Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs

Intelligent Land is instructed by Merrow Wood, who have been selected by the landowner to help promote the site for development, to submit representations on the Chichester Local Plan Review, Submission consultation, relating to land at Prospect Farm, Cutmill View near Bosham.

Merrow Wood understand and accept the reasoning set out in the Submission Local Plan for the adoption of a lower housing requirement than that established by the national standard methodology. Nonetheless, the implications of this approach results in over 1,100 less dwellings across the District being planned and delivered, which puts greater pressure on those sites and locations identified for growth to deliver housing.
This again puts greater emphasis on identifying sustainable locations for growth and ensuring that these can come forward in a timely manner across the plan period.

In order to address this soundness issue, the following amendments are required:
i. The introductory text and the first line within the table under Policy H1 to identify a minimum housing requirement of 12,492 dwellings
ii. Additional site allocations identified to meet the housing requirement.
In accordance with paragraph 105 of the Framework, the site selection process should seek to focus new
allocations at the most sustainable locations within Chichester District in accordance with the spatial strategy identified at Policy SP1.

Please see attached representations.

The overall housing provision for the Plan Period should be the full OAHN of 763 dwellings per annum. This should include provision for 600 dwellings within the Manhood Peninsular as set out in the Preferred Option version of the Plan.

Whilst we acknowledge that Chichester District Council is positively attempting to address housing need within the District, we object to proposed plan area total of 10,359 dwellings and point out that this figure is too low when compared to the data provided within the HEDNA (April 2020). The objectively assessed housing need (OAHN) of 638 dwellings per annum should be met in full, particularly given the significantly higher medium house prices in Chichester, also set out within the HEDNA. Failing to meet the OAHN will lead to heightened problems of affordability and over-occupation within the District. It is therefore considered that the policy is not ‘positively prepared’.

It is also objected to on the basis that there is no firm allowance made for meeting the requirements of the South Downs National Park, which would be an additional 125 dwellings per annum in line with the HEDNA. It is therefore considered that the housing provision for 2021 – 2029 should be based on 763 dwellings per annum or a total of 13,734 dwellings. The Policy is therefore not ‘positively prepared’ in this regard unless such provision is made.

The supporting text for Policy H1 reads:

‘constraints, particularly the capacity of the A27 has led to the council planning for a housing requirement below the need derived from the standard method of 525 dpa in the southern plan area and a further 40 dpa in the northern plan area, a total supply of 10,350 dwellings over the plan period from 2021 – 2039’

Whilst acknowledging the ongoing delays to plans to upgrade the A27, objection also arises from the unbalanced nature of the strategy, which places 84% of housing growth within the east-west corridor, thereby focusing housing on the area of greatest transport infrastructure constraint. A more balanced spatial approach should be adopted with more land allocated within the South of the District, adjacent to Settlement Hubs, which would put less pressure on the A27.

The Preferred Approach version of the Local Plan included moderate growth for the Manhood Peninsula for 600 dwellings, including at the Settlement Hub of East Wittering for 350 dwellings (but within the Parish of West Wittering). As noted under objections to Policy S1, it is considered that the Manhood Peninsula, and the settlement of East Wittering in particular, can accommodate future, modest growth.

It is also acknowledged within the Sustainability Appraisal (January 2023) that there is clear support for development on the Manhood Peninsular, because there is not a requirement for nutrient neutrality (affecting much of the East-West corridor). Development would also support services which need to be bolstered in view of the significantly more elderly population here.

As noted under Policy S1, it is also considered that the data underpinning the SFRA (December 2022) is believed to be flawed and that there is capacity for development at the settlement of East Wittering accordingly. For the SA to exclude one of the most sustainable settlements in the District is considered ‘unjustified’ particularly when based on this flawed data.

Currently, the housing figure for the Manhood Peninsula is 963 dwellings and relies on existing commitments and windfalls only (apart from 50 dwellings at North Mundham). When annualised this provides only 53 additional dwellings per annum over the plan period which is not sufficient to meet the housing needs of this area. The reason for allocating North Mundham over more sustainable settlements in the Peninsular appears to be the incorrect assumptions on flood risk noted above.

Therefore, in terms of future growth it is considered for the reasons set out under Policy S1 that growth should be included within the Manhood Peninsular, at the previous level of 600 dwellings. Accordingly, this means that the broad spatial distribution of housing within the Manhood Peninsular should be at least 1,563 dwellings and not 963 dwellings as indicated.

We argue that to prepare a ‘justified’, ‘effective’ and ‘consistent’ Local Plan, the District needs to increase the housing provision within the Manhood Peninsular (in particular at the Settlement Hub of East Wittering) and provide for new allocations in addition to existing commitments.

This housing need shortfall is exacerbated by the fact that the Plan fails to take account of the full potential of all of the new strategic locations within the District, such as Boxgrove. Indeed, there is an evidence base that supports the case that Boxgrove has the potential to accommodate a strategic level of housing growth, rather than the conclusion that it has limited capacity due to constraints – or the 50 homes proposed by CDC in Plan Policy H3.

We therefore request the Council review the approach towards meeting the full local housing needs of the District and plan for an increased supply of housing over the Plan period, in particular within the early years of the Plan.

The District’s local housing need and the development strategy is ‘unsound’. The policy requirement to deliver 10,359 dwellings / 575 dwellings per annum, (dpa) over the Plan period (2021-2039), is derived from a supressed objectively assessed need of 11,497 / 638 dpa. Whereas this is referred to in paragraph 5.2 of the supporting text as a result of constrained highway capacity on the A27 there is provision within draft Policy I1 of the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to ensure the infrastructure and funding are available to support the delivery of housing.

We continue to recommend that the land east of Southbourne (Policy A13 in emerging LP) is identified for mixed use development as the most sustainable and appropriate location for development at Southbourne, as was acknowledged within the draft submitted Neighbourhood Plan previously. . We feel that suitable and sufficient justification and rationale has been presented to bring forward the land east of Southbourne as a specific allocation in this local plan and we would question why a site that has been comprehensively masterplanned, is available, suitable, and deliverable, has not been given specificity within the emerging plan and is instead vulnerable to the delays and changes likely to be experienced with the drafting of a DPD or NP.

We note that within Policy H1, there is a larger than average reliance on windfall sites to meet the overall total supply for the plan period. We would question whether sufficiently compelling evidence has informed a figure that equates to over 20% of the figure applied to strategic allocations has been set aside for a windfall allowance.

Further, we would also question the reliance on 2,210 dwellings that are currently allocated in the adopted plan/Site Allocations DPD but do not yet benefit from planning permission. Even with both of these assumptions included, there does not appear to a significant headroom within the housing supply in the event of a delay to a strategic development or reduced levels of windfalls or sites delivered from existing applications. The delays experienced at the strategic developments at Tangmere and West of Chichester (totalling 2,900 dwellings from the 2015 adopted plan), it is clear that there is a need for sufficient housing allocations so as to not plunge the Council once again into a housing supply shortfall in the event of unexpected events. We would encourage the emerging plan to be prepared with a degree of hindsight to inform those future scenarios in which these two large strategic sites are not delivered at the rates envisaged when they first benefitted from allocation.

We acknowledge the difficulties experienced in Chichester District in meeting their historic housing need; based on a number of constraints, infrastructure delivery and the Duty to Cooperate. In particular, the Council has removed the estimated need within the area of the District within the South Downs National Park Authority. An acceptance of a lack of delivery within the National Park inevitably increases the pressure on the areas outside the National Park.

We would therefore encourage the Council to undertake a review of the district’s housing needs immediately following adoption of the 2021-2039 Local Plan, which takes into account forthcoming census-based household and population projections and is subject to the current proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.

The emerging Local Plan proposes 535 dwellings per annum (dpa) set against an objectively assessed need of 638dpa, which in itself is a reduction on the standard method calculation due to the portion of the District within the SDNP. The deficit between OAN and the 535 adjusted figure equates to a shortfall of more than 1,000 dwellings. It cannot be argued that the plan has been positively prepared when it proposes both an unjustified reduction in its own housing delivery and a failure to accommodate unmet need from SDNP, based on the transport evidenced outlined in the accompanying note it is apparent that there is significant headroom in the strategy to accommodate an increase in dwellings per annum to at least allow CDC to meet their OAN with an appropriate buffer.

This DPA reduction has been justified by the Council based primarily on operational capacity constraints of A27. However, the accompanying transport response from i-Transport demonstrates the Councils justification for reducing their housing delivery per annum has in fact been based on out-of-date traffic modelling, overestimates background traffic growth, utilises ineffective parameters for traffic generation in the face of sustainable travel, fails to seek other funding sources for transport improvements and does not provide modelling data of the proposed mitigation package within the constraints level of housing delivery proposed by the plan. Sensitivity testing within the Council’s LPRTA (Jan 2023) demonstrates that a delivery of 700 dwellings per annum could be accommodated, a figure significantly higher than the adjusted figure from CDC. The unevidenced assertions regarding the constraints posed by the A27 results in the justification for constraining housing delivery being undermined; the plan risks being found not sound as a result of this, and we propose that additional capacity is found within appropriate sites such land east of Southbourne to help address this risk.
CDC has struggled with a precarious housing land supply, with the most recent assessment resulting in a shortfall of 176 dwellings. Within the housing supply for the upcoming plan period, over 20% of these are sites without the benefit of planning permission that have been carried forward with no recent evidence of deliverability or suitability. The risks, based on historic underdelivery, result in this strategy not being positively prepared and failing to be supported by robust and recent evidence. Further, based on recent appeal decisions overturned on the grounds of an unstable housing supply, it is apparent that the reliance of Chichester District Council’s on interim housing policies is not a long-term or sustainable solution. The likely need during the upcoming plan period for interim housing policies is an approach that is wholly unsustainable and would be inappropriate and ineffective to maintain throughout the plan period.


Policy H2 allocates 1,050 dwellings at Southbourne with the allocation of the site to be identified through either the neighbourhood planning process or subsequent Site Allocation DPD. We recommend that the plan be prepared with sufficient flexibility to allow for this (and potentially other) broad locations of development to provide additional housing than prescribed within the current emerging plan.

The Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan had initially allocated 1,250 dwellings on land east of Southbourne, prior to concerns being raised by the Examiner (based on a pre-emption of the emerging local plan). The Examiner did not conclude that the proposed allocation was unsustainable for growth or inappropriate in size, but simply that the timing of the Neighbourhood Plan was too early against the emerging Local Plan timetable which had unfortunately been delayed. Indeed, the draft policy A13 includes a wide range of facilities and requirements that can be more comprehensively and fully met with some flexibility over the final quantum of development. Furthermore, through a masterplanning design-led approach, it may be that a higher quantum of development is deemed appropriate in any event.

We continue to recommend that the land east of Southbourne (Policy A13 in emerging LP) is identified for mixed use development as the most sustainable and appropriate location for development at Southbourne, as was acknowledged within the draft submitted Neighbourhood Plan previously.

One aspect of the delivery in Southbourne that will need some further consideration is the follow-up process, post-adoption of the Local Plan. The draft policy identifies the need to formally allocate a site within a either the neighbourhood planning process or subsequent Site Allocation DPD. It is worth noting that despite valid attempts by the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan to allocate land East of Southbourne, they were prevented from doing so by the recommendations of the Examiner. In order to protect their community from speculative allocations (and in direct response to the recommendations of the Examiner), the NPG has proceeded with a plan with zero allocations. If a new NP is to be prepared to inform which areas of Southbourne will be subject to the overarching BLD policy, it will be the neighbourhood planning group’s fourth attempt at doing so. Whilst we are confident that the NPG will be proactive in their efforts to secure a comprehensively masterplanned residential scheme in Southbourne, this community has gone far beyond what many others have in seeking to plan for their community. There is therefore a risk that they will decide to not prepare a new NP. In this instance, Chichester District should provide timescales for the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD post-local plan adoption and also assess the impact of this on the overall housing trajectory. In the event the NPG once again proactively seek to plan for this new allocation, they should be given every support by the District Council. Alternatively, we recommend that a specific site in Southbourne should be identified at this stage, reducing any reliance on a secondary policy mechanism. Given the level of detail within the draft wording for the BLD policy within Southbourne it is unclear whether there are any benefits to leaving allocation to a DPD or NP document. We feel that suitable and sufficient justification and rationale has been presented to bring forward the land east of Southbourne as a specific allocation in this local plan and we would question why a site that has been comprehensively masterplanned, is available, suitable, and deliverable, has not been given specificity within the emerging plan and is instead vulnerable to the delays and changes likely to be experienced with the drafting of a DPD or NP.


We broadly support the Council’s emerging policies regarding affordable housing, housing mix and tenure, design and sustainability.

We therefore request the Council review the approach towards meeting the full local housing needs of the District and plan for an increased supply of housing over the Plan period, in particular within the early years of the Plan.

The District’s local housing need and the development strategy is ‘unsound’. The policy requirement to deliver 10,359 dwellings / 575 dwellings per annum, (dpa) over the Plan period (2021-2039), is derived from a suppressed objectively assessed need of 11,497 / 638 dpa. Whereas this is referred to in paragraph 5.2 of the supporting text as a result of constrained highway capacity on the A27 there is provision within draft Policy I1 of the Proposed Submission Local Plan and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to ensure the infrastructure requirements and funding mechanisms are available to support the delivery of housing.

We therefore request the Council review the approach towards meeting the full local housing needs of the District and plan for an increased supply of housing over the Plan period, in particular within the early years of the Plan.

The District’s local housing need and the development strategy is ‘unsound’. The policy requirement to deliver 10,359 dwellings / 575 dwellings per annum, (dpa) over the Plan period (2021-2039), is derived from a supressed objectively assessed need of 11,497 / 638 dpa. Whereas this is referred to in paragraph 5.2 of the supporting text as a result of constrained highway capacity on the A27 there is provision within draft Policy I1 of the Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan and the associated Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to ensure the infrastructure and funding mechanisms are available to support the delivery of housing.

15% above the housing requirement should be identified to safeguard against the non-implementation and delivery of housing proposals and to ensure the Plan is effective and positively prepared.
Higher number of homes should be allocated to the Manhood Peninsula.

The table included within Policy H1 shows an overall housing supply of 10,359 dwellings over the 2021-2039 plan period. This equates to a flexibility allowance of just 0.087%. Further flexibility needs to be built into the housing supply to allow for any phasing issues and an element of non-delivery of sites. The Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill: reforms to national planning policy consultation noted that their analysis suggests 15% of planning permissions are not progressed or are revised.

In this regard, Gladman consider that an additional supply flexibility of 15% above the housing requirement should be identified to safeguard against the non-implementation and delivery of housing proposals and to ensure the Plan is effective and positively prepared in line with paragraph 35 of the NPPF. This would result in the Council needing to identify a further 1,550 homes over the plan period.

Gladman strongly disagree with the no. of homes allocated to the Manhood Peninsula. The 963 dwellings figure over the plan period comprises of existing housing completions and commitments in the area and it does not include any new strategic housing allocations. The Council maintain that is due to recognition of the recently permitted growth and the on-going constraints in the area such as groundwater flood risk. The reason why there is a high no. of commitments in the area in recent years is due to Chichester District Council currently being unable to demonstrate a robust five-year housing land supply.

