1.1

This representation has been submitted by Berkeley Strategic (“Berkeley”) in response to the current consultation on the Regulation 19 Chichester Local Plan.

Berkeley control approximately 3.67 hectares acres of land to the south of Chichester. The site is located adjacent to Fishbourne Roundabout and is referred to in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment as HFB0027. The site was previously included in Policy AL6 as part of a wider employment development parcel.

Berkeley support the preparation of the Local Plan and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the plan at this early stage of its preparation.

Berkeley does not believe the Local Plan provides a suitable level of development around Chichester City and wishes to provide evidence that there is a greater number of suitable sites than is being proposed.

Please see the attached document which provides Berkeley Strategic's representation to the emerging Local Plan in full.

This representation has been submitted in response to consultation on the Regulation 19 Chichester Local Plan by Berkeley Strategic (“Berkeley”) on behalf of David Lock and Melanie Jenkins who own approximately 40 acres of land to the north of Chichester known as Raughmere Farm.

The land at Raughmere Farm is located adjacent to the built up edge of the city and is referred to in the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment as HLV0007. The site has previously been promoted as a suitable location on the edge of Chichester City for a development of circa 140 dwellings.

Berkeley support the preparation of the Local Plan and welcomes the opportunity to comment on the plan at this early stage of its preparation.

Please see attached representations made on behalf of David Lock and Melanie Jenkins in full.

.CDC should provide a local plan that balances the needs of the local residents and the preservation of the environment and does not create or exacerbate any possible environmental damage caused by pollution and energy use.

The Plan should be paused and time given for public engagement at a meaningful level.

I would question whether the Plan should be a Reg 19 consultation. The Plan contains changes to strategy and approach which the general public have not had the opportunity to comment on. As this is a 'technical consultation' where we can only comment on issues relating to the test of soundness it hardly gives the general public an opportunity for genuine public engagement.

The strategy of the Plan has changed for example:
- removal of all allocations on the Manhood Peninsula
- the identification of additional sites i.e. Maudlin Farm , Rolls Royce etc with no opportunity to comment on their suitability or policy requirements
- the inclusion of Gypsy and Traveller sites on all allocations again without an opportunity to comment on the suitability of this approach or policy requirements
- amendments to the wildlife corridors without an opportunity to comment on this. Given that changes now enable development in some areas ie Maudlin this could be seen as a cynical move.

Over the coming years, more provision of space for nurseries, high-tech glasshouses, packhouses and reservoirs will be required; however, there will also be an increased need for ancillary development, such as: Vertical Farming Projects, Research & Development Facilities, Alternative Energy Centres, Logistics and Distribution Centres, Engineering and Technical Support Facilities.

The West Sussex Coastal Plain, with its exceptionally high winter light levels and all year round beneficial climate, is the preferred location for horticultural production in the UK.

The Horticultural Industry, concentrated around Chichester and Bognor Regis, generates annual turnover that exceeds £1billion pounds and employs more than 10,000 full time equivalent staff.

The Government has tasked Growers to grow more home grown produce, increase productivity, reduce food miles and the UK’s reliance on imported food. There is also an increasing need for space to grow plants, shrubs and trees. These aims can be achieved; however, the Horticultural and Food Industries need Local Planning Policies to be in place that enables sustainable development. To this end, more flexibility is needed in the current CDC Local Plan - Horticultural Policy to meet the needs of the Horticultural sector.

Overall, we feel that CDC should be meeting their identified housing need and we disagree with the Council’s justification on meeting a sub-identified need that there is insufficient capacity (due to constraints) within parts of the District.

Furthermore, we feel that the Plan is unsound. It does not adequately meet current housing need. House prices in the Chichester District are 14 times the average earnings for those working within it and there is a need for 200 social and affordable rented houses per annum for the Plan period to 2039.

Considering the above, and in terms of specific policy amendments, we recommend the following policies be reworded to ensure the plan’s overall soundness:
Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs – The housing requirement (10,350) for the plan period 2021-2039 must reflect Objectively Assessed Need to avoid the risk of failing to be seen as positively prepared. The evidence base on which the justification for a reduction in housing delivery is flawed and not credible. The plan fails the tests of soundness to this regard and Policy H1 should be amended in line with a reassessment of highway constraints.
Policy H2 – Strategic Locations/Allocations 2021-2039 – The quantum of development at Southbourne (A13) should be 1,250 to reflect the conclusions of the sustainability appraisal, the capacity within the land east of Southbourne and the importance in bringing forward all infrastructure improvements to the village and wider area.
Policy A13 – Southbourne Broad Location for Development - In line with the above, the total number of dwellings allocated to Southbourne should be 1,250. Further, it is recommended that a specific location is selected within Southbourne, to align with all other allocations within Chapter 10 and to avoid a significant risk to the delivery of housing. No rationale is presented as to why development in Southbourne should be delayed until the adoption of a subsequent DPD or Neighbourhood Plan. The long-term assessment and findings of the Neighbourhood Plan group and the plan examiner remain sound and should be respected and reflected in a specific and precise housing allocation for the village. We recommend this policy is rewritten to allocate 1,250 dwellings on land east of Southbourne and to align with the comprehensive masterplanning exercise that has been completed to-date.

