Policy DM16: Sustainable Design and Construction

Criteria 2 has been superseded in March 2015 and it appears to relate to the old CSH level 4. The Deregulation Act 2015 amended the Planning and Energy Act 2008 and removed clause 1(c) which allowed LPAS to have a requirement in a Development Plan that development should comply with energy requirements that exceed the energy requirements of the building regulations.

I have some comments on the Chichester Local Plan I wish to submit:

1) S28 and DM24 Pollution
This policy as it is not detailed enough. I would like to see more monitoring and more measures to be included in this policy to ensure actions are taken. These should include Clean Air Zones introduced, cleaner buses, car free day, workplace parking levy, anti-idling zones, increased pedestrianised areas in our villages and towns, better joined up cycle network

2) Policy AL6 - Land South-West of Chichester
I am opposed to the Stockbridge Relief Road and the allocation of houses to Apuldram and Donnington as it is too close to the AONB, on a floodplain and destroys prime agricultural land.

3) DM 16 Sustainable Design and Construction
The plan should acknowledge the need for the area to become carbon neutral in order to prevent climate change.
Manchester has committed that all new buildings will be net-zero carbon. This should be included in the Chichester Plan.

4) DM17 Stand-alone Renewable Energy
The plan should put aside space for renewable energy as a priority. We need space for wind turbines, battery storage and more solar panels on the roofs. Provision may be required on the coast for enabling the connection of an off-shore wind farm.

5) SA5 Southern Gateway
This policy needs to deliver better plans for people walking and cycling.
The green space should be preserved and an additional pocket park added to the area

The city needs a welcoming bus and train station, a proper public transport hub with toilets, tourist information, waiting area in the dry, warm and shade and proper information with RTPI screens (not just bus stops). The current bus and stations are hideous and unwelcoming and are not in keeping with the rest of the city.

6) S23 Transport and Accessibility
A coordinated package of improvements to junctions within the city is missing from this policy.

The roundabouts on Westhampnett Road near Sainsbury's, New Park Road near the new Coop, Eastgate, Northgate, Westgate and Southgate need redesigning to allocate more space to people on bikes and on foot.

More bus lanes and a linked up and continuous network of proper, protected cycle lanes need to be introduced.

St Paul's Road and Bognor Road need to have less private car parking to enable sustainable means to be prioritised - bus and bike lanes.

Transport measures need to ensure that we reduce our carbon footprint as emissions in this sector are still on the rise.

7) Policy S5 - Parish Housing Requirements
A Second home policy should be introduced to prevent an over dominance of new homes being sold to non-residents.

8) Policy S30
Wildlife Corridors need support but the wording needs to be made stronger so that development within this corridor is not permitted. The plan needs a stronger commitment to the preservation of wildlife within the area, in its current form it is lacking.

All proposals should demonstrate that they will have a net zero impact on climate change in line with the government's commitment in 2008 Climate Change Act as a signatory to COP21 Paris Agreement and the IPCC's report published in the autumn of 2018.

This policy is not ambitious enough in its sustainable options. It doesn't acknowledge the need for new buildings to be carbon neutral to prevent climate change.
Some areas such as Manchester have committed to all new buildings being carbon neutral. CDC should do the same.

Given the imminent threats of climate change, we need to do much more than commit to at least 10% of energy sources to be renewable. This is not nearly enough, we should be aiming fir a muchhigher percentage which in the nottoo distant future shoukd reach 100%.

There must be much higher requirement for on-site energy creation, ie through solar panels, heat pumps, energy-neutral building design, etc.

Within the time scale of the plan 2016-2035 there is a target for zero carbon homes. The plan does not meet these requirements and I object to the unsustainable design of developments.

More detail required as to sustainability. All new builds should be built with renewable energy. Solar panels as standard and yet the vast majority are not.

Homes Quality Mark 4 stars is not good enough!
The Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) has pledged to ensure that all new buildings erected in the city region will be 'net-zero' carbon by 2028.
The World Green Building Council (WorldGBC) has called on the built environment sector to set ambitious targets that eliminate carbon emissions for building portfolios by 2030, in order to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.

My clients site at Clappers Lane supports the objectives of Policy DM16. With regard to this Policy the orientation of the majority of the homes will maximise solar gain, the buildings will be constructed using highly efficient thermal installation, a number of low carbon initiatives will be incorporated with the aim of achieving a reduction in CO2 emissions by 10%. SUDS will be utilised on the site incorporating a management train which improves water quality before it leaves the site and be beneficial to wildlife in terms of surface storage in the wetland habitat.

Linden Homes and Miller Homes support sustainable design and construction and strive to minimise the environmental impact of development during construction and post occupancy and hence the aspirations of the policy are supported. However, Policy DM16 is overly prescriptive in terms of the standards and considerations that are required to reduce energy demand.

Linden Homes and Miller Homes will adopt a fabric first approach to construction of their homes on the West of Chichester site which is considered to be more sustainable than relying on renewable energy solutions which are often more expensive, have a higher embodied energy use and may not necessarily be used efficiently by future occupiers. Miller Homes and Linden Homes will consider the use of renewable sources of energy on site, such as through the provision of solar panels on roofs. However, this is not always the most environmentally or financially appropriate or viable method of lowering energy demand and this needs to be recognised within the policy text.

These points should be recognised within the policy text and the requirements of point (4) in particular relaxed to recognise the variable ways in which higher energy efficiency can be achieved.

Natural England advocates a target of 100l/person/day. This is in line with Southern Water's policy. Whilst we note that Portsmouth Water supplies most of the District, Southern Water supplies the northern part.

7.100 to 7.104 Policy DM16

The standard set out here in terms of sustainable design is not high enough. All new developments, all new houses should be built to a zero carbon standard. This may not be popular with developers but it is essential for the long term good.

