Policy NE10 Development in the Countryside

If the proposed site is in a location which is outside of the settlement boundary but is already well connected to local amenities (by walking, cycling or public transport) there should be no requirement for improving or creating opportunities to access the site via these means.

The following requirement is not sound. "The sustainability of the site is enhanced by improving or creating opportunities to access the site by walking, cycling and public transport". This requirement will not be appropriate in all cases, for example, this should not be a requirement for sites outside the settlement boundary which are already well connected by walking, cycling and public transport options.

Remove these proposed allocations and identify more suitable locations.

Allocations in the East/West corridor are outside the existing settlement boundary and in the countryside contrary to this policy.

Reduce the allocated housing in both parishes

Locating 300 houses in N & H and 300 in Bosham would be in direct conflict with this policy. Housing of that magnitude would severely impact on landscape, the setting of the AONB, use of agricultural land, use of open land in the countryside, long-distance views, wildlife corridors and rural character.

Whilst we welcome this policy for development management, it should be noted that the delivery of the Plan is overly reliant on development in the countryside through the spatial strategy. Of the 3,225 homes proposed between Chichester and Southbourne, overwhelmingly they will be built on greenfield sites. We would hope to see much greater focus on delivery of brownfield sites and urban locations.

Rewrite policy:
Test to conserve and enhance is too strict for 'ordinary' countryside
Clarify what 'complimentary to or compatible with' means
Criteria 4 overly restrictive

The test to conserve and enhance is too strict for 'ordinary' countryside
What does 'complimentary to or compatible with' actually mean in planning judgement terms?
Criteria 4 overly restrictive as some appropriate development may come forward where it is not closely related to buildings due to specific site circumstances

Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council respectfully suggests that the policy should include the requirement that the development needs a countryside location and meets an essential, small scale, and local need, which cannot be met elsewhere.

Suggested wording (from Policy 45 of adopted Local Plan):

“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council is supportive of Policy NE10, Development in the Countryside; however, respectfully draws attention to its concern that the Plan does not unambiguously set out, in a strategic policy, that development in the countryside - and especially in the North of the Plan Area -will only be sustainable at the level of development proposed and where development “requires a countryside location”.

Policy 45, ‘Development in the Countryside’ within Chichester’s currently adopted Local Plan 2014 – 2029 includes the overarching proviso that development proposed in the countryside “requires a countryside location”, before proceeding to recite the other criteria that apply.

Policy NE10 does not include this requirement.

In Policy 45 of the currently adopted Local Plan, development within the countryside would not be considered unless a justification for a countryside location (or this location, which happens to be in the countryside) is made out.

The Council notes that within other policies of the draft Plan e.g., policy E2, ‘Employment Development’ a requirement for a countryside location is included.

Were it to be included in NE10, it would reinforce the spatial distribution policy for new housing, by providing an additional clear indication that residential development, to ‘grow’ rural settlements, is unacceptable unless it has unambiguous community support and benefits.

There is supporting text to this effect, but in our view it is not fully reflected in policy wording. In particular, Policy NE10 should make clear that residential development in the countryside is unsustainable and will therefore be resisted except in the very limited circumstances allowed by the Plan and national planning policy.

Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council respectfully suggests that the policy should include the requirement that the development needs a countryside location and meets an essential, small scale, and local need, which cannot be met elsewhere.

The Parish Council suggests that the wording within Policy 45, Development in the Countryside of the current adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 should be inserted into emerging Policy NE10: -

“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

A sentence in Policy 45 in the extant Local Plan has been removed. This requirement should be retained in Policy NE10.
“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

Support with qualification
A sentence in Policy 45 in the extant Local Plan has been removed. This requirement should be retained in Policy NE10.
“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

Addition of 'or developed site for employment uses within the B Use Class, an existing employment site' to clause 4.

The response to this policy is related to the above comments regarding Policy S2, namely, that Chichester Marina should be considered within a settlement boundary and not as ‘countryside’. The Site is not open countryside, it has a long established residential and working population, a unique leisure and tourism offer, is host to a range of businesses and one of the UK’s most successful yacht clubs.
The Site is developed, with over 5,000 sqm of commercial and leisure floorspace, and 1,100 berths. Therefore, this is not a typical ‘rural’ countryside setting.
Should Chichester Marina not be incorporated within a settlement, and remain as designated ‘countryside’, this policy approach would stifle the economic viability and ongoing contribution of the marina.

It is therefore suggested that the Local Plan states that development associated with horticulture coming forward in the Runcton HDA, or within the setting of the Runcton HDA, should be assessed against the Policy E4 of the Local Plan as opposed to Policy NE10.

The Council’s evidence base and Policy E3 acknowledges that substantial land outside of the proposed HDA’s will be required to meet the needs of the horticultural industry. This is welcomed.

The Runcton HDA, and surrounding land, is located outside of any settlement boundary area and is therefore defined as countryside by the Local Plan. In such a situation it is acknowledged that Policy NE10 would apply.

A number of the criteria of policy NE10 are not consistent with policy E4 of the Local Plan. It is therefore suggested that the Local Plan states that development associated with horticulture coming forward in the Runcton HDA, or within the setting of the Runcton HDA, should be assessed against the Policy E4 of the Local Plan as opposed to Policy NE10.

See accompanying letter/statement by Vail Williams.