REPRESENTATION SUMMARY

CDC fails on a number of counts to provide a sound reason for constraining development delivery to 535 dwellings per annum. We find that the Council’s failure to adhere to the OAN on the basis of ineffective evidence results in plan that has not been positively prepared and adopts a strategy that is not justified. We believe the plan is capable promoting a greater level of housing delivery which will, in turn, help bring the estimated infrastructure contribution per dwelling to a more deliverable and realistic level.

This representation provides continued support and draft policy context for the development on land east of Southbourne. We consider it to provide a suitable and sustainable location for large-scale strategic residential growth and substantial associated infrastructure improvements.

The area was due for allocation within the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, having been initially allocated 1,250 dwellings on ‘land east of Southbourne’, prior to its removal post Examination (based on concerns of the Examiner over a pre-emption of the emerging local plan). Importantly, the Examiner did not conclude that the proposed allocation was unsustainable for growth or inappropriate in size, but simply that the timing of the Neighbourhood Plan was too early against the emerging Local Plan timetable which had unfortunately been delayed.

We continue to recommend that the land east of Southbourne (Policy A13 in the emerging LP) provides the most appropriate location for development at Southbourne. Indeed, the land to the east of the settlement was chosen as the most appropriate location, as opposed to the land to the west which is more constrained by the A27 and would likely result in amalgamation with the settlement of Emsworth.

We consider that the increase in the quantum of development at Southbourne from 1,050 to c1,250 not only ensures the highest level of community enhancements and infrastructure improvements for Southbourne and the wider area but also helps mitigate certain aspects of the emerging plan that risk being found unsound, including the potential for delays in housing delivery across the largest strategic sites and the potential for Chichester District to accommodate unmet need across neighbouring authorities (and within SDNP).

Considering the above, and in terms of specific policy amendments, we recommend the following policies be reworded to ensure the plan’s overall soundness:
Policy H1 – Meeting Housing Needs – The housing requirement (10,350) for the plan period 2021-2039 must reflect Objectively Assessed Need to avoid the risk of failing to be seen as positively prepared. The evidence base on which the justification for a reduction in housing delivery is flawed and not credible. The plan fails the tests of soundness to this regard and Policy H1 should be amended in line with a reassessment of highway constraints.
Policy H2 – Strategic Locations/Allocations 2021-2039 – The quantum of development at Southbourne (A13) should be 1,250 to reflect the conclusions of the sustainability appraisal, the capacity within the land east of Southbourne and the importance in bringing forward all infrastructure improvements to the village and wider area.
Policy A13 – Southbourne Broad Location for Development - In line with the above, the total number of dwellings allocated to Southbourne should be 1,250. Further, it is recommended that a specific location is selected within Southbourne, to align with all other allocations within Chapter 10 and to avoid a significant risk to the delivery of housing. No rationale is presented as to why development in Southbourne should be delayed until the adoption of a subsequent DPD or Neighbourhood Plan. The long-term assessment and findings of the Neighbourhood Plan group and the plan examiner remain sound and should be respected and reflected in a specific and precise housing allocation for the village. We recommend this policy is rewritten to allocate 1,250 dwellings on land east of Southbourne and to align with the comprehensive masterplanning exercise that has been completed to-date.
These representations bring to light a number of recommended reconsiderations with regards to the emerging local plan, these include a reassessment of the quantum of development in Southbourne, the mechanism for infrastructure funding and delivery, the contingency planning around wastewater treatment capacity and the supporting of Vision & Validate as an approach for encouraging safe, efficient and sustainable transport.
For the reasons outlined throughout, these representations also raise significant concerns that the plan as drafted, in particular the housing delivery strategy, risks being found ‘unsound’ on the grounds of failing to be positively prepared and lacking a fully considered highways evidence base. We believe the changes outlined above with regards to reflecting OAN and adding realistic capacity and specificity to the proposed allocation in Southbourne will help address these concerns.

Thank you for consulting the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on the above document. We have received the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (“the Local Plan”) document and would like to provide the following comments of the ‘soundness’ of the Local Plan.

The Chichester District area lies within the Eastern Solent and Arun Valley, a Focus Area of work for the RSPB. This is one of our highest priority places in the UK for the promotion of conservation at a landscape-scale, adopting the principles advocated by the Lawton report Making Space for Nature (2010) , which recommended (in simple terms) more, bigger, better and more joined up protected areas.

A substantial part of the Council’s area boundary is subject to a wide range of statutory nature conservation designations. This includes (but not limited to) the Arun Valley Special Protection Area (SPA), Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA, Pagham Harbour SPA, Medmerry Compensatory Habitat, and Solent and Dorset Coast SPA; Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Solent Maritime SAC; and a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The RSPB regards the protection and enhancement of the SPAs, SACs, and their associated and surrounding SSSIs as being among the highest priorities for our work nationally.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The LP is supported. The district has been subject to inappropriate speculative developments without corresponding infrastructure and service improvements. Developments have been self-centred, failing to acknowledge consequences on the long-term attractiveness, viability and sustainability of the District. Each development has impacted the ability to provide enhancements and much-needed infrastructure.

To be sound the plan must meet NPPF tests and we find the plan sound in terms of it being reasonable and capable of being delivered. However it lacks soundness in terms of its vision and protection and enhancement of economic, heritage and environmental assets.