10.60

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4136

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Matthew Rees

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

The local plan is not legally compliant because it fails to make provision for the necessary infrastructure, nor provide a genuine choice of transport modes, despite the clear recognition that investment and capacity would be needed in relation to both road and rail, which may not be compatible with para 73 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The policy is not sound because it fails to address both road and rail issues and provides no genuine alternatives, which is not an effective approach considering Objective 7 (page 32) requires the council to deliver strategic infrastructure on a timely basis, and so falls far short of what it is reasonable for the council to do in this planning period.

Change suggested by respondent:

Modification is required to incorporate the missing facts that make the plan sound and legally compliant:

10.60 The Local Plan identifies Tangmere as being capable of accommodating further sustainable growth to enhance and develop its role as a settlement hub, through the provision of new housing and infrastructure to support the new development and the existing village but this would need to be consistent with sustainable development, as defined by NPPF. The council will work to ensure that there is timely delivery of road and train services to provide a genuine choice of transport modes to support growth.

Full text:

There is much to commend in this document and the supporting technical documents that accompany it, and I have listed in the appendix to this letter 26 such paragraphs and policies. I am happy for my support to be registered against these sections of your consultation document. There is also much upon which I must represent a concern, so I attach representations relating to 22 paragraphs or policies.

I am happy to participate in a hearing session, and I would flag at this stage that the common theme that links all of these representations is the need to safeguard the natural and built environment in and around Saxon Meadow, Tangmere from the risks of unsustainable development, I consider that the independent examiner should focus their review on the aspects of the local plan that relate to this matter.

Appendix 1: list of policies that I support
1. P14, 1.23, 1.24: Duty to cooperate
2. P24, para 2.30 "the council declared a climate emergency in July 2019"
3. P24, para 2.32 — "all proposal for new development should be considered in the context of a climate emergencV'
4, P30: Objective 2: natural environment: "development will achieve net gains in biodiversity'
5. P43, 4.1 "National policy promotes increasing energy efficiency, the minimisation of energy consumption and the development of renewable energy sources"
6. P43, 4.3: "Some renewable energy projects provide significant opportunities to enhance biodiversitV'
7. P53, Policy NE5: Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain
8. P62, Para 4.42: Hedgerows and some types of woodlands are identified as a priority habitat
9, P62, Policy NE8: Proposals should have a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres from the boundary of ancient woodland or veteran trees to avoid rood damage (known as the root protection area)
10. P68, Policy NEIO: Criteria for Development in the Countryside - Does not prejudice viable agricultural operations or other viable uses
11. P80, Para 4.91: There are serious concerns about the impact of flooding, both in respect of current properties at risk but also the long-term management of the area.
12. 4.92: any development in the plan area must therefore have regard to flood and erosion risk.
13. 4.94: built development can lead to increased surface water run-off; therefore, new development should include SuDS to help cope with intense rainfall events
14. P81, Para 4.96: Environment Agency consent is required for any works within 16 m of tidal waters and 8m of fluvial watercourses in line with the Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016. This strip is required for access. The policy includes a setback requirement to ensure this access strip is not obstructed.
15. P80, 4.92, Any development in the plan area must therefore have regard to flood and erosion risk, now and in the future, by way of location and specific measures, such as additional flood alleviation, which will protect people, properties and vulnerable habitats from flooding. Recent changes to national guidance highlight the importance of considering flood risk from all sources, and this is particularly significant for the plan area as large parts of it are at risk from groundwater flooding, which needs to be recognised in development decisions alongside the well-established risks in relation to tidal, fluvial and surface water flooding. Appropriate mapping of all sources of flood risks is still evolving, and is likely to develop further over the plan period
16. P93, Policy NE20 Pollution: Development proposals must be designed to protect, and where possible, improve upon the amenities of existing and future residents, occupiers of buildings and the environment generally. Development proposals will need to address the criteria contained in, but not limited to, the policies concerning water quality; flood risk and water management; nutrient mitigation; lighting; air quality; noise; and contaminated land. Where development is likely to generate significant adverse impacts by reason of pollution, the council will require that the impacts are minimised and/or mitigated to an acceptable level within appropriate local/national standards, guidance, legislation and/or objectives.
17, P94, 4.127, Light pollution caused by excessive brightness can lead to annoyance, disturbance and impact wildlife, notably nocturnal animals. The design of lighting schemes should be carefully considered in development proposals to prevent light spillage and glare.
18. P94, 4.128, Dark skies are important for the conservation of natural habitats, cultural heritage and astronomy. The plan area includes three 'Dark Sky Discovery Site' designations, all located within the Chichester Harbour AONB; Eames Farm on Thorney Island, Maybush Copse in Chidham; and north of the John Q Davis footpath in West Itchenor. Development within or directly impacting these areas will be subject to particular scrutiny in terms of their impact on dark skies. The entire SDNPA area is also declared as an International Dark Sky Reserve. Development directly impacting this area will be subject to similar scrutiny.
19. P96, Policy NE22 Air Quality
20. P97, Policy NE-23 Noise
21. P142, Para 6.29, Amenity: Private space, shared space and the design quality and construction of communal spaces all contribute to amenity
22. P155-6, Policy P11:Conservation Areas "protecting the setting (including views into and out of the area)"
23, P55, Para 4.26 - The council is under a legal duty to protect designated habitats, by ensuring that new development does not have an adverse impact on important areas of nature conservation, and by requiring mitigation to negate the harm caused.
24. P58, Para 4.33 The council is under a legal duty to protect their designated bird populations and supporting habitats
25. P95, Para 4.129 The council has a duty to review and assess air quality within the district
26. P301, Conservation Area: An area of special architectural or historic interest, designated under the Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990. There is a statutory duty to preserve or enhance the character, appearance, or setting of these areas.

