Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5730

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Loxwood has been identified as a Strategic Development Location in favour of other more sustainable locations in Southern Plan Area on the basis of capacity issues on the A27 which are not supported by evidence. This results in a less sustainable distribution of housing than would otherwise be the case had the transport evidence been properly applied to the housing distribution strategy. Loxwood is sequentially less sustainable than a number of other Service Villages in the South, including Westbourne where suitable land has been promoted and considered ‘developable’.

Work has had to be undertaken to look at the capacity of the north-east of the plan area to accommodate more dwellings, due to the constraints on growth in the south of the plan area (to demonstrate that the council has left ‘no stone unturned’ in seeking to reach the full local housing need figure). The outcome of this work, as set out in the Sustainability Appraisal (2023) and Housing Distribution Background Paper was that 220 is an appropriate figure for Loxwood parish to accommodate.
The housing distribution seeks to reconcile a range of factors in order to achieve the most sustainable approach to the distribution of development. This is set out in more detail within the Sustainability Appraisal and Housing Distribution Background Paper. Loxwood is a classed as a service village which is a suitable location for development (see Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper).

Object

Representation ID: 5733

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy provides no basis for reduced affordable housing ‘provision’ on viability grounds which is highly unusual for a policy of this nature and contrary to the advice from Dixon Searle. In the absence of provisions within Policy H4 to allow for reduced affordable housing provision on viability grounds, the policy is likely to undermine the delivery of development. In particular, it will undermine development on brownfield sites contrary to paragraph 119 of the NPPF. On this basis the policy is unjustified, and its inclusion makes the Plan unsound.

This flexibility is covered by point 4 of the policy.

The Council considers that the policy provides the right balance in terms of maximising delivery in a manner which maintains the viability of proposals and the policy approach proposed is compliant with national policy and guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 5734

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Government has published its response to the consultation on Building Regulations - Part M. This response states that the Government intends to make part M4(2) the mandatory standard.

Whilst the building regulations are due to be updated to include M4(2) as standard, this has not yet taken place. The policy was drafted to reflect the needs of the local population and therefore has remained as drafted to ensure delivery of M4(2) dwellings should there be a delay or change to the building regs update

Support

Representation ID: 5735

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Support the objectives of the policy in terms of achieving good design. However, criterion ‘A’ requires proposals to use materials that reduce embodied carbon and make use of re-used or recycled materials. The merits of reducing the embodied carbon in new homes is acknowledged, however the extent to which such materials can be sourced and used will vary from development to development.

The Council agree to a certain extent that the practicalities of sourcing materials means that some flexibility is required. However, the proposed wording is considered to be too flexible and would weaken the policy excessively. Therefore, a compromise is proposed which introduces a degree of flexibility but without defeating the goal of the policy

Object

Representation ID: 5736

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy lacks clarity in terms of thresholds for provision of built facilities. Requirements set on generic basis with paragraph 6.85 referencing Open Space, Sport and Recreation Study (2018) as relevant evidence. Paragraph 6.96 refers to future area-based policies in the subsequent Allocations DPD and SPD. Evidence out-of-date. Policy will apply to all residential development and logically be dealt with through CIL for smaller development where on-site provision impractical. Lack of evidence supporting policy means request for contributions would fail CIL Reg 122 and Paragraph 57 of NPPF. Outdated generic policy approach alongside area based approach clearly inconsistent. No threshold for built facilities whilst policy requires provision. Unclear what is required in terms of built sport and recreation facilities.

Objection noted:

It is agreed to add to Table 6.1 a threshold requirement for the provision of on-site community and sports halls and to add a table note to clarify that such provision will depend on local circumstance.

