Practical proposed steps for Chichester.
The stages explain what should happen first. They are not promised completion dates. Funding, powers and ongoing costs need to be established before a proposal is adopted.
Proposal
Housing pressure reaches beyond house prices
Nightly-paid temporary accommodation held 106 households in June 2026. This is one part of temporary accommodation, not all homelessness.
The district also reported 160 affordable homes enabled in 2025/26 against a target of 167. Supply and immediate housing need require separate measures.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2
Who could lead: District housing service and housing providers.
- Start now
Confirm the new temporary units are open, safe and occupied; publish a monthly housing-pressure dashboard.
- Over the next few years
Track affordable homes from permission to completion and identify stalled sites.
- Over the longer term
Judge progress by suitable settled housing and repeat homelessness, not announcements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 106 nightly-paid households in June 2026; this excludes other forms of temporary accommodation.
Measure: Nightly-paid households, duration of stays and affordable completions.
Trade-off: Leased buildings and new homes require money and suitable locations; avoiding nightly costs does not remove support needs.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
More temporary accommodation →
Proposal
Growth needs working water infrastructure
Housing delivery must keep pace with wastewater capacity and protection of the harbour.
Capacity, nutrient pollution and water supply are different constraints. Their boundaries differ; a district-wide label can mislead.
Evidence
Who could lead: District planners, Southern Water and environmental regulators.
- Start now
Publish the applicable catchment and capacity condition for each major site.
- Over the next few years
Track treatment works and developer contributions against occupation milestones.
- Over the longer term
Assess actual water quality and reliable capacity alongside homes delivered.
How to judge progress
Starting point: No single numerical baseline is established for this proposed action; use the linked evidence and publish the applicable starting measure before assessing impact.
Measure: Operational capacity, conditions discharged and monitored water quality.
Trade-off: Delaying occupation can constrain housing supply; premature growth can worsen infrastructure pressure.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Southern Gateway and the station →
Wastewater treatment capacity →
Proposal
District totals can conceal local changes
Police neighbourhood trends differ within Chichester. City-centre activity cannot be inferred from the district average.
Published police locations are approximate and omit unmapped incidents. Counts do not measure every crime or the risk to an individual.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2 · Evidence 3
Who could lead: Sussex Police and the Community Safety Partnership.
- Start now
Review neighbourhood category trends alongside resident reports and police priorities.
- Over the next few years
Evaluate targeted prevention and the city-centre order against a baseline.
- Over the longer term
Track repeat harm and displacement into nearby streets.
How to judge progress
Starting point: No single numerical baseline is established for this proposed action; use the linked evidence and publish the applicable starting measure before assessing impact.
Measure: Like-for-like category counts, repeat incidents and resident experience.
Trade-off: More reporting can raise recorded counts even when confidence improves. Enforcement should be assessed with support and prevention.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Plans need visible delivery milestones
Several regeneration schemes remain in design or feasibility in the reviewed evidence.
A funding announcement does not show money spent or benefits achieved. Missing completion evidence is not proof that nothing happened.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2 · Evidence 3
Who could lead: District council with county council, landowners and delivery partners.
- Start now
Give each project one owner, current stage and next decision.
- Over the next few years
Publish contracts, spending and changes to scope alongside planned benefits.
- Over the longer term
Measure local access, jobs and use after schemes open.
How to judge progress
Starting point: No single numerical baseline is established for this proposed action; use the linked evidence and publish the applicable starting measure before assessing impact.
Measure: Verified milestones, expenditure and realised benefits.
Trade-off: Commercial negotiations may limit detail; explain omissions and publish what can be disclosed.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Southern Gateway and the station →
Innovation hub →
White Pavilion repairs →
Brick Pavilion future →
Oaklands Park path →
Heavy vehicle apprenticeships →
Leisure centres investment →
Northgate and Bosham Lane improvements →
Proposal
Recycling needs a new baseline
42.3% of household waste was reused, recycled or composted in 2025/26. Food-waste collections began near the end of that year.
The first-quarter report still awaited a new recycling figure. It cannot yet establish the full-year effect of the new service.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2
Who could lead: District waste service.
- Start now
Publish coverage and missed-collection information with the first complete quarter.
- Over the next few years
Compare recycling and residual waste over equivalent seasons.
- Over the longer term
Assess cost per household and sustained waste reduction.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 42.3% recycling in 2025/26; first-quarter 2026/27 data was awaited in the reviewed report.
Measure: Recycling share, residual tonnes, missed collections and cost.
Trade-off: Participation and collection tonnage alone do not establish value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Food-waste collections →
Proposal
Reconnect the station, canal and city centre
Southern Gateway brings homes, workplaces and public space into one regeneration plan.
It is an opportunity in the reviewed plans. Design, transport arrangements and funding still need to become deliverable commitments.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2 · Evidence 3 · Evidence 4
Who could lead: District council with county council, landowners and delivery partners.
