Policy NE15 Flood Risk and Water Management

See attachment.

No new developments of five or more dwellings shall be approved by the LPA until the following reports, work and maps have been completed and due consultation has taken place with residents & parishes, (in line with the latest government approach to restoring local democracy).
a. Environment Agency flood maps based on the Interim SFRA (December 2022) have been completed.
b. Sewage infrastructure work as yet unknown in Southern Waters upcoming Asset Management Period to be in place before any development of 5 or more dwellings are approved.
c. Full and proper engagement with NHS as to practical limits on health demands as a result of new housing developments especially on the Manhood Peninsula.

Manhope is a local interest group and represents more than 500 residents and users of the Western part of the
Manhood Peninsula (WMP); the part of the district at greatest risk from climate, travel and infrastructure challenges.

Our sole purpose is to protect the unique character of the Western Manhood Peninsula by opposing inappropriate and unsustainable large building developments before the necessary infrastructure is actually in place.

We are not sufficiently aux fait with the policies to be able to use the clause by clause “speech bubble” approach to comment. Therefore, our response is by way of email as suggested by our MP, Gillian Keegan in her letter to residents in February this year.

We understand that only three topics are open for comment in respect of the proposed Local Plan submission.

1. Is the submission legally compliant?
2. Is the submission 'sound'?
3. Does the submission comply with the Duty to Cooperate?

We are not qualified to comment on either 1. or 2. so these comments will address the question of whether the proposed submission is sound.

Chichester District Council has, quite rightly in our opinion, placed no demands for further large developments in the WMP apart from windfall sites. In our opinion even these should NOT be approved until the caveats shown in our Conclusion are implemented.
The following subjects have been well aired so we will not dwell on them in great detail but will summarise them as follows.

Transport.

The transport network serving the CDC area is already unable to cope at peak times and groaning at most other times. The A27 frequently gets headline recognition and from a strategic national point of view rightly so. The various arguments are again well rehearsed elsewhere especially from other local interest groups such as MPAG, SOSCA and the Harbour Trust and we support their submissions in this respect.

It is sufficient for us to say that if it was recognised that mitigating measures were required to cater for the huge increase in developments then it follows that the absence of such mitigation should halt completely such development. That is just pure logic.

Everyone who lives, works, uses or visits the WMP knows that having left behind the A27 they have not left behind the traffic problems. The obverse has become the “new norm” with the most minor hold up, such as refuse lorry, slow moving device or minor road works causing substantial delays and queues sometimes up to eighty vehicles long

The system whereby WSCC highways review the impact of planning applications is dysfunctional.

This is evidenced by WSCC highways department being unable to provide accurate feedback to the LPA as to the ACCUMULATIVE impact of very large developments.
The modelling simply does not allow it and there is no scope for actual local experience or common sense. In not one case of over twenty applications for ten or more houses have they even flagged a cautionary note about this accumulative impact.

For example many - actually most - accidents are not reported so the West Sussex Accident Location Map so this source often used by planners and developers to demonstrate how safe our local roads are, is dangerously misleading. Many life changing injuries have been sustained and known about by local people in the WMP but virtually none of these appear in “formal records”

Flooding.

Because of the low lying and vulnerable southern part of the district the findings and implications of the CDC Level 1 Interim Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (December 2022) need to be fully understood by parishes, councillors and local residents before comments of any real value can be made. We asked five elected or formally appointed local representatives and not one felt they had a full grasp of the SFRA’s implications and only one had a fair understanding.

We do know that the risk of significant flooding has increased. We also know that even before the SFRA was published the West Sussex County Council Lead Local Flood Authority gave a thumbs down to two of the large applications B 21/01830/OUT in Birdham and EWB22/02214/FULEIA.

CDC have recognised that the Manhood Peninsula has specific challenges including flood risk hence the zero requirement for housing in the WMP. In this respect we think the submission is probably just sound enough and hope that this approach filters through to decisions for applications yet to be determined.

However, to be certain of real soundness the work needs to be completed BEFORE implementation. Please see our notes under “Conclusion” Sewage.