These representations are specifically centred around Chapter 7: Employment and Economy – ‘Meeting Business and Employment Needs’ with particular focus on Policy E1, Map 10.10 and reliance on Chapter 10 Policy A20 (Land to the South of Bognor Road).

These representations are made in the light of a live planning application (22/02202/FUL) for Land North Of Drayton Waterside. The proposed development consists of the erection of employment space [flexible Class B2 (general industry), B8 (storage / distribution), Trade Counter, E(d) (indoor sport / recreation) and Class E(g) (office, research and development, light industry) uses], with associated parking and landscaping. The employment space is provided over 33 units totalling 5,706 sq. m.

These representations will also look in detail at the Countryside policy and compare the proposed single new site (Land to the South of Bognor Road) with a site which is currently subject to a pending planning application (22/02202/FUL) for land which is geographically comparable with the proposed single site only without the implementation issues listed in the proposed Local Plan, as well as being deliverable, achievable and focused on the market requirements for smaller units.

These representations bring into question the ‘tests of soundness’. In particular, the question as to whether it is ‘sound’ on the basis of being ‘positively prepared’, ‘justified’ and ‘effective’ in respect to employment land provision.

These representations seek to highlight that Chapter 7 has not been positively prepared, in so far as it does not provide [1.] “a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs” see the details set out in the accompanying Flude Property Consultants Report together with the details set out below.

It is also considered that Chapter 7 is not justified as the employment strategy is [2.] is inappropriate as it relies on a single new site, with multiple issues some of which are in conflict with other parts of the local plan, plus the site does not appear to have been included in the previous Local Plan consultations.

Chapter 7 is also not justified with respect to its provisions do not [3.] take into account reasonable alternatives. And that the provision for a single site not previously seen in any Regulation 18 consultation, is not [4.] based on proportionate evidence.

With respect to whether Chapter 7 is effective is questionable in terms of soundness given that the proposed allocation highlights a number of issues with the site set out in more detail below.

It is considered on the basis of the other factors highlighted in these representations and the accompanying Flude Report that the proposed employment land provision is not ‘Consistent with national policy’ as the proposed provision does not enable the delivery of sustainable development. It is considered that the proposed plans are contrary to the NPPF paragraph 16a, 16b, 16c, 16d and paragraph 20a.

With respect of general employment allocations and provisions in Chichester there are a number of areas of concern raised below and in the accompanying Flude Property Consultants Report which looks in detail at the Chichester property market.
It is also relevant to note that the Flude Report (dated July 2022) not only assesses the supply and demand in the local market for employment land, it objectively assesses the most recent evidence set out by the Local Planning Authority within the April 2022 Chichester Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA).
Both the HEDNA and Flude Report independently advise that there is a lack of suitable employment space supply in Chichester, particularly for starter units between 750 and 2000 sq. ft.
The Policy E1 table sets out a number of floorspace calculations. None of which are identified by their Use Class.
Land West of Chichester
This site is a reallocation of the current Local Plan Policy 15. The new policy is Policy A6. The original allocation was adopted in 2015 and this therefore raises concerns in respect of deliverability of the proposed employment floorspace.
Notwithstanding the concerns around deliverability, the uses identified in the ‘submission local plan’ Policy A6 states: “6 hectares of employment land (suitable for E(g)(i)/(ii) Business uses)” and therefore none of the suggested 22,000m2 allocation equates to light industrial, general industrial or storage and distribution (i.e. it does not include E(g)(iii), B2 or B8) and therefore does not meet any need for industrial or storage and distribution.


Kingsham Road - DPD Allocation
This site the current DPD allocation (Policy CC5). The allocation was adopted in 2019 and this therefore raises concerns in respect of deliverability of the proposed employment floorspace.
Kingsham Road is a DPD allocation for 7,200m2 is for office use, and therefore does not meet any need for industrial or storage and distribution.


Land South of Bognor Road
The Land South of Bognor Road, the single proposed new allocation, not previously set out in the previous Local Plan consultations is looked at in greater detail in the following section of these representations.


Planning Permissions to Date
Chichester Council Planning Policy team have kindly provided a copy of the employment planning permissions to date which make up the 53,655 figure within the employment floorspace Policy E1. From a review of these sites it is apparent that a large number are for specific end users (e.g. Rolls Royce) or for change of use and not for the open market which will not meet the employment floorspace demand locally, particularly for starter units for SME’s.


Summary
In summary, Policy E1 is heavily reliant on adding up floor spaces which either may not occur or are not for an employment use which meets the needs for industrial use or storage and distribution use needs.

There are several fundamental issues with the proposed site allocation known as Land to South of Bognor Road (Policy A20), these include:
- The site is new to the Local Plan production process in respect of entering in at Regulation 19 and has therefore not been through any of the previous rounds of consultation.
- The he land is Grade 1 agricultural land which is (a) in active use, (b) forms part of wider farmland which is proposed to be separated from the farm buildings therefore potentially limiting the effectiveness of the remainder of the farmland, (c) it conflicts with other parts of the local plan which promote protection of the best agricultural land and food production. (details below)
- There are several site constraints to delivery to the allocation (details below).
- The Policy also seeks to provide plots for Gypsy and Travelling Showpeople the allocations do not require to be part of the same site however they have been placed under the same site policy which implies that the provision for both types of use are in short supply and that the way in which the Local Plan has been produced seeks to address the Gypsy and Traveller sites shortfall on the same allocation as part of the solitary site for employment.
- The size of the site in terms with respect to Natural England’s Guide to assessing development proposals on agricultural land (2021).