A small amount of allocated housing growth has been allocated to the Manhood Peninsula area of the district due to the uncertainty surrounding the impact of groundwater flood risk in the area, following the publication of the revised PPG guidance on flood risk and coastal change (August 2022). A high-level data map was produced by JBA Consulting which indicates likely groundwater levels across the district taking into account factors such as topography, groundwater recharge volumes and spatial variations in aquifer storage and transmission properties. Whilst this provides a useful starting point for any assessment of groundwater flood risk, it does not necessarily assess the risk of groundwater flood risk.

Gladman’s land interest at land off Main Road, Birdham lies in the Manhood Peninsula area. An outline planning application was submitted by Gladman in June 2021 and is currently under determination by the Council (application ref: 21/01830/OUT). Gladman have recently submitted a Groundwater Flood Risk Assessment (GFRA) which concludes that the site is at negligible risk of groundwater flooding at ground level and low to moderate risk below ground level with appropriate mitigation where required. The GFRA is currently subject to review by the Lead Local Flood Authority and if a no objection response is submitted, the application will be reported to Chichester’s Planning Committee with no outstanding technical issues likely to be in April 2023.

Furthermore, Gladman have concerns that progressing with the proposed housing requirement in its current form will further exacerbate the significant shortage of affordable homes within Chichester and increase affordability issues in the district. The ratio of house prices to earnings in 2021 for Chichester is 14.61 and is therefore one of highest in the country.

Address the housing need. Housing figures should be assigned to settlements which need growth to sustain existing services and which have public transport options.

A key objective of the Government is to significantly boost the supply of housing. Paragraph 60 of the NPPF states that to support this aim it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed.

In addition, paragraph 11 of the NPPF states:

Strategic policies should, as a minimum, provide for objectively assessed needs for housing and other uses, as well as any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas, unless:

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area;

or

ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.

Paragraph 26 of the NPPF further states:

Effective and on-going joint working between strategic policy-making authorities and relevant bodies is integral to the production of a positively prepared and justified strategy. In particular, joint working should help to determine where additional infrastructure is necessary, and whether development needs that cannot be met wholly within a particular plan area could be met elsewhere.

Section 33a of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 also requires planning authorities to co-operate with other local planning authorities and to engage constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis in the preparation of the Plan, in so far as it relates to a strategic matter. A strategic matter includes the sustainable development and use of land that has or would have a significant impact on at least two planning areas.

Policy H1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out a housing target of at least 10,350 dwellings to be delivered in the period 2021-2039. This equates to an annual provision of 575 dwellings per year, 63 dwellings per year less than the housing target set by Government. Provision for accommodating unmet need arising from the Chichester District part of the South Downs National Park is now no longer proposed. Over the plan period this equates to 1,134 fewer dwellings provided, and potentially 340 fewer affordable homes (based on 30% provision).

The reason for the reduced housing target is cited as being ‘constraints’, in particular the capacity of the A27.

However, the Local Plan fails to consider how housing growth can help to sustain and expand existing public transport provision to make it a more attractive and viable option for existing and future residents. Further housing can also help to support existing shops and services in a settlement which can be accessed without the need to use the A27.

In particular, Birdham has a range of services and facilities suitable for serving the day to day needs of residents, including a primary school, shop and outdoor community facilities. Regular use of the A27 is not therefore inevitable if living in a settlement where a good range of facilities exists.

In addition, the Local Plan is proposing to deliver 114,652sqm of new employment space up to 2039. If the Local Plan fails to provide sufficient homes to house a local workforce it is in effect relying on in-commuting which will worsen the identified A27 capacity issues.

The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. Sustainable and suitable locations for growth, such as Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be revisited to help need the housing supply shortfall. The Council should also critically review the robustness of the ‘Category b Known commitments’ supply components.

Chichester District Council's Regulation 19 Local Plan housing requirement in Policy H1 should account for the cross boundary infrastructure mitigation contributions and take positive steps to secure phased development needs allied to infrastructure to address its unmet need (including via the West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Planning Board i.e. Local Strategic Statement - LSS3 update) as far as possible.

Arun District Council (ADC) is concerned that the proposed Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs is not positively prepared or justified. Subject to ongoing Duty to Cooperate discussions with Chichester District Council (CDC), ADC hopes to resolve these matters with a view to securing a Statement of Common Ground and subsequent withdrawal of these objections before the plan is submitted:-

- Level of unmet need for the plan period beyond 2026 is unresolved with potentially significant cross boundary implications

We proposed the following changes:

1) Increase the Policy H1 housing figure to at least 712 dpa (12,816 dwellings over the plan period) to meet the standard method figure in full; to help meet unmet needs arsing within the South Downs National Park; and to provide a 5% delivery buffer:
2) Increase the Policy H1 East-West Corridor sub-area housing provision figure from 8,717 dwellings to 11,174 dwellings between 2021 to 2039.
3) Update the Policy H1 components of housing supply figures, in particular the ‘Category b Known commitments’ following a critical review of the deliverability of the respective supply sites.
4) Re-consideration locations previously identified in the Preferred Approaches consultation as sustainable / suitable locations for growth, such as Fishbourne.

c) Meeting Housing Needs

i) The Housing Requirement

2.22 Para 5.2 of the draft Local Plan identifies a constrained supply figure of 575dpa is proposed, below the identified housing needs for the District which is calculated at 638dpa (through the Standard Method). This equates to a shortfall of 1,134 dwellings against identified housing needs across the Plan period of 2021 – 2039 or circa. 10% of the identified housing needs.

2.23 Moreover, the draft Plan no longer seeks to provide an additional allowance for accommodating unmet need arising from the South Downs National Park. The draft Plan notes that this is due to constraints arising from transport capacity, in particular, the operational capacity of the A27 Chichester by-pass which forms part of the Strategic Road Network governed by National Highways.

2.24 However, we consider this position is not positively prepared and is unjustified, and therefore results in a Plan which is not “sound”.

2.25 This is because on a review of the Local Plan Transport Study (January 2023) (LPTS) there appear to be significant matters which have not been considered by the Council which would allow identified housing needs to be achieved in full. This includes:

• The LPTS and draft Local Plan makes no allowance for the RIS 3 funding review, which is due to be concluded in 2023/24. The A27 has previously been identified as a location for government investment (circa. £100m), with the funding only withdrawn as it was not possible to get consensus between local authorities. However, it is reasonable to assume that an award of funds is likely through RIS 3. An award of fund through RIS3 would significantly increase network capacity on the A27, which in turn would enable greater levels of growth to be realised – it is noted that the LPTS sensitivity testing demonstrates an additional 165dpa can be achieved with the delivery of the full mitigation package.;

• The modelling underpinning the LPTS may overestimate the amount of traffic that is likely to be generated by the planned growth strategy. A blanket trip rate may not be reflective of the nature and location of identified developments, and no allowance has been made for the internalisation of trips within strategic sites, and the allowance made for sustainable travel (5%) does not correspond with WSCC Travel Plan targets (10%);

• The baseline traffic flows informing the modelling has a 2014 base, with further validation undertaken in 2018. Changes to traffic flows as a result of behavioural change since the Covid-19 pandemic will therefore not be reflected in the assessment;

• In the period since the modelling informing the LPTS has been undertaken, future traffic growth has been reforecast by the Department for Transport and subsequently released in December 2022. The forecast growth is considerably lower than that used to inform the LPTS, and thus the assessment overestimates future year base line flows;

• No additional modelling of a 700 dpa strategy with the reduced mitigation package has been undertaken. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed package of measures cannot accommodate an uplift in dpa;

• The mitigation strategy appears to goes beyond mitigation of the development impacts and result in an improvement of conditions beyond the baseline flows. This would suggest that there is headroom in the strategy to accommodate an uplift in dpa, even without improvements at Stockbridge;

• There is a significant difference in the costing outputs of the mitigation strategy prepared by Stantec, as authors of the LTPS, and the CDC-WSCC revisions. It is not unreasonable to assume that the Stantec costings are accurate, given its experience of such infrastructure and that the exercise was informed by National Highways, who govern the A27 as part of the Strategic Road Network. Further consideration should be given as to whether the uplifted costs presented by CDC-WSCC are accurate.

2.26 We therefore consider that the CDC should be looking to meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet need from South Downs National Park, which was identified as circa. 40dpa in the Preferred Approaches consultation (December 2018). In addition, an appropriate buffer (i.e. 5%) should also be applied to ensure there is a realistic prospect of meeting housing needs.

2.27 If CDC was to adopt this approach, it would result in an increased requirement of 712 dpa, or 12,816 dwellings over the course of the Plan period. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes would need to be identified and allocated through the Plan to address this uplift.

2.28 In meeting this additional need, re-consideration of locations previously identified in the Preferred Approaches consultation as sustainable / suitable locations for growth, such as Fishbourne, would clearly be required.

ii) Components of Supply

2.29 Policy H1 (Meeting Housing Needs) identifies that the total supply across the Plan Period (of 10,359 dwellings) is comprised of:

• Completions 2021/22 – 712 dwellings;
• Known commitments:
o Outstanding 2015 Local Plan and Site Allocations DPD 2014 – 2029 allocations without permission – 2,210 dwellings;
o Outstanding ‘made’ Neighbourhood Plan allocations without planning permission – 100 dwellings; and
o Planning permission as of 01 January 2023 – 3,364 dwellings.
• New Strategic Locations / Broad Locations for Development and Allocations without planning permission – 3,056 dwellings;
• Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements without planning permission – 260 dwellings; and
• Windfall (small site allowance) – 657 dwellings.

2.30 A significant proportion of the above ‘known commitments’ (circa. 21%) comprise outstanding allocation from the 2015 Local Plan and 2014 Site Allocations DPD. These allocations, that do not benefit from planning permission, have simply been ‘carried forward’ from previous Plan-making exercises. Given the time which has elapsed since these allocations were previously considered and adopted, and the lack of progress being made in delivering homes at these allocations, the Council should satisfy itself that these allocated sites remain suitable and deliverable locations for re-allocation in the draft Plan. It is considered that the approach of carrying these allocations forward and re—allocating them within the draft Local Plan without evidence to confirm they remain deliverable or developable renders these allocations as unjustified. Clearly, if there is insufficient evidence to confirm these sites are deliverable or developable, then this brings into question whether re-allocating these sites in the draft Plan is an effective strategy for addressing growth requirements.

2.31 Further, of the above components of supply in Policy H2 (Strategic Locations / Allocations) 2,150 dwellings (circa. 21%) are attributed to broad locations (in the case of 1,050 dwellings in Southbourne) or neighbourhood planning areas (for the locations of Chichester City, Nutbourne and Hambrook, Loxwood, Boxgrove, Fishbourne, Kirdford, North Mundham, Plaistow and Ifold, Westbourne, and Wisborough Green) where specific sites will be allocated through Neighbourhood Plans or a subsequent Development Plan Document.

2.32 As indicated by the Housing Trajectory at Appendix E of the draft Local Plan there is a clear need for new allocation sites to come forward quickly, especially as existing sites under construction are scheduled to (in the main) conclude within the next 3 – 5 years.

2.33 We consider there is a significant risk from the current strategy which effectively postpones identifying site specific allocations for over 1/5 of the current housing requirements until further Plan-making exercises are completed. As currently drafted, we consider the strategy is not positively prepared, nor would it be effective in addressing housing needs over the Plan period.

2.34 We consider this could be rectified through the identification and allocation (through the emerging Plan itself) of additional suitable sites, such as Gleeson’s site in Fishbourne as detailed in Section 3.

Recommended Change
2.35 In view of the above, we proposed the following changes:

1) Increase the Policy H1 housing figure to at least 712 dpa (12,816 dwellings over the plan period) to meet the standard method figure in full; to help meet unmet needs arsing within the South Downs National Park; and to provide a 5% delivery buffer:

Housing Figure Element Dwellings Per Annum Dwellings between 2021 and 2039
Standard Method 638 11,484
South Downs National Park Unmet needs Allowance 40 720
5% Delivery Buffer 34 612
Total Housing Figure 712 12,816

2) Increase the Policy H1 East-West Corridor sub-area housing provision figure from 8,717 dwellings to 11,174 dwellings between 2021 to 2039.
3) Update the Policy H1 components of housing supply figures, in particular the ‘Category b Known commitments’ following a critical review of the deliverability of the respective supply sites.

These additional homes need to be cited close or in an urban area where there are sustainable transport options available and a funcitoning sewage system which overflows whenever there is heavy rain.

If additional houses are required the total should be massively.

Also the date from which new applications count towards numbers should include the 50 council/housing association properties built off Pond Copse Lane. Scandalous that these have not been included in any housing numbers.

Adding an additional 220 homes to Loxwood is not sustainable. This is a rural location with absolutely nothing by way of public transport. The village does not even have a shop at the moment.

The village has dutifully supported enlargement through its now 2 Neighbourhood Plans, and now you want to turn the village in to a small town by making the village take an additional 220 dwellings. The sewage system cannot cope at the moment let alone adding hundreds more.

All but the most essential development should be stopped completely for the foreseeable future. Also, consideration should be given to protecting the marine environment off of Selsey, one of the most diverse and production marine habitats in southern Britain!

A disproportionate amount of building has already taken place on the Manhood Peninsular and in Selsey, in particular, already. This has damaged every aspect of this part of West Sussex. The strain on facilities, roads, etc has reached breaking point. One of best areas for wildlife in West Sussex has been very badly affected to the detriment of said wildlife. Noise and light pollution is at an all-time high. It is not enough now to say large scale projects will paused for now. All but the most essential development should be stopped completely for the foreseeable future.

Also, consideration should be given to protecting the marine environment off of Selsey, one of the most diverse and production marine habitats in southern Britain!

In the 20 years I have lived in Sesley the decline in mammals, birds, insects and marine life is horrifying and this is a direct result of over development. This over development has been allowed and overseen by various MP’s and councillors over the years and it is really quite disgraceful.

Proposed site in attachment could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Council’s Local Plan, or at least through an allocation of numbers to the
Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.

1 Introduction

1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on behalf of our client Landacre (Chichester) Limited. The submission covers the general principles of the Local Plan, but has a focus on land at New Bridge Farm, Clay Lane Chichester, which is in our client’s control. The land is shown on the attached context plan (land outlined in purple) included
at Appendix 1 and hereon referred to as the site.

1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests

2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.

2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Council’s Local Plan, or at least through an allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.

Is the plan ‘sound’?

2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

Is the plan positively prepared and justified?

2.4 Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).

2.5 The SA then goes on to discuss the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:

 Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding SDNP) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period
 The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa)

2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.

2.7 It should be noted that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was similarly constrained and an early review was the only basis for accepting this reduced housing figure. This early review did not take place.

2.8 In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the Transport Study (2023) which concludes that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that our client do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.

2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts. The absence of consideration of additional improvements works appears to be a significant oversight in the preparation of the Transport Study and overall plan making.

2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.

2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need, which is of relevance given scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP.

2.12 It should also be noted that the draft Plan does not therefore address any requirements in relation to unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities. Notably, Arun District Council have confirmed that they will be objecting to the Plan and currently proposed on the basis that they have a significant housing need themselves. This is likely to be further influenced by unmet need from Chichester, who again are seeking to constrain housing requirements, which was the case in 2015. The subsequent knock on from that was for Arun to address some of that need in their 2018 Local Plan.

