Policy H3 Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 - 2039

When the revised dwelling requirement is established for Policy H1, the housing figure in Policy H3 for Westbourne should be increased above the currently proposed figure of 30 dwellings.

Westbourne is one of 17 service villages within the plan area with a good range of local services and facilities. As such it is a sustainable location for additional development. This is recognised by allocations in previous Local Plans and more recent housing allocations in the ‘made’ Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan 2021. It is also located close to the western fringe of the district and is therefore less likely to generate traffic movements on the A27 Chichester Bypass.

My clients land at The Shires, Long Copse Lane, Westbourne which is edged red on the plan in the attached response form would make an ideal housing allocation for up to 7 dwellings.

See attached response forms.

See attachment.

Given the HELAA identifies developable land in Fishbourne to deliver approximately 215 dwellings, the number of dwellings allocated to Fishbourne under Policy H3 should be amended from 30 dwellings to 250 as identified in draft Policy AL9 of the Regulation 18 Local Plan. Sites promoted at Clay Lane.

See attached representation.

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.

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.

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 planning applications can come forward on sustainable sites outside of existing settlement boundaries in parishes should delivery not come forward within the first 2 years of the plan period. Priority should be given to any sites already identified within draft versions of Neighbourhood Plans. This is inclusive of the proposed Tanglewood Nursery site at Wisborough Green.

See attached representation.

See attached written representation

A. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
1. The Council’s emerging Local Plan is unsound as:

• proposed Policy S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 38-39), focuses most future growth in the south of Chichester district in an area that is highly constrained in planning terms, with only a moderate amount of growth proposed in the North of the Plan Area which is objectively and comparatively less-constrained;

• proposed Policy H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), sets out a total housing supply of 10,359 homes for the plan period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039, equivalent to 575 homes per year (an already capped figure due to highway constraints in the south). This is a shortfall of 1,134 homes for the plan period, or 63 homes per year, against the Council’s minimum local housing need as calculated by the Government’s standard housing method and set out in the Council’s Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (Appendix LPD2, page 42);

• the Council proposes a similar spatial strategy and shortfall in supply of housing against its full housing need to that for the previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, pages 40 – 41, and 49). This has resulted in the Council being unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and manage proposals for speculative development, reflected in some 87% of new housing coming from windfall sites (Appendix LPD4, page 12), so is proven to be unsound;

• despite the historic and proposed shortfall in its housing supply, the Council presents insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the impacts of meeting more of the local housing need would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021), taken as a whole;

• the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 26) assesses growth scenarios in the North of the Plan Area. A growth scenario including Crouchlands Farm for 1,114 homes (or 62 per year) is found to be most sustainable (Appendix LPD5, page 34) but is discounted without clear and robust reasoning, and a blended growth scenario for 720 homes (or 40 per year) is proposed in the Local Plan (Appendix LPD5, page 40). It is wholly unclear how the Council has arrived at its decision;

• the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page VI) and Emerging policy NE17 (Appendix LPD1, page 89) allows for 1,796 homes in the
North of the Plan Area, of which scenarios 1a and 2a, including Crouchlands Farm, are less than. Water Neutrality is therefore not a constraint when considering a higher level of development in the North of the Plan Area; and

• Crouchlands Farm was also assessed in the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix LPD7, page 134) as being suitable, achievable and available for rural enterprise-led development / residential mix of up to 600 homes (HELAA ID HPI009).

2. The emerging Local Plan, therefore, is unsound due to it not being positively prepared by the Council in proposing a shortfall of housing supply against its minimum local housing need, where there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this, as well as there being evidence to support additional sites for housing, including at Crouchlands Farm. There is no coherent basis for the Council not taking forward Crouchlands Farm to increase future housing supply given the shortfall.

3. As a result, the Council should be asked to allocate more sites to help bridge the gap in the extent of its housing shortfall and Crouchlands Farm should be considered the obvious first choice given the deliverability of Rickman’s Green Village, as demonstrated by the Council’s evidence base (Appendix LPD5, page 34, and Appendix LPD7, page 134).

4. In addition, a wealth of technical work has been undertaken to prepare and submit three planning applications for Rickman’s Green Village (Chichester District Council reference 22/01735/FULEIA, 22/03114/FULEIA, and 22/03131/OUTEIA) that are currently awaiting determination. These applications further demonstrate the suitability of Crouchlands Farm as a highly sustainable site, capable of delivering up to 600 homes alongside a primary school (or other suitable community facility ), village hub with farm shop, cookery school, glamping and retail and commercial units, and open space provision, such that it should be allocated in the emerging Local Plan.

5. Artemis, or a representative thereof, therefore wishes to participate in the future hearing sessions for the emerging Local Plan. It is considered that as Crouchlands Farm is the only specific alternative considered in the Sustainability Appraisal, it merits its own hearing session.

B. EMERGING LOCAL PLAN ANALYSIS
Introduction

6. This representation has been prepared by DLBP Ltd, on behalf of Artemis Land and Agriculture Limited (“Artemis”), to object to the soundness of the Chichester Local
Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission (“the emerging Local Plan”) prepared by
Chichester District Council (“the Council”) for public consultation between 3 February to 17 March 2023 under Regulation 19 of the of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012.

7. Artemis is the owner and operator of Crouchlands Farm, Rickman’s Lane, Plaistow,
Billingshurst, West Sussex RH14 0LE, a 197 hectare livestock farm in the north of Chichester district partly proposed as the site of a new settlement, known as Rickman’s Green Village.

8. The representation is based on the adopted National Planning Policy Framework (2021). There is a draft version currently being consulted on, but even if approved as drafted, it will not apply to a Local Plan that has reached Regulation 19 at this point. Therefore, the draft policies are not referred to.

9. In the interests of conciseness, the appendices list is not exhaustive. For example, only a selection of the planning applications documents, or executive summaries of these, have been included. The planning applications are available on Chichester District Council’s website (planning refs 22/01735/FULEIA, PS/22/03114/FULEIA and 22/03131/OUTEIA), or a full suite of documents can be provided upon request.

Spatial Strategy

10. Proposed Policy S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 38 – 39), is unsound.

11. Proposed Policy S1 builds on the spatial strategy of the previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, page 40 – 41) by focusing growth in the south of the District on sites in and around Chichester city, and the east-west corridor. The south of the district, however, is known to be highly constrained in planning-terms. Key constraints identified by the Council are the (lack of) capacity of the A27, flood risk, and the need to protect environmental designations, landscape quality, the historic environment and settlement character (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 3.5).

12. Due to the constraints in the south, in particular capacity issues of the A27, the Council proposes a moderate level of growth in the North of the Plan Area.

13. Previous advice from the Planning Inspectorate (Appendix LPD8, page 4) concluded that the Council should reassess its adopted spatial strategy and distribution of development in other parts of the District to establish whether the housing need could be met in another way. The emerging Local Plan, however, does not reassess the distribution of development sufficiently.

14. Proposed Policy S1 is unsound as the Council’s evidence base demonstrates that additional housing could be delivered in the comparatively less-constrained North of the Plan Area, including at Crouchlands Farm, so the proposed policy is not positively prepared, and nor is it appropriately justified. This is expanded upon further below.

North of the Plan Area

15. Proposed Policies A15, Loxwood (Appendix LPD1, page 260) and H3, Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) are also unsound.

16. The emerging Local Plan proposes one allocation for housing in the North of the Plan Area, Policy A15, Loxwood, for a minimum of 220 homes to come forward over the plan period, all through the neighbourhood plan process.

17. Proposed Policy H3 sets out non-strategic targets for 25 new homes to be delivered over the plan period in Plaistow and Ifold Parish, 50 in Kirdford Parish, and 75 in Wisborough Green, all through neighbourhood plans (of which Plaistow and Ifold does not even have a draft Neighbourhood Plan) or subsequent development plans (which have not even begun preparation yet).

18. It is clear, when looking at the District’s population data alone that the North of the Plan area should, proportionately, take on more housing. This is because:
• the population for the entire District (excluding the South Downs National Park area) is 89,982 , which comprises 8,396 in the North of the Plan Area and
81,586 in the remaining south of the District;
• the emerging Local Plan proposes 10,359 homes over the Plan period, comprising 370 in the North of the Plan Area and 9,989 in the remaining south of the District;
• if the proposed housing was to be distributed evenly across the District, one home should be allocated per 11.5 people. An even distribution would therefore result in 966 homes in the North of the Plan Area;
• however, the Local Plan only proposes 370 homes in the North of the Plan Area. This is a shortfall of 596 homes against what should be provided (966 homes) if it were to be evenly distributed, which equates to a 161% shortfall.

19. Proposed Policies S1, H3 and A15 should be found unsound due to there being evidence (set out in the Council’s own evidence base and within this representation) demonstrating that additional housing could be delivered in the North of the Plan Area to meet future needs, particularly in the parish of Plaistow and Ifold at Crouchlands Farm.

20. Furthermore, proposed Policies S1, H3 and A15 are unsound as they are not justified or effective, but are overly reliant on the delivery of additional homes in the North of the Plan Area on sites allocated in neighbourhood plans for the respective parishes when there is no evidence to demonstrate that any sites are likely to be allocated, nor even that neighbourhood plans will be prepared by each of the parishes in the plan period. For example, proposed Policy H3 seeks to deliver 25 new homes in Plaistow and Ifold parish, however work to prepare its neighbourhood plan has ceased indefinitely.

Sustainability Appraisal

21. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34) considered the following six growth scenarios to determine the number of homes to be delivered across the four parishes (Kirdford, Loxwood, Plaistow and Ifold, Wisborough Green) in the North of the Plan Area:

i) 1, lower growth of only the four parishes providing 514 homes (29 homes per
year);
ii) 1a, lower growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 1,114 homes (62 homes per year);
iii) 2, higher growth of only the four parishes, providing 1,139 homes (63 homes per year);
iv) 2a, higher growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 1,514 homes (84 homes per year);
v) 3, highest growth of only the four parishes, providing 1,964 homes (109 homes per year); and
vi) 3a, highest growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 2,564 homes (143 homes per year).

22. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal concluded that the Council is supportive of a blend of Scenarios 1 and 2 (Appendix LPD5, page 40).

23. To reflect this, proposed Policy H3 Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) therefore seeks:
i) lower growth at Kirdford (50 homes) and Plaistow and Ifold (25 homes) on unallocated sites; and
ii) higher growth at Loxwood and Wisborough Green through a combination of one allocated site for 220 homes (proposed Policy A15) and other unallocated sites (75 homes).

24. However, Figure 1 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34), above, very clearly shows that scenario 1a (lower growth of only the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm) scores the best overall i.e., is the most sustainable option. This is due to scenario 1a scoring highest in regard to the site’s accessibility, communities and health, lack of heritage constraints relative to the other scenarios, as well as lack of landscape constraints relative to the other scenarios.

25. With regards to the analysis of the remaining criteria:
• Air Quality and Environmental Quality; Biodiversity; Land, Soils and Resources – whilst we appreciate the information may not be available for the ‘other areas’ accounted for in each growth scenario, the scoring does not reflect the information within the three planning applications at Crouchlands Farm (e.g. Ecological Impact Assessments (Appendices RGV17 and RGV18), Air Quality Assessments (Appendix RGV8 – RGV10), Environmental Impact Assessments
(Appendices RGV21 and RGV22), Agricultural Land Classification Assessment (Appendix RGV7), Land Quality Assessments (Appendices RGV26 and RGV27, etc));
• Housing – the scoring for this category is inconsistent with the other criterion, as it does not exclude option 3a from the ranking. For example, Scenario 1a should therefore score 4, rather than 5, if based purely on the quantity of homes. But page 4 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) confirms that the objective is to (our emphasis): “deliver suitable, well designed, energy efficient and affordable housing to meet local needs, in safe and accessible neighbourhoods with mixed and balanced communities”. In the absence of supporting evidence on the qualitative elements of this objective, other than at Crouchlands Farm, the method of scoring this criteria is unsound as it does not meet the full objective. When considering the high-quality design of homes at Crouchlands, it is clear that scenarios 1a and 2a should in fact score higher; and
• Economy, employment – the Sustainability Assessment fails to acknowledge the economic benefits proposed at Crouchlands Farm, which will have a significant economic benefit for Chichester District Council and the wider area. This is demonstrated in the Economic Impact Assessment submitted with planning application (Appendix RGV19). A second Economic and Social Value Impact Assessment as also been submitted which considers the scenarios of the whole of the proposal (Appendix RGV20), but we wholly appreciate that the Council did not have access to this at the time of preparing the Sustainability Appraisal.

