Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy

Policy A11 needs to be removed from the plan. Other sites outside of settlement boundaries should be reviewed and removed from the plan.

Many of the sites chosen in the local plan are outside of settlement boundaries which means the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply. This is the case with policy A11 where the whole development lies outside of the settlement boundary.

Downgrade East Wittering/Bracklesham to a service village

East Wittering/Bracklesham should be downgraded to a service village as it has no schooling/training facilities beyond the age of 11, no access to a train station or the major road network and has lost all its major employers since the last local plan with few opportunities to attract large employers (other than those in the tourism sector) due to its poor access at the bottom of a peninsula

Please refer to the attached supporting document. Policy S2 is discussed on page 8.

The PC recognises the existing function of Southbourne Village as a Settlement Hub and supports the delineation of Settlement Boundaries as a means of directing development to sustainable locations which: respect the setting, form and character of the settlement; avoid actual or perceived coalescence of settlements; and ensure good access to local services and facilities. The PC agrees that development in the “Rest of the Plan Area” should be restricted as set out in Local Plan Policy S2 in order to reinforce the character and function of the built-up areas and prevent piecemeal development which fragments the countryside.

The scale of the development proposed should be reduced in order to reflect there is no longer a requirement to meet mandatory target numbers set by government. Some 80% if the district falls within CHONAB & SDNP landscape, which is protected against development, this suggests that CDC would be justified in further reducing the government allocated figure for housing by a proportionate amount.

"Outside of the settlement boundaries" development in the rest of the plan is restricted to that which requires a countryside location. However, much of the proposed development has been allocated to locations outside the settlement boundaries where there is no evidence of an essential local rural need, whilst being in the countryside.

Policy S2 demonstrates that Chichester City is the largest and most sustainable settlement in the district and is the only settlement in the Sub-Regional Centre tier. Berkeley therefore supports the approach that the majority of growth should be focussed around Chichester City, given its capacity for development.

Berkeley supports the purpose of the settlement hierarchy, to guide the location of development to the most sustainable locations. The majority of new housing should be located at settlements that sit at the top of the settlement hierarchy, such as Chichester City, given they provide the most sustainable locations for growth and thus enable easy access to jobs and facilities without the need to travel long distances.

Chichester City is the largest settlement in the district and Berkeley therefore supports its placement in its own category at the top of the settlement hierarchy.

Redefine the service village criteria.

Chidham & Hambrook has been misrepresented as a service village. The criteria used is flawed. There is no convenience store, medical services, recreation ground, sports facilities unlike Fishbourne and Bosham. 300 houses is not moderate growth. It increases the population by 30% there are minimal existing facilities to expand and there is no provision in this plan for increased public transport options. Its just left to the private sector to provide, a sector whose aim is to make a profit. There is no bus service north to south and the east/west bus service has been cut to 2 an hour.

Reduce the number of houses.

Nutbourne and Hambrook do not have good access to local facilities and are therefore not the right locations for 300 houses.

Policy S2 demonstrates that Chichester City is the largest and most sustainable settlement in the district and is the only settlement in the Sub-Regional Centre tier. Berkeley therefore supports the approach that the majority of growth should be focussed around Chichester City, given its capacity for development.

Berkeley supports the purpose of the settlement hierarchy, to guide the location of development to the most sustainable locations. The majority of new housing should be located at settlements that sit at the top of the settlement hierarchy, such as Chichester City, given they provide the most sustainable locations for growth and thus enable easy access to jobs and facilities without the need to travel long distances.

Chichester City is the largest settlement in the district and Berkeley therefore supports its placement in its own category at the top of the settlement hierarchy.

The 3 lines of approach should be explained further in supporting text. For example, what is to be included in identifying setting, form and character, and what is meant by ‘good accessibility’. These requirements are open to differing interpretation, unintentionally or intentionally and the plan should offer guidance as to a minimum status to be applied. Character for example will be made up of differing elements, built and undeveloped, the quality and maintenance of the public realm, existing trees or landscape structure etc.

Policy S2 Generally supported but further detail is required

WGPC supports this statement but questions WG's designation as a Service Village. WGPC supports the policy relating to Settlement Boundaries.

Include Chichester Marina as part of Birdham Service Village, or its own service village.

Chichester Marina has an existing thriving residential community, economic community and leisure/tourism visitors which all meet to generate a genuinely mixed, balanced and sustainable community around the marina and canal.
As such and as set out in our last Regulation 18 representations, Premier believes that Chichester Marina should be considered as being part of Birdham service village, or its own service village, in recognition of the 50 residential dwellings comprising 31 houseboats and 1,750 sq m of floorspace at the Site.
The opportunity to provide sustainable residential development on the Site is important to the long term future of Chichester Marina, specifically its vitality and viability and to the local community. It is important in policy terms, that the Marina is able to provide suitable further sustainable development, considering the strategic housing and economic needs of the Local Plan. Residential uses also contributes significantly to the overall diversity and sustainability of the marinas economy and will complement the mixed commercial marine, non-marine and leisure uses on-site. Simply restricting development to local needs is unlikely to ensure the long-term strategic growth that the Marina is capable of contributing towards the Local Plan.

The inclusion of East Wittering/Bracklesham as a Settlement Hub is supported.

As noted in our response to Policy S1, it is considered that residential growth should be planned for accordingly

We welcome the focus in the policy wording and supporting text on the Sub Regional Centres, Settlement Hubs and Service Villages as the main locations for strategic site allocations, employment, retail, social and community facilities.

We support the Settlement Hub classification for Southbourne as the District’s third largest settlement (in population size) after Chichester and Selsey and joint fourth highest ranking settlement in terms of number of key services and facilities.

