Policy H4 Affordable Housing

A commitment to ensure that the 200 homes pa are built.
That the Council will seek to investigate building housing stock of their own within the Government guidelines.

Inadequate
By your own metric you are missing the target of need of 200 homes pa. identified in the HEDNA. The affordable/ social rented element would result in only 93 homes pa.
This would have been an opportunity for CDC to transform housing for low income families/ single people by taking out loans to build up and replace social housing stock which would more than pay for itself. Housing for low income families should not be left to the vagaries of the market.

The tenure mix changed to allow for 200 affordable and social rented homes pa.

Why is there a more generous % of affordable homes in the North of the District than the South? Housing in the South is very expensive and dominated by high value larger properties.
This is clearly an inadequate number of social and affordable rented properties that will not meet the need of 200pa as identified in the HEDNA 2022.
Of the annual figure of 535, 160 homes will be affordable. Of that 91 will be for social and affordable rent. This is less than half the number required. This policy will only serve to increase the gap between market housing and affordable and will result in fewer people being able to afford a home.

The plan’s primacy should identify sites (or parts of sites) best located to meet identifiable need for affordable housing and require a demonstration of delivery.

The local plan should lead the provision of affordable housing through specific policy requirements that reflect local need and ensure delivery on suitably located sites. Consequently the plan should introduce additional local Policies to clearly identify the need for affordable housing on most sites, to limit the ability of developers to challenge affordable housing provision through generic viability statements, or allow a default position of contributions towards developments elsewhere. The plan’s primacy should identify sites (or parts of sites) best located to meet identifiable need for affordable housing and require a demonstration of delivery.

The plan should offer guidance on those circumstances which might dictate a site being considered unsuitable for affordable housing provision.

Where commuted sums are obtained it will be helpful to the community to understand where those sums will be spent and in what timescale.

The policy indicates commuted sums will be acceptable only in exceptional circumstances, and is supported. However, it would be helpful if the plan offers guidance on the circumstances where a site might be considered unsuitable for affordable housing. This is not a decision which should be left to the developer. Where commuted sums are obtained it will be helpful to the community to understand where those sums will be spent and in what timescale, to avoid the potential for all sites suitable for affordable housing in the areas where they are needed, being used in preference for open market housing.

WGPC supports the provision of affordable housing for the North of the Plan area.

Gladman support the current approach of draft Policy H4 which proposes different levels of affordable housing provision depending on location within the district as assessed within the Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment 2022 (HEDNA) and the viability. Gladman further welcome the flexibility within the policy which allows for reduced rates of affordable housing where viability concerns exist.

Gladman support the provision of affordable housing on site but consider that all affordable housing requirements are tested thoroughly to ensure that they are viable and deliverable alongside the other policy requirements of the Local Plan. The Local Plan should consider that the NPPF determines a minimum affordable housing requirement of 10%, and that it is preferred that a proportion of affordable housing are First Homes.

The supporting text also details the overall housing mix for residential development as defined by the HEDNA 2022. Gladman recognise the need to ensure that a mix of house types, sizes and tenures are delivered to support choice and competition, but consider that the policy requires a degree of flexibility to ensure the provision reflects local need, site characteristics and market aspirations.

The Council should consider omitting the tenure altogether.

The use of different affordable housing percentages for greenfield and brownfield sites in this policy is supported on the basis of this supporting regeneration of brownfield sites. The text in this policy does not however reflect that delivery of First Homes across the Borough may further dilute the delivery of affordable housing tenures that better meet local housing needs, and in sufficient quantities to hit the Council’s targets for meeting housing need. It is concerning that the Viability Assessment – Further Update Note (January 2023) does not contain any detailed analysis of the costs associated with delivering First Homes, nor the impact of varying discounts necessary to deliver different house sizes to meet the price cap within Chichester.

The local planning authorities of Bath and North East Somerset Council and Guildford Borough Council have identified the lack of affordability of First Homes within their communities and taken steps to prioritise other affordable housing tenures. In the case of B&NES due to the evidence demonstrating that First Homes is not affordable and would affect delivery of other affordable tenures, the Council has decided not to implement the national guidance and excluded the tenure from their policies and guidance.

