Schedule of proposed changes to the policies map

Showing comments and forms 1 to 20 of 20

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 352

Received: 24/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Paul Sansby

Representation:

There should be a map of the Tangmere HDA to confirm the boundary and the latest glass house developments.

Full text:

There should be a map of the Tangmere HDA to confirm the boundary and the latest glass house developments.

Support

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 436

Received: 28/01/2019

Respondent: Mrs Alison Potts

Representation:

Removal of the field from the Strategic Plan is a a very positive move

Full text:

Support to change AL4

I am fully supportive of the removal of the field to the West of Madgwick Lane from the current Strategic Site Allocation for several reasons:
- The amount of new building already in Westhampnett has significantly increased traffic and at peak times the village is overrun and extremely busy - this is before completion of the 300 dwellings at Madgwick Park - further development would amount to gridlock.
- There are no new resources - i.e. schools/doctors for the new dwelling built and being built so further building would exacerbate these issues.
- Westhampnett was always to have it's own identity from Chichester and retaining some greenfield space ensures this.
- Cityscape from the North would not be further damaged.
- As a Westhampnett resident on certain days when Goodwood is operating track racing noise is already an issue further away than the field - using a garden on those days closer to the track would be impossible.

Support

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 861

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Councillor Simon Oakley

Representation:

Additions to Eastern Wildlife corridor to provide sufficient corridor width and inclusion of significant Green Network features to reinforce function of this corridor i.a.w. Policy S30 and its supporting text as well as NPPF para 174.

Full text:

Map S30b (Eastern Wildlife Corridor). Different versions between Consult map (dated 30/10/18) and Evidence map (dated 6/11/18). Assuming later version is extant map (which includes Marsh Lane/Oldbury Farm/Bridleway 292/Common Land to West of Smiths Copse within corridor) propose following additions to provide sufficient corridor width and inclusion of significant Green Network features to reinforce function of this corridor:
1. Permanent reservoir on East side of Tangmere Airfield Nurseries;
2. Section of open field directly South of Woodhorn Green Recycling compound originally included in map dated 30/10/18;
3. Small uncultivated field to SW of Tangmere Common Land which is enclosed by watercourses and tree lines and is ecologically managed;
4. Area to South of existing corridor and District boundary between A259 and B2166. This area incorporates a network of field boundaries and watercourses of equal importance to those within existing corridor as well as providing direct connectivity between Aldingbourne and Pagham Rife catchments (e.g. watercourse along District boundary);
5. Area to West of existing corridor, South of Saltham Barns Nursery (Runcton), East of Runcton/Punches Lane to junction with Bowley Lane. This area incorporates a network of field boundaries and watercourses (including Pagham Rife and significant reservoirs) of equal importance to those within existing corridor;
6. Area South of existing corridor to District boundary where it departs from the District's boundary (East of Bowley Lane) to the Pagham Harbour SPA. This area incorporates a network of field boundaries and watercourses of equal importance to those within existing corridor;
7. Area between existing corridor and line between Pete's Farm (S Mundham), PROW linking S Mundham with Fisher Farm, Fisher Lane and Northern most tip of SPA at Chapel Cottage. This area incorporates a network of field boundaries and watercourses of equal importance to those within existing corridor.
8. Extend corridor along Tinwood Lane, including adjacent wooded areas, from SDNP boundary at Halnaker to Crockerhill.

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 862

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Councillor Simon Oakley

Representation:

Map AL3. Given Springfield Park has been allocated for development in the recently adopted Site Allocations DPD, for similar economic purposes for which the Fuel Depot site immediately to the West has been granted, should this site not also be included in an extension of the Settlement Boundary?

Full text:

Map AL3. Given Springfield Park has been allocated for development in the recently adopted Site Allocations DPD, for similar economic purposes for which the Fuel Depot site immediately to the West has been granted, should this site not also be included in an extension of the Settlement Boundary?

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 1457

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Berkeley Strategic Land Ltd.

Agent: WYG

Representation:

The map should be amended to include all of our client's land, as set and and shown, on the attached document.

Full text:

We wish to support this policy.

The Berkeley Group is the sole owner of Lawrence Farm which forms part of the land that is allocated for development by Policy AL6. Lawrence Farm is extends to 3.67 hectares and is located adjacent to the Fishbourne roundabout. The site is referred to in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment as CC08209A and it remains both available and deliverable.