Following an update to the Build Facilities and Leisure Needs Assessment (2024) it is proposed to remove from Table 6.4 the quantity standards per 1,000 population for specific indoor facilities. Instead reference will be made to the Needs Assessment to determine, based on local circumstances, the need for new or enhanced indoor facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 5737

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Traffic modelling undertaken in Transport Study uses base year of 2014 - pre-dates COVID pandemic and significant changes in work-travel patterns in subsequent years. Likely to result in significant over-estimation of traffic flows, acknowledged in report itself. Trip generation based on generic per dwelling basis without regard to sustainability/accessibility merits of locations within district. Acceptable for generic ‘predict and provide’ approach but mitigation based on bespoke ‘monitor and manage’ approach. Once it became apparent that mitigation required for ‘predict and provide’ approach could not be viably mitigated, new assessment should have been undertaken to look at specific characteristics of traffic generation within various locations within Southern Plan Area and the interrelationship with specific junctions on A27 - would have provided more accurate account of trip generation to define more targeted strategy for A27 junction improvements and other measures.

The Local Plan Transport Study (2024) was commissioned to provide evidence to support the Local Plan. This explains that the Chichester Area Transport Model (CATM) has been updated by Stantec to investigate travel patterns in and around the Chichester area. This included taking account of changes in response to the policies and strategy of the emerging Chichester Local Plan.
The strategy set out in Policy T1 will support the level of development that is proposed by the Plan.
Undertaking new modelling work would further delay the local plan which has already been significantly delayed, and would lead to further pressures on local infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 5738

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Planned mitigation schemes at Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts are to be funded exclusively by residential development despite allocation at ‘Land South of Bognor Road’. Consequently, contributions being sought for residential development would fail CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”. Transport Study confirms planned mitigation could accommodate further 2,970 dwellings in South which would reduce per dwelling contribution. At best, cost of mitigation could be reduced in the interests of viability and affordable housing delivery. At worst, cost of mitigation would fail CIL Regulation 122 tests for not being “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”. Strategy focusses on mitigating two junctions on A27 as priorities but applies generic cost to all sites within South. Clearly, impact on junctions will vary for sites within South in terms of location (access to alternative transport) and existing context (greenfield or brownfield) - generic approach to contributions not “fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development”. See further Technical Note attached.

i) Policy T1 proposes applying contributions only to residential development to avoid ‘double counting’ impacts on the Strategic Road Network which would result from seeking contributions from employment, leisure or other types of development. However, in relation to ‘Land South of Bognor Road’, Policy A20 includes provisions requiring that the specific impacts of site allocation on the transport networks and infrastructure are addressed.
ii) as part of the Transport Study a 700 dwellings per annum (DPA) Sensitivity Test was undertaken. This test was undertaken on the basis of the full mitigation package, including Whyke and Stockbridge junctions. This concluded that whilst demands can generally be accommodated by the mitigation proposed for the 535 dpa ‘core test’, capacity issues get worse with the 700 dpa demands at the Portfield roundabout and Oving junction.
iii) Approach to Policy T1 has been amended to remove prioritisation of particular junctions (these remain for consideration as part of the TIMG) and change in approach to collection of developer contributions.

Object

Representation ID: 5739

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy requires all residential development to provide gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure at first occupation. However, delivery of such connections is dependent on infrastructure providers and feasibility/ viability of connections. Policy as currently drafted may restrict housing delivery. Detailed submission in attachment disputing assumptions in viability assessment.

Objection noted

Object

Representation ID: 5740

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Metis Homes

Agent: Nova Planning

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst the Facilities Audit (2018) that informed the settlement hierarchy is out-of-date, it scores the settlement of Westbourne higher than Loxwood and does not take account of the fact that Westbourne is within cycle distance of both Southbourne and Emsworth (Havant Borough) train stations. Despite its comparatively higher sustainability credentials, Westbourne has an allocation of only 30 dwellings. This allocation is based on a flawed Spatial Strategy and as such it is not properly ‘justified’. Consequently, the draft Plan is unsound.

oth Westbourne and Loxwood are classified as service villages in the settlement hierarchy. The latest evidence is set out in the updated Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper (May 2024). Accessibility to a railway station by cycle is not a specific criteria used to determine service village status.