In contrast, the emerging draft Guildford Local Plan Policy H8 incorporates flexibility to deliver alternative affordable home ownership tenures where delivery of First Homes would “lead to an adverse planning outcome”, making delivery of First Homes an expectation, but not a requirement.

The HEDNA (April 2022 Final Report) suggests that:

“the clear need for additional rented housing would arguably mean that providing the affordable home ownership would ‘prejudice the ability’ to meet the needs of the ‘specific group’ requiring rented accommodation”.

It also notes that delivery of First Homes may ‘squeeze out’ other forms of low cost home ownership housing such as shared ownership, and delivery will, in particular for 3-bedroom dwellings for which there is significant need within Chichester, require additional discounts to hit the national cap. These higher discounts prejudice the viability of development, and in particular the delivery of rented affordable housing.

The introduction of First Homes as expected by the national guidance may reduce the opportunities for mixed tenure developments to meet local housing needs, contrary to national policy. We ask that the Council review whether the omission of the tenure, as supported by Bath and North East Somerset Council, would operate more effectively in Chichester than the flexibility currently suggested in the policy text. If not, the flexibility as currently drafted will assist in delivering housing in response to local need, affordability, and viability.

Abri supports the further text supporting development identifying opportunities for delivering a proportion of affordable housing for older persons.

The council needs to insist on higher levels of 'affordable' houses (20%+) and with more homes being single occupant (30%), housing density needs to increase to accomodate more people on less land thereby reduce travel time to local resources (shopping, medical attention etc).

The market ensures that housebuilders are rewarded for building expensive houses that median earning homeowners (even in required occupations) cannot afford and are suitable for the better off who wish to move to the area. Whilst population diminishes locally and house supply increases, the housing demand has continued to increase in recent years.

We have no comment on overall proposed level of affordable housing as it would relate to the West of Chichester site. Miller and Vistry are pleased that the West of Chichester site is delivering 30% affordable housing on site in accordance with Policy H4. In regards affordable tenure, we agree that there needs to be flexibility to cater to different needs, but this should also extend to management and viability considerations, as well as be flexible enough to respond to changes in national policy. It is suggested the Policy is reworded to make this clear in respect of affordable tenures.

In regards to Policy H4 on Affordable Housing, house prices in Chichester District are 14 times the average earnings for those working within it and there is a need for 200 social and affordable rented houses per annum for the Plan period (to 2039). Rydon Homes Ltd agrees that more affordable homes need to be built in the District in order to meet this need.

In light of our comments we would recommend that the Council ensure that there is sufficient headroom in the viability of developments and that its policy requirements are robustly tested and the inputs for water neutrality and nitrate neutrality in particular are re-evaluated.

Policy H4- Affordable Housing

The Local Plan is one of an alarmingly limited number of emerging Local Plans that have set a differential affordable housing rate. The policy stipulates that affordable housing requirement of 40% on Greenfield sites and 30% on previously developed land. This is commendable and suggests a greater focus on viability in the Plan making stage. The affordable housing target set out in Policy H4 are informed by the evidence base, namely the Viability Assessment taken by Dixon Searle Partnership, hereafter referred to as the viability assessment. We commend the Council for making the report available at the Regulation 18 stage.

We note that the viability assessment has assessed the viability of the extra care older persons housing typologies and that reference is also made to Sheltered housing typologies. We would recommend caution as the viability assessment clearly shows that specialist housing for older people is only marginally viable using the inputs that Dixon Searle have adopted. We are also concerned that the level of financial contributions attributed to achieving nitrate neutrality and water neutrality are massively underrepresented, we believe that figures could be up to £8k a unit for nutrient neutrality (based on examples requested in other LPAs) and given there are no example of off-site credit systems, a similar figure could potentially be required again for water neutrality. The implications of £157.2 per square metre towards CIL contributions on a 50-unit retirement scheme, in conjunction with the other s106 contributions would be as follows:

• Nutrient Neutrality is £2k per unit = £100k
• Water Neutrality is £2k per unit = £100k
• SPA mitigation - £625 per dwelling = £31,250
• Residual S106 - £1500 per unit - £75k
• A827 contribution £8k (assumed to be per development not per dwelling)

This would mean that there would be contributions of around £974,000 on an average scheme in the south of the District before affordable housing is calculated. This has massive implications for the viability of retirement housing schemes for which there is a critical need in the area, and as we are not confident that the. Figures are appropriate for nutrients and water neutrality, this could mean that some retirement housing schemes are rendered unviable by these inputs.