7.105
We strongly support all forms of renewable energy. All new properties should be built with solar panels. Renewable should be encourages as part of the planning process.

Thank you for the consultation on the above document. We have reviewed the document and have the following comments to make in response.

Summary
Overall we are pleased to see that the Plan provides a framework to ensure that new
development will take place in a considered manner to address environmental constraints as well as provide policy hooks for the delivery of environmental enhancements. However, to ensure that the Plan is as effective as possible and meets necessary policy and legislative requirements we have made some recommendations for improvements. These are set out in detail below. Where we support a policy we have also highlighted this below.

We have highlighted concerns with policy AL6 - Land SW of Chichester and have made recommendations for more significant changes to policies in relation to flood risk management (both strategic and development management) and wastewater management and water quality.

As a general comment we note that a significant proportion of the housing numbers
proposed through the Local Plan will be delivered by Neighbourhood Plans. We have
highlighted key criteria for individual locations that we would wish to see considered by those Plans when allocating sites. Where possible we would wish to see these included within the Local Plan policy but as you will be aware we have produced a checklist for Neighbourhood Plan groups in your District which will guide the identification of sites and other key issues and opportunities to be addressed in their Plans.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss further any of our comments and support the rewording of the policies prior to the production of a pre-submission Plan.

Specific comments

Strategic policies
Policy S12 - Infrastructure
Overall we support the policy. We would recommend that paragraph 3 be amended to
include reference to flood risk management infrastructure.

Policy S17 - Thorney Island
We are currently exploring opportunities for habitat creation in an area on Thorney Island. This is part of our Habitat Creation Programme which seeks to create new habitat to offset losses elsewhere as a result of sea level rise and implementation of coastal and flood risk management infrastructure.
Whilst the policy as drafted, along with other policies in the Plan, would not restrict this opportunity we would like you to consider whether further wording could be included to provide specific support for habitat creation.

Policy S18 - Integrated Coastal Zone Management
We support the continued inclusion of this policy and the specific references to key Plans.
We also support the intention that financial contributions should be sought to deliver both flood risk management infrastructure as well as improvements to the quality of watercourses in the area.

Policy S20 - Design
We support the specific requirements of this policy in point 5 and 8 with regard to green infrastructure and enhancing biodiversity and climate change resilience.

Policy S23 - Transport and Accessibility
The policy includes a new road connecting Birdham Road to the A27 Fishbourne
roundabout. The site includes areas within flood zones 2 and 3 and will cross a number of watercourse. It is essential that the requirements of the NPPF paras 157-8 are satisfied prior to the allocation. We have made detailed comments on this in relation to policy AL6 - Land South West of Chichester.

Policy S25 - The Coast
We are pleased to see the support in this policy for future habitat creation as well as the delivery of flood defences and adaptation to climate change. This supports principles of net environmental gain advocated through the NPPF and the 25 Year Environmental Plan as well as providing necessary policy hooks to support our future plans through our Habitat Creation Programme.
As we highlighted through the Issues and Options consultation this Programme was set up to deliver the compensatory habitat required to address the losses in habitat that would take place as a result of the flood and coastal risk management measures identified in the Shoreline Management Plans. There are specific locations within Chichester District which offer opportunities to provide saltmarsh and coastal grazing marsh in the medium to longer term. These locations include areas in Fishbourne, Chidham and Hambrook and on Thorney Island.

Policy S26 - Natural Environment
We would recommend that the policy wording be extended to say "protect and enhance biodiversity". This is consistent with the NPPF requirements in para 170 regarding net gain and current Government proposals to mandate biodiversity net gain for all new developments.

Policy S27 - Flood Risk Management
We support the intention of the policy, however, we would wish to see changes made to ensure the policy is as clear as possible. We would also recommend you consider what a strategic policy on flood risk management is seeking to achieve in addition to the development management policy. As drafted there are some duplications and/or inconsistencies between the two policies.
It may be more prudent to have a shorter overarching policy that seeks to ensure that flood risk will be taken account of at all stages in the planning process in order to avoid inappropriate development in areas at current or future risk (taking into account climate change) and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Reference could and should be made to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to enable this. We would also support a requirement here for development to seek to achieve a reduction in flood risk for existing communities on and off site.
The principle of point 3 is supported but again should be considered whether it sits best within the development management policy.
We would recommend removing point 4. It is not clear entirely what the rationale behind this is but as drafted it suggests that development within areas with a certain level of flood risk would be approved. This should only be the case when the sequential and exception test have been satisfied in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 157- 8. I would be happy to discuss this further if the intention behind the statement is different.

Policy S29 - Green Infrastructure
We support the policy and are pleased to see specific reference to "blue" infrastructure.

Policy S30 - Strategic Wildlife Corridors
We are supportive of this policy and believe it provides a strong framework for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity within the Plan Area. In particular we support the corridors along watercourses and the links with Biodiversity Opportunity Areas.
As previously highlighted in our Issues and Options response to the Local Plan the
Environment Agency are looking to deliver more natural flood management (NFM) measures to complement and support traditionally engineered flood defenses. This is about working with natural processes in whole catchments and has the potential to help us manage and reduce flood risk in a more efficient, cost effective and sustainable way whilst securing wider environmental benefits. We would be interested to discuss whether the Strategic Wildlife Corridors Background Paper could be expanded upon to consider these opportunities.
A nationally consistent set of opportunity maps to indicate potential for natural flood
management have been produced and I have attached a briefing not which shows how you can access this screening information. The identification and safeguarding of wildlife corridors could support our further work on NFM in the Chichester District and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. In particular we would be interested to discuss whether the Strategic Wildlife Corridors Background Paper could be expanded upon to consider these opportunities.

