Policy NE5 Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain

The site allocated in Policy A11 at Highgrove needs to be removed from the Local Plan.

The phrase ‘biodiversity net gain’ has great importance in the NPPF, yet at least one site proposed for development (Highgrove Farm, Bosham) has an established database maintained by Sussex Biodiversity Record of over 100 species of birds alone. Yet the policy A11 does not refer to how this would be boosted by 10% either insitu or by offset.

We support the inclusion of this policy within the Plan, however wish to make the observation that by default the sheer level of proposed development in close proximity to the Chichester Harbour SSSI/SPA/SAC site makes its delivery problematic. It would need to ensure that any new developments did not contribute any additional waste water, surface drainage and nutrients into water bodies entering Chichester Harbour. It would need to ensure that there was no additional recreational pressure on the harbour, and any that arose would need to be effectively mitigated - which at present is not in place. Any proposed mitigation must be property resourced and monitored to ensure it is fit for purpose.

Offsite provision and biodiversity credits should be resisted as it will not result in any bio diversity gain for the development site and could lead to a significant loss.

a. Where an adverse impact on biodiversity is unavoidable, and no other option is available, this will only be supported where it has been demonstrated that the impact has been minimised as far as possible and, as a last resort, appropriate compensation provided for any remaining adverse impacts;
There can be no compensation for any adverse impact on biodiversity. If that is the case planning permission should be refused at the outset.

Care should be taken with developer claims of highly increased bio-diversity gains where the starting calculation is a site devoid of or having limited biodiversity due to its former function (e.g intensive agriculture) – the plan should set a minimum standard of gain for all sites reflecting their size and past development form.

Clarify policy to make clear what a developments apply to it

Unclear as to what development this policy applies to.

Point 1 indicates it is solely for housing sites

Point 2 - does this apply to all applications?

The Woodland Trust supports this policy and the protection for ancient woodland as an irreplaceable habitat, and the exclusion of irreplaceable habitats from net gain calculations.

We support setting a greater than 10% target for net gain where appropriate. By setting a more ambitious target, the Local Plan increases the chances that an average net gain of at least 10% will be delivered across the Plan area, given the possibility that some sites may not be able to deliver net gain within the District or that initiatives intended to deliver such gain may fall short in practice.

Therefore we suggest the following wording change to make the policy more effective:
1. Development proposals adhere to the NPPF mitigation hierarchy, and in addition, demonstrate that proposals provide a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity against a pre-development baseline. Where it is achievable, a 20%+ onsite net gain is encouraged.

This seems comprehensive. It is a shame that C. does not include the AONB as well, but I understand the reasons.

WGPC supports this policy intent.

Portsmouth Water support this policy.

The Council will need to clearly set out in draft Policy NE5 the extending timetable being given to small sites to ease the burden on small developers and LPAs. The Government’s response to the consultation on the regulations for and implementation of BNG outlines that implementation of BNG on small sites will be extended to April 2024.

In addition, the policy wording should allow for off-site BNG provision to be delivered on land outside of the local planning authority area that is controlled by either applicants or other landowners, or for a solution to be delivered via a BNG company. An off-site solution, which is accepted as being appropriate in principle by some local authorities, is where the identified biodiversity (habitat) units required to deliver BNG would be secured through a BNG company such as the Environment Bank. These units would be secured through a satisfactory legal framework and appropriately worded planning condition would be attached to the planning permission.

he NPPF encourages new trees being incorporated into new developments and the Environment Act suggests that biodiversity can be increased through creation of green corridors, planting more trees or forming local nature spaces, there is no minimum requirement for tree planting.

Gladman consider a 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) target to be appropriate for the district as it complies with national guidance within the Environment Act which seeks a 10% BNG. The costs of delivering BNG varies significantly depending on the level of biodiversity on a site and can significantly impact viability.

Criterion 1d) of draft Policy NE5 refers to a ‘last resort’ scenario for developments for providing BNG by purchasing credits for through the national biodiversity credit scheme. The policy wording should allow for off-site BNG provision to be delivered on land outside of the local planning authority area that is controlled by either applicants or other landowners, or for a solution to be delivered via a BNG company.

An off-site solution, which is accepted as being appropriate in principle by some local authorities, is where the identified biodiversity (habitat) units required to deliver BNG would be secured through a BNG company such as the Environment Bank. These units would be secured through a satisfactory legal framework and appropriately worded planning condition would be attached to the planning permission.

