Policy A17 Development within the vicinity of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield

The 400m buffer should be reconsidered and replaced with a more robust policy that offers a true reflection and response to noise and safety concerns.

Land likely to be used in cases of aircraft emergency should be kept open and free from development.

Reference to the 400m buffer zone, and its inclusion in policy A17 is understood and welcomed, but we question if, as part of this local plan, a more robust area of control can be created. The 400m distance was a useful ‘rule of thumb’ generated in the absence of any other policy restricting sensitive or particularly harmful development in close proximity to the circuit and airfield, but it is appropriate to replace it with a more considered and robust policy parameter.

It is unfortunate that in drawing a limit on a plan, developers are interpreting the constraint as supporting development at any point beyond 400m from the site boundary. This is too simplistic and gave rise to the problems encountered with the proposed development north of Madgwick Lane, with development proposed up to the 400m limit because it was interpreted as being acceptable in policy terms. On the ground this was not the case with issues of noise and disturbance from overflying aircraft, and aircraft safety issues rendering development beyond the 400m in this location equally unacceptable.

The Estate would welcome the opportunity to discuss and agree with the planning authority a more robust buffer zone around the airfield and motor circuit, that responds more appropriately to facts on the ground, and to the existing safeguarding NPRs which exist.

Development, of a form other than housing, and not sensitive to noise from the circuit and aircraft movements could be developed closer to the site than 400m in some locations, while in others the 400m limit should be extended (following NPRs for example). Land immediately to the south of the airfield between it and the river should however remain as open land, both for aircraft safety considerations and for community amenity and landscape benefits.

Open land around the airfield that is most likely to be used in the case of aircraft emergency, should be included in the development exclusion zone and identified as open space and or land of landscape importance (the area identified as “Land removed from existing site allocation” on Map A9a fits such a category).

Amend to: Where noise-sensitive development is proposed in the vicinity of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield, planning
permission will only be granted where the noise impact assessment clearly shows that:
1. An acceptable level of amenity, by reason of expected experienced noise and disturbance, will be provided
for the future occupiers of the noise-sensitive development within both internal and external areas of the
development; and
2. the development will not compromise the safe and continued operation of Goodwood Circuit and Airfield in
accordance with the ‘agent of change’ principle outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework. In
considering the above, the council shall assess any cumulative impact of relevant noise sources, such as but not
necessarily limited to, road traffic, motor circuit, airfield and any other neighbouring activities that has the
potential to give rise to an adverse noise impact. Consideration shall be given to site specifics and to any
particular characteristic of identified noise sources,

Please see attached representations.

The Plan Map accompanying this Policy (A16a) should be amended to ensure the policy boundary includes protection of land used in conjunction with the operation of the Circuit and airfield. The boundary to be defined in discussion with the Estate

The importance of recognising the operation of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Aerodrome is supported, but operations are reliant upon the land around it. Use of that land for other purposes presents a potential constraint to operations. The Estate is keen to ensure the land remains open where required and requests the Map accompanying this Policy (A16a) should be amended to ensure the policy boundary includes protection of this land

Correction of an unsound, and illegal procedure, flawed, factually incorrect decision to rescind HELAA.

To prevent such decisions being made to exclude legitimate sites for development. See the attached document stating reasons for reinstating unsound exclusion of site for inclusion in the HELAA/SHLAA assessments.

Policy A17
This Policy impacts my Land to the south of Madgwick Lane, Westhampnett’ The Land was discounted for housing development and the reason given was, Goodwood safeguarding flight path.’ This decision was based on an unsound and legal assumption that the flight path crosses my land. Evidence has been collated in the attached report prepared by my Agent, to show clearly that the decision was flawed as the flight path quite clearly crosses the roundabout at Claypit Lane and does not cross my Land. The Council by illegally joining together my two parcels of Land into one, by extension applied this reason for discounting the Land for housing. The two parcels of Land are registered with Land Registry under two legal entities.

Policy A17 states that , ‘Where noise sensitive development is proposed within this area, or BELOW NOISE PREFERRED ROUTES, planning permission will only be granted where the noise impact assessment clearly shows that: para 3, in accordance with the ‘agent of change’ principle outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Council are using this policy, or its current form in the Adopted Local Plan, to exclude illegally my Land from legitimate Housing Development. Previous assessment under the HELAA/SHLAA arrangements accepted the Land as two entities and allocated housing numbers. (see HELAA 2014/2018 in attached document).

