Policy NE13 Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

This needs to be rigourously upheld. The setting of the AONB needs to be better clarified.

Proposed allocations adjacent to the AONB and impacting on its setting, including views into and from the SDNP should be removed.

The proposed allocations within the East/West corridor, would not comply with this policy and would damage the visual relief to the built up areas and the views between the AONB and the SDNP.

Clarify what is meant by the setting of the AONB and what would be exceptional circumstances.

This policy is of the utmost importance. Chichester Harbour is in decline and the AONB needs to be conserved. How is the setting of the AONB defined? What would exceptional circumstances be? We feel that this is too loose an expression and provides a get out for developers?

It is encouraging to see such strong recognition and emphasis on the conservation of Chichester Harbour AONB. It does however cause reflection on the apparent conflict with the strategic allocation policies within the Plan, particularly A11 at Highgrove Farm, and potentially both A13 Southbourne Broad Location for Development and A12 Nutbourne and Hambrook (Chidham and Hambrook Parish). We would hope that the Local Planning Authority would recognise this discrepancy in relation particularly to NE13.3.

Remove 3 or have a plan showing the gaps.

Reword 6 to include 'Where possible' at the beginning. Also clarify the set back for replacement buildings

Point 3 again seems to seek to introduce a gap policy with no specific boundaries drawn on the proposals map.
Does it real solely to settlements with a policy boundary?
Does it relate to gaps within the AONB or from a settlement within to a settlement outside?

Point 6 - What is the justification for a 25m setback for ALL development - it is not explained in supporting text and in some cases it just wont be possible.
For replacement the reference to further back - is that further back than 25m or further back than the existing building?

A substantial part of Southbourne Parish lies within the AONB and the Harbour provides a very important and protected resource for wildlife, with access to both local residents and visitors. The Parish Council, for its part, recognises this and intends to do all it can to protect and enhance the Harbour’s natural beauty and character.

It is considered that a similar approach to that of MSDC involving a review of individuals sites according to allocation factors should be undertaken, rather than discounting on sole basis of siting within the AONB.

I write in response to the regulation 19 consultation version of the Chichester Local Plan 20212039 on behalf of my client Obsidian Strategic.

Obsidian Strategic have an interest in a site to the South of Main Road, in Hermitage, within the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Area. Further details in relation to the site are set out within the appendices of these representations and referred to throughout.

Housing Requirement

The identified housing need for Chichester District Council (CDC) as calculated by the standard method is 638 dwellings per annum (dpa). However, the local plan only seeks to provide 575 dpa or a total supply of 10,350 over the plan period (2021-2039). As result the proposed strategy represents an under supply of 1,134 over the plan period. Furthermore, the undersupply means that CDC is unable to accommodate the unmet arising from the South Downs National Park.

In recent years CDC has not been able to demonstrate a five year housing land supply nor has it delivered housing against the requirements of the Housing Delivery Test. It is therefore important that the unmet need is made up within the early part of the plan period.

Paragraph 5.2 of the plan states that the under supply is due to constraints across the district particularly the capacity of the A27.

Policy H1 (Meeting Housing Needs) sets out the housing target of 10,350 dwellings to be delivered over the plan period 2021-2039. Considering the existing commitments, allocations and permissions this gives a remaining figure without planning permission of 3,056 homes for allocation in the Local Plan.
Strategic Allocations
Policy H2 of the reg 19 plan sets out the following strategic site allocations which are carried forward from the 2015 Local Plan:

**Table**

Table 11 of the latest Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) (produced in November 2022) show the progress of delivery from these allocations:

**Table**

Table 12 of the AMR sets out the progress of the large sites towards future delivery as follows:

**Table**

The Housing Trajectory as set out in Appendix E of the Local Plan shows delivery of the existing allocations as set out under policy H2. Given that the Land at Shopwyke (A7) and the Land at Westhampnett/North-East Chichester (A9) already have permission for the number of dwellings in the allocation and construction has already started, there is no objection to the predicted levels of delivery as set out in the trajectory.
However, the housing trajectory sets out delivery from the Land West of Chichester (Phase 2) (A6) and Tangmere SDL as follows:

**Table**

Given that neither of these sites have outline permission then the delivery of units from both sites in a little over 5 years from the adoption of the plan is considered wholly unachievable.