We support the principle of improving the Fishbourne roundabout and the provision of a new link road connecting the A27/A259 Fishbourne roundabout and A286 Birdham Road. Lawrence Farm can help to facilitate and deliver the roundabout improvements and the northernmost part of the link road. We would therefore like to work collaboratively with the Council and the adjoining landowners to support the allocation of the site as the Local Plan progresses.

We believe that the land to the South-West of Chichester is a sustainable location for development. It is located adjacent to the built-up area of Chichester, the largest and most sustainable settlement in the District, and benefits from being approximately one mile from the train station and the high street.

Policy S8: Meeting Local Employment Needs includes 145,835m2 floorspace as identified in the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) and an additional 86,000m2 of floorspace as an allowance for future losses. The HEDNA includes four scenarios for employment need which results in a wide range of floorspace requirements. We believe that total floorspace provision in Policy S8 might be overly ambitious for a couple of reasons. Firstly because the rate of future loss of employment is likely to slow down compared to the rate experienced by the Council when permitted development rights first came into effect and secondly, given the current and emerging economic uncertainties.

It will be important for the Local Plan to contain sufficient flexibility and to be able to react to economic changes during the Plan period. We would therefore recommend removing the reference to the acreage of employment land and number of new homes and including an additional sentence added at the end of the first paragraph to say:

"The final quantum of employment space and number of dwellings will be determined by an up-to-date market assessment to determine the viability of the proposals, the need for additional commercial floorspace and the demand for more housing at the time of submission."

We would like to work with the Council and the adjoining owners of land within Policy AL6 to understand if there is scope for Al6 to provide a greater number of new homes.

AL6 also represents a great opportunity to deliver a new country park and green infrastructure. The provision of strategic open space can not only assist with protecting the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the Solent Special Area of Conservation and the views of Chichester Cathedral spire, it can also help to achieve a net biodiversity gain.

As set out in Policy AL6, proposals will need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity will be available within the sewer network. We are happy to work with the adjoining landowners, Council, Southern Water, and other stakeholders to ensure that the Apuldram waste water treatment works can accommodate the development.

We anticipate that strategic highway improvements, new strategic open spaces and potential improvements to the Apuldram wastewater treatment are likely to have an impact on the viability of the allocation. The viability of AL6 will need to be considered in greater detail as the Local Plan progresses. A further advantage of AL6 providing more than 100 new homes is the potential to improvement to the viability of the allocation.

In order to enable and deliver the most suitable improvements to the Fishbourne roundabout, we recommend that the full extent of the land at Lawrence Farm is included in the Proposed Strategic Site Allocation AL6. The amendment of the accompanying plan for AL6 to include all of our client's land around the Fishbourne roundabout will not only maximise opportunities for the road to be provided within the red edge of the site, but also help to avoid complications later in the process.

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2294

Received: 03/02/2019

Respondent: Simon Futcher

Representation:

We note that the existing Settlement Boundary passes through our property (White Poplars), leaving part of the land inside and part outside. We feel this to be completely illogical and would request that all of our property is included within the Settlement Boundary. As stated above, we feel the boundary should be moved to include all of our land.

Two documents are attached illustrating the situation. One is a Land Registry document, the other is an enlargement of the map used in your consultative document. In each case our boundaries are marked in red.

Full text:

We note that the existing Settlement Boundary passes through our property (White Poplars), leaving part of the land inside and part outside. We feel this to be completely illogical and would request that all of our property is included within the Settlement Boundary.
As stated above, we feel the boundary should be moved to include all of our land.

Two documents are attached illustrating the situation. One is a Land Registry document, the other is an enlargement of the map used in your consultative document. In each case our boundaries are marked in red.

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2601

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Representation:

Proposed amendments to Tangmere legend and boundary.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2680

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Mike Dicker

Representation:

- SB1 should include an employment space and residential site as an exception site for unmet SDNP housing need.
- S16 Goodwood buffer and adjoining land to be made a strategic site for employment space.
- S30a & S30b are draft corridors as the biodiversity study is incomplete at consultation and will need to be re-consulted on.
- AL1 is incomplete as presented. Settlement boundary should extend to include sites to the north to accomodate unmet need from SDNP.
- AL4 the land proposed for removal should not be removed as a strategic employment site.