26. There is a clear disconnect between the scoring of the scenarios, how each scenario and Crouchlands Farm has been assessed by the plan-maker, and how the conclusion to proceed with a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 has been made. Page 34 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) clearly states that it “is undertaken without any assumptions regarding the degree of importance, or ‘weight’, that should be assigned to each of the topics in the ‘planning balance’. It is only the Council, as the decision-making authority, that is in a position to arrive at an overall conclusion on the best performing growth scenario on balance”. One must therefore assume that the Council has assigned more importance and weight to certain criteria of the scoring. But there is a clear lack of explanation of this weighting exercise, so the results of the testing is not justified.

27. The Council’s reasoning for supporting a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 at section 7.3 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 40) is therefore wholly unclear, not justified, and is unsound.

28. In summary, the Council’s position is that:
• the government’s standard housing methodology determines an objectively assessed need of 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 over the plan period
(which is a capped figure at 40% above the ‘baseline’ need figure);
• the figure is then capped further to the plan area as a whole to 575 dwellings per annum, because:
• capacity constraints associated with the A27 in the south of the plan area results in a resolution that there is capacity for no more than 535 homes per year in the south (i.e. a further capping of its proposed supply);
• this means that 103 homes per year need to be made up in the North of the Plan Area, or 1,854 homes over the plan period;
• a growth scenario (1a) including Crouchlands Farm for 1,114 homes (or 62 per year) is found to be most the sustainable option in the Sustainability Appraisal when considering the score of figure 1 above (Appendix LPD6, page 34) but is discounted without clear and robust reasoning;
• the Council thus proposes only 40 homes per year in the North of the Plan Area due to ‘wide ranging planning reasons’.

29. This is wholly unsubstantiated as it means that there is a shortfall of 63 homes per year, or 1,134 homes over the plan period. Also:
• the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16) sets out that water neutrality has implications for the growth quantum in the North of the Plan Area, so this area cannot accommodate the full 63 homes per year (which is already a capped figure);
• but the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page 15, table 3.1), and the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16), both confirm that the North of the Plan Area can accommodate 1,796 homes (circa 100 homes per year);
• and even if a suitably precautionary approach is taken (considering fewer homes, by 5% or 10%), 5% fewer homes would equate to 1,706 homes, and 10% fewer homes would equate to 1,616 homes;
• therefore, even with the highest buffer (10%) applied, 1,616 homes could be accommodated in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period (circa 90 homes per year). This means that almost the entirety of the actual shortfall (1,854 homes) could be reached in the North of the Plan Area.

30. We accept that the 1,854 homes required to be made up in the North of the Plan Area cannot be accommodated, due to water neutrality constraints and so scenarios 3 and 3a are discounted.

31. However, scenarios 1 (514 total homes), 1a (1,114 total homes), 2 (1,139 total homes), and 2a (1,514 total homes) would all be below the most precautionary approach taken to water neutrality constraint. Taking the highest growth scenario 2a (with Crouchlands Farm), there would still be headroom of 102 homes in terms of the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy.

32. Therefore, water neutrality cannot be the determining constraint for discounting scenarios 1a or 2a from the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5).

33. Therefore, there is very limited explanation about what the “wide ranging planning reasons” are, and how the resulting shortfall has been reduced from 103 homes per year to 40 homes per year in the North of the Plan Area. Three examples are referenced (with our comments in bold):
• the rurality of the area – whilst we appreciate and wholly recognise this is a designated Rural Area under Section 157 of the Housing Act 1985, so are many of the sites in the south of the plan area that already have, and are planned to, accommodate significant growth. But other than this, a large part of the North of the Plan Area, including Crouchlands Farm, is unconstrained – it is not in the Green Belt, an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, a Special Area of Conservation, a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or other constraints. This is accepted by the Council at page 34 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5);
• the entire area falls within a constrained water resource zone – this is not a constraint. The Council’s own proposed Policy NE17 contradicts this reasoning, as clearly sets out how developers can provide evidence that new development will be water neutral. In addition, Natural England’s Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6, page V - XI) identifies the area as having capacity for 1,784 homes, and growth scenarios 1, 1a, 2 and 2a would all allow for headroom when considered against this (see paragraphs 28 – 32 above); and
• transport-related barriers to growth, whereby Waverley Borough and Horsham District have raised concern – as set out in Section C below, the planning applications at Crouchlands Farm contain a wealth of transport assessments and evidence that there are suitable, reasonable, and proportionate ways of mitigating this. Horsham District and Waverley Borough Councils and have not raised objection to the planning applications, either on transport or any other grounds (Appendices RGV40 and RGV41, respectively). Paragraph 5.2.33 of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) accepts that the strategic growth options, i.e.
Crouchlands Farm, have merit in transport terms.

34. Further details of the Council’s assessment of Crouchlands Farm in the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) are set out in Section C of this representation, alongside our response to each of the points raised by the Council.

40 homes per year

35. A meeting was held between the Council and an Advisory Inspector in October 2022
(Appendix LPD9). This precedes the publication of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5), the growth scenario testing, and the Water Neutrality Mitigation
Strategy (Appendix LPD6), which have since concluded that development of up to 1,796 homes can be sustainably achieved in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period. The Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) excluded scenario 3a on the basis of this being exceeded (page 26).

36. Nevertheless, paragraph 5 of the Advisory Inspector’s notes (Appendix LPD9) states “[…] the Council consider[s] a housing requirement below the need derived from the standard method (some 535 dwellings per annum (dpa) in the southern plan area and the potential for a further 40 dpa in the northern plan area compared to 638 dpa)”. And paragraph 9 lists a number of potentially constraining factors (e.g. limited public transport, limited facilities, water neutrality etc), which the Advisory Inspector states (our emphasis): “appear to support the Council’s position that a maximum of 600-700 homes could be delivered over the Plan period (or around 40 dpa).”

37. However, it is unclear what evidence informed the figure of 40 homes per year in the Advisory Inspector’s note, particularly as:
• none of the scenarios in the Sustainability Appraisal specifically tested a 40 homes per year scenario; and • the Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy, restricting development in the North of the Plan Area to 1,796 homes was not published until December 2022.

38. It is also unclear how the proposed figure of 40 homes per year is reached as a blend of scenarios 1 and 2. For example, when calculating the completions (54), commitments (198), windfall (62) figures at table 5.5, plus the 220 homes at Loxwood, 25 homes at Plaistow and Ifold, 50 homes at Kirdford, and 75 homes at Wisborough Green, the total amounts to 684 homes over the plan period, or 38 homes per year.

39. Despite this, the Emerging Local Plan (Appendix LPD1, pages 99 and 100) sets out a figure of 40 homes per year over the plan period (679 homes in total), accounting for completions, commitments as of December 2022, windfall, allocation at Loxwood, and non-strategic allocations at Kirdford, Plaistow and Ifold, and Wisborough Green. This is contrary to the results of the Sustainability Appraisal.

40. In a previous meeting with the Advisory Inspector regarding water neutrality (September 2022, Appendix LPD10), the Inspector confirms that, prior to submission of a plan (our emphasis added):
“the Inspectorate can only provide advice based on national planning policy and guidance, along with our own personal experience. While it is possible to explore issues in advisory meetings it is not possible to say definitively that the approaches taken will lead to a sound plan. That’s because ultimately each plan will be considered by an Inspector who has been appointed to carry out an independent examination. In doing so they will consider all the evidence to justify the plan, the representations and what was discussed at the hearing sessions.”

41. It is therefore not sufficient reasoning for the Council to submit the Emerging Local Plan, using a blend of scenarios 1 and 2 that happen to match a 40 homes per year figure in the North of the Plan Area, on the basis of the Advisory Inspector’s commentary in October 2022 (Appendix LPD9), which preceded the issuing of the Water Neutrality Mitigation Study (Appendix LPD6) and the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5). One can assume there has been no examination of evidence by the Advisory Inspector, just commentary based on the Council’s own - unsound - narrative.

42. For the above reasons, the Council has therefore not positively prepared or justified the reasons for limiting growth in the North of the Plan Area to 40 homes per year.

Development Plan Infrastructure Panel

43. The Sustainability Appraisal (and commentary at the Special Cabinet and Full Council meetings held on 23 and 24 January 2023) makes references to conversations held and decisions made by the Development Plan Infrastructure Panel. A Freedom of Information request was submitted to request the minutes of these meetings, and the response was that the meetings are confidential and so the minutes would need to be heavily redacted.

44. The transparency of this is in question. While the meetings may not be ‘public' in the sense that the public can attend and watch, the meetings relate to a document that is in the public domain and subject to public consultation, and so there should be transparency into how the decisions and conclusions have been made and justified.

45. In light of the above, proposed Policies S1, H1, and H3 are unsound for not being positively prepared or justified, directing insufficient growth in the North of the Plan Area where there is evidence to support the allocation of additional housing in a more-sustainable way, by including Crouchlands Farm.

Housing Need

Shortfall of supply

46. Proposed Policy H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), is unsound.

47. Paragraph 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) sets out that “to determine the minimum number of homes needed, strategic policies should be informed by a local housing need assessment, conducted using the standard method in national planning guidance – unless exceptional circumstances justify an alternative approach”.

48. The Council’s Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (Appendix
LPD2, page 42) identifies a housing need of 763 homes per year based on the Government’s standard method. That figure comprises 125 homes per year for the part of the district in the South Downs National Park and 638 homes per year for the remainder of the district (the plan area). This equates to a total requirement for 11,484 new homes for the plan period of 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2039.

49. Proposed Policy H1, however, sets out the total housing supply of 10,359 homes for the plan period, which equates to 575 homes per year. This is a shortfall in supply of 1,134 homes, or 63 homes per year, against the minimum local housing need as calculated by the Government’s standard method.

50. The Council attempts to justify the proposed shortfall in housing supply due to key constraints in the south (the A27, flood risk, environmental designations) and the north of the district. In the north, the Council identifies key constraints to be the protection of environmental designations, landscape quality, historic environment and settlement character, and water neutrality (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 3.5).

51. We note that this was echoed by the Planning Inspectorate in a Local Plan Advisory Meeting, held on 5 October 2022, who found that:
“The northern area is not constrained by the capacity of the A27 but has its own issues. As a predominantly rural area with limited facilities and public transport, it is not an obvious location for significant development. There are also landscape and historic environment constraints. It is also affected by water neutrality requirements and the potential for capacity issues on the wider highway network. These factors appear to support the Council’s position that a maximum of 600-700 homes could be delivered over the Plan period (or around 40 dpa)”. (Appendix LPD9, paragraph 9).

52. However, that advice was issued prior to the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) and Water Neutrality Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) being published, which have since concluded that development of up to 1,796 homes in the North of the Plan Area over the plan period can be sustainably achieved.

