Policy NE8 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands

.

The Goodwood Estate relies heavily upon its managed woodland for its business enterprises and for renewable energy. The Estate is progressing a strategy of new woodland planting and a move from ‘cash-crop’ to native woodland, for amenity and environmental benefits. Woodland management is a balance of business and environmental objectives which the Estate has successfully maintained for many years. This regime follows the broad principles set out in this policy, but must be modified to ensure the balanced objectives across the Estate of economic sustainability and environmental enhancement can be evolving in coming years. The Estate has a number of areas designated as “ancient woodland” although these were felled and or replanted during the last war. Development decisions affecting such locations should be considered on the basis of on the ground assessment rather than a reliance on out-dated map designations. The plan should recognise changing woodland practices.

WGPC supports this approach.

Portsmouth Water support this policy.

The Woodland Trust supports this policy.

We welcome the requirement in point 4 to plant two trees for each one lost through development, as an effective mechanism to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain and to secure multiple benefits for climate resilience, human well-being and visual amenity.

We note the requirement in point 5 for a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres for ancient woodland. We suggest amending this wording to better deliver the protection for this vital irreplaceable habitat required in the NPPF.

5. Proposals should have a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres from the boundary of ancient woodland or veteran trees to avoid root damage (known as the root protection area). For larger developments, a precautionary buffer of up to 50m may be required, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a smaller buffer would be sufficient.

We strongly support the policy in point 10 to encourage planting of a diverse range and variety of native tree species, as this is the best option for biodiversity and resilience. In addition, we recommend a policy preference for UK & Ireland sourced and grown (UKISG) tree stock to support tree health and biosecurity.

Clarify criterion six to make clear that tree planting should be sought 'unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate'.

Draft Policy NE8 sets out the Local Plan’s requirements relating to trees and woodlands. While Rolls-Royce Motor Cars (R-RMC) broadly supports the principle of the draft policy, we suggest that there is an opportunity to provide some clarity regarding criterion six: ‘all major development proposals will be required to provide street tree planting’.

While the principle of street tree planting is recognised, this may not always be appropriate or practical. It is acknowledged that Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages local authorities to ensure that new streets are tree-lined. However, this position is supported by footnote 50 which provides the caveat that street tree planting should be sought ‘unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate’.

R-RMC suggests that the draft policy is updated to reflect national policy to make it effective and sound.

1. New criteria: “Development sites that include existing large tree(s) should demonstrate succession planning for similarly large trees so as to sustain the landscape impact of trees and achieve net gain in on-site tree cover.”
2. Edit NE8, para. 4 “proposals will be required to plant two trees for each one lost through development” to “proposals will be required to deliver net gain in tree cover for each tree lost through development 5 years after felling”.
3. Add “All major development proposals will be required to provide new woodland areas for public recreational use related to the development.”
4. Add to NE8, para 9. “Developments will be expected to retain existing and planted trees for the long term and demonstrate succession planning.”
5. Add to NE8, para. 10 “All trees planted on site will be required to demonstrate responsible biosecurity, such as Plant Healthy certification ( https://planthealthy.org.uk/plant-health-alliance ) or similar.
6. Delete "major" in NE8, para. 6 and add "(off-site, ideally nearby, if no opportunity onsite)".
7. Add words along the lines of "including the local Trees and Woodland Strategy" to the final policy sentence (our Objection under Background para. 4.42 refers).