In light of the above, we would suggest that the Council ensure that there is sufficient headroom in the viability of developments and that its policy requirements are robustly tested and the inputs for water neutrality and nitrate neutrality in particular are re-evaluated.

With regard to the approach proposed around tenure mix, our view is that this requires further consideration. At a time when the delivery of social rent homes is critical, we believe that mix weighting needs to be increased. As a result, we would seek consideration given to seeing the provision of social rent increased to at least 35%, 30% shared ownership and 10% affordable rent.

With regard to the approach proposed around tenure mix, our view is that this requires further consideration. At a time when the delivery of social rent homes is critical, we believe that mix weighting needs to be increased. As a result, we would seek consideration given to seeing the provision of social rent increased to at least 35%, 30% shared ownership and 10% affordable rent.

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attachment.

Executive Summary

The Local Plan as written lacks ambition and vision, and will be detrimental to the landscape within which the district lies. It is a plan borne out of a need to produce a legal document which will satisfy the regulatory authorities. In terms of Urban Planning it fails “To meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (NPPF).

The development that will consequentially arise from the deployment of such a made Local Plan is not sustainable. It will adversely affect the Character, Amenity and Safety of the built environment, throughout our district.

In particular, the Local Plan is inadequate for the needs of the people in the district both at present and in the future because –

1. It has been written in advance of the District having a properly formed and agreed Climate Emergency Action Plan. It is inconceivable that such a key document will not shape our Local Plan. It is this Action Plan that is needed first in order to provide the long-term strategic view as to how and what the District will look like in the future; this, in turn, will help form and shape the policies outlined in any prospective, Local Plan. The Plan as proposed is moribund, as a result of “cart before the horse” thinking.

2. The Local Plan as written does not adequately address how infrastructure, transport and services are going to be materially and strategically improved to meet the predicted growth and shift to a significantly ageing population. There is presently insufficient capacity to supply services and to have adequate people and environmentally friendly connectivity, as a direct result of decades of neglect towards investing in infrastructure and services to meet the needs of the District’s population. We are led to believe that developers through increased levies in order to gain permission to build will fulfil this need, but all that this will result in is an uncoordinated, dysfunctional mess completely lacking in any future-proof master planning approach. We contend that this will do nothing for the quality of life of Chichester District residents and it will create a vacuum whereby few if indeed any can be held accountable or indeed found liable for shortcomings in the future.

3. The Local Plan as written does not state how it will go about addressing the need to create affordable homes. The District Council’s record on this matter since the last made plan has been inadequate and now the creation of affordable homes has become urgent as political/economic/social factors drive an ever increasing rate of change within the District.

4. Flood risks assessments used in forming the Plan are out of date (last completed in 2018) and any decision to allocate sites is contrary to Environment Agency policy. Additionally, since March 2021 Natural England established a position in relationship to ‘Hold the Line’ vs. ‘Managed Retreat’ in environmentally sensitive areas, of which the Chichester Harbour AONB is a significant example. CDC have failed to set out an appropriate policy within the proposed Local Plan that addresses this requirement.

5. The A27 needs significant investment in order to yield significant benefits for those travelling through the East-West corridor; this is unfunded. Essential improvements to the A27 are key to the success of any Local Plan particularly as the city’s ambitions are to expand significantly in the next two decades. But any ambitions will fall flat if the A27 is not improved before such plans are implemented.. The A259 is an increasingly dangerous so-called ‘resilient road’ with a significant increase in accidents and fatalities in recent years. In 2011, the BBC named the road as the “most crash prone A road” in the UK. There is nothing in the Local Plan that addresses this issue. There is no capacity within the strategic road network serving our district to accommodate the increase in housing planned, and the Local Plan does not guarantee it.