53. The Council makes no justification that not meeting its housing need in full would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of meeting the majority of the shortfall of need in the North of the Plan Area, when assessed against the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) taken as a whole. The Council entirely overlooks the fact that its objectively assessed housing requirement is not being met. The only reason the Council makes for not meeting its housing need in the North of the Plan Area is set out in a Cabinet Report, dated 23 January 2023, which states:
In the north of the Plan area, previously, given it is less sustainable compared to Chichester and the east-west corridor, the Local Plan has only provided for only limited growth, focused on enabling these communities to continue to sustain local facilities and contribute towards meeting locally generated housing needs, and support for the rural economy, in line with the settlement hierarchy. However, due to the constraint of the A27 in the south of the plan area (see housing section at para 5.34 onwards below), it is considered that this Plan should provide for a moderate level of growth in the north to help to make up the overall shortfall of dwellings, in order to demonstrate that ‘no stone has been left unturned’ in identifying housing supply.

High levels of growth were considered at Loxwood, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Plaistow and Ifold, but ruled out due to the need to conserve the rural character of the area and its high quality landscape and to minimise the impact on the historic environment. The spatial strategy therefore includes growth at Kirdford (50 dwellings), Wisborough Green (75 dwellings) and Plaistow and Ifold (25 dwellings). Loxwood is the least constrained settlement in the north of the plan area, and benefits from the most services and facilities, including healthcare. Therefore, a moderate amount of growth is appropriate for Loxwood of 220 dwellings, to come forward through the neighbourhood planning process.
The SA of the northern options considered 3 scenarios (plus each scenario with the addition of a potential new settlement at Crouchlands), for low, higher and highest growth. The highest growth scenarios perform poorly and therefore the Local Plan reflects a combination of the low and higher growth scenarios tested, which takes into account the constraints of each settlement and the need to avoid cross boundary traffic and education impacts. A new settlement at Crouchlands has been ruled out as it is not of a sufficient size to be a sustainable new settlement in a rural location and because of the negative impact on the landscape and intrinsic rural character of the area and poor sustainable transport links. (Appendix LPD11, paragraphs 5.19 – 5.21).

54. The Council fails to make a case that the impacts of meeting this need would outweigh the harm cause by not meeting the full housing need, or indeed that impacts of even getting closer to meeting this need would demonstrably outweigh the harm of not meeting housing need.

55. On the contrary, there is evidence to demonstrate that housing supply could be higher by at least 600 homes through the allocation of Crouchlands Farm as a site considered to be suitable, achievable and available by the Council’s Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (Appendix LPD7, page 134). The allocation of Crouchlands Farm would be acceptable in water neutrality terms, with both Scenarios 1a and 2a of the Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 34) delivering new homes below the maximum figure set out in the Water Neutrality Mitigation Report (Appendix LPD6, page VI). Furthermore, there are no heritage and landscape constraints associated with Crouchlands Farm.

56. In addition, the information supporting the applications for Rickman’s Green Village further demonstrate Crouchlands Farm as a highly sustainable site, capable of delivering up to 600 homes alongside a village hub with farm shop, retail and commercial units, office and flexible working space, and open space provision (as well as provision for a primary school or other suitable community facility).

57. Proposed Policy H1 is therefore unsound on the basis that it is not positively prepared or justifiable when accounting for all reasonable alternatives.
Historic under-delivery

58. The previous (adopted) Local Plan (Appendix LPD3, page 49) did not provide a sufficient supply of housing to meet the Council’s full housing need at the time of adoption, which is the same approach proposed by the Council for Policy H1.

59. Many of the sites allocated for housing in the previous (adopted) Local Plan on sites in the south of the District have not been delivered, as demonstrated by Appendix 2, Table E of the Council’s Five Year Housing Land Supply Position Statement (Appendix LPD12). This confirms that four sites allocated by the Council previously, with a combined projected supply of 2,210 homes, have not been started, and do not even benefit from planning permission. We understand that none of those sites has come forward due to impediments resulting from site ownership, which raises questions around the approach taken by the Council in allocating sites for housing in the south in the past, which Policy S1 proposes to use again.

60. The Council’s failing to meet its housing supply historically has also resulted in it now being unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply and so unable to effectively manage proposals for speculative housing developments. This is reflected in a significant proportion – some 87% – of new housing coming from windfall sites (Appendix LPD4, page 12).

61. In addition, the Council introduced a new Interim Position Statement for Housing (Appendix LPD13) which set out a spatial strategy to allow new development adjacent to settlement boundaries as a way of significantly boosting housing supply (Criterion 1). The Council has not carried this strategy forward into the emerging Local Plan. This is despite the Planning Inspectorate recommending this in a recent appeal decision (Appendix LPD14), stating that the application of Criteria 1 suggested “the Council’s [adopted] spatial strategy may be out of date, as a more permissive approach appears necessary to maintain a five-year housing land supply.” (paragraph 25).

62. Proposed Policies S1 and H1 are therefore unsound as they follow the same approach of the previous (adopted) Local Plan, which has proven to be ineffective and unsustainable, contrary to national policy, and the recommendations of the Planning Inspectorate.

Longer Term Growth Requirements

63. The emerging Local Plan as originally published (Appendix LPD15), prior to the meetings of the Council’s Cabinet and Full Council on 23 and 24 January 2023, respectively, set out “some reservations about whether it will be appropriate in the longer term to continue to rely on existing sources of supply (e.g., urban extensions and urban intensification) indefinitely given the potential for ongoing increased levels of housing needs” (paragraph 5.11).

64. In doing so, it identified that a new settlement of 2,000 – 3,000 dwellings to accommodate potential longer-term growth needs beyond the Plan period (i.e. 2039 onwards) will need to be explored.

65. At the meeting of the Council’s Cabinet, a proposed amendment was agreed to remove the above wording and instead insert:
“Beyond the Plan period additional planned provision for housing will be required. During the course of preparing this Plan, it has become apparent that it may not be appropriate in the longer term to continue to rely completely on sources of supply such as urban extensions and urban intensification”
[…]
“In order to be in a position to update this Local Plan within the next five
years the Council will need to consider future population and household growth. At the same time, the requirement for sufficient homes to house a local workforce without relying on excessive in-commuting to the District’s workplaces will need to be considered. The continual evolution of National Planning Policy also presents challenges as in what national, regional, sub-regional and plan area strategic planning context any future reviews of this plan may be undertaken.” (Appendix LPD1, paragraphs 5.11 – 5.12).

66. Reference is then made to the need to work “bilaterally with neighbouring authorities in seeking to find cross boundary strategic solutions to future growth requirements” (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 5.13).

67. The emerging Local Plan (Appendix LPD1, paragraph 5.14) continues to recognise a need to facilitate the identification of possible new development sites specifically within the Chichester plan area, however solutions to meet that need are not explored fully.

68. The Council states that it would consider sites that (with our commentary in bold):
i) are of a sufficient scale to support potential long-term development needs arising and support the provision of key infrastructure and community facilities – Rickman’s Green Village is of a scale similar to surrounding villages, and will provide all necessary key infrastructure as well as community facilities such as a potential primary school (or other suitable community facility), sports pitches, and shops;
ii) are comprehensively planned in consultation with existing communities and key stakeholders – significant public engagement has been undertaken, including two in-person public consultation events, and pre-application discussions with West Sussex County Council (on transport, and education) and Chichester District Council;
iii) provide for a sustainable, inclusive and cohesive community promoting self-sufficiency and with high levels of sustainable transport connectivity – a new bus service connecting Rickman’s Green Village to Billingshurst is proposed, and onsite infrastructure is provided to promote self-sufficiency;
iv) include on-site measures to avoid and mitigate any significant adverse impacts on nearby protected habitats – extensive ecology surveys and assessments have been undertaken to ensure habitats are protected. For example, 10 – 30 m buffers have been incorporated around Ancient Woodland;
v) provide a mix of uses to meet longer term development needs and contribute towards its distinctive identity – the village hub will provide office spaces, shops, a café, leisure facilities and a potential school or other suitable community facility to meet long term needs of future residents; and
vi) are of a layout and form that avoids coalescence with existing settlements and does not undermine their separate identity; respects the landscape character and conserves and where possible enhances the character, significance and setting of heritage assets – Rickman’s Green Village has been designed to be a new rural village that does not rely on or coalesce with other surrounding villages. The design has been landscape-led and reflects the character of nearby villages, with contemporary features. There are a number of mitigation measures in place to ensure the setting of heritage assets are protected.

69. Proposed Policies S1 and H1 are therefore unsound. The Council acknowledges that there are ways of meeting future housing need, which could include an allocation of Crouchlands Farm, but avoids deploying these now, which is not justified.

Water neutrality

70. Proposed Policies S1, Spatial Development Strategy (Appendix LPD1, page 40 – 41), H1, Meeting Housing Needs (Appendix LPD1, page 100), and H3, Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039 (Appendix LPD1, page 103) are unsound, and contradictory to proposed Policy NE17, Water Neutrality (Appendix LPD1, page 89)

71. The Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5), in assessing the proposed growth scenarios for the North of the Plan Area, states that water neutrality remains a “key constraint to higher growth” (page 40), despite a Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) having been agreed.
72. That Mitigation Strategy (Appendix LPD6) assumes 1,796 homes being delivered in the North of the Plan Area which the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5, page 16) states:
“immediately serves to indicate that there is no potential to deliver the high growth target figure of 1,854 homes as the (minimum) level of growth that would be necessary in the northeast plan area, were the local plan housing requirement to be set at LHN [local housing need].”
73. Based on the above, the Council should have discounted the highest growth scenarios for the North of the Plan Area in the Sustainability Appraisal Scenarios 3 and 3a, which propose 1,964 and 2,564 homes, respectively for delivering more than 1,796 homes (Appendix LPD5, page 26). Page 26 of the Council’s Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) states, however, “On balance, just Scenario 3a [highest growth of the four parishes plus Crouchlands Farm, providing 2,564 homes] is ruled out as unreasonable, on this basis, leaving five reasonable growth scenarios”. The Council provides no further justification for the inclusion of Scenario 3.
74. The Sustainability Appraisal (Appendix LPD5) goes on to state that whilst a Mitigation Strategy has been agreed, it “cannot be implemented until further work has been completed in order to design / set up strategic offsetting schemes. In this light, the proposed strategy of restricting growth somewhat [in the North of the Plan Area] is supported” (page 60).
75. That assessment is at odds, however, with proposed Policy NE17, Water Neutrality (Appendix LPD1, page 89), which states that “Development proposals are not required to utilise the planning authority-led offsetting scheme and may bring forward their own offsetting schemes.”.
76. The Council, therefore, seeks to use water neutrality to limit future growth in the North of the Plan Area, despite proposed Policy NE17 facilitating appropriate development from coming forward, such as that proposed at Crouchlands Farm. Proposed Policies S1, H1 and H3 are unsound for not being positively prepared or justified.

C. CROUCHLANDS FARM

77. Our analysis of the Council’s emerging Local Plan shows that it cannot be found sound as the Council proposes a shortfall of supply against its minimum local housing need where there are no exceptional circumstances to justify this, as well as there being evidence to support additional sites for housing.

78. As a result, the Council should be asked to allocate more sites to help bridge the gap in the extent of its housing shortfall and Crouchlands Farm should be considered the obvious first choice given the deliverability of Rickman’s Green Village, as demonstrated by the Council’s evidence base (Appendix LPD5, page 34, and Appendix LPD7.5, page 134), and the evidence presented below.

For further information, see attached supplementary documents.

The Parish Council supports the vision and overall strategic objectives of the Local Plan 2021-2039.

Spatial strategy:

Westbourne is identified as a Service Village and there is a given allocation for new development of 30 dwellings. In general terms this seems like a reasonable level of new growth that can be accommodated. However, the plan recognises that in the general area the scope for new development between the National Park boundary and the A27 is limited outside of Southbourne due to physical and environmental constraints. Given these limited opportunities to find land for new development around the village, which was confirmed in the Neighbourhood Planning process recently completed, the scope for Westbourne to take further development is very limited. The Parish Council would urge the District Council to see this quantity of 30 as a maximum target. We would ask the District Council to confirm that it would not suggest a new strategic development being brought forward in the allocations plan for Westbourne as the constraints of the National Park setting and other countryside policies severely limit the scope for further development.

