Policy S18: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula

After reading the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035, for the local plan to be found sound there should be a clear inclusion of marine planning in line with the NPPF and Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA).

NPPF: 166. In coastal areas, local planning authorities should take account of the UK Marine Policy Statement and marine plans and apply Integrated Coastal Zone Management across local authority and land/sea boundaries, ensuring integration of the terrestrial and marine planning regimes.

MCAA: 58(1). A public authority must take any authorisation or enforcement decision in accordance with the appropriate marine policy documents.

MCAA: 58(3). A public authority must have regard to the appropriate marine policy documents in taking any decision which relates to the exercise of any function capable of affecting the whole or any part of the UK marine area.

The PAS soundness self-assessment checklist also states a recommended requirement to "take account of marine planning".

We recommend reference to the legal duty to co-operate with the Marine Management Organisation, as well as reference to Marine Planning, the Marine Policy Statement, and the South Marine Plan.

The marine planning remit is directly for coastal and marine waters up to the mean high water spring mark where Chichester district council extends to the mean low spring water mark (we can supply a GIS layer of the spatial extent for any policy maps if you wish). The area covered by the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 lies within the South Marine Plan Area therefore, it is recommended to ensure your plan is 'sound' that it includes a reference to the South Marine Plan. There are policies within the Chichester Local Plan Review 2035 that have marine relevance and so it is recommended that the South Marine Plan and specific policies are referred to in these sections. For example, policies: S18, S25, S27, S31. Please also note that any works undertaken in the development of flood risk management may require a marine licence.

Examples of South Marine Plan policies that you may wish to consider are listed below. Hyperlinks are provided for further information (in original email). These policies are provided only as a recommendation and we suggest that your own interpretation of the South Marine Plan is completed.
* S-CC-1: Proposals must consider their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions arising from unintended consequences on other activities. Where such consequences are likely to result in increased greenhouse gas emissions, proposals should demonstrate in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate unintended consequences on other activities.
* S-CC-2: Proposals should demonstrate for the lifetime of the proposal that:
1. they are resilient to the effects of climate change
2. they will not have a significant adverse impact upon climate change adaptation measures elsewhere.
In respect of 2) proposals should demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:
avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate the significant adverse impacts upon these climate change adaptation measures.
* S-CC-3: Proposals in and adjacent to the south marine plan areas that are likely to have a significant adverse impact on coastal change should not be supported.
* S-CC-4: Proposals that may have a significant adverse impact on habitats that provide a flood defence or carbon sequestration ecosystem service must demonstrate that they will, in order or preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts.
* S-EMP-1: Proposals that develop skills related to marine activities, particularly in line with local skills strategies, will be supported.
* S-EMP-2: Proposals resulting in a net increase to marine related employment will be supported, particularly where they are in line with the skills available in and adjacent to the south marine plan areas.
* S-SOC-1: Proposals that enhance or promote social benefits will be supported. Proposals must demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts which result in the displacement of other existing or authorised (but yet to be implemented) activities that generate social benefits.
* S-ACC-1: Proposals, including in relation to tourism and recreation, should demonstrate that they will in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts on public access
* S-ACC-2: Proposals demonstrating enhanced public access to and within the marine area will be supported.
* S-TR-1: Proposals supporting, promoting or facilitating tourism and recreation activities, particularly where this creates additional utilisation of related facilities beyond typical usage patterns, should be supported.
* S-TR-2: Proposals that enhance or promote tourism and recreation activities will be supported. Proposals for development must demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts on tourism and recreation activities.
* S-BIO-1: Proposals that may have significant adverse impacts on natural habitat and species adaptation, migration and connectivity must demonstrate that they will, in order or preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts
* S-BIO-2: Proposals that incorporate features that enhance or facilitate natural habitat and species adaptation, migration and connectivity will be supported.
* S-BIO-3: Proposals that enhance coastal habitats where important in their own right and/or for ecosystem functioning and provision of goods and services will be supported. Proposals must take account of the space required for coastal habitats where important in their own right and/or for ecosystem functioning and provision of goods and services and demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate for net loss of coastal habitat.
* S-EMP-1: Proposals that develop skills related to marine activities, particularly in line with local skills strategies, will be supported.
* S-EMP-2: Proposals resulting in a net increase to marine related employment will be supported, particularly where they are in line with the skills available in and adjacent to the south marine plan areas.
* S-WQ-1: Proposals that may have significant adverse impacts upon water environment, including upon habitats and species that can be of benefit to water quality must demonstrate that they will, in order of preference:
a) avoid
b) minimise
c) mitigate significant adverse impacts
* S-WQ-2: Activities that can deliver an improvement to water environment, or enhance habitats and species which can be of benefit to water quality should be supported.

You may wish to refer to the South Marine Plan, the UK Marine Policy Statement (MPS), our online guidance, the Marine Information System and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self-assessment checklist.

The peninsula is one of the last remaining rural hinterlands on the south coast plain. It also contains several internationally designated habitat sites which are among the most important wildlife areas in the district. CDC should consider strengthening the ICZM to recognise the international importance of the peninsula, safeguarding its environment and associated green tourism base further. The provision of wildlife corridors are probably more important here than anywhere else in Chichester District.

Policy S18 does not take sufficient account of the distinctive area, poor roads, poor public transport and relative lack of employment referred to in 4.121 & 4.122 by advocating the building of hundreds and maybe thousands of new houses.

The word SUSTAINABLE appears more than 150 times in this document but in the case of the WEstern Manhood Peninsula is completely meaningless.

Agree with Policy especially point 5

There is no specific mention of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy,

Resident of West Wittering
The ICZM has totally been ignored in the development of the draft Local Plan.

The statement in paras 4.121 and 4.122 clearly explain why an increase in the new housing allocation above the adopted Local Plan figures is inappropriate.

A dedicated super highway loop for cyclists connecting Chichester to Birdham, West Wittering, East Wittering and Selsey would have massive benefits in reducing vehicle traffic and subsequent environmental benefits, as well as boosting tourism, physical health and recreation benefits. Many people who live on the peninsul would cycle in to Chichester if there was a safe, clean and pleasurable route.

All good in theory. Please make it happen!
Support to Selsey Fishing Industry and its Visitor related Diving business is important for many reasons (improve local industry and attract visitors. A simple extension to an existing ramp in the sea at East Beach, to convert it to a pier on stilts would help enormously. The Victorian built their piere to last 250 years ahgo - and many still have survived! If they can do it then, can we not do it now?

I welcome the commitments made to protect the special nature of this area, but the Plan does quite the opposite and there will be a significantly adverse impact on the ecology of the area with mitigation being insufficient.
Green tourism will also be adversely affected

I am a resident of Donnington and am disappointed with the ridiculous scheme which you are proposing. In addition, I have not the slightest confidence that the scheme will be completed within budget and on time. The footbridge at the Stockbridge roundabout was a fiasco and if you cannot complete such a relatively small project, I am not convinced any of you are capable of taking on a much larger scheme.

I agree with all of our parish council recommendations and comments below.

DONNINGTON PARISH COUNCIL OBJECTIONS
Donnington residents will be hugely disadvantaged by proposed changes to A27 access arrangements under Policy S23 and the Peter Brett Associates report - effectively no access to the East from Donnington (or the Manhood Peninsula) via A27 unless residents either head West first, encountering the amended Fishbourne Roundabout which will prioritise through traffic and will include an additional junction. Alternative routes to the East are either through the City or via unsuitable "back roads", increasing traffic levels through Hunston and North Mundham. Increased traffic from Whyke (facing the same issue) will cause even more congestion between Donnington and Fishbourne.
* Site AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington parishes) includes a flood plain. Using data from CDC's flood plain assessment, the average height of flood water on the River Lavant is 2.05 metres (6.07 feet) above datum (sea level). This means that the road will have to be elevated by at least 2.5 metres and more with the supporting structures and road thickness itself. Therefore nearer 4 metres (13 feet). This would destroy the iconic views of the cathedral framed by the South Downs. The protection proposed by para 3 of Policy AL6 is unachievable. REMOVE POLICY AL6
* Each of the five junction modifications will require three years of work. This means 15 years of misery for Chichester residents whilst the junction works take place. We all remember the chaos caused by the replacement of one footbridge in Stockbridge, bringing gridlock to the area. (Policy S23 and Peter Brett Associates Transport Assessment)
* Overall, the plans for improvements to the junctions are to the advantage of through traffic not local residents. The proposals bear a marked similarity to Option 3a from the Highways England Improvements to the Chichester A27 Bypass consultation, which were emphatically rejected by the local community - in Donnington and across the whole of Chichester. (Policy SP23 and Peter Brett Transport Assessment)
* Air Quality will further deteriorate as a result of the proposed plans. Stockbridge already exceeds the recommended air quality levels and development on this scale will increase the problem. This has serious health implications for residents. (Policy DM24 & SP28)
* The South Downs National Park should take its allocation of 41 dwellings per annum - without some low level development in the Park, particularly social housing, communities there will not thrive. (Policy S3, Policy S5 & Policy S19 )
* There are no proposals for any new primary schools in the Manhood Peninsula. This will only increase pressure on current schools to provide more places, and lead to increased traffic on the roads as parents are forced to commute to schools outside their local area where spaces may be available.
* Impact on ecology - the Chichester Harbour and surrounding area are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have the status of being a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Site of Special Scientific Interest and is a Ramsar site. It is wholly inappropriate to consider development on this scale in such close proximity to an area with this status. There will be a significantly adverse impact on the ecology of the area and mitigation is not sufficient. (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
* Green tourism is a very important part of the Manhood Peninsula economy and to overdevelop and spoil the natural environment which attracts this trade would be inappropriate and hugely detrimental (Policy S18 Integrated Coastal Management Zone Manhood)
* A viable alternative site is available for industrial development within the buffer zone at Goodwood and the employment land should be allocated there. (Policy AL6, S15, S16)

Must promote the uniqueness of Manhood peninsula. Must support the infrastructure all year round not just in the summer. Have to improve the transport infrastructure and promote local traffic movement over through traffic. No evidence of any options so far explored have been acceptable to achieve this. they have all been detrimental to local traffic movement.