There can be no doubt that this subject must impact whether the submission is sound or not. The arguments are complex and lengthy but two basic simple facts remain.

1. The main sewage plant for the Manhood Peninsula is Southern Waters Siddlesham WWTW. This plant is a couple of metres AOD and yet planners, the EA and developers argue as to whether four or five meters is an appropriate floor level on new developments. Hardly a sound approach when the treatment works will have been inundated well before even a three metre threshold will have been reached. One example of these discussions can be seen at E 22/03125/OUT for 100 houses

2. Southern Water have a policy of deploying large road tankers when heavy rain is forecast to standby local sewage points as there is a high risk of the system being overwhelmed. Frequently the drivers have to stay in their cabs all night.

Yet Southern Water are obliged to advise the LPA that they can deal with the additional load from huge new developments. Neither CDC nor the Inspector can solve the sewerage infrastructure issues but the above facts raise serious doubt as to the soundness of the submission. Please see our further notes under
“Conclusion”

Conclusion.

Manhope recognise the real imperative of having a local plan in place and is appalled that the system has resulted in a colossal amount of work for the LPA and yet still a disastrous delay in getting this in place let alone full and proper consultation with parishes and local people. Further delay in the submission of the local plan is therefore wholly unacceptable so our uncomfortable is that the submission, whilst barely sound, is as sound as it can be and should go forward BUT with some very clear caveats. Our suggestion for these are shown below.

A. No new developments of ten or more dwellings shall be commenced until suitable mitigating road improvements to the A27 are in place.

B. No new developments of five or more dwellings shall be approved by the LPA until the following reports, work and maps have been completed and due consultation has taken place with residents & parishes, (in line with the latest government approach to restoring local democracy).
a. Environment Agency flood maps based on the Interim SFRA (December 2022) have been completed.
b. Sewage infrastructure work as yet unknown in Southern Waters upcoming Asset Management Period to be in place before any development of 5 or more dwellings are approved.
c. Full and proper engagement with NHS as to practical limits on health demands as a result of new housing developments especially on the Manhood Peninsula. NHS’s advice was ignored by CDC and a planning inspector for a 70 house development (WW/20/02491/OUT) so they have not responded to further consultation requests. Vis EWB 22/02235/OUT and EWB 22/02214. This cannot be allowed to happen again.

C. Insert a policy in the submission that CDC planning reserve the right to apply their discretion in planning decisions when consultees provide advice that is contrary to public and parish experience. Ie Where formally submitted local and Parish advise given in their written response to planning applications is not aligned to other consultees then take the Parishes advice. To avoid using this discretion is not consistent with exercising a duty of care.

D. A policy written in the final submission to assemble a consortium of stakeholders to conduct a full survey as to the condition of Pagham Harbour. The scope would cover impacts on marine and land-based environments from chemical, micro plastic and sewage contamination of the harbour and it's immediate coastline. Stakeholders would include Natural England, Environment Agency, CDC, Southern Water and the R.S.P.B. It is highly likely that Pagham Harbour is traveling a parallel downward path as Chichester Harbour in terms of condition but no stakeholders are paying this anything like the attention it deserves.

SWT would support an increased set back from fluvial water course of 10 meters to support opportunities for biodiversity. Further increases to the setback for tidal water course of 25 meters, would be encouraged to bring it in line with the aspirations of Policy NE 12 Development around the coast.

See attached representation.

We request that reference is made to the SRN or National Highways within the Flood Risk policies.

Development must not lead to any surface water flooding on the SRN carriageway. These points apply to the site operation and construction phases. National Highways should be contacted to discuss these points in detail as part of, or in advance of a planning application submission.

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments in the attached letter, in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN.
Our comments include issues to resolve, comments, requests for further information and recommendations. A brief summary of our main comments are:
- the reliance on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
- the requirements for new, additional, and adapted processes and assessments, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments.
- collaborative working between agencies in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy.
We hope our comments assist.
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders. We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.

Background

National Highways has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the strategic road network (SRN).