2.13 Given that our client does not accept that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery (based on the Council’s Transport Study comments and that of its own consultants), it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrates reasonable alternatives have been considered and it is not therefore positively prepared, nor is their approach to housing figures justified.

Effective?

2.14 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.

2.15 It should also be noted that the plan does rely on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and / or Small site allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document. This states the following in terms of delivery:

If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this Local Plan.
2.16 The above is not precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery within the Plan period. Whilst my comments are noted above that the Plan could be effective, the Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the supplementary Development Plan documents in order to give a clear timescale for this to be completed.

Is the plan consistent with National Policy?

2.17 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the
535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify their alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Development in Chichester City

3.1 Our clients land is located within Chichester City on land north of Clay Lane. The draft Local Plan sets out that the city of Chichester is the main settlement with a population of around 29,193(4) and is the principal location for the provision of higher education and shopping facilities. The city is renowned for its cathedral, its historic heritage and university and is the largest centre of employment in the plan area. The Plan goes on to state that most new development will be well located in and around the main settlements of Chichester, together with Tangmere and Southbourne.

3.2 As would be expected, the Local Plan allocates a significant proportion of housing to the city, which includes a site specific allocation of 1,600 homes to the west of Chichester under Policy A6 (part of current Local Plan allocations), 680 homes to the east under Policy A10, 500 homes to Westhampnett and 585 homes at Shopwyke Lakes. A further allocation of housing numbers for
270 homes under Policy A2 are proposed for Chichester City to be delivered as part of a Neighbourhood Plan for the area site allocations DPD.

3.3 The proposed 270 home allocation should comprise a minimum figure, which for the reasons set out above in relation to the A27 would be feasible. It should also set out that the Council should consider a mix of both city centre and edge of city sites to ensures a mix of house types and sizes, with town centre more likely to comprise flats and edge of settlement a mix of 1-4 bedroom homes, which will include family homes.

3.4 Our position on the approach to further allocations and the need for clear timescales to ensure soundness of the Plan is set out at 2.13-2.16 above.
4 Suitability of land New Bridge Farm, Clay Lane, Chichester

4.1 The site covers an area of approximately 3.1 hectares and located to the North-East of Fishbourne. The site comprises of an open field, bordered by mature foliage and fencing. The site is reasonably flat. The frontage is on the Southern boundary of the application site, which benefits from access to Clay Lane. It could be suitable for a quantum of development between 50-70 dwellings.

4.2 Access to the site is via an existing agricultural access from Clay Lane, which adjoins the southernmost corner of the site. The potential means of access has been the subject of a formal pre-application enquiry with WSCC as highway authority. This confirmed that a suitable means of access could be achieved for circa 70 dwellings.

4.3 Whilst the access would go through part of the proposed wildlife corridor to the west of the city, the upgrade of the access is not considered to undermine the overall intentions or integrity of the wildlife gap. However, our client would maintain that a wildlife corridor would better serve the area to the west of Fishbourne, rather than to the west of city. This is an uninterrupted route, as opposed to that currently proposed.

4.4 The site is located within flood zone 1, with a small area of surface water flood risk area identified outside of the site, along the Western boundary.

4.5 The site is located to the North-East of the village of Fishbourne, which comprises a settlement of approximately 2,325 people. Whilst the site does not directly adjoin the settlement boundary, the site is abutted by the approved development scheme at White House Farm Development. The site is therefore enclosed by recently approved development to the north and east. Furthermore, to the South, on the other side of Clay Lane an application for 25 dwellings was approved under reference CC/17/03117/FUL and the A27 embankment to the west. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the site is enclosed by an established principle of development.

4.6 The site also benefits from direct connection to the public footpath network, which runs along the western and northern boundaries. This continues west through White House Farm (1,600 home allocation) and onwards to the city centre.

4.7 The site has the potential to deliver homes in a sustainable location, on a site that would effectively comprise an infill form of development. The site is suitably located to deliver housing without harm to cultural heritage of the city.
5 Conclusion

5.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, we consider that the Plan area is capable of accommodating a greater housing quantum. This will facilitate development and meet the objectives of the Local Plan. The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given constraints of the SDNP. The Council’s position of growth is predicated on the basis of the A27 not having sufficient capacity to accommodate a higher growth of 535 dpa. Its own evidence base (Transport Study 2023) contradicts this position and therefore the Council should at least be meeting their local housing need and also considering what part it can play with meeting unmet needs for the adjoining authorities.

5.2 At present, the Plan fails to be positively prepared and is inconsistent with the NPPF. On the basis that the Council don’t reconsider their position, we wish to be present at the relevant Examination hearings to represent our clients’ interests and further discuss the views set out in this submission.

If the 25 dwelling allocation at Plaistow & Ifold is intended to be additional to the 10 units identified in the last 2015 Local Plan, then the allocation should be increased to 35 dwellings as a minimum to reflect the non-implementation of the 2015 allocation.

The ‘tests of soundness’ for Local Plan preparation are set out in paragraph 35 of the July 2021 NPPF. They require the 2021-39 Local Plan to have been:

• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;

• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;

• Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and

• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

Local Plan reviews are a legal requirement every 5 years in accordance with Regulation 10A of the 2012 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations. The Regulation 19 Plan is not legally compliant as it has not been reviewed within 5 years of the last Plan adopted in July 2015. It is also disappointing that the failure of the current Regulation 19 Local Plan to meet objectively assessed need (OAN) of 638 dpa outside the national park has not been properly evidenced in any up to date statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities with regards to the ‘duty to cooperate’.

At this stage we believe the Plan as drafted therefore fails the positively prepared, effective, and consistent with national planning policy tests.

Duty to Cooperate

The 2014-2029 Local Plan adopted in 2015 does not meet the full objectively assessed housing needs for the area. But it did recognise that future proposals to improve the capacity of the A27 and wastewater treatment works could facilitate additional housing growth. For this reason, it committed the Council to a review of the Plan within five years to ensure that housing needs could be met. That undertaking to review within 5 years was not met.

In 2021 the Council invited an advisory visit from PINS to advise on how the present Local Plan should be prepared. The inspector advised that if the Plan was prepared which did not meet the full housing needs of the area, it would have to show that it had followed the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities in maximising the effectiveness of plan preparation.

The inspector said the Duty to Cooperate was therefore critical in the preparation of the Local Plan Review. At the time of the meeting, the council said discussions with neighbouring authorities had been carried out on the basis that the Local Plan Review would meet the full objectively assessed housing needs (OAN) for the area. However if this was not the case, the inspector said evidence of constructive, active, and on-going engagement to determine whether or not development needs could be met elsewhere would need to be shown. Importantly, the inspector said,1) ‘a failure to meet the Duty to Cooperate cannot be remedied during the examination process because it applies to the preparation of the Plan, which ends upon submission’, and 2) local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before submitting plans for examination.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (January 2023) forms part of the evidence base for the Submission Local Plan. In the event, the Local Plan excluding the national park only provides for 575 dpa against an OAN of 638 dpa. However this under provision against need has not been justified anywhere in discussions with neighbouring authorities before the Plan was submitted. Appendix 1 of the Statement of Compliance lists those authorities that were consulted during the earlier Regulation 18 Preferred Approach consultation. Appendix 2 lists those authorities where Statements of Common Ground have been agreed with Chichester DC for the Regulation Submission 19 Plan. No statements have produced or agreed. Therefore as it stands the under provision of housing against OAN in the Plan has not been justified. The failure to meet the duty to cooperate cannot be remedied because it has already ended with the Submission Plan. The plan therefore fails the positively prepared and justified tests. It also fails to comply with national policy in the NPPF paragraph 24-27 which advises on the duty to cooperate approach.

Local Plan Policies

The remainder of these comments deal with the proposed Settlement Hierarchy - policy S2, policy H1 – Meeting Housing Need, Non-Strategic Housing Sites – Policy H3 and T1 Transport Infrastructure.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan provides the justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan. We agree that Plaistow & Ifold has been properly identified as a service village in the settlement hierarchy.

Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
The identified housing need has been informed by the 2022 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). It explains that based on the standard methodology, since the last HEDNA in 2020, the district wide housing need has increased from 746 dpa to 763 dpa (621 dpa in the Plan Area to 638 dpa) with the balance to be found in the national park. The proposed 638 dpa for the area of the district outside the national park is the figure that will be tested at the forthcoming Examination.
We have already explained why the failure of the Council to plan for the 638 dpa in the Regulation 19 Local Plan has not been justified in connection with the duty to cooperate and no evidence has been presented in any statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities to show how development needs could be met elsewhere.
We note from policy H1 that the components of housing supply include outstanding housing commitments without planning permission from the 2015 adopted Local Plan, the Site Allocations DPD, and ‘made’ Neighbourhood Pans.
However, it is unclear how the above housing supply components have been calculated and how they have translated into the strategic and non-strategic allocations in policies H2 and H3.
In the case of Plaistow and Ifold, the last adopted 2015 Local Plan identified the settlement with an allocation of 10 dwellings. The subsequent Site Allocation DPD identified land north of Little Springfield Farm for 10 no. units. A Neighbourhood Plan for Plaistow and Ifold was produced but was withdrawn and no site allocations were confirmed. The allocated site north of Little Springfield Farm remains undeveloped.
With specific reference to Plaistow & Ifold we would therefore query whether 1) the existing housing commitments without planning permission in the 2015 Local Plan and the Site Allocations DPD have been double counted, and 2) whether the non-implementation of the 10 units from the 2015 Local Plan have been ring fenced to count against the new proposed allocation of 25 dwellings at the settlement? In which case, we would question why a further 15 dwellings are only proposed at a service village in the hierarchy compared to other service villages in the NE part of the district which are proposed for higher levels of development (Loxwood 220 dwellings, Kirdford 50 dwellings and Wisborough Green 75 dwellings).
If the 25 dwelling allocation at Plaistow & Ifold is intended to be additional to the 10 units identified in the last 2015 Local Plan, then the allocation should be increased to 35 dwellings as a minimum to reflect the non-implementation of the 2015 allocation.
Policy H3 – Non-Strategic Parish Allocations
Policy H3 identifies non-strategic parish allocations. We have explained above our queries with the 25 dwelling allocation to Plaistow & Ifold, whether it has allowed for the non-implementation of the 10 units in the last 2015 Plan and why it compares so unfavourably with much higher levels of development for the other service villages in the NE part of the district.
We would also query why the options outlined in the PINS advisory visit of 2021 have not been more thoroughly tested for increased housing provision in the north part of the district to increase the supply of housing to meet OAN. There is no updated Settlement Hierarchy background paper, and the revised housing distribution has not been justified anywhere in the evidence base for the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

Policy T1 – Transport Infrastructure
The policy objectives to ensure new development is well located and designed to avoid or minimise the need for travel and encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel as an alternative to the private car are supported. However, the proposed contribution of £7.7k per dwelling towards A27 highway improvements applies to new housing across the district even in the NE part of the district where impacts from development on the A27 will be less than developments in the south of the district.
In any event it is unclear how the contributions are justified when the responsibility for trunk road infrastructure improvements rests with National Highways.
The proposed contribution in T1 is therefore questioned and in our view, flawed. The level of contribution set out in the policy and the principle of a contribution will therefore require further testing at the forthcoming Examination.

The ‘tests of soundness’ for Local Plan preparation are set out in paragraph 35 of the July 2021 NPPF. They require the 2021-39 Local Plan to have been:

• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.
Local Plan reviews are a legal requirement every 5 years in accordance with Regulation 10A of the 2012 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations. The Regulation 19 Plan is not legally compliant as it has not been reviewed within 5 years of the last Plan adopted in July 2015. It is also disappointing that the failure of the current Regulation 19 Local Plan to meet objectively assessed need (OAN) of 638 dpa outside the national park has not been properly evidenced in any up to date statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities with regards to the ‘duty to cooperate’.

At this stage we believe the Plan as drafted therefore fails the ‘positively prepared’, ‘effective’, and ‘consistent with national policy’ tests.

In addition, with regard to the longer term growth requirements and the singular issue of a potential new settlement the plan also fails the ‘justified’ and ‘consistent with national policy’ tests of soundness.

Duty to Cooperate
The 2014-2029 Local Plan adopted in 2015 does not meet the full objectively assessed housing needs for the area. But it did recognise that future proposals to improve the capacity of the A27 and wastewater treatment works could facilitate additional housing growth. For this reason, it committed the Council to a review of the Plan within five years to ensure that housing needs could be met. That undertaking to review within 5 years was not met.

In 2021 the Council invited an advisory visit from PINS to advise on how the present Local Plan should be prepared. The inspector advised that if the Plan was prepared which did not meet the full housing needs of the area, it would have to show that it had followed the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities in maximising the effectiveness of plan preparation.

The inspector said the Duty to Cooperate was therefore critical in the preparation of the Local Plan Review. At the time of the meeting, the council said discussions with neighbouring authorities had been carried out on the basis that the Local Plan Review would meet the full objectively assessed housing needs (OAN) for the area. However if this was not the case, the inspector said evidence of constructive, active, and on-going engagement to determine whether or not development needs could be met elsewhere would need to be shown. Importantly, the inspector said,1) ‘a failure to meet the Duty to Cooperate cannot be remedied during the examination process because it applies to the preparation of the Plan, which ends upon submission’, and 2) local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before submitting plans for examination.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (January 2023) forms part of the evidence base for the Submission Local Plan. In the event, the Local Plan excluding the national park only provides for 575 dpa against an OAN of 638 dpa. However this under provision against need has not been justified anywhere in discussions with neighbouring authorities before the Plan was submitted. Appendix 1 of the Statement of Compliance lists those authorities that were consulted during the earlier Regulation 18 Preferred Approach consultation. Appendix 2 lists those authorities where Statements of Common Ground have been agreed with Chichester DC for the Regulation Submission 19 Plan. No statements have produced or agreed. Therefore as it stands the under provision of housing against OAN in the Plan has not been justified. The failure to meet the duty to cooperate cannot be remedied because it has already ended with the Submission Plan. The plan therefore fails the positively prepared and justified tests. It also fails to comply with national policy in the NPPF paragraph 24-27 which advises on the duty to cooperate approach.

Local Plan Policies
The remainder of these comments deal with the Settlement Hierarchy policy S2, H1, H2 H3 and H8.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan provides the justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan. We agree that the hierarchy prioritising development at Chichester as the sub regional centre, followed by development at the settlement hubs, service villages and the rest of the plan area is reasonable. However, although the distribution of housing amongst the settlements in the current Regulation 19 plan has been updated compared to the last Regulation 18 plan, the background paper itself has not been updated. Nor is there any justification or explanation for the change in the quantum of strategic and non-strategic housing to the different categories of settlement in the background paper or the Local Plan itself.

Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
The identified housing need has been informed by the 2022 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). It explains that based on the standard methodology, since the last HEDNA in 2020, the district wide housing need has increased from 746 dpa to 763 dpa (621 dpa in the Plan Area to 638 dpa) with the balance to be found in the national park. The proposed 638 dpa for the area of the district outside the national park is the figure that will be tested at the forthcoming Examination.
We have already explained why the failure of the Council to plan for the 638 dpa in the Regulation 19 Local Plan has not been justified in connection with the duty to cooperate and no evidence has been presented in any statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities to show how development needs could be met elsewhere.
Policy H2 – Strategic Site Allocations and Policy H3 – Non-Strategic Parish Allocations
Policy H2 identifies strategic scale and policy H3, non-strategic allocations. We have explained above that the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper was prepared for the 2018 Preferred Options Regulation 18 Local Plan but has not been updated to provide any justification for the revised housing distribution and quantum of development for the named locations and settlements in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
Policy H8 – Specialist accommodation for Older People
National policy in the online planning practice guidance (PPG) is clear that the need to provide housing for older people is critical. The guidance on the provision of this type of housing states:
• Plan-making authorities should set clear policies to address the housing needs of groups with particular needs such as older and disabled people. These policies can set out how the plan-making authority will consider proposals for the different types of housing that these groups are likely to require.
• They could provide indicative figures or a range for the number of units of specialist housing for older people needed across the plan area throughout the plan period.
• It includes the following within the general definition of specialist housing - age-restricted general market housing, retirement living or sheltered housing, extra care housing or housing-with-care, residential care homes and nursing homes, and senior co-housing communities.
• LPA’s can identify sites for co -housing communities and other specialist housing types for older people, because,
• Allocating sites can provide greater certainty for developers and encourage the provision of sites in suitable locations. This may be appropriate where there is an identified unmet need for specialist housing. The location of housing is a key consideration for older people who may be considering whether to move (including moving to more suitable forms of accommodation).

Factors to consider include the proximity of sites to good public transport, local amenities, health services and town centres.
In our view however, draft Policy H8 doesn’t reflect the guidance in the PPG. For instance, although the policy sets out a threshold of provision for specialist housing of housing sites of 200 or more units, there is no guidance on the actual % provision as there is for example, on affordable housing. All it says is the specific type and amount of accommodation required will depend on the size and location of the site.
The supply of specialist housing should not just be focused on large scale housing schemes. The landscape and environmental constraints across the district even outside the national park would not necessarily allow for large 200 plus unit schemes in all locations. To support an ageing population policy should support the provision of suitable specialist housing to meet the differing needs of individuals across a range of options and in a range of locations.
The second part of H8 should therefore confirm that proposals for specialist housing, such as homes for older people will be supported without any policy qualification for a site’s location within or outside a settlement boundary or within an AONB where a proposal in its local context is not deemed to represent major development.
Rather than rely on the criteria based approach, the policy should also allow for the allocation of sites for specialist accommodation for older people in a Neighbourhood Plan where a site has the support of local people.

The ‘tests of soundness’ for Local Plan preparation are set out in paragraph 35 of the July 2021 NPPF. They require the 2021-39 Local Plan to have been:

• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.
Local Plan reviews are a legal requirement every 5 years in accordance with Regulation 10A of the 2012 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations. A question could be raised over the legality of the Regulation 19 Plan as it has not been reviewed within 5 years of the last Plan, which was adopted in July 2015. On the Council’s own admission the current Regulation 19 Local Plan fails to meet objectively assessed need (OAN) of 638 dpa outside the national park. However, without any properly evidenced ‘duty to cooperate’ statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities, it is unclear whether this under provision is justified.

We support the local authority in its attempts to navigate what is a challenging situation in relation to housing delivery within the district, however at this stage we believe the Plan, as drafted, fails to meet the ‘positively prepared’, ‘effective’, and ‘consistent with national policy’ tests and therefore could be interpreted as unsound.

In a bid to assist the process, we have collated our thoughts on how the Regulation 19 Local Plan could be improved below.

Local Plan Policies
These comments deal with the proposed Spatial Strategy (Policy S1) Settlement Hierarchy (S2), policies H1, H2 H3 and NE4. We also propose a new policy H4.

Policy S1- Spatial Strategy
Policy S1 deals with the spatial strategy of the plan. It has been informed by the role of each settlement within a hierarchy based on its facilities and services.

We agree that the spatial strategy for delivering growth and development should focus on Chichester
city as the main sub-regional centre and most sustainable location with a wide range of services and facilities. However, there are self-evident constraints to further strategic scale development at the settlement itself because of its historic setting, the A27 to the south and east, the harbour AONB to the west and the national park in the north. Focusing growth close to the city would however still reinforce its role as a sub-regional centre and locating a significant proportion of development in or around
Chichester city ahead of the second tier settlement hubs would reduce the need to travel to facilities and deliver sustainable development.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan provides the justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan. We agree that the hierarchy prioritising development at Chichester as the sub regional centre, followed by development at the settlement hubs, service villages and the rest of the plan area is reasonable. However, although the distribution of housing amongst the settlements in the current Regulation 19 plan has been updated compared to the last Regulation 18 plan, the background paper itself has not been updated. Nor is there any justification or explanation for the change in the quantum of strategic and non-strategic housing to the different categories of settlement in the background paper or the Local Plan itself.

Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
The identified housing need has been informed by the 2022 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). It explains that based on the standard methodology, since the last HEDNA in 2020, the district wide housing need has increased from 746 dpa to 763 dpa (621 dpa in the Plan Area to 638 dpa) with the balance to be found in the national park. The proposed 638 dpa for the area of the district outside the national park is the figure that will be tested at the forthcoming Examination.
As indicated earlier, without any properly evidenced ‘duty to cooperate’ statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities, it is unclear whether this under provision is justified.

Policy H2 – Strategic Site Allocations and Policy H3 – Non-Strategic Parish Allocations
Policy H2 identifies strategic scale and policy H3, non-strategic allocations. We have explained above that the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper was prepared for the 2018 Preferred Options Regulation 18 Local Plan but has not been updated to provide any justification for the revised housing distribution and quantum of development for the named locations and settlements in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
Longer Term Growth Requirements
Paragraph 22 of the NPPF says strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15-year period from the date of the adoption of a plan to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure. This justifies the proposed end date of the Plan of 2039. However, the NPPF goes on to state that where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.
Paragraphs 5.11-5.14 of the draft Plan says although its focus is on the development needs of the plan area up to 2039, some initial consideration has been given to the concept of a new settlement to accommodate potential longer term growth needs. This arises from some reservations about whether it will be appropriate in the longer term to continue to rely on existing sources of supply (e.g. urban extensions and urban intensification).
We agree that a new settlement would have a valuable role to play in meeting future housing need of the district and support the lower-case policy text of the Plan at paragraphs 5.11-14. However, bearing in mind the national policy guidance for a 30 year or so vision to allow for the planning and site identification for a new settlement, we see no reason why that part of the lower-case text at paragraph 5.14 of the Regulation 19 Plan should not be elevated into actual Plan policy. Such an approach would deliver benefits to the plan anyway in offering a ‘land supply reserve’ in the event the Examiner for the Local Plan finds that it should meet OAN in accordance with the ‘positively prepared’ test. If a new settlement is needed to contribute to OAN, it would then form part of the development strategy of the Plan and justify the policy in principle.
We therefore propose a new Policy H4 – A New Settlement as set out in section 6 below.
Policy NE4 – Strategic Wildlife Corridors
The Council produced a Strategic Wildlife Corridor background paper in December 2018 and another technical consultation document in July 2021. Neither document has been updated for the present Regulation 19 Local Plan. It is unclear therefore whether the ecological interest has changed and whether it can still inform the extent and location of the defined wildlife corridors in the current Plan. We say this on the basis that standard habitat surveys are usually required to be reviewed and updated after 18 months.

Paragraph 179(a) of the NPPF sets out policy to protect and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity and states that Plans should identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national, and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them.
We therefore agree that the identification of wildlife corridors in the emerging Plan is consistent with national policy but without any up to date proportionate evidence of biodiversity interest we would question whether their extent and location as shown on the relevant proposals maps have been justified.
As it stands, the wording of Policy NE4 also goes beyond the purpose of the policy which is the ‘safeguarding of wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks’.
Policy NE4 states development will only be permitted where it would not lead to an adverse effect upon the ecological value, function, integrity, and connectivity of the strategic wildlife corridors. It does not resist development in principle and so long as impacts can be adequately mitigated it should be granted.
This policy principle therefore makes redundant policy test 1 which introduces a sequential test for preferable sites outside a corridor. The test is in conflict with the underlying purpose of the policy which is to safeguard wildlife corridors from adverse harmful impacts that cannot be mitigated. Test 1 should therefore be deleted.
Development outside or in close proximity to a wildlife corridor should not be subject to the policy requirements of NE4 either and the designation should end at its boundary. ‘Close proximity’ is vague and would introduce uncertainty to the policy. If development does not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor, then there is no proper basis for the policy restriction on such development. We therefore propose the deletion of the second part of the policy as well.

Object on grounds that higher level of growth could be accommodated. Plan does not address unmet need of neighbouring authorities. Allocation in Loxwood should be based on higher growth scenario.

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation in relation to the land at Headfoldswood Farm, Loxwood, RH14 0SX, as shown on the attached Masterplan Promotional Document, and hereon referred to as the site.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation the questions in the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District to be delivered through an appropriate strategic allocation policy within the Council’s Local Plan or through an Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period and Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).
2.5 The SA then goes on to discuss the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
• Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding SDNP) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period
• The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa)
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. above seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity. It should be noted that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was similarly constrained and an early review was the only basis for accepting this reduced housing figure. This early review did not take place.
2.7 In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the evidence base documents that state that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that we do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.
2.8 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa core test, with some additional, and as yet undesigned and not costed, mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts.
2.9 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure, which appears to accommodate the higher growth figure, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF do not exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.
2.10 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need, which is of relevance given the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP.
2.11 It should also be noted that the draft Plan does not therefore address any need in relation to unmet need of neighbouring authorities and it does not contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities. Notably, Arun District Council have confirmed that they will be objecting to the Plan and currently proposed on the basis that they have a significant housing need themselves. This is likely to be further influenced by unmet need from Chichester, who again are seeking to constrain housing requirements, which was the case in 2015 and the subsequent knock on from that was for Arun to address some of that need in their 2018 Local Plan.
2.12 Given that we do not accept that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery (based on the Council’s Transport Study comments and that of its own consultants), it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrates reasonable alternatives have been considered and it is not therefore positively prepared, nor is their approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.14 It should also be noted that the Plan relies on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and / or small site allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document. This states the following in terms of delivery:
If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this Local Plan.
2.15 The above is not precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery within the Plan period. Whilst the strategy in the comments above could be effective, the Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the supplementary Development Plan documents in order to give a clear timescale for this to be completed.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent. However, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate this, the 535 dpa figure should be capped. Given the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify their alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Development in Loxwood
3.1 Our client’s land is located to the west of the village of Loxwood, which is situated to the northeast of the District. The High Street (B2133) runs through the village, connecting the A281 and A272. For a detailed context appraisal of the site and masterplan vision, please see attached the Masterplan Promotional Document. The site was submitted for the Council’s call for sites in February 2019 and is included in Council’s latest HELAA.
3.2 The Draft Local Plan defines Loxwood as a service village with local facilities and services, these include an infant and junior school, as well as a medical practice, a local shop and community facilities, including a village hall. The village has been identified in the Local Plan as a suitable location for a higher level of growth as it has suitable HELAA sites which could come forward through the Neighbourhood Plan process.
3.3 It is agreed that a strategic expansion to the west of Loxwood is the best option for growth in the north-eastern area of the District as there are fewer constraints within Loxwood in comparison to other villages within the north-eastern area of the District.
3.4 Policy A15 of the Draft Local Plan states that land will be allocated within the revised Loxwood Plan for a minimum of 220 dwellings and supporting facilities and infrastructure. This is based on a downwards adjustment scenario for Loxwood, but it should be noted this figure is closer to the lower growth scenario of 200 dwellings.
3.5 The Council acknowledges in the SA that the highest growth scenario of 1.650 homes could be justified but there are concerns regarding the deliverability of homes due the potential scale of allocations to meet the higher growth figure which in turn could affect the Council’s ability to deliver the housing within the five year period. However, the Plan currently seeks
to allocate reasonably sized housing allocations on a number of small-scale housing sites which by this logic could equally affect the Council’s ability to meet the Council’s five year housing supply. It is recommended that the middle, higher growth scenario of at least 825 homes is sought, which would allow for meaningful growth in order to meet the needs generated by the new community, such as the identified primary school. The higher housing figure would also provide the benefit of more affordable housing provision for the north-eastern area of the District.
3.6 Loxwood Parish Council have produced a revised Draft Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to allocate 126 dwellings plus 17 carried forward from the Made Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan, providing a total of 143 dwellings. The Draft Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the Council under Regulation 14 in December 2020. It is noted in response to the Reg 19 Local Plan consultation, that Loxwood Parish Council will be objecting to policy A15 and the increased housing numbers of 220 dwellings on sustainability grounds, with specific reference to water neutrality. The recent Parish Council meeting notes also indicate that there is currently little appetite to undergo another Neighbourhood Plan review, which will likely require additional resource and cost.
3.7 There is concern that relying on the Neighbourhood Plan to allocate specific sites in Loxwood, will result in unnecessary delay to delivery of housing in this area given the points raised above. Policy A15 is not therefore considered precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery in housing within Loxwood within the Plan period. It is therefore recommended that the allocation of housing sites in Loxwood should be based on a higher growth scenario of at least 825 homes which should be delivered either through a Local Plan policy allocation or within an SPD, with a clear timetable of when the SPD will be produced by the Council.
Water Neutrality
3.8 One of the constraints of the north-east of the District is the requirement is for all new development to meet water neutrality, to ensure that any new it does not impact further on the habitat site comprising the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or the Arun Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) & Ramsar site, in terms of groundwater abstraction within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone. It is anticipated that further advice and a mitigation strategy will be created by the Council and its partners to demonstrate how developments can achieve water neutrality. However, at present applicants are required to provide a water neutrality strategy to demonstrate how the development can achieve water neutrality.
3.9 To provide the Council with reassurance that the site is deliverable despite this constraint, our client has commissioned an initial water strategy based on a development of approximately 250 dwellings which includes provision for offsetting. The initial strategy indicates that water neutrality could be achieved for development on the site through water efficient fixtures and fittings, reuse of harvested water through greywater recycling for flushing toilets and offsetting through water efficiency upgrades on an educational facility located within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone. It would therefore appear on the basis of the work undertaken to date, that it would be possible for future development on this site to achieve water neutrality.
4. General Policy requirements
Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeoples’ Needs - object
4.1 The above policy sets out a requirement for 124 pitches across the Plan period, which is to be provided for by allocation of pitches on strategic allocation sites proposing 200+ homes.
4.2 Whilst we understand that there may be a district wide need, we understand that the underlying rationale underpinning this strategic approach is that insufficient sites came forward as part of the Council’s Call for Sites process. However, whilst this tells us about availability of sites, it doesn’t dictate the appropriateness of locations for gypsy traveller provision. It should also be noted that the proposed allocations would not accommodate the overall need and there is no clear quantifiable policy requirement to deliver this need. Accordingly, the approach is not considered to be robust.
4.3 What is clear is that plots are currently available in other areas of the district that have not been taken up by the Council for allocation (namely HELAA ref. HBI0028).
4.4 From our understanding there appears to be a clear absence of information regarding the requirements for pitch provision in localities and the site specific needs that are required to be met. We have not yet seen any evidence from the Council in respect of engagement with the gypsy traveller community in respect of a desire to be located on suburban residential sites – which we consider would contradict with the typical locations of gypsy traveller pitches which are located on rural sites on the periphery of rural settlements.
4.5 Due to the scale and form of the site and specific access names (larger HGVs for static homes and touring caravans) it makes it very difficult to design and suitable means of access that does not appear overly engineered, within a residential housing estate. No consideration appears to have been given to how this can be accommodated within such a site.
4.6 At this time, we consider it would not be appropriate to include such provision until further evidence has been provided on suitability of the approach, need in this specific location and suitability as part of housing allocation of this scale, with a single point of access.
4.7 On the basis of the above, we object to the proposed policy requirement.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Our client’s land is ideally placed to be able to fulfil the sustainable expansion to the west of Loxwood and the much needed, identified housing within the north-eastern plan area. The site measures 57.334 hectares and can be considered as a strategic housing site, west of Loxwood, that would deliver a higher growth of housing within this village and would appear to be able to meet water neutrality requirements. This would also support the viability of the services and facilities in the northern villages. This could include a sustainable addition to the existing village of Loxwood, result in significant enhancements to its existing services and facilities, improved links along, and connectivity to the Wey & Arun Canal and provision of at least 825 homes.