Policy S31 - Wastewater Management and Water Quality
We support the intention of this policy, however, we recommend that the policy is amended to ensure that specific issues associated with the Apuldram WwTW catchment are addressed and that wider opportunities for the necessary protection and enhancements of water quality in the catchments across the Plan area are taken forward through development. As drafted the supporting text to the policy talks primarily around wastewater treatment capacity and impacts on water quality. However, we would recommend that this is expanded to discuss wider water quality and water resources issues within the Plan area.
This should include reference to the Water Framework Directive and the South East River Basin Management Plan, for which the Council has an obligation to support their delivery.
We would wish to see the Plan include a policy that will ensure that the design and location of development will both protect and enhance water bodies, both surface and groundwater.
We are aware of a few adopted policies regarding water quality that you may wish to review ahead of the further iteration of your Plan. These include policy W DM1 - Water supply and quality in the Arun Local Plan and Policy 31 - Integrated Water Management and the water cycle in the Cambridge Local Plan. The Policy in the Arun Local Plan is subdivided in to 3 sections to cover issues of water supply, water quality and catchment specific measures.
This approach or layout may be useful for you to consider here.
You may also wish to consider whether there are elements of this policy that would be better situated in a development management policy to direct decision making on individual sites.
I would be happy to work with you further to develop this policy, however, to support this the following identifies some key wording that could be included:
"All new development must demonstrate:
* That it has no adverse impact on the quality of water bodies and groundwater, or will prevent future attainment of good status;
* That development contributes positively to the water environment and its ecology and does not adversely affect surface and ground water quality"
This will reflect that impacts on water quality will not solely relate to wastewater infrastructure but can include diffuse pollution as well as physical changes to watercourses.
With regard to the specific requirements for the Apuldram WwTW the policy as drafted broadly reflects the current adopted Plan policy. Would there be an opportunity here for the policy to reflect elements of the recently endorsed Position Statement between the Environment Agency and Southern Water in terms of managing development in the catchment?
The policy makes reference to the higher building regulations standard of 110 l per person per day. We support this standard but would recommend you consider whether this detail is needed in this strategic policy as well as development management policy DM16 - Sustainable Design and Construction.

Site Allocations
Please note we have no additional comments to make on the sites that are being taken forward from the current adopted Local Plan as we consider that the key policy criteria we sought at that stage has been transposed across. We continue to support these requirements.

Policy S32 - Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Proposals
We support this policy and specifically requirements for issues such as green infrastructure and SuDS to be fully considered through a Masterplan. Without this overarching vision for larger sites it is often difficult to provide a comprehensive scheme to address key environmental constraints and opportunities.

Policy AL13 - Land East of Chichester
There is a small area within the site located in Flood Zone 2, along with an additional surface water body (lake). We would recommend that the masterplan for this site fully considers these constraints in designing the site including the adopting the sequential approach. We would wish to see built development located solely within Flood Zone 1.

Policy AL 5 - Southern Gateway
We have previously made comments on the proposals for the Southern Gateway through the adopted masterplan for the site. As highlighted there are a number of constraints to development in this area, however, we are pleased to see specific criteria in the policy toensure that these key constraints to the site within our remit are fully considered.
These are:
- Bullet 8 which requires the provision of a wastewater management plan which
demonstrates no net increase in flow to the Apuldram WwTW. This is in line with the
Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD and the Position Statement on managing new
housing development in the Apuldram (Chichester) Wastewater Treatment Works
Catchment agreed between the Environment Agency and Southern Water.
- Bullet 10 which sets out the requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment to address the
specific flood risk issues on the site. We would recommend that this policy criteria
could be expanded upon to require the sequential approach within the site and to
ensure that more vulnerable uses such as housing be located in the lowest areas of
flood risk.

Policy AL6 - Land SW of Chichester
At this stage we do not support the inclusion of this site within the Plan.
The allocation is composed of housing, employment and a road scheme. Large areas of the allocation falls within flood zones 2 and 3 and we would wish to see further evidence to support this allocation. This may be as part of a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for this site which would then inform a Sequential and if necessary an Exceptions Test. The assessment would need to consider how the proposals could be delivered and identify any mitigation and/or compensation measures that may be necessary to ensure that the development is safe and that there is no increase in flood risk to third parties.
Whilst we note that there are areas outside of the flood plain within the allocation and that some of the development could avoid these areas it is anticipated that the road would cross the flood plain and therefore further detailed understanding of this risk and how it would be managed should be provided.
As drafted the policy makes no reference to flood risk and we would wish to see this
amended.
With regard to housing development we would wish to ensure that all development be located in Flood Zone 1 and that the policy criteria would reflect this.
Other issues include the crossing of watercourses and impacts on biodiversity and water quality. This should be referenced within the policy criteria with requirements for any watercourse crossings to be clear span in design. This will ensure that flood water conveyance is not impeded and protect the habitat associated with those watercourses.
In addition to flood risk we also have concerns with regard to where the sites wastewater would drain to. In line with our Position Statement on managing new housing development in Apuldram (Chichester) Wastewater Treatment Works Catchment allocations within the Local Plan should not drain to the Apuldram WwTW but be directed to alternative WwTW catchments, notably Tangmere WwTW via the new sewer pipeline connection once operational.
It is difficult to understand how this site would connect to an alternative WwTW and therefore would question whether the site would be deliverable.

Policy AL9 - Fishbourne
Fishbourne parish falls within the Apuldram WwTW catchment and we would recommend that the policy makes specific reference to the issues that the Neighbourhood Plan group should consider when identifying sites for their Local Plan.
We would also recommend that specific reference is made to the Source Protection Zone that covers part of the parish in order to ensure that the groundwater, and in turn the drinkingwater supply, is protected.