With good access to the regional road network and public transport links Southbourne has a key role to play in meeting the District’s full local housing need.

We support the Settlement Hub classification for Southbourne as the District’s third largest settlement (in population size) after Chichester and Selsey and joint fourth highest ranking settlement in terms of number of key services and facilities. The location of Southbourne within the East-West Corridor accounts for 84.2% of the housing provision for 2021-2039. With good access to the regional road network and public transport links Southbourne has a key role to play in meeting the District’s full local housing need.

Policy S2 sets out a settlement hierarchy across the plan area which, it is stated, will be used to inform the spatial distribution of development across the plan area.

Birdham has been categorised as a Service Village alongside other settlements in the peninsula including Fishbourne and North Mundham. We support this categorisation which recognises the range of services available.

Paragraph 79 of the NPPF encourages housing delivery where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The Local Plan must acknowledge this and the importance of maintaining existing services within settlements such as Birdham.

We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. Indeed, the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper confirms Hambrook and Nutbourne has a broad range of key local facilities and services as well as local employment opportunities. The village also has a railway station with frequent services to Chichester and Portsmouth, as well as bus services to Chichester and Petersfield, collectively providing a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities.

The spatial strategy seeks to focus on delivering sustainable growth opportunities across Chichester to meet the need for homes and jobs for current and future generations.

The spatial strategy includes four tiers from the ‘Sub-Regional Centre’ at the top to ‘Rest of the Plan area’ at the bottom. The majority of new growth opportunities are concentrated towards the main urban areas of Chichester city and the Settlement Hubs (East Wittering / Bracklesham, Selsey, Southbourne and Tangmere) as well as settlements that support their roles with the remaining growth allocated across Chichester.

In principle, Gladman support the Council’s approach in seeking to focus development towards the most sustainable towns and villages capable of accommodating new growth opportunities. In particular, Gladman support the identification of Birdham as a ‘Service Village’, however we do have serious concerns in relation to the amount of growth which has been allocated to Birdham and the wider Service Villages in general (as discussed in more detail in response to draft policies H1 and H3). Development should be encouraged at the Service Villages which will enhance their roles through the provision of housing, employment, retail and other key services opportunities via allocations proposed through the emerging Chichester Local Plan.

The wording of S2 should be revised to better reflect the methodology for settlement policy boundary reviews in the settlement policy boundary background paper. The settlement policy boundary of North Mundham/Runcton should also be redrawn as shown on the draft revised boundary plan accompanying these comments to include recent implemented consents and land to the east of Pigeon House Farm on the south side of the village.

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

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

Our comments concern the Settlement Hierarchy policy S2 and the settlement boundary of North Mundham/Runcton. In our view, the wording of S2 could be amended to improve the Plans overall performance in connection with the ‘positively prepared’ and ‘justified’ tests of soundness. The settlement policy boundary itself is out of date and was last revised in the 2015 Local Plan. The boundary should be reviewed as part of the current Local Plan Review

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the last Preferred Options Local Plan is dated December 2018. It has not been updated for the present Submission Local Plan but still provides justification for the hierarchy in Policy 2 of the Local Plan. It forms the basis for the proposed distribution of growth by distinguishing between those settlements considered to be the most sustainable having the best range of facilities and accessibility from those with the least. Most development is focused on the former and development to meet local needs or no development whatsoever on the latter. We agree that North Mundham/Runcton is properly classified as a service village in the hierarchy and is suitable for settlement boundary status in the Local Plan.

The second part of Policy S2 that deals with settlement boundaries and states:

Settlement Boundaries
There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the settlement boundaries which will be reviewed through the preparation of development plan documents and/or neighbourhood plans, reflecting the following general approach:

1. Respecting the setting, form, and character of the settlement;
2. Avoiding actual or perceived coalescence of settlements; and
3. Ensuring good accessibility to local services and facilities.

Whilst we agree that settlement boundaries must be reviewed because they were last drawn in 2015 and are out of date, we object to the timing of the boundary reviews. Where Neighbourhood Plans are not being prepared the earliest opportunity for a boundary review would be in connection with the Site Allocations DPD. According to the Local Development Scheme this isn’t anticipated for adoption until the winter 2026/27. This delay would not assist with the delivery of additional sites, and we therefore propose that the settlement boundaries reviews are carried out as part of the current Local Plan Review, not the future site Allocations DPD. The first sentence of policy S2 above should therefore be amended with the following italicised text:

There is a presumption in favour of sustainable development within the settlement boundaries which will be reviewed through the preparation of the 2021-2039 Local Plan and/or neighbourhood plans. Boundaries may be redrawn to include the whole curtilage of homes and other buildings and land where they relate well to the existing built-up area reflecting the following general approach: ….

Settlement boundaries should be expanded to include new development adjacent to the existing settlement boundary. The boundary revision previously proposed for north Mundham and Runcton shown in Appendix 1 of the Background Paper should therefore be revised to reflect recent development on the ground and include additional land highlighted edged red on the plan to the east of Pigeon House Farm. The plan is attached with these comments.

The land should be included within the revised settlement boundary of North Mundham because it is surrounded by existing development on 3 sides and Church Road to the east. It relates well to the existing built up area of North Mundham. The positive relationship will be reinforced by proposed new development on land south of Lowlands proposed for 66 dwellings community orchard, open space and bandstand to the west (LA Ref 20/02989). The extension of the settlement boundary avoids any perceived coalescence with Runcton. It is not subject to any designated landscape, biodiversity, technical or infrastructure constraint and was identified in the 2021 HELAA as a deliverable housing site (Refs MNM 0011 and MNM 0011a).

