The Council should at least be meeting its local housing need and also considering what part it can play with meeting unmet needs for the adjoining authorities.

See attached representation.

We would welcome further lower case policy clarification to confirm that the allocations are fixed, and no further adjustments will be made to the figures.

See attached representation.

I write in response to the regulation 19 consultation version of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 in our capacity as promoters of Ansells Yard, Kirdford Road, Wisborough Green.

Conclusions
There are several concerns on the soundness of the plan in terms of whether it is effective, justified, positively prepared or consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.
It is not considered that the Council has justified the extent of the under supply of housing against the established housing need. There are significant concerns over the delivery of housing from the strategic allocations within the unjustified timescales as set out within the trajectory contained in the plan.

Levanter will continue to make further representations on the deliverability of the site as part of the plan making progress.

See attached representation.

See attachment.

Increase housing number per annum, site proposed for allocation (see attachment).

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on
behalf of our client Spiby Partners. The submission covers the general principles of the
Local Plan but has a focus on Land east of Foxbridge Drive and south of the B2145,
Hunston. The land is shown on the attached plan HA Appendix 1: Site Location Plan, and
hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local
Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future
development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan
Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation
phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our
client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be
through an allocation within the Local Plan or at least through the allocation of numbers
to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness
which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with
National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the
current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1: Spatial Strategy, sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and
how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1: Meeting
Housing Needs sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have
been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan
objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April
2022).
5
2.5 The SA discusses the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
(i) Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding South Downs National
Park) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period; and
(ii) The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the
uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more
than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. It should be noted
here that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was below the identified need of
505 dpa. This reduced housing figure was accepted on the basis of an early review, but
this early review did not take place.
2.7 Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings
within the plan figure, amounting to 575 dpa. This is lower than both the standard method
figure of 638 dpa and the previously consulted Preferred Approach figure of 650 dpa which
accommodated some unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority.
2.8 This draft Local Plan seeks to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity
concern along the A27 strategic road network and constraints on Waste Water Treatment
Works. The Council therefore arrive at a constrained housing figure by virtue of the
standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.
2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely to
constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the
Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that
supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of
growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study notes that
700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed
for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation
works.
2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and
concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to
appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in the
Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at
paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered
unsound on this point alone.
2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would
meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need. This is
6
of relevance given that the previous Local Plan underprovided against the OAN, and when
considering the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the
highly constrained SDNP.
Given that it is not accepted that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of
housing delivery, it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrate that
reasonable alternatives have been considered. The plan is not therefore positively
prepared, nor is the approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.12 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and
figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could
accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.13 It should also be noted that the Plan does rely on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan
and/or Small Site Allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document.
This states the following in terms of delivery:
If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of
the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for
development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this
Local Plan.
2.14 The above is not precise and does not provide any clear timetable for delivery within the
Plan period. Whilst the comments are noted above that the Plan could be effective, the
Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the Supplementary
Development Plan Documents in order to help ensure it is completed.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.15 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based
on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence
to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points
raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for
at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify the alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is
therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Duty to Cooperate
3.1 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the need for co-operation between local planning
authorities on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
7
3.2 The draft Plan does not address any need requirements in relation to unmet housing need
of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters
have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities.
3.3 The housing figures presented do not account for unmet need from the South Downs
National Park Authority. Whilst a Statement of Common Ground has been referred to, it
has not been published and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the decision
not to make any provision for the National Park is sound.
3.4 Further, Arun District Council has confirmed that it will be objecting to the Plan as currently
proposed on the basis that it has a significant housing need. This is likely to be further
influenced by Chichester not meeting its own needs, a repeat of the 2015 situation which
resulted in Arun having to address some of this within its 2018 Local Plan.
3.5 If the Plan is to proceed on the basis of providing 575dpa as per Policy H1, this will amount
to a shortfall of 1,100 dwellings over the plan period. Without any Statements of Common
Ground, it is unclear as to how this shortfall will be addressed.
4 The Site and its suitability
4.1 The Site comprises approximately 4.25 hectares of agricultural land located to the south
of the B2145 and east of Foxbridge Drive. Agricultural access is taken from the B2145
which abuts the entirety of the northern boundary. The western boundary adjoins
residential property Oakdene and properties at Foxbridge Drive and Farm Close. The Site
is not located within or in close proximity to any land at risk of flooding, nor is it in
proximity to any heritage assets.
4.2 In policy terms, the Site is located outside but adjoining the settlement boundary to the
west and is otherwise unconstrained. The latest Housing Economic Land Availability
Assessment (HELAA) (2021) assessed the Site positively, with potential to deliver
approximately 80 dwellings in the medium term.
4.3 In terms of accessibility, the Site is sustainably located and well connected with the local
footpath and cycle network. There is a surfaced path that runs along the northern
boundary of the site, largely separated from the road behind a hedge. This is not a
designated footpath as it forms part of the National Cycle Network Route 2 however, it is
used as such as it connects into the tow path that runs along the Chichester Canal which
travels north into Chichester or south towards the sea. A footpath is also located along
the B2145, providing access to services within the village.
8
4.4 The Tow Path travelling into Chichester is also part of National Cycle Network Route 2
which connects directly into the heart of the city. This then connects into other cycle
networks north into Kent and west towards Portsmouth and beyond.
4.5 Initial feasibility studies determine that approximately 3 hectares of the site could be
suitable for residential development. The area for development would be focused
around the western boundary whilst the remaining area would comprise formal and
informal open space alongside additional planting and a robust landscaping strategy that
will respect the Ancient Woodland at Hunston Copse whilst ensuring net biodiversity gain
and green infrastructure connectivity with the biodiversity corridors that have been
identified to the north and east. Creating a landscape buffer to the east will also create a
clear, defensible boundary to the village.
4.6 The allocation and development of this land would provide a number of benefits to the
local community;
➢ The Site is well-connected to local services and facilities, within walking distance
of the village facilities such as the Hunston Store and Post Office, pub, village hall,
playing fields and canoe club;
➢ Para GA4.1 specifically states that traffic issues continue to cause major concerns
within the parish. Being located north of the village with direct access onto the
B2145 means the site would minimise additional traffic through the village;
➢ Proposals would include additional footpaths north-south to ensure connectivity
away from the main road whilst linking with existing footpath 188 which runs
east-west around the site;
➢ The Site is not subject to any environmental designations or constraints and is
not liable to flooding;
➢ A suitable landscaping strategy would ensure net biodiversity gain and green
infrastructure connectivity with existing biodiversity corridors to the north and
east;
➢ A landscape buffer to the east would create a clear, defensible boundary to the
north-eastern edge of the village;
➢ Provision of formal and informal open space would be of benefit to residents
throughout the community and to the north of the village especially;
➢ The Site is not constrained and does not rely upon significant infrastructure
improvements in respect of delivery;
➢ Development proposals would include a mix of high-quality homes, with the
potential to include starter homes, bungalows suitable for the elderly and
affordable housing to meet the varying needs of the community; and
9
➢ Any future development would make contributions to local facilities and
infrastructure.
5 Conclusion
5.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of
sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, this is significantly lower than the standard method
figure of 638 and previously consulted figure of 650 dpa. The conclusion in paragraph
5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be
accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa
scenario plus some additional mitigation at the Portfield roundabout.
5.2 The Council do not appear to have considered that the increased housing requirement
could assist with funding the necessary highway improvements and thus this should be
further reviewed by the Council in order to aim to meet the minimum of 638 dpa.
5.3 The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need
in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter
is particularly relevant given constraints of the National Park.

The Council should review the Transport Study with the intention of meeting the assessed level of local housing need in full.

1 Introduction
1.1 These Representations have been prepared on behalf of Hallam Land Management Limited (hereafter ‘Hallam’), in response to the Chichester Local Plan Review Proposed Submission Plan consultation.

1.2 Hallam is a strategic land promotion company operating throughout England, Wales and Scotland delivering land for new employment and commercial premises, housing, including specialist elderly housing, and mixed-use developments. Hallam has been acquiring, promoting, developing and trading in land since 1990. During that time, the company has established an outstanding record in resolving complex planning and associated technical problems in order to secure planning permissions for a whole range of different land uses to facilitate the delivery of new development.

1.3 Hallam control land to the west of Southbourne, to the north of the A259 and south of the railway line. Development of this land for new housing including specialist elderly accommodation, as shown in the accompanying Vision Document, would be consistent with the established Spatial Strategy; which is rightly retained in the consultation document. Similarly, development would contribute towards meeting the future housing needs of the District within the proposed Broad Location for Development (BLD) at Southbourne.

1.4 These Representations set out our support for the BLD drawn on the key diagram to the west and east of Southbourne. However, Hallam are seeking amendments to Policies S1, H1, H2, H8 and A13 to ensure that: the overall housing needs are met across the District, including early delivery and specialist accommodation; the flexibility sought early in the Submission Plan, at Policy S2 and H1, is carried through to the strategic allocations and locations; and, the BLD is distributed to the west and east of Southbourne.

1.5 Moreover, Hallam are proposing the allocation of small and medium scale sites at Southbourne within the Local Plan, to enable early delivery of housing and infrastructure, with the land under their control a suitable site for this allocation. Should the Council not allocate these sites, then the strategic allocations/locations policies need to be updated to reflect the requirement for the delivery of small and medium scale parcels which could form part of the larger sites.

1.6 In the context of the above, it is instructive to note that Chichester District has an older population than national average, which has been predicted to increase by 42% between 2021- 2039. The increasing need for specialist accommodation should be addressed through specific allocations within the Local Plan, rather than the proposed approach of Policy H8.

1.7 Our response is focused on the following matters:

• The Spatial Strategy, settlement hierarchy and the distribution of development across the District;
• The overall amount of new housing required within the new plan period;
• The need for specialist accommodation;
• The status of Southbourne and the role and function it plays; and
• The strategic allocation proposed at Southbourne in Policy AL13.

1.8 In preparing the Local Plan Review, the Council will need to ensure that it complies with paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2021) which sets out four tests to ensure the plan is ‘sound’. These are as follows:

• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs, and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet needs from neighbouring areas are accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross- boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by statements of common ground; and
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.

1.9 We are mindful that the Government has recently published a consultation concerning potential amendments to the NPPF. Paragraph 1 of that consultation document indicates that the government is committed to “building more homes” whilst Paragraph 6 explains that the government “remains committed to delivering 300,000 homes a year by the mid-2020s”.

1.10 In the proposed revisions, paragraph 1 makes clear that the NPPF provides “a framework within which locally-prepared plans can provide for sufficient housing and other development in a sustainable manner.” At paragraph 60 the overall aim of a Local Plan is identified as meet[ing] as much housing need as possible with an appropriate mix of housing types to meet the needs of communities.

1.11 It is clear therefore that the potential amendments to the NPPF firmly intend that Local Plans, including this one, continue to provide a sufficient supply of housing land to meet identified needs.

2 Objectives and Spatial Strategy

Objectives of the Local Plan
2.1 The Submission Plan has identified key challenges and opportunities that influence future planning, across the three areas of the District, and how it aims to address these through planning policies and proposals.

2.2 Within the consultation document, the strategic objectives presented by the Council are structured into specific categories, ensuring housing and neighbourhood objectives are clearly set out for the plan period.

2.3 Amongst these is the objective to increase housing supply; increase provision of affordable housing; and promote the development of mixed, balanced and well-integrated communities. These are consistent with the NPPF’s policy objective to significantly boost the supply of housing in paragraph 60. In this context, it is right that the Local Plan’s development strategy is founded on this objective, ensuring sustainable development which responds to social, economic and environmental considerations that meets the needs of the plan area.

2.4 These objectives frame the policies and proposals for future development across the plan area to create sustainable neighbourhoods; this demonstrates, as a matter of principle, that the Local Plan intends to be positively prepared and justified, albeit there are limitations on how this is achieved in practice when the policies and proposals are considered.

2.5 The NPPF states at paragraph 22 that strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from the date of the Plan’s adoption. The Local Plan aims to cover the period of 2021- 2039, which is 18 years. However, this plan has not been adopted yet and it is considered unlikely that this Local Plan will be adopted before 2024-25. Therefore, the Plan may not cover the required plan period of 15 years and the Council should extend the plan period to at least 2040 to ensure this requirement is met.
Policy S1: Spatial Strategy
2.6 The Spatial Strategy is accompanied by the Key Diagram (Map 3.1), identifying the distribution of development and infrastructure provision across the plan area.

2.7 The strategy aims to build on the existing Local Plan, focusing growth at Chichester city, as the main sub-regional centre, and at two settlement hubs along the east-west corridor at Tangmere and Southbourne.

2.8 Policy S1 specifically identifies the broad approach to providing sustainable development, in accordance with the Local Plan Objectives, ensuring development is focused principally along the east-west corridor. It aims to distribute development in line with the settlement hierarchy, ensuring development is located in the larger and more sustainable settlements.

2.9 This accords with paragraph 20 of the NPPF which requires strategic policies to set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for housing, infrastructure, community facilities along with policies that seek to conserve and enhance the environment.

2.10 Paragraph 105 of the NPPF states that the planning system should actively manage patterns of growth in support of these objectives. With significant development being focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes.

2.11 Paragraph 69 of the NPPF sets out how small and medium scale sites can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirement. Part d) identifies how working with developers to encourage the sub division of large sites could help to speed up the delivery of homes.

2.12 In this context, Policy S1 (6) outlines how non-strategic provision is made for small scale housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy H3, however this does not identify an approach to medium scale sites. Consequently, the Local Plan should allocate small and medium scale sites for residential development.

2.13 Should the Local Plan not allocate these scale sites, then there should be parcels within the BLDs identified as medium scale sites for early delivery in the plan period without prejudicing the BLDs. Policy S1 should be amended to include medium scale sites and to require flexibility to the housing target. This is discussed further in respect of Policy A13.