Policy AL11 - Hunston
There are parts of Hunston that fall within flood zones 2 and 3. We would recommend that if possible the policy makes reference to the fact that built development should be located solely in Flood Zone 1. If this is not possible some reference would need to be made to flood risk and the requirement for the Neighbourhood Plan group to fully consider this through their site allocation process. If sites were to be allocated in flood zone 2 or 3 it is likely that the Plan would need to be supported by a Level 2 SFRA or equivalent.

Policy AL13 - Southbourne Parish
Point 16 identifies the need to ensure that sufficient capacity is available at the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works prior to the delivery of development. This could be expanded to include sewer network capacity. Liaison with Southern Water regarding any necessary phasing of development would be encouraged.

Development Management Policies

Policy DM5 - Accommodation for GTTTS
We support the specific criteria in this policy to ensure that GTTS sites are not located in areas at risk of flooding.

Policy DM14 - Caravan and Camping Sites
We support the particular reference to restricting the occupancy of these sites in flood risk areas. However, there is no specific mention that flood risk areas should be avoided where possible. We would recommend that this should be included within the policy criteria.

Policy DM15 - Horticultural Development
We are pleased to see specific reference to the need to demonstrate adequate water
resources are available and/or water efficiency measures.

Policy DM16 - Sustainable Design and Construction
We support the requirement for new development to achieve a water usage of a maximum of 110litres per head per day.
For completeness we recommend that point 5 should be expanded to include compensation as well as make reference to net gain. This is in line with NPPF para 170.
We support the requirement in point 8 with regard to measures to adapt to climate change.

Policy DM18 - Flood Risk and Water Management
para. 7.115 - reference to the Environment Agency should be removed from this sentence.
The responsibility for surface water drainage and consideration of SuDS sits with West Sussex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority for this area.
para. 7.116 - vulnerability - it should be noted that not all development types would be appropriate in all flood zones. Basement dwellings would not be supported in flood zone 3. This paragraph should be amended to reflect this.
We would recommend that you review this policy alongside the strategic policy on flood risk to ensure that they are complementary. Whilst the intention of the policy is good some further clarity could be provided to ensure that all sources of flood risk are considered through decision making.
As drafted there is no reference to the Sequential Test which is a key step in decision
making with regard to proposals in a flood zone. It appears that a number of the criteria included in policy 42 of the current adopted Local Plan have been stripped out. We would recommend further consideration of this for the next iteration of the Plan.
We note that the policy also makes reference to wider water management and does refer tothe South East River Basin Management Plan, however, as per our comments on policy S31 we would wish to see a specific policy that provides for the protection and enhancement of water quality. It may be prudent to consider whether an overarching strategic policy to address flood risk and water management would be best with separate detailed development management policies for each topic.
We would be happy to work with you regarding this detail.

Policy DM20 - Development around the coast
We support this policy and the requirement to safeguard a strip of land behind existing or proposed sea defence or coastal works. Please note that the Environment Agency would seek a 16 metre buffer behind any of our tidal defences.
We support the specific requirement to ensure that development for boat or marine use would not be detrimental to water quality.

Policy DM24 - Air Quality
We are pleased to see that this policy recognises that new development may be located near to existing uses that may be potentially polluting to housing. It is important that the onus should be on the developer/applicant to manage any impact to ensure that they don't leave the existing user affected, e.g. by complaints.

Policy DM26 - Contaminated Land
We support this policy as drafted.

Policy DM29 - Biodiversity
We support this policy as drafted and are pleased to see that specific reference has been
provided to ensure that net gain in biodiversity is actively pursued. Consideration should be
given to the current Government consultation on mandating biodiversity net gain in all new
development and whether this may require further strengthening of the policy wording.
Policy DM32 - Green Infrastructure
We support policy.

Spatial Vision
Portsmouth Water note that there are significant additional housing allocations to the west of Chichester and on the coastal strip. These sites will need to be assessed for water supply and funding included in the Infrastructure Charging scheme. (See Map 4.1 Key Diagram)

It is not clear what water storage capacity is being referred to in Section 3.19. Portsmouth Water will review the provision of Service Reservoirs, for day to day use, and has re-started development of a large raw water storage reservoir at Havant Thicket. The reservoir, when combined with Portsmouth Water's existing sources and enhancements to its groundwater sources, would create sufficient
surplus to support an additional flexible daily transfer of treated water from Portsmouth Water are to Southern Water without detriment to Portsmouth Water's resilience.

Southern Water requires this transfer to help meet a significant deficit in its Southampton East, Southampton West and Isle of Wight resource zones. This deficit arose after Southern Water agreed to reduce its abstraction licences on the Rivers Test and River Itchen at a public inquiry in March 2018, to help protect the environment.

It is not clear that the water demands of the Horticultural Development Areas have been assessed. It is possible that these businesses will rely on rainwater harvesting and storage but changes in licencing regulations mean that 'Trickle Irrigation' is no longer exempt from abstraction licencing.

Groundwater abstraction in the coastal plain will require an impact assessment under the Habitats Regulations. (Section 4.75)

Spatial Strategy

Policy S12 sets out how development can make effective use of existing infrastructure. Portsmouth Water agree that the siting and timing of development can assist with the economic provision of water resource infrastructure. It also states that safeguarding existing infrastructure, such as water mains and aquifers, is important. Portsmouth Water would urge developers to check for existing infrastructure and for source protection zones that may limit development options.
Water infrastructure is not funded through CIL but a separate 'Infrastructure Charge' payable for each individual house. This is designed to pay for all off-site water infrastructure such as mains reinforcements, service reservoirs and supply. Development to an agreed program will help this system work effectively.