(Continue on a separate sheet /expand box if necessary)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duty to Cooperate

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

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

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

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

Local Plan Policies

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

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

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

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

Sidlesham should be included as a ‘service village’ in the settlement hierarchy of S2. The description of Sidlesham should recognise that this includes Highleigh.

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

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

Our comments concern the Sustainability Appraisal for the Local Plan and the following policies in connection with Sidlesham: S2 - Settlement Hierarchy and Parish Housing Sites - H3. In our view, Sidlesham should be re classified as a service village in the hierarchy and allocated a modest level of development. This would improve the overall plan in terms of it performance against the ‘justified’ test of soundness.
Sustainability Appraisal (SA)
This forms part of the evidence base for the Local Plan Review. It has updated the SA prepared for the last Preferred Approach 2018 Local Plan. We note from paragraph 5.2.11 of the updated SA that the southern part of the plan area (i.e. the east west corridor and the Manhood Peninsula) is highly constrained by capacity on the A27. Detailed discussions with National Highways and WSCC, over the course of 2019-2022, have led to a resolution that there is capacity for no more than 535 dpa in this area (with a further 40 dpa in the north part of the District outside the National Park). This contrasts with the actual housing need for the area of 638dpa.

The figure of 535dpa has now been adopted for the submission Local Plan in the southern part of the plan area with no standard 10% supply buffer.

Under providing against OAN will be a matter for discussion at Examination but even accepting the 535dpa can be justified in the south part of the district we still have concerns about the housing distribution for the manhood peninsula. For instance, in order to avoid traffic impact issues on the A27, paragraph 5.2.23 of SA says this would need avoid or minimise growth on the Manhood Peninsula and weight growth to the west of Chichester. Paragraph 5.2.29 also states that growth should be limited on the peninsula because of the need to cross or join the problematic Stockbridge and Whyke A27 junctions which is an issue for private car travel and bus connectivity.

We disagree with this analysis however. 1) it does not explain why development to west of Chichester will not cause the same impacts of having to cross the A27 as suggested will occur for the peninsula; and 2) it assumes the direction of travel will always be towards Chichester. However development on the peninsula could help support local facilities already present in the area and looking in the other direction, could help support the vitality of Selsey and East Wittering as settlement hubs. 3) Development could also help the local economy on the peninsula and introduce a younger profile to the area which the SA notes has a very significant older age structure (33% of those living on the Manhood Peninsula are aged 65+).

The table B in in the SA lists the developable 2021 HELAA sites (Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment). It includes Site Ref HSI0004 at Sidlesham on page 86. Across a range of performance indicators the site scores 13 green, 4 light green, and 3 red points. Red indicates a significant negative effect; light green a positive; and green a significant positive effect.
Despite the very positive scoring of the site, it has been completely overlooked for any development because of the ranking of Sidlesham as within the ‘rest of the plan area’ category.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper was prepared for the last Preferred Options Local Plan in Dec 2018. It has not been updated for the Submission Plan but provides justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Local Plan. It forms the basis for the proposed distribution of growth by distinguishing between those settlements considered to be the most sustainable having the best range of facilities and accessibility from those with the least. Most development is focused on the former and development to meet local needs or no development whatsoever on the latter. Paragraph 4.8 of the background paper includes Sidlesham in the ‘rest of the plan area’ least suited for development because it does ‘not contain the range of facilities and services to be classified as sustainable’.

We therefore disagree with this classification and believe Sidlesham should be included as a ‘service village in the hierarchy based on its population and range of available facilities.

The Councils own Settlement Capacity Profile 2013 shows Sidlesham with a population of over 1,100. This historic population is more than Boxgrove, Kirdford and Westhampnett which are all service villages in Policy 2 of this draft Local Plan.

Sidlesham has 4 employment areas at Enbourne Business Park, Walnut Tree Science Park Locks Lane, Jury Lane and the Horticultural Development Area. Community facilities include a petrol filling station with convenience store and off licence, church, recreation ground and football field with licensed bar and hall, primary school with sports hall available for wider community use, 2 other pubs (one a ‘gastro pub’ at Sidlesham Quay). Access to bus services are available from the B2145, 1 regular daytime bus service (51) linking to Chichester & Selsey (Most frequent daytime service, every 15 minutes). A more irregular daytime bus service (150) is on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays (3 daytime services in each direction).

Based on this range of facilities we therefore believe Sidlesham should be re-categorised as a service village and allocated for a modest amount of development. This would support its existing facilities and the settlement hubs of Selsey and West Wittering. A modest amount of development need not lead to critical impacts on the A27 as travel impacts would not necessarily be attracted towards Chichester.

Policy H3 – Parish housing Sites
We have already explained our reasons why Sidlesham should be included as a ‘service village’ in the hierarchy in connection with S2. Based on this revision to the hierarchy, it follows that some housing should be directed to Sidlesham. We believe a parish allocation of the order of 35-70 dwellings would be justified.

Assuming this is accepted we would point out that the 2021 HELAA Site Ref HSI0004 referred to above is still available at Greenwood Nursery Highleigh Road Sidlesham. The Council said the site was deliverable and had an identified capacity of around 35-67 dwellings. A draft layout plan is attached showing a 35 dwelling scheme. The site is outside the designated horticultural development area, within flood zone 1 (least liable to flood) and has no biodiversity or heritage interest. It is located outside the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It has a footpath link to the nearby school.

The proposal would generate fewer trips (and no HGV’s) compared to the existing nursery business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Given the capacity constraints for development in the south part of the district, the NE sub region could play a more significant role in helping rebalance the development needs of the district with a more equal split between the north and south areas. This should be given further consideration.