Premier suggests Draft Policy NE5 is amended to make specific reference to the completion of the ‘relevant Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.1 (or equivalent)’ as part of the Biodiversity Appraisa

Premier agree with the premise of Draft Policy NE5 and the acknowledge the 10% biodiversity net gain requirement is consistent with the Environment Bill 2021 which requires developments to achieve a minimum 10% biodiversity net gain from November 2023 (exact date TBC).
Premier recognise the unique qualities of the Chichester Marina’s location and rural countryside setting, and considers that the protection of the environmental and landscape quality is extremely important. Premier acts as the long-term manager and steward of the Site and seeks to actively and appropriately manage users and the environmental setting for the benefit of existing wildlife and in in the interests of protecting key tidal habits and enhancing biodiversity.
Premier suggests Draft Policy NE5 is amended to make specific reference to the completion of the ‘relevant Defra Biodiversity Metric 3.1 (or equivalent)’ as part of the Biodiversity Appraisal requirement in the interests of soundness to ensure the policy wording is effective and measurable, and also consistent with national policy in line with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF.

For consistency, 3c should probably add ", ancient" before "and veteran trees".

The inclusion of B and 3c referencing irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees, is welcome and appropriate. (For consistency, 3c should probably add ", ancient" before "and veteran trees".)

Additional wording - “Opportunities to conserve, protect, enhance and recover biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitats connectivity will be undertaken, including the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy will be utilised to inform opportunities for nature recovery.”

Reflecting a suitable buffer (10 metres plus) for watercourses.

We are pleased to see that our comments at the Regulation 18 consultation have been incorporated. Since that time, the Environment Act 2021 has mandated Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) which are a system of spatial strategies for nature. They are designed as tools to encourage more coordinated practical and focused action and investment in nature. The LNRS will be useful to assist with delivery of this policy. Whilst the policy wording is sufficient, it may be worth more specific wording regarding LNRS being incorporated as suggested below:

“Opportunities to conserve, protect, enhance and recover biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitats connectivity will be undertaken, including the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy will be utilised to inform opportunities for nature recovery.”

We would also encourage reflection in the accompanying text or within the policy that watercourses should have a suitable buffer provided (10 metres or more) in which no or very minimal structures are present to enhance habitats and natural river processes, assist with flood risk management and provide water quality enhancements. We have also reflected this in our comments on Policy NE15.

We support the requirement of Policy NE5 to provide a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain against a pre-development baseline. Further, we agree that the Bird Aware Solent strategy is an effective mechanism for avoiding adverse effects on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours (SAC, SPA and Ramsar).

Please refer to submitted representations document.

We suggest that the criteria for permitting development proposals should be amended as follows:

(1.c) Net gain should be provided on-site in the first instance, and then locally off-site (as close as possible to the development site, or if that is not possible, elsewhere
within Chichester District or the South Coast Plain NCA) where it should contribute towards strategic networks such as green infrastructure, wildlife corridors or nature
recovery networks.

Please refer to submitted representations document.

A suggested minimum of 20% Biodiversity Net Gain within Chichester district

The RSPB supports Policy NE5 in general regarding the clearly outlined list of sites requiring conservation, protection, enhancement, and restoration of biodiversity in the district.

However, the RSPB would like to see more ambitious targets for nature recovery through Biodiversity Net Gain. Advice to Defra from members of the Natural Capital Committee suggests that a level of net gain at or above 10% is necessary to give reasonable confidence in halting biodiversity losses. Therefore, 10% sits as an absolute minimum level of net gain for Defra to confidently expect to deliver genuine net gain, or at least no net loss, of biodiversity and thereby meet its policy objectives . Defra’s Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment also highlights examples of an increase in the required percentage of net gain: ‘The Planning authority for Lichfield District requires a net gain of 20% on new development, and experience to date suggests that developers are able to meet this requirement and often achieve much greater levels of biodiversity net gain.’ The RSPB would therefore like to see the implementation of policy around Biodiversity Net Gain with a suggested minimum of 20% within Chichester district and around the county of Sussex, in order to gain a greater level of certainty for genuine net gain as a result of Biodiversity Net Gain policy and to see tangible net gain benefits for key priority species and habitats in the Borough.