I appreciate that the housing numbers proposed in the LPR have been imposed by central government, but for CDC to refer to the housing target numbers as minimums appears seriously flawed. This will surely encourage developers to submit plans for greater numbers than might otherwise be the case. It also makes it very difficult for local communities to resist further development when the "minimum" figure has been reached. The housing numbers imposed are already greater than the district can reasonably bear, so for CDC to set minimum targets is doing a great disservice on all counts, and particularly on environmental grounds.

Chichester district already suffers from insufficient road capacity and the plans for the A27 junctions and link road will not solve the problem. The junction changes will not solve the lack of road capacity for through and local traffic, and restricting right-hand turning at junctions will make local journeys more difficult. The proposed AL6 link road would direct more traffic off the A27 on to the A286, one of the most congested roads in the district, providing access to some of the most popular tourism destinations on the Manhood Peninsula. For this reason alone it should be resisted.

I am concerned that East Wittering/Bracklesham have been classed as a "settlement hub". The definition of a settlement hub should include good access to the main road network, the rail network, employment and secondary and higher education facilities. These villages do not have easy access to these services, being situated in a "cul-de-sac", on the congested A286. They are essentially rural, seaside communities which rely heavily on tourism for their economy and it is their rural nature which attracts so many visitors. The 350 minimum homes proposed for these two villages would have severe implications on all aspects of the local infrastructure, particularly the roads.

Living off Bell Lane in Somerley, I would like to draw your attention to the findings of the Peter Brett Transport Study for the LPR. It states that the forecast for the increase in road noise arising from a further 350 homes in East Wittering/Bracklesham along the length of Bracklesham Lane, the B2198, is "major". Bracklesham Lane leads into Bell Lane as it passes through the Somerley Conservation Area and it is vital that mitigation measures should be taken to reduce the effects of the additional traffic noise, preferably in the form of a speed limit reduction to 30mph. The accident rate on this road is already higher than average, including fatalities.

Selsey, another "settlement hub", has been badly affected by excessive suburban development in recent years with no improvement to its local infrastructure. The further extensive housing numbers proposed for this fishing and seaside village risk undermining its attraction to tourists. It is important that development of these seaside communities is carefully designed and limited in numbers to prevent over-suburbanisation. It should also be recognised that the geography of the peninsula means that access to and from the coast will always be restricted and subject to severe congestion. Additional housing on the Manhood Peninsula will only worsen this unresolvable situation and must be considered with caution to maintain its attractiveness to tourists who contribute so greatly to the economy of the Chichester district.

The Manhood Peninsula is also one of the last remaining rural hinterlands on the south coast plain. It contains several internationally designated habitat sites which are among the most important wildlife areas in the Chichester district. CDC should consider strengthening the ICZM to recognise the international importance of the peninsula, further safeguarding its environment and associated green tourism. The provision of wildlife corridors are probably more important here than anywhere else in the district. In addition, the AL6 proposed link road and commercial development would be adjacent to internationally designated habitat sites, cross two flood zones, and impair significant views of the cathedral and the Downs, contrary to CDC's ICZM policy. This proposed road appears to fail on all counts.

In conclusion, therefore, I would ask CDC to abandon proposals for the AL6 link road and junction changes on the A27, which are a waste of money, and instead urge the government to invest in a long-term, sustainable solution for the A27 so that the district is more able to accommodate the increased housing numbers being imposed on it. I would also like to see the minimum housing target numbers changed to maximum and remove East Wittering/Bracklesham as a settlement hub for the reasons set out above.

The Majority of the Manhood Peninsular is below or at the 5 meter above sea level contour. It is subject to poor drainage due to insufficient attention to drainage systems by land owners. The Heritage Lottery Funded FLOW project performed under the direction of the Manhood Wildlife and Heritage Group has improved the situation. This has been conducted by volunteers. The Local plan should contain strategies for sustaining this initial volunteer/Lottery funded work,

Global climate change alongside global global climate future predictions should preclude further development on this significantly high risk land mass. Improving cycle access will enhance visitor experience, but will fail to address the high levels of pollution and congestion experienced along the Stockbridge Road as workers and children commute to their end-point. Cost of implementing any coastal work should be carefully considered as to whether it will remain future-proof in the context of global weather changes altering the coastline.

CDCF should like to respectfully comment and respond to the current Local Plan Consultation being held by Chichester District Council.
For a start, the consultation papers and documents provided for consideration are without doubt, a 'massive' piece of work. The Chapters and text form a highly technical and complex piece of work covering the whole of the Chichester District. It is as if the district has been 'rolled out' flat or to put it another way, 'no stone has been left unturned'. The Planning Policy Team at CDC must be congratulated for their thoroughness and attention to detail.
With this in mind, it would be presumptuous of CDCF to 'drill down' into the document and request small changes here and there. CDCF have the interests of cyclists and cycling at heart and this response wishes to adopt a more 'broad brush' approach.
Without wishing to state the obvious, different cyclists have different needs and preferences. For some people, cycling is a way to travel from home to work whereas for others, it is a whole family leisure activity. Some cyclists travelling to work require a flat surface and a direct route (on or off road) to achieve a good speed and comfortable cadence. A cyclist on an off road leisure route, wishes to enjoy the safety, peace and fresh air away from vehicular traffic.
One size does not fit all and the Local Plan must reflect these differences. CDCF note that the Local Plan Vision for 2035 includes a reference to residents 'pursuing a healthy lifestyle with good access to leisure facilities and open spaces' and to 'move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel'. Under the heading of Objectives for the Local Plan (3.19) the document lists the need to 'achieve a sustainable and integrated transport system through improved cycle ways and links to public transport'. CDCF would endorse these statements.
CDCF note that the Local Plan sets out those areas within the Chichester District where new housing would be most suitable and appropriate. According to the Local Plan, the East/West corridor from Tangmere to Southbourne is the most favoured location for the majority of these new dwellings, circa 10,056 with a further 1933 new dwellings being built on the Manhood Peninsular.
CDCF have very recently been working on a cycle project known as CHEMROUTE. This is an abbreviation that describes our aspirations for a decent and useable cycle route between Chichester and Emsworth. In addition to following the A259 corridor, this vital section of cycle route forms part of the National Cycle Network Route 2 ie Dover to St Austell. NCN2 passes through West Sussex and into Hampshire and we
2.
have a duty and responsibility to ensure that our section is clearly marked, engineered and designed to national standards. Our work on this project has taken us to meet with representatives of the Parish Councils along the route and it has been encouraging to see the unanimous support for NCN2. The Parish Councils are writing this support into their own Local Plans and the hope is that, when certain sites become the subject of a planning application for new housing, contributions will be sought through the Community Infrastructure Levy process to require developers to finance this important cycle route. CDCF are pleased to see that CDC's Local Plan sets out a commitment to improve the highway infrastructure for cyclists and pedestrians. In simple terms, if the residents of each new household along the A259 corridor ran two cars, this would result in an additional 20,000 cars using the A27 and A259. The traffic jam would be spectacular! Sustainable transport, such as cycling, buses and trains are the only solution and for the former, a decent cycle route must be put in place to encourage the population to leave their cars at home.
One of the frustrations of our current planning process is that planning officers can only make a determination on the development site. In other words, the area of land inside the red boundary line that extends around the whole site. Many developers put in place cycle paths within a new housing area but very often, these paths reach the 'red line' and stop. In other words, these paths do not link in with existing cycle paths or long term plans for a cycle route. The A259 corridor is already seeing and will see in the future, new development sites being identified and it makes sense to require developers to finance cycle infrastructure improvements to encourage their 'new residents' to cycle or walk.
The same argument may be applied to the Manhood Peninsular only here; the current road networks are even more difficult. It is encouraging to see that Policy 18 acknowledges that there is a need to 'improve the infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths'. In recent months, the Selsey Community Forum has been planning for a Selsey Greenway path to link Selsey with Chichester. It is well known that the B2145 is not a good place to be on a pedal cycle and at the time of writing this response, the first stage of the Greenway ie Selsey to Pagham Nature Reserve is nearing completion. There are advanced plans to progress the pathway further north towards Hunston and Chichester. Further west, the Salterns Way is a considerable community asset and is well used by walkers and cyclists alike.
It is worth noting that the Local Plan points out that CDC are updating their Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Plan and under Green Infrastructure (DM32) the text reads, 'planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that the following criteria have been addressed: the proposals do not lead to the dissection of the linear network of cycle ways, PROW, bridleways and ecological corridors'.
3.
Therefore, developers will have to incorporate measures to avoid harm and mitigate effects.
It must also be pointed out that the National Planning Policy Framework that came into force in July 2018 (para 98) directs that, 'planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails'.
CDCF note that the Chichester District forming part of the South Downs National Park will not become the focus for any major new housing developments. The Centurion Way follows the old railway line that was once operated by the London and South Coast Railway Company. To date the Centurion Way extends from Chichester to West Dean and a planning application is currently under consideration to extend the path to the top of Cocking Hill where the South Downs Way crosses over the A286. The ultimate aim is to extend the Centurion Way to Midhurst. CDCF have recently established a Centurion Way User Group to protect the route from unreasonable changes and to offer light maintenance along the route.
In summary, Highways England have a published a Cycling Strategy, West Sussex County Council have a Walking and Cycling Strategy, Chichester District Council have a Cycling, Walking and Infrastructure Planning Policy. For any of these 'policies' and in particular, this Local Plan, to make any sense whatsoever, CDCF must urge the relevant authorities to put their words into actions. When our communities can actually see real change happening, then and only then, shall we feel satisfied and confident in the knowledge that our thoughts and comments have been applied to everyday, real life situations. CDCF should like to wish the CDC Planning Policy Team well with this project and the eventual publication of the final Local Plan.