See attached for full detail.

Full text:

Full detailed submission for the Local Plan and supporting evidence is attached.

The representations attached to this submission reflect a high level summary of the detailed submission and do not contain the full level of detail received.

High level comments received:

a. The transport study conducted by Peter Brett Associates (PBA) is not fit for purpose and needs to be rewritten. The scope set for PBA is far too constraining and counters the democratic process agreed by the council to seek alternative routes.

b. Many of the documents are inconsistent and in their current form smack of inconsistency and bias. Reasons for excluding some strategic sites are not consistently used for other sites.

c. Many of the evidence documents are not present or are not complete for this consultation. These will need to be re consulted when they are complete.

d. CDC should not be accepting the unmet housing need from the South Downs National Park (SDNP). They should also be going back to government to insist that until certainty is provided on the A27 this area can not accommodate future housing and or employment space.

e. The proposed link road was resoundly rejected last time it was proposed by Highways England. CDC need to respect the voices that rejected what is option 2 by stealth. Particularly as the PBA report states that the building of the link road will offer other "strategic options". This will not be tolerated locally.

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2688

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Suez (Sita UK)

Agent: Savills UK

Representation:

The proposed amendment to the Settlement Boundary include adjacent sites but not the proposed allocation AL3. Given that the Local Plan Review identifies the site as AL3 as a planned extension to Chichester, the site should be included within the Settlement Boundary.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2723

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: Quod

Representation:

The proposed amendment to the Settlement Boundary include adjacent sites but not the proposed allocation AL3. Given that the Local Plan Review identifies the site as AL3 as a planned extension to Chichester, the site should be included within the Settlement Boundary.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2914

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page

Representation:

Wildlife Corridors : Maps East and West of City Strategic Wildlife Corridors: while agreeing that it is important to ensure that there are wildlife corridors for any new development, these must be so designed and planned so that all options for improving the development of our City are retained. In particular, that all possible routes for building a better A27 are safeguarded, and that wildlife corridors are not invoked to prevent such a development

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2915

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page

Representation:

Map AL4: I can see no justification for removing this very large and suitable area (marked in green) from the Strategic Site Allocation. If the justification is that contained in Policy S16, I have already commented on the flawed assumptions above. Noise from the airfield is regrettably not concentrated just within proximity to the airfield. Every fine day, winter and summer, we on the Manhood peninsula have to suffer aircraft and helicopters from Goodwood conducting low level passages, or noisy and persistent aerobatics, above our houses

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 2921

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: N/A

Agent: Genesis Town Planning Ltd

Representation:

Map SB1 - should be redrawn to include West of Chichester allocation as it has permission, and to include suggested sites north of Brandy Hole Lane and west of Plainwood Close

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3007

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Danescroft Land Ltd

Agent: Neame Sutton Limited

Representation:

SB1 and AL3 are supported.

Full text:

See attachment

Support

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3266

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Kingsbridge Estates Ltd

Agent: Luken Beck MDP Limited

Representation:

Exclusion of Vinnetrow Business Park from HDA Policy area is supported.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3327

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: CEG

Agent: Nexus Planning Ltd

Representation:

Map S15 Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield - needs amending to remove part of land from site - see attachments

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3379

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Luken Beck MDP Limited

Representation:

DM15 - believe that Runcton HDA is too small, inappropriate in configuration and unacceptable for development.

See attached plan for details.

Remove 2.3 ha of land at Church Field.

Where land has been removed, need to extend HDA to replace this.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3405

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: South by East Property Development

Agent: Genesis Town Planning

Representation:

Plan SB1 shows a proposed settlement boundary amendment for Chichester City. It includes land at the Fuel Depot Bognor Road within the new extended boundary as it is an allocated site for B1, B2 and B8 employment use in the adopted Site Allocations DPD under Policy CC7. Our clients land at the adjacent Springfield Lorry Park is also allocated for B1, B2 and B8employment uses in the adopted Site Allocations DPD under Policy CC8. However unlike the Fuel Depot site, the Lorry Park is not included within the proposed settlement policy boundary amendment on Plan SB1.