Propose additional policy requirement to A16/17:

• Ensure that development avoids harm to protected species and existing important habitat features; facilitates the achievement of a minimum of 10% biodiversity net gain; and facilitates the creation of high levels of habitat connectivity within the site and to the wider green infrastructure network and identified strategic wildlife corridors. This includes the provision of appropriate buffers as necessary in relation to important habitats which are being retained and/or created.

See attached representation.

Remove criterion 2

Please see attached representations.

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached.

This policy could be improved by recognising the significant amount of ancient woodland and non-ancient woodland to North of the area.

Please note that as a Non-Ministerial Government Department, we provide no opinion supporting or objecting to planning applications or local plans including their soundness or legal compliance.

Rather we are including advice and information that we advise the Council consider to ensure their pre-submission local plan avoids potential impacts and promote enhancements/expansion as part of the proposed local plan regarding trees and woodland, including ancient woodland. We acknowledge that the purpose of Regulation 19 consultations does not usually extend to making substantial changes which are not related to soundness so we offer our advice as helpful guidance to ensure the local plan takes every opportunity to secure the protection, enhancement and expansion of Chichester’s valuable trees and woodlands to comply with planning policy, good practice and to make the most of the many benefits they provide to the environment, local economy and community.

Overall Comments
Ancient woodlands, veteran and ancient trees are irreplaceable habitats, and it is essential that they are considered appropriately to avoid any direct or indirect effects that could cause their loss or deterioration, in line with Government Standing Advice. Ancient Woodland has very high potential ecological value and should act as integral focal points, alongside other locally and nationally designated sites, as part of delivering landscape scale nature recovery.

Any development or plan that include these irreplaceable habitats on or near to the site should aim to deliver high standards of net gains and ecological connectivity that supports wider ecological networks, in line with good practice. This will also be a requirement as part of the local nature recovery strategies being driven by the Environment Act 2021 and we advise that plans should anticipate this to maximise environmental benefits to contribute to reversing the national trend of ecological decline as part of broader nature recovery networks. The Local Plan should be considered as a crucial and timely opportunity to secure significant and strategic, plan-led environmental gains due to their scope and scale, particularly given the timescales of development being influenced that coincide with UK Government commitments regarding halving emissions and protecting 30% of nature by 2030, towards a net-zero carbon and nature positive economy.

The development strategy should prioritise the protection of trees and woodlands with the highest priority being given to ancient woodland, ancient and veteran trees as individual habitats and as part of wider ecological networks.

Site Allocation comments:

Policy A7 Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish)
Site specific considerations could recognise the existing trees, hedgerows and woodland and prioritise their protection, enhancement and expansion as part of biodiversity net gains. Acoustic screening referred to could also use trees to make the most of multi-functional benefits they bring.

Policy A8 Land East of Chichester
We welcome efforts to bolster the existing woodland and the proposed strategic wildlife corridor to the East and the enhancements that development could bring.

Policy A11 Highgrove Farm, Bosham
Bolster planting to North, South and East is welcome. This policy could be improved by requiring bolster planting to the West as well, where there appears to be an existing line of trees, making it well placed to further contribute to wider connectivity with existing and additional planting.

Policy A12 Chidham and Hambrook and Policy A13 Southbourne Broad Location for Development
We note that more detailed proposals will emerge as part of a Neighbourhood plans. We would like to highlight that this area contains some parcels of ancient woodland which is an irreplaceable and high priority habitat according to the NPPF and Government Policy (see attached Annex and below for more guidance on this). The policy could be improved by highlighting its importance and high priority as part of efforts to protect, enhance, expand and connect habitats as part of a wider ecological network and the strategic wildlife corridor. Developments within this area could contribute pockets of woodland and linear planting to help connect existing trees and woodland as part of a mosaic of habitats throughout the wildlife corridor and wider area. The requirement to ensure development does not have an adverse impact on the strategic wildlife corridor is also welcome but could be strengthened by requiring developments to significantly contribute to its enhancement, expansion and connectivity including with green infrastructure provided by development

Policy A14 Land West of Tangmere
The requirement for significant levels of green infrastructure is welcome. This policy could be strengthened by requiring development to retain and bolster existing hedgerows and trees wherever possible.