The Land South of Bognor Road site is both grade 1 agricultural land (the best value) and in active food production. Development on this site would raise conflict with other Local Plan approaches and policies as follows.
The proposed Local Plan at Paragraph 4.8 states that: The council will seek to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land from large scale, inappropriate or unsustainable non-agricultural development proposals that are not in accordance with the Development Plan. For proposals not in accordance with the Development Plan, that will result in the loss or likely cumulative loss of 20 hectares or more of best and most versatile agricultural land, the council will consult with Natural England and have regard to “Natural England’s Guide to assessing development proposals on agricultural land (2021)” and any subsequent guidance.

It is noteworthy to mention that the site is 19.5ha and, as with neighbouring land, is owned by West Sussex County Council (WSCC). The outline of the site allocation is odd and appears to sever the remainder of the WSCC land to the south from the WSCC owned land. This both impacts the opportunity to farm the remaining land and raises the question of whether there is an approach to avoid Natural England’s 20ha threshold and therefore is the current site area a salami slice of an extended future land promotion.

Land south of Bognor Road - Policy A20 – Site Constraints impacting Delivery


Flood Risk
Policy A20 supporting text paragraph 10.87 outlines that parts of the site are at risk of surface and ground water flooding which would need careful management.
Landscape Impact
The large scale of the site will create a landscape impact that could be considered harmful to the current landscape character and separation between the main conurbation of Chichester and the built form around the Bognor Road/Drayton Lane roundabout. This is further discussed in the Countryside policy assessment below.
Highways
To facilitate development of Policy A20 the supporting text paragraph 10.87 identifies the need for realignment of Vinnetrow Road and works to the Bognor Road roundabout as part of a package of A27 improvements. It is understood that Highways England have pulled funding for these improvements and that they are to be delivered through a tariff on strategic sites. Therefore, the delivery of this site is reliant on the delivery of other strategic sites and raises concerns around timescales and deliverability.

A planning application (22/02202/FUL) for the construction of business park with associated parking and landscaping is currently pending determination for land north of Drayton Waterside A259 Eastbound Merston Oving. The application is pending further highway research but is supported by no objections from all other consultees including support from the economic development officer and the Oving Parish Council.

The Economic Development Officer comment on the Planning Application is as follows:
‘The application site sits directly adjacent to a current business site and will provide units of the size and use class type that are highly sought after in the district. B2 and B8 uses are especially sought after and the amount of available space in this area has dropped from 316,000 sqft in 2017 to 97,500 sqft n 2022 (Source: SHW Industrial Focus 2022) which is a drop of almost 70% in five years.’
Both the HEDNA (April 2022) and Flude Report (July 2022) independently advise that there is a lack of suitable employment space supply in Chichester, particularly for starter units between 750 and 2000 sqft. The proposed development at Drayton Waterside provides this type of employment space and given the current planning application status could provide this floorspace immediately.
In the Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) 2021, Drayton Waterside and the proposed allocation, Land to the South of Bognor Road, are both considered ‘developable’ but it is noteworthy to mention that Drayton Waterside (HELAA ID HOV00011) is considered to be able to come forward sooner than the land South of Bognor Road (HELAA ID HNM0017a).

Development in the Countryside Policy (Policy NE10)

Following review of the Drayton Waterside site above a key consideration is its location within the countryside – draft Local Plan Policy NE10. These representations do not directly object to this policy or its wording but some text is included to comment on how the Drayton Waterside site is better aligned with the countryside policy than the proposed land south of Bognor Road allocation (Policy A20).
The first consideration is paragraph 4.51 within the supporting text to Policy NE10 which outlines the role and value of the countryside and why it should be considered for protection subject to a planning balance. These points of consideration are as follows:
1. The countryside is important for food production.
• The land south of Bognor Road is currently farmed and is large enough to support food production. The land south of Bognor Road is also Grade 1 agricultural land.
• The Drayton Waterside site however is too small to support viable food production and is enclosed by uses which are not within agricultural use and as such could not form part of an adjacent agricultural use unlike the Policy A20 site.

2. Countryside is important for landscape character.
• Both sites are not located in either the South Downs National Park or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty which cover a large part of the Chichester district.
• The Drayton Waterside site sits adjacent to existing built form currently used for employment use and is partly a brownfield site. The site is also smaller than the Bognor Road South and whilst providing 5,706 sq m compared to the 28,000 sq m provided by the land south of
Bognor Road, it should be the Council’s priority to look for delivering employment on multiple smaller sites which combined have a lesser landscape impact than that of a single large site.
3. Countryside is important for recreation:
• This role for countryside in respect of both sites is not necessarily relevant but it is noteworthy to mention that the Drayton Waterside site is private land and therefore not open to the public.

4. Countryside is important for biodiversity.
• Whilst the policy requirement for the delivery of the land south of Bognor Road would include a biodiversity enhancement this is yet to be evidenced as no application has been submitted for this site.
• The Drayton Waterside site, by contrast, has a live planning application and a Biodiversity Net Gains Assessment has been undertaken, and demonstrates that proposed development would result in calculated net gain of +12.73% Habitat Units and net gain of +13.45% Hedgerow Units. The Drayton Waterside site therefore demonstrates a substantial increase in biodiversity.