National Highways is responsible for operating, maintaining, and improving the Strategic Road Network (SRN) i.e., the Trunk Road and Motorway Network in England, as laid down in Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 01/2022 (Strategic Road Network and the delivery of sustainable development).

The SRN is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term operation and integrity.

Our responses to Local Plan consultations are guided by relevant policy and guidance including the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) (NPPF):

• Transport issues should be considered from the earliest stages of plan-making and development proposals so that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed (para 104).

• The planning system should actively manage patterns of growth such that significant development is focused on locations which are or can be made sustainable, through limiting the need to travel and offering a genuine choice of transport modes. (para 105).

• Planning policies should be prepared with the active involvement of highways authorities and other transport infrastructure providers so that strategies and investments for supporting sustainable transport and development patterns are aligned. (para 106).

• In terms of identifying the necessity of transport infrastructure, NPPF confirms that development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. (para 111).

• Planning policies and decisions should support development that makes efficient use of land, taking into account the availability and capacity of infrastructure and services – both existing and proposed – as well as their potential for further improvement and the scope to promote sustainable travel modes that limit future car use. (para 124).

In relation to the tests of soundness set out at paragraph 35 of the NPPF, in the context of transport, these are interpreted as meaning:

a) Positively prepared - has the transport strategy been prepared with the active involvement of the highway authorities, other transport infrastructure providers and operators and neighbouring councils?
b) Justified – Is the transport strategy based on a robust evidence base prepared with the agreement in partnership, or with the support of the highway authorities?
c) Effective – Does the transport strategy and policy satisfy the transport needs of the plan and is it deliverable at a pace which provides for and accommodates the proposed progress and implementation of the plan?
d) Consistent with national policy – Does the transport strategy support the economic, social, and environmental objectives of the Plan and the NPPF/NPPG?

We will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact on the safe and efficient operation of the SRN; in this case, the A27 trunk road (Chichester Bypass and its junctions) which is the main access route in the Chichester area. We have particular interest in any allocation, policy or proposals which could have implications for the A27 and the wider SRN network. We are interested as to whether there would be any adverse road safety or operational implications for the SRN. The latter would include a material increase in queueing or delay or reduction in journey time reliability during the construction or operation of the development set out in the plan.

National Highways is a key delivery partner for sustainable development promoted through the plan-led system, and as a statutory consultee we have a duty to cooperate with local authorities to support the preparation and implementation of development plan documents.

In accordance with national planning and transport policy and our operating licence, we are entirely neutral on the principle of development as it is for the local planning authority to determine whether development should be allocated or permitted; albeit it must comply with national policy on locating development in locations that are or can be made sustainable. Therefore, while always seeking early and fulsome engagement with local plans and/or developers, we will simply be assessing the transport and related implications of plans or proposals and agreeing any necessary transport improvements and relevant development management policy.

In progressing Local Plans, we will seek to agree the following:
• Assessment tools and methodology
• Baseline Assessment i.e., to demonstrate that the assessment tool accurately reflects current transport conditions
• Comparator case assessment i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would occur in the absence of the plan
• Forecast modelling i.e., to forecast the transport conditions that would arise with the plan in place, this will include an assessment at the end of the Plan period; and, if required, at full build out if that occurs after the end of the Plan period
• Outputs and outcomes of modelling, demonstrating, as appropriate, what transport infrastructure is necessary to support the plan o It should be noted that a suite of transport modelling tools may be required. This includes strategic modelling covering an area at least one major junction beyond the district boundary, localised network modelling where several links/junctions are close together and/or individual junction modelling
o A DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) compliancy assessment may also be required for certain highway features, such as
Merge/Diverge assessment at Grade separated junctions, link capacity assessments, and others.
• The design of any necessary transport infrastructure, to an extent suitable for establishing deliverability during the plan period at the time that it becomes necessary for the purpose of ensuring that unacceptable road safety impacts or severe operational impacts do not arise as a result of development. This may be to at least General Arrangement design stage or preliminary design stage. Whichever degree of detail is agreed, the products must be in full compliance with the DMRB.
• Industry standard transport intervention costings.
• The delivery/funding mechanisms for necessary transport interventions. It should not be assumed that National Highways will have any responsibility to identify or deliver necessary transport interventions.
• If considered appropriate, a “Monitor & Manage” (M&M) framework, aimed at managing the pace of development in line with the pace of funding and delivery of necessary highway interventions in a manner which responds to the realworld impacts of development may be agreed for inclusion in the plan subject to the adequacy of risk control measures included therein. This can include the move from a ‘predict & provide’ style of delivery to ‘a vision & validate’ style. o Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. It must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.