CDC has presented no evidence to justify how this timeframe would be achieved and it is considered that the trajectory is unreliable as a result.


The Local Plan sets out a Broad Location for Development at Southbourne which would be delivered through either the Neighbourhood Plan process or a Site Allocation DPD:

**Table**

The Housing Trajectory as set out in appendix E of the Local Plan sets out the following delivery from this site:

**Table**

Given that policy A13 remains as a ‘broad area for development’ it is not considered that there is adequate justification for the trajectory as set out. Notwithstanding the effectiveness of allocating a site in this way, an exact location for the housing is yet to be defined, nor is delivery through the neighbourhood plan/DPD confirmed (further details on this is set out within the reps). Until a more detailed site can be defined and delivery confirmed it is not considered that CDC is able to guarantee delivery of dwellings in the housing trajectory as it has done so within the plan.

Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements
Policy H3 sets out the following housing requirements from individual parishes.

**Table**

The supporting text of policy H3 sets out that if draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the council will allocate sites for development within a development plan document in order to meet the requirements of this Local Plan.

Table 13 of AMR identifies that there has been historically poor delivery of net housing completions from parishes:

**Table**

The overall strategy as set out by CDC in the plan is highly dependent on the delivery of housing from Neighbourhood Plan areas. Whilst this approach is not un-sound in itself, it is considered that the plan in its current form allows for little mitigation or alternatives should delivery not come forward in the neighbourhood plan areas.

In order for the plan to be considered positively prepared and justified it is recommended that additional wording is added to policy H3 to state that individual applications can come forward on sustainable sites outside of existing settlement boundaries in parishes should delivery not come forward within the first five years of the plan period. Priority should be given to any sites already identified within draft versions of Neighbourhood Plans.