Full text:

See attachment

Object

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3406

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: South by East Property Development

Agent: Genesis Town Planning

Representation:

We object to the inclusion of The Barn Little London within any shopping frontage. It has no direct retail street frontage and its location has low pedestrian flows. Its continued vacancy adds nothing to the vitality or viability of Chichester's retail centre. It is failing to attract both tenants and visitors and is not justified for inclusion in either a secondary or primary retail frontage. Its exclusion would provide more flexibility in securing an alternative commercial reuse and in turn,
provide some economic benefit to the centre.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Schedule of proposed changes to policies map - Preferred Approach

Representation ID: 3520

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: HMPC Ltd

Representation:

Plan SB1
Definition of the City Boundary (Plan SB1) should not simply be a red line on a plan, but supported by clear policies and proposals to encourage the boundary to be enhanced and defended.

Full text:

The Goodwood Estates Ltd welcomes the opportunity to again participating in shaping the future of the District through this review of the local plan. The authority will be well aware of the Estate's firm view on the future scale, shape and form of Chichester to ensure that it retains the very special characteristics that underlie its economic success.

Development to meet the growing needs of the City and its environs must be accommodated if the District is to prosper and grow, but this should not mean a "free-hand" for developers on each and every undeveloped 'greenfield' around the City. Development of the next area of undeveloped land adjacent to the city's existing boundaries does not mean it is the most sustainable approach for the community as a whole. It is all too easy for landowners, at a time of acute housing demand, to promote sites as the next closest to available services (often 'as the crow flies') providing housing quickly to meet that undeniable need. The north and north-eastern edges of the city are vulnerable in this regard, an area for which the maintenance of openness is essential for the sustainable and sound interrelationship of Chichester with the neighbouring national park.

Up and down the country, the negative effects of suburban housing growth promoted on that basis are experienced; often without a true recognition of infrastructure needs and a consequential increase in car borne journeys and loss of greenspace. Equally the often, bland design and over-developed sub-urban layouts, tacked on to urban edges, may mathematically meet local needs and offer people an opportunity to own or rent a home, but consequentially erode the community and character of locations to the long-term detriment of its economic base, identity and community distinctiveness; this is particularly true of cities such as Chichester, where the overall character and ambience underpins much of its economic success.

The authority will be well aware of the "Cathedral Cities Initiative", which seeks to recognise the economic and heritage importance of protecting the form and context of the country's important cathedral cities and historic market towns. By providing clear, precise and 'joined up' planning policy protection, that directs new development and associated infrastructure appropriately to sites best able to accommodate it in terms of benefits to the community as a whole (offering benefits in excess of the provision of additional homes and not just the individual interests of the landowner 'dressed up' as offering wider local benefit) it will prevent inappropriate inner-urban and sub-urban development that will cumulatively destroy the true character and distinctiveness of the city.

Chichester is used as an exemplar in the Cathedral Cities initiative, promoted initially at the time of formulating the last local plan for the District, where there was a real threat unchecked urban expansion would undermine the very essence of the District's local economy. That threat has been reduced through this local plan by changes to strategic allocations, but the threat remains from unscrupulous developers and landowners who will continue to exploit the 'loop hole' provided by a lack of housing supply or incomplete planning policy position (potentially an acute situation until this plan is adopted). It is essential this plan not only makes provision to meet objectively assessed housing and employment needs but equally ensures that essential open areas, around and within the city, which contribute positively to its setting, character and economic vitality are given long-term protection through specific policy designation.

The NPPF is explicit that sustainability is a true balance of social, economic and environmental considerations. This means the plan must represent a true reflection of the suitability of a location to accommodate additional growth in a meaningful way. It must not apply the over simplified, developer led approach that the next piece of available land nearest the centre must be sustainable and developed for housing. A robust strategy will look at all sites within the district making use of all appropriate and available land within urban areas, surrounding settlements and along transport corridors, as well as the "easy pickings" on the urban edges. Development sites further from the city centre ,can often prove more sustainable in terms of the NPPF sustainability balance than sites that comprise the next undeveloped site on the urban edge. Any development promoted must, as a minimum, ensure that it demonstrates a positive response to the sustainability balance, not just meeting a mathematical housing need, and provide appropriately, not only for the infrastructure needs of the housing to be provided , but also for the community as a whole; too many development proposals focus simply on the needs of the individual site giving rise to the many real concerns of local people that the community does not have the capacity to absorb additional housing.