Strategic Policies

Policy S27 'Flood Risk Management' refers to Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS) and the need to control surface water run-off. It should also refer to aquifer protection and the need for caution when using infiltration systems especially deep bore systems. This applies particularly when the site is in, or close to, a source protection zone.

Policy S31 'Wastewater Management and Water Quality' refers to higher standards in the Building Regulations for water consumption to reduce pollution in the harbours. Portsmouth Waters 'Water Resources Management Plan' is based on lower per capita consumption and we have an aspiration for all customer to reach 100 litres/head/day by 2050. This is no substitute for reducing overall flows
to sewage treatment works by the control of groundwater infiltration and surface water drainage.

Strategic Site Allocations

Policy AL1 'West of Chichester' does not mention water supply so we assume that the site has reverted to a conventional system with sewerage pumped to Tangmere WWTW and water supplied by us. Portsmouth Water has provided provisional designs for this system and there are no existing large diameter water mains on the site. Costs for reinforcement of the water mains will be recovered by the new Infrastructure Charge and on site mains are likely to be provided by a third
party. Information on how reinforcement of the water mains is recovered by the Infrastructure Charge can be found in Portsmouth Water's Developer Charging Arrangements on our website under https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/developers/.

Policy AL2 'Shopwyke' is already under construction and has a conventional water supply system with all elements provided by us. Costs are being recovered via the Infrastructure Charge and on-site charges.

Policy AL3 'East of Chichester' is a new strategic site and there are no large diameter mains crossing it. This is an old landfill and may contain material that can damage plastic pipes. On site mains may need to be protected or be more expensive to ensure water quality is maintained.

Policy AL4 'Westhampnett' Phase 1 is already under construction and account has been taken of the large diameter main that crosses the site. Phase 2 is an extension of the existing Greylingwell site but it is not clear if this has been allowed for in the design of this 'Inset Appointment'. Portsmouth Water do not own the mains and there may be a single point of supply.

Policy AL5 'Southern Gateway' is an inner city development with a good water supply system. The reference to the 'efficient use of water' is confusing because many of the other strategic development sites also drain to Apuldram WWTW. All sites need to be water efficient but not follow the example of the 'Code for Sustainable Homes'. Sites were developed in Chichester that used rainwater harvesting to meet the Code objectives but were able to use higher water use fittings such as power showers. This led to properties producing more sewage than equivalent water efficient homes. This did not achieve the objective at Apuldram. An alternative provision might be to reduce infiltration but it is not clear how this would be funded or who would carry out the work.

Policy AL6 'South West Chichester' is crossed by a large diameter main that will have to be reflected in the road layout or diverted. The proposed link road may offer an alternative route for the main.

Policy AL7 'Bosham' is situated on the old A27 and there are no large diameter mains in the area.

Policy AL8 'East Wittering' is at the extremity of the distribution system and may be expensive to supply.

Policy AL9 'Fishbourne' allocation is not site specific and it is difficult to comment on the feasibility of water supply. Any off site costs will be recovered via the new Infrastructure Charge. Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and development is likely to be located in a source protection zone for our Fishbourne public water supply abstraction. Under this policy, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality
protection and the additional requirements when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Further guidance on Portsmouth Water's preferred approach to development relating to groundwater quality within our catchments can be found within 'Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance notes' which are attached to this response and also available to view on our website under https://www.portsmouthwater.co.uk/developers/groundwater-protection/.

Policy AL10 'Chidham and Hambrook' is a large site and may need to be considered in combination with 'Southbourne' and 'Bosham'. There are no large diameter mains in the area and mains reinforcements may be required.

Policy AL11 'Hunston' allocation is not site specific.

Policy A12 'Selsey' is at the extremity of the distribution system and has seen previous housing growth. Reinforcement of the water mains may need to be provided.

Policy AL13 'Southbourne' is supplied from a different distribution system to Chichester. This is a very large housing allocation and this may need to be considered in combination with 'Hambrook' and 'Bosham'. There are sufficient water resources for all the housing allocated to Portsmouth Water's area of supply. It is the location of the housing site in relation to existing trunk mains and
service reservoirs that determines the cost to supply. Local reinforcement of the water mains may be required.

Policy AL14 'Tangmere' housing allocation has increased by 30% and we may need to repeat the modelling that has already been done. There is also uncertainty about the water supply to the HDA which seems to rely on rainwater harvesting for future growth. The housing development and the HDA could have an impact on our source protection zone. Under this policy, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality protection and the
additional requirements when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Guidance should be sought from Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance for development.

Policy AL15 'Land at Chichester Business Park, Tangmere' Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and the site allocation is likely to be within a source protection zone for our Aldingbourne public water supply abstraction. As above, where development is in a source protection zone, the policy should also refer to groundwater quality protection and the need for caution when using infiltration systems in particular deep bore systems. Please refer to Portsmouth Water's Groundwater Protection Guidance for further information.

Development Management

Policy DM10: 'New Employment Sites' Development proposal should be compatible with other policies in the Plan, in particular DM9 'Existing Employment Sites' to ensure that the development is otherwise acceptable. Policy DM9 states that development should 'not generate unacceptable levels of water pollution' and this should include groundwater pollution. This requirement should also be applied to Policy DM10, especially when the site is in, or close to, a source protection zone.

Policy DM15 'Horticultural Development' Developments at Tangmere HDA have relied on infiltration to dispose of excess surface water. This policy states that development should 'not generate unacceptable levels of water pollution' and this should include groundwater pollution. Portsmouth Water have public water supply abstractions in the area and the potential impacts must be assessed for any SUDS. The EA 'Abstraction Licencing Strategy' (ALS) may give an indication about the
availability of groundwater but it does not cover the derogation of existing supplies.

