Policy NE9 Canals

Chichester canal needs to have more protection so that development proposals can be refused if they are shown to impact on the canal.

The policy does not provide enough protection for the canal which would be impacted by the proposed relief road. It is not enough to say that mitigation would be included.

Portsmouth Water support this policy.

Policy wording should be amended as follows to ensure the policy is more effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:

“Development proposals that make provision for through navigation or enhancement supports the further use and enhancement of the Chichester Ship Canal and/or the Wey and Arun Canal will be supported where they meet environmental, ecological, historical and transport considerations. This includes improvements to the existing houseboat population and further houseboat development on the canal.

Development proposals will be permitted where they preserve and enhance the remaining line and configuration of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and the features within it, with no overall adverse effect. Where no such line and configuration remains, proposals to reinterpret the alignment within new development proposals will be supported where they protect and enhance the culture, history and natural environment and consideration is given to local impacts”.

Premier is a key stakeholder and user of the Chichester Ship Canal, holding a long leasehold interest from West Sussex District Council for the Canal from Chichester Harbour to the A286.
The Canal was largely abandoned by 1928 having fallen into disuse. Yacht moorings on the Canal along the stretch now adjacent to Chichester Marina were retained and their use as such pre-dates the building of the marina. There are currently 31 houseboats moored along this stretch of Canal. Much of the Canal is heavily silted and the two main road bridges have been replaced by unnavigable culverts preventing navigation of the canal.
It is highly unlikely that the canal can ever become navigable. Doing so would require major infrastructure works, including re-routing of or bridges over the A286 and B2201. The ecological designations affecting the various parts of the Canal (including the SAC, AONB and protected species) will also affect the possibility of such major infrastructure works being undertaken.
Given this, the policy approach should recognise and support the potential of the Canal’s historic use for houseboat living rather than holding out for a navigable canal which will almost certainly never be delivered and economic benefits that are not clearly established. Premier supports a policy approach that encourages “increased recreation, leisure pursuits and economic activity” but it believes that policy should explicitly include houseboats. These support the on-going management of the Canal and public access to it, support marine employment (houseboats use the same electrical and marine systems as recreational boats and therefore support marine employment), and add to the mix of site uses positively. As such, the policy wording should be amended as follows to ensure the policy is more effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:
“Development proposals that make provision for through navigation or enhancement supports the further use and enhancement of the Chichester Ship Canal and/or the Wey and Arun Canal will be supported where they meet environmental, ecological, historical and transport considerations. This includes improvements to the existing houseboat population and further houseboat development on the canal.
Development proposals will be permitted where they preserve and enhance the remaining line and configuration of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and the features within it, with no overall adverse effect. Where no such line and configuration remains, proposals to reinterpret the alignment within new development proposals will be supported where they protect and enhance the culture, history and natural environment and consideration is given to local impacts”.

We would suggest that the final sentence in the supporting text which refers to the potential need for
development to undergo Appropriate Assessment be removed. It is currently incorrect as it implies it is impacts on the canals themselves which would require assessment – certainly within the plan area the canals are not subject to any statutory nature conservation designation. Rather it is the case that development proposals which aim to re-instate lengths of the canal and/or associated features could have impacts on other designated nature conservation sites. We consider the policy wording itself along with other key policies such as NE5 sufficient to address this issue.

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.

Suggest removal of the final sentence of supporting text which refers to potential development undergoing Appropriate Assessment.

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

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

Premier is a key stakeholder and user of the Chichester Ship Canal, holding a long leasehold interest from West Sussex District Council for the Canal from Chichester Harbour to the A286.
The Canal was largely abandoned by 1928 having fallen into disuse. Yacht moorings on the Canal along the stretch now adjacent to Chichester Marina were retained and their use as such pre-dates the building of the marina. There are currently 31 houseboats moored along this stretch of Canal. Much of the Canal is heavily silted and the two main road bridges have been replaced by unnavigable culverts preventing navigation of the canal.
It is highly unlikely that the canal can ever become navigable. Doing so would require major infrastructure works, including re-routing of or bridges over the A286 and B2201. The ecological designations affecting the various parts of the Canal (including the SAC, AONB and protected species) will also affect the possibility of such major infrastructure works being undertaken.
Given this, the policy approach should recognise and support the potential of the Canal’s historic use for houseboat living rather than holding out for a navigable canal which will almost certainly never be delivered and economic benefits that are not clearly established. Premier supports a policy approach that encourages “increased recreation, leisure pursuits and economic activity” but it believes that policy should explicitly include houseboats. These support the on-going management of the Canal and public access to it, support marine employment (houseboats use the same electrical and marine systems as recreational boats and therefore support marine employment), and add to the mix of site uses positively. As such, the policy wording should be amended as follows to ensure the policy is more effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:
“Development proposals that make provision for through navigation or enhancement supports the further use and enhancement of the Chichester Ship Canal and/or the Wey and Arun Canal will be supported where they meet environmental, ecological, historical and transport considerations. This includes improvements to the existing houseboat population and further houseboat development on the canal.
Development proposals will be permitted where they preserve and enhance the remaining line and configuration of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and the features within it, with no overall adverse effect. Where no such line and configuration remains, proposals to reinterpret the alignment within new development proposals will be supported where they protect and enhance the culture, history and natural environment and consideration is given to local impacts”.