Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy

Plan for a range of new housing that meets the needs of local people, that does not overburden any one place, including taking into account changing requirements at different stages of life, affordable housing and specialist accommodation; helping young people and families to stay in the area;

Plan to provide local infrastructure to support new development before approving such, and seek opportunities to address existing infrastructure problems, such as those relating to the A27 and wastewater treatment;

Westhampnett Parish Council would like to point out that the current local plan was adopted in July 2015, and under Regulation 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) Regulations 2012 various bodies and stakeholders were notified in June 2017 that the council was preparing a plan, and invited to comment about what that plan ought to contain: consultation on the preferred approach closed in February 2019.

Since that time, there has been a marked shift in local authority obligations on housing requirements; feedback received on the Regulation 18 consultation is outdated, and we would question whether the plan is procedurally sound; there is a need to return to the Regulation 18 stage.

On that basis, we have the right to make representation in person to the individual appointed as the planning inspector.

Please refer to the attached document for further information. Policy S1 is discussed on page 6 of attachment.

The site at Land South West of Willetts Way, is appropriate for up to 10 units and therefore fits the definition of ‘small scale housing developments’, as such is a target site for Policy S1.6.a.

Policy S1 – Spatial Development Strategy should be amended to include specific non-strategic allocations of land and remove the requirement for Neighbourhood Plans to deliver at this more local scale.

We acknowledge support of the allocation of Loxwood as a ‘Service Village’ given its proximity and connections to Billinghurst, and the local services and facilities available.
We also acknowledge, Point 6.a which allows small scale housing developments consistent with housing numbers set out in Policy H3 Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 - 2039. The site at Land South West of Willetts Way, is appropriate for up to 10 units and therefore fits the definition of ‘small scale housing developments’, as such is a target site for Policy S1.6.a.
An analysis of Policy H3 is discussed in greater detail below, however the reliance on Policy H3 and consequently Neighbourhood Plans, means that this policy is not ‘effective’ in that a dependence on individual Parishes to allocate housing to meet requirements/targets may not be met in a sustainable way and in sufficient time to meet local needs. This means that the housing targets established in Policy H2 may not be deliverable over the plan period.
It is considered that to fulfil its strategic role (particularly with the reduced housing requirement below OAHN) the draft Local Plan review must allocate individual housing sites across the District, including Non-strategic provision across towns, villages and Parishes.
The Draft Local Plan is therefore considered to be ‘ineffective’ and ‘unjustified' by failing to ensure the delivery of housing in an effective and timely manner. Policy S1 – Spatial Development Strategy should be amended to include specific non-strategic allocations of land and remove the requirement for Neighbourhood Plans to deliver at this more local scale.

Local infrastructure improvements should include both a road bridge and a separate pedestrian bridge over the railway, improved community facilities, more and better quality recreational open space and better protection for wildlife.

Southbourne Parish Council recognises the existing function of Southbourne village as a settlement hub and the potential for expansion which, if properly masterplanned as a whole, would deliver housing for local people accompanied by urgently needed improvements to local infrastructure. These should include both a road bridge and a separate pedestrian bridge over the railway, improved community facilities, more and better quality recreational open space and better protection for wildlife.

East Wittering should be treated like other settlement hubs and development should be focused there.
East Wittering is a large settlement and with correctly planners infrastructure could be made less reliant on Chichester and the A27.

The potential of the settlement is unknown until the recently published climate change flood risk map models are assessed/tested.

The policy states that settlements should develop according to the settlement hierarchy. East Wittering is a settlement hub and so should be the focus of more development. However, the policy seeks to restrict development in the settlement.

As only 30% of the plan area is developable the volume of housing should be reduced and exceptional circumstances apply. The NPPF consultation makes it clear that the standard methodology will no longer need to be rigidly applied so why aren't the Council taking advantage of that?

Focusing such a large volume of housing in the East/ West corridor will result in urban sprawl, coalescence, harm to Chichester Harbour, the environment, agricultural land and impact on climate change. Whereas the north of the District will be protected.

Berkeley believe that additional housing sites should be allocated at Chichester City to better reflect the Spatial Strategy and more fully meet the identified housing need.

Berkeley supports focussing the majority of growth at the sub-regional centre of Chichester City, with the majority of strategic allocations (both extant and new) proposed within or adjacent to the city. Policy S1 refers to a total of six allocations around Chichester City, which could deliver 4,080 homes.

Berkeley objects to the level of growth proposed at Chichester City as it fails to adequately reflect the suitability and capacity of the city to accommodate growth.

Whilst it has been acknowledged that Chichester City is the most appropriate location for development, Berkeley believes that there are additional sites at the city that can come forward in the plan period as they are not subject to the constraints which have been identified as restricting the ability of the District to meet its housing need in full. Berkeley therefore objects to this policy.

A significant reduction in the housing allocation in the east-west corridor is required.

The Plan promotes an over-reliance on developing the east-west corridor, with unsustainable levels of development between Chichester and Havant. Combined with the Havant Borough strategic site at Southleigh (2,100 homes) this leads to a delivery of 5,300 new houses in the narrow corridor between Chichester Harbour AONB/SSSI and the South Downs National Park. The ecological and landscape implications of this over-development are huge; both for biodiversity and for local communities. Just some of the impacts include inadequate waste water infrastructure; lack of transport infrastructure; inadequate community facilities including schools and doctors services. Potential ramnifications are increased congestion, light and noise pollution; waste water discharges; recreational disturbance, to name just a few.
The additional burden of this increased population will further compound and render irreversible the ecological decline of Chichester Harbour SSSI.
As a general comment, the plan in this area is overly reliant on the delivery of green-field sites, raising important concerns over sustainability; agricultural production, food security, groundwater and surface water drainage and flooding.

I do not consider the location of most of the development to be well located. Both Tangmere and Southbourne are outside the city, Southbourne by a distance of 6 miles. There is insufficient evidence to show that there will be any modal shift to alternative forms of transport than the car. Transport links are poor and the distances too great for most people to walk or cycle. Cycling links to the city from both Tangmere and Southbourne are poor. Public transport is irregular, infrequent and expensive.

Direct development away from areas where there is reliance on cars in favour of more housing in the city on brownfield sites.

New development is not being directed away from areas where car use would be most prevalent. 2000 homes are planned west of Chichester from Fishbourne to Southbourne. This will not reduce reliance on cars. There are no plans for upgrading or helping to mitigate the pressure on the A259 feeding into the A27.

Housing allocation to be located more to the city.

1) Development is patently not located or designed to minimise traffic generation. Unless there is a fully integrated and planned modal shift requiring substantial investment car use will rise exponentially. Locating so much housing out of the city in areas which have minimal facilities will lead to many more car journeys. If your nearest shop or pharmacy is 2/3 miles away are you going to wait for a bus scheduled every 30 mims, walk 40 mims each way or get in the car?

Plan for more housing for the city. Exhaust brownfield sites rather than using greenfield sites.

The majority of the housing is to be located in the East-West Corridor and much of it in semi-rural villages, which, while only 270, are in Chichester City. If this was sensibly master planned it would be capable of achieving more. The absence of any masterplan for the historic city of Chichester and the entire district of Chichester shows a complete lack of vision and reveals an overly simplistic desire to create an unacceptable urban sprawl between Chichester and the border of Havant District to the west and up to the border with Arun district in the east.

We shouldn't build on greens spaces just because they are 'desirable' places to live. Use brownfield sites or convert office blocks into flats.

New housing should be dispersed throughout an area not in large chunks just because it's advantageous for developers to build large-scale developments.