The British Horse Society (BHS) is the UK's largest equine charity and equestrian membership organisation and the governing body for recreational riding. Its charitable objects include the promotion of equestrian safety, particularly on roads, and equestrian access to bridleways and other off-road multi-use routes for the public benefit. On behalf of The Society I would like to make the following comments:

Chichester Local Plan Review 2016-2035 Preferred Approach

The Society's priority when commenting on this document is to try and ensure that the policies and wording in the text include commitments to support and protect vulnerable road user groups, including equestrians (West Sussex Transport Plan, page 32, para 1.4.5), from the dangers they face on local roads due to the inevitable increase in traffic on these roads brought about by planned housing development.

The Plan area covered is home to a large number of equestrians, who bring significant economic benefits, especially to rural communities, but unless they have access to a safe network of bridleways, byways, and other off-road informal recreational routes which they can use daily, the dangers to horse riders will increase, and the industry will struggle to survive.

Policy S18: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula (page 68)
Equestrians on the Manhood Peninsula feel increasingly unsafe on the local roads they have always used, where the speed and volume of vehicles has grown considerably, and will do so even more as a result of the proposed housing development. There are now more than 500 horses kept in the area (Manhood Riding Club count) in private stables, livery yards, and the local Riding School (at which the Chichester Group of Riding for the Disabled is based).

We would, therefore, absolutely support objective 5 of this Policy "Improve infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Coastal Footpath ".

We would suggest the best way to do this is to ensure that at least one multi-use route (bridleway) is provided through, or around the fringe of developments, which can also serve as a green corridor for leisure and recreation and, and benefit health and well-being, wildlife and biodiversity. These routes can form the basis of a safe non-motorised user (NMU) network and link with existing public rights of way (prow) where possible.

Policy S20: Design (page 74)
Bullet point 5 - wording is supported "incorporates and/or links to high quality Green Infrastructure and landscaping to enhance biodiversity and meet recreational needs, including public rights of way."
However, it is important as mentioned above that this incudes 'multi-use' public rights of way for the benefit of all.

Transport Infrastructure
Para 5.15 - very good to see "bridleways" included in this para.
Para 5.16 - The wording "There is an extensive public rights of way network across the plan area... is misleading. The wording implies that this prow network is available to all users, whereas on the Coastal Plain the prow network consists almost entirely of footpaths, which are not available for use by cyclists and equestrians. Upgrading appropriate/suitable prow to bridleways would contribute to the West Sussex Transport Plan (2011-2026) aim of "improving safety for all road users", mentioned in para 5.18.

Policy S23: Transport and Accessibility
Bullet point 8 - Our view is that the objective "improving safety for all road users", should be included in the actual Policy wording, not just in the accompanying text. However, it is good to see 'public rights of way' included, which need to be multi-use bringing safety benefits for all vulnerable road users.

Countryside and Countryside Gaps (page 82)
Para 5.37 - Absolutely agree the plan area's countryside is an important and diminishing resource, and the Council's aim to protect the countryside from the urbanising impacts of development is welcomed. For existing and future residents, the opportunity to enjoy 'informal recreation' (walking, cycling, horse riding) in the countryside is important for leisure, health, and well-being. The Council needs to take a very active role in ensuring that any development provides benefits, most likely in the way of safe, off-road multi-use routes(green links), and the mention of this in para 5.40 is welcomed.

Policy S32: Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Sites (page 92/93)
The references in Point b, "movement and access arrangements and Green Infrastructure provision", in Point e, "community leisure and recreation facilities as appropriate", and Point g, "contain a Green Infrastructure framework to ensure that public and private open space standards are met, relate well to each other and to existing areas and that the new spaces are safe, convenient, accessible and functional" are welcomed.
However, it is important that leisure and recreational routes, and new prow connect to the wider countryside for public benefit, and are not just contained within a development. There are many examples in the county where new routes have been created across or on the fringe of a development, which link to a wider network of recreational routes. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), para 98, states "Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks"

Policy AL1: Land West of Chichester (page 96)
Point 4 - whilst welcoming the provision of "open space and green infrastructure", this development provides an excellent opportunity to improve links to the wider countryside, in particular to BW 270 and Park Lane (which should be formally dedicated as a prow).
Point 10 - An "appropriate landscaping buffer", is also an excellent opportunity to provide a multi-use prow (bridleway), for the safety and enjoyment of all vulnerable road users, which as a 'green corridor, would also contribute to green infrastructure.
We would also request that when looking at 'key landscaping' of the Centurian Way (CW), the issue of upgrading this to a multi-user path where possible, to include equestrians is considered, so that they can also benefit from a safe and secure off-road environment. The CW is the only disused railway line in the county that is not available for use by all NMUs. The Worth Way and Downs Link are fully multi-use, and are highly valued and well used.

Policy AL2: Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish) (page 99/100)
Point 9 - Despite repeated requests for the proposed bridge connection across the A27 at Coach Road (a route used by all NMUs until it was severed when the A27 was realigned) to also be made available for equestrian use, it would appear from the Policy wording that horse riders continue to be excluded, despite the large numbers of horses kept in the Oving area.

At present, riders have to box their horses over the A27 to access the safe network of bridleways and riding routes in the National Park, which is a situation contrary to the aims and objectives set out in this Plan. In order to gain maximum benefit from bridge infrastructure, it should be made available for as many users as possible.

Policies AL3 to AL14
All of these Policies require opportunities for the provision of green infrastructure with links to the wider countryside to be explored, and these are welcomed and supported. Creating new routes and links is especially important on the Coastal Plain, where an off-road multi-use path network would be of great benefit to all NMUs.

The West Sussex Rights of Way Management Plan 2018-2028 has Objectives (page 3) which include:
2. Improve path links to provide circular routes and links between communities.
3. Improve the PRoW network to create safe routes for both leisure and utility journeys, by minimising the need to use and cross busy roads.
4. Provide a PRoW network that enables appropriate access with minimal barriers for as many people as possible.
5. Promote countryside access to all sections of the community enabling people to confidently and responsibly use and enjoy the countryside.

The Plan also states in Improvement schemes (page 13), that "A starting point for new schemes will be to consider who could benefit from a new route, such as walkers, cyclists, horse riders and the disabled, and be as inclusive as possible, often the aim will be to achieve at least bridleway status.

Policy DM32 Green Infrastructure (page 199)
It is disappointing that the wording (on page 197/198) omits to mention that prow (footpaths, bridleways, byways), are defined by Natural England, and also recognised nationally, as multifunctional 'green corridors', and are therefore part of GI. Providing a multi-use (walker, cyclist, equestrian) prow or recreational route around the periphery would comply with NPPF, para 98, as mentioned above.
It is good to see public rights of way, and bridleways mentioned in Point 4 of the Policy, although the wording "do not lead to the dissection of the linear network" appears to be rather negative, much better to tell someone what they should do "The proposals protect, and contribute to the improvement of ........"

Policy DM34: Open Space, Sport and Recreation .... (page 204)
We support the aim to "seek to retain, enhance, improve access and increase the quantity and quality of....rights of way including improvement of links to them." This will be of great benefit to all NMUs.

Point 1 - Excellent to see requirement for development to contribute to new links to the existing rights of way network, which should be multi-use wherever possible.
Also support the aim to secure on-site provision secured via S106 agreements to provide (amongst other things) links to the existing rights of way network to meet any identified shortfalls in the local area, and would request in line with the WS RoW Management Plan that these links will be "as inclusive as possible, often the aim will be to achieve at least bridleway status."

For the avoidance of doubt the Policy should describe and define the area covered by the Manhood Peninsular and acknowledge that it commences immediately to the south of and abutting the A27 and includes the whole of the Parishes of Appuldram, Donnington and Hunston.

There is no specific mention here of Chichester Harbour and its status as AONB, Special Protection Area, SSSI and Ramsar site.
It is not appropriate to consider further development, particularly light industrial dev, so close to the harbour, mitigation is very unlikely to avoid significant adverse impact on the ecology of the area.

All development proposals must take account of relevant Surface Water Management Plans, Catchment Flood Management Plans and related flood defence plans and strategies

It is clear from the constraints identified in 4.121 that the peninsula is unsuitable for large scale development. The planned scale of development is not viable because of factors identified in the plan, such as coastal flooding & protection, low lying land flooding and drainage, Pagham SPA and Medmerry coastal re-alignment, Chichester Harbour environmental conservation area (Ramsar site), road connectivity and links to the A27, topographical characteristics. The Local Plan has failed to recognise that the problems in this area only arise because of the lack of alternative development areas within the district and not because the Manhood Peninsula is suitable for development. Large scale development on the Peninsula will also have a detrimental impact on neighbouring North Mundham & Huston parishes

As the peninsula is recognised for its tourist and leisure attractions it should be protected and further industrial and housing kept to a minimum especially as there is obvious danger due to flooding.

Green tourism is a vital part of the Manhood Peninsula economy. Overdevelopment spoiling the natural environment would be hugely detrimental.
Chichester Harbour and surrounding area are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have the status of being a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Site of Special Scientific Interest and is a Ramsar site. To consider development on the scale proposed in such close proximity to such an area is wholly inappropriate.

The impact on Ecology- Chichester Harbour and surrounding areas are designated as an Area Of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have the status of being a Special Protection Area, Special Area Of Conservatiion, Site Of Scientific Interest and is a Ramsar site.