5. Countryside is important for stopping an urbanizing impact.
• The large scale of the land south of Bognor Road would create a noticeable urbanizing impact and whilst it is closer to the main conurbation of Chichester it would remove the separation between the current built form around the roundabout with Drayton Lane and Bognor Road whereas the Drayton Waterside site would neatly fit in within that existing built form and not diminish the gap between Chichester and this existing built form.

The wording of Policy NE10 outlines that sustainable development in the countryside would be permitted if the following considerations were achieved:
• There are sustainable transport links.
• The scale and design is appropriate to the location and not harmful to the rural setting.
• The proposed development preserves and enhances key countryside landscape features and does not impact any designations (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty or the South Downs National Park).
• The proposed development relates to an existing group of buildings.
• The proposed development does not prejudice countryside operations e.g., farming.

The Drayton Waterside site is considered to align with the requirements in this policy by:
• having strong sustainable transport links along the Bognor Road, to Chichester, including cycle routes and bus stops.
• The proposed development is of a scale where it would not harm the rural setting due to its relationship with an existing building group and being a relatively small site particularly when compared to the land south of Bognor Road.
• The proposed development is not considered to impact any designations or key features within the current countryside make up in this location and would not impact the current farming operations in the locality.

SUMMARY
The Chichester Draft Local Plan is considered to be unsound in the respect of employment land provision as it is heavily reliant on the sites which have strong valid delivery concerns. This includes:
• Existing permissions that are not likely to be forthcoming.
• Allocations carried over from previous Local Plan documents which have not been delivered since they were allocated in the Development Plan Document Site Allocation in 2019 or worse the previous Local Plan in 2015.
• One new large strategic site allocation (Land South of Bognor Road – Policy A20) that has significant site constraints including works to the A27 where funding has recently been withdrawn by National Highways / Secretary of State for Transport.
Employment land provision should be achieved through the allocation of more, smaller, sites to improve the chances of delivery and to meet market demand which is immediate (as evidenced by the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment [April 2022] and the accompanying Flude Market Report [July 2022]).
The market demand set out be the Local Plan evidence base and the Flude Market Report highlights that, whilst there is an employment floorspace need generally, there is a specific need for starter units between 750 and 2000 sqft.
Application reference 22/02202/FUL for the Construction of Business Park with associated parking and landscaping at Land North Of Drayton Waterside A259 Eastbound Merston Oving is considered to be a perfect example of a site that could meet the current market demand for employment floorspace, providing starter units, and not result in a harmful impact to the countryside which Land to the South of Bognor Road (Policy allocation A20) would create due to the scale of the strategic allocation.
Drayton Investments Limited strongly implore Chichester Planning Policy team to reconsidered the proposed Local Plan employment floorspace provision and allocate more, smaller, sites which, such as Land North of Drayton Waterside, can achieve immediate delivery of employment market floorspace demand.

Include a further bullet point to recognise that development in the countryside must avoid impacts to the natural environment in line with policies in the Chichester Local Plan.

See attached representation.

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 attached representation.

Under paragraph NPPF paragraph 152, there is no prerequisite to adopt a sequential approach, or to
give preference to other uses. As such, criteria B should be omitted from Policy NE10. Reference to criteria B should also be removed from criteria C.

We write in response to the above consultation on behalf of our client, the Church Commissioners for England (CCE). CCE owns a large amount of land in the area largely to the south, west and east of Chichester.
We welcome the opportunity to further engage with the Local Plan process. Whilst we support some aspects of the Local Plan, we consider that some changes are likely to be necessary to ensure that the Plan can be found sound.

By way of background, CCE submitted several sites for consideration as part of the Housing Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) in 2021. These sites were previously promoted as part of the Preferred Approach Local Plan Regulation 18 Consultation in 2019.
As part of these representations, we take the opportunity to re-promote a number of CCE’s sites, which could assist the Council in delivering much needed housing for the district. CCE has updated its technical work and provide Vision Documents in relation to its landholdings in Southbourne, Oving, and Hunston Parishes to demonstrate how additional housing can be delivered. These Vision Documents are enclosed.
We consider this and other aspects of the emerging Local Plan below.

Chapter 2: Vision & Strategic Objectives

The Local Plan Vision details a positive approach to supporting sustainable development in the context of the climate emergency. CCE welcomes the Vision for Chichester, particularly the importance placed on the delivery of new homes in ‘Objective 3’ and the delivery of new infrastructure to support the new development in ‘Objective 7’.

Chapter 3: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

The Spatial Strategy builds on the previous Local Plan by focussing growth on Chichester city as the main sub-regional centre. Outside Chichester city and its closest settlements, development will focus on the two settlement hubs within the east-west corridor at Tangmere and Southbourne. This approach is supported by CCE.

Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy

Draft Policy S1 (Spatial Development Strategy) identifies the broad approach to providing sustainable development in the plan area, which includes ensuring that new residential development is distributed in line with the settlement hierarchy, with a greater proportion of development in the larger and more sustainable settlements. We support this strategy, with particular support for development at the settlement hubs of Southbourne (Policy A13) and Tangmere (Policy A14). We also support that provision is made for extant Site Allocations and the Tangmere strategic site remains allocated under draft Policy A14.