Policy H4, affordable housing policy:
The existing policy only requires on-site provision of affordable housing for 10 or more dwellings. The proposed changes to require commuted sum payments in defined rural areas on sites for between six to nine dwellings is supported. However, this as drafted currently excludes Westbourne. Westbourne Parish Council would urge the District Council to ensure that this policy applies to Westbourne as it has limited opportunity for larger sites which makes it difficult to bring forward affordable housing and there is a clear need for more affordable housing in the Parish.

Policies H12 and H13:

The Plan indicates that there is a high level of unmet need generally for Gypsy’s Travellers and Show People. The high levels of existing and unauthorised pitches in Westbourne is also mentioned in the Plan. The neighbouring parish of Southbourne is also mentioned as a location with high levels of pitches and unmet need. The relevant extract on the approach to meeting this need is as follows. “the council has had to utilise a wide range of options for meeting this need. This entails providing pitches on the strategic housing allocation sites, supporting increases in the density of pitches on existing authorised sites which have been assessed as being acceptable in principle for additional pitches, and allowing pitches to come forward on a case-by-case basis. The council will also consider allocating additional pitches via the forthcoming Allocations DPD.”

Westbourne Parish Council is concerned to avoid intensification of the authorised and unauthorised Gypsy and Traveller and Showman’s Pitches located within the Parish. Westbourne already has one of the highest concentrations of such uses anywhere in the District and further intensification will have an adverse impact on the balanced and cohesive community that we seek to protect. We would argue that other locations with lower intensities of such use should be sought to meet this need.

The site in Cemetery Lane at Greenacre is identified as a location for an additional four pitches. There have been many enforcement issues in this area with unauthorised pitches and unauthorised industrial and commercial development, and further increases in the quantity of pitches will exacerbate the situation to the detriment of the balanced and cohesive community that the Parish Council seeks to protect and enhance.

I am alarmed that the new Chichester District Local Plan - finishing its' public consultation stage today - has increased the number of houses in Loxwood ward by 50 extra in KIRDFORD. I believe we should be VERY MUCH restricting new housing development on greenfield sites [as does Michael Gove, I believe, from his statements in the press in 2022].

We should have FEWER PERMISSIONS GRANTED for large scale housing developments in small villages than is currently the case, and obviously this element of the proposed CDLP works against this.
In KIRDFORD, we are fighting a proposed 70 house build on Townfield Meadows . . . inappropriate locality on previously fairly recently purposed agricultural land; quantity of private (non-rent) housing not required for local need; lack of local infrastructure; etc. Currently we see the commencement of building works on previous agricultural / green field space in Plaistow Road, Kirdford [Pippins Field] - where there will be a largely uncalled for development of 54 homes. We have already protested that if the proposals for 70 new homes were to come to fruition south of Townfield in Kirdford, it would ‘see our village grow by 55 per cent.’
I understand the updated Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan states only 12 houses could be built on part of the Townfield former agricultural / greenfield site over the plan's lifespan; the proposed allocation of 50 in Kirdford in the new CDLP would be completely out of proportion to both village need and the immediate surrounding country landscape.

[RECEIVED LATE]

We have been unable to access the consultation form online but we understand that we can send our comments via this email address.

We would like to add our concerns regarding the additional housing which has been allocated to this area. Enlarging these beautiful villages will significantly alter the character of the local area. There is almost no public transport to these villages and the surgery at Loxwood is already under pressure. The environmental impact of building more houses in an area of natural beauty would also be significant. It is not clear how much consideration has been given to infrastructure requirements - schools, employment, transport.

Once these beautiful villages are expanded and developed there is no going back and they are lost forever along with the attendant reduction in quality of life for the people who live there.

[RECEIVED LATE]

I object to the quantity of properties proposed in the Local Plan on the following grounds:

Ecological impact:
The increased noise, light pollution and traffic will impact negatively on the biodiversity of the area as fragile local animal habitats are destroyed. Rare species of bats, barn owls, deer, butterflies, badgers and countless other animals benefit from the rural environment. Once this tranquil location is disturbed the ecology of the area will suffer beyond repair.

Traffic:
Loxwood district and the surrounding roads are very quiet with many farms and stables in the immediate vicinity. Horse riders, dog walkers, hikers and cyclists frequent this location and the additional traffic associated with the provision of the proposed number of properties would severely impact upon this beautiful rural area, and the safety of its residents.

Due to the rural location there is very limited public transport in this area meaning that new residents in the proposed developments will need to travel in private vehicles.


Infrastructure:
Existing residents are struggling to obtain medical appointments and to secure school places already without exacerbating these issues by increasing the permanent population.
There are also the concerns around water neutrality and the depletion of this valuable resource. This Northern more rural parts of the district are struggling with this already without increasing the strain by the addition of further developments.

Allocate additional land. Site submission - Land to the West of Stoney Meadow, North Mundham. 225 dwellings.

These representations are made on behalf of our client, the Bell Family who wish make
representations to the Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039 Proposed Submission Regulation 19 Version.
Background
Our clients own approximately 37.8 acres of farmland to the west of Stoney Meadow which is edged
red at Appendix 1. The land has been promoted at all relevant opportunities to Chichester District
Council and North Mundham Parish Council but they wish to confirm to Chichester District Council
and the Inspector that the land is available for development should they consider North Mundham as
an area for growth.
Site suitability
The North Mundham Settlement Policy Boundary is being amended to now include the development
at Oakdene Gardens and Stoney Meadow to the east. As mentioned, Henry Adams have promoted
the land on behalf of the landowners at all opportunities and the most recent HELAA suggested that
the land is developable for 225 units under ref. HNM0019 subject to further detail relating to access,
drainage, landscape and archaeology.
The site is split into 3 distinct sections by tree belts, which enables phasing of the land should the
whole of it not be developed. There is also defined landscape boundaries on all sides, restricting views
into the site. The land has no significant natural constraints other than being in the Chichester and
Pagham Harbours SPA buffer zones. To the east of the site on School Lane is a Grade II Listed Building
and to the north east is an area of woodland, covered by a Tree Preservation Order (Local Planning
Authority reference 70/00730/TPO).

Policy S1 & H1
Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the
Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1 sets out the housing target in
response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated
January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s
HEDNA (April 2022).
The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along
the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue
of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.
In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern
part of the District. This is based on the Transport Study (2023) concludes that the road network
cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point
and one that our clients do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local
housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the
following reason.
The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain
their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants
undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in
the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and
11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern
plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and
not costed), mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts.
It is therefore our view that the figure of 535 should be seen as an absolute minimum and other land
should be considered to be allocated.

I live in East Wittering and one of the things which has become very apparent over the last few years is the number of properties, including new builds on larger estates, which are being bought as investment properties and especially for holiday lets. This is pushing house prices higher and excluding local people and families from getting on the property ladder.
There needs to be a mechanism in planning to only allow residential occupation by local residents.

[Consideration of omission site - 15 acres farmland to the west of Birdham]

These representations are made on behalf of our client, the Pick Family who wish to make representations with regards to the Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039 Proposed Submission Regulation 19 Version.

Background

The Pick Family are local landowners who live and farm in Birdham. They own approximately 15 acres of farmland to the west of Birdham which is edged blue on the plan at Enclosure 1. The land has been promoted at all relevant opportunities to Chichester District Council but they wish to confirm to Chichester District Council and the Inspector that the land is available for development should they consider Birdham as an area for growth.

Site suitability

Our client’s have split their landholding previously, as they appreciate that development of the whole would increase the size of Birdham significantly. However, our client’s front parcel, edged red at Enclosure 2, is well enclosed and views into the site from the AONB are limited. There is a significant hedgerow on its western boundary, screening any potential residential development in this parcel.

This portion of the landholding is approximately 1.05 hectares in size and it is our opinion that a development of 25 units could be achieved at this site. Due to the site constraints, the developer would have to ensure that the scheme is designed sensitively, taking into consideration the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. However, this is not considered to constrain development overall on the site and therefore, the site should be considered sustainable in taking account of the three dimensions for sustainability set out in the NPPF.

Due to our client having a wider landholding, if the Council or the Inspector felt it necessary to allocate the site, our client would be able to offset any nitrate or biodiversity impacts from the front parcel onto his retained land. This illustrates that the site is deliverable.

Policy S1 & H1

Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).

The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.

In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the Transport Study (2023) concludes that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that our clients do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.

The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts.

It is therefore our view that the figure of 535 should be seen as an absolute minimum and other land should be considered to be allocated.

We trust our comments will be considered as part of the Local Plan review, and please do not hesitate to make contact if you require anything further

On this basis, we consider it important that a clear alternative delivery mechanism be set out within the Plan to ensure certainty to allow for the Plan to be considered effective.

We support the allocation of 50 new homes in Kirdford. The Plan sets out that this new housing will be delivered through the Neighbourhood Plan process however at the current time there is uncertainty as to if or when the Kirdford Neighbourhood Plan will be formally reviewed. On this basis, we consider it important that a clear alternative delivery mechanism be set out within the Plan to ensure certainty to allow for the Plan to be considered effective.

Consideration of omission site - Land at Chichester Grain Stores, Hambrook, Southbourne