Further detail on the above can be provided by National Highways.

While ideally all the above should be agreed prior to the Submission of the Local Plan for examination, we recognise that this is not always possible. However, all parties should work towards all matters being agreed and reflected in a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) by the start of the Local Plan Examination at the latest. Ideally the SoCG between the Council and National Highways would be prepared well in advance of plan submission in order to guide resource input and to track progress towards final agreement on all relevant matters starting from the earliest plan iterations until the final version is agreed.

It is acknowledged that Government policy places much emphasis on housing delivery as a means for ensuring economic growth and addressing the current national shortage of housing. The NPPF is very clear that:
“Strategic policy-making authorities should establish a housing requirement figure for their whole area, which shows the extent to which their identified housing need (and any needs that cannot be met within neighbouring areas) can be met over the plan period.”

However, new DfT C1/22 and the NPPF are equally clear that any development, including housing delivery, must be tempered by the requirement to ensure that the associated transport demand can be accommodated without unacceptable impacts on the safety of the SRN or severe impacts on the operation of the SRN including reliability and congestion. Therefore, as necessary and appropriate, any plan and/or development must be accompanied by suitable mitigation in the right places at the right time, that is to the required design standards and is deliverable in terms of land availability, constructability and funding.

We would also draw your attention to the then Highways England document ‘The Strategic Road Network, Planning for the Future: A guide to working with National
Highways on planning matters’ (September 2015). This document sets out how National Highways intends to work with local planning authorities and developers to support the preparation of sound documents which enable the delivery of sustainable development. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen t_data/file/461023/N150227_-_Highways_England_Planning_Document_FINAL-lo.pdf

Responses to Local Plan consultations are also guided by National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) revised on 20 July 2021 which sets out the government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.

Updated Circular (01/2022)
It should be noted that since the start of the Local Plan consultation process, on the 23 December 2022, the Department for Transport released a new circular on the ‘Strategic road network and the delivery of sustainable development’ (Circular 01/2022), which replaces all of the policies in Circular 02/2013 of the same name. These representations take account of the new circular and the requirements in terms of the Local Plan evidence base and process.

We request that the Local Plan is prepared in line with all aspects of the new circular. Particularly, the principles of sustainable development (paragraphs 11 to 17), new connections and capacity enhancements (paragraphs 18 to 25), and engagement with plan-making (paragraphs 26 to 38).

Regulation 18 submission
In our Regulation 18 submission we noted several matters including:
• The need to mitigate the adverse impacts of strategic development traffic to the A27 Chichester Bypass and its junctions at Portfield Roundabout, Bognor Road Roundabout, Whyke Roundabout, Stockbridge Roundabout and Fishbourne Roundabout and Oving junction.
• The need to identify a mechanism to calculate contributions towards the delivery of the previously agreed Local Plan A27 improvements
• The need to confirm the number of dwellings needed within the plan period
• The need to establish National Highways acceptance of the traffic model reference and future case scenarios
• The need to confirm costs, viability, and funding associated with mitigating the safety and congestion impacts of the development included within the plan.

Local Plan context
This Local Plan (Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039), prepared by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) Chichester District Council, sets out the vision for future development in the district and will be used to help decide on planning applications and other planning related decisions including shaping infrastructure investments.

The draft sets out how the district should be developed over the next 18-years to 2039 including for the full Plan period (1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039) the total supply of
- 10,359 dwellings
- 114,652 net additional sqm new floorspace
Minus the completions this is equivalent to around 530 dwellings and 6,150 sqm of floorspace a year.