Policy A14 continues to allocate Land West of Tangmere for 1,300 dwellings. CCE questions the Council’s decision to not amend the existing settlement boundary of Tangmere to include the land subject to the allocation. Without amending the settlement boundary, the future growth of Tangmere may be hindered. As such, the settlement boundary of Tangmere should be amended to include the allocated site to ensure that the plan is justified.

Draft Policy S1 also refers to development in service villages such as Bosham, Hambrook and Loxwood.
Hunston is excluded from the Spatial Strategy but is identified as a Service Village within the Settlement Hierarchy in draft Policy SP2 (Settlement Hierarchy). The draft Local Plan suggests that the allocation of homes in Hunston has been removed as a result of growth in the Manhood Peninsula. CCE acknowledges that the overall housing numbers across the district have been reduced as a result of local constraints but reiterate that their landholding in Hunston remains a suitable site for housing should the Council need to identify more land for housing. This is discussed further below.

Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy

As stated in paragraph 3.31 of the draft local plan, ‘The NPPF encourages housing delivery where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities’. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF (2021) states that ‘To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive, especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby’.

CCE owns substantial land holdings in South Mundham, which is in close proximity to North Mundham/Runcton which is defined as a Service Village. As such, whilst South Mundham does not contain any services, development in the hamlet would enable sustainable growth to support facilities in North Mundham and Runcton. To ensure that the draft plan is consistent with national policy, South Mundham should be considered as part of North Mundham as a Service Village when considering the future pairing/grouping of some settlements where the facilities and services could be shared to capitalise on the close connections some settlements have.
Development outside the settlements listed in the hierarchy in SP2 is restricted to proposals which require a countryside location or meet an essential local rural local need or supports rural diversification in accordance with Policy NE10. To this end, CCE has smaller land holdings in Tangmere, Oving, South Mundham, Birdham, Chidham and Sidlesham, which may be suitable for conversion for residential use or via windfall housing. Location plans for each of the sites can be found in Appendices 1-8.

Chapter 4: Climate Change and the Natural Environment

Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridors

The East of City strategic wildlife corridor has been relocated to the eastern side of proposed Site Allocation A8 (Land to the East of Chichester). The relocation of this wildlife corridor follows additional evidence that shows that the commuting route for Barbastelle Bats is along Drayton Lane.

CCE owns land to the east of Drayton Lane (immediately adjacent to the wildlife corridor and to the east of draft allocation A8) and surrounding the village of Oving. Its land has been identified in the HELAA (2021) as being developable, including site HOV0017 (Drayton Lane). The land east of Drayton Lane is sustainably located being close to Chichester and its amenities. The site provides an opportunity to sensitively and sustainably provide additional homes for the District. In accordance with Draft Policy NE4, the proposals for the Land East of Drayton Lane will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor and will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor. This Vision Document will be shared under separate cover.

The eastern edge of the relocated wildlife corridor encroaches into CCE land. Any proposal on this land would be required to take the statutory protection for bats and other protected species into consideration and managed as part of a sensitive masterplan for development and on this basis, it is considered unnecessary to extend the wildlife corridor to encroach into the CCE site.

It is also considered that the detail of policy NE4 goes beyond the purpose of the policy, which should be to safeguard wildlife rich habitats and wider ecological networks. The policy is clear that development should only be permitted where it would not create an adverse effect upon the ecological value, function, integrity and connectivity of the corridors. It does not resist development in principle. This therefore makes redundant policy text 1, which seeks to introduce a sequential test for preferable sites outside of a wildlife corridor. It is considered that this test conflicts with the underlying purpose of the policy, which is to safeguard wildlife corridors from harmful impacts that cannot be mitigated, and should therefore be deleted.

Policy NE7 Development and Disturbance of Birds

CCE is broadly supportive of Policy NE7. However, they would like to note that the situation regarding the national guidance on nutrient neutrality is still evolving and therefore, this policy is only relevant to current legislation. Policy NE7 may therefore not be relevant throughout the entirety of the plan period. As such, CCE considers that it is necessary in this instance to ensure that an appropriate reference to changing legislation is included within the policy to prevent it from becoming out of date and would also ensure that the policy remains effective once adopted.

Policy NE10 The Countryside

CCE is supportive of the inclusion of a policy referencing the conversion of existing buildings in the countryside, however, we believe that Policy NE10 is not consistent with national policy. Policy NE10 criteria B states that proposals for the conversion of buildings in the countryside will be permitted where ‘it has been demonstrated that economic and community uses have been considered before residential, with residential uses only permitted if economic and community uses are shown to be inappropriate and unviable’. This policy is not in accordance with Paragraph 152 of the NPPF (2021) which states that the reuse of existing resources should be encouraged, including ‘the conversion of existing buildings’. Under paragraph 152, there is no prerequisite to adopt a sequential approach, or to give preference to other uses. As such, criteria B should be omitted from Policy NE10. Reference to criteria B should also be removed from criteria C.

Chapter 5: Housing

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs

The Preferred Approach Local Plan was based on meeting the identified objectively assessed housing needs of the plan area of 638 dwellings per annum. However, due to constraints, particularly the capacity of the A27, the Submission Version of the Local Plan has planned for a housing requirement below the need derived from the standard method. The Plan proposes to deliver 535 dpa in the southern plan area and a further 40 dpa in the northern plan area, a total supply of 10,350 dwellings over the plan period from 2021 – 2039 (575 dpa).