on sustainable sites outside of existing settlement boundaries in parishes should delivery not come forward within the first five years of the plan period. Priority should be given to any sites already identified within draft versions of Neighbourhood Plans.
Southbourne
As set out, the Local Plan proposes a ‘Broad Location for Development’ at Southbourne for the delivery of 1,050 dwellings. This approach follows the withdrawal of the previously draft version of Neighbourhood Plan after it was found not to comply with basis conditions following examination in early 2022. Southbourne Parish Council is now pursuing a revised Neighbourhood Plan which has been submitted to CDC for a regulation 16 consultation. Obsidian previously responded to the regulation 14 consultation in late 2022 and these are appended to these representations.
The revised Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan does not seek to allocate any new housing allocations and instead takes a protectionist stance against any new development as an interim position whilst the Local Plan is prepared. However, once the Neighbourhood Plan is made, it would form part of the development plan for CDC. It is highly likely that a made Neighbourhood Plan in the form currently proposed by Southbourne would make the allocation of additional housing in the parish less likely rather than more likely.
The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) as prepared for the regulation 19 of the Local Plan sets out the proposed approach to Southbourne as follows:
3.1. With the decision of Southbourne Parish Council to no longer proceed with the inclusion of a strategic allocation in their neighbourhood plan, the Council considered three options for taking forward development in Southbourne, namely:
• Option 1 - redistribute the housing number elsewhere
• Option 2 - allocate a strategic site
• Option 3 - identify a Broad Location for Development
The SA goes on to set out the reason for option 1, for redistributing the housing number elsewhere, being discounted as follows:
3.2. As set out in the Housing Background Paper, the preferred spatial strategy is to focus the majority of growth at Chichester and the east west corridor, with a focus on the Settlement Hubs within the corridor. To redistribute the housing number to other parts of the plan area would not be consistent with the preferred spatial strategy nor reflective of the role of Southbourne as one of the more sustainable locations in the plan area capable of delivering strategic scale development. The ability to redistribute the number to other locations within the east/west corridor is also severely limited due to infrastructure constraints (impact on A27 junctions) or environmental restrictions (wastewater treatment capacity). For these reasons, Option 1 was discounted.
Whilst it is accepted that the redistribution of the entire requirement of 1,050 homes would be problematic, it is considered that CDC should have tested the allocation of other alternative sites such as that at Main Road, Hermitage and other suitable alternative sites.
The SA goes on to set out consideration of option 2 as follows:
3.3. In order to allocate a site in a Local Plan, it needs to have gone through a rigorous process to ensure that the Council can demonstrate that the allocated site is suitable, given reasonable alternatives, and is based on proportionate evidence. Given there is more than one site or combination of sites that could come forward as an allocation in Southbourne, a clear process setting out for why one site was chosen over another would be needed, informed by site specific technical information.
This is correct and it is therefore not accepted that an approach to allocate a broad area for development would be robust, deliverable or effective. The SA goes on to state:
3.5. The allocation of a strategic site at Southbourne would also be a significant change in approach at a late stage of the Local Plan preparation process. The additional technical evidence that would need to be undertaken to justify a Local Plan allocation at this stage would impact significantly in terms of delay to the finalisation of the Regulation 19 Local Plan and its subsequent submission to the Secretary of State for examination. For these reasons Option 2 was discounted.
This provides further weight to the position set out within these representations that the expectation of delivery from the ‘broad area’ at Southbourne is overly ambitious and it is clear there is significant technical work to undertake on the delivery of homes from the allocation as part of the future plan making process.
The SA goes on to set out the justification of option 3 as follows:
3.6. The identification of a BLD is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 68 states that for years 6 -10 of the plan, local authorities should through their planning policies identify a supply of ‘specific, developable sites or broad locations for growth’.
3.7. There is no definition of ‘broad locations’ in national policy. It is generally taken to be an area within which housebuilding could reasonably be expected to take place based on the availability of land having regard to the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). A BLD does not have a specific geographic location or physical boundary. Areas are identified as broad locations because at that stage it is not yet possible to identify the precise boundaries of a site until further detailed site work has been done. By identifying a broad location gives flexibility and may increase the prospect of appropriate and effective growth i.e. where there is some doubt as to the most effective site boundary could prevent growth coming forward or prevent the most sustainable solution. However, a broad location might be expected to accommodate a significant amount of development; in some cases a single site may be of a sufficient size to accommodate all of the potential development or a number of sites that abut other sites may be considered together.
This is not considered a rational approach to take. Whilst there is no definition of ‘broad location’ within national policy it is considered that the words ‘specific’ and ‘developable’ must be taken at their basic meaning and indeed as set out in the glossary of the framework. It is not considered that the allocation of such a large area for a ‘broad location’ would be specific, effective or justified against the tests of soundness in the NPPF.
The allocation of Southbourne under policy A13 would represent over 10% of the total housing delivery in the plan. This is considered too significant to leave to a broad location for development.
As set out, Southbourne Parish Council is already at advanced stages of a revised Neighbourhood Plan which does not include the allocation of any of the development parcel envisaged under policy A13. In terms of delivery through the Site Allocations DPD, the timetable for this is set out within the most recent Local Development Scheme (January 2023) which sets out the following:

**Table**

As set out, the housing trajectory assumes delivery of dwellings from the allocation at Southbourne in 2028/29. Given that the Site Allocation DPD would not be delivered until Winter 26/27 at the earliest, and the delivery through the Neighbourhood Plan has been discounted by the progression of a NP without the allocation, then the deliverability of any development at Southbourne remains wholly unjustified within the plan period.
The SA goes on to set out the approach to alternative sites in Southbourne Parish as follows:
4.3. The 2021 HELAA assessed 41 sites in Southbourne Parish (see Appendix 1). Of these, 18 sites were discounted because the site either had planning permission/were under construction (five sites); it was within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) (eight sites); there was insurmountable access issues (two sites); it was in Flood Zone 3 (one site); or there was a legal restriction on the site use (in this case a Section 106 Agreement restricting use to open space) (two sites). These sites were not considered further for inclusion within the BLD.
The land at Main Road was one of the sites discounted due to being located in the AONB. For the reasons set out within subsequent sections of these representation, it is not considered that it was necessary to discount sites within the AONB as other councils have taken the decision to use such sites to meet housing need and not considered the AONB as an absolute constraint.
Specialist Accommodation for Older People
Para 5.41 of the regulation 19 of the Plan sets out the following:
The Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) 2022 estimates the greatest population increase in the district by 2039 to be those in age groups 75 and over. To support an ageing population there should be provision of suitable housing options for the differing needs of individuals, including:
• Sufficient adaptable and/or accessible market housing stock so that those wishing to remain in their own homes can do so as their needs change.
• Smaller homes, for those wishing to downsize, and bungalows.
• Extra care housing, for those able to live relatively independently but requiring on-site support.
• Care homes, for those needing additional support.
Table 8.1 of the HEDNA sets out the current population breakdown for separate groups over 65 and demonstrates that CDC has a significantly higher percentage in all age groups over 65 than the average in West Sussex, the South East or England:

**Table**

Policy 8.12 of the HEDNA goes on to set out the need for different groups as follows:

**Table**

The HEDNA sets out the following commentary in this regard:
8.41 It can be seen by 2039 there is an estimated need for between 2,131 and 2,872 additional dwellings with support or care across the whole study area. In addition, there is a need for 429-800 additional nursing and residential care bedspaces.
8.42 Typically for bedspaces it is conventional to convert to dwellings using a standard multiplier (1.80 bedspaces per dwelling for older persons accommodation) and this would therefore equate to around 238-445 dwellings.
8.43 In total, the older persons analysis points towards a need for around 2,369-3,317 units over the 2021-39 period (132-184 per annum) – the older person need equates to some 17-24% of all homes needing to be some form of specialist accommodation for older people.

Given the significant need for Specialist Housing Accommodation across the district it is vital that this is planned for adequately within the emerging Local Plan. The Planning Practice Guidance sets out why it is important to plan for housing needs of older people as follows:
The need to provide housing for older people is critical. People are living longer lives and the proportion of older people in the population is increasing. In mid-2016 there were 1.6 million people aged 85 and over; by mid-2041 this is projected to double to 3.2 million. Offering older people a better choice of accommodation to suit their changing needs can help them live independently for longer, feel more connected to their communities and help reduce costs to the social care and health systems. Therefore, an understanding of how the ageing population affects housing needs is something to be considered from the early stages of plan-making through to decision-taking.
Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 63-001-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
The PPG goes onto state how housing requirements of such groups should be addressed in plans:
Plan-making authorities should set clear policies to address the housing needs of groups with particular needs such as older and disabled people. These policies can set out how the planmaking authority will consider proposals for the different types of housing that these groups are likely to require. They could also provide indicative figures or a range for the number of units of specialist housing for older people needed across the plan area throughout the plan period.
Paragraph: 006 Reference ID: 63-006-20190626 Revision date: 26 June 2019
Policy H8 states:
All housing sites over 200 units, including those allocated in this plan, will be required to provide specialist accommodation for older people to include a support or care component. The specific type and amount of accommodation required will depend on the size and location of the site.

Proposals for specialist housing, such as homes for older people, student, HMOs or essential worker accommodation, and other groups requiring specifically designed accommodation will be supported where the following criteria are met:

1) There is an identified need;
2) It will not lead to a concentration of similar uses in an area that would be detrimental to the character or function of an area and / or residential amenity;

3) It is in close proximity to everyday services, connecting by safe and suitable walking / cycling routes or public transport for the intended occupier;
4) It can be demonstrated that the development is designed to provide the most appropriate types of support for the target resident;
5) It can be demonstrated that revenue funding can be secured to maintain the longterm viability of the scheme (if relevant to the type of accommodation proposed); and
6) The scheme is supported by the relevant agencies (if relevant to the accommodation type to be provided).

