Policy NE12 Development around the Coast

Remove the following sentence "A marketing report as set out in Appendix C will be needed to show that the site is no longer needed for its current use." Alternative forms of evidence could be used to demonstrate value of current and proposed uses.

Not sound. With respect to the requirement for a marketing report, this may not be appropriate or required in all cases e.g. change of use for only a small part of a larger site, or change between different commercial use categories (again affecting small part of site). The point of this exceptional provision is to enable innovation from within an enterprise. What exactly would be marketed? Only the part of the site which is proposed for redevelopment/re-purposing or the whole site?

Are these distances adequate given the now accelerating rise in sea level?

It would be helpful in this section to see greater reference to the challenging issues around sea defences - both repairs to existing and new structures, and to the need for Marine Management Organisation and Natural England consent for any works adjacent to the SSSI.

Make clear through the policy map exactly what land is covered by this policy

the policy is vague and imprecise as to what areas wil be covered - in other authorities {Fareham for example] the policy map has defined those areas that are considered to be around the coast.

As written it is vague and imprecise

Remove reference to 25m setback and suggest that minimum setbacks be considered on a case by case basis based on flood and ground conditions analysis.

Premier welcome supporting paragraph 4.77 and the importance of an “active marine economy, including boatyards and marina sites” and the associated benefits of these to the economy of the wider area and a for tourism and recreation.
However, supporting paragraph 4.78 states that: “exceptionally… a small part of a marina or boatyard to be used for alternative uses”, is unacceptably restrictive. This relates also to the comments made in respect of Draft Policy NE11.
The case has clearly been made in relation to other policy elements around the need for economic diversification at marinas in association with maintaining existing employment uses and supporting new tourism/leisure developments.
The policy direction acknowledges that housing pressure from Government is a relevant concern. Premier considers that residential and leisure and tourism uses are essential to waterside placemaking and its portfolio of 10 marinas demonstrates that these uses not only co-exist comfortably with marine uses but enhance and contribute to the sense of place.
Chichester Marina has an established residential community on-site. This includes the 31 residential houseboats on the Chichester Canal on which residential use dates back over 50 years. More recently, in 2016, Premier invested £4m at Chichester Marina in converting redundant and end of life office and retail property into of 19 residential apartments. These are let on a short term and a long-term basis to people either looking for a short break. or a more permanent residence in the marina and have provided a new lease of life to otherwise redundant buildings.
The majority of successful marinas offer a wide range if uses from residential through to retail and commercial. Amongst Premier’s portfolio of ten marinas there is residential use either on or immediately adjacent to nine of its sites. Residential use is widely acknowledged as being highly complementary to marinas, which in turn provide the context for residences.
Premier has an established record in master planning marinas and waterside place making. Port Solent, a marina comprising residential, retail, commercial and marine uses, was the first example of this. More recently, in 2018, Premier secured hybrid planning permission for a mixed-use scheme at Noss on Dart Marina, located in the South Hams AONB. The scheme offers a high quality new marina, boatyard, commercial development and hotel alongside a substantial residential development. Although localised to reflect the uniqueness of its location, the approved plans for Noss on Dart demonstrate that the mixed-use sustainable development which is critical to ensuring the longevity of marinas and the communities which they support is possible in sensitive areas.
The masterplan for Noss on Dart is widely acknowledged as setting the standard for marina master planning and provides an example of what can be achieved in a countryside and AONB location that is very similar to that of Chichester Marina. Both sites share similar operational and socio-economic challenges the importance of diversification to creating sustainable marinas cannot be underestimated.
In addition, Premier suggest the specific requirement for new development around Chichester Harbour and Pagham Harbour to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level to allow for future erosion) should be removed as this will stifle development. Whilst Premier recognise the importance of flooding and issues with coastal erosion, this ‘catch all’ policy is too restrictive and instead minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

Consider using the Highest Astronomical Tide level rather than Mean High Water.

Clarification may be needed for the paragraph about replacement buildings.

Inclusion of a new bullet point to encourage future relocation within property boundary if impacted by coastal erosion.

The Local Authority may wish to consider using the ‘Highest Astronomical Tide’ (HAT) level rather than ‘Mean High Water’ (MHW) for the proposed minimum 25 metre setback. In the harbours, the presence of saltmarshes can push MHW quite far away from defences yet with sea level rise, i.e. even without erosion of the saltmarsh, the line can suddenly ‘jump’ right to the defence, while the HAT is in almost all cases already at the defence.

We note the 25 metre setback specified in this policy as a minimum requirement. The Local Authority may want to allow for a degree of flexibility to allow a greater setback if they wish to be more aspirational in particular locations as informed by any future coastal studies or data.

We question whether the paragraph regarding replacement buildings need clarification (i.e. the paragraph that says “Replacement buildings will be permitted unless there is evidence that the existing or demolished property has been damaged as a result of the effect of wind and waves. Replacement buildings should be set further back whenever possible”). A replacement building which is setback from its previous position is likely to be a new building, which should therefore accord with the minimum 25 metre setback. The last sentence could lead to confusion.

We suggest a further bullet point 8 to be added to says “The development considers coastal erosion impacts over its lifetime and where possible and relevant, is constructed in a way such that future relocation within the property boundary is possible to mitigate future impacts.”

Consideration should be given to protecting the marine environment off of Selsey, one of the most diverse and production marine habitats in southern Britain!

