Policy NE19 Nutrient Neutrality

There should be an overall district wide strategy for dealing with mitigation, and mitigation measures must be in in evidence prior to the adoption of the plan, to ensure the plan is sound.

There is no evidence of any currently available offsetting scheme for much of the proposed development The South Downs National Park has confirmed in writing that they do not intend to enter any s106 mitigation agreements for nitrate offsets at Chilgrove Farm on a piecemeal basis. The plan makes no reference to any alternative scheme or approach.

Include strategies for agriculture use of pesticdes.

Mitigations are a cop out and difficult to monitor over time. As nitrates from agriculture are a large part of the problem where are the strategies to minimise the use of pesticdes and certain kinds of fertilisers?

The inclusion of the Nitrate Neutrality policy since the previous iteration of the Plan is welcomed and it will be important that the guidance is continually monitored and reviewed to ensure that it is fit for purpose and that mitigation measures are effective.

Add the following after " or by means of agreed mitigation measures":

to be agreed on a site by site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development".

Premier support the policy approach to protecting water quality from nitrates and associated impacts on wildlife given the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation. That said, Premier suggest the policy is amended below to make explicit reference for mitigation to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development to ensure it is effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF.
“Development involving an overnight stay (including in dwellings and all forms of holiday accommodation) that discharges into Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/ Ramsar (either surface water, non mains drainage development or through wastewater treatment works) will be required to demonstrate that it will be nutrient neutral for the lifetime of the development, either by its own means or by means of agreed mitigation measures to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development”.

Additional information regarding nutrient neutrality, the current stage of play for mitigation schemes in the district, and how Chichester District Council are seeking to work collaboratively with catchment operators within the Local Plan document.

The RSPB is supportive of measures in place to address the increase in nutrient inputs to Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar and Chichester Harbour SSSI. The RSPB agrees that while nitrogen originating from new development is not the only source, it is critical to ensure that new potential sources of nitrogen inputs do not further increase the nitrogen loads in Chichester Harbour. Securement of a nutrient neutrality scheme should be completed alongside additional catchment management measures and water quality improvement schemes to restore favourable condition in these ecosystems to enable the designated species to thrive in healthy waters.

Although supportive of the overall measures in place to address nutrient neutrality, the RSPB considers Policy NE19 needs to include further information regarding the current state of play for nutrient mitigation schemes in the district. The RSPB considers that strategic mitigation plans should be adopted in each catchment to model the optimum mix of catchment and nature-based solutions (CNBS), engineered and hybrid solutions. Although mitigation plans should be developed and delivered by a catchment operator (likely a water company), these mitigation plans should work closely with Local Authorities and strategic planning for districts in order to address nutrient neutrality holistically across the district and wider catchment areas.

Further, in addition to mitigation plans and information regarding any upcoming nutrient mitigation schemes available in the district, guidance should be included in Policy NE19 to provide more detail to aid development in implementing adequate mitigation measures to address nutrient neutrality when proposed to be fulfilled by their own means.

Without the above additional information regarding nutrient neutrality within the Local Plan document, the RSPB does not consider it possible to conclude that Policy NE19 is ‘sound’ as, in its current form, the policy does not show effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters surrounding nutrient neutrality.

Expand the wording.

The "agreed mitigation measures" must be in the context of Chichester Harbour. It is no good permitting a development with the mitigation substantially off-site. I think this has to be clear in the policy.

See attached representation.

See attachment.

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 draft Policy should be expanded to actively promote and encourage suitable schemes, which might yield wider environmental benefits.

See attachment.

Stop the nitrates by investing in the infrastructure, and until the infrastructure is in place do not build more houses. Fix the problem and see the SSSI improve before adding to the problem. It is not enough to only consider the impact of net new developments.

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.

