Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeoples' Needs

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

See attached representation.

See representations attached.

Thank you for consulting Horsham District Council on the Chichester Proposed Submission Local Plan 2021-2039. We are grateful for the opportunity to be able to comment on your emerging plan. Overall, we consider that the plan has positively sought to balance the provision of future needs with other wider objectives in a manner that contributes to achieving sustainable development. I would also take the opportunity to reaffirm Horsham District Council’s (HDC’s) commitment to continued dialogue under the Duty to Cooperate and joint working between our two councils. We have a number of comments on the Proposed Submission Chichester Local Plan 2021 to 2039 to make on individual policies which we have set out below:

Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy

We support this policy in principle, but consider it is not justified as stands. We note the spatial distribution in the plan period is split into three areas: East – West Corridor, the Manhood Peninsula, and North Plan area (which is the only part of Chichester district which directly adjoins Horsham district). HDC acknowledges Chichester District Council’s position that it is not able to meet its entire identified local housing need of 638 dwellings per annum, given the constraints associated with the required upgrades to the strategic road network in order to facilitate growth, potential environmental constraints and wider infrastructure restrictions. It is understood that National Highways requires a cap on growth due to the limited capacity of the A27. The proposed housing supply target is therefore 575 dwellings per annum.

HDC acknowledges and welcomes that significant effort has been put into identifying development capacity in a way that reflects the principle of positive planning. Nevertheless, the NPPF and PPG set a high bar for ‘leaving no stone unturned’ in respect of meeting development needs. We support that planned growth is directed to sustainable locations where access to local services and access to transport links are easier to access than remote rural areas. It is acknowledged Chichester City is the most populous settlement in the district as well as being most sustainable. We support that growth and future development should be focussed in the East-West Corridor, and in particular in or close to the City, first and foremost. We also acknowledge wider infrastructure deficiencies will need to be addressed in strategic locations before they can accommodate more growth.

We support your continued dialogue with National Highways to support improvements to the strategic road network and note a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) will be published and updated as part of a continuous dialogue with National Highways. The SoCG is important as part of the justification for a lower housing supply figure and should transparently demonstrate why the constraints on the A27 will not allow higher growth in the East West corridor, in order to evidence that maximum housing needs have been achieved in the City and East West Corridor. This evidence is needed for HDC to inform its own DtC position with Chichester District Council (CDC).

Chichester District is planning below the standard methodology housing target and has therefore asked HDC if it can accommodate some of Chichester’s unmet housing need. HDC has confirmed that we are not in a position to accommodate Chichester’s unmet development needs because of our own water neutrality constraint. Furthermore, the primary housing market for Horsham District is the Northern West Sussex HMA, whose development needs are substantially driven by the Gatwick sub-region, and it is this HMA that would be prioritised with respect to meeting unmet development needs.

As a partner in the Sussex North Water Neutrality grouping also impacted by this constraint, CDC jointly owns the relevant evidence, and our two authorities share an ongoing commitment to work on this as our Duty to Cooperate dialogue continues. As ever, the latest position with regards to Water Neutrality and the impact on the delivery of housing and other development needs can be set out in a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) between our two Councils.




Policy NE16 Water Management and Water Quality

We support this policy which is clear in its encouragement of efficient use of water as part of good management framework.

Policy NE17 Water Neutrality

Water neutrality is a significant issue affecting both our districts. Horsham District Council supports this policy which is derived from the joint work undertaken by Chichester District Council, Horsham District Council and Crawley Borough Council. We look forward to continued working with CDC on the development of the implementation scheme, in order to deliver the JBA Water Neutrality Assessment study. This will ensure all new development is in conformity with the Habitat Regulations and can demonstrate water neutrality.

Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs

As outlined earlier in this response, we acknowledge that land supply in Chichester is constrained, and that CDC meeting the full housing requirement within its administrative boundary during the plan period up to 2039 would be challenging. Horsham District is not however in a position to accommodate any of Chichester District’s unmet housing need because of water neutrality and, looking forward, the need to prioritise meeting unmet needs within our primary housing market: the Northern West Sussex HMA.

Policy H2 Strategic Locations/Allocations 2021 -2039

A significant proportion of CDC’s housing supply will be delivered through strategic allocations. Loxwood (220 dwellings) is identified as a strategic allocation and will come forward through the local plan process, with some allocations anticipated to be delivered through local neighbourhood plans. Given the challenges that face Neighbourhood Planning groups in the preparation and delivery of Neighbourhood Plans, (which can potentially delay the delivery of these allocations), we support the identification of strategic sites in the Local Plan, programmed for delivery earlier in the plan period.

As the delivery of strategic allocations requires significant infrastructure planning, including cross-boundary issues relating to the road network, education, healthcare and community facilities, Horsham District Council welcomes continued dialogue with the relevant stakeholders, to ensure development at strategic locations such as Loxwood are delivered in a timely manner and adhere to sustainable development principles. We have some specific concerns relating to strategic allocation policy A15: Loxwood which we have set out under that policy.

Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople’s Need.

We note your position and your requirement to provide a number of pitches and plots for the travelling community during plan period. We support your policy position for intensification of existing pitches. Horsham District can’t at this point in time accommodate any of CDC’s unmet Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show people requirement as we are required to first address our own shortfall, and our evidence demonstrates that this alone will be challenging.

We have a body of evidence to support our position and we will continue to share our evidence with you as our Duty to Cooperate dialogue continues over the coming months. As ever, the latest position regarding Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople will be set out in the Duty to Cooperate Statement of Common Ground between our two Councils.

Policy A15 Loxwood

We support this policy as it will contribute to meeting Chichester District’s unmet housing need, but consider it is not justified as stands and that its effectiveness could be improved. The five villages in the north of the Plan area (Kirdford, Wisborough Green, Loxwood, Ifold and Plaistow) are classified as Service Villages in the emerging Chichester Local Plan. They provide a reasonable range of basic facilities (e.g. primary school, convenience store and post office) to meet the everyday needs of local residents, or are villages that provide fewer of these facilities but that have reasonable access to them in nearby settlements. Loxwood is the strategic site identified to accommodate 220 dwellings over the plan period.

The nearby settlement of Billingshurst, in Horsham District, is considered to be the nearest main settlement to the villages identified above. Given the limited facilities available / or to be provided as part of the Loxwood allocation, it is considered that new residents are likely to be reliant at least some key facilities in Billingshurst, potentially including the GP surgery, the railway station (and rail user car park), The Weald secondary school and sixth form, the library and the retail and community facilities, including the leisure centre. Within Horsham District, there are potential proposals for strategic scale extensions to Billingshurst / new settlements relatively close to Billingshurst. Whilst no decisions have been made with respect to our local plan, housing growth delivered through our own local plan will create potential impacts on existing infrastructure which is already under significant pressure. We therefore require clear evidence that potential cumulative impacts on settlements in HDC have been considered as part of the proposed allocations. We would ask that CDC works collaboratively with HDC and other stakeholders to ensure future pressures on infrastructure in Horsham District is appropriately addressed. Consequently, we seek further clarification in Policy A15: Loxwood to emphasise the importance of collaborative working between stakeholders to mitigate against the potential cumulative impact of development.

I do hope these comments are helpful. I would like to emphasise that they are made in anticipation of further constructive dialogue between our authorities, and with an expectation that matters on which we have flagged concern can be readily addressed, and quite possibly eliminated through our Duty to Cooperate discussions. Should you require any further detail or information in regard to this response please don’t hesitate to contact a member of my Strategic Planning team.

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.

There should be a caveat within the policy to make sure plots are carefully designed, for example they have separate entrances.

See attached representation.

See attachment.

We broadly support the sixteen development requirements included within the allocation wording of emerging policy A13; these are briefly addressed in turn below;