Policy DM16 'Sustainable Design and Construction' covers the use of Building Regulations to control water use. Portsmouth Water have an aspiration to reduce overall water use to 100 litres/head/day and this policy will help to achieve that aim.

Policy DM18 'Water Management' using SUDS needs to take account groundwater quality and should avoid direct infiltration into the chalk aquifer. This is especially important within the source protection zones.

Policy DM29 'Biodiversity' Portsmouth Water has legal duties to protect and where practical enhance biodiversity and has an active program of work on it's own land. This work is now expanding to include projects on other people's land in association with 'Catchment Management' activities. We would look to CDC for support in areas such as Bosham Stream, Lavant Stream and Fishbourne Stream where schemes could be developed in partnership with local housing developments.

Policy DM35 'Equestrian Development' can have a direct impact on water quality including groundwater quality. Portsmouth Water support the protection of water courses and aquifers.

Appendix 'E' Monitoring Framework

Policy S12 covers the provision of infrastructure but it is not clear how records of completed projects will be collected or stored.

Policy S26 covers biodiversity improvements and Natural England should be consulted on priorities and record keeping.

Policy S31 covers water consumption which is only available for the whole Company area in the WRMP Annual Review.

Introduction
I agree with most of the points made in the Introduction, not least the points about affordable housing, (para 2.9) for which there is a clear demand and inherent because of the 0.75%pa rise in population and the yawning gap between incomes and house prices.
I will acknowledge that I am writing as a baby boomer, but I note the above average presence of senior citizens in the CDC area and your anticipation that it will rise to 35% by 2015 (para 2.8). This surely has implications for the facilities that CDC, and probably more so WSCC because of its responsibilities for social care, will need to provide, and I do not notice any focus on this in your introductory section. In fairness I am slightly more encouraged when I read paragraph 3.19
I would also ask how many of the young people educated in the area return here to live and work after qualifying. And if the number is low, why, and what do you propose to do to ameliorate the haemorrhage?
Spatial Vision and Strategic Objectives
I agree with your list of items in paragraph 3.2. That said, I note that you state that people should be able to "move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel (my emphasis). This surely has major implications for public transport, for walking, and for cycling, and surely these should be highlighted in this introductory summary. I shall look forward to seeing what you have to say about these later in the document.
I agree with paragraph 3.3 - but what do you mean by your hope to "balance the ageing population"? That could sound horribly ominous!
In para 3.4 I understand the wish to diversify the local economy - but where are these new organisations to go? You talk about "new sustainable neighbourhoods on the eastern, western and southern sides of Chichester, which could, especially when one thinks of Whitehouse Farm, appear to presage a level of growth which will frighten many. I think that the example of Summersdale, where I live, does not bode entirely well, for it is largely devoid of any community centres and has no public transport in the evenings.
In para 3.6 you speak of a "highly accessible transit corridor" Do you really mean this, says he thinking of the state of Chichester by-pass, the queues that I see coming east on to the Fishbourne roundabout in the morning, and the rush-hour queues from Bognor? Perhaps I could add what the all too predictable impact of Whitehouse Farm will be on both the Fishbourne roundabout and the Northgate gyratory.
Re para 3.10, my understanding is that rather more than "moderate levels of growth" are proposed between Fishbourne and Southbourne, and I shudder at the impact on the A259, all the more so when I think of all that traffic passing through the narrow main road at Fishbourne and also coming out on to what is already a very dangerous Fishbourne roundabout, which I do my best to avoid now!
Turning to paragraph 3.19 I welcome, amongst the other points you make there, the references to affordable housing, to air quality, to the section on health and well-being, and (at a time of fears about global warming) to the reference to flood risk.
Spatial Strategy
I welcome the list of services and facilities mentioned in paragraph 4.12, as that most certainly is not the case in present-day Summersdale.
In fairness I recognise the increased demand for housing as mentioned in para 4.22, as this is inherent in an area of rising population and probably more single-person households (which I have not seen mentioned). I suspect, for instance, that I am far from alone in living singly since bereavement in the family house where I have lived for forty years and from which I have no plans to move. That said, enormous care will be needed in selecting the areas for expansion and the implications for infrastructure and community buildings. Moreover you are clearly right in para 4.30 to refer to longer term growth.
You are clearly right to talking of "meeting the housing needs of the plan area and tackling homelessness" in para 4.34. In all honesty I was appalled when I saw the numbers of people sleeping out late a night when I happened to walk home at a late hour last March. I did not think that such an inhuman state of affairs obtained in Chichester, and am horrified that it still apparently does. I strongly agree with paragraphs 4.43 and 4.44. I welcome the policy statement S6, even if I think that we really need is a return to council house building, as was used to solve even worse problems in the decades after 1945.
Re para 4.66 I have very mixed feelings. It has pleased me not to see the extent of boarded up properties that one sees elsewhere. That said:-
* I write as one who detests shopping and does very little within Chichester city centre; I probably use only about half a dozen shops and those only occasionally.
* I know that my wife always preferred to go to Worthing and can think of a friend who prefers Southampton.
* I think that you have to recognise as a fact of life that more people are going to shop on-line, not least for reasons of price, and that that inherently impacts on traditional retail shopping.
* I tend to do my shopping on the edge of town as that is where the big supermarkets are and parking is easy. I would take some persuasion to change that.
* Looking at policy S9, do you really need more shipping in the Southern Gateway at a time of decline of town centre retail shopping?
Providing Supporting Infrastructure and Services
Paragraph 4.80 should also include cycle tracks and bus routes if you really want to move away from the use of private cars.
I note that paragraph 4.81 includes a reference to "appropriate revenue support". I fully agree and wish that I could believe that this present austerity-obsessed government would actually provide it.
Your policy S12 seems right to me.
East-West Corridor
I think that you are somewhat optimistic in paragraph 4.88. The 700 bus service is very good, but what about other routes, especially in the evening? The present state of the Chichester by-pass is dreadful, and the Fishbourne roundabout is a particular source of danger, moreover one likely to be made worse by more traffic coming from Whitehouse Farm and from further development along the A259.
Policy S13 seems fine to me.
Paragraphs 4.95-98 describe a situation that I know only too well. I would add that as a cyclist I find the western end of The Hornet and St Pancras to be by far the most dangerous pieces of road in Chichester, and I write as one who usually does not mind where he cycles.
I do not agree with paragraph 4.101 - I think that a park and ride is badly needed, arguably from both the west and the south.
Re policy S.14:-
* Re peripheral car parks, if you want to revive the city centre, is that really the answer? What about those who find walking difficult or who do not want to carry heavy shopping half a mile to their car?
* I shudder what the queues will be like with a bus lane up to the Bognor roundabout.
* I think that the present bus/rail interchange is quite good, though I think that you need safer crossing of the road and seats in the bus station
* I do not notice any statement about solving the problems caused by the level crossings by Chichester Station. Having had to wait there for over five minutes yesterday while a train was sitting in Chichester Station I feel bound to ask whether there cannot be some mechanism to bring the gates down just before a train is due to leave, and when you are going to have either a bridge or an underpass there.
Re paragraphs 4.103-105, wshat consideration has been given to the transport consequences of such development, especially given the absurd decision to remove the Oving lights?
Given that I live in Maplehurst road, you will not be surprised that I have noted policy S15. Essentially I welcome this policy, not least, as having some pretentions to being a musician, I am very aware of noise, and the weekends where un-silenced racing is allowed are truly a misery, which ideally would be stopped as unbelievably selfish and insensitive and at very least should not be allowed to expand beyond the one such meeting per year. In fairness the banks erected some years ago have made a difference, and for the most part aircraft do behave themselves. I also think that any housing development closer to Goodwood Airfield should be out of the question, as the noise would be intolerable to anyone with normal hearing. In policy S16, point 2 I think that un-silenced racing should not be allowed despite their loss of amenity, as the consequent noise is not reasonable.