The plan doesn't go far enough in addressing the climate crisis / threats to the local environment. There's a lack of detail regarding properly adequate walking and cycling provision to prevent us from building anything but car-dependent enclaves. This strategy won’t prevent coastal squeeze. Along the A259, we are losing prime-grade fields / the sense of separate villages. Large tracts of rural Sussex will become a long line of urban sprawl. Our harbour will continue to be damaged by development. The 'solution' to tanker away the sewage from developments without facing up to sewage pollution is ludicrous.

Berkeley believe that additional housing sites should be allocated at Chichester City to better reflect the Spatial Strategy and more fully meet the identified housing need.

Berkeley supports focussing the majority of growth at the sub-regional centre of Chichester City, with the majority of strategic allocations (both extant and new) proposed within or adjacent to the city. Policy S1 refers to a total of six allocations around Chichester City, which could deliver 4,080 homes.

Berkeley objects to the level of growth proposed at Chichester City as it fails to adequately reflect the suitability and capacity of the city to accommodate growth.

Whilst it has been acknowledged that Chichester City is the most appropriate location for development, Berkeley believes that there are additional sites at the city that can come forward in the plan period as they are not subject to the constraints which have been identified as restricting the ability of the District to meet its housing need in full. Berkeley therefore objects to this policy.

Criterion 4 Reference to Westhampnett (Policy A9 and Policy A10) should be cross referenced to the relevant policy pages at this point – possibly through a footnote – to indicate the removal of land previously allocated.

Criterion 5b this should be expanded to not only reflect ‘characteristics of the area’ but also to address the need for the development promoted, its contribution to wider benefits and to the evolution and sustainability of existing employment, and include tourism and leisure proposals. Heritage interests should be added to the list of proposals.

Cross referencing and further explanation is required

Delete A11, revised A12 and A13.

Chichester Harbour Conservancy Objects to Policy A11, A12 and A13, for reasons that will be explained in response to each individual policy. It is difficult to accept this is sustainable development.

Remove Loxwood from this policy

as comments above about Loxwood

Propose that section 6 of the policy is reworded accordingly in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:

b. “Local community facilities, including village shops, that meet identified needs both within the village, neighbouring villages and surrounding smaller communities, and also the wider needs of the District in relation to the strategic aims of the Plan, and will help make the settlement more self-sufficient in the immediate and long-term; and

c. Small scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals related to sustaining and enhancing existing sites and communities”.

The draft policy makes provision for non-strategic growth beyond the site allocation identified, including small-scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals. We would propose that the wording ‘small-scale’ is not effective as it is not specific, and therefore propose that the policy is reworded accordingly in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:
b. “Local community facilities, including village shops, that meet identified needs both within the village, neighbouring villages and surrounding smaller communities, and also the wider needs of the District in relation to the strategic aims of the Plan, and will help make the settlement more self-sufficient in the immediate and long-term; and
c. Small scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals related to sustaining and enhancing existing sites and communities”.
It should be recognised that whilst clearly the majority of major development will be directed towards main settlement hubs, that the unique characteristics of the District should be considered in terms of offering further specific development opportunities to sustain the economic viability and housing capacity required.
The Plan sets out a requirement to consider in the next review, the allocation of a strategic new settlement, in order to meet housing need. As such, development which is sustainable and capable of contributing towards development needs in the shorter term should be considered favourably in line the NPPG.

Please see the attached representation.

A. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
1. The Council’s emerging Local Plan is unsound as:

• proposed Policy S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 38-39), focuses most future growth in the south of Chichester district in an area that is highly constrained in planning terms, with only a moderate amount of growth proposed in the North of the Plan Area which is objectively and comparatively less-constrained;

• proposed Policy H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), sets out a total housing supply of 10,359 homes for the plan period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039, equivalent to 575 homes per year (an already capped figure due to highway constraints in the south). This is a shortfall of 1,134 homes for the plan period, or 63 homes per year, against the Council’s minimum local housing need as calculated by the Government’s standard housing method and set out in the Council’s Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (Appendix LPD2, page 42);

• the Council proposes a similar spatial strategy and shortfall in supply of housing against its full housing need to that for the previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, pages 40 – 41, and 49). This has resulted in the Council being unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and manage proposals for speculative development, reflected in some 87% of new housing coming from windfall sites (Appendix LPD4, page 12), so is proven to be unsound;

• despite the historic and proposed shortfall in its housing supply, the Council presents insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the impacts of meeting more of the local housing need would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), taken as a whole;

• the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 26) assesses growth scenarios in the North of the Plan Area. A growth scenario including Crouchlands Farm for 1,114 homes (or 62 per year) is found to be most sustainable (Appendix LPD5, page 34) but is discounted without clear and robust reasoning, and a blended growth scenario for 720 homes (or 40 per year) is proposed in the Local Plan (Appendix LPD5, page 40). It is wholly unclear how the Council has arrived at its decision;

• the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page VI) and Emerging policy NE17 (Appendix LPD1, page 89) allows for 1,796 homes in the
North of the Plan Area, of which scenarios 1a and 2a, including Crouchlands Farm, are less than. Water Neutrality is therefore not a constraint when considering a higher level of development in the North of the Plan Area; and

• Crouchlands Farm was also assessed in the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix LPD7, page 134) as being suitable, achievable and available for rural enterprise-led development / residential mix of up to 600 homes (HELAA ID HPI009).

2. The emerging Local Plan, therefore, is unsound due to it not being positively prepared by the Council in proposing a shortfall of housing supply against its minimum local housing need, where there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this, as well as there being evidence to support additional sites for housing, including at Crouchlands Farm. There is no coherent basis for the Council not taking forward Crouchlands Farm to increase future housing supply given the shortfall.

3. As a result, the Council should be asked to allocate more sites to help bridge the gap in the extent of its housing shortfall and Crouchlands Farm should be considered the obvious first choice given the deliverability of Rickman’s Green Village, as demonstrated by the Council’s evidence base (Appendix LPD5, page 34, and Appendix LPD7, page 134).

4. In addition, a wealth of technical work has been undertaken to prepare and submit three planning applications for Rickman’s Green Village (Chichester District Council reference 22/01735/FULEIA, 22/03114/FULEIA, and 22/03131/OUTEIA) that are currently awaiting determination. These applications further demonstrate the suitability of Crouchlands Farm as a highly sustainable site, capable of delivering up to 600 homes alongside a primary school (or other suitable community facility ), village hub with farm shop, cookery school, glamping and retail and commercial units, and open space provision, such that it should be allocated in the emerging Local Plan.

5. Artemis, or a representative thereof, therefore wishes to participate in the future hearing sessions for the emerging Local Plan. It is considered that as Crouchlands Farm is the only specific alternative considered in the Sustainability Appraisal, it merits its own hearing session.

B. EMERGING LOCAL PLAN ANALYSIS
Introduction

6. This representation has been prepared by DLBP Ltd, on behalf of Artemis Land and Agriculture Limited (“Artemis”), to object to the soundness of the Chichester Local
Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission (“the emerging Local Plan”) prepared by
Chichester District Council (“the Council”) for public consultation between 3 February to 17 March 2023 under Regulation 19 of the of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

7. Artemis is the owner and operator of Crouchlands Farm, Rickman’s Lane, Plaistow,
Billingshurst, West Sussex RH14 0LE, a 197 hectare livestock farm in the north of Chichester district partly proposed as the site of a new settlement, known as Rickman’s Green Village.