Kent Nature Partnership have also explored the option of promoting a 20% BNG target for the county with a Viability Assessment commissioned by Kent County Council. Results of the assessment show that a shift from 10% to 15% or 20% BNG as a requirement will not materially affect viability in the majority of instances when delivered onsite or offsite. The biggest cost in most cases is to get to a mandatory, minimum 10% BNG. The increase to 15% or 20% BNG in most cases costs much less and is generally negligible. Because the BNG costs are low when compared to other policy costs, in no cases are they likely to be what renders development unviable.

Examples of its application can also be found in other counties in the South East, such as Surrey Nature Partnership. Further information on the recommendation for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain in Surrey’s Local Authorities can be found on the Surrey Nature Partnership website . In addition, various Local Planning Authorities are currently pursuing a 20% BNG requirement in Local Plans, such as Guildford and Mole Valley in Surrey, and Worthing in Sussex.

Links to reports mentioned above can be found below:
Defra (2018) Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment. Page 19. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/181121%20%20Biodiversity%20Net%20Gain%20Consultation%20IA%20FINAL%20for%20publication.pdf
SQW (2022) Viability Assessment of Biodiversity Net Gain in Kent. https://kentnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Viability-Assessment-of-Biodiversity-Net-Gain-in-Kent-June-2022.pdf
Surrey Nature Partnership (2020) Recommendation for adoption of 20% minimum biodiversity net gain across Surrey’s planning sector: a Surrey Nature Partnership Position Statement. https://surreynaturepartnership.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/recommendation-for-20-bng-in-surrey_snp-november2020_final.pdf

We propose the following amendments to the policy:

Within bullet point e), SWT proposes the addition of the word protected to priority, so that it will be consistent with NPPG Paragraph: 016 Reference ID: 8-016-20190721. With the amendment it would now read:

e) Protected and Priority Habitats and Species.

Point 3 e, we seek the removal of the term where possible at the end of the sentence. This will make it consistent with section 179 of the NPPF 2021. The new bullet point would read as follows;

e) Outside of designated sites:
Development proposals should identify and incorporate opportunities to conserve, restore and recreate priority habitats and ecological networks. Development proposals should take opportunities to contribute and deliver on the aims and objectives of the relevant biodiversity strategies where possible.

See attached representation.

The Council will need to clearly set out in the policy the extending timetable being given to small sites to ease the burden on small developers and LPAs.

See attachment.

See attachment.

Points c and d should be removed as they are too prescriptive and their points are already covered within the metric 3.1.

See attachment.

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.

Modify the plan to leave the access road from Saxon Meadow to Church Lane out of the plan.

See representation

See attached representation.

Delete introductory paragraph including A to H.

Remaining policy text addresses elements omitted and is therefore sufficient to deliver policy objectives in their own right.

See attachment.

See attachments.

Replace " any adverse impact" with " significant harm".

Include a new provision for off site net gain outside of Chichester District.

This representation is made by SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Southern Ltd (SUEZ), who along
with SUEZ Recycling & Recovery UK Ltd forms part of the SUEZ group of companies within
the UK. This representation is made in response to the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039
Proposed Submission consultation.

SUEZ Recycling & Recovery Southern Ltd are the landowner of part of the land subject to the
draft strategic site allocation ‘Land East of Chichester’ identified in draft Policy A8.

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.

The plan should set a minimum standard of gain for all sites reflecting their size and past development form

Care should be taken with developer claims of highly increased bio-diversity gains where the starting calculation is a site devoid of or having limited biodiversity due to its former function (e.g intensive agriculture) – the plan should set a minimum standard of gain for all sites reflecting their size and past development form.

Therefore we suggest the following wording change to make the policy more effective:
1. Development proposals adhere to the NPPF mitigation hierarchy, and in addition, demonstrate that proposals provide a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity against a pre-development baseline. Where it is achievable, a 20%+ onsite net gain is encouraged

The Woodland Trust supports this policy and the protection for ancient woodland as an irreplaceable habitat, and the exclusion of irreplaceable habitats from net gain calculations.

We support setting a greater than 10% target for net gain where appropriate. By setting a more ambitious target, the Local Plan increases the chances that an average net gain of at least 10% will be delivered across the Plan area, given the possibility that some sites may not be able to deliver net gain within the District or that initiatives intended to deliver such gain may fall short in practice.

Therefore we suggest the following wording change to make the policy more effective:
1. Development proposals adhere to the NPPF mitigation hierarchy, and in addition, demonstrate that proposals provide a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity against a pre-development baseline. Where it is achievable, a 20%+ onsite net gain is encouraged.

See attachment.