Green tourism is a very important part of the Manhood Peninsula economy and to over develop and spoil the natural environment which attracts this trade would be inappropriate and hugely detrimental

Impact on ecology - the Chichester Harbour and surrounding area are designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and have the status of being a Special Protection Area, Special Area of Conservation, Site of Special Scientific Interest and is a Ramsar site. It is wholly inappropriate to consider development on this scale in such close proximity to an area with this status. There will be a significantly adverse impact on the ecology of the area and mitigation is not sufficient.

Green tourism is a very important part of the Manhood Peninsula economy and to overdevelop and spoil the natural environment which attracts this trade would be inappropriate and hugely detrimental.

Re. "4.124 The Council has adopted a plan titled 'Towards Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM) on the Manhood Peninsula', which identifies management options for the coastal zone. It is an aspirational plan that reflects the views and objectives of the communities on the Peninsula. The document has been subject to public consultation and therefore has some weight as a material planning consideration." Please include this document in the Supporting Evidence (maybe a Background Paper?): http://www.chichester.gov.uk/article/30928/Supporting-evidence---Local-Plan-review

I specifically support:
"5.Improve infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Coastal Footpath".
As a resident of Parklands in Chichester city, new safe, convenient, attractive infrastructure for pedestrians and cyclists would bring more of the Peninsula within reach without a car, promoting Health and Well-Being and social cohesion between local communities.

What is the 'Towards ICZM' document?
Policy S.18 includes "nice" aspirations but does not state anything particularly specific.

West Sussex County Council Officer Level Response
Introduction
The Chichester Local Plan Review Preferred Approach sets out how the future development in the District will be shaped, excluding the area within the South Downs National Park, up to 2035. It includes the overall development strategy as well as relevant strategic policies to meet the future needs of the area and development management policies to help guide development over the plan period. The Local Plan helps to:
* choose where the development goes;
* protect the character and beauty of the area;
* provide job and housing opportunities so that children can continue to work and live locally;
* support and help to boost the local economy;
* help residents to maintain healthy and active lifestyles; and,
* make sure that there is adequate services, travel options and community facilities.

The Chichester Local Plan was adopted in July 2015. At that time, the Local Plan was approved, but the Government Inspector said that it had to be reviewed again within five years, to make sure that sufficient housing was planned to meet the needs of the area.

The first part of the review process was carried out in June 2017 with an Issues and Options consultation, in which comments were invited regarding the overall development strategy and possible development locations. The Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach is the second stage of the process. It sets out the proposed development strategy and policies for the area to meet future needs.


West Sussex County Council Officer Level Comments
This note sets out West Sussex County Council's (WSCC) officer response to the consultation on the draft Chichester Local Plan Review Preferred Approach. It highlights key issues and suggested changes to which Chichester District Council (CDC) is requested to give consideration. We will continue to work with CDC in preparation of the Local Plan Review and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan regarding WSCC service requirements in order to mitigate planned development.


Minerals and Waste
A steady and adequate supply of minerals and the achievement of sustainable waste management can help to achieve a District or Borough Council's goals in relation to the economy, housing, transport, communications, strategic infrastructure and the environment. Therefore, District and Borough Local Plans should recognise the importance of minerals and waste issues as relevant to the scope of their overall strategies.

We welcome the reference to the adopted Minerals and Waste Local Plans and safeguarding in the document and the requirements in policies where a site is located within a minerals safeguarding area, or near to a safeguarded waste site. There are some missing references to safeguarding of minerals and waste sites for some of the proposed allocations, set out below and request that these references are added. It is also requested that 'Joint' is added into the references for the Joint Minerals Local Plan through the document.

Policy W23 of the Waste Local Plan applies to all Districts & Boroughs, regarding waste management within development and should be referenced in the Chichester Local Plan Review.

AL3 East of Chichester
The site is to the north of the Fuel Depot site allocation in the Waste Local Plan (Policy W10) for a built waste facility as part of a comprehensive redevelopment of the site (including complimentary non-waste uses). The East of Chichester allocation is the land to the north, bisected by the railway line, of the Fuel Depot. Reference should be made to giving consideration to the allocation, and therefore its safeguarding.

AL4 Westhampnett/North East Chichester
Reference should be made to minerals safeguarding, for consistency with other allocations, as within the sharp sand and gravel safeguarding area.

AL5 Southern Gateway
Reference should be made to the mineral infrastructure safeguarding policy M10 as within 200m of the Chichester Railhead.

AL6 South-West of Chichester
Reference should be made to the mineral infrastructure safeguarding policy M10 as within 300m of the Chichester Railhead.

AL7 Highgrove Farm Bosham
Remove reference to minerals safeguarding as the site is not within the safeguarding or consultation area.

AL12 Park Farm Selsey
Reference should be made to minerals safeguarding as site is within the sharp sand and gravel safeguarding area.

Neighbourhood plan allocations
Sites are yet to be allocated though neighbourhood plans. It is considered that the Joint Minerals Local Plan and Waste Local Plan are referenced, particularly with regards to safeguarding policies (M9, M10 and W2) and these documents and policies are given detailed consideration when allocating sites. Development at, adjacent or proximal to existing waste or mineral sites / infrastructure should be the subject to consultation with WSCC.


Connectivity and Sustainable Travel
The County council has worked with the District Council on the preparation of the transport evidence base study undertaken by Peter Brett Associates for the District Council. The recommended transport mitigation strategy, as assessed using the Chichester Area Transport Model has been demonstrated to be capable in principle to prevent the development from resulting in severe residual cumulative impacts on the highways and transport network. However, the recommended strategy has several risks to deliverability and acceptability associated with it, which require further work to be undertaken to demonstrate that the strategy can be implemented in its current form to provide the forecasted mitigation to travel conditions.

There are three locations where new highway alignments are proposed outside of existing highways boundaries. Two of these may include significant earthworks or structures to be delivered, being Stockbridge Link Road and Terminus Road diversion. The cost of the mitigation strategy exceeds a figure which could reasonably be supported by the value of the proposed development developer contributions alone, therefore the delivery of the strategy will depend upon securing of external grant funding to top up developer contributions. WSCC will work with the District Council in supporting and or applying for funding, the District Council needing to secure Highways England to support funding applications for A27 improvements. The proposed junction designs for the A27 Stockbridge and Whyke roundabouts include bans to well used right turn movements off the Chichester A27 bypass which result in significant forecast changes to traffic flows on local roads in the south of Chichester and on the Manhood Peninsular.

There is a need to ensure the land outside the highway boundary is available and the plan should set out how this land will be acquired to deliver the measures, it may be that a commitment to use, if required, and therefore reference to CPO be made in the policy.

Funding for the mitigation strategy is uncertain. It is considered that the Plan should set out how it will deal with this uncertainty. This could include trigger points in the monitoring framework to trigger a change of approach or alternative options to deliver the required development.

These factors mean that feasibility work is necessary to be undertaken prior to Plan submission, to reduce as far as practicable risks to costs, land take, impacts and deliverability of the proposed transport strategy in order to show that the strategy can be implemented within the plan period and that the funding strategy will be sufficient to meet the design requirements. In particular the following will need to be addressed:

* Statutory undertakers equipment under the roads junctions to be impacted.
* Extent of earthworks required to create a vertical and horizontal alignment compliant with design standards. Design audit to identify any required departures from standard.
* Designing for drainage and flooding issues, including compliance with the WSCC LLFA Policy for the Management of Surface Water, November 2018.
* Designs for structures to cross watercourses - Stockbridge Link Road
* Design should include suitable provision for rights of way and footway crossings
* Scoping for whether and at what level further Environmental Impact Assessment will be required.
* Stage 1 Road safety Audit, designers response report and resulting amendments to designs.
* Land take required after feasibility level designs have been developed and availability of required land.
* Wophams Lane - impacts of forecast changes to flow patterns to take B2201 southbound traffic on requirements for highway width, alignment, footway provision and junctions with A286 Birdham Road and B2201 Selsey Road; design solution required.
* Quarry Lane, Kingsham Avenue /Road, Terminus Road; impacts of forecast flow changes on highway users, residential and commercial frontagers and measures to manage through traffic whilst maintaining local access

Sustainable transport measures will also be required to mitigate planned development. These will be identified through more detailed assessments of sites including pre-application consideration. Funding will need to be identified through development and other sources as well in some cases.

Public Rights of Way
There is support for the Local Plan Review's approach to Public Rights Of Way (PROW), not just for the potential to impact on existing public off-road access but also the opportunity it brings to enhance this access for the benefit of future residents, communities and visitors. PROW deliver benefits for personal health and wellbeing; sustainable transport; reduction of air pollution and road congestion; are able to support local economies; and they connect communities.
WSCC PROW welcomes several aspects of the Vision statement, which give support to the protection and enhancement of the PROW network, and provision of safe and convenient off-road access opportunities for residents and visitors:

* Pursue a healthy lifestyle and benefit from a sense of well-being supported by good access to education, health, leisure, open space and nature, sports and other essential facilities;
* Live in sustainable neighbourhoods supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities;
* Move around safely and conveniently with opportunities to choose alternatives to car travel.

The Local Plan Strategic Objectives offer further support to enhance off-road access, particularly to 'Encourage healthy and active lifestyles for all, developing accessible health and leisure facilities and linked green spaces'. However, the objective to 'Achieve a sustainable and integrated transport system through improved cycling networks and links to public transport' should recognise walking also as an important mode for many people; some strategic enhancements will significantly improve walkers' safety and convenience.