8. The representation is based on the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (2021). There is a draft version currently being consulted on, but even if approved as drafted, it will not apply to a Local Plan that has reached Regulation 19 at this point. Therefore, the draft policies are not referred to.

9. In the interests of conciseness, the appendices list is not exhaustive. For example, only a selection of the planning applications documents, or executive summaries of these, have been included. The planning applications are available on Chichester District Council’s website (planning refs 22/01735/FULEIA, PS/22/03114/FULEIA and 22/03131/OUTEIA), or a full suite of documents can be provided upon request.

Spatial Strategy

10. Proposed Policy S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 38 – 39), is unsound.

11. Proposed Policy S1 builds on the spatial strategy of the previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, page 40 – 41) by focusing growth in the south of the District on sites in and around Chichester city, and the east-west corridor. The south of the district, however, is known to be highly constrained in planning-terms. Key constraints identified by the Council are the (lack of) capacity of the A27, flood risk, and the need to protect environmental designations, landscape quality, the historic environment and settlement character (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 3.5).

12. Due to the constraints in the south, in particular capacity issues of the A27, the Council proposes a moderate level of growth in the North of the Plan Area.

13. Previous advice from the Planning Inspectorate (Appendix LPD8, page 4) concluded that the Council should reassess its adopted spatial strategy and distribution of development in other parts of the District to establish whether the housing need could be met in another way. The emerging Local Plan, however, does not reassess the distribution of development sufficiently.

14. Proposed Policy S1 is unsound as the Council’s evidence base demonstrates that additional housing could be delivered in the comparatively less-constrained North of the Plan Area, including at Crouchlands Farm, so the proposed policy is not positively prepared, and nor is it appropriately justified. This is expanded upon further below.

North of the Plan Area

15. Proposed Policies A15, Loxwood (Appendix LPD1, page 260) and H3, Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) are also unsound.

16. The emerging Local Plan proposes one allocation for housing in the North of the Plan Area, Policy A15, Loxwood, for a minimum of 220 homes to come forward over the plan period, all through the neighbourhood plan process.

17. Proposed Policy H3 sets out non-strategic targets for 25 new homes to be delivered over the plan period in Plaistow and Ifold Parish, 50 in Kirdford Parish, and 75 in Wisborough Green, all through neighbourhood plans (of which Plaistow and Ifold does not even have a draft Neighbourhood Plan) or subsequent development plans (which have not even begun preparation yet).

18. It is clear, when looking at the District’s population data alone that the North of the Plan area should, proportionately, take on more housing. This is because:
• the population for the entire District (excluding the South Downs National Park area) is 89,982 , which comprises 8,396 in the North of the Plan Area and
81,586 in the remaining south of the District;
• the emerging Local Plan proposes 10,359 homes over the Plan period, comprising 370 in the North of the Plan Area and 9,989 in the remaining south of the District;
• if the proposed housing was to be distributed evenly across the District, one home should be allocated per 11.5 people. An even distribution would therefore result in 966 homes in the North of the Plan Area;
• however, the Local Plan only proposes 370 homes in the North of the Plan Area. This is a shortfall of 596 homes against what should be provided (966 homes) if it were to be evenly distributed, which equates to a 161% shortfall.

19. Proposed Policies S1, H3 and A15 should be found unsound due to there being evidence (set out in the Council’s own evidence base and within this representation) demonstrating that additional housing could be delivered in the North of the Plan Area to meet future needs, particularly in the parish of Plaistow and Ifold at Crouchlands Farm.

20. Furthermore, proposed Policies S1, H3 and A15 are unsound as they are not justified or effective, but are overly reliant on the delivery of additional homes in the North of the Plan Area on sites allocated in neighbourhood plans for the respective parishes when there is no evidence to demonstrate that any sites are likely to be allocated, nor even that neighbourhood plans will be prepared by each of the parishes in the plan period. For example, proposed Policy H3 seeks to deliver 25 new homes in Plaistow and Ifold parish, however work to prepare its neighbourhood plan has ceased indefinitely.

Sustainability Appraisal

21. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34) considered the following six growth scenarios to determine the number of homes to be delivered across the four parishes (Kirdford, Loxwood, Plaistow and Ifold, Wisborough Green) in the North of the Plan Area:

i) 1, lower growth of only the four parishes providing 514 homes (29 homes per
year);
ii) 1a, lower growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 1,114 homes (62 homes per year);
iii) 2, higher growth of only the four parishes, providing 1,139 homes (63 homes per year);
iv) 2a, higher growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 1,514 homes (84 homes per year);
v) 3, highest growth of only the four parishes, providing 1,964 homes (109 homes per year); and
vi) 3a, highest growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 2,564 homes (143 homes per year).

22. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the Council is supportive of a blend of Scenarios 1 and 2 (Appendix LPD5, page 40).

23. To reflect this, proposed Policy H3 Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) therefore seeks:
i) lower growth at Kirdford (50 homes) and Plaistow and Ifold (25 homes) on unallocated sites; and
ii) higher growth at Loxwood and Wisborough Green through a combination of one allocated site for 220 homes (proposed Policy A15) and other unallocated sites (75 homes).

24. However, Figure 1 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34), above, very clearly shows that scenario 1a (lower growth of only the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm) scores the best overall i.e., is the most sustainable option. This is due to scenario 1a scoring highest in regard to the site’s accessibility, communities and health, lack of heritage constraints relative to the other scenarios, as well as lack of landscape constraints relative to the other scenarios.

25. With regards to the analysis of the remaining criteria:
• Air Quality and Environmental Quality; Biodiversity; Land, Soils and Resources – whilst we appreciate the information may not be available for the ‘other areas’ accounted for in each growth scenario, the scoring does not reflect the information within the three planning applications at Crouchlands Farm (e.g. Ecological Impact Assessments (Appendices RGV17 and RGV18), Air Quality Assessments (Appendix RGV8 – RGV10), Environmental Impact Assessments
(Appendices RGV21 and RGV22), Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (Appendix RGV7), Land Quality Assessments (Appendices RGV26 and RGV27, etc));
• Housing – the scoring for this category is inconsistent with the other criterion, as it does not exclude option 3a from the ranking. For example, Scenario 1a should therefore score 4, rather than 5, if based purely on the quantity of homes. But page 4 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) confirms that the objective is to (our emphasis): “deliver suitable, well designed, energy efficient and affordable housing to meet local needs, in safe and accessible neighbourhoods with mixed and balanced communities”. In the absence of supporting evidence on the qualitative elements of this objective, other than at Crouchlands Farm, the method of scoring this criteria is unsound as it does not meet the full objective. When considering the high-quality design of homes at Crouchlands, it is clear that scenarios 1a and 2a should in fact score higher; and
• Economy, employment – the Sustainability Assessment fails to acknowledge the economic benefits proposed at Crouchlands Farm, which will have a significant economic benefit for Chichester District Council and the wider area. This is demonstrated in the Economic Impact Assessment submitted with planning application (Appendix RGV19). A second Economic and Social Value Impact Assessment as also been submitted which considers the scenarios of the whole of the proposal (Appendix RGV20), but we wholly appreciate that the Council did not have access to this at the time of preparing the Sustainability Appraisal.

26. There is a clear disconnect between the scoring of the scenarios, how each scenario and Crouchlands Farm has been assessed by the plan-maker, and how the conclusion to proceed with a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 has been made. Page 34 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) clearly states that it “is undertaken without any assumptions regarding the degree of importance, or ‘weight’, that should be assigned to each of the topics in the ‘planning balance’. It is only the Council, as the decision-making authority, that is in a position to arrive at an overall conclusion on the best performing growth scenario on balance”. One must therefore assume that the Council has assigned more importance and weight to certain criteria of the scoring. But there is a clear lack of explanation of this weighting exercise, so the results of the testing is not justified.