2.14 Policy S1 (7) states that strategic allocations and locations will be made through either this emerging Local Plan, the extant Site Allocation Development Plan 2014-2019 (or subsequent Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD)) and through Neighbourhood Plans. Notwithstanding the allocations in the emerging Local Plan, the most appropriate future mechanism is the Site Allocations DPD, which has to meet the ‘tests of soundness’ rather than ‘basic conditions’. This more rigorous approach to plan making is better able to address the site selection process and assessment of delivery requirements that a strategic allocation will need to demonstrate, particularly when taking account of the scale of growth proposed at Southbourne.

2.15 Lastly, the final paragraph of Policy S1 states that to ensure that the Plan’s housing requirement is delivered, “the distribution of development may need to be flexibly applied, within the overall context of seeking to ensure that the majority of new housing is developed in accordance with this Strategy”. The wording of this should be amended to state flexibility will be needed rather than may be needed, to ensure there is the ability to mitigate delays on allocations being brought forward by alternative proposals in order to meet the housing requirement over the plan period.

2.16 The use of the Authority Monitoring Report to control this is considered an acceptable approach, and policies A6 to A15 should reflect this requirement for flexibility. In practical terms, the LPA will need to consider performance in bringing forward and delivering large-scale development and enable alternative solutions where the required outcomes are not being achieved. This is discussed later in relation to Policy A13 specifically.
Policy S2: Settlement Hierarchy
2.17 The consultation document sets out a Settlement Hierarchy which is to serve as the framework for the Council to achieve its vision for the plan area, meet the scale of development required and enhance the quality of the built natural, historic, social and cultural environments, whilst sustaining the vitality of communities. This hierarchy seeks to deliver sustainable development that will support the role and function of different places within the plan area.

2.18 In this regard, Policy S2 is consistent with the NPPF acknowledging how “significant development should be focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. This can help to reduce congestion and emissions, improve air quality and public health.” (paragraph 105 refers). The Settlement Hierarchy ensures that new development is located in areas where residents have access to facilities and services and a range of public transport networks.

2.19 Chichester city is identified as the Sub-Regional Centre, with four Settlement Hubs being identified at East Wittering/Bracklesham; Selsey; Southbourne and Tangmere. This is a continuation of the existing spatial strategy in the Adopted Local Plan and consistent with the principle of locating new development at the most sustainable locations.

2.20 Southbourne is rightly identified as a Settlement Hub due to its range of local services and facilities, key public transport connections and employment/educational opportunities accessible via non vehicular methods of travel. The approach to Southbourne is discussed later at Section 4 and at Policy A13.

2.21 Accordingly, this strategic policy is positively prepared and justified, and is consistent with national policy promoting sustainable patterns of development.

3 Overall amount of Housing

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs
Housing Need

3.1 Paragraphs 60 and 61 of the NPPF state that to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance.

3.2 Only in exceptional circumstances could an alternative approach be justified. But even then, that alternative approach will also need to reflect current and future demographic trends and market signals.

3.3 Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings within the plan period, amounting to 575dpa.

3.4 This is lower than both a. the standard method figure of 638 dpa; and, b. the Preferred Approach figure in the previous consultation, of 650 dpa which included accommodating some unmet need arising from the South Downs National Park (SDNP) area. This shortfall will amount to over 1,100 dwellings across the plan period. Without any Statements of Common Ground being published by the Council or evidence of the shortfall being accommodated elsewhere, this remains unaddressed.

3.5 It is highly germane that the current Local Plan adopted a lower housing figure than the identified need of 505dpa, proposing instead to deliver 435dpa.

Affordability in Chichester

3.6 The affordability ratios have risen from 12.38 in 2015, when the current Local Plan was adopted, to 14.61 in 2021 for Chichester, which is significantly higher than the current 9.1 national average, increasing the need for affordable housing within Chichester.

3.7 Between the 2011 and 2021 census, the number of people ages 50 to 64 years rose by over 3,100 (an increase of 13.4%), while the number of residents between 35 and 49 years fell by approximately 1,900 (8.5% decrease).

3.8 Chichester’s worsening affordability ratios and aging population, which typically occurs in line with house price increases, demonstrate the clear need to increase the housing delivery to meet current and future needs (in line with the NPPF), and maximise the potential for housing in this District. The current strategy to supress housing provision will only exacerbate these problems.

3.9 With the Submission Plan proposing to not meet the identified need, this once again will be an issue which moves onto the next Local Plan, failing to tackle key issues across the District such as affordability and lack of housing land supply. These issues cannot simply be moved onto the next Local Plan, they should be addressed now.

Constraints for development

3.10 The lower figure of 575dpa reflects both the infrastructure constraints along the A27 and at the


Waste Water Treatment Works, but also no longer accommodating unmet need from SDNP.

3.11 The Transport Study (January 2023) assesses the capacity levels, with particular focus on the A27. Although the Council state that 535dpa is the highest level of development per year achievable, the conclusions of this latest Study state, at paragraphs 5.6.5 and 11.2.3, that development of 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) through the mitigation proposed in the previous scenario of 535dpa with some additional mitigation at the Portfield and Oving roundabout.

3.12 This Transport Study (2023) was published following the preparation of the Sustainability Appraisal which refers to the 2018 study, therefore the latest evidence on highways matters has not be considered within the preparation of this Local Plan.

3.13 This is fundamental to the Plan’s approach – increasing the housing requirement could assist with funding those additional highway improvements, in line with the recommendations of the Transport Study at Section 9.3 to prioritise junctions to avoid delays to housing delivery. This should be further reviewed by the Council to ensure the District’s need is not being understated. It is recommended the housing need figure is reviewed in line with this evidence and the need to meet the minimum of the standard method figure of 638dpa, and aim to return to the 650dpa previously proposed.

Duty to Co-Operate

3.14 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the need for co-operation between local planning authorities on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.

3.15 The East Hampshire Local Plan Review has identified 100dpa for the SDNP area of the District, below the identified need of 112dpa for the District’s area and the overall requirement of 447dpa for the SDNP (Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2017). In effect, in combination with Chichester, the National Park is needing to accommodate some 30 more dwellings per annum without any assessment as yet as to whether this can be achieved given the statutory protection that is afforded to it.

3.16 Whilst a Statement of Common Ground is referred to, it has not been published and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the decision not to make a provision for the National Park area is soundly based.

3.17 Previous evidence for the Preferred Approach demonstrated how the figure of 650dpa was achievable and necessary to help with the worsening affordability ratios across Chichester and the neighbouring authorities. Having removed provision for unmet need it is considered this plan has not been positively prepared.

Summary

3.18 Policy H1 clearly sets out how the majority of housing is to be delivered along the east-west corridor, with 535dpa in the southern plan area and 40dpa in the northern plan area. This is consistent with the Spatial Strategy and the Settlement Hierarchy, Policies S1 and S2, and the overarching objective of locating new housing at the most sustainable locations in the plan area.

3.19 By limiting the amount of housing there will be fewer schemes contributing to the required infrastructure improvements. Without developer contributions to fund wholescale upgrades to this infrastructure there is a risk of pushing the problem down the line for the next Local Plan to address, whilst problems with affordability and an aging population are further exacerbated.

3.20 All future schemes will be required to mitigate their impact on infrastructure including highways and utilities, and there is an opportunity for small to medium scale sites to be delivered in the short term whilst the larger allocations and/or the majority of the larger allocations await the upgrading of these works.

3.21 Currently, the proposal to reduce the overall housing supply for the new plan period is not supported, and the Council should review the Transport Study with the intention of meeting the assessed level of local housing need in full. Without the identified housing requirement being met in full the problem of the younger population being unable to afford to remain in Chichester will continue, further growing the gap in workforce and an increasingly aging population.

3.22 Therefore, this policy is not positively prepared, justified or consistent with the NPPF.

Policy H2 Strategic Locations/Allocations 2021-2039
3.23 The wording of ‘at least’ within Policy H1 provides flexibility on the ability to achieve the minimum amount of housing considered necessary by the Council, in line with Policy S2. Although this quantum is not agreed, the approach using ‘at least’ is considered a sensible approach to allow the achievement rather than under delivery of much needed open and market housing.

3.24 The strategic locations/allocations set out in Policy H2 do not reflect this flexible approach. Instead, the sites are fixed as exact number of dwellings for those locations.

3.25 Paragraph 119 of the NPPF requires planning policies to promote an effective use of land in meeting the need for homes, while safeguarding and improving the environment and ensuring safe and healthy living conditions.

3.26 Policy A13 is a BLD and is fixed at 1,050 dwellings within Policy H2, this does not allow for the masterplanning approach to further assess the actual capacity and the best use of this land.

3.27 As such flexibility should embedded into the wording of Policy H2 to ensure that the intention of Policy S2 is achieved; the housing target of at least 10,350 dwellings across the plan period (Policy H1) is met; and the land identified for development is most effectively used.

3.28 Therefore, it is suggested that Policy H2 includes the wording “at least” before the quantum of development for any strategic location or allocation. For example, Policy A13 would instead state “at least”.
Policy H8 Specialist accommodation for older people and those with specialised needs
3.29 National Planning Practice Guidance for Housing for Older and Disabled People states how plan- making authorities should set clear policies to address the housing needs for groups with particular needs such as older and disabled people.

3.30 The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) (April 2022) assesses the period between 2021-2039 for older people and those with a disability.

3.31 This concludes that there will be a 42% increase in the population above 65 years old, amounting to 67% of the total population growth.

3.32 The HEDNA sets out how the East-West Corridor has a higher percentage of over 65 year olds (24.7%) compared to both Chichester City (24.2%) and the Plan Area North area (23.4%).

3.33 The needs arising from this, amounts to between 2,131 and 2,872 additional dwellings with support or care, and a need for 429-800 additional nursing and residential care bedspaces. This equates to approximately 17-24% of all homes needing to be some form of specialist accommodation for older people.

3.34 In this context, the HEDNA makes an important recommendation that the Council allocate specific sites for housing with care to ensure the identified needs are met. In contrast Policy H8 is a criteria based policy that seeks specialist accommodation for older people on housing sites over 200 units based on evidence of local need.

3.35 As written, there is no confirmation on the quantum of specialist accommodation that this policy or other site allocations will secure and how the specific need for each application is calculated. Policy H8 fails to address the identified overall need clearly, as required by National guidance. Therefore, it is recommended the Local Plan allocates sites to deliver this type of accommodation as intended by the HEDNA.

3.36 This approach risks the land on these sites being unable to deliver both the expected market/affordable housing and the specialist accommodation on site.

3.37 The land under Hallam’s control would be a suitable site for this type of accommodation, which is situated along the east-west corridor in a sustainable location on the edge of Southbourne.

4 Southbourne

4.1 Southbourne is a key area in the District, in terms of existing development, its status as a Settlement Hub and its potential to accommodate future development.
Role of Southbourne
4.2 Southbourne is identified as a Settlement Hub within Policy S2.

4.3 Southbourne is located within the east-west corridor with a range of existing facilities, good transport links, and employment opportunities both to the east and the west.

4.4 As set out in the Submission Plan, Southbourne has good access to educational facilities serving the residents, including primary schools, junior schools and secondary schools. There are a number of convenience stores and other community services and facilities such as a GP practice, pharmacy and places of worship.

4.5 The Bourne Community Leisure Centre provides local residents with access to community sports facilities. Access to public open space is also good through connections to Southbourne Recreation Ground. There is potential for more open space to be provided for local residents within the Local Plan Review and the strategic allocation proposed and this approach is embedded within our own Vision Document.

4.6 A key focus of the Sustainability Appraisal and the Submission Plan is for schemes to promote a modal shift in transportation. The strong public transport links within Southbourne to the wider surrounding area allows access to employment opportunities within the east-west corridor. Southbourne has strong public transport connections to the local and wider area, through bus and train services, to areas including: Chichester, Portsmouth, Havant, Littlehampton, Brighton, Southampton and London.

4.7 For these reasons, Southbourne is rightly designated as a Settlement Hub and is eminently suitable to serve as a BLD.

4.8 The Southbourne Level Crossing Report May 2021 analyses the options for delivering the railway crossing at Southbourne. It concludes that circa 750 dwellings can be delivered north of the railway line before triggering the requirement for a new crossing. The report highlights how sites south of the rail line are not likely to impact on the level crossing and can therefore be delivered earlier than await the railway line improvements.

4.9 Therefore, in this context it would be appropriate to allocate small and medium scale sites to the south of the railway, which is less constrained by the capacity restriction on the railway crossing.

4.10 The land under Hallam’s control is to the south of the railway line, would help facilitate a future new railway crossing to the north of the site, and would be of a medium scale to deliver housing early in the period plan.
Strategic Allocation A13
4.11 The Key Diagram appears to suggest that new development is to be located to the west and east of Southbourne, remedying the previously unsuccessful approach of focusing development only to the east. Similarly, the Key Diagram acknowledges the need for development to the south of the railway line, facilitating development north of the railway line. It is recommended the wording of the policy should be updated to reflect this diagram, as suggested below:

Provision will be made for a mixed use development within the broad location for development to the west and east of Southbourne, as shown on the Key Diagram.
4.12 Previously, the Preferred Approach consultation document set out at Policy AL13 a minimum of 1,250 dwellings at Southbourne and to be identified in the revised Southborne Neighbourhood Plan. (emphasis added)

4.13 The Submission Plan now allocates Policy A13 for 1,050 dwellings and will be established through the making of allocation(s) in the future Site Allocation DPD or the revised Southbourne NP. This strategic allocation is to act as a mixed use extension to the existing settlement.

4.14 It is acknowledged that the land north of Cooks Lane (Application number: 22/00157/REM) received Reserved Matters approval in August 2022 for 199 dwellings, with the reduction in quantum of development for the BLD reflecting this committed development. A practical effect of this is that this consent will not contribute to the wider infrastructure requirements associated with a larger scale of development.

4.15 It is disappointing to see the phrase “a minimum of” has been removed. This conflicts with the flexibility set out earlier in the consultation document, and also reduces the potential of making effective use of the land for housing that will assist in meeting the overall need of the District.

4.16 Policy A13 prescribes a number of requirements that must be met (criterion 1 – 16). These are considerations that reflect principles of place making and sustainable development and provide a sound framework for the preparation of the allocation through either mechanism.

4.17 One of these requirements states that future development “Provide[s] any required mitigation to ensure there is no adverse impact on the safety of existing or planned railway crossings.” The existing Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, at Objective 9, outlines the issues relating to the railway crossing and the plans for addressing this challenge in the future.

4.18 Related to this is the need for the provision of “suitable means of access to the site(s), securing necessary off-site improvements (including highways) … to promote sustainable transport options.”

4.19 The combination of the requirements relating to the railway crossing and the provision of a suitable means of access show the importance of accessibility to the A27, A259 and the east-west railway line, which are the principal public transport corridors for Southbourne.

4.20 Development will be well connected to Southbourne via footway and cycle connections to the east and offers the opportunity to help realise the construction of a new strategic road and bridge link over the West Coastway Rail Line through provision of land and proportionate contributions to this scheme.

4.21 Criteria 13 ensures there will be sufficient capacity within the relevant wastewater infrastructure before the delivery of development, which addresses (for Southbourne) the identified constraints for the District in relation to housing delivery.