See attached representation.

Request that the Wisborough Green Settlement boundary be amended to reflect Neighbourhood Plan Allocations that have now been completed.

1 Introduction
1.1 Henry Adams LLP act on behalf of Runnymede Homes Ltd (Client) in respect of Land at Winterfold Garden, Durbans Road (the Site).
1.2 These representations respond to the Regulation 19 Consultation version of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 (Feb 2023) and more specifically those policies relating to Wisborough Green and the North East of Plan Area. Our Client is also mindful of the Neighbourhood Plan Review which is currently on going and for which the Site benefits from a draft allocation.
1.3 Runnymede Homes Ltd are generally supportive of the approach taken to new residential development in the North East of Plan Area but respectfully request that the Wisborough Green Settlement boundary be amended to reflect Neighbourhood Plan Allocations that have now been completed.
2 Chapter 3: Spatial Strategy
2.1 The Client is supportive of the Settlement Hierarchy and the approach taken to new residential development being relative to, and directed in order of the most sustainable settlements. They are also supportive of Wisborough Green being categorised as a Service Village.
2.2 However, they have noted that the Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Policies Map does not include amendments to the Wisborough Green Settlement Boundary in order to account for the Neighbourhood Plan Allocations (2016) that have now been completed.
2.3 The Wisborough Green Neighbourhood Plan (2016), Policy OA3 and paragraph 5 state that ‘The village boundary will only be enlarged to include sites SS1 and SS4 following the development of these sites when the final balance of built area to open space is known’. Site Allocation SS4, now known as Songhurst Meadow, has been built out. In accordance with the adopted Neighbourhood Plan Policy OA3 and supporting text at paragraph 5, the settlement boundary should be amended through the Revised Neighbourhood Plan.
2.4 Representations have been made to the Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 14 Consultation outlining the above but the progress going forward on this is unclear given the Local Plan requirement for an increase in housing provision.
2.5 In terms of the Local Plan Schedule of Proposed Changes to the Policies Maps, we have been unable to locate a Settlement Boundary Methodology post that published in 2013 to support the Settlement Boundary Review as part of the 2019 Local Plan. We have therefore referenced the ‘Key Requirements’ as set out within this document;
‘Settlement boundaries should include new development adjacent to the settlement boundary. This includes sites that have been developed following allocation in the Adopted Local Plan 1999, sites that have planning permission, built exception site housing, minor extensions and other areas
adjacent to but outside the current settlement policy area that relate more to the built environment than to the surrounding countryside.’
2.1 It is normal practice for consented sites, that are not rural exception sites and that are well related to the existing settlement, to be included within the settlement boundary, as confirmed by the above Key Requirement. Regardless of the size of settlement, all amendments at Neighbourhood Plan level should be reflected within any updates at Local Plan level.
2.2 We therefore request that careful consideration be given to all settlements with settlement boundaries that have been subject to Neighbourhood Plan Allocations or recent planning consents and that settlement boundaries be updated accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1.7 Our response is focused on the following matters:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 Objectives and Spatial Strategy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 Overall amount of Housing

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs
Housing Need

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

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

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

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

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

Affordability in Chichester

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

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

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

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

Constraints for development

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


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

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

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

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

Duty to Co-Operate

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Southbourne

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amend sentence 1 to state ‘while sustaining the vitality of communities…’the location of settlements identified in table … are shown on the key diagram’. Recommend revision of second sentence to state ‘Each category within the settlement hierarchy contributes towards future growth in the plan area, with the largest levels of growth directed towards the sub-regional centre, settlement hubs outside the Manhood Peninsula and service villages located on the Key Diagram’. Recommend amending policy to ensure it is clear what quantum of development is envisaged (allocation or windfall) at each tier. Suggest removing capitalisation of ‘rest’ in the final paragraph.

See attachment.

I am pleased to attach our representations in response to the Chichester Local Plan Regulation 19 consultation. These representations are submitted on behalf of our clients Deerhyde Ltd. owners of land in Selsey and located in the area for a significant number of years.
The submitted documents include the following:
• Representations statement
• Plans showing the potential road widening of Golf Links Lane and Paddock Lane, Selsey
• Development potential of sites for residential development at Golf Links Lane and Old Farm Road, Selsey taking account of flood zones 2 and 3 (2 plans 15-085 SK03 and SK04)
• Plans showing access options to Golf Links Lane site
• Plan showing tracking analysis for low-loaders
• Junction analysis
• Submission form
As detailed in the attached, after careful consideration we have concluded that the housing strategy for Chichester is flawed in principle as it fails to allocate sufficient sites in outside Chichester City (or adjacent to) to allow the remainder of the District to continue to provide houses for local people in areas where they are most needed.
In addition, our clients have put forward a suggestion for an infrastructure improvement to Selsey – namely the widening of Golf Links Lane and Paddocks Lane to accommodate delivery of caravans / other HGV / LGVs but also to provide a wider carriageway which could potentially incorporate a pavement / footpath cycleway to aid safer conveyance of pedestrians and vehicles in the area. Adding in a safer highway solution would also encourage car users to walk or cycle for local trips rather than risking congestion in the car. It would have the added benefit of diverting caravan park traffic travelling from the north into the caravan parks earlier and thus relieving congestion of Selsey High Street.
Introduction

1.1. Vail Williams LLP has been instructed by Deerhyde Ltd to submit representations to the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) document.

1.2. As per the Website, these comments seek to address the three questions namely:
1. Is it legally compliant?
2. Is it sound?
3. Does it comply with the duty to cooperate?

1.3. These representations are largely focussed on the provision of housing and ensuring that a satisfactory access (both vehicular and pedestrian) can be maintained and enhanced, particularly in Selsey.