27. The Council’s reasoning for supporting a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 at section 7.3 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 40) is therefore wholly unclear, not justified, and is unsound.

28. In summary, the Council’s position is that:
• the government’s standard housing methodology determines an objectively assessed need of 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 over the plan period
(which is a capped figure at 40% above the ‘baseline’ need figure);
• the figure is then capped further to the plan area as a whole to 575 dwellings per annum, because:
• capacity constraints associated with the A27 in the south of the plan area results in a resolution that there is capacity for no more than 535 homes per year in the south (i.e. a further capping of its proposed supply);
• this means that 103 homes per year need to be made up in the North of the Plan Area, or 1,854 homes over the plan period;
• a growth scenario (1a) including Crouchlands Farm for 1,114 homes (or 62 per year) is found to be most the sustainable option in the Sustainability Appraisal when considering the score of figure 1 above (Appendix LPD6, page 34) but is discounted without clear and robust reasoning;
• the Council thus proposes only 40 homes per year in the North of the Plan Area due to ‘wide ranging planning reasons’.

29. This is wholly unsubstantiated as it means that there is a shortfall of 63 homes per year, or 1,134 homes over the plan period. Also:
• the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16) sets out that water neutrality has implications for the growth quantum in the North of the Plan Area, so this area cannot accommodate the full 63 homes per year (which is already a capped figure);
• but the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page 15, table 3.1), and the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16), both confirm that the North of the Plan Area can accommodate 1,796 homes (circa 100 homes per year);
• and even if a suitably precautionary approach is taken (considering fewer homes, by 5% or 10%), 5% fewer homes would equate to 1,706 homes, and 10% fewer homes would equate to 1,616 homes;
• therefore, even with the highest buffer (10%) applied, 1,616 homes could be accommodated in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period (circa 90 homes per year). This means that almost the entirety of the actual shortfall (1,854 homes) could be reached in the North of the Plan Area.

30. We accept that the 1,854 homes required to be made up in the North of the Plan Area cannot be accommodated, due to water neutrality constraints and so scenarios 3 and 3a are discounted.

31. However, scenarios 1 (514 total homes), 1a (1,114 total homes), 2 (1,139 total homes), and 2a (1,514 total homes) would all be below the most precautionary approach taken to water neutrality constraint. Taking the highest growth scenario 2a (with Crouchlands Farm), there would still be headroom of 102 homes in terms of the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy.

32. Therefore, water neutrality cannot be the determining constraint for discounting scenarios 1a or 2a from the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5).

33. Therefore, there is very limited explanation about what the “wide ranging planning reasons” are, and how the resulting shortfall has been reduced from 103 homes per year to 40 homes per year in the North of the Plan Area. Three examples are referenced (with our comments in bold):
• the rurality of the area – whilst we appreciate and wholly recognise this is a designated Rural Area under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, so are many of the sites in the south of the plan area that already have, and are planned to, accommodate significant growth. But other than this, a large part of the North of the Plan Area, including Crouchlands Farm, is unconstrained – it is not in the Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or other constraints. This is accepted by the Council at page 34 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5);
• the entire area falls within a constrained water resource zone – this is not a constraint. The Council’s own proposed Policy NE17 contradicts this reasoning, as clearly sets out how developers can provide evidence that new development will be water neutral. In addition, Natural England’s Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page V - XI) identifies the area as having capacity for 1,784 homes, and growth scenarios 1, 1a, 2 and 2a would all allow for headroom when considered against this (see paragraphs 28 – 32 above); and
• transport-related barriers to growth, whereby Waverley Borough and Horsham District have raised concern – as set out in Section C below, the planning applications at Crouchlands Farm contain a wealth of transport assessments and evidence that there are suitable, reasonable, and proportionate ways of mitigating this. Horsham District and Waverley Borough Councils and have not raised objection to the planning applications, either on transport or any other grounds (Appendices RGV40 and RGV41, respectively). Paragraph 5.2.33 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) accepts that the strategic growth options, i.e.
Crouchlands Farm, have merit in transport terms.

34. Further details of the Council’s assessment of Crouchlands Farm in the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) are set out in Section C of this representation, alongside our response to each of the points raised by the Council.

40 homes per year

35. A meeting was held between the Council and an Advisory Inspector in October 2022
(Appendix LPD9). This precedes the publication of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5), the growth scenario testing, and the Water Neutrality Mitigation
Strategy (Appendix LPD6), which have since concluded that development of up to 1,796 homes can be sustainably achieved in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period. The Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) excluded scenario 3a on the basis of this being exceeded (page 26).

36. Nevertheless, paragraph 5 of the Advisory Inspector’s notes (Appendix LPD9) states “[…] the Council consider[s] a housing requirement below the need derived from the standard method (some 535 dwellings per annum (dpa) in the southern plan area and the potential for a further 40 dpa in the northern plan area compared to 638 dpa)”. And paragraph 9 lists a number of potentially constraining factors (e.g. limited public transport, limited facilities, water neutrality etc), which the Advisory Inspector states (our emphasis): “appear to support the Council’s position that a maximum of 600-700 homes could be delivered over the Plan period (or around 40 dpa).”

37. However, it is unclear what evidence informed the figure of 40 homes per year in the Advisory Inspector’s note, particularly as:
• none of the scenarios in the Sustainability Appraisal specifically tested a 40 homes per year scenario; and • the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy, restricting development in the North of the Plan Area to 1,796 homes was not published until December 2022.

38. It is also unclear how the proposed figure of 40 homes per year is reached as a blend of scenarios 1 and 2. For example, when calculating the completions (54), commitments (198), windfall (62) figures at table 5.5, plus the 220 homes at Loxwood, 25 homes at Plaistow and Ifold, 50 homes at Kirdford, and 75 homes at Wisborough Green, the total amounts to 684 homes over the plan period, or 38 homes per year.

39. Despite this, the Emerging Local Plan (Appendix LPD1, pages 99 and 100) sets out a figure of 40 homes per year over the plan period (679 homes in total), accounting for completions, commitments as of December 2022, windfall, allocation at Loxwood, and non-strategic allocations at Kirdford, Plaistow and Ifold, and Wisborough Green. This is contrary to the results of the Sustainability Appraisal.

40. In a previous meeting with the Advisory Inspector regarding water neutrality (September 2022, Appendix LPD10), the Inspector confirms that, prior to submission of a plan (our emphasis added):
“the Inspectorate can only provide advice based on national planning policy and guidance, along with our own personal experience. While it is possible to explore issues in advisory meetings it is not possible to say definitively that the approaches taken will lead to a sound plan. That’s because ultimately each plan will be considered by an Inspector who has been appointed to carry out an independent examination. In doing so they will consider all the evidence to justify the plan, the representations and what was discussed at the hearing sessions.”

41. It is therefore not sufficient reasoning for the Council to submit the Emerging Local Plan, using a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 that happen to match a 40 homes per year figure in the North of the Plan Area, on the basis of the Advisory Inspector’s commentary in October 2022 (Appendix LPD9), which preceded the issuing of the Water Neutrality Mitigation Study (Appendix LPD6) and the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5). One can assume there has been no examination of evidence by the Advisory Inspector, just commentary based on the Council’s own - unsound - narrative.