Re paragraphs 4.111-115, what do you think is going to be the impact of 1600 new houses in that area - to amenity and the rural aspect; to the A259; to traffic through Fishbourne; and the already dangerous Fishbourne roundabout? I think that the scale of this development is highly questionable for these reasons.
Strategic Policies
Looking at policy S20, I agree with all the points that you make. I would add:-
* The need for a public transport system that does not stop in the evening, and
* The need for good bicycle access. When I think that at least twice a promised access to Centurion Way has not been delivered, I think it fair to make that point, especially if you really do want to get people out of their cars.
Re paragraph 5.16 I find it sad that you do not mention in your strategic corridors that the cycle track adjacent to the A259 going west from Chichester is part of cycle route NCN2.
Re paragraph 5.22 our roads are going to be even more over capacity with significantly more housing development. I have already referred several times to my concerns over the dangerous Fishbourne roundabout.
Re paragraph 5.27 I welcome the interest in cycling provision. Living in Summersdale it takes me less than ten minutes to cycle into the city centre - in fact by far the quickest way I can get there. For the most part it is safe, I think, but with the glaring exception of the Northgate gyratory. Whoever designed that clearly forgot that a cyclist is at his/her most risk when pulling away, so to expect cyclists to stop at each exit is a massive deterrent. This cyclist prefers not to use the cycle lane in order to have safer crossing at each exit. I find the St Pauls Road exist especially dangerous. I would also like to have paint markings on the raised kerbs at each exit for safety in the dark.
More generally, if you are in the Low Countries, it is exceptional for cyclists can have two way traffic in what it is a one-way street for motorists - I have seen so many no-entry signs there with "uitgezonderd fietser" below. In fairness there is some of this in Chichester, but I think that there is scope for more.
I also think that Chichester centre needs increased provision for cycle parking, for instance adjacent to the Little London car park, where there is plenty of potential space, and at the eastern end of East Street, where I find the present racks often to be full.
I would also like you to think how cyclists can be safer at the western ends of The Hornet and St Pancras, which are the two roads in Chichester which make me feel very chary.
With the additions of the points made in the previous paragraphs and also restating a need for evening bus services, I generally support the points made in policy S23, though I would repeat what I have already said about expecting people to park too far away from the city centre if you really want people to come there, and I would extend this point by saying that if you are going for distant parking, a park and ride becomes essential. I am agnostic about the Birdham Road to Fisbourne proposal, as I do not know enough about it to comment.
Re policy S24 I would make a particular plea for the Lavant Gap, which is important both to Lavant and Summersdale especially as an important part of our amenity. And we did not fight to save it to have a northern by-pass trundling through there!
I agree with policy S27 and would add that I can remember the floods some fifteen years ago and looking out at the River Lavant east of Maplehurst Road to see how far the waters were going to spread. That too me (besides proximity to Goodwood) would be a major factor in my opposing any development there. I am aware that the Pagham Rife project subsequently ameliorated the risk, but I still think that it needs to be borne in mind, especially given the impact of global warming.
I agree with policies S28 29, 30, and 31. I would make a particular point of air and noise pollution.
Strategic Site Allocations
I agree with policy S32,
How can you write paragraph 6.8? You will know as well as I do that cycling links are not good, and will be worse if Centurion Way is to be diverted. Also how are cyclists supposed to get into the city from the northern end of Whitehouse Farm - down St Paul's Road and coming on to the Northgate Gyratory (which will also be receiving significantly more motor traffic? Please!! I hope that you also know that the plans could well include a really dangerous junction on Centurion Way that is the entrance from Bishop Luffa Close.
As for motor traffic, the same point about St Paul's Road applies. And as for the southern end, surely you know what that is going to do to local roundabouts, not least the dreadful Fishbourne roundabout?
In terms of recreational disturbance, (para 6.12) why is there no reference to Centurion Way?
The points above all are relevant to policy AL1.
Re policy AL2 I do not know enough to comment in much detail. That said, I am concerned about transport access. I know that I am not alone in detesting coming up to the Bognor roundabout from Bognor and often prefer the safer route via the Oving traffic lights. Has any account been made of how such traffic, which is not inconsiderable will be affected, and how this will make the journey from Bognor to Chichester significantly worse than it presently is?
Re policy AL5 I accept the case for redevelopment, though was far from impressed with the last proposal I saw and commented on at the time; I thought, and still think, that the road alternations then proposed were insane and asking for more rather than less jams. I welcome the references to access for cyclists and pedestrian. I am not clear when there are references to the bus depot as to whether that includes the bus station. If you want people to come to Chichester centre, bus access needs to be close; moreover the present bus station is properly close to the railway station, which is important for integrated travel. I do not see any reference to taking away the present crossing gates, which are a serious impediment to traffic at the moment, both on Stockbridge and Basin Road; I think that that is a bad omission.
Re policy AL9 I lack the detailed knowledge usefully to comment, but would ask how far the present state of the A259 has been borne in mind in planning both in Fishbourne and further west from Chichester. It is narrow and at times congested now - major development can only exacerbate such problems.
Re policy AL10 I can comment only as one who fairly often cycles east-west along the A259. The exit from the cycle track on the southern side of the A259 to the east side of Chidham is presently dangerous because of the road layout and the warning sign about cyclists being several; yards too late and often obscured by foliage. Where there is a cycle track in Chidham, parking on that track is not uncommon. There is also a significant gap in the cycle track through much of Chidham. Moreover this is part of a national cycling route, and will become even more significant with more development in Chidham and points west.
Re policies AL11 and AL12 please bear in mind the need for cycle access and for the proposed cycle track between Chichester and Selsey (via Hunston) to develop, especially if you really mean to develop non-motor transport (and also as a valuable and healthy amenity) and bearing in mind how dangerous the B2145 is.
Re policy AL13 cycling provision to the west of the roundabout presently is reasonable; it is not good west of the roundabout. My comments about NCN2 refer here too.
Development Management
I am especially pleased to see paragraphs 7.2, 7.4, 7.6, and 7.8, as with an ageing population and baby bookers such as me passing 80 within ten years or so, increased specialist provision is inevitably going to be necessary. This is not to downplay other specific groups, eg students - I simply write from an area of specific knowledge. I agree with policy DM1.
The principles behind policy DM2 seem right to me and I am pleased to see recognition of the need for affordable housing. I would make specific reference to resolving homelessness, young families with not much money, and people in the twenties moving to a new area to start work.
I agree with what you are saying in policy DM8. I have raised my concerns about such issues as cycling routes, bus services, parking and the impact on existing crowded and/ or dangerous routes earlier in this response.
I can see why you are seeking to protect the city centre and prevent an excessive dominance of out of town areas, all the more so as I have seen this in the USA. That said, I find shopping on the edge of town a lot easier -things are in the same place; parking is easier; prices tend to be better. And how far are you crying for the moon as on-line shopping takes off? I for one would take a lot of persuasion to do much shopping in a city centre especially with poor parking. So, while I accept most of what you say in policy DM12, it is with this big proviso.
I agree with policies DM13 and DM14.
I think that any new building should have to incorporate solar panels (re policy DM16). I know how much electricity my solar panels have saved me, and, were I younger and further solar installation not so expensive (it would take me more than a decade to get my money back) I would seriously consider more to provide solar energy for heating and electricity storage.
We are now so aware of air quality issues that I am very pleased to see policy DM24. I also agree with policy DM25 and would add that this should be a significant issue (because of the noise pollution emanating from Goodwood) for any development east of Maplehurst Road.
Re policy DM33, last time I was there I thought that the canal towpath was very dangerous at the western end, particularly for anyone trying to ride a bicycle there.
My apologies but I do not know enough about the later policies usefully to comment.

