Policy H6 Custom and/or Self Build Homes

The policy must be reworded to allow individual self build and also live/work plots to come forward in suitable locations, such as PDL

The policy fails to allow such plots to come forward on individual sites and is limited to sites over 200 units.

In principle, Gladman support the intentions of the above policy as this is in line with Government thinking to provide opportunities for custom and self-build housing. We are encouraged to see that the Council is opting for a 12-month marketing period before plots may be built out as conventional market housing. It is generally accepted that a period of 12 months is normally required in Local Plans where plots can revert back to the developer for alternative forms of housing.

The plan should be amended to set out a greater requirement and emphasis on self build.

This should have regard to:

(a) appreciation of the self build register being the lower end of anticipated demand (in the absence of public and community engagement and promotion activity).

(b) the particular opportunities for self build to be a good fit with the distinctive northern part of the district (outside the national park).

The CDC Register represents the minimum self build requirement in the area. It is the minimum required of a Local Authority and does not reflect S&CB demand of people and households not already active in the sector.

There has not been proactive activity to take S&CB seriously. CDC are not fulfilling their statutory duties as encouraging, promoting, advertising and educating their councillors and their residents in the many benefits of S&CB. At present CDC are doing very little to help or encourage this to their Register Members, residents and others in finding suitable building plots, suitable mortgage funding, suitable builders and sub-contractors etc. Resistance to Self and Custom Build (S&CB) is clearly shown in the lack of meaningful input within the policy and supporting text. Possibly because of lack of education in S&CB as a housing alternative.

The Council has not taken seriously the contemporary potential of Self Build to enable working age people to invest and remain in the area contributing to the organic evolution and reasonable growth of established settlements.

S&CB has unique contemporary potential and a position in the housing market to address emerging housing demand from families and residents of the district. This is in terms of available demographic and economic evidence as well as insights within local communities and positive attitudes towards self build development enabling organic proportionate growth of settlements supporting the economy and social life as well as diversifying housing supply towards local housing demand and need.

In seeking out potential sites, especially in the Loxwood parish for 100% S&CB housing in order to offset major developer housing and the loss of character of the village because of the influx of poor developer standards and loss of community ‘add ons’ such as a Post Office, a larger primary school etc.

The lack of a positive approach to the distinct nature of the north of the district leaves it vulnerable to inappropriate homogeneous large scale housing estate development that does little to broaden housing choice in the local area.

The policy should explicitly state that design of custom and self build homes should follow the same requirements for good design, landscaping etc. as applicable to the area in which they will be built.

To avoid any potential confusion, suggest the first paragraph of the policy is amended to make it clear that the requirement for provision of self and/or custom build housing on SDLs is only required where the allocation policy explicitly requires it.

Miller and Vistry agree that given the allocation of the site is brought forward from the previous plan and the site has already been master planned, had a concept statement agreed and is at an advanced stage of consideration, it would be inappropriate to require the West of Chichester SDL to provide any self or custom build units (as confirmed by the absence of any self or custom build requirement in Policy A6).

Bacon Review, Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and NPPF re; S&CB should be reflected in Plan; incorporate Planning, Design and Sustainability Statement and Statement of Intent for S&CB Housing to be inserted in Local Plan(see attachments); strategy for Northern District (100% S&CB in Loxwood).

REG 19 RESPONSE TO CDC DRAFT LOCAL PLAN – 7 PAGES

INTRODUCTION

I am a trained Quantity Surveyor and ex director of a major UK PLC house-building company. I am now semi-retired. I am an expert in Self and Custom Build (S&CB) housing. I was one of the first in the UK to become a self-builder at the age of 23. Similarly one of the first to gain a self build mortgage – all without parental support. I believe , as do Government, supported by all the political parties in the House of Commons that every single person should be allowed the opportunity to aspire and to be helped and supported in building their own home. This is now enshrined in law and has been since 2015.

Chichester District Council’s (CDC’s) revised Local Plan is not fit for purpose, is not joined-up or managed strategic purposeful thinking nor is the approach consistent, analysed or researched on issues around S&CB within the District, in offering people building plots in a location where they wish to live for many years.