National Highways Representations
To date National Highways have worked collaboratively with Chichester District Council (the Council) and West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and we will continue to work with the Council and other key stakeholders.

We have undertaken a review of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 proposed submission version and accompanying evidence documents, our comments are set out in the tables below (following pages). [see table within attachment]

Summary

We have reviewed the publicly available Local Plan documents and provided comments above in relation to the transport implications of the plan for the safety and operation of the SRN. We understand that other technical information is available, but this was not presented as part of this consultation.
Chichester, and the A27, are already heavily congested, infrastructure in the existing Local Plan remains undelivered and the growth set out in the new Plan will further increase travel demand.
As presented, satisfying the transport needs of the plan is clearly reliant on the delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. The A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is one of 32 pipeline schemes being considered for possible inclusion in National Highways third Road Investment Strategy (RIS3) covering 1 April 2025 to 31 March 2030.
On 9 March 2023 the UK Transport Secretary ensured record funding would be invested in the country’s transport network, sustainably driving growth across the country while managing the pressures of inflation. The announcement cited the A27 Arundel Bypass as being deferred from RIS2 to RIS 3 (covering 2025-2030). The transport secretary also identified a number of challenges to the delivery of the road investment strategy and cited the benefit of allowing extra time to ensure schemes are better planned and efficient schemes can be deployed more effectively.
At present, there is no commitment by DfT to carry out the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project. Until the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project is published in the RIS3, consented and a decision to invest is made it cannot be assumed to be a committed project.
We note that the Plan does not address any uncertainty of delivery of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project and we strongly recommend that there is either no reliance placed on RIS3 to realise capacity for growth in the Plan or that contingency measures are included to cover the eventuality that RIS3 funding is not forthcoming within the plan period. It is not clear that the potential impact of development on transport networks can be addressed in the absence of the A27 Chichester bypass improvements project.
Achieving net zero, reducing emissions reduction, acting on climate, and supporting thousands of new homes and new employment developments will be problematic with existing processes. New, additional, and adapted processes and assessments will likely be required, especially in assessing Transport Assessments, mandating Travel Plans and monitoring traffic associated with new developments. We acknowledge that change is complex, expensive, and time-consuming, especially for smaller district level Councils. But the hard work will deliver benefits for the Council and residents in the longer-term.
National Highways seeks to continue working with the Council and WSCC to progress coordinated and deliverable packages of interim mitigation measures and alternative transport solutions while a long-term strategic solution is considered by government. This must however be in combination with a robust monitor and manage policy that appropriately manages the risk of unacceptable road impacts resulting from new housing
and other development over the Plan period.

We have been in discussion with Chichester District Council regarding their proposed Monitor and Manage Strategy. At present, we do not consider the current strategy to be robust and we seek further information and detail especially on who, when and when monitoring and management will be undertaken. Developments in the right places and served by the right sustainable infrastructure delivered alongside or ahead of occupancy must be a key consideration when planning for growth in all local authority areas. Any M&M framework must be based on a “worst case scenario” whereby necessary transport mitigation is understood, as well as setting out the desired alternative scenario. It must set out details of responsibility, funding and governance of the framework together with the methodology for determining the timing for any mitigation delivery while remaining clear on the fallback position where identified mitigation or desired alternatives are not ultimately achievable. The M&M framework must set out that the alternative to mitigation not being delivered is that development does not proceed where that development would give rise to unacceptable road safety risk or severe cumulative impacts on the road network in the absence of that mitigation. The M&M framework must be translated into development management plan policy and policy relating to development allocations.
As we have reiterated throughout our comments, we welcome the opportunity to work with you to address these outstanding matters and we will continue to liaise over submitted Transport Assessment, Travel Plan policy and Monitor and Manage Policy to help to work towards a viable plan.
We hope our comments assist.
We look forward to continuing to participate in future consultations and discussions. Please do continue to consult us as the Plan progresses so that we can remain aware of, and comment as required on, its contents.
Once you have had the opportunity to digest all the representations received, we would welcome a meeting to run through all the transport related matters and agree how to progress any required evidence gathering or other work.