6. There is insufficient wastewater treatment capacity in the District to support the current houses let alone more. The tankering of wastewater from recent developments that Southern Water has not been able to connect to their network and in recent months the required emergency use of tankers to pump out overflowing sewers within our City/District reflects the gross weakness of short-termism dominated thinking at its worst and is an indictment of how broken our water system is. The provision of wastewater treatment is absolutely critical and essential to the well-being of all our residents and the long-term safety of our built environment. The abdication by those in authority, whether that be nationally, regionally or locally, is causing serious harm to the people to whom those in power owe a duty of care and their lack of urgency in dealing properly with this issue is seriously jeopardizing the environment in which we and all wildlife co-exist.

7. Settlement Boundaries should be left to the determination of Parish Councils to make and nobody else. The proposed policy outlined in the Local Plan to allow development on plots of land adjacent to existing settlement boundaries is ill-conceived and will lead to coalescence which is in contradiction of Policy NE3.

8. All the sites allocated in the Strategic Area Based Policies appear to be in the majority of cases Greenfield Sites. The plan makes little, if any reference to the development of Brownfield sites. In fact, there is not a Policy that relates to this source of land within the Local Plan as proposed. Whilst in the 2021 HELAA Report sites identified as being suitable for development in the District as being Brownfield sites were predicted to yield over 4000 new dwellings. Why would our Local Plan not seek to develop these sites ahead of Greenfield sites?

9. The Local Plan does not define the minimum size that a wildlife corridor should be in width. What does close proximity to a wildlife corridor mean? How can you have a policy (NE 4) that suggests you can have development within a wildlife corridor? These exceptions need to have clear measures and accountability for providing evidence of no adverse impact on the wildlife corridor where a development is proposed. Our view is quite clear. Wildlife and indeed nature in the UK is under serious and in the case of far too many species, potentially terminal threat. Natural England has suggested that a Wildlife Corridor should not be less than 100metres wide. The proposed Wildlife Corridors agreed to by CDC must be enlarged and fully protected from any development. This is essential and urgent for those Wildlife Corridors which allow wildlife to achieve essential connectivity between the Chichester Harbour AONB and the South Downs National Park.

10. Biodiversity Policy NE5 - This is an absolute nonsense. If biodiversity is going to be harmed there should be no ability to mitigate or for developers to be able to buy their way out of this situation. This mindset is exactly why we are seeing a significant decline in biodiversity in the District which should be a rich in biodiversity area and why the World Economic Forum Report (2023) cites the UK as one of the worst countries in the world for destroying its biodiversity.

11. In many cases as set out in the Policies the strategic requirements lack being SMART in nature – particularly the M Measurable. These need to be explicit and clear: “you get what you measure”.

12. 65% of the perimeter of the District of Chichester south of the SDNP is coastal in nature. The remainder being land-facing. Policy NE11 does not sufficiently address the impact of building property in close proximity to the area surrounding the harbour, something acknowledged by the Harbour Conservancy in a published report in 2018 reflecting upon how surrounding the harbour with housing was detrimental to it long-term health. And here we are 5 years on and all of the organizations that CDC are saying that they are working in collaboration with, to remedy the decline in the harbour’s condition, are failing to implement the actions necessary in a reasonable timescale. CDC are following when they should be actually taking the lead on the issue. Being followers rather than leaders makes it easy to abdicate responsibility. There must be full and transparent accountability.

13. The very significant space constraints for the plan area must be taken into account. The standard methodology need no longer apply where there are exceptional circumstances and we are certain that our District should be treated as a special case because of the developable land area is severely reduced by the South Downs National Park (SDNP) to the north and the unique marine AONB of Chichester Harbour to the south. A target of 535dpa is way too high. This number should be reduced to reflect the fact that only 30% of the area can be developed and much of that is rural/semi-rural land which provides essential connectivity for wildlife via a number of wildlife corridors running between the SDNP and the AONB. Excessive housebuilding will do irretrievable damage to the environment and lead to a significant deterioration in quality of life for all who reside within the East / West corridor.