Neither has CDC consulted with myself, the initiator of Self and Custom Build (S&CB) in the District nor with Loxwood Parish Council (LPC) under the Localism Act, who have latterly formally requested CDC to be positive and pro-active in working with them in creating more S&CB in the village, thereby best retaining village character, history, uniqueness, high build standards and diversity of housing mix and opportunity (Exhibit 1) ... all as requested by Government. Nor have CDC consulted us to create a purposeful Housing Strategy for Loxwood.

The revised Local Plan is therefore not sound as CDC have shown little regard of Government’s ever continuing initiatives to fully support S&CB in the region and nationwide, as clearly shown by their lack of substance, strategy and joined-up thinking within Chapter 5 and elsewhere within the revised Local Plan. (Exhibit 2) is a letter to me from the Minister of State for Housing which says ‘The Government strongly believes that Self and Custom Build Housing can play a crucial role as part of a wider package of measures in securing greater diversity in the housing market as well as helping to deliver the homes people want’ , and in locations they want.

OVERVIEW

For S&CB to even start to work at CDC, the S&CB Register wording needs to be dramatically improved upon. At present the wording is purposely negative, discouraging and unhelpful to applicants. The Register is required to be inviting to all residents, of whatever status and also those from outside our District.

Similarly CDC should be fully supportive of S&CB in all guises, not only in words in the Local Plan draft, but in actual initiatives directly from CDC as to continually educate, market, promote and encourage S&CB in the District; especially in major Service villages such as Loxwood, which is fast loosing its village character by being overrun by major developers and their standard box style nondescript housing schemes, against the direct wishes of the Parish Council and also residents, as confirmed by Exhibit 1.

One of the major frustrations for prospective self and custom builders (S&CB’s) is that despite the introduction of the 2015 Self Build and Custom House Building Act (as amended by the 2016 Housing and Planning Act), namely the Act there are still too many local authorities that remain resistant to giving self-build the due consideration in the planning process that the Government desires.

Indeed, the level of weight that Planning Inspectors have regularly attributed to Self-Build in appeal decisions is at odds with the weight that too many local authorities across England ascribe it within the planning balance. This is well recognised by Government, who have set up the Self Build Task Force (or Right to Build Task Force, as otherwise known) to interact with LPA’s directly as to educate and encourage them to adhere to the Act and the PPG and other Government initiatives, to get their Register in order, and to be far more encouraging and supportive of S&CB.

Similarly, too many local authorities produce over-inflated monitoring figures with respect to the number of self-build plots they claim to have permissioned and in doing so also claim to have met their statutory duty to meet demand from their Self Build Register. This tends to be achieved through a mixture of double counting and the inclusion of applications within their claimed supply that plainly do not (and never will) meet either the legislative definition within the Act and/or are not in line with the guidance in the S&CB section of the PPG.

However, the proposed additional amendments to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill – aimed at removing some of the loopholes from the original legislation should help to make it easier for landowners, developers and promoters to bring schemes forward.

The proposed amendments, tabled in the House of Lords Committee, build on the new Clause 115 which has already been introduced in the House of Commons, and which seeks to clarify the duty of Councils to grant sufficient planning permissions for S&CB projects by removing the uncertainty around what constitutes a ‘suitable permission’ under the current legislation.

Amendment 281 CB would allow the Government to create new regulations or amend existing ones in order to specify the types of planning permissions that should be counted towards a local authority’s statutory duty to meet the demand for S&CB arising from its Self-Build Register.

Meanwhile Amendment 281CC stipulates that demand for S&CB in an area, as established by a local authority’s statutory S&CB Register, is cumulative. What this means in practice is that any unmet demand from any previous Base Period will be rolled over to the next until such time it is met. The result is that local authorities will no longer be able to simply write off previous under supply.

These amendments are a welcome response to the practical challenges highlighted in ‘The Bacon Review’ , initiated by Government, into scaling up the S&CB market.

‘The Bacon Review’ found evidence of some local authorities mis-managing their Registers to suppress demand and permission plots. The detailed analysis and critique of such practices are regularly the subject of successful application and appeal work that professional planning consultants undertake on behalf of landowners and site promoters, to demonstrate that local authorities are not meeting the needs of those wishing to build their own home – as they are required to do both by legislation and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Market analysis (e.g. example source) shows that demand for S&CB plots is strong and increasing, with landowners, developers and promoters keen to bring more schemes forward. However, to date, loopholes in the legislation and a combination of mis- understanding and the mis-management by too many local authorities has hindered progress with delivering enough permissioned plots to meet demand. This is why the Government funded ‘Self Build Task Force’ ‘has been created (also known as The Right to Build Task Force).