Proposals which may result in the loss of specialist needs accommodation will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that there is no longer a need for such accommodation in the plan area, or alternative provision is being made available locally through replacement or new facilities.

Whilst this approach goes some way to addressing the care needs it is felt that the policy lacks effectiveness and should take a far more constructive and positive approach to the provision of housing for older people.
The wide range of different housing typologies is set out within the Planning Practice Guidance as follows:
• Age-restricted general market housing: This type of housing is generally for people aged 55 and over and the active elderly. It may include some shared amenities such as communal gardens, but does not include support or care services.
• Retirement living or sheltered housing: This usually consists of purpose-built flats or bungalows with limited communal facilities such as a lounge, laundry room and guest room. It does not generally provide care services, but provides some support to enable residents to live independently. This can include 24 hour on-site assistance (alarm) and a warden or house manager.
• Extra care housing or housing-with-care: This usually consists of purpose-built or adapted flats or bungalows with a medium to high level of care available if required, through an onsite care agency registered through the Care Quality Commission (CQC). Residents are able to live independently with 24 hour access to support services and staff, and meals are also available. There are often extensive communal areas, such as space to socialise or a wellbeing centre. In some cases, these developments are known as retirement communities or villages - the intention is for residents to benefit from varying levels of care as time progresses.
• Residential care homes and nursing homes: These have individual rooms within a residential building and provide a high level of care meeting all activities of daily living. They do not usually include support services for independent living. This type of housing can also include dementia care homes.
[Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 63-010-20190626].

It is considered that a residential care home (including housing for dementia needs) could be developed on the Land South of Main Road without causing harm to the AONB and this would provide for a clear need within the village whilst also providing employment to local workers.
Development in AONB
The NPPF sets out the following in relation to development in the AONB at paragraph 172 as follows:
Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. The conservation and enhancement of wildlife and cultural heritage are also important considerations in these areas, and should be given great weight in National Parks and the Broads. The scale and extent of development within these designated areas should be limited. Planning permission should be refused for major development55 other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:
a) the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
b) the cost of, and scope for, developing outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
c) any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated
Footnote 55 of paragraph 172 is relevant for the consideration of what is considered as major development and states:
For the purposes of paragraphs 172 and 173, whether a proposal is ‘major development’ is a matter for the decision maker, taking into account its nature, scale and setting, and whether it could have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined.
No evidence is set out within the Local Plan or supporting evidence base to state what is considered to be a major development site in the district. Neither the Chichester Harbour AONB: State of the AONB Report (May 2018) or the Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment (April 2019) contain any references to what is considered to constitute a major development.
This is a matter which has been considered at length within other Local Plan examinations. As part of the evidence for its Local Plan, the South Downs National Park sought successive legal opinions from James Maurici QC on what should be considered as ‘Major Development’ in the AONB and have subsequently become widely known as the ‘Maurici Opinions’ in other Local Plan examinations. The opinions set out the following conclusions:
• It is a matter of planning judgement to be decided by the decision maker.
• Major development is to be given its ordinary meaning, and it would be wrong to apply the definition of major development contained within the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. It would also be wrong to apply any set or rigid criteria for defining major development, and the definition should not be restricted to development proposals that raise issues of national significance.
• The decision maker may consider whether the proposed development has the potential to cause a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which the area has been designated or defined, rather than whether there will indeed be a significant adverse impact from the proposed development.
• The decision maker may consider the proposed development in its local context as a matter of planning judgement.
• There may be other considerations but which may not determine whether a proposed development is major development. For example, if the proposed development is Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) development.
• The ordinary sense of the word ‘major’ is important and the decision maker should take a common sense view as to whether the proposed development could be considered major development.

In the Mid Sussex District Council Site Allocations DPD Evidence Base there is a topic paper setting out consideration of Major Development in the AONB and concludes that several of the allocations, in some cases up to 70 dwellings, would not be classed as major development in the AONB following a detailed review of each of the factors as set out in footnote 55 of the NPPF against each proposed allocation.
It is considered that this approach should have been undertaken for each of the individual sites discounted in the Local Plan (including Main Road, Hermitage), rather than simply discounting on the sole fact that they were in the AONB.
Sustainability Appraisal
The legal frameworks for SAs are set out within section 19 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that the authority must prepare a plan with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development. Moreover, the requirements of the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 states that SAs must ensure that the potential environmental effects are given full consideration alongside social and economic issues.