14. Many of the sites identified in the Strategic & Area Based Policies could result in Grade 1 ^ 2 farmland being built upon. The UK is not self-sufficient in our food security. It is short-sighted to expect the world to return to what we have come to expect. Our good quality agricultural land should not all be covered with non-environmentally friendly designed homes.

Re-word policy to allow for affordable OR social rent and the percentage amended accordingly.

See attached representation.

Request that a new subclause is added stating that:

Specialist older persons’ housing will be subject to a nil affordable housing requirement on brownfield / urban sites in the South of the District and a 30% affordable housing requirement on greenfield sites.

See attachment.

Conclusion

5.1.1 Churchill Retirement Living are strongly of the view that it would be more appropriate to set a nil affordable
housing target for sheltered and extra care development, at the very least in urban areas in the south of the
District. This approach accords with the guidance of the PPG which states that ‘Different (affordable housing)
requirements may be set for different types or location of site or types of development’ (Paragraph: 001
Reference ID: 10-001-20190509).

5.1.2 The guidance in the NPPF and the PPG is that the role for viability assessment is primarily at the Plan making stage:
Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that
comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular
circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a
viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case,
including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site
circumstances since the plan was brought into force (paragraph 57.)

5.1.3 Council Members, Officers and the general public will assume that applications for sheltered or extra care
housing will be able to support a policy compliant level of affordable housing. This would however be wholly at
odds with the viability evidence underpinning the Local Plan.

5.1.4 The requirement for affordable housing contributions from specialist older persons’ housing typologies is therefore speculative rather than based on the evidence presented. The Local Plan is therefore considered to be unsound on the grounds the affordable housing targets are not justified, positively prepared or effective.

5.1.5 We therefore respectfully request that a new subclause is added stating that:
Specialist older persons’ housing will be subject to a nil affordable housing requirement on brownfield / urban
sites in the South of the District and a 30% affordable housing requirement on greenfield sites.

5.1.6 To that end, we would like to draw the Council’s attention to Paragraph 5.33 of Policy HP5: Provision of
Affordable Housing in the emerging Fareham Borough Local Plan which advises that:
5.33 ... The Viability Study concludes that affordable housing is not viable for older persons and specialist
housing. Therefore, Policy HP5 does not apply to specialist housing or older persons housing.

5.1.7 A nil affordable housing rate could facilitate a step-change in the delivery of older person’s housing in the District, helping to meet the diverse housing needs of the elderly. The benefits of specialist older persons’ housing extend beyond the delivery of planning obligations as these forms of development contribute to the regeneration of town centres and assist Council’s by making savings on health and social care.

See attachments.

As the tenure mix sought by Policy H4 does not align with the evidence, additional work will need to be undertaken to demonstrate that this is justified and that it will be effective.

See attachments.

Paragraph 5.19 needs to be included in Policy itself.

See attachment.

Sustainability Appraisal Comments on Soundness

More action is needed to preserve and improve the quality of life of residents. Recently there has been increased flooding and release of sewage in the Chidham, Hambrook and Bosham areas. Wildlife is also suffering and pollution increasing through high levels of traffic.

Further work needs to make clear to the government the difficulties found by the Council in coping with large new housing developments. Current infrastructure is inadequate in many areas.

A representative of Southern Water recently stated at CDC Overview and Scrutiny committee that it would be able to start on improvements in 2025, a date that they would be available was not given. Southern Water is being put in an impossible position when they are unable to manage the current amount of wastewater but have a statutory duty to treat wastewater from a new development. Tankers should only be used for short periods in emergencies, they increase the carbon footprint, pollution and damage local roads. Water is being extracted from the River Ems to cope with increasing demand.