The Estate is therefore heartened to see the council taking a bold step through this Local Plan Review to reconsider previous development scenarios, while ensuring that a true level of housing need is accommodated. Paragraphs 4.30 to 4.33 recognise it is not sustainable to continue to rely on past sources of supply. We support this stance fully and encourage the council to take the initiative forward even at this early stage. As stated in the draft plan, there is a long lead in time to such a fundamental and complex change of direction in strategic development, but without a meaningful start now old habits will continue, resulting in an increasing unsustainable City and loss of the very factors that undermine its economic success. There is an inevitability that developers and landowners affected by the changes, will, through planning applications and appeals, do their utmost to ensure their individual interests are protected, over and above the long-term impacts of inappropriate developments on the community as a whole. To counter such proposals in the short term, this plan must set out a logical, precise and robust strategy that follows all up to date Government advice in a positive and sustainable manner

The Estate believes a sound planning strategy set out in this local plan review can deliver ample development land within the district in a manner that will meet housing and employment needs while protecting the very important transitional relationship offered by land between the urban edge and the SDNP boundary. This will involve a step change from past trends of allocating the next area of land as development locations, to be focussed more on evolving settlement hubs on good transport routes, such as around Tangmere, and allowing appropriate scales of development to sustain rural settlements that have to date be excluded from growth considerations. This will involve an on-going dialogue with adjoining authorities under the duty to co-operate to ensure future development is located in sustainable locations where it is most appropriate and not simply in locations of least (often political or subjective) resistance. The Estate will support the council in its emerging strategy and looks forward to working alongside it in the pursuit of a sustainable social, economic and environmental future.

The district is both fortunate but equally unfortunate to have a large part of its area within the National Park, a similarity it shares with the Estate. The purpose and objectives of the Park are acknowledged and supported, and the Estate continues to work with SDNP to establish a planning regime that recognises the true role of landed estates in establishing the character and form of the National Park. This includes the generation of planning policy and proposals through the emerging National Park Local Plan, that recognise the importance of allowing estates to continue to evolve such that the character of the National Park can be sustained. This includes an appropriate planning approach that allows justified estate development, which may at times appear 'at odds' with general national park objectives.

It is the Estate's belief the Park has not considered the true development capacity of its area and this will have unintended consequences on communities, not only within the Park itself, but also within surrounding districts. If the Park is to avoid development up to its boundary, in part a response to its own displaced needs, it is important the District retains existing open land to the north and north east of the city, permitting only new development and activity that are appropriate to a rural area, complement existing land uses and or which maintain the essential openness of the area.

Land between the city and National Park is an area that must be governed by landscape priorities that provide a crucial open, and where deliverable, accessible green space to the city community, but equally provides
(a) clear linkages to the national park,
(b) protects the integrity of the National Park boundary, and
(c) protects the important relationship and setting of city and Park.
Definition of the City Boundary (Plan SB1) should not simply be a red line on a plan, but supported by clear policies and proposals to encourage the boundary to be enhanced and defended.

The Estate owns a significant "buffer" area between the National Park and City (Goodwood Estate Plan 1) and will continue to work closely with both the Council and the SDNPA to achieve such an objective; to establish an appropriate planning policy regime for land between the city edge and National Park. A sound planning approach to the use of land south of Lavant Straight, between the A285 and A286, will ensure policy objectives within that area are complementary, and do not detract from the setting of either the historic city or national park. The land should be kept open primarily with the exception of appropriate development around the settlements of Westhampnett, Westerton, Strettington, and at Goodwood Aerodrome and Motor Circuit (as more specifically controlled through other policies of the plan). The land should be used for agriculture, countryside, forestry, public access and other landscape purposes.

Through representations to this local plan, set out in individual comments to policies and sections, the Estate seeks to demonstrate its commitment to the future sustainability of Chichester and its community through appropriate use of this "buffer area."

New policies proposed through the Local Plan, such as those proposed for the Goodwood Motor Circuit and Aerodrome, provide a positive response to the above objectives and are to be supported. Provision of a "Whole Estate Plan" for Goodwood as required by policies contained in the emerging National Park Local Plan, will provide a planning policy context that straddles the District/National Park boundary. The District Local Plan should acknowledge this approach and ensure that its policies do not conflict.