Policy NE2 Natural Landscape

The site proposed at Policy A11 needs to be removed from the plan.

Stipulations are insufficiently clear to prevent the coalescence of settlements especially in the east-west corridor. They allow crowding out of open fields, margins and hedgerows that provide invaluable connections for wildlife between the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB.
Point 4 under policy NE2 would prohibit the change of use of the area designated under policy A11 which straddles grade 1 and grade 2 agricultural land and is capable of yielding between 126-144 tonnes of cereal per year that’s 244,800 loaves of bread according to a local seed merchant.
SDNPA has been consulted but not co-operated with.

As a results of the conclusions in the Landscape Capacity Study of Sub-area 91 between Bosham and Fishbourne, the proposed allocations should avoid areas of medium / low capacity, which are constrained by its rural character.

CDC commissioned a Landscape Capacity Study to provide evidence where the landscape and visual impacts of development would be greatest, therefore to identify which areas have the greatest capacity to accommodate change without causing significant and detrimental damage to the landscapes within the plan area.
There is no reference or recognition of this in the policy or the proposed allocation of sites especially in the East/West corridor. There is land around Chichester where the landscape and visual impacts would be lower. In landscape and visual terms these sites should be selected before the release of lower capacity sites.

We fully support the text and wording of the policy, which must translate into active support in the planning process. The contents should be proactively supported through the delivery of the Plan itself, particularly through policies A11 Land at Highgrove Farm, Bosham 245;
A13 Southbourne Broad Location for Development 1,050;A12 Nutbourne and Hambrook (Chidham and Hambrook Parish) 300

Introduce policy protection for key views.

While Policy NE2 is supported in general we believe there is a need to introduce policies to protect key views, within and across the District. Development should not be permitted in areas where important views will be lost or degraded.

Views of the Cathedral are of particular importance, as are views to and from the Downs.

Long range views from the Downs towards the sea (and vice versa) and views to the Cathedral spire contribute positively to the character and sense of place within the District, whether views are close or distant.

Development should not be permitted in areas where important views will be lost or degraded, or where a new development will intrude an appreciation of the Cathedral (and heart of the city) as being close to and linked to the surrounding countryside.

The form of the city and those links between the countryside and city centre that remain, should be protected from amorphous housing development that degrades Chichester’s special form and character.

Portsmouth Water supports this policy.

Re-title policy 'NE2 Landscape';

Amend criteria #3 to 'Development proposals maintain the [insert distinctive character] of settlements and...' to ensure policy links to evidence base;

Addition of criteria #6 to state 'Development proposals within the setting of the South Downs National Park should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be landscape-led in their design; sensitively located and designed to reflect this with scale and extent of development limited and designed to avoid or minimise adverse effects upon the National Park and its Purposes. Proposals must comply with the South Downs Local Plan and Management Plan which are material planning considerations';

Suggest all applications are supported by either an LVIA or LVA (Landscape Visual Appraisal - a 'light touch' LVIA) to avoid the need to specifically refer to identified character areas.

Suggest key perceptual qualities of dark night skies and tranquility are explicitly referenced.

Concerns that the soundness of the Plan is compromised, due to unclear drafting. Suggested amendments below.

Natural landscape is a misnomer. Landscape is defined (European Landscape Convention) and it includes settlements, roads and infrastructure and the policy itself rightly refers to settlements. We consider this policy heading is confusing and the term 'landscape is already often misused within the Plan. Given Chichester's significant areas of Protected Landscapes and their settings, the terminology used should match those Protected Landscapes. Suggest this policy is re-worded to 'NE2 Landscape'. Point #3 "Development proposals maintain the [insert DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER] of settlements and...' This links the policy back to the evidence base.

The policy need to equally cover the setting of the AONB and National Park. The North of Plan Area includes a significant area of landscape which contributes to the setting of the National Park. Not just visually but in terms of landscape character and perceptual qualities such as dark night skies and tranquility. It is suggested that a criteria #6 is added to state: "Development proposals within the setting of the South Downs National Park should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be landscape-led in design; sensitively located and designed to reflect this with scale and extent of development limited and designed to avoid or minimise adverse effects upon the National Park and its purposes. Proposals must comply with the South Downs Local Plan and Management Plan which are material planning considerations.

"For larger schemes in identified character areas..." - it is unclear what the 'identified character areas' are and when this part of the Policy might apply. Suggest all applications are supported by either an LVIA or LVA (Landscape Visual Appraisal - a 'light touch' LVIA). This avoids the need to specifically refer.

This policy missed reference to key perceptual qualities, highly valued aspects of landscape (See NPPF 174), particularly in the North of the Plan Area and those landscapes which contribute positively to the setting of the National Park. Suggest dark night skies and tranquility are explicitly referenced - as Policy NE21 fails to provide equal weight to lighting between the two Protected Landscapes.

WGPC supports this approach but questions how it could be applied to Wisborough Green. Please refer to attached document for further details.

Accordingly, Premier suggest the wording of Policy NE2 (Part 5) is amended to ensure it is justified and consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 (b and c) of the NPPF as follows:

“5) Development proposals within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be designed to reflect this with the scale and extent of development limited consistent with the existing site and locational context, sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB in accordance with national policy. Development proposals must comply with the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD which are material planning considerations”

Premier acknowledges that the Chichester Harbour AONB is afforded the highest level of protection under paragraph 177 of the NPPF, where major development will not usually be permitted unless ‘exceptional circumstances’ development tests can be met, and where the development is in the public interest.
Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE2 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
Accordingly, Premier suggest the wording of Policy NE2 (Part 5) is amended to ensure it is justified and consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 (b and c) of the NPPF as follows:
“5) Development proposals within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be designed to reflect this with the scale and extent of development limited consistent with the existing site and locational context, sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB in accordance with national policy. Development proposals must comply with the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD which are material planning considerations”.

A broader wording in Plan Policy NE2 and an overall re-assessment of development in Boxgrove Parish.

We feel that Plan Policy NE2 on Natural Landscape has a too narrow wording, whilst Policy NE3 on Landscape Gaps Between Settlements is overly restrictive for all sites outside of the settlement boundaries. In relation to the Plan focus on Landscape Considerations and the Chichester Landscape Capacity Study from March, 2019, we feel that development within the Boxgrove Parish, and, in particular, the 9 HELAA sites and the four settlements outlined earlier in this document, do not involve areas which are so geographically close as to prevent strategic gaps from being safeguarded, and thereby secure their individual settlement characteristics.

Recommend references to ‘natural landscapes’ and ‘rural character’ (in policy and elsewhere in Plan) be replaced with ‘landscape character’. Note criteria 5 for setting of AONB and lack of equivalent policy criteria for South Downs National Park - strongly advise that an equivalent criterion is added to this policy.

Key matters to address in NE2: Development on land that contributes to the setting of the South Downs National Park should conserve and enhance the visual and special qualities, dark night skies, tranquillity and landscape character of the National Park and its setting; Development proposals in the setting of the National Park should be sensitively located and designed, should reinforce and respond to rather than detract from the distinctive landscape character and special qualities of the National Park, should be consistent with National Park purposes and must not significantly harm the National Park or its setting; Assessment of such development proposals will also have regard to the South Downs Partnership Management Plan and South Downs Local Plan and other adopted planning documents and strategies.

See attached representation.

See attachment.

Revised policy proposed in attached written representation and includes considerations of climate change, mitigation and adaptation to achieve net zero.

See attachments.

Executive Summary

The Local Plan as written lacks ambition and vision, and will be detrimental to the landscape within which the district lies. It is a plan borne out of a need to produce a legal document which will satisfy the regulatory authorities. In terms of Urban Planning it fails “To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (NPPF).

The development that will consequentially arise from the deployment of such a made Local Plan is not sustainable. It will adversely affect the Character, Amenity and Safety of the built environment, throughout our district.

In particular, the Local Plan is inadequate for the needs of the people in the district both at present and in the future because –

1. It has been written in advance of the District having a properly formed and agreed Climate Emergency Action Plan. It is inconceivable that such a key document will not shape our Local Plan. It is this Action Plan that is needed first in order to provide the long-term strategic view as to how and what the District will look like in the future; this, in turn, will help form and shape the policies outlined in any prospective, Local Plan. The Plan as proposed is moribund, as a result of “cart before the horse” thinking.

2. The Local Plan as written does not adequately address how infrastructure, transport and services are going to be materially and strategically improved to meet the predicted growth and shift to a significantly ageing population. There is presently insufficient capacity to supply services and to have adequate people and environmentally friendly connectivity, as a direct result of decades of neglect towards investing in infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the District’s population. We are led to believe that developers through increased levies in order to gain permission to build will fulfil this need, but all that this will result in is an uncoordinated, dysfunctional mess completely lacking in any future-proof master planning approach. We contend that this will do nothing for the quality of life of Chichester District residents and it will create a vacuum whereby few if indeed any can be held accountable or indeed found liable for shortcomings in the future.

3. The Local Plan as written does not state how it will go about addressing the need to create affordable homes. The District Council’s record on this matter since the last made plan has been inadequate and now the creation of affordable homes has become urgent as political/economic/social factors drive an ever increasing rate of change within the District.

4. Flood risks assessments used in forming the Plan are out of date (last completed in 2018) and any decision to allocate sites is contrary to Environment Agency policy. Additionally, since March 2021 Natural England established a position in relationship to ‘Hold the Line’ vs. ‘Managed Retreat’ in environmentally sensitive areas, of which the Chichester Harbour AONB is a significant example. CDC have failed to set out an appropriate policy within the proposed Local Plan that addresses this requirement.

5. The A27 needs significant investment in order to yield significant benefits for those travelling through the East-West corridor; this is unfunded. Essential improvements to the A27 are key to the success of any Local Plan particularly as the city’s ambitions are to expand significantly in the next two decades. But any ambitions will fall flat if the A27 is not improved before such plans are implemented.. The A259 is an increasingly dangerous so-called ‘resilient road’ with a significant increase in accidents and fatalities in recent years. In 2011, the BBC named the road as the “most crash prone A road” in the UK. There is nothing in the Local Plan that addresses this issue. There is no capacity within the strategic road network serving our district to accommodate the increase in housing planned, and the Local Plan does not guarantee it.

6. There is insufficient wastewater treatment capacity in the District to support the current houses let alone more. The tankering of wastewater from recent developments that Southern Water has not been able to connect to their network and in recent months the required emergency use of tankers to pump out overflowing sewers within our City/District reflects the gross weakness of short-termism dominated thinking at its worst and is an indictment of how broken our water system is. The provision of wastewater treatment is absolutely critical and essential to the well-being of all our residents and the long-term safety of our built environment. The abdication by those in authority, whether that be nationally, regionally or locally, is causing serious harm to the people to whom those in power owe a duty of care and their lack of urgency in dealing properly with this issue is seriously jeopardizing the environment in which we and all wildlife co-exist.

7. Settlement Boundaries should be left to the determination of Parish Councils to make and nobody else. The proposed policy outlined in the Local Plan to allow development on plots of land adjacent to existing settlement boundaries is ill-conceived and will lead to coalescence which is in contradiction of Policy NE3.

8. All the sites allocated in the Strategic Area Based Policies appear to be in the majority of cases Greenfield Sites. The plan makes little, if any reference to the development of Brownfield sites. In fact, there is not a Policy that relates to this source of land within the Local Plan as proposed. Whilst in the 2021 HELAA Report sites identified as being suitable for development in the District as being Brownfield sites were predicted to yield over 4000 new dwellings. Why would our Local Plan not seek to develop these sites ahead of Greenfield sites?

9. The Local Plan does not define the minimum size that a wildlife corridor should be in width. What does close proximity to a wildlife corridor mean? How can you have a policy (NE 4) that suggests you can have development within a wildlife corridor? These exceptions need to have clear measures and accountability for providing evidence of no adverse impact on the wildlife corridor where a development is proposed. Our view is quite clear. Wildlife and indeed nature in the UK is under serious and in the case of far too many species, potentially terminal threat. Natural England has suggested that a Wildlife Corridor should not be less than 100metres wide. The proposed Wildlife Corridors agreed to by CDC must be enlarged and fully protected from any development. This is essential and urgent for those Wildlife Corridors which allow wildlife to achieve essential connectivity between the Chichester Harbour AONB and the South Downs National Park.

10. Biodiversity Policy NE5 - This is an absolute nonsense. If biodiversity is going to be harmed there should be no ability to mitigate or for developers to be able to buy their way out of this situation. This mindset is exactly why we are seeing a significant decline in biodiversity in the District which should be a rich in biodiversity area and why the World Economic Forum Report (2023) cites the UK as one of the worst countries in the world for destroying its biodiversity.

11. In many cases as set out in the Policies the strategic requirements lack being SMART in nature – particularly the M Measurable. These need to be explicit and clear: “you get what you measure”.

12. 65% of the perimeter of the District of Chichester south of the SDNP is coastal in nature. The remainder being land-facing. Policy NE11 does not sufficiently address the impact of building property in close proximity to the area surrounding the harbour, something acknowledged by the Harbour Conservancy in a published report in 2018 reflecting upon how surrounding the harbour with housing was detrimental to it long-term health. And here we are 5 years on and all of the organizations that CDC are saying that they are working in collaboration with, to remedy the decline in the harbour’s condition, are failing to implement the actions necessary in a reasonable timescale. CDC are following when they should be actually taking the lead on the issue. Being followers rather than leaders makes it easy to abdicate responsibility. There must be full and transparent accountability.

13. The very significant space constraints for the plan area must be taken into account. The standard methodology need no longer apply where there are exceptional circumstances and we are certain that our District should be treated as a special case because of the developable land area is severely reduced by the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to the north and the unique marine AONB of Chichester Harbour to the south. A target of 535dpa is way too high. This number should be reduced to reflect the fact that only 30% of the area can be developed and much of that is rural/semi-rural land which provides essential connectivity for wildlife via a number of wildlife corridors running between the SDNP and the AONB. Excessive housebuilding will do irretrievable damage to the environment and lead to a significant deterioration in quality of life for all who reside within the East / West corridor.

14. Many of the sites identified in the Strategic & Area Based Policies could result in Grade 1 ^ 2 farmland being built upon. The UK is not self-sufficient in our food security. It is short-sighted to expect the world to return to what we have come to expect. Our good quality agricultural land should not all be covered with non-environmentally friendly designed homes.

We advise that the requirement for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessments (LVIAs) should more clearly articulate the need for such assessments to identify, describe and assess the likely significant effects of a project on the landscape (i.e. the direct and indirect change to the landscape character and the landscape condition), as well as the visual amenity and visual receptors, in accordance with Annex IV of the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Directive 2014/52/EU, and NPPF 2021 para 174, rather than the current wording which simply describes the landscape “as an environmental resource.”

Further, we advise that the thresholds for triggering the requirement for an LVIA should be more clearly stated, which should include the scale of the development proposal and the sensitivity of the identified character areas.

Summary of advice
While we have raised some queries and recommended some further modifications to certain policies we do not find the Plan unsound on any grounds relating to our remit.
Natural England has reviewed the Proposed Submission Local Plan and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our detailed comments on the policies and site allocations are provided as follows:
• Annex 1 - Chapter 2 – Vision and Strategic Objectives
• Annex 2 - Chapter 4 – Climate Change and the Natural Environment
• Annex 3 - Chapter 5 (Housing) and Chapter 6 – (Place-making, Health and Well-being)
• Annex 4 - Chapter 7 (Employment and Economy) and Chapter 8 (Transport and
Accessibility)
• Annex 5 - Chaper 10 – Strategic and Area Based Policies
Please note that we have not provided comments on all policies but those which have most influence on environmental issues. Natural England has no comment to make on the policies not covered in this response. Other than confirming that we have referred to it when considering our advice on specific policies and site allocations Natural England has no general comments to make on the SA.
Unfortunately due to unforeseen resourcing issues while we have reviewed the associated HRA we are not in a position to provide detailed comment on it as part of this response. We will rectify this as soon as possible and can confirm that we have seen nothing in it that raises any major concerns.
The Plan has many positive aspects including standalone policies on Green Infrastructure (GI) and
wildlife corridors and an incredibly extensive suite of natural environment policies more generally.
We are hugely appreciative of the opportunity that we were given to work with you on shaping key policies post-Regulation 18. However, we believe that the plan needs to go further in it’s recognition of coastal squeeze as a key issue for the district, should include policy hooks for the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and make up to date references to both the Environment Act (2021) and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP, 2023). Given how recent the publication of the EIP is we would be happy to discuss with your authority how this could best be achieved but
we believe given the wealth of natural capital within Chichester District it is vitally important that this latest iteration of the Local Plan is set in its full policy and legislative context.
We have suggested a significant number of amendments and additions to both policies and
supporting text throughout the Plan. In our view these could all be taken forward as minor modifications but if they were all acted upon they would leave the Plan much stronger and more coherent in delivering for the natural environment, one of the three central tenets of genuinely
sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021,
paragraph 8c).

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

Summary of advice
While we have raised some queries and recommended some further modifications to certain policies we do not find the Plan unsound on any grounds relating to our remit.
Natural England has reviewed the Proposed Submission Local Plan and accompanying appendices together with the Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) and Sustainability Appraisal (SA). Our detailed comments on the policies and site allocations are provided as follows:
• Annex 1 - Chapter 2 – Vision and Strategic Objectives
• Annex 2 - Chapter 4 – Climate Change and the Natural Environment
• Annex 3 - Chapter 5 (Housing) and Chapter 6 – (Place-making, Health and Well-being)
• Annex 4 - Chapter 7 (Employment and Economy) and Chapter 8 (Transport and
Accessibility)
• Annex 5 - Chaper 10 – Strategic and Area Based Policies
Please note that we have not provided comments on all policies but those which have most influence on environmental issues. Natural England has no comment to make on the policies not covered in this response. Other than confirming that we have referred to it when considering our advice on specific policies and site allocations Natural England has no general comments to make on the SA.
Unfortunately due to unforeseen resourcing issues while we have reviewed the associated HRA we are not in a position to provide detailed comment on it as part of this response. We will rectify this as soon as possible and can confirm that we have seen nothing in it that raises any major concerns.
The Plan has many positive aspects including standalone policies on Green Infrastructure (GI) and
wildlife corridors and an incredibly extensive suite of natural environment policies more generally.
We are hugely appreciative of the opportunity that we were given to work with you on shaping key policies post-Regulation 18. However, we believe that the plan needs to go further in it’s recognition of coastal squeeze as a key issue for the district, should include policy hooks for the forthcoming Local Nature Recovery Strategy (LNRS) and make up to date references to both the Environment Act (2021) and the Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP, 2023). Given how recent the publication of the EIP is we would be happy to discuss with your authority how this could best be achieved but
we believe given the wealth of natural capital within Chichester District it is vitally important that this latest iteration of the Local Plan is set in its full policy and legislative context.
We have suggested a significant number of amendments and additions to both policies and
supporting text throughout the Plan. In our view these could all be taken forward as minor modifications but if they were all acted upon they would leave the Plan much stronger and more coherent in delivering for the natural environment, one of the three central tenets of genuinely
sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2021,
paragraph 8c).

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

Premier acknowledges that the Chichester Harbour AONB is afforded the highest level of protection under paragraph 177 of the NPPF, where major development will not usually be permitted unless ‘exceptional circumstances’ development tests can be met, and where the development is in the public interest.
Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE2 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
Accordingly, Premier suggest the wording of Policy NE2 (Part 5) is amended to ensure it is justified and consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 (b and c) of the NPPF as follows:
“5) Development proposals within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be designed to reflect this with the scale and extent of development limited consistent with the existing site and locational context, sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB in accordance with national policy. Development proposals must comply with the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD which are material planning considerations”.

WGPC supports this approach but questions how it could be applied to Wisborough Green. Please refer to attached document for further details.