It is considered that West of Chichester the A259 could act as a corridor for increased volumes of non-motorised access, particularly cycling. Improvement of the existing on-road facility and development of a various 'feeder' routes to connect with the many settlements, perhaps using quiet lanes in places, would encourage cycling particularly to be a natural alternative to vehicle use. Policy S18: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula, gives regard to such an ambition in stating it will 'Improve infrastructure to support sustainable modes of transport, especially cycle ways, bridleways and footpaths, including the National Coastal Footpath'.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Open Space and Recreation, para 97b) states:
the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location.
The NPPF para 98 also states:
Planning policies and decisions should protect and enhance public rights of way and access, including taking opportunities to provide better facilities for users, for example by adding links to existing rights of way networks including National Trails.'
There is support for Policy S20: Design, that recognises these requirements in stating development 'is well connected to provide safe and convenient ease of movement by all users, prioritising pedestrian and cycle movements both within the scheme and neighbouring areas and ensuring that the needs of vehicular traffic does not dominate at the expense of other modes of transport, or undermine the resulting quality of places' and 'incorporates and/or links to high quality Green Infrastructure and landscaping to enhance biodiversity and meet recreational needs, including public rights of way'.


Education
As the local education authority, WSCC has the statutory duty to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of suitable school places to meet statutory requirements for early years, primary, secondary and sixth form provision (including up to age 25 for those with special educational needs and/or disabilities). Education infrastructure, or contributions to provide infrastructure, will be required in order to mitigate proposed development. We will continue to work with CDC in preparation of the Local Plan Review and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan regarding education and other service requirements in order to mitigate planned development.

The table below sets out the primary, secondary school and sixth form requirements to mitigate proposed development. SEE ATTACHMENT FOR TABLE

AL1 Land West of Chichester

It should be noted that phase one of this development will provide the primary school with the core of the building being built to the specification for a 2 form entry (FE) school and 1FE teaching accommodation. Phase 2 as per 6.10 on page 93 should include expansion of the primary school for the further 1FE of teaching accommodation.

AL2 Land at Shopwhyke (Oving Parish)

No update to original response for this allocation is required.

AL3 Land East of Chichester - previously South of Shopwhyke

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there is insufficient space within the primary schools that serve this proposed development. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Land for a 1 FE expandable to 2FE and pro rata share of the build costs would be required.

If numbers were to increase on the east side of the city, education provision will need to be reviewed, potentially a further 1FE may be required including land provision, this could be in the form of an expansion or a new school being built capable of expansion to 3FE.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL4 Land at Westhampnett / North East Chichester

The remaining 200 dwellings will impact on the education provision in the area, financial contributions towards expansion of existing or pro rata costs towards the expansion of the school within AL3.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL5 Southern Gateway

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from the strategic allocation of 350 dwellings in the Southern Gateway. However, consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of housing in the area Land South West of Chichester (AL6) to allocate land within the area for a 1FE expandable to 2FE primary school. Pro rata financial contributions towards the build costs would be sought from developers to mitigate their impact.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL6 Land South West of Chichester (Apuldram & Donnington Parishes)

It should be noted that the primary education provision in this area is either in Chichester City Centre which means crossing the main A27 or by travelling south towards the peninsula. Consideration should be given to the cumulative impact of further housing in the area along with the Southern Gateway allocation (AL5) to allocate land within the strategic allocation site for a 1FE expandable to 2FE primary school. Pro rata financial contributions towards the build costs would be sought from developers to mitigate their impact.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for sixth form pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of the provision if feasible and required.

AL7 Bosham

The current primary provision serving the area is at capacity, expansion of the school on its existing site is not possible. As part of the strategic allocation, it is proposed that land for a 2FE primary school be provided. The strategic allocation of 250 dwellings in isolation does not require a new school to be built. Certainty over the land allocation and sufficient funding will be key drivers in realising this proposal.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL9 Fishbourne

The primary school serving the area is currently at capacity, expansion of the school may be possible, feasibility / options appraisals would need to be undertaken.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of primary and secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

AL8 East Wittering

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development.

Contributions would be required for expansion of primary and secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL10 Chidham and Hambrook area

The current primary provision serving the area is at capacity, expansion of the school on its existing site is not possible. As part of the strategic allocation, it is proposed that land for a 2FE primary school be provided. Certainty over the land allocation and sufficient funding will be key drivers in realising this proposal.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL11 Hunston

Any development within this area cannot currently be accommodated in the existing primary school at North Mundham. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development, CDC will need to work with WSCC to determine how additional capacity in the area could be accommodated if land is to be allocated.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

AL12 Selsey

Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Contributions (and possibly land if required) would be sought to meet the pupil product from the development in the most appropriate form once this can be clarified.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL13 Southbourne

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there is insufficient space within the primary schools that serve this proposed development. Further capacity would be required to accommodate the development. Land for a 2form entry expandable to 3FE primary school and pro rata share of the build costs would be required.

AL7, AL10 and AL13 are all within the same school planning area, the cumulative total of the strategic allocations brings forward a requirement for c3 forms of entry additional school places. The Local Plan, as currently drafted, indicates an oversupply of school places which could affect the viability of all the schools in the planning area.

Expansion of the secondary school may be possible. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools if feasible and required.

AL14 Tangmere

The current allocation of 1,300 dwellings will bring forward the requirement for land for a 1FE expandable to 2FE and financial contributions would be sought to meet the pupil product from the development in the most appropriate form once this can be clarified.

At the current time pupil place planning indicates that there would be sufficient space or expansion capacity to accommodate the child product from this proposed development for secondary aged pupils. Contributions would be required for expansion of secondary schools and sixth form if feasible and required.

Footnote: - if all of the proposed sites were to come forward the secondary school and sixth form provision would be full in the Chichester Planning Area. Expansion of the secondary schools in the Chichester Planning Area to cater for the increased demand would need to be sought from the academy sponsors, where appropriate and the Local Authority.


Lead Local Flood Authority
The Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) is concerned about the approach being taken with regard to ensuring potential wastewater treatment for proposed new sustainable development.

Paragraph 8 of the NPPF states:
8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):

a) An economic objective - to help build a strong, responsive and competitive
economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the
right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved
productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;

Paragraph 20 of the NPPF states:
20. Strategic policies should set out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development, and make sufficient provision for:
a) housing (including affordable housing), employment, retail, leisure and other commercial development;
b) infrastructure for transport, telecommunications, security, waste management, water supply, wastewater, flood risk and coastal change management, and the provision of minerals and energy (including heat);

In the LLFAs view, the Local Plan Review is not setting out an overall strategy for the pattern, scale and quality of development in relation to arrangements for wastewater management. The LLFA considers that CDC needs to go further in incorporating within the Local Plan Review how this provision is being made.


Additional Policy Comments

Policy S12: Infrastructure Provision
Support the requirement that all development must provide or fund new infrastructure, facilities and services required, both on and off-site (including full fibre communications infrastructure) as a consequence of the proposal. The explicit reference to full fibre communications infrastructure is supported as this will provide gigabit-capable and future-proofed services to all development, existing and new. The reference to provision of facilities and services on and off-site is also supported as in the case of broadband for example, all development will be adequately equipped with the necessary infrastructure installed for the purposes of connecting to full fibre gigabit-capable broadband services. This policy supports the County Council's aim for increased digital infrastructure that will provide for gigabit-capable broadband and future technologies such as 5G.

Support the reference to safeguarding educational facilities under section 3 of the policy.

The policy includes the requirement to 'Facilitate accessibility to facilities and services by a range of transport modes'. PROW can offer vital access means for walkers and cyclists, such as for employment land use (e.g. commuting by bicycle) and in support of the high street, both for employees and customers. IT is considered that this Policy, also Policy S13: Chichester City Development Principles, should aim to encourage such access to be the natural and preferred modes of access, thereby helping achieve the benefits previously described. It is noted Policy S14: Chichester City Transport Strategy, does acknowledge cycling and walking and lends support to their improvement.

The supporting text, paragraph 4.81 makes reference to the Strategic Infrastructure Package (SIP). It is requested that this wording is removed and replaced with West Sussex County Council identifies service infrastructure requirements necessary to support new and existing communities, where strategic development and growth is proposed in Local Plans. These are required to deliver the County Council's statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives and current policy and feed into the preparation of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.


Policy S13: Chichester City Development Principles
This policy, like policy S12, it is considered should aim to encourage such access to be the natural and preferred modes of access, thereby helping achieve the benefits previously described. It is noted Policy S14: Chichester City Transport Strategy, does acknowledge cycling and walking and lends support to their improvement.


Policy S23: Transport and Accessibility
The policy and supporting text paragraphs 5.15 - 5.33 refer to Transport Infrastructure. Understandably much consideration is given to the A27 around Chichester; however, in addition to seeking new infrastructure from new development, it is recommended support in principle is given to maximising the value of existing infrastructure so as to facilitate off-road user modes accessing either side of the A27.


S24: Countryside
Supporting text paragraphs 5.34 - 5.43, acknowledges 'it is necessary to provide for the social and economic needs of small rural communities, and enable those who manage, live and work in the countryside to continue to do so'. It is recognised in para 7.205, supporting text to policy SM35 Equestrian Development, the high numbers of liveried and stabled horses. A considerable network of businesses are supported by such a high equine population, and in addition to financial value within the local community there is considerable benefit in terms of health and wellbeing of individuals. It is suggested that Policy S24: Countryside, could recognise this specifically.


