Housing Site Selection Paragraph 1.3 states that ‘This paper is intended to increase transparency in how complex evidence base documents and planning considerations have been used in establishing the preferred approach to housing site allocation. It is not intended to provide a detailed overview or assessment of individual sites.’ However, the ‘broad site summaries’ do not include sufficient information to make the choices made transparent. It is not clear how the Site Selection Priorities/Refining Points; have been used. In many cases the summaries for sites that have been selected are almost identical to those that have not been selected. It would help if a table for each site showing how the ‘score’ against each priority/point is included. There is a particular difficulty with point 7 relating to highway impacts because there is no reference to the Interim Transport Assessment in the list of evidence, however many of the assessments refer to ‘minimal highway works required’ or other highway issues. How has point 7 been used and what evidence lies behind the comments? In some cases, point 10 ‘to provide and maintain a defensible urban edge following development’ does not appear to have been used. In relation to Site HA10 Funtley Road South, the ‘view corridors’ are totally inadequate to maintain views that properly recognise the site’s landscape context. In relation to Site HA8, Pinks Hill, what is the evidence for saying that ‘noise and other associated amenity issues due to A27/M27 can be mitigated? The Society is uncomfortable with allocating sites for housing that are excessively noisy or have their primary access through an industrial estate or narrow residential roads.