The Planning Inspectorate has previously asked the Council to determine what level of housing could be achieved based on deliverable improvements to the A27 and to consider whether the full housing needs could be met another way. It is acknowledged that the Council has carried out the additional work required and the local constraints have resulted in a proposed lower housing requirement.

The NPPF (2021) confirms that to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach (para. 61). CCE acknowledges that that housing numbers have been reduced as a result of local constraints and it will be down to the Inspector to determine whether the Council’s exceptional circumstances justify this. Should the Planning Inspector find that the Council requires additional land to meet the housing need using the standard method, CCE’s land at Southbourne, Oving, Drayton Land and Hunston are suitable, available and developable for housing. In addition, CCE’s rural development sites could also contribute to meeting the housing need.

Policy H2 Strategic Allocations

Draft Policy H2 confirms that the Tangmere Strategic Development Location is carried forward from the 2015 Local Plan and this is supported by CCE. Strong support is also given for the Broad Location of Development in Southbourne (Policy A13) for up to 1,050 dwellings.

Policy H5 Housing Mix

Draft Policy H5 confirms that the housing mix for a development will be based on the most up to date HEDNA to address identified local needs and market demands. We suggest that the Council considers a range of criteria, including site characteristics, when determining the housing mix for individual sites and this should be reflected in wording of Policy H5.

Policy H7 Rural and First Homes Exception Sites

Draft Policy H7 relates to rural and first homes exception sites. CCE is supportive of the principle of the inclusion of a rural exceptions policy. However, we have concerns over criteria contained within the policy which limits the amount of development that can be delivered under it.

The NPPF (2021) at paragraph 78 states that planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing development that reflect local needs. Furthermore it also states that ‘local planning authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs’.

The key aspect of the policy is to enable the delivery of rural exception sites which would address an identified local need. Within the policy, there is no limit on the amount of development that can be delivered and therefore, it is considered that if Policy H7 is limited to a maximum of 30 dwellings it could serve to hinder development (especially on slightly larger sites), which would otherwise be sustainable. As such, we consider that the amount of development should not be limited and rather should be dictated on a site and need specific basis. CCE considers that for Policy H7 to be positively prepared and in accordance with National Policy, criteria 2 should be removed.

In addition, criteria 6 states that proposals for affordable housing on rural exception sites will only be supported where ‘the site is located adjacent or as close as possible to the existing settlement boundary and does not result in scattered or isolated development in rural areas’. The NPPF (2021) does not specify the location of rural exception sites. As such, to be consistent with national policy, criteria 6 should also be omitted.

Furthermore, Policy H7 states that ‘applications for first homes exception sites that propose the inclusion of a small proportion of market housing will be expected to provide robust evidence…’.
However, in the policy there is no allowance for the provision of market housing on rural exception sites in addition to first homes exception sites. As a result of this, the requirements of the policy are again not consistent with national policy. Paragraph 78 of the NPPF (2021) is supportive of ‘some market housing’ where it would facilitate the delivery of rural exception sites. As such, CCE considers that Policy H7 should be amended as follows:

‘Applications for rural and first homes exceptions sites that propose the inclusion of a small proportion of market housing will be expected to provide robust evidence that the site would be unviable without such housing being included’.

Policy H8 Specialist Accommodation

Draft Policy H8 confirms that all housing sites over 200 units, including those allocated in this plan, will be required to provide specialist accommodation for older people with a support or care component. We request that this policy is amended to add ‘where appropriate and viable’, acknowledging that viability and site-specific factors need to be taken into consideration.

Chapter 6: Place-making

Policy P3 Density

We support the objective of Draft Policy P3 (Density) to make the most efficient use of land and follow a design led approach to achieve the optimum density for a site. The Policy does not prescribe an appropriate density for the District and this is supported. However, we consider that reference should be made to the fact that density may vary depending upon site specific circumstances and could be higher where transport links and access to services is good.

Chapter 7: Employment and Economy

Policy E3 and E4 Horticultural Development

Chapter 7 of the draft Local Plan confirms that 67 hectares of land is identified to meet the future horticultural land need within four Horticultural Development Areas (HDAs) over the plan period. It is confirmed that an additional 137 hectares of horticultural land is also forecast to be required outside of HDAs to meet future need.

CCE has significant landholdings which could assist the Council in addressing the insufficient availability within the current HDAs. The CCE sites which are considered suitable for horticulture development are listed below and location plans for each of the sites can be found in Appendices 9-13.
• Somerley Farm, NE East Wittering, PO20 7JB
• Fisher Farm, South Mundham, PO20 1ND
• Church & Haise Farm, Sidlesham
• Cowdry Farm, Birdham
• Groves Farm, nr Merston, PO20 2DX / Colworth Manor Farm PO20 2DU.

CCE supports draft Policy E3 which confirms that “approximately 137 hectares of land is also needed outside of HDAs to meet anticipated horticultural and ancillary development land need for the plan period.” Support is also given for draft Policy E4 in relation to land outside HDAs. This Policy confirms that proposals for horticultural development can come forward outside the HDAs, subject to a set of criteria. We would welcome continued discussion with the Council on how these sites could help meet the districts horticultural needs in the future.