4.22 The remaining requirements of Policy A13 cover the quality and range of development, the provision of education, community and transport facilities, provision of public open space and green infrastructure, and the impact of development on the landscape. These are each appropriate considerations for the Site Allocations DPD.

4.23 Having regard to the above, the allocation of 1,050 dwellings for Southbourne is, in part, appropriate.

4.24 However, this policy should allow for the delivery of small or medium scale parcels of land, in accordance with the NPPF at an early stage of delivery of the wider allocation to enable prompt and timely housing at Southbourne whilst infrastructure upgrades are commenced. The Local Plan should identify and allocate these smaller scale sites to ensure these can come forward early in the plan period.

4.25 A new criteria is proposed to be included in the wording of Policy A13, stating:

(17) To identify land for early delivery on small to medium scale sites which are not constrained by the need for a new railway crossing.
4.26 Therefore, the principle of a strategic allocation for mixed use housing is considered appropriate but amendments should be made to the wording of the policy to reflect the approach to flexibility, the inclusion of small and medium scale sites, and the dispersion of development to both the west and east of Southbourne.
Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan
4.27 As set out in the paragraph 10.56 of the Submission Plan, development phasing is a key issue to address through the allocation of development sites for this BLD.

4.28 Paragraph 70 of the NPPF states that “Neighbourhood planning groups should also consider the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites suitable for housing in their area.” Southbourne Parish Council should be aware of this when allocating the strategic sites, to ensure that there are a mix of housing sites, that could come forward sooner than the principal element of the larger strategic site.

4.29 Through the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan, the Parish Council should take into account the allocation of smaller sites, which could come forward as part of and alongside the larger strategic site. This will ensure that there is not a delay in the provision of housing within Southbourne and the plan area.

4.30 As set out previously, the most suitable mechanism for progressing the Southbourne BLD would be the Site Allocation DPD. Whether the sites are allocated through the Site Allocations DPD or the NP, there is a requirement to identify small and medium scale site.
Land to the north of Gosden Green
4.31 The land under Hallam’s control to the north of Gosden Green, should either be allocated in the Local Plan as a medium scale site or should be a key component of the BLD. The site can deliver both market/affordable residential units and specialist elderly accommodation. The site will create flexibility in achieving the housing requirement of the plan area early on in the plan period.

4.32 The accompanying Vision Document demonstrates how as an early development parcel for the wider BLD, a series of key benefits in accordance with the 13 criteria of Policy A13 will be achieved.

4.33 The Proposed Submission Plan at Policy H8 identifies the need for specialist accommodation for older people and those with specialist needs. Although not set out in the Vision Document, this site can deliver, early in the plan period, much needed specialist elderly accommodation.

4.34 Figure 3 of the Vision Document presents the scheme’s ability to connect into a wider masterplan for the strategic development, as it comes forward in the future. However, at the same time has the ability to come forward at an earlier rate being physically unconstrained and a well contained parcel of land.

4.35 Figure 9 provides context on connectivity, and the modal shift this scheme aims to achieve. The ability to walk to a range of services and facilities, including the train station further demonstrates the ability for the early delivery of this parcel of the BLD.

4.36 The impact of the highways network has been assessed for both a full residential scheme and specialist elderly housing, highlighting how the residential scheme will introduce approximately 55 new vehicles to the network at peak times, resulting in less than 1 car per minute in the peak hour. Either scheme will have a negligible impact on the highway network and would have a negligible impact on A27.

4.37 The site is to the south of the railway line, as previously mentioned, and would be unconstrained by the capacity constraint of the existing railway crossing.

4.38 For these reasons, the land under Hallam’s control should be allocated within the Local Plan.

5 Conclusion
5.1 These representations are submitted on behalf of Hallam Land Management Limited.

5.2 In the context of national, local and neighbourhood planning policies, the Local Plan has an important role in providing policies and proposals for residential development to meet future needs.

5.3 The proposed objectively assessed need for housing across the plan area is not agreed, and the Council should review the latest transport evidence which currently do not demonstrate how there are exception circumstances, in accordance with paragraph 62 of the NPPF. The Council should also extend the plan period to ensure it meets the requirements of a minimum of 15 years in the NPPF.

5.4 Consistent with the established strategy to focus development in the District’s east-west corridor, the Broad Location for Development to Southbourne as a Settlement Hub is, as a matter of principle, a sound proposition. Importantly the Key Diagram identifies the broad location for this development to the west and east of the settlement.

5.5 As discussed, there should be flexibility embedded into all strategic allocations, in particular those which are Broad Locations for Development through the use of the wording “at least”. This will ensure that the “at least” quantum of housing delivery is met and affords flexibility to all housing sites coming forward.

5.6 The responsibility for allocating additional development land to meet this requirement has been given to either the Parish Council through the preparation of a new Neighbourhood Plan or through the Council reviewing the Site Allocations DPD. It is recommended that for the larger strategic allocations and locations the Site Allocations DPD is the more suitable mechanism for identifying land given the need to ensure that proposals are sound.

5.7 Whilst the scale of development proposed is strategic in nature, it is entirely appropriate to consider how different development parcels might contribute towards that and in particular early opportunities that facilitate larger scale development later in the plan period.

5.8 To this end, land to the west of Southbourne and south of the railway line could be allocated as the first phase of the strategic site allocation, as a medium size site, so that this southern section of the new link road is built to enable access to land to the north. This will reduce the pressure placed on the centre of Southbourne, the highway capacity on the A27, and the existing railway crossing.

5.9 By allocating small to medium scale sites in the Local Plan, this will bring forward development at a quicker pace and ensure that the objectively assessed needs for housing across the plan area are met each year. These can be delivered without prejudice to the larger strategic allocations and locations.

5.10 Currently, the Submission Plan fails to address the increasing need for specialist accommodation, with Policy H8 failing to secure specific delivery of such housing, instead moving this matter into major development schemes with no mechanism for assessing need at that stage. It is recommended that the Local Plan allocates sites for specialist accommodation.

5.11 Hallam control land to the west of Southbourne, which adjoins the land at Gosden Green which has already been built. The land controlled by Hallam could be: allocated as a medium scale site within the Local Plan; included as part of the western strategic allocation of Broad Location for Development at Southbourne; or could be allocated for specialist elderly accommodation, ensuring land is readily available for development early in the plan period to address identified needs.

5.12 This would be consistent with the development strategy for the Plan and positively contribute towards meeting future development needs of the plan area.

5.13 These representations have demonstrated that in part the Submission Plan has been positively prepared and justified, however the key recommendations in these Representations should be followed to ensure the plan preparation accords with Paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

Reconsider housing figures, consider proposed site to accommodate additional housing number.

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on behalf of our client Chichester Grain. The submission covers the general principles of the Local Plan but has a focus on Land at Chichester Grain Stores, Hambrook, Southbourne. The land is shown on the attached plan HA Appendix 1: Site Location Plan, and hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions and is the final consultation phase before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Local Plan or at least through the allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1: Spatial Strategy, sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1: Meeting Housing Needs sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).
5
2.5 The SA discusses the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
(i) Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding South Downs National Park) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period; and
(ii) The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. It should be noted here that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was below the identified need of 505 dpa. This reduced housing figure was accepted on the basis of an early review, but this early review did not take place.
2.7 Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings within the plan figure, amounting to 575 dpa. This is lower than both the standard method figure of 638 dpa and the previously consulted Preferred Approach figure of 650 dpa which accommodated some unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority.
2.8 This draft Local Plan seeks to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network and constraints on Waste Water Treatment Works. The Council therefore arrive at a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.
2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study notes that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works.
2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in the Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.
2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need. This is
6
of relevance given that the previous Local Plan underprovided against the OAN, and when considering the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP. 2.12 Given that it is not accepted that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery, it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered. The plan is not therefore positively prepared, nor is the approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.14 One further concern is that the Plan relies on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and/or Small Site Allocations DPD. In terms of delivery, Policy H3: Non-Strategic Housing Policy Requirements 2021-2039, states the following:
If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this Local Plan.
2.15 The above does not provide any clear timetable for commencement of a DPD and thus is not considered to be an effective approach to housing delivery.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify the alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Duty to Cooperate
3.1 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the need for co-operation between local planning authorities on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
3.2 The draft Plan does not address any need requirements in relation to unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities.
7
3.3 The housing figures presented do not account for unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority. Whilst a Statement of Common Ground has been referred to, it has not been published and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the decision not to make any provision for the National Park is sound.
3.4 Further, Arun District Council has confirmed that it will be objecting to the Plan as currently proposed on the basis that it has a significant housing need. This is likely to be further influenced by Chichester not meeting its own needs, a repeat of the 2015 situation which resulted in Arun having to address some of this within its 2018 Local Plan.
3.5 If the Plan is to proceed on the basis of providing 575dpa as per Policy H1, this will amount to a shortfall of 1,100 dwellings over the plan period. Without any Statements of Common Ground, it is unclear as to how this shortfall will be addressed.
4 The Site and its suitability
4.1 Our client’s site is well placed to accommodate any additional numbers required and offers a distinctively different scale of development to that proposed in the single large site allocation. It can also be delivered, whilst protecting this part of Southbourne, but also Hambrook to which is more readily relates.
4.2 The development of this land would provide a number of benefits;
 The development would include a mix of high-quality homes, including affordable to meet the varying needs of the community;
 The site is well-connected to local services and facilities, within walking distance of the post office, train station and employment;
 It would support the viability of local services and facilities;
 The site is not subject to any environmental designations or constraints and its development would not impact the South Downs National Park or Chichester Harbour AONB;
 Retention of existing boundary treatments alongside the provision of additional landscape features and open space will ensure net biodiversity gain and greater access to public open space;
 Retention of the trees and mature boundary hedgerows, particularly on the frontage to Priors Leaze Lane will retain the rural setting;
 The site is not constrained and does not rely upon significant infrastructure improvements in respect of delivery. It will ensure that where required, contributions will be made to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained for local facilities.
8
5 Other Policy Considerations
5.1 Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridor – object Policy NE4 states that ‘Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1.There are no sequentially preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor; and
2.The development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of thewildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.’
5.2 We are of the view that our clients land has development potential and could be well placed to assist in the delivery of additional housing number required within the draft Local Plan and are of the view that the blanket wildlife corridor is quite extensive and should be reduced in size. Representations were also submitted to this effect to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 Consultation.
5.3 We acknowledge the importance of the protection of wildlife generally, and the local eco-systems, however, this submission is supported by an Ecological survey which confirms that our site should not be covered by a Wildlife Corridor to the extent currently proposed. The Wildlife Corridor should be reduced to the immediate site and not as currently proposed under Policy NE4.
5.4 The land at Chichester Grain lies adjacent to the Ham Brook Chalk Stream. The draft Local Plan introduces a Wildlife Corridor along this section of stream. It is our view that the proposed extent of the wildlife corridor is excessive and should be reduced. It is also our view that the wildlife corridor could accommodate a break to provide a means of access to our client’s site, without harming the purposes of the corridor.
5.5 The recommendations of the report are to reduce the scale of the wildlife corridor and also ensure policy flexibility to allow access through these areas and appropriate requirements to enhance and mitigate against any proposed development.
5.6 In terms of the details of the site, habitats present within the site area are of low ecological value. It is noted that there are sites with intrinsic nature conservation value within the area, however, there are suitable mitigation and compensation methods which could protect these habitats.
5.7 The mitigation methods that could be proposed to remove any significant harm to ecological value of the land (which is low as existing), comprise:
9
 Provision for CEMP for any proposed development;
 Retained habitats on site borders should be enhanced;
 Provision for an ecologically sensitive lighting scheme;
 Use of bird boxes within any proposed development; and
 Inclusion of Hedgehog Highways.
5.8 As shown, the land at Chichester Grain is of low ecological value, and should not be included, to the extent currently proposed, as a wildlife corridor within Policy NE4. The Council is further applying yet another restrictive ‘additional layer of planning restraint’ in a District which is already highly constrained by for example, AONB, National Park, numerous ecological designations, Local Nature Reserves/National Nature Reserves, Water Neutrality and Nutrient Neutrality.
5.9 Furthermore, we have set out mitigation methods which could be applied to any forthcoming application or allocation of the land, which would enhance the ecological value of the site, and protect the intrinsic value of the sites within the locality.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, this is significantly lower than the standard method figure of 638 and previously consulted figure of 650 dpa. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa scenario plus some additional mitigation at the Portfield roundabout.
6.2 The Council do not appear to have considered that the increased housing requirement could assist with funding the necessary highway improvements and thus this should be further reviewed by the Council in order to aim to meet the minimum of 638 dpa.
6.3 The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given constraints of the National Park.
6.4 Policy NE4 introduces wildlife corridors, which could be accepted however, the supporting policy maps should be amended and the wording of the policy updated to reflect flexibility to allow appropriate breaks in the corridor for those areas that are of low ecological value, such as our Client’s land.

Thank you for consulting Horsham District Council on the Chichester Proposed Submission Local Plan 2021-2039. We are grateful for the opportunity to be able to comment on your emerging plan. Overall, we consider that the plan has positively sought to balance the provision of future needs with other wider objectives in a manner that contributes to achieving sustainable development. I would also take the opportunity to reaffirm Horsham District Council’s (HDC’s) commitment to continued dialogue under the Duty to Cooperate and joint working between our two councils. We have a number of comments on the Proposed Submission Chichester Local Plan 2021 to 2039 to make on individual policies which we have set out below:

Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy

We support this policy in principle, but consider it is not justified as stands. We note the spatial distribution in the plan period is split into three areas: East – West Corridor, the Manhood Peninsula, and North Plan area (which is the only part of Chichester district which directly adjoins Horsham district). HDC acknowledges Chichester District Council’s position that it is not able to meet its entire identified local housing need of 638 dwellings per annum, given the constraints associated with the required upgrades to the strategic road network in order to facilitate growth, potential environmental constraints and wider infrastructure restrictions. It is understood that National Highways requires a cap on growth due to the limited capacity of the A27. The proposed housing supply target is therefore 575 dwellings per annum.

HDC acknowledges and welcomes that significant effort has been put into identifying development capacity in a way that reflects the principle of positive planning. Nevertheless, the NPPF and PPG set a high bar for ‘leaving no stone unturned’ in respect of meeting development needs. We support that planned growth is directed to sustainable locations where access to local services and access to transport links are easier to access than remote rural areas. It is acknowledged Chichester City is the most populous settlement in the district as well as being most sustainable. We support that growth and future development should be focussed in the East-West Corridor, and in particular in or close to the City, first and foremost. We also acknowledge wider infrastructure deficiencies will need to be addressed in strategic locations before they can accommodate more growth.

We support your continued dialogue with National Highways to support improvements to the strategic road network and note a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) will be published and updated as part of a continuous dialogue with National Highways. The SoCG is important as part of the justification for a lower housing supply figure and should transparently demonstrate why the constraints on the A27 will not allow higher growth in the East West corridor, in order to evidence that maximum housing needs have been achieved in the City and East West Corridor. This evidence is needed for HDC to inform its own DtC position with Chichester District Council (CDC).