42. For the above reasons, the Council has therefore not positively prepared or justified the reasons for limiting growth in the North of the Plan Area to 40 homes per year.

Development Plan Infrastructure Panel

43. The Sustainability Appraisal (and commentary at the Special Cabinet and Full Council meetings held on 23 and 24 January 2023) makes references to conversations held and decisions made by the Development Plan Infrastructure Panel. A Freedom of Information request was submitted to request the minutes of these meetings, and the response was that the meetings are confidential and so the minutes would need to be heavily redacted.

44. The transparency of this is in question. While the meetings may not be ‘public' in the sense that the public can attend and watch, the meetings relate to a document that is in the public domain and subject to public consultation, and so there should be transparency into how the decisions and conclusions have been made and justified.

45. In light of the above, proposed Policies S1, H1, and H3 are unsound for not being positively prepared or justified, directing insufficient growth in the North of the Plan Area where there is evidence to support the allocation of additional housing in a more-sustainable way, by including Crouchlands Farm.

Housing Need

Shortfall of supply

46. Proposed Policy H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), is unsound.

47. Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) sets out 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 – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”.

48. The Council’s Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (Appendix
LPD2, page 42) identifies a housing need of 763 homes per year based on the Government’s standard method. That figure comprises 125 homes per year for the part of the district in the South Downs National Park and 638 homes per year for the remainder of the district (the plan area). This equates to a total requirement for 11,484 new homes for the plan period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039.

49. Proposed Policy H1, however, sets out the total housing supply of 10,359 homes for the plan period, which equates to 575 homes per year. This is a shortfall in supply of 1,134 homes, or 63 homes per year, against the minimum local housing need as calculated by the Government’s standard method.

50. The Council attempts to justify the proposed shortfall in housing supply due to key constraints in the south (the A27, flood risk, environmental designations) and the north of the district. In the north, the Council identifies key constraints to be the protection of environmental designations, landscape quality, historic environment and settlement character, and water neutrality (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 3.5).

51. We note that this was echoed by the Planning Inspectorate in a Local Plan Advisory Meeting, held on 5 October 2022, who found that:
“The northern area is not constrained by the capacity of the A27 but has its own issues. As a predominantly rural area with limited facilities and public transport, it is not an obvious location for significant development. There are also landscape and historic environment constraints. It is also affected by water neutrality requirements and the potential for capacity issues on the wider highway network. These factors appear to support the Council’s position that a maximum of 600-700 homes could be delivered over the Plan period (or around 40 dpa)”. (Appendix LPD9, paragraph 9).

52. However, that advice was issued prior to the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) and Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) being published, which have since concluded that development of up to 1,796 homes in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period can be sustainably achieved.

53. The Council makes no justification that not meeting its housing need in full would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of meeting the majority of the shortfall of need in the North of the Plan Area, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) taken as a whole. The Council entirely overlooks the fact that its objectively assessed housing requirement is not being met. The only reason the Council makes for not meeting its housing need in the North of the Plan Area is set out in a Cabinet Report, dated 23 January 2023, which states:
In the north of the Plan area, previously, given it is less sustainable compared to Chichester and the east-west corridor, the Local Plan has only provided for only limited growth, focused on enabling these communities to continue to sustain local facilities and contribute towards meeting locally generated housing needs, and support for the rural economy, in line with the settlement hierarchy. However, due to the constraint of the A27 in the south of the plan area (see housing section at para 5.34 onwards below), it is considered that this Plan should provide for a moderate level of growth in the north to help to make up the overall shortfall of dwellings, in order to demonstrate that ‘no stone has been left unturned’ in identifying housing supply.

High levels of growth were considered at Loxwood, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Plaistow and Ifold, but ruled out due to the need to conserve the rural character of the area and its high quality landscape and to minimise the impact on the historic environment. The spatial strategy therefore includes growth at Kirdford (50 dwellings), Wisborough Green (75 dwellings) and Plaistow and Ifold (25 dwellings). Loxwood is the least constrained settlement in the north of the plan area, and benefits from the most services and facilities, including healthcare. Therefore, a moderate amount of growth is appropriate for Loxwood of 220 dwellings, to come forward through the neighbourhood planning process.
The SA of the northern options considered 3 scenarios (plus each scenario with the addition of a potential new settlement at Crouchlands), for low, higher and highest growth. The highest growth scenarios perform poorly and therefore the Local Plan reflects a combination of the low and higher growth scenarios tested, which takes into account the constraints of each settlement and the need to avoid cross boundary traffic and education impacts. A new settlement at Crouchlands has been ruled out as it is not of a sufficient size to be a sustainable new settlement in a rural location and because of the negative impact on the landscape and intrinsic rural character of the area and poor sustainable transport links. (Appendix LPD11, paragraphs 5.19 – 5.21).

54. The Council fails to make a case that the impacts of meeting this need would outweigh the harm cause by not meeting the full housing need, or indeed that impacts of even getting closer to meeting this need would demonstrably outweigh the harm of not meeting housing need.

55. On the contrary, there is evidence to demonstrate that housing supply could be higher by at least 600 homes through the allocation of Crouchlands Farm as a site considered to be suitable, achievable and available by the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix LPD7, page 134). The allocation of Crouchlands Farm would be acceptable in water neutrality terms, with both Scenarios 1a and 2a of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34) delivering new homes below the maximum figure set out in the Water Neutrality Mitigation Report (Appendix LPD6, page VI). Furthermore, there are no heritage and landscape constraints associated with Crouchlands Farm.

56. In addition, the information supporting the applications for Rickman’s Green Village further demonstrate Crouchlands Farm as a highly sustainable site, capable of delivering up to 600 homes alongside a village hub with farm shop, retail and commercial units, office and flexible working space, and open space provision (as well as provision for a primary school or other suitable community facility).

57. Proposed Policy H1 is therefore unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared or justifiable when accounting for all reasonable alternatives.
Historic under-delivery

58. The previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, page 49) did not provide a sufficient supply of housing to meet the Council’s full housing need at the time of adoption, which is the same approach proposed by the Council for Policy H1.

59. Many of the sites allocated for housing in the previous (adopted) Local Plan on sites in the south of the District have not been delivered, as demonstrated by Appendix 2, Table E of the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (Appendix LPD12). This confirms that four sites allocated by the Council previously, with a combined projected supply of 2,210 homes, have not been started, and do not even benefit from planning permission. We understand that none of those sites has come forward due to impediments resulting from site ownership, which raises questions around the approach taken by the Council in allocating sites for housing in the south in the past, which Policy S1 proposes to use again.

60. The Council’s failing to meet its housing supply historically has also resulted in it now being unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and so unable to effectively manage proposals for speculative housing developments. This is reflected in a significant proportion – some 87% – of new housing coming from windfall sites (Appendix LPD4, page 12).

61. In addition, the Council introduced a new Interim Position Statement for Housing (Appendix LPD13) which set out a spatial strategy to allow new development adjacent to settlement boundaries as a way of significantly boosting housing supply (Criterion 1). The Council has not carried this strategy forward into the emerging Local Plan. This is despite the Planning Inspectorate recommending this in a recent appeal decision (Appendix LPD14), stating that the application of Criteria 1 suggested “the Council’s [adopted] spatial strategy may be out of date, as a more permissive approach appears necessary to maintain a five-year housing land supply.” (paragraph 25).

62. Proposed Policies S1 and H1 are therefore unsound as they follow the same approach of the previous (adopted) Local Plan, which has proven to be ineffective and unsustainable, contrary to national policy, and the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate.