Expand policy to clarify information requirements of developers;

Highlight in supporting text where case-by-case approach (i.e. for commercial or industrial development) will be adopted;

In additional to the Nutrient Neutrality guidance located on the Chichester District Council’s website Natural England has below provided some additional signposting of further guidance documents that can assist with the design and implementation of various options for nutrient neutrality mitigation which you may wish to reference in the supporting text:
• The Wetland Mitigation Framework should be utilised in the design and feasibility process for constructed wetlands. Additionally, further background information on constructed wetlands can be found within the ‘Introduction to Freshwater Wetlands for Improving Water Quality (JP044)’ report, which was recently publish by Natural England.
• Combing environmental payments: biodiversity net gain (BNG) and nutrient mitigation
• Constructed wetlands for the treatment of pollution

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

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

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

See attachment for representations on paragraphs/policies.

Premier support the policy approach to protecting water quality from nitrates and associated impacts on wildlife given the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation. That said, Premier suggest the policy is amended below to make explicit reference for mitigation to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development to ensure it is effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF.
“Development involving an overnight stay (including in dwellings and all forms of holiday accommodation) that discharges into Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/ Ramsar (either surface water, non mains drainage development or through wastewater treatment works) will be required to demonstrate that it will be nutrient neutral for the lifetime of the development, either by its own means or by means of agreed mitigation measures to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development”.

The RSPB is supportive of measures in place to address the increase in nutrient inputs to Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar and Chichester Harbour SSSI. The RSPB agrees that while nitrogen originating from new development is not the only source, it is critical to ensure that new potential sources of nitrogen inputs do not further increase the nitrogen loads in Chichester Harbour. Securement of a nutrient neutrality scheme should be completed alongside additional catchment management measures and water quality improvement schemes to restore favourable condition in these ecosystems to enable the designated species to thrive in healthy waters.

Although supportive of the overall measures in place to address nutrient neutrality, the RSPB considers Policy NE19 needs to include further information regarding the current state of play for nutrient mitigation schemes in the district. The RSPB considers that strategic mitigation plans should be adopted in each catchment to model the optimum mix of catchment and nature-based solutions (CNBS), engineered and hybrid solutions. Although mitigation plans should be developed and delivered by a catchment operator (likely a water company), these mitigation plans should work closely with Local Authorities and strategic planning for districts in order to address nutrient neutrality holistically across the district and wider catchment areas.

Further, in addition to mitigation plans and information regarding any upcoming nutrient mitigation schemes available in the district, guidance should be included in Policy NE19 to provide more detail to aid development in implementing adequate mitigation measures to address nutrient neutrality when proposed to be fulfilled by their own means.

Without the above additional information regarding nutrient neutrality within the Local Plan document, the RSPB does not consider it possible to conclude that Policy NE19 is ‘sound’ as, in its current form, the policy does not show effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters surrounding nutrient neutrality.

See attached representation.

Proposed sites which require nutrient neutrality should be removed from the Plan unless mitigation plan is in place.

The word used in paragraph 4.29 is ‘essential’ which does not imply that this condition is an optional requirement but a mandatory one. The development proposed in Policy A11 needs to have a plan in place to offset nitrates but cannot demonstrate it will be nutrient neutral. The lack of provision for offsetting nitrates would bring Policy A11 into conflict with this paragraph of the local plan. The plan cannot be sound if it is inconflict with itself.

Proposes ‘appropriate mitigation’ [as per policy NE6] has regard for existing residents and the commercial viability of businesses, and is proportionate to the scale of development proposed to ensure it doesn’t render development unviable or overburden.

Premier agree with the premise of Draft Policy NE6 and recognise the need to address water and nutrient neutrality issues. That said, Premier acknowledge the practical difficulties in guaranteeing nutrient neutral position for the lifetime of the development and suggest the ‘appropriate mitigation’ has regard for existing residents and the commercial viability of businesses and is proportionate to the scale of development proposed to ensure this doesn’t not render development unviable and to avoid overburdening local residents and businesses.
Premier recognise the unique qualities of the Chichester Marina’s location and the areas’ international and national designated habitats. With this is mind and factoring in Premier’s responsibilities as the long-term manager and steward of the Site, Premier is committed to protecting Chichester Marina’s sensitive habitats in the interests of protecting local wildlife.