1.4. These representations reflect the fact that our client, Deerhyde Ltd, owns a significant amount of land in the Selsey area, an interest which was acquired in 1986 but with family ownership going back many years before then.

1.5. Our clients have identified a potential opportunity to facilitate highway improvements within Selsey which would be to the benefit of both residents and tourists using the holiday parks and other attractions alike. This would particularly be of benefit given the Council’s acknowledgement that the B2145 through Selsey is the busiest B road in the country These representations bring into question the ‘tests of soundness’. In particular regarding the questions as to whether it is ‘sound’ on the basis of whether it has been ‘positively prepared’, whether it is ‘justified’ and ‘effective’ in respect of the areas of concern raised with respect to employment land provisions.

1.6. As set out at Paragraph 35 of the NPPF local plans are required to be ‘sound’. Plans are considered sound when the following applies:
a) Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs1; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
b) Justified – an appropriate strategy2, taking into account the reasonable alternatives3, and based on proportionate evidence4;
c) Effective – deliverable over the plan period5, and based on effective joint working on crossboundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
d) Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.6

1.7. These representations seek to highlight that Chapter 5 (Housing) has not been positively prepared, in so far as it does not provide [1.] “a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs”.
1.8. It is also considered that Chapter 5 is not justified as the housing strategy is [2.] is inappropriate as it relies on a number of large strategic sites, with multiple issues some of which are in conflict with other parts of the local plan.

1.9. Chapter 5 is also not justified with respect to its provisions do not [3.] take into account reasonable alternative sites.

1.10. It is considered on the basis of the other factors highlighted in these representations and the proposed housing land provision is not ‘consistent with national policy’ as the proposed provision does not enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant. It is considered that the proposed plans are contrary to the NPPF paragraph 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d and paragraph 20a

2 Local Plan Representations

2.1. Having reviewed the draft Local Plan we would make the following comments:

2.2. Paragraph 3.1 asserts the Government’s encouragement for local planning authorities to ensure sustainable development is at the forefront when considering planning applications and that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) defines sustainable development as “meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Paragraph 3.5 goes on to advise the range of factors as are informed the spatial strategy which underpins the local plan which, inter alia, “the pattern of need and demand for housing and employment across the area”, “infrastructure capacity and constraints, in particular related to waste water treatment, roads and transport”, “the availability of potential housing types, their deliverability and phasing” and this needs to take place whilst being mindful of the environmental constraints taking a sequential approach to avoiding flood risk areas, protect the environmental designations, landscape quality, the historic environment and settlement character.

2.3. The principles outlined above are supported as these are the key facets of good planning and plan making. However it falls to local authorities to ensure that the sustainable approach includes providing a sufficient supply of homes and facilitating a variety of sites to come forward where needed, and that the needs of groups within specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay. (Paragraph 65). Paragraph 66 states that within the overall requirement [for housing] strategic policies should also set out a housing requirement for designated neighbourhood areas which reflects the overall strategy for the pattern and scale of development and any relevant allocations.

2.4. Paragraph 67 goes on, where it is not possible to provide a requirement figure for a neighbourhood area, the local planning authority should provide an indicative figure, if requested to do so by the neighbourhood planning body. This figure should take account of factors such as the latest evidence of local housing need, the population of the neighbourhood area and the most recently available planning strategy of the local planning authority.

2.5. Paragraph 68 asserts that strategic policy making authorities should have a clear understanding of the land available in their area through the preparation of a Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). From this, planning policies should identify a sufficient supply and mix of sites, taking into account their availability, suitability and locally economic viability.

2.6. Further guidance states (Paragraph 69) that small and medium sized sites can make an important
[my emphasis] contribution to meeting the housing requirements of an area, and are often built-
out relatively quickly. To promote the development of a good mix of sites the local planning authority should identify sites of small and medium size and support the development of windfall sites through their promises and decisions giving great weight to the benefits of using suitable sites within existing settlements for homes.

2.7. Neighbourhood planning groups should also give particular consideration to the opportunities for allocating small and medium-sized sites suitable for housing in their area. Paragraph 71 goes on: where an allowance is to be made for windfall sites as part of anticipated supply, there should be compelling evidence that they will provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the SHLAA, historic windfall delivery rate and expected future trends.

2.8. Whilst it is noted that the delivery of large scale sites can result in the delivery of large numbers of new homes, it is apparent that such developments take considerable time to work their way through the planning system to an approval and even then are only at outline stage. The delivery of new homes is therefore reliant on the Councils to efficiently determine reserved matters applications and, thereafter, discharge of conditions, to allow a swift implementation of planning applications and a timely start on site for the delivery of housing.

2.9. The inclusion of small and medium sites (ie. not reliant on strategic sites) within the housing mix
are invaluable in delivering housing quicker and potentially in places, perhaps outside the main settlements, which would allow new housing to be accessible to all which is one of the key facets of the NPPF.

2.10. This approach would assist with maintaining delivery of housing where existing allocations are either stalled or progressing slowly through the planning system or have simply been delayed in coming forward for perhaps other commercial reasons.

2.11. The plan is largely predicated on strategic sites, as detailed at Policy H2 which would provide 7,195 houses. This is a significant reliance on the strategic sites to deliver 75% of the overall housing target and much of them are predicated on the works to the A27 being completed in order to make them acceptable.

2.12. It should be noted that the above housing provision is predicated on the ability to identify mitigation for the impacts on the European environmental designations (including nutrient neutrality), addressing highway implications and negotiating the planning system.