Provide an appropriate mix of housing types, sizes and tenures to meet evidenced local need including affordable housing and specific provision to meet specialised housing needs including 16 serviced self/custom build plots, accommodation for older people and accessible and adaptable homes in accordance with relevant Plan policies; The scheme would present an emerging policy compliant mix of housing types and tenures. We would look to work closely with the local community to identify the appropriate location and phasing for self and/or custom build plots within the Masterplan to ensure the plots come forward in a suitable location that has been considered alongside the wider masterplanning exercise.
Provide 12 gypsy and traveller pitches in accordance with Policy H11; Whilst we recognise the need for the provision of G&T pitches within the District; based on the previous discussions with the Neighbourhood Planning group and local community we feel that the Council would benefit from exploring more appropriate areas for new sites and/or the intensification of nearby sites.
Provide a serviced site(s) for travelling showpeople which should deliver 12 plots, each of sufficient size to allow for the provision of accommodation and equipment plus storage/maintenance, in accordance with Policy H11; As above.
Provide a suitable means of access to the site(s), securing necessary off-site improvements (including highways) in conformity with the Policy T1 (Transport Infrastructure) and T2 (Transport and Development) to promote sustainable transport options; The comprehensive masterplanning approach that has been and will continue to be taken with the scheme will ensure a cohesive layout and access arrangement to best integrate with the existing community. Paragraphs 2.20-4 above outline our recommendation to the Council with regards to infrastructure improvements and we maintain that the most effective way of securing on- and off-site improvements is to place the onus on the developer to ensure their delivery and integration with the local community.
Provide any required mitigation to ensure there is no adverse impact on the safety of existing or planned railway crossings; Any submission will be supported by a robust transport assessment and mitigation strategy.
Ensure adequate provision of supporting infrastructure including education provision, community facilities and transport in accordance with the most up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan; We support the need for supporting infrastructure, which forms a primary objective of the proposals on last east of Southbourne. We feel that their delivery will be most appropriately secured outside of the limitations of CIL.
Give detailed consideration of the impact of development on the surrounding landscape, including the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB and their settings. Development should be designed to protect long-distance views to the South Downs National Park; We support the desire to protect these areas and their settings. Any submission will be supported by a full landscape and visual impact assessment to demonstrate that the scheme east of Southbourne can be a cohesive visual element into the existing built form of the village and avoid any element of incongruousness or harmful impact on the surrounding protected areas.
Ensure that multifunctional green infrastructure provision is well related to the overall layout and character of the development as well as providing opportunities to extend into the wider countryside and surroundings; The proposed scheme to the east of Southbourne would be capable of delivering a significant portion of the Green Ring, originally allocated in the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan 2015. The Consortium is also supportive of a central feature through the site and the approach to align the Green Ring with the north-south public right of way which connects with the green infrastructure on the eastern edge of the neighbouring Cooks Lane development. This approach would allow the green ring to be cohesive with the neighbouring green infrastructure, whilst also maintaining the public rights of way, in conformity with paragraph 98 of the NPPF. Whilst this central ‘Inner’ Green Ring could include play, gym trail, walking and cycling, benches and a variety of greenspace (amenity and natural), which would create a varied and engaging corridor, we would work wish to with the Neighbourhood Plan Group to identify the best mechanism to position sports and allotments through a masterplanned approach.
Demonstrate that development would not have an adverse impact on the nature conservation interest of identified sites and habitats including the strategic wildlife corridors; We support the desire to protect key habitats and the scheme will be informed by extensive habitat surveys and mitigation strategies.
Provide mitigation to ensure the avoidance of adverse effects on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site at Chichester Harbour including contributing to any strategic access management issues, loss of functionally linked supporting habitat and water quality issues relating to runoff into a European designated site; We echo the need to avoid adverse effects on the SPA, SAC and Ramsar site at Chichester Harbour and all necessary mitigation will be provided on- and off-site where required.
Protect any other key views; We support the desire to protect the key views of the wider area. Any submission will be supported by a full landscape and visual impact assessment.
Ensure that allocations and policies accord with the sequential approach to flood risk, and that development will be safe for its lifetime, taking account of climate change impacts, as per the requirements set out in national policy and having due regard to the council's latest Strategic Flood Risk Assessment; We support this requirement and discussions with the Environment Agency and the LLFA will inform the most effective flood mitigation and drainage strategy for the site.
Ensure sufficient capacity within the relevant wastewater infrastructure before the delivery of development as required; Addressed in Paragraphs 2.5-10 above, we have concerns regarding the emerging plan’s wording around the future capacity improvements of WwTW in the Apuldram catchment.
Demonstrate that development would not have an adverse impact on the significance of heritage assets or their settings; Any submission will be supported by a full heritage assessment and the layout and scale will be adjusted accordingly to best protect any nearby heritage assets.
Maintain the character and integrity of existing settlements and provide clear separation between new development and neighbouring settlements including through the definition and protection of landscape gaps. The consortiums approach allows for the masterplan to be designed to best protect the existing settlement of Southbourne from any coalescence with surrounding hamlets. The location of development to the east of the village and the inclusion of the Green Ring is the most appropriate and effective way to protect the village’s visual separation and identity.
Consider the Minerals Safeguarding Area and in line with the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan, a minerals resource assessment may be required to assess if the land contained a mineral resource that would require extraction prior to development. Account should also be taken of the West Sussex Waste Local Plan and associated guidance in relation to safeguarding policy W2. We support this inclusion, and any proposal will be accompanied by a minerals resource assessment if needed.

In general, we support the comprehensive masterplanning approach for development in Southbourne. Our proposals are the result of a complete collaboration between landowners and reiterate that the Consortium has always maintained a desire to deliver a comprehensive development that secures substantial benefits to the existing community. It is obviously important that any landowners included within the proposed allocation are required to work collaboratively with others and the local community, sharing the overall infrastructure and policy requirements fairly and proportionately.

We strongly support an amendment to be made to Policy H2 to allow for the provision of circa (or a minimum of) 1,250 dwellings at Southbourne. The accompanying sustainability appraisal, discussed later, supports a larger quantum of development on this site, with benefits realised of accessibility, environmental quality, climate change mitigation, community enhancement, health, historic environment and landscape. A major element of our proposals at Southbourne are in the infrastructure and community improvements to the local residents and increasing the overall housing numbers by less than 20% on this site is key in the wider delivery of package of the infrastructure improvements associated with the scheme.

There is no intention to deliver piecemeal development proposals within the area, which would likely prejudice the delivery including infrastructure delivery. We maintain the most effective way to ensure the infrastructure improvements associated with the scheme would come forward at an effective and appropriate time would be to remove the need for the proposals to contribute to CIL and instead have a direct commitment between the scheme and the improvements to Southbourne.