Chapter 10: Strategic and Area Based Policies

CCE supports Chichester District Council’s proposal to allocate additional land for housing at
Southbourne and to maintain the existing allocation at Tangmere. We also consider that CCE’s land at Hunston and Oving could assist the Council in meeting its housing needs, should additional housing be required. We consider these opportunities in turn below.

Policy A13 Southbourne Broad Location for Development

CCE supports draft Policy A13 and the allocation of a Broad Location for Development in Southbourne for a mixed-use form of development including 1,050 dwellings.

CCE has significant landholdings around Southbourne which is suitable, available and developable. The land to the north and west of Southbourne measures 70ha and is wholly within CCE’s control. The land adjoins the existing settlement and provides an opportunity for a sustainable extension to Southbourne with the potential to deliver c. 1,200 homes for the village, as well as employment, community uses and a significant amount of new public space and green open space. A new Vision Document is enclosed which explains one way in which this opportunity could be realised. Importantly, it is considered that there are no technical impediments that would prevent development from coming forward on this site.

This site has been promoted throughout the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan process, most recently in the December 2022 consultation. The new Vision Document demonstrates that the CCE site presents the opportunity to provide a comprehensive development that would contain strategic housing growth, significant areas of green infrastructure and open space in a sustainable location. The key access strategy for the site is to provide two new access points from the south A259 Main Road and the east Stein Road. These access points would connect to a spine road which would form a continuous vehicle route around the north-western edge of Southbourne.

The site almost entirely comprises a Secondary Support Area under the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy (SWBGS), which aims to protect the network of non-designated terrestrial wader and brent goose sites that support the Solent Special Protection Areas (SPA) from land take and recreational pressure associated with new development. Due to the designation of the site, discussion was undertaken with the Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust with a view to determine a suitable approach for the scheme and an appropriate survey effort to establish the use of the site by designated birds. As a result of these discussions, wintering bird surveys are taking place. The aim of these surveys is to explore opportunities for mitigation for this SWBGS support area such that development within the red line can proceed without adverse impacts to the bird populations noted within this strategy. Following the survey, the results and approach will be presented to Natural England for further discussion.

In relation to viability, we note that Policy A13 sets several policy objectives for development at Southbourne. The NPPF (2021) notes that where there are up-to-date policies which have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable (para. 58). With this in mind the policy objectives outlined within Policy A13 will require viability testing to be undertaken to ensure a policy compliant scheme is both viable and deliverable. This is necessary to ensure that the policy is sound.

The Policy suggests that employment opportunities are required to be delivered as part of the allocation but there is no specific reference to the amount of use required. CCE supports this proposed approach as it is sufficiently flexible to enable an amount of employment land to be proposed in response to market conditions at the appropriate time and this will help to support delivery of the allocation.

The scale of development proposed has been reduced from 1,250 to 1,050 dwellings to reflect the proportionate reduction in housing numbers across the parishes in the east west corridor as a consequence of the limit on numbers in the southern plan area. If the Inspector finds that additional housing is required, the Vision Document submitted demonstrates that the CCE site in Southbourne could deliver c. 1,200 homes and so could increase housing without needing to identify additional land for development elsewhere.

To summarise, the site could accommodate approximately 1,200 homes which could be delivered on a phased basis early in the plan period. There are no overriding physical or technical constraints that would act as an impediment to development. There is also a clear access arrangement proposed.

Policy A14 Land West of Tangmere

CCE supports that Policy A14 is carried forward into this Local Plan to facilitate the delivery of a residential-led development of at least 1,300 dwellings.

Additional sites

Hunston

CCE further promotes land (15.31ha) located east of the B2145 Selsey Road in Hunston for 240 new homes. The land is deliverable and is fully within CCE’s control. The site is highly accessible, located within a maximum of 5-6 minutes walking distance to Selsey Road, where several bus routes connect the village to Chichester.

CCE notes that the Council assessed the HELAA site (ref. HHN0016) as ‘developable’. A Vision Document has previously been prepared and submitted to demonstrate the commitment to it being brought forward for residential development within the plan period. This document is enclosed.

To address the Council’s concerns in relation to flooding, following publication of the Chichester Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA), we have prepared an updated Flood Risk Scoping Study which provides an overview of flood risk constraints across the site from a range of sources. Various mitigation measures are recommended in line with recommendations of the Chichester SFRA and prevailing local and national guidance and best practice. With these measures in place, it is likely that the flood risk could be managed effectively in accordance with the requirements of the NPPF. Detailed data has also been requested from the Environment Agency, which will feed into further technical work that is being carried out.

Should the Inspector conclude that additional housing is required, CCE considers that their site is the most appropriate and sustainable location for development in Hunston. The site provides an opportunity to sensitively and sustainably extend the existing village boundary to provide additional homes to meet an identified housing need.

Land East of Drayton Lane

CCE owns land to the east of Drayton Lane which is bound by Tangmere Road to the north and crosses Oving Road and the railway line to the south. The site is c.1km from the centre of Chichester and comprises 49ha. The site was assessed in the HELAA 2021 as developable ‘HOV0017’. A Vision Document has been prepared and was presented to the Council in 2022. This includes a detailed analysis of the site and its surroundings and provided justification as to why the site is suitable for development. This technical review of the site concludes there are no technical impediments to development.