Policy A16 Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield and Policy A17 Development within the vicinity of Goodwood Motor Circuit and Airfield
This policy could be improved by recognising the significant amount of ancient woodland and non-ancient woodland to North of the area. We would encourage any development in the area to protect, enhance and expand the woodland in the area as part of delivering net gains.

Policy A21 Land east of Rolls Royce
This area contains areas of existing trees, hedgerow and woodland which are not currently mentioned by the policy. We would encourage any development to be sensitive to this and provide additional planting where possible.

Overarching comments
We would welcome the consideration of incorporating large and small pockets of multi-functional woodland as part of green infrastructure provision for development, particularly given the relatively low proportion of woodland found throughout the District, and the benefits this can have as ‘stepping stones’ between habitats as part of the Local Plan’s welcome vision of strategic wildlife corridors.

We also encourage the Council to appraise the plan against the following advice to maximise the benefits from protection, enhancement and expansion of woodlands, trees and connectivity throughout the District:

Additional improvements to consider

• Tree/hedgerow removal is considered as a last resort but where it is justified, we advise that developments can aim to deliver no net deforestation to help encourage development that provides an overall environmental gain. Ie where trees are required to be removed, additional tree planting will be made to compensate for this loss and we would advise that additional planting should be made to help compensate for the loss of habitat in the time it takes for new trees to mature.
• Long term management and maintenance of planted trees and woodland creation to give them every chance to becoming established and where trees do fail, they are replaced
• A minimum standard for tree canopy cover for new developments (e.g. for large-scale developments) as it provides a targetable level of green infrastructure in relation to trees for the numerous ecosystem services they provide.
• Precautions should be incorporated into any woodland design and tree planting to ensure that habitat creation is established successfully and that potential impacts from deer are managed on site and in the surrounding area as appropriate. See here for further guidance that should be followed for managing impacts from deer as part of woodland creation and tree planting: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/woodland-creation-and-mitigating-the-impacts-of-deer/woodland-creation-and-mitigating-the-impacts-of-deer Some good practice advice is also provided in Appendix 1 of this letter.
• We advise that any tree planting should meet the following:
o Trees should be healthy and good practice biosecurity should be followed to prevent the risk of spreading pests and disease, in line with Government advice: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/tree-pests-and-diseases. More information on the plant healthy can be found at: Welcome to Plant Healthy - Plant Healthy
o Created or restored habitat should be managed in perpetuity in line with a robust management plan that follows good practice to ensure assumed benefits of created habitats are delivered in practice (see Standing Advice referred to on page 1). We recommend meeting the UK Forestry Standard to demonstrate this.
• To help mitigate climate and support local economy would urge council to develop local plan policy that makes use of locally sourced timber. This has multiple benefits as it can help store carbon within development, reduce impact from transportation, reduce embodied carbon from alternative materials and support local economies and communities.
• Where developments incorporate District Heating, consider locally and sustainably sourced wood-fuels for the benefits this can have for renewable energy and towards a local, circular economy
• Use tree planting as part of nature based solutions for managing flood risk as well as other multi-functional benefits from green infrastructure as part of any development (e.g. Trees and woodlands provide £400 million of value in flood protection)
• We encourage the Council to refine their strategy to trees and woodlands using the recently launched ‘Trees and Woodland Strategy Toolkit’ available here: https://treecouncil.org.uk/what-we-do/science-and-research/tree-strategies/ to design and deliver a local tree strategy to harness the long-term benefits that trees can bring to local communities. The local plan should be developed with tree/woodlands in mind as an integral part, alongside other supplementary strategies for the environment including biodiversity, green infrastructure, nature recovery and climate change.

Key guidance regarding trees, woodland and development

Ancient woodlands, ancient trees and veteran trees are irreplaceable habitats. Paragraph 180(c) of the NPPF sets out that development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional reasons and a suitable compensation strategy exists. In considering the impacts of the development on Ancient Woodland, Ancient and Veteran trees, the planning authority should consider direct and indirect impacts resulting from both construction and operational phases.