It is not considered that the council has given full consideration to all effects nor are the conclusions of the SA in respect of those impacts robust and logical.
Paragraph 32 of the framework goes on to state that the SA should demonstrate how the plan has addressed relevant economic, social and environmental objectives (including opportunities for net gains). Significant adverse impacts on these objectives should be avoided and, wherever possible, alternative options which reduce or eliminate such impacts should be pursued. Where significant adverse impacts are unavoidable, suitable mitigation measures should be proposed (or, where this is not possible, compensatory measures should be considered).
The SA sets out whether it was reasonable to explore higher growth scenarios as follows:
5.2.12 As discussed above, the PPG on Housing and Economic Needs Assessment sets out reasons for providing for ‘above LHN’ through local plans, referring to situations where there are “growth strategies for the area... (e.g. Housing Deals); strategic infrastructure improvements that are likely to drive an increase in [need]; or an authority agreeing to take on unmet need from neighbouring authorities...” Also, affordable housing needs can serve as a reason for considering setting the housing requirement at a figure above LHN, with the PPG stating: “An increase in the total housing figures included in the plan may need to be considered where it could help deliver the required number of affordable homes.”
5.2.13 However, in the Chichester context there is little or no argument for exploring scenarios whereby the housing requirement is set at a figure above LHN, given the issues discussed above at paragraph 5.2.11. Unmet housing needs are a widespread issue across the sub-region, but there is no realistic potential to provide for unmet housing needs within Chichester. At the time of the Preferred Approach consultation (2018/19), the proposal was to provide for both locally arising housing needs in full and a proportion of the unmet needs arising from the SDNP (41 dpa). Also, it is noted that the SA report published as part of the consultation considered scenarios – considered to be ‘reasonable’ at that point in time – that would see the housing requirement set at figures significantly above LHN (800 dpa and 1,000 dpa were tested). However, at the current time, in light of the latest available evidence, scenarios involving setting the housing requirement at a figure above LHN can be safely ruled out as unreasonable.
It is not considered that a figure at or above the LHN would be considered unreasonable and that this matter has not been given full consideration (as per the requirements of the SA regulations), particularly in regard to the social impacts of not meeting housing need in full.
Appendix V of the SA sets out commentary in regard to Parish Scenarios. This sets out the following in relation to Southbourne (with emphasis added):

With regards to the extent of the broad location, this matter is considered fairly uncontentious (for the current purposes of arriving at reasonable growth scenarios). Specifically, the proposal is to identify an area of search that includes developable HELAA sites that relate relatively well to the Southbourne settlement edge and avoid the Strategic Wildlife Corridor associated with the Ham Brook, also naturally mindful of the need to maintain a landscape gap to settlements within Chidham and Hambrook Parish, to the east. It is important to note that the total theoretical capacity of developable HELAA sites within this broad area is far in excess of the number of homes that would need delivered under any reasonably foreseeable scenario.
The broad location provides flexibility to identify a detailed allocation either through a Site Allocations Plan or, should the Parish Council wish to do so, a revised Southbourne Parish Neighbourhood Plan. Site selection considerations will likely include: transport and access (including mindful of links to the train station and by car to Portsmouth); accessibility and community infrastructure (mindful of the secondary school, recreation ground and employment area at the western edge of the village); heritage (e.g. there is a historic rural lane to the east, associated with two listed buildings), topography and landscape (including any visual links to the SDNP and/or the AONB) and the potential to secure a strategic scheme that delivers more than just new market homes, and potentially significant ‘planning gain’ for the local community.
With regards to the number of homes that should be supported, there is logic to further exploring the scale of growth that was previously considered through the now withdrawn Southbourne NP, and it is not clear that there is an argument for considering lower growth. Additionally, there is a clear argument for exploring the possibility of higher growth, to ensure a suitably comprehensive scheme, with a high level of ‘planning gain’.
In conclusion, there are two scenarios for Southbourne Parish, namely completions, commitments and windfall plus either: 1) a broad location for 1,050 homes; or
2) a broad location for ~1,500 homes.
As set out, it is not considered that the SA has considered adequate reasonable alternatives to growth at Southbourne which would include allocation of sites elsewhere in the village including within the AONB that can deliver in the early part of the plan period.