The Vision Document demonstrates how the proposals for the land east of Drayton Lane could be developed as an extension to the draft allocation A8 (Land to the east of Chichester) for up to 700 new homes. The land east of Drayton Lane is fully within the CCE’s control, is available for development now and is deliverable with some development achievable within the first five years of the plan period. It represents an opportunity to provide new homes, facilities and significant community benefits, through a sensitively designed development that integrates into the surrounding landscape.

The Vision for this site is a landscape and ecology led masterplan which would celebrate the rich wildlife characters of the different surrounding landscapes and uses the connection between countryside and community to generate its character and identity. The Vision Document demonstrates that this is a suitable location for development.

Should the Inspector conclude that additional housing is required, CCE considers that the land east of Drayton Lane would form a natural extension to allocation A8 and is an appropriate and sustainable location for new development.

Appendix C Additional Guidance
Appendix C provides additional guidance on evidence which needs to be submitted in support of certain planning applications related mainly to development in the countryside. As mentioned in the comments above provided in response to Policy NE10, there is no prerequisite contained within the NPPF (2021) that requires an applicant to demonstrate that previous uses were proven unviable prior to the conversion of a building in the countryside to residential use. As such, to be in accordance with national policy, reference to Policy NE10 should be omitted from Appendix C.

Conclusion

CCE welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan and is keen to continue to engage with the Council, especially in relation to the Broad Location for Development in Southbourne. CCE is supportive of the Council’s aspirations in the Local Plan. However, the changes set out above are considered likely to be necessary to ensure the plan is sound.

CCE is a considerable landowner in Chichester with land largely to the south, west and east of
Chichester which could assist the Council in meeting their housing and development needs throughout the plan period.

See attachments for site information.

Criterion 1 - additional of the phrase "and linking to green infrastructure".

Criterion 3 - inclusion of additional requirement that proposals should demonstrate they will not adversely impact Nature Recovery Networks (NPPF para 179)

Inclusion of impacts to biodiversity as a consideration as inappropriate development in the Countryside can have significant impacts (NPPF para 174 and 179)

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

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

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

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council is supportive of Policy NE10, Development in the Countryside; however, respectfully draws attention to its concern that the Plan does not unambiguously set out, in a strategic policy, that development in the countryside - and especially in the North of the Plan Area -will only be sustainable at the level of development proposed and where development “requires a countryside location”.

Policy 45, ‘Development in the Countryside’ within Chichester’s currently adopted Local Plan 2014 – 2029 includes the overarching proviso that development proposed in the countryside “requires a countryside location”, before proceeding to recite the other criteria that apply.

Policy NE10 does not include this requirement.

In Policy 45 of the currently adopted Local Plan, development within the countryside would not be considered unless a justification for a countryside location (or this location, which happens to be in the countryside) is made out.

The Council notes that within other policies of the draft Plan e.g., policy E2, ‘Employment Development’ a requirement for a countryside location is included.

Were it to be included in NE10, it would reinforce the spatial distribution policy for new housing, by providing an additional clear indication that residential development, to ‘grow’ rural settlements, is unacceptable unless it has unambiguous community support and benefits.

There is supporting text to this effect, but in our view it is not fully reflected in policy wording. In particular, Policy NE10 should make clear that residential development in the countryside is unsustainable and will therefore be resisted except in the very limited circumstances allowed by the Plan and national planning policy.

Plaistow and Ifold Parish Council respectfully suggests that the policy should include the requirement that the development needs a countryside location and meets an essential, small scale, and local need, which cannot be met elsewhere.

The Parish Council suggests that the wording within Policy 45, Development in the Countryside of the current adopted Local Plan 2014-2029 should be inserted into emerging Policy NE10: -

“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

The response to this policy is related to the above comments regarding Policy S2, namely, that Chichester Marina should be considered within a settlement boundary and not as ‘countryside’. The Site is not open countryside, it has a long established residential and working population, a unique leisure and tourism offer, is host to a range of businesses and one of the UK’s most successful yacht clubs.
The Site is developed, with over 5,000 sqm of commercial and leisure floorspace, and 1,100 berths. Therefore, this is not a typical ‘rural’ countryside setting.
Should Chichester Marina not be incorporated within a settlement, and remain as designated ‘countryside’, this policy approach would stifle the economic viability and ongoing contribution of the marina.

A sentence in Policy 45 in the extant Local Plan has been removed. This requirement should be retained in Policy NE10. “Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

Support with qualification
A sentence in Policy 45 in the extant Local Plan has been removed. This requirement should be retained in Policy NE10.
“Within the countryside, outside Settlement Boundaries, development will be granted where it requires a countryside location and meets the essential, small scale, and local need which cannot be met within or immediately adjacent to existing settlements.”

The plan must make appropriate and robust provision for housing need within the material constraints imposed on the District, with those constraints being supported by clear policy. This should include a need to protect areas of important, functional countryside, where there is a risk of coalescence or gradual coalescence over time, or where development would erode the provision of open green or blue space to the detriment of the community.

The definition of land as Countryside or land located beyond the settlement edge or boundary, while offering a level of protection, is an insufficient policy constraint to speculative housing justified only by local housing demand. The plan must include policies that add an additional layer of protection to important areas, confirming that open countryside and land outside settlement boundaries (particularly that identified as playing an additional function such as gap or coalescence avoidance) does not carry with it a presumption in favour of any development; the new local plan being applied as a whole.

The fact settlement boundaries have been reviewed through this local plan and further encouraged through the Site Alocation DPD and Neighbourhood Plans is supported.