These comments are confined to the three areas set out in the consultation - Legal, Soundness and Duty to Cooperate and to two documents -the draft Local Plan and the Sustainability Assessment.

Legal Status
The Legal status of the Plan is proven but because of the protracted course of the plan's preparation some stages are now dated and raise the question that they should be refreshed.This is the particular case in respect of public participation.There have also been significant changes in legislation that guides the plan’s formulation that would have benefited from revised statement of legislative/legal context.

Soundness
In the SA it is stated that the key issue for the plan is the A27 and its capacity.This statement is fundamental in that it is realistically outside the scope of the local planning authorities (CDC and West Sussex CC) to have any direct control over.Unless National Highways position is changed from their previous statements on time scales and what might be included in their assessment no consideration of A27 will be made until RIS3 taking any even initial action into the next decade.
So fundamental and influential is the A27 that assessment of Local Housing Need (LHN),a key component of the whole plan, is reduced from 638 units pa to 535.This position must have an impact on the plan’s ‘Soundness and crucially the phasing of development.


It is worthy of note that three recent housing appeal decisions unfortunately focused primarily on the lack of a 5yr housing supply base on the 638 higher figure.More pressing were issues of sewage system capacity,coastal inundation and fluvial flooding and nutrient neutrality.

The reduction of housing requirements that the Reg19 LP now promotes is very welcomed.

The reduction on the Manhood PeninsulaIt appears to be derived because of recent housing approvals on appeal bringing forward housing that achieves the revised target based on the 535 figure .Two points arise none of theses sites are in locations that CDC indicated in documents such as the HELAA and SHELAA as positively sustainable and as all other significant Peninsula housing is dropped do these sites exceed what would have been planned totals.

The SA ‘Framework ’only addresses ‘Water- protection of resources’ this is highly appropriate given the problems experienced in the north eastern part of the district in the summer of 2022 and will become more pressing in the south.Resolution of this issue that stopped planning applications seems to be by reducing water usage at least to 110 ltr ppd or lower this is when Southern Water only hope to achieve 125ltr by 2050 .
Consideration in the framework should extend to the’ Water Cycle’ and particularly address the acute problems of sewage system network capacity, polluting WWTW outfalls,nutrient neutrality.These systems are already currently stressed/ completely overloaded with current levels of use without new development coming on stream and discharges of untreated sewage are a significant and growing problem to Chichester, Langston and Pagham Harbours- this situation must be set against Defra- Storm OverflowDischarge Reduction Plan’s statement “Protecting the Environment-water companies shall only be permitted to discharge from a storm overflow where they can demonstrate that there is no local ecological impact”. Damage to Chichester/ Langstone Harbours is documented by a daming Natural England report and by that expected for Pagham Harbour all the sites of national significance for biodiversity and protected habitats.
Whilst para 5.2.34 and Box 5.1of the SA summarise the position no direct statement of intervention is made.Reliance on a ‘Statement of Common Ground that is referred to offers no positive programme of future capital investment by Southern Water (SW) especially when set against SW’s overall regional programme its cost and priorities as set out in their draft DWMP-the final version of which is due for release in March this year- does the Plan reflect this documents information that is so crucial to supporting the infrastructure need for the scale of development envisaged is challenging to the plan’s ‘Soundness’

Time scale of the crucial improvements to infrastructure and particularly sewer and lWWTW capacity is of particular concern. SW’s Drainage and Wastewater Management Plan v1May 2020 set out in very comprehensive way what needs to achieved and indication of time scale -placing most in AMP8 the next 5 yr business cycle and OFWAT approval would be needed for the scale of expenditure that is many hundred of millions. These time scale constraints should be reflected in the phasing of any housing development that will have to utilise the network.There is no direct indication that such phasing will be actively enforced.

The lack of inclusion in a key background supporting document -Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) -of the Planning Practice Guidance on Flood Risk and Coastal Change that has important bearing on issues particularly for the southern plan area and specifically mentions the importance of the phasing of development to infrastructure provision is a concern especially when it was published in August 2022.These omission again have an impact on the Plan’s overall ‘Soundness.