If the proposed amendments are carried into law, they will help to close off existing loopholes, which should help to enable more land for S&CB to come forward and allow more prospective self and custom builders, at all levels, to achieve their dream home.

I was formally asked by two very senior ‘separate’ party councillors at CDC to offer advice as to how best CDC could improve their standards on S&CB in order to adhere to the law, to come in line with Government thinking and how best to support the wishes and dreams of its residents. This information was formally supplied to CDC (as attached Exhibits 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D and 3E) but has been in large part ignored, within Chapter 5 and elsewhere in the revised Plan.

ISSUES THAT NEED ADDRESSING IN THE DRAFT LOCAL PLAN – CHAPTER 5 AND ELSEWHERE

1. Resistance to S&CB in the Planning Process at CDC

• Resistance is clearly shown in the lack of meaningful input within the policy statement in Chapter 5 and elsewhere. CDC have not addressed the initial most important issue around their Register by purposely discouraging people to join, including myself (See Exhibit 3D), yet Government is well aware of this hidden agenda and is keen for CDC and others to be far more transparent and in seeking help from outside experts, so they can quickly assist their residents and others who wish to Self and Custom Build.

• Resistance has been shown by CDC’s lack of any helpful transparent discussion or interaction with me, as to how their systems can be improved, as to best encourage and publicise S&CB in the district.


REMEDY

• All Members (after the May elections) to be encouraged to attend a Government Task Force Seminar on the many merits of S&CB especially within the rural parish councils of the District, as I am to understand that the Task Force have been asked to visit CDC within the next few months. The first issue being the re-writing of the Self Build Register and to make it transparent and open to all. Also that the new Register is extensively advertised to all District residents and elsewhere outside our District as a new ‘upgraded Register’.

• Similarly so by encouraging officers of CDC planning department and also councillors of our northern parishes in particular to also attend the Seminar.

• To encourage all Member Councillors at CDC (in the planning role) to take on the higher role of planning decision making and not allowing officers to continue to take control. Also by reducing officer Delegated Power control and making officers more accountable for their decisions, and by taking back more control themselves, in determining new housing applications specifically as related to S&CB (directly or indirectly).

• CDC to appoint a part time Self and Custom Build Officer with direct experience in this subject, as do several other LPA’s, with the sole function of promoting, publishing, encouraging and pushing for more such alternative and upgraded housing. At present CDC advise me that they spend one hour per week on S&CB issues.

2. CDC’s S&CB Figures

CDC were monitored recently by the independent HEDNA Report 2022 which very clearly highlighted the inaccurate figures being quoted by CDC. HEDNA showed that the Register numbers were indeed 153 and not 3 as quoted by CDC (Exhibit 3A and 3E)

This is a major reason why the draft Local Plan is not sound. CDC have done nothing to amend or deal with this gross error and others as highlighted in the HEDNA report.

3. CDC’s Register for Self and Custom Build

• Several parties at CDC have told me that they fully accept that their Register is discriminative and not helpful and wholly deficient and that it needs major changes in attitude.

• CDC are certainly not fulfilling their statutory duties as encouraging, promoting, advertising and educating their councillors and their residents in the many benefits of S&CB. Also in seeking out potential sites, especially in the Loxwood parish for 100% S&CB housing in order to offset major developer housing and the loss of character of the village because of the influx of poor developer standards and loss of community ‘add ons’ such as a Post Office, a larger primary school, a community hub coffee shop etc. It is well known that S&CB’s do not wish to build their homes on major developer sites, but in clustered 100% S&CB sites.

• CDC have advised me that the re-writing of the Register will take 1 year to achieve. Yet bearing in mind that I have already supplied them with the skeleton wording, this is a nonsense. It will take no more than a few days to re-write. The whole process of publicity of the new Register could be completed within one montn, if the will was there.

• I don’t believe that CDC officers are at all aware of the Government continuous on-going initiatives towards S&CB.

• I also believe such initiatives plus farther initiatives will be encompassed into The Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and also into the new NPPF when it is published shortly.