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on behalf of our client Chichester Grain. The submission covers the general principles of the Local Plan but has a focus on Land at Chichester Grain Stores, Hambrook, Southbourne. The land is shown on the attached plan HA Appendix 1: Site Location Plan, and hereafter referred to as ‘the site’.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions and is the final consultation phase before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Local Plan or at least through the allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1: Spatial Strategy, sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1: Meeting Housing Needs sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).
5
2.5 The SA discusses the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
(i) Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding South Downs National Park) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period; and
(ii) The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa).
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. It should be noted here that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was below the identified need of 505 dpa. This reduced housing figure was accepted on the basis of an early review, but this early review did not take place.
2.7 Policy H1 identifies the need for the Plan to make provision for at least 10,350 dwellings within the plan figure, amounting to 575 dpa. This is lower than both the standard method figure of 638 dpa and the previously consulted Preferred Approach figure of 650 dpa which accommodated some unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority.
2.8 This draft Local Plan seeks to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network and constraints on Waste Water Treatment Works. The Council therefore arrive at a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.
2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study notes that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works.
2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in the Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.
2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need. This is
6
of relevance given that the previous Local Plan underprovided against the OAN, and when considering the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP. 2.12 Given that it is not accepted that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery, it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been considered. The plan is not therefore positively prepared, nor is the approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.14 One further concern is that the Plan relies on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and/or Small Site Allocations DPD. In terms of delivery, Policy H3: Non-Strategic Housing Policy Requirements 2021-2039, states the following:
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.
2.15 The above does not provide any clear timetable for commencement of a DPD and thus is not considered to be an effective approach to housing delivery.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify the alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Duty to Cooperate
3.1 Paragraph 24 of the NPPF outlines the need for co-operation between local planning authorities on strategic matters that cross administrative boundaries.
3.2 The draft Plan does not address any need requirements in relation to unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities.
7
3.3 The housing figures presented do not account for unmet need from the South Downs National Park Authority. Whilst a Statement of Common Ground has been referred to, it has not been published and therefore it is not possible to determine whether the decision not to make any provision for the National Park is sound.
3.4 Further, Arun District Council has confirmed that it will be objecting to the Plan as currently proposed on the basis that it has a significant housing need. This is likely to be further influenced by Chichester not meeting its own needs, a repeat of the 2015 situation which resulted in Arun having to address some of this within its 2018 Local Plan.
3.5 If the Plan is to proceed on the basis of providing 575dpa as per Policy H1, this will amount to a shortfall of 1,100 dwellings over the plan period. Without any Statements of Common Ground, it is unclear as to how this shortfall will be addressed.
4 The Site and its suitability
4.1 Our client’s site is well placed to accommodate any additional numbers required and offers a distinctively different scale of development to that proposed in the single large site allocation. It can also be delivered, whilst protecting this part of Southbourne, but also Hambrook to which is more readily relates.
4.2 The development of this land would provide a number of benefits;
 The development would include a mix of high-quality homes, including affordable to meet the varying needs of the community;
 The site is well-connected to local services and facilities, within walking distance of the post office, train station and employment;
 It would support the viability of local services and facilities;
 The site is not subject to any environmental designations or constraints and its development would not impact the South Downs National Park or Chichester Harbour AONB;
 Retention of existing boundary treatments alongside the provision of additional landscape features and open space will ensure net biodiversity gain and greater access to public open space;
 Retention of the trees and mature boundary hedgerows, particularly on the frontage to Priors Leaze Lane will retain the rural setting;
 The site is not constrained and does not rely upon significant infrastructure improvements in respect of delivery. It will ensure that where required, contributions will be made to ensure sufficient capacity is maintained for local facilities.
8
5 Other Policy Considerations
5.1 Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridor – object Policy NE4 states that ‘Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1.There are no sequentially preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor; and
2.The development will not have an adverse impact on the integrity and function of thewildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.’
5.2 We are of the view that our clients land has development potential and could be well placed to assist in the delivery of additional housing number required within the draft Local Plan and are of the view that the blanket wildlife corridor is quite extensive and should be reduced in size. Representations were also submitted to this effect to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan Regulation 16 Consultation.
5.3 We acknowledge the importance of the protection of wildlife generally, and the local eco-systems, however, this submission is supported by an Ecological survey which confirms that our site should not be covered by a Wildlife Corridor to the extent currently proposed. The Wildlife Corridor should be reduced to the immediate site and not as currently proposed under Policy NE4.
5.4 The land at Chichester Grain lies adjacent to the Ham Brook Chalk Stream. The draft Local Plan introduces a Wildlife Corridor along this section of stream. It is our view that the proposed extent of the wildlife corridor is excessive and should be reduced. It is also our view that the wildlife corridor could accommodate a break to provide a means of access to our client’s site, without harming the purposes of the corridor.
5.5 The recommendations of the report are to reduce the scale of the wildlife corridor and also ensure policy flexibility to allow access through these areas and appropriate requirements to enhance and mitigate against any proposed development.
5.6 In terms of the details of the site, habitats present within the site area are of low ecological value. It is noted that there are sites with intrinsic nature conservation value within the area, however, there are suitable mitigation and compensation methods which could protect these habitats.
5.7 The mitigation methods that could be proposed to remove any significant harm to ecological value of the land (which is low as existing), comprise:
9
 Provision for CEMP for any proposed development;
 Retained habitats on site borders should be enhanced;
 Provision for an ecologically sensitive lighting scheme;
 Use of bird boxes within any proposed development; and
 Inclusion of Hedgehog Highways.
5.8 As shown, the land at Chichester Grain is of low ecological value, and should not be included, to the extent currently proposed, as a wildlife corridor within Policy NE4. The Council is further applying yet another restrictive ‘additional layer of planning restraint’ in a District which is already highly constrained by for example, AONB, National Park, numerous ecological designations, Local Nature Reserves/National Nature Reserves, Water Neutrality and Nutrient Neutrality.
5.9 Furthermore, we have set out mitigation methods which could be applied to any forthcoming application or allocation of the land, which would enhance the ecological value of the site, and protect the intrinsic value of the sites within the locality.
6 Conclusion
6.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, this is significantly lower than the standard method figure of 638 and previously consulted figure of 650 dpa. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa scenario plus some additional mitigation at the Portfield roundabout.
6.2 The Council do not appear to have considered that the increased housing requirement could assist with funding the necessary highway improvements and thus this should be further reviewed by the Council in order to aim to meet the minimum of 638 dpa.
6.3 The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given constraints of the National Park.
6.4 Policy NE4 introduces wildlife corridors, which could be accepted however, the supporting policy maps should be amended and the wording of the policy updated to reflect flexibility to allow appropriate breaks in the corridor for those areas that are of low ecological value, such as our Client’s land.

Consideration of CCE's landholdings at Southbourne, Oving and Hunston parishes.

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

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

Chapter 2: Vision & Strategic Objectives

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

Chapter 3: Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy

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

Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy

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

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

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

Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy

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

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

Chapter 4: Climate Change and the Natural Environment

Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridors

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

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

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

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

Policy NE7 Development and Disturbance of Birds

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

Policy NE10 The Countryside

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

Chapter 5: Housing

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs

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

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

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

Policy H2 Strategic Allocations

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

Policy H5 Housing Mix

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

Policy H7 Rural and First Homes Exception Sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy H8 Specialist Accommodation

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

Chapter 6: Place-making

Policy P3 Density

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

Chapter 7: Employment and Economy

Policy E3 and E4 Horticultural Development

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

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

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

Chapter 10: Strategic and Area Based Policies

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

Policy A13 Southbourne Broad Location for Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy A14 Land West of Tangmere

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

Additional sites

Hunston

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

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

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

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

Land East of Drayton Lane

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

See attachments for site information.

After 'If draft neighbourhood plans making provision for at least the minimum housing numbers of the relevant area have not made demonstrable progress the Council' a line should be added to say 'after checking deliverability with the parish council concerned'.

2.11 Chapter 3 of the draft Local Plan defines how housing and other needs will be met spatially across the District, in accordance with a defined settlement hierarchy.

2.12 Paragraphs 3.5 through 3.28 of the Draft Local Plan summarise the rationale for the proposed distribution of growth, including noting:

• That growth is required in both urban and rural areas to meeting needs;
• The focus remains on Chichester city as a main sub-regional centre and the most sustainable location;
• Outside of Chichester, development will be focused on ‘settlement hubs’ within the east-west corridor at Tangmere and Southbourne;
• Outside of these locations land for new development will be identified and allocated through the Local Plan or a neighbourhood plan at Service Villages where there are suitable locations to do so; and
• The Local Plan aims to continue to protect the countryside.

2.13 Draft Policy S1 (Spatial Development Strategy) broadly reflects the above, and states that “new residential and employment development is [to be] distributed in line with the settlement hierarchy, with a greater proportion of development in the larger and more sustainable settlements”. The corresponding table identifies a range of ‘Strategic Development Locations’ which are considered to be the ‘more sustainable settlements’ including the service villages of Bosham, Hambrook / Nutbourne (combined) and Loxwood.

2.14 Draft Policy S2 (Settlement Hierarchy) expands this list to include a wider range of settlements where development will be delivered through site allocations as well as windfall development in accordance with other policies in the draft Plan.

2.15 Whilst we have no objection to the principle of distributing the majority of growth to the most sustainable location, subject to consideration of constraints, it is our view the Council has not sufficiently justified the rationale behind its settlement hierarchy.

2.16 This is because a key settlement, Fishbourne, has been overlooked in the settlement hierarchies set out in draft Policies S1 and S2 without good reason. Fishbourne, has not been identified as a more sustainable settlement and ‘Strategic Development Location’ in the table at draft Policy S1, and has instead only been identified in draft Policy S2 as a ‘Service Village’, and a location for the non-strategic provision of only 30 homes. This is despite Fishbourne being a highly sustainable location with suitable and deliverable locations for growth (including Gleeson’s site as detailed in Section 3).

2.17 No evidence is provided which considers the sustainability of Service Centres that provides justification for Hambrook / Nutbourne, Loxwood and Bosham being elevated over Fishbourne.

2.18 From our own review, it is clear there is no rationale for this, as shown below:

Current population Sustainable transport options Existing services / facilities Draft Local Plan proposals
Fishbourne 2,666 Train Station and bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Public Houses
Community Hall
Supermarket (Tesco Extra)
Roman Palace (inc. coffee shop) 30 homes
Hambrook / Nutbourne Hambrook: 1,908
Nutborne: 1,962

Combined total: 3,870 Train Station (Nutbourne) and bus services Post office
Public House 300 homes
Loxwood 1,026 Bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Post Office
Community Hall 220 homes
Bosham 1,578 Train Station and bus services Primary School
Medical Practice
Post office
Co-op shop
Churches
Public Houses 245 homes


2.19 We consider that Fishbourne should instead be recognised as a ‘more sustainable’ location where additional strategic-scale growth can and should occur. It has a commensurate number of services and facilities compared to other Service Villages. The proximity to Chichester compared to the other Service Centres and the multitude of employment opportunities and facilities there is also a unique strength of Fishbourne. It also benefits from a nearby Tesco Extra.

2.20 This would be consistent with the Regulation 18 Preferred Approach (December 2018) consultation which identified (through the previous version of draft Policy S1 – at that stage identified as Policy S3 Development Strategy) Fishbourne as a “larger and more sustainable settlement”, alongside Bosham, Hambrook / Nutbourne and Hunston, with an allocation of a “minimum of 250 dwellings”. Loxwood was not recognised as a more sustainable settlement at that time, albeit was still identified to accommodate 125 homes.

2.21 No information has been provided to justify this change in approach between the Regulation 18 and Regulation 19 consultation. We therefore consider the current approach to the Spatial Strategy is not justified and consider draft Policy S1 not “sound”.