Longer Term Growth Requirements

63. The emerging Local Plan as originally published (Appendix LPD15), prior to the meetings of the Council’s Cabinet and Full Council on 23 and 24 January 2023, respectively, set out “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) indefinitely given the potential for ongoing increased levels of housing needs” (paragraph 5.11).

64. In doing so, it identified that a new settlement of 2,000 – 3,000 dwellings to accommodate potential longer-term growth needs beyond the Plan period (i.e. 2039 onwards) will need to be explored.

65. At the meeting of the Council’s Cabinet, a proposed amendment was agreed to remove the above wording and instead insert:
“Beyond the Plan period additional planned provision for housing will be required. During the course of preparing this Plan, it has become apparent that it may not be appropriate in the longer term to continue to rely completely on sources of supply such as urban extensions and urban intensification”
[…]
“In order to be in a position to update this Local Plan within the next five
years the Council will need to consider future population and household growth. At the same time, the requirement for sufficient homes to house a local workforce without relying on excessive in-commuting to the District’s workplaces will need to be considered. The continual evolution of National Planning Policy also presents challenges as in what national, regional, sub-regional and plan area strategic planning context any future reviews of this plan may be undertaken.” (Appendix LPD1, paragraphs 5.11 – 5.12).

66. Reference is then made to the need to work “bilaterally with neighbouring authorities in seeking to find cross boundary strategic solutions to future growth requirements” (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 5.13).

67. The emerging Local Plan (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 5.14) continues to recognise a need to facilitate the identification of possible new development sites specifically within the Chichester plan area, however solutions to meet that need are not explored fully.

68. The Council states that it would consider sites that (with our commentary in bold):
i) are of a sufficient scale to support potential long-term development needs arising and support the provision of key infrastructure and community facilities – Rickman’s Green Village is of a scale similar to surrounding villages, and will provide all necessary key infrastructure as well as community facilities such as a potential primary school (or other suitable community facility), sports pitches, and shops;
ii) are comprehensively planned in consultation with existing communities and key stakeholders – significant public engagement has been undertaken, including two in-person public consultation events, and pre-application discussions with West Sussex County Council (on transport, and education) and Chichester District Council;
iii) provide for a sustainable, inclusive and cohesive community promoting self-sufficiency and with high levels of sustainable transport connectivity – a new bus service connecting Rickman’s Green Village to Billingshurst is proposed, and onsite infrastructure is provided to promote self-sufficiency;
iv) include on-site measures to avoid and mitigate any significant adverse impacts on nearby protected habitats – extensive ecology surveys and assessments have been undertaken to ensure habitats are protected. For example, 10 – 30 m buffers have been incorporated around Ancient Woodland;
v) provide a mix of uses to meet longer term development needs and contribute towards its distinctive identity – the village hub will provide office spaces, shops, a café, leisure facilities and a potential school or other suitable community facility to meet long term needs of future residents; and
vi) are of a layout and form that avoids coalescence with existing settlements and does not undermine their separate identity; respects the landscape character and conserves and where possible enhances the character, significance and setting of heritage assets – Rickman’s Green Village has been designed to be a new rural village that does not rely on or coalesce with other surrounding villages. The design has been landscape-led and reflects the character of nearby villages, with contemporary features. There are a number of mitigation measures in place to ensure the setting of heritage assets are protected.

69. Proposed Policies S1 and H1 are therefore unsound. The Council acknowledges that there are ways of meeting future housing need, which could include an allocation of Crouchlands Farm, but avoids deploying these now, which is not justified.

Water neutrality

70. Proposed Policies S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 40 – 41), H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), and H3, Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) are unsound, and contradictory to proposed Policy NE17, Water Neutrality (Appendix LPD1, page 89)

71. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5), in assessing the proposed growth scenarios for the North of the Plan Area, states that water neutrality remains a “key constraint to higher growth” (page 40), despite a Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) having been agreed.
72. That Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) assumes 1,796 homes being delivered in the North of the Plan Area which the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16) states:
“immediately serves to indicate that there is no potential to deliver the high growth target figure of 1,854 homes as the (minimum) level of growth that would be necessary in the northeast plan area, were the local plan housing requirement to be set at LHN [local housing need].”
73. Based on the above, the Council should have discounted the highest growth scenarios for the North of the Plan Area in the Sustainability Appraisal Scenarios 3 and 3a, which propose 1,964 and 2,564 homes, respectively for delivering more than 1,796 homes (Appendix LPD5, page 26). Page 26 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) states, however, “On balance, just Scenario 3a [highest growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 2,564 homes] is ruled out as unreasonable, on this basis, leaving five reasonable growth scenarios”. The Council provides no further justification for the inclusion of Scenario 3.
74. The Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) goes on to state that whilst a Mitigation Strategy has been agreed, it “cannot be implemented until further work has been completed in order to design / set up strategic offsetting schemes. In this light, the proposed strategy of restricting growth somewhat [in the North of the Plan Area] is supported” (page 60).
75. That assessment is at odds, however, with proposed Policy NE17, Water Neutrality (Appendix LPD1, page 89), which states that “Development proposals are not required to utilise the planning authority-led offsetting scheme and may bring forward their own offsetting schemes.”.
76. The Council, therefore, seeks to use water neutrality to limit future growth in the North of the Plan Area, despite proposed Policy NE17 facilitating appropriate development from coming forward, such as that proposed at Crouchlands Farm. Proposed Policies S1, H1 and H3 are unsound for not being positively prepared or justified.

C. CROUCHLANDS FARM

77. Our analysis of the Council’s emerging Local Plan shows that it cannot be found sound as the Council proposes a shortfall of supply against its minimum local housing need where there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this, as well as there being evidence to support additional sites for housing.

78. As a result, the Council should be asked to allocate more sites to help bridge the gap in the extent of its housing shortfall and Crouchlands Farm should be considered the obvious first choice given the deliverability of Rickman’s Green Village, as demonstrated by the Council’s evidence base (Appendix LPD5, page 34, and Appendix LPD7.5, page 134), and the evidence presented below.

For further information, see attached supplementary documents.

These smaller villages [specifically Plaistow Ifold and Kirdford] should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The drafting of this section of the Plan does not match the landscape character evidence in relation to settlement character. The ambition to support landscape quality in the North of the Plan Area is supported by the Council, but it is undermined by identifying all the settlements as ‘Service Villages’. Plaistow, Ifold and Kirdford in particular are all small villages in comparison with Loxwood and Wisborough Green, which are larger scale settlements and different in character terms. By labelling them all as ‘Service Villages’ will risk these smaller villages becoming treated as larger ‘Service Villages’ in time, which will risk them losing their character and settlement hierarchy within this area. These smaller villages should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The Plan identifies that there are few large settlements North of the Plan Area. To ensure this distinctive area of the District is correctly conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced in keeping with the aspirations set out in Chapter 2: Vision and Strategic Objectives, North of the Plan Area, paragraphs 2.49 – 2.51 it is important that the various settlements within the area are correctly identified. Compared to Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett* Wisborough Green is an isolated exceptionally rural village; however, when you compare Wisborough Green to Plaistow, Ifold or Kirdford, Wisborough Green appears more akin to a true ‘Service Village’.

*proximity to A27, public transport, Chichester city and other higher order settlement hubs, services and facilities

Therefore, it is incorrect to list Plaistow, Ifold, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Loxwood in the same ‘Service Village’ category as Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett etc as this does not correctly recognise the true scale of the settlements in the North of the Plan Area, which are materially different from the rest of the District.
Settlements are 'small and dispersed’ with poor connectivity either to each other or to other settlement hubs. To do so, is contrary to the Plan’s aspiration to maintain landscape quality. The Plan’s policies need to correctly reflect the characteristics of each landscape. If settlements are incorrectly identified any growth will be unsustainable and will change the character of the whole landscape. The ambitions should be constrained by an area’s landscape capacity.