Please refer to Natural England and Forestry Commission joint Standing Advice for Ancient Woodland and Ancient and Veteran Trees, updated in January 2022. The Standing Advice can be a material consideration for planning decisions, and contains advice and guidance on assessing the effects of development, and how to avoid and mitigate impacts. It also includes an Assessment Guide which can help planners assess the impact of the proposed development on ancient woodland or ancient and veteran trees in line with the NPPF.

Existing trees should be retained wherever possible, and opportunities should be taken to incorporate trees into development. Trees and woodlands provide multiple benefits to society such as storing carbon, regulating temperatures, strengthening flood resilience and reducing noise and air pollution.[1] Paragraph 131 of the NPPF seeks to ensure new streets are tree lined, that opportunities should be taken to incorporate trees elsewhere in developments, and that existing trees are retained wherever possible. Appropriate measures should be in place to secure the long-term maintenance of newly planted trees. The Forestry Commission may be able to give further support in developing appropriate conditions in relation to woodland creation, management or mitigation.

Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG): Paragraph 174(d) of the NPPF sets out that planning (policies and) decisions should minimise impacts on and provide net gains for biodiversity. Paragraph 180(d) encourages development design to integrate opportunities to improve biodiversity, especially where this can secure net gains for biodiversity. A requirement for most development to deliver a minimum of 10% BNG is expected to become mandatory from November 2023. The planning authority should consider the wide range of benefits trees, hedgerows and woodlands provide as part of delivering good practice biodiversity net gain requirements. Losses of irreplaceable or very high distinctiveness habitat cannot adequately be accounted for through BNG.

We suggest (in representations to site-specific policies in Chapter 10) further changes to the local plan which would reinforce the current, workable, arrangements, but also indicate where further developments around the airfield could result in further undue restrictions on operations to the detriment of Estate business and with it very serious consequences for the district economy.

Chapter 8 should make reference to the role of aviation in transportation. The NPPF (paragraph 106f) requires local planning policies to: “recognise the importance of maintaining a national network of general aviation airfields, and their need to adapt and change over time – taking into account their economic value in serving business, leisure, training and emergency service needs, and the Government’s General Aviation Strategy.” The plan does not make such references and is therefore not compliant with the NPPF and consequently is unsound.

Goodwood Aerodrome is a general aviation airfield.

Moreover, the plan should make provision for how aviation is likely to change in the future, with technological advances, not only in terms of being more accessible to the public for sport and recreation, but also the impact of STEM activities and their important role in future aviation and the advance of drone and similar technologies. Goodwood Airfield is closely and actively engaged with developers of such technology and this is likely to become an increasing sector of the Estate’s business.

General aviation airfields, such as Goodwood, frequently have sufficient land available for new aviation-related facilities (unlike constrained commercial airfields) and provide a major infrastructure resource. Unfortunately, this benefit is often overlooked in planning policies, and many airfields are subjected to threats of redevelopment – for reasons of viability fuelled by a high demand for housing land- and increasing resistance to developments supporting aerodrome business (such as potential noise and disturbance to adjoining residential areas)

Local political reaction to activities at many general aviation airfields has led to the introduction of restrictive planning policies, many related to noise and disturbance and a fear of expansion. Goodwood airfield is no exception, but it has worked with the local community over many years to reach an operational position that provides a balance between continued operation and protection of local amenities. Unfortunately in recent years, particularly as a result of an ill-founded strategic development allocation in the previous local plan, that operational balance is coming under further strain and cannot be further adjusted.

A position is fast approaching where operations at the airfield and motor circuit could be compromised unacceptably by the encroachment of new development, in particular housing development. This was ably demonstrated by the speculative housing proposal north of Madgwick Lane to which both the Estate and planning authority objected for reason, amongst many others, potential noise disturbance, safety concerns and operational constraints which contributed to an unacceptable ‘agent of change’ situation.

The proposal was subject to public inquiry and a finely balanced decision was granted in favour of development by the inspector for reason of the benefits of new housing outweighing the potential harm to Goodwood operations, on grounds that the (unproven) mitigation offered by the developer will be both provided and be effective, and we suggest, a misunderstanding of the true impacts of existing operations.

The Estate will continue to oppose the development for sound planning reasons that the mitigation offered and based on inaccurate evidence, will be inadequate and ineffective in addressing the concerns raise by the Estate and planning authority.