Legally compliant/duty to co-operate - don't know.
Sound: Chichester Tree Wardens broadly support Policy NE8 Trees, Hedgerows and Woodlands, subject to our comments on Background paragraphs 4.41 and 4.42, particularly the need for CDC to prepare a Trees and Woodland Strategy for the Plan Area as a Supplementary Planning Document to plan for the net gain in tree cover that forms part of Strategic Objective 2. However, there are some specific threats to tree cover (and therefore the delivery of the Plan) which are not addressed:
• Loss of tree cover due to failure/removal of large trees and constraints in replacement planting (including lack of space for a tree which could grow to a comparable size and the encroachment of utilities into rooting areas);
• Where large trees are lost, replacement trees do not compensate for loss of tree cover – the 2-for-1 policy in paragraph 4 will not deliver a net gain in tree cover for decades, if at all;
• Increasing recreational pressure on existing woodland from a growing population and a flight to tree-conditioned shade in hot summers (compaction of forest floors risks premature decline/death of trees);
• Existing and new trees included in development proposals not being retained in the long term, despite their importance for planning objectives, as a result of the convention of only requiring replacement if a new tree fails within the first 5 years of planting;
• Biosecurity risks.
ALSO to avoid widening inequalities of place, all developments should be required to provide street tree planting (off-site, ideally nearby, if no opportunity onsite), not just "major" developments (NE8, para. 6).

Reference to protected trees, groups of trees and woodland and hedgerows should be removed from this sentence

Please refer to submitted representations document.

The RSPB supports the range of criteria set out for development proposals within Policy NE8. In particular, the RSPB is pleased to see protection of ancient woodland and other irreplaceable woodland habitats alongside maximising opportunities for planting of new trees, woodlands, and hedgerows. Bullet point 10 (p. 63) also includes the need for preference of native species within planting plans, which will provide not only the stated ‘long-term resilience to pests, diseases and climate change’, but in addition the provision of native trees able to host a wider range of species and greater biodiversity; increasing the availability of native species and the important habitats these native species provide is critical to tackling the climate and ecological emergency in unison.

This could be addressed by the following amendment to the policy bullet point 2:

2. Development resulting in the direct or indirect loss or deterioration of……

See attached representation.

See attachment.

Recommend amending draft Policy NE8 to reflect NPPF stating, all major development proposals will be required to provide street tree planting, unless, in specific cases there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate’. Concern expressed in relation to use of word ‘maximise’ in criteria 4, as taken to extreme, this might only ever support woodlands. Respectfully suggest this be replaced with ‘harness’.

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.

See attachments.

Delete reference to " protected trees, groups of trees and woodland and hedgerows"

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.

Suggested amendment:

5. Proposals should have a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres from the boundary of ancient woodland or veteran trees to avoid root damage (known as the root protection area). For larger developments, a precautionary buffer of up to 50m may be required, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a smaller buffer would be sufficient

The Woodland Trust supports this policy.

We welcome the requirement in point 4 to plant two trees for each one lost through development, as an effective mechanism to deliver Biodiversity Net Gain and to secure multiple benefits for climate resilience, human well-being and visual amenity.

We note the requirement in point 5 for a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres for ancient woodland. We suggest amending this wording to better deliver the protection for this vital irreplaceable habitat required in the NPPF.

5. Proposals should have a minimum buffer zone of 15 metres from the boundary of ancient woodland or veteran trees to avoid root damage (known as the root protection area). For larger developments, a precautionary buffer of up to 50m may be required, unless the applicant can demonstrate that a smaller buffer would be sufficient.

We strongly support the policy in point 10 to encourage planting of a diverse range and variety of native tree species, as this is the best option for biodiversity and resilience. In addition, we recommend a policy preference for UK & Ireland sourced and grown (UKISG) tree stock to support tree health and biosecurity.

Draft Policy NE8 sets out the Local Plan’s requirements relating to trees and woodlands. While Rolls-Royce Motor Cars (R-RMC) broadly supports the principle of the draft policy, we suggest that there is an opportunity to provide some clarity regarding criterion six: ‘all major development proposals will be required to provide street tree planting’.

While the principle of street tree planting is recognised, this may not always be appropriate or practical. It is acknowledged that Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages local authorities to ensure that new streets are tree-lined. However, this position is supported by footnote 50 which provides the caveat that street tree planting should be sought ‘unless, in specific cases, there are clear, justifiable and compelling reasons why this would be inappropriate’.

R-RMC suggests that the draft policy is updated to reflect national policy to make it effective and sound.

See attached representation.