Chichester's landscape evidence remains the Capacity Study 2019. The results of this study should be correctly reflected within Plan policies.

Whilst the Council understands that some small-scale development is required within the North of the Plan area and supports this, it wishes to act as a critical friend to ensure that the nuances of the proposed small scale development is fully appreciated.

All housing numbers advocated for the North of the Plan Area are large-scale for the current size of the settlements in this area and will increase their population sizes, without providing any services / facilities to manage this increase. In truth, the Plan cannot / does not deliver the required services / facilities the current settlements need, irrespective of any additional growth. The Plan cannot alter the proximity of the SDNP; the areas dark skies; its rare ecology; the poor rural road networks; the proximity of key services to these northern settlements e.g., secondary schools / higher education / transport links - many of which are situated outside of the District itself; the lack of supermarkets; the lack of other services which are necessary to support a diverse population i.e., libraries, children’s centres, job centres etc and the dependence on private vehicles.

The various services / facilities required to support bigger population sizes are outside of the control of CDC and the Local Plan – medical services / school placements (primary, secondary, and higher education) / public transport services / leisure / retail. Therefore, whilst 25, 50, 75, 220 are very small housing numbers when compared to the rest of the District, if the local services upon which these additional residents will rely upon are already oversubscribed – which they are - and there is no prospect of delivering the requires support services in the area – which there is not - then any housing number above that which the current local area can reasonably accommodate is unsustainable development.

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.
This is supported. It is inevitable that the East/West Corridor will remain the most appropriate and sustainable location for new development in the District. Congestion on the A27 corridor is however a very serious issue and creates significant impacts in social, environmental and economic terms for the area and sub-region. Location of new development at locations which benefit from existing facilities, and can utilise rail and bus services will be essential if congestion on the A27 is not to be made worse.

As a resident of Plaistow, I use the medical centre at Loxwood. I would like to see more supporting facilities and infrastructure such as supermarkets, butcher, greengrocer etc. Our local store in Plaistow is great for everyday items like milk and bread but at the moment we are driving to Billingshurst for our food and grocery shopping so it would be great if Loxwood could become our main service centre.

In view of this, it is considered that Policy S1 should be altered as follows:

2. Reinforcing the role of Manhood Peninsular as a location for moderate growth and home to existing communities, tourism and agricultural enterprise.

East Wittering should also be added to the list of Settlement Hubs considered for new residential and employment development under Part 4. As a consequence, Employment could be deleted from the reference under 5b.

Please refer to the Attached Document.

An objection is raised to Policy S1 on the basis of the omittance of residential development at the Settlement Hub of East Wittering. East Wittering/Bracklesham is classified as a Settlement Hub and within the Chichester and Retail and Main Town Centre Uses Study (2018) as a ‘secondary service centre, providing a reasonable range of employment retail, social and community facilities serving the settlement and local catchment areas’. It is therefore one of the larger and more sustainable locations for development within the Chichester District.
As set out in the preamble, it should be noted that approximately a third of the existing settlement of East Wittering sits within the Parish of West Wittering. The Site which is subject to these representations (Land to the West of Church Road) whilst being within the Parish of West Wittering, is closely related to, and forms part of, the settlement of East Wittering and shares a boundary with this settlement. Therefore, when reference is made to the ‘Settlement of East Wittering’ or the ‘Settlement Hub of East Wittering’ this also includes the Land which is subject to these representations (and located within West Wittering Parish).The omission of new residential growth at the settlement of East Wittering has not been sufficiently ‘’justified’ given the stated objectives of the Plan to accommodate development in larger and more sustainable settlements. Provision for 600 new residential units had been included within the Preferred Approach version of the Local Plan, identifying this as a modest level of growth. This included 350 dwellings at East Wittering.

However, all growth scenarios for the Manhood Peninsula (with the exception of 50 dwellings at North Mundham) were deleted for the following reason:
“In conclusion, in light of the latest flood risk evidence , there is only one scenario for East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish, involving completions, commitments and windfall only.”

The Sustainability Appraisal has not tested a development scenario which includes development at the settlement of East Wittering (within either East or West Wittering Parish). This is considered to be a significant flaw to the SA and the overall Spatial Strategy in Policy S1.

It is noted within the SA that the 2022 SFRA shows extensive tidal flood risk under climate change scenarios, affecting all the sites reasonably in contention for allocation. This includes Site HWW0002a, Land to the West of Church Road.

However, Chichester District Council published another SFRA back in 2018, identifying Land to the West of Church Road, in the ‘climate change risk zone in 2115’ catchment. The 2018 SFRA was utilised to assess sites in the 2020 HELAA. Land to the West of Church Road was originally discounted in the 2020 HELAA, due to being in the subject catchment. This was challenged and it was argued that this is an extreme tidal event and should not be confused with identified flood zones. The EA subsequently advised that the model had been superseded and that the site is not considered to be at risk of coastal flooding. The reason for the difference was found to be which of the various flood risk scenarios were used in the 2018 SFRA. Chichester District Council then produced a revision to the 2018 SFRA in April 2021.

Upon review of the 2022 SFRA, the Council claims the assessments have an updated harbour costal model. Appendix E of the 2022 SFRA outlines how climate change may influence the tidal and coastal flood risk. However, from reading the 2022 SFRA, our interpretation is that the update is based on the original 2018 SFRA, instead of the revised 2018 SFRA and therefore, it appears that the modelling is inaccurate once again.


In the absence of the modelling data and clarification of the 2022 SFRA, we retain our rights to make future representation and participate in the examination, at the later stage of this Local Plan Review Process. Relevant Correspondence is attached at Appendix C.

Land West of Church Lane is therefore not affected by flood constraints and available for development within the HELAA. It is also noted that the Sustainability Appraisal considers notes a ‘green’ response on the RAG scale for flood Zone, and supports the findings that the site is suitable for development on these grounds.

Paragraph 3.20 of the Draft Plan sets out that several planning approvals have contributed to moderate levels of growth on the Manhood Peninsula. The Sustainability Assessment notes 256 dwellings on 5 sites within East Wittering and Bracklesham Parishes and suggests that other sites may also come forward on appeal.

It is none-the-less considered necessary to plan proactively and future allocations should be made at the settlement of East Wittering, given its sustainability (second only to Chichester) and aspirations for further retail, employment, tourism and leisure growth. Currently, the level of commitments falls below the 350 dwellings allocated in the Preferred Option version Local Plan and it is notable that these would also be delivered within the early stages of the Plan period.

Further growth would also contribute to the viability of services and facilities at the settlement of East Wittering, which is particularly important given the need to sustain these services for the older population that resides within the Manhood Peninsula.

Therefore, it is considered that further allocations should be made to secure modest future growth. In this context it is considered that the 350 dwellings allocated in the Preferred Option version Local Plan should be re-instated. Failing that, as a minimum, 150 -200 dwellings could be accommodated at the settlement of East Wittering (but within the Parish of West Wittering) to deliver a commensurate level of growth to that originally envisaged.

It is considered that this could be accommodated on the Northern Parcel on Land to the West of Church Road. The Southern Parcel has already been permitted - 70 dwellings on Appeal in April 2022 (Ref: APP/L3815/W/21/3286315). The Northern Parcel (Ref HWW0002a) could deliver circa 150 – 160 dwellings. The Details of this are set out under Objections to Policy H2 below.