The Manhood Peninsula

2.13. The preferred approached version of the Local Plan does include moderate growth for the settlement hubs of Selsey (250 dwellings) and East Wittering (350) and the service village of Hunston (200). However, since then several planning permissions have contributed to the moderate levels of growth on the Manhood Peninsula which the Council says has accounted for these housing numbers. The plan does not therefore include any strategic allocations on the Manhood Peninsula in recognition of this recently permitted growth and the ongoing constraints the area faces, save for 50 dwellings to come forward at North Mundham.

2.14. This approach is not considered sound as a reason to prevent development of any scale on the Manhood Peninsula (particularly Selsey) for the plan period. As detailed above, it is essential that the plan allocates land across its settlement hierarchy in order to maintain a sustainable and deliverable approach to development and to assist the continuing evolution and economic viability of settlements which rely heavily on tourism and also on new development to maintain
the supply of homes to provide options for all sectors of the local community to be able to live on the Peninsula should they so wish.

2.15. It is noted that at Policy S2 (settlement hierarchy), Selsey is listed as a “settlement hub” which is the second tier of settlement under Chichester city. Whilst this hierarchy, particularly in connection with Selsey is supported it is therefore surprising not to see more housing sites allocated within and around Selsey.

2.16. Given the potential number of environmental constraints on the Manhood Peninsula it is unlikely that sites of any excessive size would come forward and large numbers of dwellings would not necessarily result once the sites had taken account of their environmental constraints. That said, and as reflected above, sites of a size proportionate to their location but below “strategic” size can have an important part to play in the delivery of sufficient housing numbers in the right location at the
right time in accordance with the NPPF.

Housing

2.17. Policy H1 (meeting housing needs) sets out the housing requirement for the full plan period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039 as 10,350 dwellings. This allocates 963 dwellings to the Manhood Peninsula and a windfall (small site allowance) allocation of 657 dwellings for the whole district. There are no strategic locations/allocations on the Manhood Peninsula under Policy H2 which is considered unsound, particularly given the position that Selsey holds in the settlement hierarchy. Furthermore, under Policy H3 (non-strategic parish housing requirements 2021-2039) Selsey has been allocated zero housing. Again, this is considered unsound as it prevents sustainable development and access to new houses for all settlements across the district.

2.18. An overreliance on consented sites coming forward to provide future housing is considered unsound as, in this case, it effectively prevents any further development on the Peninsula and in Selsey in particular.

Transport

2.19. Policy T1 (transport infrastructure) is specifically aimed at ensuring that integrated transport measures will be developed to mitigate the impact of planned development on the highway network, improve highway safety and air quality, promote more sustainable travel patterns and encourage increased use of sustainable motor travel, such as public transport, cycling and walking.

2.20. The council will work with National Highways, WSCC, other transport and service providers and developers to provide a better integrated transport network and improve accessibility to key services and facilities. The policy lists seven ways in which the key objectives of reducing the need to travel by car, enabling access to sustainable means of travel, including public transport, walking and cycling; managing travel demands; and mitigating the impacts of travelling by car can be achieved.

2.21. Whilst it is not intended to go through all of these in this document it is noted that all parties are expected to support the four objectives by working with relevant providers to improve accessibility to key services and facilities which would be relevant to Selsey (see below).

2.22. The policy is also aimed at planning to achieve a timely delivery of transport infrastructure on the A27 and elsewhere on the network which is needed to support new housing, employment and other development identified in this plan. The phasing of delivery of new development to align with provision of new transport infrastructure such as improvements to the A27 and elsewhere on the highway network, will be key to managing impacts on the highway. This is yet another impediment to the delivery of a strategic allocations and larger scale development which would, by their very nature, generate a higher highway impact on the transport network than carefully planned smaller developments which could satisfy a much more localised need and be cause less impact on the strategic road network. The tariff proposals outlined at paragraph 8.20 only covers part of West of Chichester and Tangmere SDLs and not the other strategic sites outlined at Policy H2.

2.23. Critically it is also understood that Highways England has pulled funding for the improvements to the Bognor Road roundabout as part of a package of A27 improvements. On this basis it is unclear how further funding would secured at this time.

2.24. The lack of soundness to the approach of significant reliance on strategic sites, due to the current lack of capacity of the A27, is evident in the text that accompanies the policy which states that opportunities to secure funding to implement this package of improvements will be maximised by working proactively with Government agencies, other public sector organisations and private investors. Developer contributions from new development will also be sought. It is clear that smaller scale developments which would have a significantly lesser impact on the highway network could deliver housing quicker and with fewer constraints to implementation. It is for these reasons that smaller sites should be allocated, particularly in the Manhood Peninsula, for development.

2.25. The content of Policy T2 (transport development) is largely supported and considered sound save for the fact that it does not seem to cover the improvement of local transport routes, particularly those that would assist in improving the circulation of traffic around smaller settlements. The policy should be amended to specifically relate to local transport improvements which are locally important to aid traffic circulation and reduce congestion.

Neighbourhood Plan

2.26. The Selsey Neighbourhood Plan does not seek to allocate any sites or residential development, instead relying on those which were allocated in the previous local plan and, in particular, developments at Park Farm/Middle Field and Drift Field totalling 249 houses. It is assumed that this existing commitment accommodates the neighbourhood plan of 150 houses which is the justification for not allocating of residential development in the neighbourhood plan. However, this is short sighted as the neighbourhood plan runs to 2029 and, although development sites are largely controversial within smaller communities there is a lack of recognition of the requirement to provide new houses for existing and future residents (including descendants of current residents) in order to maintain the vitality and viability of the settlement outside of the tourist season where it is recognised that the local population will swell.