Conclusions
There are significant concerns on the soundness of the plan in terms of whether it is effective, justified, positively prepared or consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 of the NPPF.

It is not considered that the Council has justified the extent of the under supply of housing against the established housing need. There are significant concerns over the delivery of housing from the strategic allocations within the unjustified timescales as set out within the trajectory contained in the plan.
The Council has not adequately considered reasonable alternatives through the Sustainability Appraisal as published alongside the plan which should have included consideration to the allocation of the site in order to deliver housing in the early part of the plan period.
The plan fails to adequately consider the need for housing for older people, given that the population over 65 across CDC is significantly in excess of the average in the county, south east and county as a whole.
CDC discounted all sites within the AONB, including the site at Main Road, Hermitage, at an early stage of the plan making process. This is not considered effective or consistent with national policy which does not class such sites as an absolute constraint. Other local authorities have allocated such sites in order to deliver the full objectively assessed needs.
ABC will continue to make further representations on the deliverability of the site as part of the plan making progress.

Increase 25m to 50m.

Thank you very much including this policy. My only comment is to suggest the 25m is pushed back to 50m.

We propose the following AONB policy alterations to ensure Policy NE13 is more effective and consistent with national policy accordance with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF:

“The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;

2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB as defined in National Policy in the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan;

3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting, including views into and from the South Downs National Park;

4. The development is appropriate and contributes to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and its communities or is desirable for the access, use, understanding and enjoyment of the area;

5. The development is consistent with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD; and.

6. New development is set back at least 25m from the mean high water level in line with Policy NE12, with replacement buildings set further back whenever possible.

Proposals for major development will be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework”.

Premier suggest the requirement in point 6 for new development to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level) should be removed as this will stifle development. Minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE13 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
The supporting text acknowledges the needs of existing communities within the AONB and the development needs of these communities. It should be emphasised that this also includes communities contributing to the economic viability and success of the AONB, including tourism and leisure.
Therefore, we propose the following AONB policy alterations to ensure Policy NE13 is more effective and consistent with national policy accordance with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF:
“The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;
2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB as defined in National Policy in the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan;
3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting, including views into and from the South Downs National Park;
4. The development is appropriate and contributes to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and its communities or is desirable for the access, use, understanding and enjoyment of the area;
5. The development is consistent with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD; and.
6. New development is set back at least 25m from the mean high water level in line with Policy NE12, with replacement buildings set further back whenever possible.
Proposals for major development will be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework”.
As per the above commentary in respect to Policy NE12, Premier suggest the requirement in point 6 for new development to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level) should be removed as this will stifle development. Minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

See attached representation.

See attached representation.

I would like to see more emphasis on resolving the problems of effluent.

See attachment.

Accountability needs to be clear and the language here is not unequivocal – “may”. Alternatives need to be clearly demonstrated and explained using a standard framework in order to remove subjectivity.

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.

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.

Thank you very much including this policy. My only comment is to suggest the 25m is pushed back to 50m.

This policy is of the utmost importance. Chichester Harbour is in decline and the AONB needs to be conserved. How is the setting of the AONB defined? What would exceptional circumstances be? We feel that this is too loose an expression and provides a get out for developers?

REPRESENTATION TO THE PLANNING POLICY TEAM RE THE LOCAL PLAN MARCH 2023
Our interests in reading the Local Plan 2023 are namely:

The INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO SUSTAIN SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT

YOU SAY: To work with infrastructure providers to ensure the timely delivery of key infrastructure to support delivery of new development. New development will be supported by sufficient provision of infrastructure to enable the sustainable delivery of the development strategy for the plan area.