S27: Flood Risk Management
Supporting text paragraph 5.54, requested amendments underlined - as a consequence of the rise in sea levels and storm surges, parts of the plan area will be at increased risk from coastal erosion, groundwater, fluvial and/or tidal flooding. Hard defences may not be possible to maintain in the long term, therefore development needs to be strongly restricted in areas at risk to flooding and erosion, whilst ensuring that existing towns and villages are protected by sustainable means that make space for water in suitable areas. Development must take account of the policies of the relevant shoreline management plan

Supporting text paragraph 5.58, requested amendments underlined - Built development can lead to increased surface water run-off; therefore new
development is encouraged to incorporate mitigation techniques in its design, such as permeable surfaces and Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS). Where appropriate, SuDS should be used as part of the linked green infrastructure network to provide multiple functions and benefits to landscape quality, recreation and biodiversity. This can be achieved through habitat creation, new open spaces and good design. SuDS should be designed to help cope with intense rainfall events and to overcome any deterioration in water quality status. In determining the suitability of SuDS for individual development sites, developers should refer to guidance published by the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA): West Sussex LLFA Policy for the Management of Surface Water: https://www.westsussex.gov.uk/media/12230/ws_llfa_policy_for_management_of_surface_water.pdf and, if necessary, seek further advice from the Lead Local Flood Authority LLFA.

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 1 - a. through a sequential approach, taking into consideration all forms of flooding, it is located in the lowest appropriate flood risk location in accordance with the NPPF and the Chichester Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA); and

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 2. Sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) will be required on major developments (10 or more dwellings or equivalent) and encouraged for smaller schemes. SUDS should be designed into the landscape of all new development and should be included as part of a District wide approach to improve water quality and provide flood mitigation. A site-specific Flood Risk Assessment will be required for sites within or adjacent to areas at risk of surface water flooding as identified in the SFRA. There should be no increase in either the volume or rate of surface water runoff leaving the site.

S27 policy text requested additional bullet point as number 4 - Clear management arrangements and funding for their ongoing maintenance over the lifetime of the development should be proposed. Planning conditions and / or obligations will be used to secure these arrangements.

S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 2, but would be section 5 - Development should not result in any property or highway, on or off site, being at greater risk of flooding than the 1 in 100 year storm return period, including an allowance for climate change.


Policy S29: Green Infrastructure
The Green Infrastructure policy is welcomed, including provision of new Green Infrastructure as an integral part of the development at Strategic Development Locations. It is recommended that measures are put in place to secure the long term management of such Green Infrastructure.


Policy S30: Strategic Wildlife Corridors
The identification of Strategic Wildlife Corridors and inclusion of a policy to safeguard them from development is welcomed. It is recommended that CDC promotes positive conservation management within these corridors to maximise their contribution to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. As stated in Section 5.66, 'These corridors do not stop at the plan area boundaries.' Thus, it is recommended that CDC works in partnership with Chichester Harbour Conservancy and The South Downs National Park Authority to ensure that these Strategic Wildlife Corridors continue to provide effective corridors and connectivity across the wider landscape.

Section 5.66 refers to four Strategic Wildlife Corridors connecting Chichester Harbour with the South Downs National Park but it is noted that there is no mention of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors to the east of Chichester which connect Pagham Harbour with the South Downs National Park (as seen in Policy Map S30b). It is also noted that the maps referred to in Section 5.66, Maps 5.1 & 5.2 are missing.

WSCC and CDC promoted a Mitigated Northern Route for the A27 at Chichester as the preferred option, subject to the inclusion of important mitigation measures that are needed to make the scheme acceptable in environmental terms and the 'full southern route' as a reasonable alternative. Both routes could impact on the identified Strategic Wildlife Corridors. As currently drafted, Policy S30 would seem to prevent a mitigated northern route from coming forward in the future. Therefore, the District Council should consider whether the policy is overly restrictive (for example should it refer to 'significant adverse impacts' or 'unacceptable adverse impacts'?) and how it would be applied if a northern route for A27 were to come forward in the future.


Policy S31: Wastewater Management and Water Quality
S27 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 3, this - Where appropriate, development should contribute to the delivery of identified actions to deliver infiltration reduction across the catchment. Where appropriate development should contribute to the delivery of identified actions to deliver a reduction in the level of infiltration of groundwater into the sewer system.


Policy AL1: Land West of Chichester
AL1 policy text requested additional bullet point as number 8 - Increase capacity to attenuate surface water on site, thereby reducing the discharge flows off the site below current rates and reducing the risk of flooding to residential areas downstream.

AL1 policy text requested additional bullet point under 15 as 15 b- Provide mitigation for any loss of watercourse habitat resulting from culverting for highway provision in the development;

AL1 policy text in supporting 'improved cycle and pedestrian routes linking the site with the city, Fishbourne and the South Downs National Park', a new key link for cycling will be to Salthill Road, thereby enabling cyclists to benefit from the existing bridge crossing of the A27 for journeys to and from the west.


AL2: Land at Shopwyke (Oving Parish)
The policy acknowledges need 'for foot/cycle bridge across A27 to Coach Road'. There is also need for equestrian users to cross the A27 and WSCC PROW has received several enquiries seeking support for such infrastructure. Consideration could be given to the proposed bridge providing for all three modes.


AL3: East of Chichester (Oving Parish)
AL3 supporting text requested amendments underlined for paragraph 6.22 - The site is identified for 600 dwellings, however, there may be potential to deliver a large strategic development of 1000 dwellings, subject to further evidence, including the testing of additional growth on the local highway network and capacity of the site to provide flood risk attenuation for the increased housing density. The site should be master planned as a whole, and delivered through a phased development over a ten year period. Although the site is physically separated from the city by the A27 Chichester Bypass, the development should form a planned extension to the city, forming a new neighbourhood. This will involve opportunities to provide new facilities to serve the wider local community with good off-site access, particularly by walking and cycling to existing local facilities and facilities in the city.

AL3 policy requires exploring integrated green infrastructure with other strategic sites to the north east of the city, Tangmere and the wider countryside. It is considered that future residents will have expectations for provision of safe and convenient links towards Oving and also across the railway to link to the A259 cycle path and PROW south of the A259. It is considered that the policy should be strengthened to ensure such provision.


Policy AL4: Land at Westhampnett/North East Chichester
AL4 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 3 - Open space and green infrastructure, including a linear greenspace with public access along the Lavant Valley.

Taking into account the site-specific requirements, proposals for the site should satisfy the following requirements:

Policy AL4 policy, it is welcomed that 'provision should be made for green links to the South Downs National Park and Chichester City.' Safe and convenient walking and cycling to Lavant, from where people will access the South Downs, will provide for sustainable transport use.


Policy AL5 Southern Gateway
AL5 supporting text requested amendments underlined for paragraph 6.38 - The area has been identified as suitable for comprehensive regeneration with the aim being to make it a more attractive and welcoming gateway for the city, providing new housing, business and retail space and leisure and tourism facilities. Opportunities will be identified to improve transport links with a focus on cycling, walking and public transport and the removal of non-essential traffic from the area. There is also scope for significant public space enhancements and new landscaping incorporating blue / green infrastructure delivering multi-functional benefits.

AL5 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 5 - Provision of open space that:
* Is in accordance with Policy DM34, including retention of the existing playing pitch unless suitable re-provision is provided;
* Reinforces / enhances green and blue infrastructure consistent with Policy S29 and fully exploits the opportunities for sustainable drainage.


AL5 policy text requested amendments underlined for section 8 - Provision of both a surface and waste water management plan which demonstrates no net increase in flow to Apuldram Waste Water Treatment Works would result from this development, unless suitable alternative provision is agreed;


Policy AL6: Land South-West of Chichester (Apuldram and Donnington Parishes)
The LLFA has concerns regarding the lack of reference to flood risk constraints of the site in Policy AL6. There is reference to flood risk in paragraph 6.47. However, the policy itself makes no reference to these constraints.
The constraints arise from a combination of the following:

* Current tidal /fluvial flood risk extending from Chichester harbour to the west and up the River Lavant floodplain; (Map 1)
* Future tidal /fluvial flood risk associated with climate change; (Map 1)
* Constraints on infiltration of surface water run off because of high seasonal groundwater levels (<0.025m below the surface) (Map 2); and
* Constraints on gravity outfalls because of the low relief and long-term reduction in tidal window for discharge.

The above limits the options for how the site can be effectively drained without a step change from typically employed methods to embrace more innovative and currently expensive options e.g. blue roofs and rainwater harvesting.

The LLFA recommends that the policy sets out both the above constraints and the type of innovative drainage that will be required to achieve the development objectives for the site.



Key: Projected medium projection extent of SLR based upon 4m contour

AL6 extent

Current Flood Zone 3 extent.

Current Areas of high (1:30) surface water flood risk

Map 1 Existing and projected Tidal and surface water flood risk for AL6.

Consistent with paragraph 3.2 of the SFRA, given the high risk of flooding both now and into the future for this site, it is recommended that CDC gives consideration to the climate change maps to understand how the flood zones are predicted to change over the lifetime of the development.


Key:
AL6 boundary.

Groundwater levels are either at very near (within 0.025m of) the ground surface.

Groundwater levels are between 0.025m and 0.5m below the ground surface

Map 2 Groundwater flood risk JBA

Policy AL6 WSCC PROW considers 'necessary highway improvements to adequately mitigate the likely impacts on the highway network' to include a bridge crossing of the A27 for convenient walking and cycling access to the Terminus Road industrial estate and the city. There is an existing public footpath but, as this crosses the A27 at-grade, this will not provide the safest facility and not encourage people to minimise use of vehicles for local access. Provision of a bridge and access through the site could also establish a valuable link to the popular Salterns Way walking and cycle path. An additional link to Salterns Way should also be provided off the A286 for the benefit of Stockbridge residents as a safer alternative to the A286.


AL 7 Highgrove Farm, Bosham
The LLFA notes that the above site has the potential for a moderate risk of groundwater flooding. It is likely that this is perched groundwater draining from higher ground / springs to the north that lies in the superficial mixed sediments underlain by Lambeth Clay.


Policy AL8: East Wittering Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The policy requires 'Opportunities ... for the expansion and provision of green infrastructure into the wider countryside including between settlements and facilities'. Existing and future residents and the local visitor economy would benefit by delivery of an off-road route for walkers, cyclists and horse riders to and from the Medmerry development and towards Selsey. It is considered that Policy AL8 should aim to deliver this enhancement specifically.