Chichester District is planning below the standard methodology housing target and has therefore asked HDC if it can accommodate some of Chichester’s unmet housing need. HDC has confirmed that we are not in a position to accommodate Chichester’s unmet development needs because of our own water neutrality constraint. Furthermore, the primary housing market for Horsham District is the Northern West Sussex HMA, whose development needs are substantially driven by the Gatwick sub-region, and it is this HMA that would be prioritised with respect to meeting unmet development needs.

As a partner in the Sussex North Water Neutrality grouping also impacted by this constraint, CDC jointly owns the relevant evidence, and our two authorities share an ongoing commitment to work on this as our Duty to Cooperate dialogue continues. As ever, the latest position with regards to Water Neutrality and the impact on the delivery of housing and other development needs can be set out in a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between our two Councils.




Policy NE16 Water Management and Water Quality

We support this policy which is clear in its encouragement of efficient use of water as part of good management framework.

Policy NE17 Water Neutrality

Water neutrality is a significant issue affecting both our districts. Horsham District Council supports this policy which is derived from the joint work undertaken by Chichester District Council, Horsham District Council and Crawley Borough Council. We look forward to continued working with CDC on the development of the implementation scheme, in order to deliver the JBA Water Neutrality Assessment study. This will ensure all new development is in conformity with the Habitat Regulations and can demonstrate water neutrality.

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs

As outlined earlier in this response, we acknowledge that land supply in Chichester is constrained, and that CDC meeting the full housing requirement within its administrative boundary during the plan period up to 2039 would be challenging. Horsham District is not however in a position to accommodate any of Chichester District’s unmet housing need because of water neutrality and, looking forward, the need to prioritise meeting unmet needs within our primary housing market: the Northern West Sussex HMA.

Policy H2 Strategic Locations/Allocations 2021 -2039

A significant proportion of CDC’s housing supply will be delivered through strategic allocations. Loxwood (220 dwellings) is identified as a strategic allocation and will come forward through the local plan process, with some allocations anticipated to be delivered through local neighbourhood plans. Given the challenges that face Neighbourhood Planning groups in the preparation and delivery of Neighbourhood Plans, (which can potentially delay the delivery of these allocations), we support the identification of strategic sites in the Local Plan, programmed for delivery earlier in the plan period.

As the delivery of strategic allocations requires significant infrastructure planning, including cross-boundary issues relating to the road network, education, healthcare and community facilities, Horsham District Council welcomes continued dialogue with the relevant stakeholders, to ensure development at strategic locations such as Loxwood are delivered in a timely manner and adhere to sustainable development principles. We have some specific concerns relating to strategic allocation policy A15: Loxwood which we have set out under that policy.

Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople’s Need.

We note your position and your requirement to provide a number of pitches and plots for the travelling community during plan period. We support your policy position for intensification of existing pitches. Horsham District can’t at this point in time accommodate any of CDC’s unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people requirement as we are required to first address our own shortfall, and our evidence demonstrates that this alone will be challenging.

We have a body of evidence to support our position and we will continue to share our evidence with you as our Duty to Cooperate dialogue continues over the coming months. As ever, the latest position regarding Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople will be set out in the Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground between our two Councils.

Policy A15 Loxwood

We support this policy as it will contribute to meeting Chichester District’s unmet housing need, but consider it is not justified as stands and that its effectiveness could be improved. The five villages in the north of the Plan area (Kirdford, Wisborough Green, Loxwood, Ifold and Plaistow) are classified as Service Villages in the emerging Chichester Local Plan. They provide a reasonable range of basic facilities (e.g. primary school, convenience store and post office) to meet the everyday needs of local residents, or are villages that provide fewer of these facilities but that have reasonable access to them in nearby settlements. Loxwood is the strategic site identified to accommodate 220 dwellings over the plan period.

The nearby settlement of Billingshurst, in Horsham District, is considered to be the nearest main settlement to the villages identified above. Given the limited facilities available / or to be provided as part of the Loxwood allocation, it is considered that new residents are likely to be reliant at least some key facilities in Billingshurst, potentially including the GP surgery, the railway station (and rail user car park), The Weald secondary school and sixth form, the library and the retail and community facilities, including the leisure centre. Within Horsham District, there are potential proposals for strategic scale extensions to Billingshurst / new settlements relatively close to Billingshurst. Whilst no decisions have been made with respect to our local plan, housing growth delivered through our own local plan will create potential impacts on existing infrastructure which is already under significant pressure. We therefore require clear evidence that potential cumulative impacts on settlements in HDC have been considered as part of the proposed allocations. We would ask that CDC works collaboratively with HDC and other stakeholders to ensure future pressures on infrastructure in Horsham District is appropriately addressed. Consequently, we seek further clarification in Policy A15: Loxwood to emphasise the importance of collaborative working between stakeholders to mitigate against the potential cumulative impact of development.

I do hope these comments are helpful. I would like to emphasise that they are made in anticipation of further constructive dialogue between our authorities, and with an expectation that matters on which we have flagged concern can be readily addressed, and quite possibly eliminated through our Duty to Cooperate discussions. Should you require any further detail or information in regard to this response please don’t hesitate to contact a member of my Strategic Planning team.

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments in the attached letter, in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN.
Our comments include issues to resolve, comments, requests for further information and recommendations. A brief summary of our main comments are:
- the reliance on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
- the requirements for new, additional, and adapted processes and assessments, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments.
- collaborative working between agencies in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy.
We hope our comments assist.
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders. We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.

Background

National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN).

National Highways is responsible for operating, maintaining, and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) i.e., the Trunk Road and Motorway Network in England, as laid down in Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022 (Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development).

The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

Our responses to Local Plan consultations are guided by relevant policy and guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (NPPF):

• Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals so that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed (para 104).

• The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth such that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. (para 105).

• Planning policies should be prepared with the active involvement of highways authorities and other transport infrastructure providers so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned. (para 106).

• In terms of identifying the necessity of transport infrastructure, NPPF confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. (para 111).

• Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use. (para 124).

In relation to the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF, in the context of transport, these are interpreted as meaning:

a) Positively prepared - has the transport strategy been prepared with the active involvement of the highway authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils?
b) Justified – Is the transport strategy based on a robust evidence base prepared with the agreement in partnership, or with the support of the highway authorities?
c) Effective – Does the transport strategy and policy satisfy the transport needs of the plan and is it deliverable at a pace which provides for and accommodates the proposed progress and implementation of the plan?
d) Consistent with national policy – Does the transport strategy support the economic, social, and environmental objectives of the Plan and the NPPF/NPPG?

We will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN; in this case, the A27 trunk road (Chichester Bypass and its junctions) which is the main access route in the Chichester area. We have particular interest in any allocation, policy or proposals which could have implications for the A27 and the wider SRN network. We are interested as to whether there would be any adverse road safety or operational implications for the SRN. The latter would include a material increase in queueing or delay or reduction in journey time reliability during the construction or operation of the development set out in the plan.

National Highways is a key delivery partner for sustainable development promoted through the plan-led system, and as a statutory consultee we have a duty to cooperate with local authorities to support the preparation and implementation of development plan documents.

In accordance with national planning and transport policy and our operating licence, we are entirely neutral on the principle of development as it is for the local planning authority to determine whether development should be allocated or permitted; albeit it must comply with national policy on locating development in locations that are or can be made sustainable. Therefore, while always seeking early and fulsome engagement with local plans and/or developers, we will simply be assessing the transport and related implications of plans or proposals and agreeing any necessary transport improvements and relevant development management policy.

In progressing Local Plans, we will seek to agree the following:
• Assessment tools and methodology
• Baseline Assessment i.e., to demonstrate that the assessment tool accurately reflects current transport conditions
• Comparator case assessment i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would occur in the absence of the plan
• Forecast modelling i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would arise with the plan in place, this will include an assessment at the end of the Plan period; and, if required, at full build out if that occurs after the end of the Plan period
• Outputs and outcomes of modelling, demonstrating, as appropriate, what transport infrastructure is necessary to support the plan o It should be noted that a suite of transport modelling tools may be required. This includes strategic modelling covering an area at least one major junction beyond the district boundary, localised network modelling where several links/junctions are close together and/or individual junction modelling
o A DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) compliancy assessment may also be required for certain highway features, such as
Merge/Diverge assessment at Grade separated junctions, link capacity assessments, and others.
• The design of any necessary transport infrastructure, to an extent suitable for establishing deliverability during the plan period at the time that it becomes necessary for the purpose of ensuring that unacceptable road safety impacts or severe operational impacts do not arise as a result of development. This may be to at least General Arrangement design stage or preliminary design stage. Whichever degree of detail is agreed, the products must be in full compliance with the DMRB.
• Industry standard transport intervention costings.
• The delivery/funding mechanisms for necessary transport interventions. It should not be assumed that National Highways will have any responsibility to identify or deliver necessary transport interventions.
• If considered appropriate, a “Monitor & Manage” (M&M) framework, aimed at managing the pace of development in line with the pace of funding and delivery of necessary highway interventions in a manner which responds to the realworld impacts of development may be agreed for inclusion in the plan subject to the adequacy of risk control measures included therein. This can include the move from a ‘predict & provide’ style of delivery to ‘a vision & validate’ style. o Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. It must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.

Further detail on the above can be provided by National Highways.

While ideally all the above should be agreed prior to the Submission of the Local Plan for examination, we recognise that this is not always possible. However, all parties should work towards all matters being agreed and reflected in a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) by the start of the Local Plan Examination at the latest. Ideally the SoCG between the Council and National Highways would be prepared well in advance of plan submission in order to guide resource input and to track progress towards final agreement on all relevant matters starting from the earliest plan iterations until the final version is agreed.

It is acknowledged that Government policy places much emphasis on housing delivery as a means for ensuring economic growth and addressing the current national shortage of housing. The NPPF is very clear that:
“Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period.”

However, new DfT C1/22 and the NPPF are equally clear that any development, including housing delivery, must be tempered by the requirement to ensure that the associated transport demand can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on the safety of the SRN or severe impacts on the operation of the SRN including reliability and congestion. Therefore, as necessary and appropriate, any plan and/or development must be accompanied by suitable mitigation in the right places at the right time, that is to the required design standards and is deliverable in terms of land availability, constructability and funding.

We would also draw your attention to the then Highways England document ‘The Strategic Road Network, Planning for the Future: A guide to working with National
Highways on planning matters’ (September 2015). This document sets out how National Highways intends to work with local planning authorities and developers to support the preparation of sound documents which enable the delivery of sustainable development. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/461023/N150227_-_Highways_England_Planning_Document_FINAL-lo.pdf

Responses to Local Plan consultations are also guided by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revised on 20 July 2021 which sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Updated Circular (01/2022)
It should be noted that since the start of the Local Plan consultation process, on the 23 December 2022, the Department for Transport released a new circular on the ‘Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development’ (Circular 01/2022), which replaces all of the policies in Circular 02/2013 of the same name. These representations take account of the new circular and the requirements in terms of the Local Plan evidence base and process.

We request that the Local Plan is prepared in line with all aspects of the new circular. Particularly, the principles of sustainable development (paragraphs 11 to 17), new connections and capacity enhancements (paragraphs 18 to 25), and engagement with plan-making (paragraphs 26 to 38).

Regulation 18 submission
In our Regulation 18 submission we noted several matters including:
• The need to mitigate the adverse impacts of strategic development traffic to the A27 Chichester Bypass and its junctions at Portfield Roundabout, Bognor Road Roundabout, Whyke Roundabout, Stockbridge Roundabout and Fishbourne Roundabout and Oving junction.
• The need to identify a mechanism to calculate contributions towards the delivery of the previously agreed Local Plan A27 improvements
• The need to confirm the number of dwellings needed within the plan period
• The need to establish National Highways acceptance of the traffic model reference and future case scenarios
• The need to confirm costs, viability, and funding associated with mitigating the safety and congestion impacts of the development included within the plan.

Local Plan context
This Local Plan (Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039), prepared by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) Chichester District Council, sets out the vision for future development in the district and will be used to help decide on planning applications and other planning related decisions including shaping infrastructure investments.

The draft sets out how the district should be developed over the next 18-years to 2039 including for the full Plan period (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039) the total supply of
- 10,359 dwellings
- 114,652 net additional sqm new floorspace
Minus the completions this is equivalent to around 530 dwellings and 6,150 sqm of floorspace a year.

National Highways Representations
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders.

We have undertaken a review of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 proposed submission version and accompanying evidence documents, our comments are set out in the tables below (following pages). [see table within attachment]

Summary

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments above in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN. We understand that other technical information is available, but this was not presented as part of this consultation.
Chichester, and the A27, are already heavily congested, infrastructure in the existing Local Plan remains undelivered and the growth set out in the new Plan will further increase travel demand.
As presented, satisfying the transport needs of the plan is clearly reliant on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. The A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is one of 32 pipeline schemes being considered for possible inclusion in National Highways third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) covering 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2030.
On 9 March 2023 the UK Transport Secretary ensured record funding would be invested in the country’s transport network, sustainably driving growth across the country while managing the pressures of inflation. The announcement cited the A27 Arundel Bypass as being deferred from RIS2 to RIS 3 (covering 2025-2030). The transport secretary also identified a number of challenges to the delivery of the road investment strategy and cited the benefit of allowing extra time to ensure schemes are better planned and efficient schemes can be deployed more effectively.
At present, there is no commitment by DfT to carry out the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. Until the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is published in the RIS3, consented and a decision to invest is made it cannot be assumed to be a committed project.
We note that the Plan does not address any uncertainty of delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project and we strongly recommend that there is either no reliance placed on RIS3 to realise capacity for growth in the Plan or that contingency measures are included to cover the eventuality that RIS3 funding is not forthcoming within the plan period. It is not clear that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed in the absence of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
Achieving net zero, reducing emissions reduction, acting on climate, and supporting thousands of new homes and new employment developments will be problematic with existing processes. New, additional, and adapted processes and assessments will likely be required, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments. We acknowledge that change is complex, expensive, and time-consuming, especially for smaller district level Councils. But the hard work will deliver benefits for the Council and residents in the longer-term.
National Highways seeks to continue working with the Council and WSCC to progress coordinated and deliverable packages of interim mitigation measures and alternative transport solutions while a long-term strategic solution is considered by government. This must however be in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy that appropriately manages the risk of unacceptable road impacts resulting from new housing
and other development over the Plan period.

We have been in discussion with Chichester District Council regarding their proposed Monitor and Manage Strategy. At present, we do not consider the current strategy to be robust and we seek further information and detail especially on who, when and when monitoring and management will be undertaken. Developments in the right places and served by the right sustainable infrastructure delivered alongside or ahead of occupancy must be a key consideration when planning for growth in all local authority areas. Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary transport mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. The M&M framework must set out that the alternative to mitigation not being delivered is that development does not proceed where that development would give rise to unacceptable road safety risk or severe cumulative impacts on the road network in the absence of that mitigation. The M&M framework must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.
As we have reiterated throughout our comments, we welcome the opportunity to work with you to address these outstanding matters and we will continue to liaise over submitted Transport Assessment, Travel Plan policy and Monitor and Manage Policy to help to work towards a viable plan.
We hope our comments assist.
We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions. Please do continue to consult us as the Plan progresses so that we can remain aware of, and comment as required on, its contents.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.