- Start now
Give each project one owner, current stage and next decision.
- Over the next few years
Publish contracts, spending and changes to scope alongside planned benefits.
- Over the longer term
Measure local access, jobs and use after schemes open.
How to judge progress
Starting point: No single numerical baseline is established for this proposed action; use the linked evidence and publish the applicable starting measure before assessing impact.
Measure: Verified milestones, expenditure and realised benefits.
Trade-off: Commercial negotiations may limit detail; explain omissions and publish what can be disclosed.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Southern Gateway and the station →
Proposal
Measure the difference food-waste collections make
A new collection service creates a chance to divert more waste from disposal.
The service launch is confirmed. Its full-year effect is not yet established by the reviewed figures, so compare later results with the existing baseline.
Evidence 1 · Evidence 2
Who could lead: District waste service.
- Start now
Publish coverage and missed-collection information with the first complete quarter.
- Over the next few years
Compare recycling and residual waste over equivalent seasons.
- Over the longer term
Assess cost per household and sustained waste reduction.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 42.3% recycling in 2025/26; first-quarter 2026/27 data was awaited in the reviewed report.
Measure: Recycling share, residual tonnes, missed collections and cost.
Trade-off: Participation and collection tonnage alone do not establish value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Food-waste collections →
Proposal
Make room for homes people can afford
Average private rent is £1,333 a month (August 2026) in Chichester council area. This is £126 lower than the England average for the same month. Homes rented privately ranged from 12.1% in Fernhurst to 37.2% in Chichester Central — a gap of 25.2 percentage points.
Housing costs matter most alongside earnings and the number of affordable homes available. A local average cannot tell us whether a particular household can afford its home.
Who could lead: The housing and planning authorities, housing associations and developers.
- Start now
Publish the local waiting list, temporary accommodation and affordable-home delivery figures together. Start by checking the different needs in Chichester Central and Fernhurst; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test proposed housing sites against affordable-home need, access to work, school places and water capacity.
- Over the longer term
Check whether completed homes reduce unmet need, rather than counting planning permissions as delivery.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Average private rent is £1,333 a month (August 2026) in Chichester council area. Homes rented privately ranged from 12.1% in Fernhurst to 37.2% in Chichester Central — a gap of 25.2 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 21 of 21 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Affordable homes completed, households waiting, time in temporary accommodation, and rent compared with local earnings.
Trade-off: More homes can put pressure on infrastructure and land. Affordability requirements also affect development viability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Average monthly rent →
Evidence: Average home price →
Southern Gateway and the station →
More temporary accommodation →
Proposal
Plan homes and care around an older population
27.1% of people in Chichester council area were aged 65 or over (21 March 2021). People aged 65 or over ranged from 17.6% in Chichester East to 37.6% in Selsey South — a gap of 20 percentage points.
Age alone does not mean poor health or a need for care. Accessible homes, reliable transport and support close to home matter as people get older.
Who could lead: Adult social care, local health services, housing providers and transport authorities.
- Start now
Compare the location of older residents with access to care, shops and transport. Start by checking the different needs in Selsey South and Chichester East; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Prioritise home adaptations and care capacity in places with the clearest unmet need.
- Over the longer term
Build accessible homes and joined-up care into local development plans.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 27.1% aged 65 or over; 21 March 2021. People aged 65 or over ranged from 17.6% in Chichester East to 37.6% in Selsey South — a gap of 20 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 21 of 21 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Waits for home adaptations and care, avoidable hospital stays, and accessible homes delivered.
Trade-off: Services need skilled staff and ongoing funding. Age profiles alone cannot measure unmet care need.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 65 or over →
Proposal
Bring support closer to people in poor health
4.3% of people reported bad or very bad health in Chichester council area (21 March 2021). Across England, the figure was 5.2%. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.7% in Loxwood to 7.4% in Selsey South — a gap of 4.7 percentage points.
This is how residents described their health in the census. It can reveal differences between neighbourhoods, but does not diagnose illness or measure current waiting times. Age profiles differ between places, so these shares do not measure service quality.
Who could lead: Local health services, public health teams, employers and community organisations.
- Start now
Use neighbourhood evidence to find where poor health and barriers to services overlap. Start by checking the different needs in Selsey South and Loxwood; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Test accessible local support and publish who is reached and who is missed.
- Over the longer term
Review whether health gaps narrow, alongside housing and employment improvements.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 4.3% reporting bad or very bad health; 21 March 2021. People reporting bad or very bad health ranged from 2.7% in Loxwood to 7.4% in Selsey South — a gap of 4.7 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 21 of 21 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Access to services and the health gap between neighbourhoods, using comparable age-adjusted measures when available.