Policy AL9: Fishbourne Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

It is considered that off-road cycling links to land West of Chichester (off Salthill Road) and to Bosham (off Park Lane) would benefit this community with enhanced sustainable connectivity.


Policy AL10: Chidham and Hambrook Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The policy requires 'opportunities' to develop green infrastructure and links to other communities. An opportunity, in conjunction with Highways England, exists to maximise the value of existing infrastructure by creating a new bridleway (for walkers, cyclists and horse riders) on a path using an existing A27 overbridge.


Policy AL11: Hunston Parish
Due to no information on where housing is going to be located so the LLFA is not in a position to comment on proposed housing allocation sites at this stage.

The village is already well connected for walkers to access the surrounding countryside but there are presently no local cycling or horse riding facilities on the PROW network. A bridleway link to South Mundham (with the potential for future cycle links to Pagham and towards Bognor Regis) and to Sidlesham via the golf course and Brimfast Lane would provide residents and visitors with improved access to the countryside and services.


Policy AL12: Land North of Park Farm, Selsey
It is unclear why the policy map shows the proposed strategic allocation lies outside of the Neighbourhood Plan proposed settlement boundary. Some explanation for this anomaly would be helpful in the text.


Groundwater flood risk as depicted by JBA mapping (Brown = seasonal groundwater level lies between 0.025 and 0.5m below the surface).

The principle concern that the LLFA wishes to highlight is the need to ensure that the necessary foul sewerage infrastructure to support development is in place. It is the LLFA understanding that the Siddlesham WWTW experiences capacity issues currently, in part exacerbated by groundwater infiltration. While Policy AL12 states: Development proposals will need to demonstrate that sufficient capacity will be available within the sewer network, including waste water treatment works, to accommodate the proposed development in accordance with Policy S31.

The policy proposes only to provide 'pedestrian links between the site and new development south of Park Lane'. It is considered that cycling links should also be provided.


Policy DM8: Transport, Accessibility and Parking
The PROW network can provide vital means for communities to interact and encourage sustainable local access. The policy requirement to create 'links between new development and existing pedestrian, cycle and public transport networks' is welcomed. However, establishing links into surrounding existing development should not be overlooked also - the greater the permeability, the greater the use.


Policy DM10: New Employment Sites
Whilst mentioned earlier in the Plan in respect of a number of specific sites, this policy should specifically aim to provide, as a matter of course, suitable walking and cycling infrastructure to encourage local sustainable access. This infrastructure may need to extend outside a site boundary so as to provide safe and convenient connection to existing infrastructure. This principle should apply also to Policy DM13: Built Tourist and Leisure Development and Policy DM14: Caravan and Camping Sites.


Policy DM32: Green Infrastructure
Whilst it is recognised the policy proposes support subject to not 'dissect[ing] ... the linear network of cycle ways, public rights of way, bridleways ...', the policy could lend support to establishing new routes as part of the Green Infrastructure network itself.


Policy DM35: Equestrian Development
It is appreciated why the Plan would wish to require future equine development to be 'well related to or has improved links to the existing bridleway network'. However, this will add to the pressure of use on the existing bridleway network, which is not extensive outside of the South Downs, so will increase degradation of paths. Future developments must, therefore, accept to contribute in some way, acceptable to the local highway authority, to mitigate the additional impact to be created so all lawful users are not disadvantaged.


Policy DM29: Biodiversity
The measures to safeguard and enhance the biodiversity value of development sites are welcomed, including seeking net biodiversity gain.


Schedule of proposed changes to the policies map
S30a West of City Corridors -suggest title should be West of City Strategic Wildlife Corridors (to match S30b: East of City Strategic Wildlife Corridors. The Strategic Wildlife Corridors are depicted in different colour patterns on the two plans which is somewhat confusing.


Strategic Wildlife Corridors Local Plan Review Background Paper
Proposed Hermitage to Westbourne Strategic Wildlife Corridor
A large area depicted as Biodiversity Opportunity Area (BOA) in Fig. 1 (immediately to the south of the Rivers Ems & Meadows Local Wildlife Site, Westbourne) is in fact housing and forms part of the settlement of Westbourne. You should consider if this land should be included as having potential for biodiversity enhancement.


Glossary
Includes Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCIs) but not Local Wildlife Sites (LWSs). SNCIs are now known as LWSs.

Thank you for the consultation on the above document. We have reviewed the document and have the following comments to make in response.

Summary
Overall we are pleased to see that the Plan provides a framework to ensure that new
development will take place in a considered manner to address environmental constraints as well as provide policy hooks for the delivery of environmental enhancements. However, to ensure that the Plan is as effective as possible and meets necessary policy and legislative requirements we have made some recommendations for improvements. These are set out in detail below. Where we support a policy we have also highlighted this below.

We have highlighted concerns with policy AL6 - Land SW of Chichester and have made recommendations for more significant changes to policies in relation to flood risk management (both strategic and development management) and wastewater management and water quality.

As a general comment we note that a significant proportion of the housing numbers
proposed through the Local Plan will be delivered by Neighbourhood Plans. We have
highlighted key criteria for individual locations that we would wish to see considered by those Plans when allocating sites. Where possible we would wish to see these included within the Local Plan policy but as you will be aware we have produced a checklist for Neighbourhood Plan groups in your District which will guide the identification of sites and other key issues and opportunities to be addressed in their Plans.
We would be happy to meet with you to discuss further any of our comments and support the rewording of the policies prior to the production of a pre-submission Plan.

Specific comments

Strategic policies
Policy S12 - Infrastructure
Overall we support the policy. We would recommend that paragraph 3 be amended to
include reference to flood risk management infrastructure.

Policy S17 - Thorney Island
We are currently exploring opportunities for habitat creation in an area on Thorney Island. This is part of our Habitat Creation Programme which seeks to create new habitat to offset losses elsewhere as a result of sea level rise and implementation of coastal and flood risk management infrastructure.
Whilst the policy as drafted, along with other policies in the Plan, would not restrict this opportunity we would like you to consider whether further wording could be included to provide specific support for habitat creation.

Policy S18 - Integrated Coastal Zone Management
We support the continued inclusion of this policy and the specific references to key Plans.
We also support the intention that financial contributions should be sought to deliver both flood risk management infrastructure as well as improvements to the quality of watercourses in the area.

Policy S20 - Design
We support the specific requirements of this policy in point 5 and 8 with regard to green infrastructure and enhancing biodiversity and climate change resilience.

Policy S23 - Transport and Accessibility
The policy includes a new road connecting Birdham Road to the A27 Fishbourne
roundabout. The site includes areas within flood zones 2 and 3 and will cross a number of watercourse. It is essential that the requirements of the NPPF paras 157-8 are satisfied prior to the allocation. We have made detailed comments on this in relation to policy AL6 - Land South West of Chichester.

Policy S25 - The Coast
We are pleased to see the support in this policy for future habitat creation as well as the delivery of flood defences and adaptation to climate change. This supports principles of net environmental gain advocated through the NPPF and the 25 Year Environmental Plan as well as providing necessary policy hooks to support our future plans through our Habitat Creation Programme.
As we highlighted through the Issues and Options consultation this Programme was set up to deliver the compensatory habitat required to address the losses in habitat that would take place as a result of the flood and coastal risk management measures identified in the Shoreline Management Plans. There are specific locations within Chichester District which offer opportunities to provide saltmarsh and coastal grazing marsh in the medium to longer term. These locations include areas in Fishbourne, Chidham and Hambrook and on Thorney Island.

Policy S26 - Natural Environment
We would recommend that the policy wording be extended to say "protect and enhance biodiversity". This is consistent with the NPPF requirements in para 170 regarding net gain and current Government proposals to mandate biodiversity net gain for all new developments.

Policy S27 - Flood Risk Management
We support the intention of the policy, however, we would wish to see changes made to ensure the policy is as clear as possible. We would also recommend you consider what a strategic policy on flood risk management is seeking to achieve in addition to the development management policy. As drafted there are some duplications and/or inconsistencies between the two policies.
It may be more prudent to have a shorter overarching policy that seeks to ensure that flood risk will be taken account of at all stages in the planning process in order to avoid inappropriate development in areas at current or future risk (taking into account climate change) and to direct development away from areas of highest risk. Reference could and should be made to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment to enable this. We would also support a requirement here for development to seek to achieve a reduction in flood risk for existing communities on and off site.
The principle of point 3 is supported but again should be considered whether it sits best within the development management policy.
We would recommend removing point 4. It is not clear entirely what the rationale behind this is but as drafted it suggests that development within areas with a certain level of flood risk would be approved. This should only be the case when the sequential and exception test have been satisfied in accordance with the NPPF paragraph 157- 8. I would be happy to discuss this further if the intention behind the statement is different.

Policy S29 - Green Infrastructure
We support the policy and are pleased to see specific reference to "blue" infrastructure.

Policy S30 - Strategic Wildlife Corridors
We are supportive of this policy and believe it provides a strong framework for the protection and enhancement of biodiversity within the Plan Area. In particular we support the corridors along watercourses and the links with Biodiversity Opportunity Areas.
As previously highlighted in our Issues and Options response to the Local Plan the
Environment Agency are looking to deliver more natural flood management (NFM) measures to complement and support traditionally engineered flood defenses. This is about working with natural processes in whole catchments and has the potential to help us manage and reduce flood risk in a more efficient, cost effective and sustainable way whilst securing wider environmental benefits. We would be interested to discuss whether the Strategic Wildlife Corridors Background Paper could be expanded upon to consider these opportunities.
A nationally consistent set of opportunity maps to indicate potential for natural flood
management have been produced and I have attached a briefing not which shows how you can access this screening information. The identification and safeguarding of wildlife corridors could support our further work on NFM in the Chichester District and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further. In particular we would be interested to discuss whether the Strategic Wildlife Corridors Background Paper could be expanded upon to consider these opportunities.