A disproportionate amount of building has already taken place on the Manhood Peninsular and in Selsey, in particular, already. This has damaged every aspect of this part of West Sussex. The strain on facilities, roads, etc has reached breaking point. One of best areas for wildlife in West Sussex has been very badly affected to the detriment of said wildlife. Noise and light pollution is at an all-time high. It is not enough now to say large scale projects will paused for now. All but the most essential development should be stopped completely for the foreseeable future.

Also, consideration should be given to protecting the marine environment off of Selsey, one of the most diverse and production marine habitats in southern Britain!

In the 20 years I have lived in Sesley the decline in mammals, birds, insects and marine life is horrifying and this is a direct result of over development. This over development has been allowed and overseen by various MP’s and councillors over the years and it is really quite disgraceful.

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.

We would also strongly advise that the policy requirements are amended / expanded as follows (a
number of these points were made previously in our non-statutory response dated 7th February 2022):

Policy Requirement 2 to include the following additional wording “The development provides recreational opportunities (requiring a coastal location), that do not adversely affect…”

Policy Requirement 6 to include the following additional wording “Where relevant, the development would result in improvements to or redistribution of moorings, marine berths or launch on demand facilities (dry berths) in the harbours whilst also ensuring that any small-scale loss of mudflat within the designated sites is compensated for. Small-scale but cumulative losses of mudflat habitat within the harbours is an issue and beyond this policy
wording we would appreciate the opportunity to work with your authority to find a strategic way to address it.

Inclusion of an additional requirement “Wherever possible the development secures opportunities for the enhancement/creation/restoration of coastal/wetland habitats (guided by any local nature recovery strategy) and contributes to Biodiversity Net Gain.

Inclusion of an additional requirement “Undeveloped areas on low lying land around Chichester Harbour are prioritised for opportunities that actively restore coastal habitats or works with natural processes to address climate impacts and loss of biodiversity”

Inclusion of an additional requirement “The development can demonstrate consideration of
and adaptation to future climate scenarios and their potential impacts, including (but not limited to) shading, surface water flooding, wind- blown sand, wave-driven shingle.

Policy paragraph to be expanded as follows “Replacement buildings will be permitted unless there is evidence that the existing or demolished property has been damaged as a result of the effect of wind and waves. Replacement buildings should be set further back in line with NCERM erosion prediction and coastal flooding and should not hinder coastal processes with regard to designated sites if applicable.

Policy Requirement b. (in relation to boatyard and marina sites) to include the following additional wording “Harm nature conservation (particularly in relation to loss of mudflat), landscape or heritage interests;

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.

See attached representation.

Are these distances adequate given the now accelerating rise in sea level?

Premier welcome supporting paragraph 4.77 and the importance of an “active marine economy, including boatyards and marina sites” and the associated benefits of these to the economy of the wider area and a for tourism and recreation.
However, supporting paragraph 4.78 states that: “exceptionally… a small part of a marina or boatyard to be used for alternative uses”, is unacceptably restrictive. This relates also to the comments made in respect of Draft Policy NE11.
The case has clearly been made in relation to other policy elements around the need for economic diversification at marinas in association with maintaining existing employment uses and supporting new tourism/leisure developments.
The policy direction acknowledges that housing pressure from Government is a relevant concern. Premier considers that residential and leisure and tourism uses are essential to waterside placemaking and its portfolio of 10 marinas demonstrates that these uses not only co-exist comfortably with marine uses but enhance and contribute to the sense of place.
Chichester Marina has an established residential community on-site. This includes the 31 residential houseboats on the Chichester Canal on which residential use dates back over 50 years. More recently, in 2016, Premier invested £4m at Chichester Marina in converting redundant and end of life office and retail property into of 19 residential apartments. These are let on a short term and a long-term basis to people either looking for a short break. or a more permanent residence in the marina and have provided a new lease of life to otherwise redundant buildings.
The majority of successful marinas offer a wide range if uses from residential through to retail and commercial. Amongst Premier’s portfolio of ten marinas there is residential use either on or immediately adjacent to nine of its sites. Residential use is widely acknowledged as being highly complementary to marinas, which in turn provide the context for residences.
Premier has an established record in master planning marinas and waterside place making. Port Solent, a marina comprising residential, retail, commercial and marine uses, was the first example of this. More recently, in 2018, Premier secured hybrid planning permission for a mixed-use scheme at Noss on Dart Marina, located in the South Hams AONB. The scheme offers a high quality new marina, boatyard, commercial development and hotel alongside a substantial residential development. Although localised to reflect the uniqueness of its location, the approved plans for Noss on Dart demonstrate that the mixed-use sustainable development which is critical to ensuring the longevity of marinas and the communities which they support is possible in sensitive areas.
The masterplan for Noss on Dart is widely acknowledged as setting the standard for marina master planning and provides an example of what can be achieved in a countryside and AONB location that is very similar to that of Chichester Marina. Both sites share similar operational and socio-economic challenges the importance of diversification to creating sustainable marinas cannot be underestimated.
In addition, Premier suggest the specific requirement for new development around Chichester Harbour and Pagham Harbour to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level to allow for future erosion) should be removed as this will stifle development. Whilst Premier recognise the importance of flooding and issues with coastal erosion, this ‘catch all’ policy is too restrictive and instead minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

See attached representation.

We would urgently advise that a third pressure to the harbours should be added which is inappropriate coastal management (resulting in significant impacts including coastal squeeze). While we appreciate the references to coastal squeeze in policies NE11 and NE15 we would strongly advise that given the significance of the issue that policy requirements are also included in this policy (NE6) and NE12 Development Around the Coast).

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.