• It should be duly noted that CDC were given circa £90,000 by Government some 5 years ago to support S&CB. This money was never used for this purpose and was utilised elsewhere. CDC very recently applied again for a similar grant and were rejected (Exhibit 4).

REMEDY

• CDC should be encouraged to include in their draft Plan all the changes I have proposed and are duty bound by statute to do in revising and extending their Register, allowing for all the new initiates Government have already published and hopefully are due to publish and further extend in the near future.

• As to support CDC in these endeavours they should:-

- seek the help of people like myself and swiftly action such matters

- arrange an extended Government Task Force meeting and swiftly implement their advice and insert same into the Local Plan as to best interpret Government policy so they (CDC) can ensure their Plan becomes sound.

- Everybody should understand that all this support and advice will be given for free at no cost to the ratepayers of CDC

* CDC should regularly consult with people on their Register and if people like myself are willing to offer Register Members help and advice for free, these people should have the opportunity, if they wish, in seeking any help from us. At present CDC are doing nothing to help or encourage this to their Register Members, residents and others in finding suitable building plots, suitable mortgage funding, suitable builders and sub-contractors etc. Again this is a duty that they have ignored.


CONCLUSIONS

I ask at Examination which I wish to attend that the Inspector seeks that CDC:-

(1) That the Council will adhere to all the recommendations in the independent HEDNA Report ’22 in support of S&CB; starting with re-writing the Register to show 153 potential applicants and not 3 as stated by CDC (see Exhibit 3A pages 1-3 inc. as already written up. Also Exhibit 3 (E). Also to place in their Plan reference to such changes including those as denoted below as to create a more rigorous S&CB statement.

(2) That the Self Build Register be substantially re-written as not to be discriminative by removing all barriers to application. Also that the Register be fully published and supported within the District and that all new and revised Neighbourhood Plans in the District including Letters of Wishes from Parish Councils, show similar insertions in their existing or proposed Plans.

(3) That the Bacon Review proposed insertions be installed in the Plan and any further inserts coming out of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill and the new NPPF also be inserted, once any or all become law or are published, supporting S&CB.

(4) That the Council will seek out and support potential sites for S&CB and will encourage their Parish Councils to follow suit.

(5) That the Council will write a Planning, Design and Sustainability Statement, specific to S&CB (See Exhibit 3 (b) as already written up).

(6) That the Council will write a full and precise Statement of Intent for S&CB Housing (See Exhibit 3(A) pages 4 &5 – as already written up).

(7) That the Council will act with some haste in actioning these matters and confirm same in their S&CB Policy Statement, within the Plan.

(8) CDC have no strategy for the Northern District of our Council area and in particular for Loxwood which CDC classify as a Service Village which out of all the parishes is having to take by far the largest majority of all new housing in the Northern area.

Loxwood will need to increase their housing numbers by 220 new homes, plus permissions already granted (91), namely totalling 311 new homes. If strategy is not fully implemented our historic village character will be lost forever.

It is clearly imperative that CDC planners help and support us in Strategising the housing layout of our whole village style development hubs (of 100% S&CB) by creating housing clusters in lieu of large developer’s schemes as per Loxwood Parish Council’s (LPC’s) wish (under the Localism Act) and their Letter of Wishes sent to CDC on 4th October, 2022 (Exhibit 1).

The reasonable wish of the residents in Loxwood Parish is to re-invigorate and re-create our historic village layout with new retail and village appropriate developments that will help ‘service’ us now we are to be a substantially larger village community.

This needs a meaningful impact strategy (under the Localism Act) from CDC planners in co-operation with LPC to best encourage our existing residents to stay, by best re-designing our community housing layout and make it fully sustainable and characterful into the next century, and make our historic village a flagship location where people wish to live and build their distinctive highly eco and bio diverse S&CB homes.

If the Council justifies the requirement for strategic sites to provide plots for self-build housing we would suggest the phrase where feasible is included.

See attachment.

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.

Confine self/custom build plots to strategic scale housing sites of 200 or more (whether allocated or speculative). Exclude reference to smaller sites other than to encourage allocation via Neighbourhood Plan policies.

See attachment.

Policy H6 should be amended to read:
“On developments of 500 dwellings or more, 2% of market units should be self/custom build”.

See attached representation.

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.

The policy should explicitly state that design of custom and self build homes should follow the same requirements for good design, landscaping etc. as applicable to the area in which they will be built.