Policy S31 - Wastewater Management and Water Quality
We support the intention of this policy, however, we recommend that the policy is amended to ensure that specific issues associated with the Apuldram WwTW catchment are addressed and that wider opportunities for the necessary protection and enhancements of water quality in the catchments across the Plan area are taken forward through development. As drafted the supporting text to the policy talks primarily around wastewater treatment capacity and impacts on water quality. However, we would recommend that this is expanded to discuss wider water quality and water resources issues within the Plan area.
This should include reference to the Water Framework Directive and the South East River Basin Management Plan, for which the Council has an obligation to support their delivery.
We would wish to see the Plan include a policy that will ensure that the design and location of development will both protect and enhance water bodies, both surface and groundwater.
We are aware of a few adopted policies regarding water quality that you may wish to review ahead of the further iteration of your Plan. These include policy W DM1 - Water supply and quality in the Arun Local Plan and Policy 31 - Integrated Water Management and the water cycle in the Cambridge Local Plan. The Policy in the Arun Local Plan is subdivided in to 3 sections to cover issues of water supply, water quality and catchment specific measures.
This approach or layout may be useful for you to consider here.
You may also wish to consider whether there are elements of this policy that would be better situated in a development management policy to direct decision making on individual sites.
I would be happy to work with you further to develop this policy, however, to support this the following identifies some key wording that could be included:
"All new development must demonstrate:
* That it has no adverse impact on the quality of water bodies and groundwater, or will prevent future attainment of good status;
* That development contributes positively to the water environment and its ecology and does not adversely affect surface and ground water quality"
This will reflect that impacts on water quality will not solely relate to wastewater infrastructure but can include diffuse pollution as well as physical changes to watercourses.
With regard to the specific requirements for the Apuldram WwTW the policy as drafted broadly reflects the current adopted Plan policy. Would there be an opportunity here for the policy to reflect elements of the recently endorsed Position Statement between the Environment Agency and Southern Water in terms of managing development in the catchment?
The policy makes reference to the higher building regulations standard of 110 l per person per day. We support this standard but would recommend you consider whether this detail is needed in this strategic policy as well as development management policy DM16 - Sustainable Design and Construction.

Site Allocations
Please note we have no additional comments to make on the sites that are being taken forward from the current adopted Local Plan as we consider that the key policy criteria we sought at that stage has been transposed across. We continue to support these requirements.

Policy S32 - Design Strategies for Strategic and Major Development Proposals
We support this policy and specifically requirements for issues such as green infrastructure and SuDS to be fully considered through a Masterplan. Without this overarching vision for larger sites it is often difficult to provide a comprehensive scheme to address key environmental constraints and opportunities.

Policy AL13 - Land East of Chichester
There is a small area within the site located in Flood Zone 2, along with an additional surface water body (lake). We would recommend that the masterplan for this site fully considers these constraints in designing the site including the adopting the sequential approach. We would wish to see built development located solely within Flood Zone 1.

Policy AL 5 - Southern Gateway
We have previously made comments on the proposals for the Southern Gateway through the adopted masterplan for the site. As highlighted there are a number of constraints to development in this area, however, we are pleased to see specific criteria in the policy toensure that these key constraints to the site within our remit are fully considered.
These are:
- Bullet 8 which requires the provision of a wastewater management plan which
demonstrates no net increase in flow to the Apuldram WwTW. This is in line with the
Surface Water and Foul Drainage SPD and the Position Statement on managing new
housing development in the Apuldram (Chichester) Wastewater Treatment Works
Catchment agreed between the Environment Agency and Southern Water.
- Bullet 10 which sets out the requirement for a Flood Risk Assessment to address the
specific flood risk issues on the site. We would recommend that this policy criteria
could be expanded upon to require the sequential approach within the site and to
ensure that more vulnerable uses such as housing be located in the lowest areas of
flood risk.

Policy AL6 - Land SW of Chichester
At this stage we do not support the inclusion of this site within the Plan.
The allocation is composed of housing, employment and a road scheme. Large areas of the allocation falls within flood zones 2 and 3 and we would wish to see further evidence to support this allocation. This may be as part of a Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for this site which would then inform a Sequential and if necessary an Exceptions Test. The assessment would need to consider how the proposals could be delivered and identify any mitigation and/or compensation measures that may be necessary to ensure that the development is safe and that there is no increase in flood risk to third parties.
Whilst we note that there are areas outside of the flood plain within the allocation and that some of the development could avoid these areas it is anticipated that the road would cross the flood plain and therefore further detailed understanding of this risk and how it would be managed should be provided.
As drafted the policy makes no reference to flood risk and we would wish to see this
amended.
With regard to housing development we would wish to ensure that all development be located in Flood Zone 1 and that the policy criteria would reflect this.
Other issues include the crossing of watercourses and impacts on biodiversity and water quality. This should be referenced within the policy criteria with requirements for any watercourse crossings to be clear span in design. This will ensure that flood water conveyance is not impeded and protect the habitat associated with those watercourses.
In addition to flood risk we also have concerns with regard to where the sites wastewater would drain to. In line with our Position Statement on managing new housing development in Apuldram (Chichester) Wastewater Treatment Works Catchment allocations within the Local Plan should not drain to the Apuldram WwTW but be directed to alternative WwTW catchments, notably Tangmere WwTW via the new sewer pipeline connection once operational.
It is difficult to understand how this site would connect to an alternative WwTW and therefore would question whether the site would be deliverable.

Policy AL9 - Fishbourne
Fishbourne parish falls within the Apuldram WwTW catchment and we would recommend that the policy makes specific reference to the issues that the Neighbourhood Plan group should consider when identifying sites for their Local Plan.
We would also recommend that specific reference is made to the Source Protection Zone that covers part of the parish in order to ensure that the groundwater, and in turn the drinkingwater supply, is protected.

Policy AL11 - Hunston
There are parts of Hunston that fall within flood zones 2 and 3. We would recommend that if possible the policy makes reference to the fact that built development should be located solely in Flood Zone 1. If this is not possible some reference would need to be made to flood risk and the requirement for the Neighbourhood Plan group to fully consider this through their site allocation process. If sites were to be allocated in flood zone 2 or 3 it is likely that the Plan would need to be supported by a Level 2 SFRA or equivalent.

Policy AL13 - Southbourne Parish
Point 16 identifies the need to ensure that sufficient capacity is available at the relevant Wastewater Treatment Works prior to the delivery of development. This could be expanded to include sewer network capacity. Liaison with Southern Water regarding any necessary phasing of development would be encouraged.

Development Management Policies

Policy DM5 - Accommodation for GTTTS
We support the specific criteria in this policy to ensure that GTTS sites are not located in areas at risk of flooding.

Policy DM14 - Caravan and Camping Sites
We support the particular reference to restricting the occupancy of these sites in flood risk areas. However, there is no specific mention that flood risk areas should be avoided where possible. We would recommend that this should be included within the policy criteria.

Policy DM15 - Horticultural Development
We are pleased to see specific reference to the need to demonstrate adequate water
resources are available and/or water efficiency measures.

Policy DM16 - Sustainable Design and Construction
We support the requirement for new development to achieve a water usage of a maximum of 110litres per head per day.
For completeness we recommend that point 5 should be expanded to include compensation as well as make reference to net gain. This is in line with NPPF para 170.
We support the requirement in point 8 with regard to measures to adapt to climate change.

Policy DM18 - Flood Risk and Water Management
para. 7.115 - reference to the Environment Agency should be removed from this sentence.
The responsibility for surface water drainage and consideration of SuDS sits with West Sussex County Council as the Lead Local Flood Authority for this area.
para. 7.116 - vulnerability - it should be noted that not all development types would be appropriate in all flood zones. Basement dwellings would not be supported in flood zone 3. This paragraph should be amended to reflect this.
We would recommend that you review this policy alongside the strategic policy on flood risk to ensure that they are complementary. Whilst the intention of the policy is good some further clarity could be provided to ensure that all sources of flood risk are considered through decision making.
As drafted there is no reference to the Sequential Test which is a key step in decision
making with regard to proposals in a flood zone. It appears that a number of the criteria included in policy 42 of the current adopted Local Plan have been stripped out. We would recommend further consideration of this for the next iteration of the Plan.
We note that the policy also makes reference to wider water management and does refer tothe South East River Basin Management Plan, however, as per our comments on policy S31 we would wish to see a specific policy that provides for the protection and enhancement of water quality. It may be prudent to consider whether an overarching strategic policy to address flood risk and water management would be best with separate detailed development management policies for each topic.
We would be happy to work with you regarding this detail.

Policy DM20 - Development around the coast
We support this policy and the requirement to safeguard a strip of land behind existing or proposed sea defence or coastal works. Please note that the Environment Agency would seek a 16 metre buffer behind any of our tidal defences.
We support the specific requirement to ensure that development for boat or marine use would not be detrimental to water quality.

Policy DM24 - Air Quality
We are pleased to see that this policy recognises that new development may be located near to existing uses that may be potentially polluting to housing. It is important that the onus should be on the developer/applicant to manage any impact to ensure that they don't leave the existing user affected, e.g. by complaints.

Policy DM26 - Contaminated Land
We support this policy as drafted.

Policy DM29 - Biodiversity
We support this policy as drafted and are pleased to see that specific reference has been
provided to ensure that net gain in biodiversity is actively pursued. Consideration should be
given to the current Government consultation on mandating biodiversity net gain in all new
development and whether this may require further strengthening of the policy wording.
Policy DM32 - Green Infrastructure
We support policy.