Of further note, The 2021 census recorded a population of 6,059 persons for East Wittering Built Up Area, which is set out as including the Land to the West of Church Road.

Chichester District has an average household size of 2.4 persons. This means that the existing commitments of 256 dwellings would generate a population of circa 614 people. The Northern Parcel of Land to the West of Church Lane could contribute 150 dwellings or a further 360 persons. Overall, this would equate to a population rise of circa 974 persons (or circa 16%) within the Plan period and would constitute a moderate level of growth for this settlement and reflective of its size and the accessibility constraints.

Boxgrove should be included in Tier 3, as a settlement to accommodate a strategic development location.

A re-assessment of Boxgrove as a site for strategic level residential development should also take into account Plan Policy S1 regarding the Spatial Development Strategy. We object to the exclusion of Boxgrove from accommodating a strategic level of housing and feel that it should be included in Tier 3, as a settlement to accommodate a strategic development location. However, we do agree with the settlement hierarchy, as outlined in Plan Policy S2, with Boxgrove listed as one of 17 ’Service Villages’.

We support the overall spatial strategy within the Draft Plan and agree with the continuing stance that Southbourne should act as a sustainable settlement hub with the potential for new residential development proportional to its size and influence in the District.

The housing number should be increased as there appears to be additional capacity on the A27 beyond that stated.

Additional sites that are currently in the planning system without technical problems and recommended by officers for planning permission should be allocated in the Local Plan to meet the housing need.

There needs to be more certainty on what happens if Neighbourhood Plans and the District Council do not deliver the housing numbers expected in a timely manner.

See submitted letter

Consider the inclusion of ‘small-scale’ wording is superfluous, and should be deleted.

We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. However, we question the need for the inclusion of the wording ‘small-scale’ when referring to housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy H3. No definition is provided over what does, or does not constitute ‘small-scale’. There is a risk that small-scale could be inferred as excluding ‘major development’ as defined within the NPPF glossary. To avoid any confusion, we therefore consider the inclusion of ‘small-scale’ wording is superfluous, and should be deleted.

Allocate housing figures in service villages such as Birdham. Also provide for sites adjacent to service village boundaries to come forward for development where they would sustain existing facilities located there.

We do not agree that A27 capacity issues are a sufficient reason to rule out new housing where previously proposed on the Manhood Peninsula. Whilst we agree that development should be distributed in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, there should be provision for sites adjacent to service village boundaries to come forward for development where it would sustain existing facilities located there.

Without fully addressing the housing need, significant in-commuting associated with the planned quantum of employment space will result in even more traffic on the A27, not less.

Chichester District Council's Regulation 19 Local Plan development strategy should account for the cross boundary contributions and 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 Development Strategy 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;
- The infrastructure constrained approach delivering only the two scheme improvements on the A27 at Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts (delivering reduced housing numbers), and the potential cross boundary impact with additional mitigation scheme costs and uplift from ADC planned and committed development (e.g. West of Bersted)
- uncertainty over ADC developments (i.e. West of Bersted, Pagham North and South) and their contributions towards A27 mitigation improvements e.g. A27 Whyke Road Roundabout
- The strategy is silent about cross boundary future growth assumptions (e.g. Arun) that may assist with A27 capacity. This may cap A27 capacity and ADC's future plan making and developments unviable because of the need for additional improvements

Fishbourne should be recognised as a 'more sustainable' location where additional strategic-scale growth can and should occur. The housing requirement for Fishbourne should revert back to the amount set out in the Preferred Approach version of the Local Plan which was for 250 homes.

2.11 Chapter 3 of the draft Local Plan defines how housing and other needs will be met spatially across the District, in accordance with a defined settlement hierarchy.

2.12 Paragraphs 3.5 through 3.28 of the Draft Local Plan summarise the rationale for the proposed distribution of growth, including noting:

• That growth is required in both urban and rural areas to meeting needs;
• The focus remains on Chichester city as a main sub-regional centre and the most sustainable location;
• Outside of Chichester, development will be focused on ‘settlement hubs’ within the east-west corridor at Tangmere and Southbourne;
• Outside of these locations land for new development will be identified and allocated through the Local Plan or a neighbourhood plan at Service Villages where there are suitable locations to do so; and
• The Local Plan aims to continue to protect the countryside.

2.13 Draft Policy S1 (Spatial Development Strategy) broadly reflects the above, and states that “new residential and employment development is [to be] distributed in line with the settlement hierarchy, with a greater proportion of development in the larger and more sustainable settlements”. The corresponding table identifies a range of ‘Strategic Development Locations’ which are considered to be the ‘more sustainable settlements’ including the service villages of Bosham, Hambrook / Nutbourne (combined) and Loxwood.

2.14 Draft Policy S2 (Settlement Hierarchy) expands this list to include a wider range of settlements where development will be delivered through site allocations as well as windfall development in accordance with other policies in the draft Plan.

2.15 Whilst we have no objection to the principle of distributing the majority of growth to the most sustainable location, subject to consideration of constraints, it is our view the Council has not sufficiently justified the rationale behind its settlement hierarchy.

2.16 This is because a key settlement, Fishbourne, has been overlooked in the settlement hierarchies set out in draft Policies S1 and S2 without good reason. Fishbourne, has not been identified as a more sustainable settlement and ‘Strategic Development Location’ in the table at draft Policy S1, and has instead only been identified in draft Policy S2 as a ‘Service Village’, and a location for the non-strategic provision of only 30 homes. This is despite Fishbourne being a highly sustainable location with suitable and deliverable locations for growth (including Gleeson’s site as detailed in Section 3).

2.17 No evidence is provided which considers the sustainability of Service Centres that provides justification for Hambrook / Nutbourne, Loxwood and Bosham being elevated over Fishbourne.

2.18 From our own review, it is clear there is no rationale for this, as shown below:

Current population Sustainable transport options Existing services / facilities Draft Local Plan proposals
Fishbourne 2,666 Train Station and bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Public Houses
Community Hall
Supermarket (Tesco Extra)
Roman Palace (inc. coffee shop) 30 homes
Hambrook / Nutbourne Hambrook: 1,908
Nutborne: 1,962

Combined total: 3,870 Train Station (Nutbourne) and bus services Post office
Public House 300 homes
Loxwood 1,026 Bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Post Office
Community Hall 220 homes
Bosham 1,578 Train Station and bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Post office
Co-op shop
Churches
Public Houses 245 homes


2.19 We consider that Fishbourne should instead be recognised as a ‘more sustainable’ location where additional strategic-scale growth can and should occur. It has a commensurate number of services and facilities compared to other Service Villages. The proximity to Chichester compared to the other Service Centres and the multitude of employment opportunities and facilities there is also a unique strength of Fishbourne. It also benefits from a nearby Tesco Extra.

2.20 This would be consistent with the Regulation 18 Preferred Approach (December 2018) consultation which identified (through the previous version of draft Policy S1 – at that stage identified as Policy S3 Development Strategy) Fishbourne as a “larger and more sustainable settlement”, alongside Bosham, Hambrook / Nutbourne and Hunston, with an allocation of a “minimum of 250 dwellings”. Loxwood was not recognised as a more sustainable settlement at that time, albeit was still identified to accommodate 125 homes.

2.21 No information has been provided to justify this change in approach between the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultation. We therefore consider the current approach to the Spatial Strategy is not justified and consider draft Policy S1 not “sound”.