Trade-off: A census snapshot is dated. New service decisions also need current needs assessments and residents’ experience.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People reporting bad or very bad health →
Proposal
Connect local skills to local opportunities
37.2% of people aged 16 or over had a degree or equivalent (21 March 2021) in Chichester council area. Across England, the figure was 33.9%. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 8.4% in Chichester North to 24.2% in Sidlesham with Selsey North — a gap of 15.8 percentage points.
Qualifications show one part of the skills available locally. They do not show whether people have secure jobs or work that uses those skills.
Who could lead: Employers, colleges, universities and the relevant skills authority.
- Start now
Compare vacancies and employer needs with training available to local residents. Start by checking the different needs in Sidlesham with Selsey North and Chichester North; census differences are not proof of unmet demand.
- Over the next few years
Link training to real jobs, including routes for people without formal qualifications.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained employment and earnings after training, not just course starts.
How to judge progress
Starting point: 37.2% with a degree or equivalent; 21 March 2021. People aged 16+ with no qualifications ranged from 8.4% in Chichester North to 24.2% in Sidlesham with Selsey North — a gap of 15.8 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 21 of 21 current wards have comparable figures.
Measure: Sustained jobs, earnings and training completion for residents who face barriers to work.
Trade-off: Training takes time and cannot create demand for jobs on its own. Qualifications are not a complete measure of ability.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: People aged 16+ with a degree or equivalent →
Evidence: People aged 16+ with no qualifications →
Southern Gateway and the station →
Innovation hub →
Heavy vehicle apprenticeships →
Proposal
Target safety work where problems repeat
Mapped police records are available for neighbourhoods in Chichester council area.
Published locations are approximate and some crimes are not mapped. Counts show recorded incidents, not the chance of an individual becoming a victim.
Who could lead: The local police force, council community safety team and relevant services.
- Start now
Check recurring places and categories alongside local police priorities and residents’ reports.
- Over the next few years
Test focused prevention and support, with a comparison period agreed before the work starts.
- Over the longer term
Publish whether problems fall, move elsewhere or return, and adjust the response.
How to judge progress
Crime evidence and coverage →
Starting point: Use the dated, complete periods shown in Crime and safety; keep anti-social behaviour separate.
Measure: Comparable recorded incidents, repeat victimisation and residents’ reported experience; never a single crude league table.
Trade-off: More reporting can increase recorded crime. Enforcement and support may work differently for different problems.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Proposal
Turn published plans into visible progress
11 named local projects or plans have official evidence in this collection.
A published plan makes responsibilities and intentions easier to inspect. It does not prove that funding is secured or that promised benefits have arrived.
Who could lead: The named project owners and council scrutiny bodies.
- Start now
Put the scope, owner, funding position and next milestone in one public place.
- Over the next few years
Report delivery against the agreed scope and explain delays or changes.
- Over the longer term
Check the benefits residents actually receive after completion.
How to judge progress
Starting point: The dated stages in Projects; unknown costs and funding remain unknown.
Measure: Milestones met, costs against the approved budget, and measured outcomes after delivery.
Trade-off: Delivery reporting takes staff time, but a launch announcement alone cannot show value for money.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Southern Gateway and the station →
Innovation hub →
White Pavilion repairs →
Brick Pavilion future →
Oaklands Park path →
Heavy vehicle apprenticeships →
Leisure centres investment →
More temporary accommodation →
Food-waste collections →
Wastewater treatment capacity →
Northgate and Bosham Lane improvements →
Proposal
Target support where disadvantages overlap
Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 8% in Fittleworth to 20.3% in Chichester East — a gap of 12.3 percentage points.
These households met at least two census conditions covering education, employment, health and housing. This is not an income or poverty measure.
Who could lead: The council's housing, public health and employment teams, with local services.
- Start now
Check current advice and support access in Chichester East, using the census pattern as a starting point and asking residents what is missing.
- Over the next few years
Test joined-up housing, work and health support, and publish who takes part, who cannot reach it and what changes.
- Over the longer term
Track sustained outcomes and whether gaps between neighbourhoods narrow, using comparable dates and measures.
How to judge progress
Starting point: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages ranged from 8% in Fittleworth to 20.3% in Chichester East — a gap of 12.3 percentage points. 21 March 2021; 21 of 21 wards.
Measure: Access to support, unresolved housing problems and sustained work or health outcomes. Census percentages alone cannot measure a new programme's success.
Trade-off: Targeting neighbourhoods can miss people in need elsewhere. Avoid labelling every resident by the average for their ward.
Cost: No costed delivery assessment has been established here. These are proposed sequences, not funded promises or completion deadlines.
Evidence: Households facing two or more measured disadvantages →
Southern Gateway and the station →
White Pavilion repairs →
Brick Pavilion future →
Oaklands Park path →
Leisure centres investment →
More temporary accommodation →