Attachments:

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4418

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Mr John Wolfenden

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

To take a community of 3000 people and double it to 6000 in one plan is totally unacceptable and requires more than marketing statements to achieve.
The assumption of adequate infrastructure in proposed road and minor adjustment to schools is insultingly inadequate. The existing ‘village' will be consumed by such an expansion and its social and economic make up completely obliterated. Bringing in vast social housing tenants into an entrepreneurial neighbourhood will not be a comfortable integration. A consultation with the police would be worthwhile to understand the increase in crime that is predictable.

Change suggested by respondent:

You need to consult with
Police - predictable increase in crime rates and policing needs
Hydrologists - ground water studies and proposal for flood avoidance
Social services - impact of social mix change
NHS - to create midwife and district nursing strategy
Doctors - to plan for rapid expansion of available GPs
Dentists - to create NHS dentist to cater for social housing influx
Schools - build a long term plan for primary and secondary education services.
Allotments - create plan to listen to current objections and make funds available for proper move of the existing allotment members.
Water boards - get proper groundwater runoff and foul water plan
Geologists - understand the geological issues in building on an out-washed, high water level, post Pliocene plain.
Qualified urban planners - to look at the socioeconomic mix of dwellings and use best practices for integration of diverse communities
Statisticians - to work out traffic flows and parking requirements
BT OpenReach - engage with them to upgrade all telecommunications and move them from 30 mbs to Superfast fibre.
Ambulance and Fire service - establish changes required to their infrastructure to cope with 3000 more people
The National Grid - to establish the capability to provide 1000 plus 100watt charging points to cater for the new green energy world. Current National grid will struggle to provide such capability, who will pay?
Special Conservation Area - make sure there are no satellite dishes, log burners, solar panels, noise producing ground source pumps etc all outlawed in the conservation area.

Full text:

To take a community of 3000 people and double it to 6000 in one plan is totally unacceptable and requires more than marketing statements to achieve.
The assumption of adequate infrastructure in proposed road and minor adjustment to schools , is insultingly inadequate. The existing ‘village ‘ will be consumed by such an expansion and its social and economic make up completely obliterated. Bring in vast social housing tenants into an entrepreneurial neighbourhood will not be a comfortable integration. A consultation epithet the police would be worthwhile to understand the increase in crime that is predictable.