Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 4447

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

I think 4.51 is technically incorrect. Chichester Harbour AONB has a list of special 'qualities' (as all AONBs and National Parks do), not 'characteristics'. Furthermore, I am not sure Pagham Harbour has the equivalent list at all.

“Inappropriate development” and “characteristics” are terms used within the NPPF. However, to emphasise the Harbours as separate entities, wording has been changed.

Object

Representation ID: 4498

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

..." who manage Chichester Harbour for nature conservation and landscape." Reword to: "for landscape, the occupation of leisure and recreation, and the conservation of nature." This version is technically correct. Also, you might want to mention Coastal Partners here.

Change accepted

Object

Representation ID: 4501

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

"...Since 'the' designation of the SSSI in 1970, almost half..."

Additional word not considered necessary

Support

Representation ID: 4504

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Good policy.

Support noted

Object

Representation ID: 4550

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The 25 metres rule is likely inadequate. I don't know if this is based on the advice from Natural England, however with sea level rise and increased storminess with climate change, the future rate of erosion will be greater than 0.1m per year. The minimum should be 50m, with a policy preference for 100m. I suspect someone has underestimated the future rate of erosion.

Additional text is proposed to para 4.76
to clarify that the National Coastal Risk Management work of the Environment agency is also a consideration.

Support

Representation ID: 4551

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Please note that the CHaPRoN partnership will be preparing new Shoreline Defence Guidelines in 2023, with reference to Chichester Harbour AONB. It would be good if the Council could cite this emerging document, and maybe even consider it as a SPD in due course.

As the guidelines are still being drafted it is not considered necessary to refer to them here

Object

Representation ID: 4553

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

There's that "inappropriate development" phrase again. I would change it to "...particularly vulnerable to visual intrusion from urbanisation, both within or adjacent to the boundary."

Agreed

Object

Representation ID: 4555

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Ok, so I would change the word "produced" to "published" in the two instances it is mentioned. The Management Plan was subject to a consultation period of 8 weeks. There are now 19 Planning Principles, not 18. And please keep in mind that the Management Plan expires on 1 April 2024, when it will be replaced by a light touch 12 month Plan. The new 5 year Management Plan will commence from 1 April 2025. Finally, CHaPRoN is working to replace the outdated Sustainable Shorelines: General Guidance document this year.

Agreed

Object

Representation ID: 4556

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Thank you very much including this policy. My only comment is to suggest the 25m is pushed back to 50m.

Criterion 6 has been removed from this policy as the setback is covered in NE12 (where amendments are proposed).

Object

Representation ID: 4931

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

I would mention and explain coastal squeeze here, and cross reference the SSSI Condition Review for Chichester Harbour.

The Council agree that coastal squeeze is an important issue, but given that this is already addressed in policy NE11 there is considered to be no merit in making additional reference to it in the supporting text of NE15