns to parish. They
have been asked to go away and do further work. Needs further work on 400 meter buffer and
flood plain.
Amanda - Developers need to come out and talk with community and come back with
proposals.
Amanda - Southern Water has not raised any objections. They believe they will be able to
manage the extended growth and there is a solution to the drainage problems.
Amanda - On what basis have they based their decision. CDC has been working with them over
the past 18 months to see if there is any solutions at Appledram and Tangmere. Significant
amount of work on dealing with issues of infiltration. Next thing to look at surface water.
Flooding in Maudlin. Surface water flooding is different to sewage. Need to differentiate
between the 2. High water table, there are solutions to this that should be looked at.
Amanda - How does the CDC benefit from building new homes. CILS money comes back to the
community. CDC is a planning authority and they want to make planning decisions. They do not
want to have the decisions taken out of their hands. The developers could put in a planning
application and the CDC would currently have a difficult position defending it.
Amanda - Developers would need to make use of the public infrastructure. If the public systems
can't deal with it then let the developers deal with it and put in their own solutions.
Not just a water issues, infrastructure including roads.
Amanda - There will be more detailed work being done and looking at what is required. WSCC
say the proposals are supportable but will be require additional work. A27 improving junctions

8. that are directly impacted by the strategic development. Impact of the development should be
as neutral as possible, and doesn’t mean that historic in-investment will be addressed by this.
Mike Hall - WSCC position statement is on the CDC website and their traffic modelling is detailed
Amanda - Privately owned land and CDC would not want to purchase the land
This is a developer lead plan. Would we trust a planning inspector to come to a better decision
than the local authority.
Why should we have this development if there is no benefit to us
Amanda - Planning inspector and water authorities is prepared to accept onsite treatments.
This still has to be disposed off and is advocating the use of septic disposal on each development
Sewage coming up in their garden. Each time there is a development this is promised that this
will be resolved but it never is.
Helpful if we have a detailed list of which properties are affected, which part of the surrounding
areas are impacted etc. CDC can then go back to Southern Water with this evidence.
Are the people who live in this new development going to accept the noise of the airfield. £12M
from revival, FOS £15M, then 400 jobs at Goodwood full time etc. Huge impact/risk on the
economic stability of Goodwood. Goodwood events have a huge brand image around the world.
Goodwood everyone knows about it and it's in our parish. Put at risk for 500 houses and part of
our heritage.
500 houses with 2 cars. Where are they going to park.
If we lost the airfield, does this become a Brownfield site
Henry - Daffodil field was refused due to being within 900m of the Airfield.
Summersdale PC Chair - If this isn't approved there is no alternative plan.
We are being asked to comment on half a policy. It's a complete whitewash.
Amanda - If CDC had come to the meeting with a completed plan, then the first comment would
be we don't want to know what we think. This may not be the plan that is going to be
submitted. It is expected that there will be changes but there is little scope.
We know nothing about the National park plans. What are the number of houses likely to be
there. All now need to go into the smaller Chichester district. They are expected to deliver 80
houses per year.
Amanda - Could the number of houses be lower. CDC don't believe that this would not be found
sound if the number would be lower and the figures are based on demographic projections.
Jean - you have made reference to consultation. The PC has never been approached about what
it required. We were issued with a questionnaire back last Sept and were asked if this was a
suitable area for development. WHPC responded with a no for the usual reasons. Consultation

9. should have started at the grass routes and asked what potential sites would have been
considered.
Any research done on how many people would use the A27 and working in the area. Is the
demand for houses being based on the number of people who want to live in the area. Wages
in Chichester are one of the lowest in relation to house prices. Second homes levy etc,
All figure are based on statistical modelling. We know this area attracts a lot of incomers and
this cannot be stopped.
Amanda - Duty to cooperate. Coastal West Sussex - Group in place that works with areas up to
Brighton and including the National park. Early discussions are in place. A piece of research has
been commissioned about what has been/being delivered. Regional impact needs to be taken
into account as figures are taken from all areas and need to consider the whole impact.
Meeting closed at 9.00pm