10.61

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4138

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Matthew Rees

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Not sound because material changes have occurred to the housing market but have not been reflected in the plan.

Not legally compliant because fails to apply the Statement of Community Involvement principles, through the omission of a clear and transparent reason why CDC ignored 2016 Tangmere Neighbourhood plan by proposing 30% more homes and is not justified given events since 2019.

Not legally compliant because CDC failed to demonstrate accountability through inclusive and accessible consultation by only writing to notify 2 deceased residents of Saxon Meadow, Tangmere. CDC should have done more to consult the current residents of Saxon Meadow .

The current master plan is not sound, not sustainable, incompatible with protection of conservation areas P 11 as it would not protect important views into and out of the site

Change suggested by respondent:

Modification is required to make the plan sound and legally compliant:
10.61 The Tangmere Neighbourhood plan in 2016 stated that there were 1,156 dwellings in the parish of Tangmere and a plan for 1,000 additional homes. [delete remaining paragraph].

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: 4421

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Mr John Wolfenden

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation Summary:

Your plan has not demonstrated a capability to increase magically from an arbitrary figure of 1000 to 1300 without severe increase in density since you whitewashed the image in the original plan. This increase undermines ALL of the underlying assumptions of adequacy of infrastructure services. This appears to be a blatantly cyclical uplift in density for purely profit motives rather for a sustainable and balanced community.

Change suggested by respondent:

The additional 300 dwellings should be removed from the plan forthwith. It is an unexpected and totally absurd addition to an already onerous and over powering displacement to our existing community.
Instead a clear amenities and other facilities plan should be developed to show how Tangmere could possibly cope with doubling of size with 1000 new homes.

Full text:

Your plan has not demonstrated a capability to increase magically from an arbitrary figure of 1000 to 1300 without severe increase in density since you whitewashed the image in the original plan. This increase undermines ALL of the underlying assumptions of adequacy of infrastructure services. This appears to be a blatantly cyclical uplift in density for purely profit motives rather for a sustainable and balanced community.

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4427

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Mrs Coleen Ayton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This is not sound as I feel that 1,300 proposed houses will increase by 46 x bigger than the Saxon Meadow Development which will threaten our communal space, our rights of way and the protection of the conservation area, and will effect our mental health due to noise and light pollution.

Full text:

I feel this is not justified as it does not take into account of reasonable alleviation.

Increasing the houses in Tangmere by doubling the volume from 1,100 houses at present by another 1,300 without any infrastructure in place i.e. roads/medical centre/school.

Attachments:

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4435

Received: 14/03/2023

Respondent: Mr Brian Ayton

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 10.61 is not sound as it is inconsistent with the sustainability appraisal as it does not protect the natural environment. I am very concerned to the extent and proximity of the proposed housing development to Saxon Meadow

Change suggested by respondent:

There should be a reduction in the number of houses proposed and a wider separation distance from Saxon Meadow.

Full text:

Paragraph 10.61 is not sound as it is inconsistent with the sustainability appraisal as it does not protect the natural environment. I am very concerned to the extent and proximity of the proposed housing development to Saxon Meadow.

Attachments:

Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 5570

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Mr John Newsom

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Loss of views into and out of Saxon meadow is not legally compliant.

The Plan is not sound because it fails to take into account protection of designated conservation area.

Plan impacts on residential amenity.

Full details within scanned representation

Change suggested by respondent:

Reduce the number of homes and protect the historical view of Chichester spire and maintain a band of green open pasture land / farmland between the recognised conservation area of Saxon Meadow and the propose new builds. Move the homes so that this is a significant 'green belt' around historic Tangmere and Saxon Meadow.

Full text:

See representation

Attachments: