Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridors

The limited wildlife corridors are integral to the local environment and should be protected at all cost.

The limited wildlife corridors are integral to the local environment and should be protected at all cost.

No wildlife corridors have been assessed or included between the area's three important wetland areas, Chichester Harbour, Medmerry and Pagham Harbour presumably because no large housing allocations have been made for the Manhood Peninsula. But it is important to acknowledge the importance of maintain strong connectivity between the wetland areas and maintain the capacity to expand wetland provision on the Manhood as rising sea levels will reduce the existing wetland areas.

Fully support this but it must be applied rigorously. Too often developers will produce totally inadequate environmental reports which do not reflect the wildlife within the corridor. If development is allowed in a corridor it cannot enhance it. Nature in this country is depleting. Wildlife corridors have been identified which is commendable, so they should be protected at all costs.

The newly included Nutbourne to Hambrook corridor is NOT wide enough at its northern end, missing out major water vole networks.

With two Wildlife corridors within Southbourne Parish boundaries we very much support their creation and safe guarding. The only caveat to this is that the newly included Nutbourne to Hambrook corridor is NOT wide enough at its northern end, missing out major water vole networks.

We welcome the inclusion of the policy on strategic wildlife corridors, although would prefer that these were safeguarded to prevent any development in these designated areas. We feel that the policy, and indeed the corridors themselves, lack ambition and would benefit from being further strengthened to emphasise their importance in connecting the protected landscapes and habitats of Chichester Harbour and the South Downs. In addition it is not clear from the policy changes map whether or how the proposed corridors have changed since the last consultation in 2018/19.

We wholeheartedly support this but wildlife corridors MUST be adhered to and protected. ANY development would have an adverse effect and undermine connectivity and the ecological value of the corridor. We cannot support any significant development.

Development proposals within or adjacent to defined corridors should not be determined by a strict interpretation of corridor boundaries as shown on the proposals map, but by detailed assessment ‘on the ground’ both of the development site itself and that immediately adjoining, to avoid undermining connectivity and ecological value. The Estate will work with CDC and SDNPA to ensure the delivery of beneficial wildlife corridors and welcomes the opportunity to define their precise location, width and alignment. Corridors defined in principle on Map NE4b are supported subject to detailed discussion around boundary definition as it appears ‘on the ground’

Substantially amend the policy to provide much greater clarity

There is no sound biodiversity basis for: (1) the designation of these corridors in principle and (2) their boundaries are ad hoc and not based on any precise ecological basis - for example they comprise a series of straight lines and pother cut through houses and gardens which clearly are not part fo a wildlife corridor

The wording is contradictory since the last para implies that the policy excludes householder applications but the policy is very wide ranging and would appear to apply to ALL development proposals.

The first 2 paras seem contradictory - para 1 allows development provided no adverse impact. Para 2 implies not development at all provided you can show not only there is no advisor impact but also there are no sequentlially preferable sites

The Woodland Trust strongly supports this policy which is a practical measure to deliver the emerging statutory requirements for Local Nature Recovery Strategies and Biodiversity Net Gain.

To be effective, the Strategic Wildlife Corridors must be protected with buffer zones and their connectivity must be protected in site allocations and individual planning applications. All ancient, veteran and notable trees within the Strategic Wildlife Corridors should have root protection areas defined and protected, in line with the draft Policy NE8 point 5.

Whilst the Conservancy cannot Object to the Wildlife Corridors, it is really disappointing that they are not more ambitious with greater geographical coverage. Given that the Council has set the parameters for considering future development proposals therein NE4, there was no need to restrict them in quite such a way. Where are the east-west links? Where are the corridors across the Manhood Peninsula, connecting Pagham Harbour, Medmerry and Chichester Harbour? What is proposed is a starter for 10, but we living in a biodiversity crisis, so I think we needed a bit more coverage than the proposed.

WGPC supports this policy.

Portsmouth Water support this policy.

The policy should be updated to reflect and be consistent with national policy, specifically paragraph 180(a) of the NPPF. This should be set out as a hierarchy, where development will be permitted where there is no adverse impact to Strategic Wildlife Corridors. However, where this is not possible, proposals will be expected to mitigate or, as a last resort, compensate for any adverse impact.

R-RMC supports the principle of this draft policy, which seeks to protect the district’s network of Strategic Wildlife Corridors. R-RMC recognises the important role these corridors play in facilitating wildlife connectivity and movement.

However, draft Policy NE4 specifically states that ‘development will only be permitted where it would not lead to an adverse effect upon the ecological value, function, integrity and connectivity’ of these corridors. Rolls-Royce Motor Cars (R-RMC) supports the principle and overall aim of this policy, but considers the Council’s approach to be rigid, unjustified and inconsistent with national policy.

Paragraph 180(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) indicates that planning permission should be refused where ‘significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for’ (emphasis added). This highlights the NPPF’s resolve to provide a mechanism for mitigating against or compensating for any assessed adverse impact. R-RMC is concerned that Policy NE4, as currently drafted, does not reflect the sentiment of the NPPF.

To make the policy justified, effective and sound, R-RMC suggests that the policy is updated to reflect and be consistent with national policy. This should be set out as a hierarchy, where development will be permitted where there is no adverse impact. However, where this is not possible, proposals will be expected to mitigate or, as a last resort, compensate for any adverse impact.

The Estate will work with the local planning authority to expand upon the proposed wildlife corridors, particularly in respect of land around the circuit and aerodrome. The existing bridleway adjacent, and recent planting, is one opportunity to provide additional corridor provision linking with the Tunnels SAC across Estate Land.

We are supportive of this policy, particularly in regard to the wildlife corridors along watercourses and links with Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. We would encourage consideration of natural flood management wherever possible to deliver multiple benefits. Further information on natural flood management can be found on the gov.uk website - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-nature-based-solutions-to-reduce-flooding-in-your-area.

Policy NE4 should state which plans confirm the boundaries of the Wildlife Corridors and Local Plan Map 4a needs amending to show a larger area for the Nutbourne to Hambrook Wildlife Corridor.

The Ham Brook Wildlife Corridor was included in the Local Plan following strong representations from the Southbourne Parish Council, Hambrook and Chidham Parish Council, and members of the public. Southbourne Parish Council organised surveys to support its inclusion but the area selected by the District Council is not as large as the area defined by the Parish Council.

The evidence commissioned by the District Council (Wildlife Corridors Technical Consultation Document, July 2021) shows contributory branches of the Ham Brook Chalk Stream to the west (Figure 1) which have not been included in the strategic corridor. It is not clear why. Chalk streams are rare and worthy of protection. Prolific evidence of water voles was discovered during the Parish Council survey of these side-streams.

The District Council bat survey had only two recording points, but despite this, bat activity was recorded to the west and north west of the currently proposed corridor (Wildlife Corridors Technical Consultation Document, July 2021 – Figure 2). Bat surveys organised and commissioned by the Parish Council were more wide ranging and fully support the identification of a wider area as shown in the Neighbourhood Plan.

At a meeting between officers of the District Council and the South Downs National Park (SDNP), SDNP officers “queried whether they [Wildlife Corridors] are substantial enough to perform intended function” (Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance Jan 2023, page37). This would appear to support the case for a larger and wider Corridor along the Ham Brook.

Conclusion - The Wildlife corridor should be extended to include the area shown in the Neighbourhood Plan on the basis of the evidence secured by both District and Parish Councils. Confirmation is required about whether boundaries are defined in the Local Plan or in Neighbourhood Plans.

Policy NE4 “Strategic Wildlife Corridors” needs to be rewritten. Point 1 should be deleted as there is no need for a sequential test if there is no harm. The first part of Point 2 should be deleted as it is repetition, and the second half should just be added to the policy and seek the enhancement that it is fair to ask for.

See submitted letter

The requirement for new development adjacent to SWCs to “take opportunities available in order to extend and enhance those corridors” introduces uncertainty and
conflict with draft Policy A8 (see main report, section 4). The final paragraph to NE4 should be deleted.
The requirement in criterion 2 for development to “not have an adverse effect” is similar to Requirement 10 of draft Policy A8: “no adverse effects” is not the threshold
advocated by the NPPF (paragraph 179) which instead requires Local Plans to “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species…” Paragraph 180 establishes the correct threshold, which is “significant harm”. Criterion 2 should be amended accordingly.

Please refer to submitted representations document.

Policy NE4 should be amended to reflect the objectives and role of the Strategic Wildlife Corridor:

Development will only be permitted where it would not lead to a significant adverse effect upon the ecological value, function and connectivity of the strategic wildlife corridors.

Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1. The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.
2. The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

Development proposals outside, but in close proximity to the strategic wildlife corridor will be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:
a) The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor; and
b) The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

All proposals for new development (with the exception of householder applications) within or in close proximity to wildlife corridors should take opportunities available in order to extend or enhance those corridors.

The wording as drafted fails the NPPF soundness tests, on the basis that: (a) Ecology-led masterplannning can ensure development is accommodated within the SWCs while fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridors; (2) The policy as drafted is also wholly inconsistent within NPPF paragraph 180, it that it only provides for development avoidance measures within the SWCs; and (3) The ‘integrity’ test element of the policy relates to undertaking Appropriate Assessments. The protection afforded within the policy wording must be proportionate to the locally important status of the designation.

The RSPB seeks the reinstatement of the former boundary of the proposed Pagham to Westhamptnett SWC as detailed at the last opportunity for consultation (July to September 2021).

The RSPB is pleased to see and supports the overall principles of Strategic Wildlife Corridors (SWCs) within Chichester Local Plan and the SWCs Background Paper. The principles of allowing ‘the movement of species between areas of habitat by linking wildlife sites and reducing the risk of small, isolated populations becoming unsustainable and dying out’ (para 4.14, p.49) align with the Lawton principles of ‘More, Bigger, Better, and Joined Up’ that underpin conservation practice and nature recovery in the UK. The overall policy to create SWCs within Chichester District Council’s (CDC’s) Draft Local Plan is consistent with national policy, specifically para 179(a), where 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; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation’

However, the RSPB is concerned by the lack of information and consultation process where material changes have been made to the boundaries of the SWCs. The last opportunity for consultation upon proposals for the SWCs was between July and September 2021; without additional opportunity to comment, changes were made to the Pagham to Westhampnett SWC which in the current CDC Proposed Submission Local Plan 2021 to 2049 Policies Map have removed a western section of the woodland and scrub area to the west of Drayton Lane. This former section of SWC has since been replaced with the proposed Strategic Allocations and Policy A8, and a section of Policy A7.

It is the RSPB’s understanding that the 2021 consultation on SWCs outlined a proposed (later approved) movement of the Pagham to Westhampnett SWC to the west, through the Drayton Pits area to the west of Drayton Lane, in order to include important areas for barbastelle bats (Barbastella barbastellus) identified by survey efforts commissioned by CDC. With a lack of justification for these changes, the RSPB does not consider Policy NE4 to be ‘sound’.

The RSPB is also unclear regarding the wording around development proposals being granted permission within SWCs where it can be demonstrated that ‘there are no sequentially preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor’. It is unclear what the definition of a sequentially preferable site is; the RSPB considers it necessary for this requirement to be clarified before it is able to provide comment on its ‘soundness’.

Overall, the RSPB supports Policy NE4 and the concept of Strategic Wildlife Corridors but does not support the changes made to SWCs without consultation. The RSPB does not consider Policy NE4 to be ‘sound’ due to a lack of justification and evidence to inform modifications in the policy (NE4) and no form of consultation to provide opportunity to comment upon these changes. The RSPB seeks the reinstatement of the former boundary of the proposed Pagham to Westhamptnett SWC as detailed at the last opportunity for consultation (July to September 2021).

Policy NE4 should be revised to the following text:

Development proposals will only be permitted where it would not lead to a significant adverse effect upon the ecological value, function and connectivity of the strategic wildlife corridors.

Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1. The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.
2. The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

Development proposals outside, but in close proximity to the strategic wildlife corridor will be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:

a) The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife
corridor; and
b) The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

All proposals for new development (with the exception of householder applications) within or in close proximity to wildlife corridors should take opportunities available in order to extend or enhance those corridors.’

d) Strategic Wildlife Corridors

2.36 Draft Policy NE4 proposes the introduction of Strategic Wildlife Corridors (SWC), with consideration of the locations and rationale for these as set out in the Strategic Wildlife Corridors Local Plan Review Background Paper (December 2018). The 4no. identified corridors seek to provide ecological connectivity between Chichester Harbour SPA or Pagham Harbour SPA and the South Downs National Park.

2.37 These Representations are accompanied by a ‘Review of Policy NE4’ prepared by Aspect Ecology (Appendix A), which reviews the proposed Wildlife Corridors, with specific reference to the West of Chichester to Fishbourne Strategic Wildlife Corridor (SWC4) that is partly located within Gleeson’s Site at Land West of Clay Lane, Fishbourne.

2.38 As detailed in the accompanying Ecology Technical Note prepared by Aspect Ecology:

• The SWCs appear to avoid areas of intensively farmed arable land, with areas of built development and urban areas preferentially incorporated over arable land. Thereby acknowledging that residential areas often retain functional habitat for wildlife, particularly within green infrastructure, and can readily meet the requirements of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors in terms of ensuring ecological connectivity is maintained for wildlife through the landscape;
• Residential development can contribute positively to the function of the corridors particularly where key habitats are retained and green infrastructure is included;
• Subject to a sensitive ecologically led masterplan, development can be accommodated whilst fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridor. Appropriate development could bring forward considerable benefits to biodiversity through securement of long-term favourable management; and
• There exists an opportunity to extend SWC4 to the east of the A27 to strengthen the ecological network.

2.39 Further, the Ecology Technical Note proposes changes to the wording of Policy NE4, which we consider necessary for soundness - specifically the removal of the requirement to demonstrate there are no “sequentially preferable” sites available outside a SWC and that any proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the “integrity” and function of a corridor as a whole. This is due to:

• Sensitive development can positively contribute to the objectives of SWCs;
• The policy as worded conflicts with the requirements of Paragraph 180 of the NPPF noting that avoidance measures (including consideration of alternative sites) are not required if significant harm to biodiversity is avoided; and
• An “integrity” test relates to paragraph 182 of the NPPF and the assessment of effects on SPAs/SACs/Ramsar sites in the context of an Appropriate Assessment, it is not appropriate for SWCs, which are a lower level of local designation. The wording of the policy should reflect the protection afforded to be proportionate to their designation status.

2.40 It is our view the sequential test should only be applied in circumstances where the NPPF advocates for this, i.e. cases relating to Flood Risk, Town Centre uses and where there is significant harm to biodiversity resulting from development which cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated for (which as reflected above is not the case for any development in the SWC).

2.41 Policy NE4 as drafted is considered not to be “sound” on the basis it is not positively prepared, not justified, not consistent with national policy and would not lead to an effective strategy for growth (i.e. supressing development on potentially suitable sites). Policy NE4 should be amended to more accurately reflect the objectives and role of the SWC, with our proposed wording:

Development proposals will only be permitted where it would not lead to a significant adverse effect upon the ecological value, function and connectivity of the strategic wildlife corridors.

Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1. The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.
2. The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

Development proposals outside, but in close proximity to the strategic wildlife corridor will be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:

a) The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife
corridor; and
b) The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.

All proposals for new development (with the exception of householder applications) within or in close proximity to wildlife corridors should take opportunities available in order to extend or enhance those corridors.’

2.42 In addition, the supporting text at paragraph 4.18 should be amended to refer to the function of the corridor not the integrity as set out above in relation to NPPF paragraph 182. The revised text should read:

4.18 The Council will apply an additional layer of planning restraint to the countryside protection policies within these strategic wildlife corridors to ensure that connectivity between the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB and Padgham Harbour is maintain in the long term. Within the corridors it will be necessary to demonstrate that no land outside of the corridor is available for development and the development will not have an If a significant adverse impact on the function of the corridor resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then it will not be permitted.

To ensure the Plan meets the ‘justified’ test and the requirements of the NPPF paragraph 179(a) we propose the following wording changes to Policy NE4:

Policy NE4
Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1) The development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats;

2) The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor and take opportunities to enhance those corridors.

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.

SWT proposes an amendment to policy bullet point 2:

2. The development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor and protects, enhances and restores its features and habitats.

See attached representation.

See attached representation.

See attachment.

Supporting policy maps should be amended and the wording of the policy updated to reflect flexibility to allow appropriate breaks in the corridor for those areas that are of low ecological value, such as proposed site.

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on behalf of our client Chichester Grain. The submission covers the general principles of the Local Plan but has a focus on Land at Chichester Grain Stores, Hambrook, Southbourne. The land is shown on the attached plan HA Appendix 1: Site Location Plan, and hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions and is the final consultation phase before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Local Plan or at least through the allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1: Spatial Strategy, sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1: Meeting Housing Needs sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).
5
2.5 The SA discusses the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
(i) Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding South Downs National Park) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period; and
(ii) The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. It should be noted here that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was below the identified need of 505 dpa. This reduced housing figure was accepted on the basis of an early review, but this early review did not take place.
2.7 Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings within the plan figure, amounting to 575 dpa. This is lower than both the standard method figure of 638 dpa and the previously consulted Preferred Approach figure of 650 dpa which accommodated some unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority.
2.8 This draft Local Plan seeks to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network and constraints on Waste Water Treatment Works. The Council therefore arrive at a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.
2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study notes that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works.
2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in the Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.
2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need. This is
6
of relevance given that the previous Local Plan underprovided against the OAN, and when considering the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP. 2.12 Given that it is not accepted that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery, it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered. The plan is not therefore positively prepared, nor is the approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.14 One further concern is that the Plan relies on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and/or Small Site Allocations DPD. In terms of delivery, Policy H3: Non-Strategic Housing Policy Requirements 2021-2039, states the following:
If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this Local Plan.
2.15 The above does not provide any clear timetable for commencement of a DPD and thus is not considered to be an effective approach to housing delivery.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify the alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Duty to Cooperate
3.1 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the need for co-operation between local planning authorities on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
3.2 The draft Plan does not address any need requirements in relation to unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities.
7
3.3 The housing figures presented do not account for unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority. Whilst a Statement of Common Ground has been referred to, it has not been published and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the decision not to make any provision for the National Park is sound.
3.4 Further, Arun District Council has confirmed that it will be objecting to the Plan as currently proposed on the basis that it has a significant housing need. This is likely to be further influenced by Chichester not meeting its own needs, a repeat of the 2015 situation which resulted in Arun having to address some of this within its 2018 Local Plan.
3.5 If the Plan is to proceed on the basis of providing 575dpa as per Policy H1, this will amount to a shortfall of 1,100 dwellings over the plan period. Without any Statements of Common Ground, it is unclear as to how this shortfall will be addressed.
4 The Site and its suitability
4.1 Our client’s site is well placed to accommodate any additional numbers required and offers a distinctively different scale of development to that proposed in the single large site allocation. It can also be delivered, whilst protecting this part of Southbourne, but also Hambrook to which is more readily relates.
4.2 The development of this land would provide a number of benefits;
 The development would include a mix of high-quality homes, including affordable to meet the varying needs of the community;
 The site is well-connected to local services and facilities, within walking distance of the post office, train station and employment;
 It would support the viability of local services and facilities;
 The site is not subject to any environmental designations or constraints and its development would not impact the South Downs National Park or Chichester Harbour AONB;
 Retention of existing boundary treatments alongside the provision of additional landscape features and open space will ensure net biodiversity gain and greater access to public open space;
 Retention of the trees and mature boundary hedgerows, particularly on the frontage to Priors Leaze Lane will retain the rural setting;
 The site is not constrained and does not rely upon significant infrastructure improvements in respect of delivery. It will ensure that where required, contributions will be made to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained for local facilities.
8
5 Other Policy Considerations
5.1 Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridor – object Policy NE4 states that ‘Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1.There are no sequentially preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor; and
2.The development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of thewildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.’
5.2 We are of the view that our clients land has development potential and could be well placed to assist in the delivery of additional housing number required within the draft Local Plan and are of the view that the blanket wildlife corridor is quite extensive and should be reduced in size. Representations were also submitted to this effect to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 Consultation.
5.3 We acknowledge the importance of the protection of wildlife generally, and the local eco-systems, however, this submission is supported by an Ecological survey which confirms that our site should not be covered by a Wildlife Corridor to the extent currently proposed. The Wildlife Corridor should be reduced to the immediate site and not as currently proposed under Policy NE4.
5.4 The land at Chichester Grain lies adjacent to the Ham Brook Chalk Stream. The draft Local Plan introduces a Wildlife Corridor along this section of stream. It is our view that the proposed extent of the wildlife corridor is excessive and should be reduced. It is also our view that the wildlife corridor could accommodate a break to provide a means of access to our client’s site, without harming the purposes of the corridor.
5.5 The recommendations of the report are to reduce the scale of the wildlife corridor and also ensure policy flexibility to allow access through these areas and appropriate requirements to enhance and mitigate against any proposed development.
5.6 In terms of the details of the site, habitats present within the site area are of low ecological value. It is noted that there are sites with intrinsic nature conservation value within the area, however, there are suitable mitigation and compensation methods which could protect these habitats.
5.7 The mitigation methods that could be proposed to remove any significant harm to ecological value of the land (which is low as existing), comprise:
9
 Provision for CEMP for any proposed development;
 Retained habitats on site borders should be enhanced;
 Provision for an ecologically sensitive lighting scheme;
 Use of bird boxes within any proposed development; and
 Inclusion of Hedgehog Highways.
5.8 As shown, the land at Chichester Grain is of low ecological value, and should not be included, to the extent currently proposed, as a wildlife corridor within Policy NE4. The Council is further applying yet another restrictive ‘additional layer of planning restraint’ in a District which is already highly constrained by for example, AONB, National Park, numerous ecological designations, Local Nature Reserves/National Nature Reserves, Water Neutrality and Nutrient Neutrality.
5.9 Furthermore, we have set out mitigation methods which could be applied to any forthcoming application or allocation of the land, which would enhance the ecological value of the site, and protect the intrinsic value of the sites within the locality.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, this is significantly lower than the standard method figure of 638 and previously consulted figure of 650 dpa. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa scenario plus some additional mitigation at the Portfield roundabout.
6.2 The Council do not appear to have considered that the increased housing requirement could assist with funding the necessary highway improvements and thus this should be further reviewed by the Council in order to aim to meet the minimum of 638 dpa.
6.3 The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given constraints of the National Park.
6.4 Policy NE4 introduces wildlife corridors, which could be accepted however, the supporting policy maps should be amended and the wording of the policy updated to reflect flexibility to allow appropriate breaks in the corridor for those areas that are of low ecological value, such as our Client’s land.

Remove the policy from the plan as it has not been assessed in terms of reasonable alternatives in the sustainability appraisal and has therefore not met the requirements of The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 -Regulation 12(2)b.

See attachments.

Draft Policy NE4 should include; adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for (in accordance with National Planning Policy para 180).

See attachment.

Amend wildlife corridor.

See attached.

Conclusion

In light of all the above we contend that Sites HOV0006 (Sherwood Nursery) and HOV0012 (Landsdowne Nursery) should be reconsidered for allocation for housing development in the Draft Plan. The Sites are positively assessed in the HELAA, and are situated adjacent to existing consented and planned allocated sites. This area is clearly suitable for new housing. The Sites are previously developed and provide 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 Sites to the draft Plan as additional site allocations for residential development.
We put these two sites 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 Sites are eminently available, sustainably located and can provide much needed new residential units.
The District Council’s proposed housing figures for the Plan period are considered to be insufficient to meet the needs of the District when the significant unmet needs of adjacent and other nearby authorities are taken into account.
In this context, the broad location of Shopwhyke (east of Chichester) is acknowledged as being a sustainable location in the context of Chichester District, and we consider that it should be aiming to provide an increased housing figure during the Plan period.
The Sites are unconstrained by any landscape or other planning designations. The work that has been undertaken, and the conclusions of which clearly identify that the Sites are suitable for development.
We contend that Sherwood Nursery should be removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridor designation for the reasons we have set out.
In its current form, we contend that the Draft Plan does not meet soundness tests insofar that it does not positively contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and nor does it comply with the strategic policies of the area, by failing to provide a sufficient quantum of housing.

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.

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.