1 Introduction
1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation in relation to the land at Headfoldswood Farm, Loxwood, RH14 0SX, as shown on the attached Masterplan Promotional Document, and hereon referred to as the site.
1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation the questions in the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests
2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for examination.
2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District to be delivered through an appropriate strategic allocation policy within the Council’s Local Plan or through an Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).
Is the plan ‘sound’?
2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.
Is the plan positively prepared and justified?
2.4 Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period and Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).
2.5 The SA then goes on to discuss the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
• Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding SDNP) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period
• The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa)
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. above seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity. It should be noted that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was similarly constrained and an early review was the only basis for accepting this reduced housing figure. This early review did not take place.
2.7 In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the evidence base documents that state that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that we do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.
2.8 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa core test, with some additional, and as yet undesigned and not costed, mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts.
2.9 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure, which appears to accommodate the higher growth figure, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF do not exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.
2.10 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need, which is of relevance given the scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP.
2.11 It should also be noted that the draft Plan does not therefore address any need in relation to unmet need of neighbouring authorities and it does not contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities. Notably, Arun District Council have confirmed that they will be objecting to the Plan and currently proposed on the basis that they have a significant housing need themselves. This is likely to be further influenced by unmet need from Chichester, who again are seeking to constrain housing requirements, which was the case in 2015 and the subsequent knock on from that was for Arun to address some of that need in their 2018 Local Plan.
2.12 Given that we do not accept that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery (based on the Council’s Transport Study comments and that of its own consultants), it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrates reasonable alternatives have been considered and it is not therefore positively prepared, nor is their approach to housing figures justified.
Effective?
2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.
2.14 It should also be noted that the Plan relies on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and / or small site allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document. This states the following in terms of delivery:
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.
2.15 The above is not precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery within the Plan period. Whilst the strategy in the comments above could be effective, the Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the supplementary Development Plan documents in order to give a clear timescale for this to be completed.
Is the plan consistent with National Policy?
2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent. However, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate this, the 535 dpa figure should be capped. Given the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify their alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Development in Loxwood
3.1 Our client’s land is located to the west of the village of Loxwood, which is situated to the northeast of the District. The High Street (B2133) runs through the village, connecting the A281 and A272. For a detailed context appraisal of the site and masterplan vision, please see attached the Masterplan Promotional Document. The site was submitted for the Council’s call for sites in February 2019 and is included in Council’s latest HELAA.
3.2 The Draft Local Plan defines Loxwood as a service village with local facilities and services, these include an infant and junior school, as well as a medical practice, a local shop and community facilities, including a village hall. The village has been identified in the Local Plan as a suitable location for a higher level of growth as it has suitable HELAA sites which could come forward through the Neighbourhood Plan process.
3.3 It is agreed that a strategic expansion to the west of Loxwood is the best option for growth in the north-eastern area of the District as there are fewer constraints within Loxwood in comparison to other villages within the north-eastern area of the District.
3.4 Policy A15 of the Draft Local Plan states that land will be allocated within the revised Loxwood Plan for a minimum of 220 dwellings and supporting facilities and infrastructure. This is based on a downwards adjustment scenario for Loxwood, but it should be noted this figure is closer to the lower growth scenario of 200 dwellings.
3.5 The Council acknowledges in the SA that the highest growth scenario of 1.650 homes could be justified but there are concerns regarding the deliverability of homes due the potential scale of allocations to meet the higher growth figure which in turn could affect the Council’s ability to deliver the housing within the five year period. However, the Plan currently seeks
to allocate reasonably sized housing allocations on a number of small-scale housing sites which by this logic could equally affect the Council’s ability to meet the Council’s five year housing supply. It is recommended that the middle, higher growth scenario of at least 825 homes is sought, which would allow for meaningful growth in order to meet the needs generated by the new community, such as the identified primary school. The higher housing figure would also provide the benefit of more affordable housing provision for the north-eastern area of the District.
3.6 Loxwood Parish Council have produced a revised Draft Neighbourhood Plan which seeks to allocate 126 dwellings plus 17 carried forward from the Made Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan, providing a total of 143 dwellings. The Draft Neighbourhood Plan was submitted to the Council under Regulation 14 in December 2020. It is noted in response to the Reg 19 Local Plan consultation, that Loxwood Parish Council will be objecting to policy A15 and the increased housing numbers of 220 dwellings on sustainability grounds, with specific reference to water neutrality. The recent Parish Council meeting notes also indicate that there is currently little appetite to undergo another Neighbourhood Plan review, which will likely require additional resource and cost.
3.7 There is concern that relying on the Neighbourhood Plan to allocate specific sites in Loxwood, will result in unnecessary delay to delivery of housing in this area given the points raised above. Policy A15 is not therefore considered precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery in housing within Loxwood within the Plan period. It is therefore recommended that the allocation of housing sites in Loxwood should be based on a higher growth scenario of at least 825 homes which should be delivered either through a Local Plan policy allocation or within an SPD, with a clear timetable of when the SPD will be produced by the Council.
Water Neutrality
3.8 One of the constraints of the north-east of the District is the requirement is for all new development to meet water neutrality, to ensure that any new it does not impact further on the habitat site comprising the Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) or the Arun Valley Special Protection Area (SPA) & Ramsar site, in terms of groundwater abstraction within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone. It is anticipated that further advice and a mitigation strategy will be created by the Council and its partners to demonstrate how developments can achieve water neutrality. However, at present applicants are required to provide a water neutrality strategy to demonstrate how the development can achieve water neutrality.
3.9 To provide the Council with reassurance that the site is deliverable despite this constraint, our client has commissioned an initial water strategy based on a development of approximately 250 dwellings which includes provision for offsetting. The initial strategy indicates that water neutrality could be achieved for development on the site through water efficient fixtures and fittings, reuse of harvested water through greywater recycling for flushing toilets and offsetting through water efficiency upgrades on an educational facility located within the Sussex North Water Supply Zone. It would therefore appear on the basis of the work undertaken to date, that it would be possible for future development on this site to achieve water neutrality.
4. General Policy requirements
Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeoples’ Needs - object
4.1 The above policy sets out a requirement for 124 pitches across the Plan period, which is to be provided for by allocation of pitches on strategic allocation sites proposing 200+ homes.
4.2 Whilst we understand that there may be a district wide need, we understand that the underlying rationale underpinning this strategic approach is that insufficient sites came forward as part of the Council’s Call for Sites process. However, whilst this tells us about availability of sites, it doesn’t dictate the appropriateness of locations for gypsy traveller provision. It should also be noted that the proposed allocations would not accommodate the overall need and there is no clear quantifiable policy requirement to deliver this need. Accordingly, the approach is not considered to be robust.
4.3 What is clear is that plots are currently available in other areas of the district that have not been taken up by the Council for allocation (namely HELAA ref. HBI0028).
4.4 From our understanding there appears to be a clear absence of information regarding the requirements for pitch provision in localities and the site specific needs that are required to be met. We have not yet seen any evidence from the Council in respect of engagement with the gypsy traveller community in respect of a desire to be located on suburban residential sites – which we consider would contradict with the typical locations of gypsy traveller pitches which are located on rural sites on the periphery of rural settlements.
4.5 Due to the scale and form of the site and specific access names (larger HGVs for static homes and touring caravans) it makes it very difficult to design and suitable means of access that does not appear overly engineered, within a residential housing estate. No consideration appears to have been given to how this can be accommodated within such a site.
4.6 At this time, we consider it would not be appropriate to include such provision until further evidence has been provided on suitability of the approach, need in this specific location and suitability as part of housing allocation of this scale, with a single point of access.
4.7 On the basis of the above, we object to the proposed policy requirement.
5. Conclusion
5.1 Our client’s land is ideally placed to be able to fulfil the sustainable expansion to the west of Loxwood and the much needed, identified housing within the north-eastern plan area. The site measures 57.334 hectares and can be considered as a strategic housing site, west of Loxwood, that would deliver a higher growth of housing within this village and would appear to be able to meet water neutrality requirements. This would also support the viability of the services and facilities in the northern villages. This could include a sustainable addition to the existing village of Loxwood, result in significant enhancements to its existing services and facilities, improved links along, and connectivity to the Wey & Arun Canal and provision of at least 825 homes.

1 Introduction

1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation in relation to the land at Flat Farm, Hambrook, PO18 8FT, as shown on the attached plan HA Appendix 1: Site Location Plan, and hereon referred to as the site.

1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation the questions in the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.

2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests

2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for examination.

2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District through an appropriate allocation within the Council’s Local Plan, or through an allocation of numbers to the Hambrook Parish as set out in policy A12 of the Draft Local Plan, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.

Is the plan ‘sound’?

2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

Is the plan positively prepared and justified?

2.4 Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period and Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).

2.5 The SA then goes on to discuss the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:
• Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding SDNP) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period
• The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa)
2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. above seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity. It should be noted that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was similarly constrained and an early review was the only basis for accepting this reduced housing figure. This early review did not take place.

2.7 In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the evidence base documents that state that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that we do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.

2.8 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa core test, with some additional, and as yet undesigned and not costed, mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts.

2.9 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure, which appears to accommodate the higher growth figure, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF do not exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.

2.10 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need, which is of relevance given scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP.

2.11 It should also be noted that the draft Plan does not therefore address any need in relation to unmet need of neighbouring authorities and it does not contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities. Notably, Arun District Council have confirmed that they will be objecting to the Plan and currently proposed on the basis that they have a significant housing need themselves. This is likely to be further influenced by unmet need from Chichester, who again are seeking to constrain housing requirements, which was the case in 2015 and the subsequent knock on from that was for Arun to address some of that need in their 2018 Local Plan.

2.12 Given that we do not accept that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery (based on the Council’s Transport Study comments and that of its own consultants), it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrates reasonable alternatives have been considered and it is not therefore positively prepared, nor is their approach to housing figures justified.

Effective?

2.13 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.

2.14 It should also be noted that the plan does rely on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and / or small site allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document. This states the following in terms of delivery:

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.

2.15 The above is not precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery within the Plan period. Whilst my comments are noted above that the Plan could be effective, the Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the supplementary Development Plan documents in order to give a clear timescale for this to be completed.

Is the plan consistent with National Policy?

2.16 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the 535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify their alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.

3 Development in Chidham, Hambrook & Nutbourne

3.1 Our client’s site is located within the village of Nutbourne and comprises an area of land of 1.3 hectares adjacent to the existing residential development along Broad Road. The site is currently located outside, but directly to the east of the settlement boundary of Nutbourne.

3.2 The Local Plan provides for a moderate level of growth within the parishes of Fishbourne, Chidham & Hambrook and Bosham, known as service villages, where it is acknowledged that there is good / excellent potential to bring forward development with opportunities to support and expand existing facilities and for increased use of public transport options.

3.3 Policy A12 relates to the strategic Chidham and Hambrook allocation and confirms that land will be allocated for development in the revised Chidham and Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan for a minimum of 300 dwellings and supporting facilities and infrastructure.

3.4 The Parish of Nutbourne and Hambrook is a logical position for the strategic expansion of 300 dwellings, given its sustainable transportation links and lack of constraints in comparison to other locations within the southern area of the District. The evidence documents which have informed the Plan also support the quantum of development put forward in the policy allocation.

3.5 As our client’s land could deliver up to 40 dwellings, it would be an appropriately sized site, adjacent to the existing settlement boundary of Nutbourne, which would not compromise the spatial development of Nutbourne or Hambrook to the north. We will therefore be looking to promote our client’s site with Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation, and will be recommending to the Parish they allocate a
number of small to medium sites to meet the Local Plan policy requirement of 300 dwellings. This development strategy will ensure the integrity and current linear spatial pattern of the service villages are maintained.

3.6 Our client’s land is ideally situated adjacent to existing residential development which surrounds the site to the north, south and west. This includes the recent development at Hambrook Place and the linear form of dwellings along Broad Road to the west, Hambrook Holiday & Caravan Park to the north and further residential development accessed from Broad Road to the south. The site would not extend further to the east than the built form of development located to the north and south and would not therefore encroach on the wider field pattern to the east. The impact on the wider rural landscape to the east would therefore be limited and the views looking towards the South Downs from the A259 would not be harmed.

3.7 The site sits outside and to the south of the Green Corridor shown in the Interim Version of the Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan Strategy published October 2021. The development of this site would not therefore impact on the integrity of the Green Corridor or the gap between the settlement boundaries of Hambrook and Nutbourne as shown in the Neighbourhood Plan Strategy.

The Current Appeal

3.8 In addition to the promotion of the site for allocation within the next iteration of the Neighbourhood Plan, the Council will be aware that this site is also currently subject to a pending appeal relating to planning application 20/03378/OUT. This application seeks outline planning permission for thirty dwellings with access, associated works, including the provision of swales.

3.9 The pending planning appeal follows a previous outline application, 20/00412/OUT for an entry level housing scheme of thirty-five affordable dwellings which was dismissed at appeal on 14 January 2022. The main reason for dismissing this appeal was the proposed development was considered to give rise to adverse effects on the integrity of the local Habitats sites. Whilst the Inspector considered adequate mitigation measures in respect of nutrient neutrality had been provided by the Appellant, an appropriate mechanism for securing these measures for the duration of the development had not been provided with any adequate degree of certainty. It should be noted that no other concerns were raised by the Inspector in relation to the suitability of this site for the development.

3.10 The Council have raised two concerns in relation to the current pending appeal for thirty dwellings on the site. The Council raise concern with future occupiers of the discounted market housing (DMS) not being able to obtain mortgages due to properties proximity to electricity pylons which would lead to properties being occupied on a social rented basis. In this scenario, the Council consider in combination with the adjacent social rented scheme, this would result in an unacceptably high concentration of mono tenure properties.

3.11 The Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan Strategy also notes the presence of pylons and overhead power lines along the northern edge of Nutbourne and the limitations this might cause to development in relation to the guidance published by National Grid (Design Guidelines for Development near Pylons and High Voltage Overhead Power Lines).

3.12 Taking into account the Inspector’s comments on this point in relation to the previous appeal for 35 no. affordable residential dwellings, it should be noted that the Inspector previously considered that the Appellant’s evidence demonstrated that there were lenders willing to offer mortgages for DMS properties.

3.13 It should also be noted that as this forms an outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access, the layout of affordable housing is not a matter to be considered under this outline appeal scheme. Nine affordable units would also not lead to an intensive cluster of affordable housing as they have frontages onto different roads.

3.14 The second issue raised by the Council in relation to the appeal could be overcome through the provision of a s106 agreement to provide an appropriate mechanism to secure the mitigation measures relating to nutrient neutrality.