A significant consideration in the plan that supports the need for more housing supply is the need to address affordability.The district has one of the highest ratio of median earnings to house prices of 14 times and despite substantial house building during the period 2013 -2022 the ratio has increased from 10.55.It is clear that the type of housing that has occurred and continues to be proposed in the district has done little if anything to impact on affordability and address the need for social/lower cost housing.Based on the 2011 census the district experienced 1,505 inward migration( only Brighton and Hove being higher in the West Sussex/ Gt Brighton area) - this trend has been expected to have continued and accelerated as the pandemic increased the popularity of coastal property and raised market cost of property. Just building more houses without policy intervention to prioritise social shared ownership housing will most probably prove to further increase the extent of unaffordability with the resultant consequences on workforce -especially to support the district ageing population- and supporting young people to remain in the area they have grown up in or have come to be educated.This aspect is cause concern over the Plan’s ‘Soundness’.

Considerable emphasis is placed on the issues of nutrient neutrality,damage to biodiversity and pollution of Chichester Harbour AONB but such emphasis is not extended to Pagham Harbour that has a similar ecological status to Chichester and suffers the same degradation issues.
Although Pagham is outside of the nutrient protection zone the factors contributing to nutrient problems are apparent feeding into Pagham.The delayed report on condition for Pagham from Natural England mirroring that for Chichester Hb gives every indication it will indicate the same levels of detriment as those in Chichester Hb.This assumption being supported by condition reports for instance for rife and ditch condition known reports.Added to these factors are known issues relating to untreated discharges from Sidlesham WWTW.The Local Plans’s lack of affording Pagham similar consideration to Chichester Hb is an issue that impacts on the Local Plan’s overall ‘Soundness’.

Duty to cooperate
The West Sussex and Greater Brighton Strategic Planning Board (WSGBSPB) provides a context for integrated planning along the coast plain area.It is stated that this board is due to issue a review of its 2016 report next month -does the Plan address any issues that this review may raise? . Housing needs are a major feature of the area and the need to transfer unmet housing demand to adjoining authorities is characteristic feature of past policy..The SA quite categorically states that there would be no realistic potential to meet unmet housing need above the now established LHN figure. Should the WSGBSPB’s report signal the need for the district to absorb housing from other areas there may be problems as the Plan does not appear to offer any contingency or process how such pressure might be mitigated.
The highly restricted housing numbers in the South Downs National Park Local Plan and the closeness of its boundary to the ‘coastal strip’ are contributing factors to the area's carrying and overall capacity to support development. Further constraint is imposed by the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty ( AONB) and the geographical physical restrictions of the Manhood Peninsula creating ‘coastal squeeze’.

The second sentence seems a little misguided. stating: ‘Development will be directed to the areas of lowest flood risk applying the sequential test and where relevant the exceptions test’. I would respectfully suggest that the ‘where relevant’ should come before sequential test too, as it doesn’t apply to all forms of development.

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.

Policy NE15 should be re-worded:
Paragraph 2:
Development should not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere, taking into account the cumulative effects of other development, and should (where possible) seek to achieve a reduction in flood risk for existing communities on and off site
Point 4:
For vulnerable development, finished floor levels should be no lower than:
• 300mm above the adjacent road level to the building
• 300mm above predicted significant fluvial/tidal flood level (Fluvial 1 in 100year / Tidal 1 in 200year plus latest climate change allowances) for the lifetime of the development.

See attached representation.

Would suggest first criterion is revised to define ‘normal design standards’ Council will expect to see as a minimum when determining planning applications, either in words, or by reference to specific guidance outlined in remainder of policy.
Would recommend first sentence of criterion 2 be amended to: ‘There is no increase in the rate of surface water run-off leaving the site’.

See attachment.

Policy NE15 should be amended to make it clear that the Sequential Test need not be applied to strategic allocations as the test will already have been carried out by the LPA via the SFRA

See attached

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.