2.27. These points add further weight to the considered lack of soundness to the housing policies in the local plan which fail to recognise the need for smaller allocations within the Manhood Peninsula, particularly Selsey.

3 Local Infrastructure Provision

Selsey Road Improvements

3.1. Our clients wish to put forward a potential highway improvement scheme for Selsey which has come about given their extensive historic knowledge of the town and experience of significant congestion along Selsey High Street as a result of an over-reliance of this route by traffic using the caravan parks. It would be a common sense alternative route (to using High Street) which will alleviate congestion along Selsey High Street/School Lane/Paddock Lane/Warners Lane, particularly during the summer months.

3.2. The local plan focusses its attention on the need to improve the strategic highway network but this proposal would provide a significant benefit at a local level in Selsey. As per the attached plan, our clients propose to widen Golf Links Lane from its junction with the B2145 Chichester Road to its junction with Paddock Lane, then widen Paddock Lane and make it up to adoptable standard to enable delivery of holiday traffic to the point where it meets the north eastern corner of White Horse Caravan Park, from which point the road has been made up to carry holiday traffic. At the moment, the northern section of Paddock Lane is just a rough track which is not suitable for ordinary road traffic. It is envisaged that, in conjunction with the owner of the largest caravan parks, Warner’s Lane will also be improved. It is currently a tarmac road in poor condition with no footways and one section is too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass each other. This is not satisfactory for the major access route to the largest caravan parks.

3.3. Golf Links Lane is currently a single track, tarmac road which is in poor condition. It is two-way but much of it is too narrow to allow two vehicles to pass each other. It serves Northcommon Farm, a small housing development on the northern side, Selsey Golf Club and Selsey Country Club (which comprises c.300 holiday chalets and an associated licensed club). It if were to be made up to adoptable standard to the point where it meets Paddock Lane, it would improve access for existing users but, importantly, it would also create a more direct access route (in conjunction with Paddock Lane) for traffic associated with thousands of holiday caravans as well as a touring caravan park.

3.4. Given that a large proportion of holiday traffic and other tourist industry-related traffic (HGVs carrying food and drink, caravan transporters, tractor/trailer transport and public transport) use the route along High Street/School Lane/Paddock Lane/Warners Lane it is considered that this could be diverted from the B2145 Chichester Road further north than Selsey High Street, thus taking traffic away from the congested High Street. An easier, more direct route to the major caravan parks would be an attractive alternative.

3.5. The mechanism to deliver such a proposal is not yet the subject of formal agreement. A large proportion of the land required to widen the roads is within the ownership of Deerhyde Limited (our clients) and the owner of the major caravan parks. The latter has been very supportive of the proposal verbally. A short section of land is not in any specific ownership but our clients have long-standing rights over its use, which can be traced back to 1830. Our clients are serious about facilitating these highway improvements, including the use of their land, which will inevitably have a significant financial impact upon them.

Potential Residential Development Sites

3.6. In order to mitigate the financial impact including both the loss of their land and the implementation of the proposed highway improvements our clients would like to promote two sites for residential development, namely land north of Golf Links Lane (13.5 acres/5.46 hectares) and land west of Old Farm Road for residential development. Whilst the north western corner of the site is located within Flood Zones 2 and 3 it is considered that the developable area of the site would be approximately 4 hectares and could therefore deliver approximately 120 to 140 dwellings. This includes retaining the existing boundary screening along the south eastern boundary and avoiding Flood Zones 2 and 3. An indicative plan is attached to this statement.

3.7. Thawscroft Ltd, an associated company, also owns land west of Old Farm Road, Selsey (2.8ha / 6.9 acres) which taking account of the flood risk constraints along its western boundary could accommodate approximately 50 dwellings. An indicative plan is attached to this statement.

3.8. Having reviewed the planning history of the site it is noted that a planning application (under the name of Thawscroft Limited) was made in December 2016, refused in June 2017 and the appeal was dismissed on 11 June 2018.

3.9. The reasons for refusal related to the following:

1. Site is located outside the defined settlement boundary for Selsey.

2. When the planning officer was giving evidence, he stated that he knew of an alternative site at lower risk of flooding but he would not identify it. After the appeal, an area of land north of Park Lane was identified for 250 houses. The land in question becomes waterlogged in the winter and is highly prone to surface water flooding. It is also only about 250m from Pagham Harbour, a site of major ecological importance with a significant level of protection afforded to it. The planning officer said the real issue with our appeal was one of numbers so it seemed curious to me that a site with a much larger number (250) was identified soon afterwards. Also, the land south of Park Lane (similarly prone to surface water flooding) was in the numbers for 2015/20 but in fact could not be started until 2021 so the planning inspector was misled. I believe that was crucial to the outcome. Landlink have proposed land west of the “Wave” roundabout (opposite Asda). This may be as an alternative for the land north of Park Lane. Neither parcel would be a good fit in the settlement policy area, whereas the land to the west of Old Farm Road would be, a fact acknowledged by planning officers in the past.

3. We did in fact offer to provide contributions towards improving the A27 so that reason for refusal was withdrawn prior to the appeal being heard.

4. As far as I can recall, the Council was content with our proposals in these matters at the time the appeal was heard. The criticism was that the need to avoid Flood Zones 2 and 3 created a narrow site which meant that the layout was said to be cramped. It could be that, with a smaller number of houses, MH Architects could provide an improved layout. Maybe this is reflected in the plan to which Vail Williams refer in paragraph 3.13.

3.10. It is considered that, as detailed above, given the Council’s approach to an over-reliance on large strategic sites to fulfil its housing need and the lack of sites identified for development on the Manhood Peninsula (and in Selsey in particular) during the plan period this site could be proven to be an appropriate location for development as a “windfall site” to help maintain housing supply whilst the strategic sites are in the planning system.

3.11. It is considered the dwellings on the site could be laid out to avoid the Flood Zones 2 and 3 and therefore be at considerably less flood risk than the proposal which was dismissed at appeal. This is set out in the enclosed plan. This would overcome reason for refusal 2.

3.12. Reasons for refusal 3 and 4 would be overcome through the agreement of under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act to provide contributions towards the improvement to the A27 on a proportionate basis to the size of the site and the number of dwellings and also the relevant number of affordable housing units required by policy (or justified as part of a viability exercise). Other matters such as the management of the landscaping, open space, buffers and drainage infrastructure could also be secured by the Section 106 agreement.

3.13. We commend the above highways solution and subsequent development sites to officers in consideration of the draft Local Plan.

4 Conclusions

4.1. It is clear that whilst the overarching strategy of the location of the majority of development in the largest urban settlement of Chichester or adjacent to it is sound the lack of allocation of significant housing numbers to those areas outside Chichester is unsound. This would mean that the vast majority of the district would attract very little housing over the planning period to 2039 thus ensuring that existing settlements would not evolve and would potentially shrink as existing residents and descendants of residents migrate to the Chichester or its strategic urban extensions.

4.2. Outside Chichester, the strategic proposals for Southbourne and Tangmere are similarly isolated. The Manhood Peninsula is particularly lacking in the provision of additional housing sites during the plan period with the justification provided that, for Selsey in particular, recent planning permissions which are being built or have been completed would accommodate all of the housing need going forward for the plan period.

4.3. This approach is flawed for two main reasons (making the Local Plan unsound):

1. The over-reliance on strategic allocations which themselves are constrained by the capacity issues on the A27 and environmental issues such as nitrate neutrality (and any future water neutrality issues which migrate south from the north of Chichester) and the usual impacts on the European sites could mean that these sites are slower in being delivered with little in the way of alternatives allowed for in the local plan.

2. The failure to acknowledge any future development potential of note within the Manhood Peninsula and in particular Selsey will constrain the continued vitality and viability of the settlements within the Manhood Peninsula, particularly following the pandemic when the service sectors are struggling. Taking into account that Selsey in particular but other settlements along the coast within the Manhood Peninsula are reliant on seasonal tourist activity, additional residents are relied upon outside these times in order to provide income for those businesses which may struggle to survive outside the holiday seasons. An effective block on development would significantly reduce the potential future viability of these settlements outside the tourist season.

4.4. The emphasis on the stated urban-focussed housing strategy encourages neighbourhood planning groups/parish and town councils to maintain an opposition to the relevant rather than a proactive policy framework to direct appropriate development within their areas.

4.5. Our clients have detailed above one way which their land could be used in conjunction with others to facilitate a local infrastructure improvement to assist traffic circulation and access in and around Selsey itself which would need to be funded by future residential development and we commend this proposal to you for further consideration.

4.6. We trust that officers will take these representations into account and we look forward to receiving confirmation that the representations have been duly made.

Provide small to medium site allocations within service villages, particularly Wisborough Green.

Summary

Southern Planning Practice Ltd are instructed by the landowner to submit representations to the Proposed Submission version of the Chichester Local Plan 2021- 2039, published in February 2023. Shorewood Homes, a local developer, have an interest in land at Champions Farm, Wisborough Green and are currently working collaboratively with the landowner.

The site is located to the south of Newpound Lane and to the north of Billingshurst Road (A272) in Wisborough Green. The site is located within the northern area of the district and is closely related to the main urban area of Billingshurst, which is located in the neighbouring authority Horsham District Council.

It is understood that the site has not been previously promoted through the Local Plan process. We can confirm on behalf of our client that the site is now available for development.

In order for the Proposed Submission Local Plan to meet the ‘positively prepared’ test of soundness as required by paragraph 35 a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Local Plan Review must:

“provide (ing) a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development”.

Whilst the constraints of the northern area of the district are appreciated, there are several sustainable sites, outside of the National Park and other constrained landscapes, which would assist Chichester to meet their identified housing needs. One such site is the land at Champions Farm in Wisborough Green. The western section of the site could be delivered in the short-medium term and the eastern section could be delivered in the longer term which would contribute to Chichester’s future housing supply.

Any new residential development on land at Champions Farm would contribute to the achievement of the 7 strategic objectives of the Local Plan and would also help to boost the housing supply in the short-medium term.

Amend Fishbourne settlement boundary to include submitted site.

See attached for full submission.

Conclusion
In light of all the above we contend that Site HFB0023 (Fourways) should be reconsidered for allocation for housing development in the Draft Plan. The Site is positively assessed in the HELAA, and is situated adjacent to existing housing and roads. Fishbourne is an area that is clearly suitable for new housing, as acknowledged in the Draft Plan. The Site is previously developed and provides an opportunity for new housing in a sustainable location, without encroaching onto greenfield land.
In this context the natural next step would be to add the Site to the Draft Plan as additional site allocation for residential development.
We put this Site forward with the intention to provide high quality housing in an area with an identified need. We have made it clear in the above representations that the Site is eminently available, sustainably located and can provide much needed new residential units.
The Site is unconstrained by any landscape or other planning designations. The work that has been undertaken, and the conclusions of which clearly identify that the Site is suitable for development.
In our opinion, the Draft Plan should be modified now, so as to allocate our Client’s land opportunity at Fourways for residential development, which would make a notable contribution to the minimum amount of housing that Fishbourne is required to accommodate during the Plan period.
Parallel with an allocation, the Settlement Boundary should also be amended so as to encompass the entirety of our Client’s land.