3.15 As the Council have raised no concerns in relation to the principle of residential development on the site with regard to the current planning appeal, the use of the site for residential development is generally considered to be acceptable. This could be delivered through a successful outcome on the current appeal, through a future allocation within the Neighbourhood Plan or via an SPD prepared by the Council.

The Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the DPD.

Consideration of proposed site (Land at New Bridge Farm, Clay Lane, Chichester) within the Local Plan or at least through an allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a neighbourhood Plan allocation.

1 Introduction

1.1 This representation provides a response to the Regulation 19: Local Plan Consultation on behalf of our client Landacre (Chichester) Limited. The submission covers the general principles of the Local Plan, but has a focus on land at New Bridge Farm, Clay Lane Chichester, which is in our client’s control. The land is shown on the attached context plan (land outlined in purple) included
at Appendix 1 and hereon referred to as the site.

1.2 This representation will provide a written responses in relation to the Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation which directly relate to the promotion of our client’s land for future development.
2 Comments on Specific Questions/Tests

2.1 In response to the national planning legislation, this Regulation 19 Local Plan Consultation invites comments on three specific questions, and is the final consultation phase, before the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan is submitted for Examination.

2.2 This representation will respond on these specific questions, and then highlight how our client’s site could help fulfil the full housing requirement for the District. This could be through an allocation within the Council’s Local Plan, or at least through an allocation of numbers to the Parish, who in turn would select sites through a Neighbourhood Plan allocation.

Is the plan ‘sound’?

2.3 Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework defines the tests for soundness which requires the plan to be positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with National Policy. These matters will now be considered in further detail in relation to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 version of the Local Plan.

Is the plan positively prepared and justified?

2.4 Policy S1 of the Draft Local Plan sets out the spatial development strategy for the District and how the Council will achieve sustainable growth over the plan period. Policy H1 sets out the housing target in response to the strategy. Both policies have been informed by the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) dated January 2023 and the Plan objectives, which are set out at paragraph 2.5.2 of the SA and the Council’s HEDNA (April 2022).

2.5 The SA then goes on to discuss the potential growth scenarios and confirms two points:

 Standard method housing figure for Chichester (excluding SDNP) is 638 dwellings per annum, or 11,484 in total over the Plan period
 The above figure is capped at 40% above the baseline need and that the uncapped figure is significantly higher than this at 884 dwellings per annum (dpa)

2.6 Of particular note is that point ii. seeks to cap the overall housing increase by no more than 40% above the previously adopted LP housing figure of 435 dpa. The Local Plan then goes on to constrain housing numbers due to an alleged capacity concern along the A27 strategic road network. The Council therefore result in a constrained housing figure by virtue of the standard method ‘steps’ and also due to infrastructure capacity.

2.7 It should be noted that the 435 dpa figure within the 2015 Local Plan was similarly constrained and an early review was the only basis for accepting this reduced housing figure. This early review did not take place.

2.8 In terms of the influence of the A27, this is the key matter that constrains growth within the southern part of the District. This is based on the Transport Study (2023) which concludes that the road network cannot accommodate an annual housing figure of more than 535 dpa. This is a fundamental point and one that our client do not agree and believe there is capacity to accommodate at least the local housing need within the highway network, alongside potential improvements identified for the following reason.

2.9 The Transport Study (January 2023) is the key document on which the Council rely upon to constrain their housing figure to 535 dpa. On review of this document, it is clear that the Council’s consultants undertook a sensitivity analysis as to whether the core scenario that supports the 535 dpa position in the local plan could accommodate a higher level of growth. The conclusion in paragraph 5.6.5 and 11.2.3 of the Transport Study appears to be that 700 dpa could be accommodated (in the southern plan area) by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa, with some additional (as yet undesigned and not costed), mitigation works beyond those highlighted for the Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts. The absence of consideration of additional improvements works appears to be a significant oversight in the preparation of the Transport Study and overall plan making.

2.10 Accordingly, the Council’s own evidence base has undertaken the assessment and concluded that a higher growth figure could be accommodated on the A27, subject to appropriate improvement works. Given the testing of the higher growth figure in Transport Study, the exceptional circumstances to constrain growth, as set out at paragraph 60 on the NPPF, do not appear to exist and the Plan could be considered unsound on this point alone.

2.11 As a result of the above, the SA does not consider a scenario where the Council would meet its local housing need, nor a scenario where it exceeds its local housing need, which is of relevance given scale of development expected for adjoining authorities, including the highly constrained SDNP.

2.12 It should also be noted that the draft Plan does not therefore address any requirements in relation to unmet housing need of neighbouring authorities. Nor does it contain evidence to suggest that these matters have been discussed with the adjoining Authorities. Notably, Arun District Council have confirmed that they will be objecting to the Plan and currently proposed on the basis that they have a significant housing need themselves. This is likely to be further influenced by unmet need from Chichester, who again are seeking to constrain housing requirements, which was the case in 2015. The subsequent knock on from that was for Arun to address some of that need in their 2018 Local Plan.

2.13 Given that our client does not accept that the A27 capacity matters present a ceiling in terms of housing delivery (based on the Council’s Transport Study comments and that of its own consultants), it is not accepted that the Plan and associated SA demonstrates reasonable alternatives have been considered and it is not therefore positively prepared, nor is their approach to housing figures justified.

Effective?

2.14 On the basis of the 535 dpa figure, it is considered that the selected areas for growth and figures are deliverable over the Plan period, however, as set out above, the plan area could accommodate a greater level of growth.

2.15 It should also be noted that the plan does rely on the delivery of Neighbourhood Plan and / or Small site allocations DPD. This is set out under Policy H3 in the draft document. This states the following in terms of delivery:

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.
2.16 The above is not precise and does provide any clear timetable for delivery within the Plan period. Whilst my comments are noted above that the Plan could be effective, the Local Plan needs to give a clear timescale for completion of the supplementary Development Plan documents in order to give a clear timescale for this to be completed.

Is the plan consistent with National Policy?

2.17 On the basis of the comments above, the approach to selected sites for allocation based on the
535 dpa figure is considered to be consistent, however, due to the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the 535 dpa figure should be capped due to the A27 capacity points raised, the draft Plan does not appear to meet the exceptional circumstances allowed for at paragraph 61 of the NPPF to justify their alternative approach. The Plan as proposed is therefore inconsistent with NPPF when read as a whole.
3 Development in Chichester City

3.1 Our clients land is located within Chichester City on land north of Clay Lane. The draft Local Plan sets out that the city of Chichester is the main settlement with a population of around 29,193(4) and is the principal location for the provision of higher education and shopping facilities. The city is renowned for its cathedral, its historic heritage and university and is the largest centre of employment in the plan area. The Plan goes on to state that most new development will be well located in and around the main settlements of Chichester, together with Tangmere and Southbourne.

3.2 As would be expected, the Local Plan allocates a significant proportion of housing to the city, which includes a site specific allocation of 1,600 homes to the west of Chichester under Policy A6 (part of current Local Plan allocations), 680 homes to the east under Policy A10, 500 homes to Westhampnett and 585 homes at Shopwyke Lakes. A further allocation of housing numbers for
270 homes under Policy A2 are proposed for Chichester City to be delivered as part of a Neighbourhood Plan for the area site allocations DPD.

3.3 The proposed 270 home allocation should comprise a minimum figure, which for the reasons set out above in relation to the A27 would be feasible. It should also set out that the Council should consider a mix of both city centre and edge of city sites to ensures a mix of house types and sizes, with town centre more likely to comprise flats and edge of settlement a mix of 1-4 bedroom homes, which will include family homes.

3.4 Our position on the approach to further allocations and the need for clear timescales to ensure soundness of the Plan is set out at 2.13-2.16 above.
4 Suitability of land New Bridge Farm, Clay Lane, Chichester

4.1 The site covers an area of approximately 3.1 hectares and located to the North-East of Fishbourne. The site comprises of an open field, bordered by mature foliage and fencing. The site is reasonably flat. The frontage is on the Southern boundary of the application site, which benefits from access to Clay Lane. It could be suitable for a quantum of development between 50-70 dwellings.

4.2 Access to the site is via an existing agricultural access from Clay Lane, which adjoins the southernmost corner of the site. The potential means of access has been the subject of a formal pre-application enquiry with WSCC as highway authority. This confirmed that a suitable means of access could be achieved for circa 70 dwellings.

4.3 Whilst the access would go through part of the proposed wildlife corridor to the west of the city, the upgrade of the access is not considered to undermine the overall intentions or integrity of the wildlife gap. However, our client would maintain that a wildlife corridor would better serve the area to the west of Fishbourne, rather than to the west of city. This is an uninterrupted route, as opposed to that currently proposed.

4.4 The site is located within flood zone 1, with a small area of surface water flood risk area identified outside of the site, along the Western boundary.

4.5 The site is located to the North-East of the village of Fishbourne, which comprises a settlement of approximately 2,325 people. Whilst the site does not directly adjoin the settlement boundary, the site is abutted by the approved development scheme at White House Farm Development. The site is therefore enclosed by recently approved development to the north and east. Furthermore, to the South, on the other side of Clay Lane an application for 25 dwellings was approved under reference CC/17/03117/FUL and the A27 embankment to the west. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that the site is enclosed by an established principle of development.

4.6 The site also benefits from direct connection to the public footpath network, which runs along the western and northern boundaries. This continues west through White House Farm (1,600 home allocation) and onwards to the city centre.

4.7 The site has the potential to deliver homes in a sustainable location, on a site that would effectively comprise an infill form of development. The site is suitably located to deliver housing without harm to cultural heritage of the city.
5 Conclusion

5.1 Whilst we understand the approach the Council has taken in terms of the selection of sites to meet the 535 dpa figures, we consider that the Plan area is capable of accommodating a greater housing quantum. This will facilitate development and meet the objectives of the Local Plan. The Council have failed to provide sufficient justification for not meeting its housing need in full and have not suitably considered unmet need from adjoining authorities. The latter is particularly relevant given constraints of the SDNP. The Council’s position of growth is predicated on the basis of the A27 not having sufficient capacity to accommodate a higher growth of 535 dpa. Its own evidence base (Transport Study 2023) contradicts this position and therefore the Council should at least be meeting their local housing need and also considering what part it can play with meeting unmet needs for the adjoining authorities.

5.2 At present, the Plan fails to be positively prepared and is inconsistent with the NPPF. On the basis that the Council don’t reconsider their position, we wish to be present at the relevant Examination hearings to represent our clients’ interests and further discuss the views set out in this submission.

[RECEIVED LATE]

I am objecting to further development in the village at Loxwood. Your system for correctly making objections is too complicated to follow so I am hoping this e mail will be submitted as an objection.
Our sewerage system is not suitable and will not accommodate more dwellings, our infrastructure is not adequate to sustain a larger population.
We do not have a shop or post office, there are no buses running regularly, our bus stop is being used as a car park.
It is impossible to get an appointment at our doctor’s surgery.
I am objecting to all developments which has been tabled for Loxwood and any future development which may be applied for.

[RECEIVED LATE]

I would like to register my strong objections to the Local Plan published on 3rd February last, which sets out proposals to develop 220 new homes in Loxwood in addition to the 91 that are under development.

My principle cause for concern about these plans are that it is already demonstrably clear that the infrastructure in Loxwood cannot adequately support the existing developments, let alone this proposal, which contains no mention of any attempts to improve it.

This includes but is not limited to:-

Water & Sewerage: Southern Water have admitted that the capacity in Loxwood is insufficient to deal with even current demand and has no plans to increase it.
I have personally experienced sewage backflow on my property on a number of occasions in the last twelve months, which has been rectified recently by the fitting of a valve system which shifts the problem elsewhere. Furthermore, the “workarounds” in place for recent housing developments lead to unpleasant odours and risk of discharge into the water courses.