Summary
In case it helps for me to summarise what I have been seeking to say:-
* As a cyclist I have inevitably had a lot to say about present inadequacies in the network. These need remedy if you really want people to get their bikes out in a city that is made for cycling and feel safe in so doing. Moreover there are the clear health and pollution gains from more cycling, and it is actually often the quickest way from a resident anywhere in the city to get into the centre.
* Housing is important - to resolve homelessness; to provide affordable housing; to meet the needs of young families with not much money or young singles moving here to begin a job/ career.
* There are particular issues re an ageing population and the increased needs are so predictable now even if perhaps not immediate.
* If you really want people on buses, fares have to be lower so that they are competitive with the marginal cost of a car journey for a family, which they are not at present. Services need to be good and to include the evenings.
* I think that there is a danger of Canute tendencies re retail when I think of the attractions of edge of city shopping let alone on-line trading.
* This is linked with car parking - reasonably central car parking and/or a park and ride are crucial if you really want to maintain/expand the city centre.
* The present situation over the level crossing is unacceptable.
* The Fishbourne roundabout is unacceptably dangerous, and the present "by-pass" is a denial of your hopes of an easy east-west transit.
* I am pleased to see the sections on air and noise pollution, and also the encouragement of solar electricity, and I hope that these will really mean something

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment

See attachment