Key infrastructure to support the Local Plan will include improvements to transport, open space and green infrastructure, education, health, water supply and removal, telecommunications, flood risk and coastal change management and the provision of minerals and energy Page 33
CAN YOU ACHIEVETHIS?

ROADS - already suffering with surface damage and from too high density of traffic

YOU SAY: A sustainable and integrated transport system will be achieved through improvements to walking and cycling networks and links to accessible public transport. Highway improvements will be delivered to mitigate congestion, including measures to mitigate potential impacts on the A27 through a monitor and manage process.
Page 33 CAN YOU ACHIEVETHIS?
MANAGEMENT OF SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

YOU SAY: Sewerage undertakers will need to work with regulators to deliver improvements in wastewater infrastructure to support new development and to ensure adverse environmental impacts are avoided on internationally designated habitats. Improvements to water efficiency, conservation and storage capacity will be made.
Page 33 CAN YOU ACHIEVE THIS?
THE IMPACT SUBSTANTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE ON OUR UNIQUE AND PRECIOUS ENVIRONMENT. INCREASING LIGHT POLLUTION.
YOU SAY: 12. Protect and enhance the existing biodiversity and important ecological corridor linking Chichester Harbour and the South Downs National Park.
Any development will need to: /

a. Provide multifunctional green infrastructure both across the site and linking development to the surrounding countryside and Chichester city;
b. Provide mitigation for any loss of watercourse habitat resulting from culverting for highway provision in the development;

c. Provide buffer zones to sensitive habitats such as ancient woodland; Page 223

CAN YOU ACHIEVE THIS?

We applaud the words written down on efforts regarded as essential for the conservation of the AONBs and SSSls of the Harbour. We applaud the efforts to maintain the wonderful view of the Cathedral from various aspects of the City.
But we have little faith of these foreseen problems being effectively dealt with.

If the stretch of the A259 from Southbourne (which is classified as a Settlement Hub) to Fishbourne, where we already experience serious impact in congestion and noise, is going to be allocated several thousand new houses by 2030, I cannot imagine how the road will be able to start coping with that increased density of traffic. Another several thousand x 1.5 average vehicles per house will be using this already regularly gridlocked road.
We would implore that you actually managed to achieve what you are setting out with this wordy document but we have little faith, in fact, do not believe, that our environment and the precious habitats and lives of our wonderful local flora and fauna will be enhanced or even upheld in the process and we therefore believe that this Local Plan is unsound.

Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE13 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
The supporting text acknowledges the needs of existing communities within the AONB and the development needs of these communities. It should be emphasised that this also includes communities contributing to the economic viability and success of the AONB, including tourism and leisure.
Therefore, we propose the following AONB policy alterations to ensure Policy NE13 is more effective and consistent with national policy accordance with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF:
“The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;
2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB as defined in National Policy in the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan;
3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting, including views into and from the South Downs National Park;
4. The development is appropriate and contributes to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and its communities or is desirable for the access, use, understanding and enjoyment of the area;
5. The development is consistent with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD; and.
6. New development is set back at least 25m from the mean high water level in line with Policy NE12, with replacement buildings set further back whenever possible.
Proposals for major development will be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework”.
As per the above commentary in respect to Policy NE12, Premier suggest the requirement in point 6 for new development to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level) should be removed as this will stifle development. Minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

See attachment.

Key matters to address in SDNP equivalent policy to NE13 include (but are not limited to): Development on land that contributes to the setting of the South Downs National Park should conserve and enhance the visual and special qualities, dark night skies, tranquillity and landscape character of the National Park and its setting; Development proposals in the setting of the National Park should be sensitively located and designed, should reinforce and respond to rather than detract from the distinctive landscape character and special qualities of the National Park, should be consistent with National Park purposes and must not significantly harm the National Park or its setting; Assessment of such development proposals will also have regard to the South Downs Partnership Management Plan and South Downs Local Plan and other adopted planning documents and strategies.

See attached representation.