What could change—and how soon?
A practical action plan for Chichester. These proposals connect the local problems to organisations that could act and measures that could show progress.
The stages are suggested sequences, not promised deadlines. A council project has its own separately recorded delivery stage.
Proposed action
Reduce reliance on nightly-paid accommodation
Who could act: District housing service and housing providers
Start soon
Confirm the new temporary units are open, safe and occupied; publish a monthly housing-pressure dashboard.
Build next
Track affordable homes from permission to completion and identify stalled sites.
Longer term
Judge progress by suitable settled housing and repeat homelessness, not announcements.
How to judge progress: Nightly-paid households, duration of stays and affordable completions.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 106 nightly-paid households in June 2026; this excludes other forms of temporary accommodation.
Why this response: The district also reported 160 affordable homes enabled in 2025/26 against a target of 167. Supply and immediate housing need require separate measures.
Trade-off: Leased buildings and new homes require money and suitable locations; avoiding nightly costs does not remove support needs.
Cost and funding: No complete costing for this proposed action. Project-specific commitments are listed separately.
Proposed action
Match new homes with water capacity
Who could act: District planners, Southern Water and environmental regulators
Start soon
Publish the applicable catchment and capacity condition for each major site.
Build next
Track treatment works and developer contributions against occupation milestones.
Longer term
Assess actual water quality and reliable capacity alongside homes delivered.
How to judge progress: Operational capacity, conditions discharged and monitored water quality.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
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.
Why this response: Capacity, nutrient pollution and water supply are different constraints. Their boundaries differ; a district-wide label can mislead.
Trade-off: Delaying occupation can constrain housing supply; premature growth can worsen infrastructure pressure.
Cost and funding: No complete costing for this proposed action. Project-specific commitments are listed separately.
Proposed action
Target safety work by neighbourhood
Who could act: Sussex Police and the Community Safety Partnership
Start soon
Review neighbourhood category trends alongside resident reports and police priorities.
Build next
Evaluate targeted prevention and the city-centre order against a baseline.
Longer term
Track repeat harm and displacement into nearby streets.
How to judge progress: Like-for-like category counts, repeat incidents and resident experience.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
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.
Why this response: Published police locations are approximate and omit unmapped incidents. Counts do not measure every crime or the risk to an individual.
Trade-off: More reporting can raise recorded counts even when confidence improves. Enforcement should be assessed with support and prevention.
Cost and funding: No complete costing for this proposed action. Project-specific commitments are listed separately.
Proposed action
Make the regeneration programme easy to follow
Who could act: District council with county council, landowners and delivery partners
Start soon
Give each project one owner, current stage and next decision.
Build next
Publish contracts, spending and changes to scope alongside planned benefits.
Longer term
Measure local access, jobs and use after schemes open.
How to judge progress: Verified milestones, expenditure and realised benefits.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
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.
Why this response: A funding announcement does not show money spent or benefits achieved. Missing completion evidence is not proof that nothing happened.
Trade-off: Commercial negotiations may limit detail; explain omissions and publish what can be disclosed.
Cost and funding: No complete costing for this proposed action. Project-specific commitments are listed separately.
Proposed action
Show whether food-waste collection is working
Who could act: District waste service
Start soon
Publish coverage and missed-collection information with the first complete quarter.
Build next
Compare recycling and residual waste over equivalent seasons.
Longer term
Assess cost per household and sustained waste reduction.
How to judge progress: Recycling share, residual tonnes, missed collections and cost.
Starting point, cost and trade-offs
Starting point: 42.3% recycling in 2025/26; first-quarter 2026/27 data was awaited in the reviewed report.
Why this response: The first-quarter report still awaited a new recycling figure. It cannot yet establish the full-year effect of the new service.
Trade-off: Participation and collection tonnage alone do not establish value for money.
Cost and funding: No complete costing for this proposed action. Project-specific commitments are listed separately.