Roads are in poor condition and becoming overcrowded, with many more cars parking along narrow roads, so that the roads become one way. Closer inspection and management of roads is needed. Priors Leaze Lane in Hambrook and Southbourne is narrow and winds along the Ham Brook. The section running between Inlands Road and the Grain Store should be converted to a footpath and cycle track so that residents from Hambrook and Southbourne can safely travel on foot/cycle.

Any new development should provide 50% of affordable housing. Other districts have managed to make 100% of some developments affordable. The current affordable price should be agreed and statistics published to show that local people, young and old are buying/renting.

The importance of rare chalk streams has recently been mentioned by the WWF, the South Downs National Committee on Chalk Streams and in the West Sussex Wildlife Trust magazine. Care should be taken to protect the Ham Brook and Hairspring Watercress Farm (mentioned in the Doomsday Book).

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.

Chichester Local Plan – Proposed Submission
Duty to Co-operate
The Statutory Housing Authority welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Chichester Local Plan 2021 – 2039 and strongly commends the Local Planning Authority on progressing with its plan-making activities at a time when a number of Local Planning Authorities across the country have stalled owing to a state of flux in the national policy picture.
Chichester District Council Housing Authority considers that the Chichester Planning Policy Team have engaged in a pro-active manner in an ongoing basis to meet the needs of our communities. Furthermore, the authority has been consulted throughout in the crafting of the proposed housing policies H1 – H10 and confirm that the Duty to Co-operate has been met in this regard.

Is it legally compliant?
The Housing Authority consider the plan as presented, to be legally compliant and have no specific comments in relation to the Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulations Assessment or the Statement of Community Involvement.

Soundness
The Housing Authority is satisfied that the plan is positively prepared and seeks to meet the housing need for both market and affordable housing, so far as is practicable, whilst having consideration for the various constraints of the plan area including AONB designation, heritage matters, flooding matters and infrastructure capacity issues. The Housing Authority believe the plan seeks to balance between these competing demands in a sustainable and realistic manner for the plan period 2021 -2039.
The Housing Authority consider the plan provides for a reasonable evidence based strategy which is consistent with national planning policy and guidance and contributes to the delivery of sustainable development, having regard to the reasonable alternatives available.
Meeting housing need
The Housing Authority considers the plan meets housing need so far as is realistically possible considering the constraints of the plan area.
Policy H1, including the Broad Spatial Distribution - is noted.
Policy H2, the strategic locations are broadly located in areas where the Council held Housing Register indicates the highest level of housing need.
Policy H3 - is noted.
Policy H4 – The Housing Authority fully endorse and support the provisions contained in Policy H4.
Policy H5 - The Housing Authority is supportive of the housing mix outlined in policy H5 and the ability to reflect local need where it is appropriate to do so. Furthermore it is right to provide this level of certainty, whilst allowing for some degree of flexibility.
Policy H6 - The Housing Authority are in full support of this policy and fully endorse the opportunity for Neighbourhood Planning groups to bring forward Self and Custom Build serviced plots. The Housing Authority are encouraged by the potential that may arise with the call for sites for such plots. We look forward to working with our colleagues and communities to bring forward Self and Custom Build opportunities within the plan area.
Policy H7 - The Housing Authority recognise the difficulties in bringing forward exception sites for affordable housing and welcome this policy which seeks to enable the needs of our rural communities to be met.
Policy H8 - The Housing Authority strongly advocate for the inclusion of specialist accommodation for older people, and the intention is to secure affordable housing across all specialist accommodation for older people, including Extra Care to meet the needs of those unable to secure such accommodation in the open market.
H9 – The Housing Authority support the policy to retain accommodation for rural workers.

H10-H14 – The Housing Authority has no observations to make in relation to these polices.

It is suggested the Policy is reworded to make this clear in respect of affordable tenures

We have no comment on overall proposed level of affordable housing as it would relate to the West of Chichester site. Miller and Vistry are pleased that the West of Chichester site is delivering 30% affordable housing on site in accordance with Policy H4. In regards affordable tenure, we agree that there needs to be flexibility to cater to different needs, but this should also extend to management and viability considerations, as well as be flexible enough to respond to changes in national policy. It is suggested the Policy is reworded to make this clear in respect of affordable tenures.