Services: Loxwood has no village shop, its school and medical practice are at capacity and there is negligible public transport serving the village. Over development is placing a strain on the electrical grid supply leading to instances of power disruption.

Landscape and flood risk: The conversion of the significant amount of land involved with this proposal from fields to housing plots will add further pressure from rain water flow on the capacity of the River Lox and Loxwood stream, thereby increasing the risk of flooding to many properties (including my own) in the village.

The proposals dig deep into the natural environment that defines the character of the village and its surroundings with footpaths, vistas and natural habitats permanently degraded as a consequence.


Loxwood PC developed a Neighbourhood Plan in 2018 which was revised in 2020; this seems to have been ignored completely by CDC despite central government encouragement of such plans. It appears that CDC’s desire to focus more housing development in the North of its district is leading to draconian disregard for the considered views of local residents reflected in the Neighbourhood Plan.

I ask that you take my points into consideration when this Local Plan Proposal is refined further.

The drafting of this section of the Plan does not match the landscape character evidence in relation to settlement character. The ambition to support landscape quality in the North of the Plan Area is supported by the Council, but it is undermined by identifying all the settlements as ‘Service Villages’. Plaistow, Ifold and Kirdford in particular are all small villages in comparison with Loxwood and Wisborough Green, which are larger scale settlements and different in character terms. By labelling them all as ‘Service Villages’ will risk these smaller villages becoming treated as larger ‘Service Villages’ in time, which will risk them losing their character and settlement hierarchy within this area. These smaller villages should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The Plan identifies that there are few large settlements North of the Plan Area. To ensure this distinctive area of the District is correctly conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced in keeping with the aspirations set out in Chapter 2: Vision and Strategic Objectives, North of the Plan Area, paragraphs 2.49 – 2.51 it is important that the various settlements within the area are correctly identified. Compared to Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett* Wisborough Green is an isolated exceptionally rural village; however, when you compare Wisborough Green to Plaistow, Ifold or Kirdford, Wisborough Green appears more akin to a true ‘Service Village’.

*proximity to A27, public transport, Chichester city and other higher order settlement hubs, services and facilities

Therefore, it is incorrect to list Plaistow, Ifold, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Loxwood in the same ‘Service Village’ category as Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett etc as this does not correctly recognise the true scale of the settlements in the North of the Plan Area, which are materially different from the rest of the District.
Settlements are 'small and dispersed’ with poor connectivity either to each other or to other settlement hubs. To do so, is contrary to the Plan’s aspiration to maintain landscape quality. The Plan’s policies need to correctly reflect the characteristics of each landscape. If settlements are incorrectly identified any growth will be unsustainable and will change the character of the whole landscape. The ambitions should be constrained by an area’s landscape capacity.

Chichester's landscape evidence remains the Capacity Study 2019. The results of this study should be correctly reflected within Plan policies.

Whilst the Council understands that some small-scale development is required within the North of the Plan area and supports this, it wishes to act as a critical friend to ensure that the nuances of the proposed small scale development is fully appreciated.

All housing numbers advocated for the North of the Plan Area are large-scale for the current size of the settlements in this area and will increase their population sizes, without providing any services / facilities to manage this increase. In truth, the Plan cannot / does not deliver the required services / facilities the current settlements need, irrespective of any additional growth. The Plan cannot alter the proximity of the SDNP; the areas dark skies; its rare ecology; the poor rural road networks; the proximity of key services to these northern settlements e.g., secondary schools / higher education / transport links - many of which are situated outside of the District itself; the lack of supermarkets; the lack of other services which are necessary to support a diverse population i.e., libraries, children’s centres, job centres etc and the dependence on private vehicles.

The various services / facilities required to support bigger population sizes are outside of the control of CDC and the Local Plan – medical services / school placements (primary, secondary, and higher education) / public transport services / leisure / retail. Therefore, whilst 25, 50, 75, 220 are very small housing numbers when compared to the rest of the District, if the local services upon which these additional residents will rely upon are already oversubscribed – which they are - and there is no prospect of delivering the requires support services in the area – which there is not - then any housing number above that which the current local area can reasonably accommodate is unsustainable development.

Allocation of proposed housing site (Willowbrook Riding Stables, Hambrook) within Plan to ensure timely delivery.

See submitted letter

The ‘tests of soundness’ for Local Plan preparation are set out in paragraph 35 of the July 2021 NPPF. They require the 2021-39 Local Plan to have been:

• Positively prepared – providing a strategy which, as a minimum, seeks to meet the area’s objectively assessed needs; and is informed by agreements with other authorities, so that unmet need from neighbouring areas is accommodated where it is practical to do so and is consistent with achieving sustainable development;
• Justified – an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence;
• Effective – deliverable over the plan period, and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters that have been dealt with rather than deferred, as evidenced by the statement of common ground; and
• Consistent with national policy – enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this Framework.
Local Plan reviews are a legal requirement every 5 years in accordance with Regulation 10A of the 2012 Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations. The Regulation 19 Plan is not legally compliant as it has not been reviewed within 5 years of the last Plan adopted in July 2015. It is also disappointing that the failure of the current Regulation 19 Local Plan to meet objectively assessed need (OAN) of 638 dpa outside the national park has not been properly evidenced in any up to date statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities with regards to the ‘duty to cooperate’.

At this stage we believe the Plan as drafted therefore fails the ‘positively prepared’, ‘effective’, and ‘consistent with national policy’ tests.

In addition, with regard to the longer term growth requirements and the singular issue of a potential new settlement the plan also fails the ‘justified’ and ‘consistent with national policy’ tests of soundness.

Duty to Cooperate
The 2014-2029 Local Plan adopted in 2015 does not meet the full objectively assessed housing needs for the area. But it did recognise that future proposals to improve the capacity of the A27 and wastewater treatment works could facilitate additional housing growth. For this reason, it committed the Council to a review of the Plan within five years to ensure that housing needs could be met. That undertaking to review within 5 years was not met.

In 2021 the Council invited an advisory visit from PINS to advise on how the present Local Plan should be prepared. The inspector advised that if the Plan was prepared which did not meet the full housing needs of the area, it would have to show that it had followed the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities in maximising the effectiveness of plan preparation.

The inspector said the Duty to Cooperate was therefore critical in the preparation of the Local Plan Review. At the time of the meeting, the council said discussions with neighbouring authorities had been carried out on the basis that the Local Plan Review would meet the full objectively assessed housing needs (OAN) for the area. However if this was not the case, the inspector said evidence of constructive, active, and on-going engagement to determine whether or not development needs could be met elsewhere would need to be shown. Importantly, the inspector said,1) ‘a failure to meet the Duty to Cooperate cannot be remedied during the examination process because it applies to the preparation of the Plan, which ends upon submission’, and 2) local planning authorities should make every effort to secure the necessary cooperation on strategic cross boundary matters before submitting plans for examination.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (January 2023) forms part of the evidence base for the Submission Local Plan. In the event, the Local Plan excluding the national park only provides for 575 dpa against an OAN of 638 dpa. However this under provision against need has not been justified anywhere in discussions with neighbouring authorities before the Plan was submitted. Appendix 1 of the Statement of Compliance lists those authorities that were consulted during the earlier Regulation 18 Preferred Approach consultation. Appendix 2 lists those authorities where Statements of Common Ground have been agreed with Chichester DC for the Regulation Submission 19 Plan. No statements have produced or agreed. Therefore as it stands the under provision of housing against OAN in the Plan has not been justified. The failure to meet the duty to cooperate cannot be remedied because it has already ended with the Submission Plan. The plan therefore fails the positively prepared and justified tests. It also fails to comply with national policy in the NPPF paragraph 24-27 which advises on the duty to cooperate approach.

Local Plan Policies
The remainder of these comments deal with the Settlement Hierarchy policy S2, H1, H2 H3 and H8.

Policy S2 – Settlement Hierarchy
The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan provides the justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan. We agree that the hierarchy prioritising development at Chichester as the sub regional centre, followed by development at the settlement hubs, service villages and the rest of the plan area is reasonable. However, although the distribution of housing amongst the settlements in the current Regulation 19 plan has been updated compared to the last Regulation 18 plan, the background paper itself has not been updated. Nor is there any justification or explanation for the change in the quantum of strategic and non-strategic housing to the different categories of settlement in the background paper or the Local Plan itself.

Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs
The identified housing need has been informed by the 2022 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). It explains that based on the standard methodology, since the last HEDNA in 2020, the district wide housing need has increased from 746 dpa to 763 dpa (621 dpa in the Plan Area to 638 dpa) with the balance to be found in the national park. The proposed 638 dpa for the area of the district outside the national park is the figure that will be tested at the forthcoming Examination.
We have already explained why the failure of the Council to plan for the 638 dpa in the Regulation 19 Local Plan has not been justified in connection with the duty to cooperate and no evidence has been presented in any statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities to show how development needs could be met elsewhere.
Policy H2 – Strategic Site Allocations and Policy H3 – Non-Strategic Parish Allocations
Policy H2 identifies strategic scale and policy H3, non-strategic allocations. We have explained above that the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper was prepared for the 2018 Preferred Options Regulation 18 Local Plan but has not been updated to provide any justification for the revised housing distribution and quantum of development for the named locations and settlements in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
Policy H8 – Specialist accommodation for Older People
National policy in the online planning practice guidance (PPG) is clear that the need to provide housing for older people is critical. The guidance on the provision of this type of housing states:
• 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 plan-making authority will consider proposals for the different types of housing that these groups are likely to require.
• They could 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.
• It includes the following within the general definition of specialist housing - age-restricted general market housing, retirement living or sheltered housing, extra care housing or housing-with-care, residential care homes and nursing homes, and senior co-housing communities.
• LPA’s can identify sites for co -housing communities and other specialist housing types for older people, because,
• Allocating sites can provide greater certainty for developers and encourage the provision of sites in suitable locations. This may be appropriate where there is an identified unmet need for specialist housing. The location of housing is a key consideration for older people who may be considering whether to move (including moving to more suitable forms of accommodation).

Factors to consider include the proximity of sites to good public transport, local amenities, health services and town centres.
In our view however, draft Policy H8 doesn’t reflect the guidance in the PPG. For instance, although the policy sets out a threshold of provision for specialist housing of housing sites of 200 or more units, there is no guidance on the actual % provision as there is for example, on affordable housing. All it says is the specific type and amount of accommodation required will depend on the size and location of the site.
The supply of specialist housing should not just be focused on large scale housing schemes. The landscape and environmental constraints across the district even outside the national park would not necessarily allow for large 200 plus unit schemes in all locations. To support an ageing population policy should support the provision of suitable specialist housing to meet the differing needs of individuals across a range of options and in a range of locations.
The second part of H8 should therefore confirm that proposals for specialist housing, such as homes for older people will be supported without any policy qualification for a site’s location within or outside a settlement boundary or within an AONB where a proposal in its local context is not deemed to represent major development.
Rather than rely on the criteria based approach, the policy should also allow for the allocation of sites for specialist accommodation for older people in a Neighbourhood Plan where a site has the support of local people.

WGPC supports this statement with qualification
In a rural village with limited land availability, developments of fewer than 6 dwellings should count towards allocated housing totals; developments of this size are more easily integrated into a village.
It is essential to delegate to the NP process the ability to make minor amendments to the H3 policy numbers.

I RELUCTANTLY support the allocation of 75 houses but WG has NO INFRASTRUCTURE to support ANY additional housing. We DO NOT have a doctors’ surgery, dentist, sports centre, supermarket, petrol station - to access any of the aforementioned requires the use of a car, contrary to LP policy. The village primary school is not only at capacity but in excess of 70% of pupils come in from surrounding villages by car, again, contrary to LP policy. We only have one small top-up shop. Sewage treatment and electricity supply are under pressure plus there is ABSOLUTELY no mobile signal.