Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5352

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Council position does not comply with Section 19(1A) of the PCPA 2004, which requires Local Plan policies to be designed to secure that the development and use of land in the LPA's area contribute to the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change.

The plan has failed to demonstrate a vision of how to achieve net zero by 2050,or decarbonise power systems by 2035 in line with the Climate Change Act 2008 and ongoing ambitions towards Net Zero.

The 2008 Climate Change Act sets a legally binding target to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions from their 1990 level by 100% by 2050. The plan does not demonstrate how this is achieved and is not legally compliant.

The Government is implementing the Future Homes and Buildings Standard to improve the energy efficiency and reduce the carbon emissions of new buildings through changes to Building Regulations. An interim uplift came into effect in 2022 and consultation on further changes to make all new buildings zero carbon ready began on 13 December 2023, with the changes anticipated to take effect from 2025.

A Written Ministerial Statement on 13 December 2023, which replaces an earlier WMS from 2015, is clear that local plans should not impose energy efficiency requirements above existing or planned Building Regulations.

Climate adaptation is covered in design policy P1.

The Climate Change Background Paper sets out in more detail how climate mitigation and adaptation is covered throughout the Plan.

Suggest additional wording for 2.33 to clarify the scope of the Building Regulations and update reference to the latest Future Homes and Buildings Standard consultation.

Object

Representation ID: 5353

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection on grounds that policy does not address net zero and climate change adaptation and mitigation; positive strategy must expressly achieve net zero including renewable energy and carbon sequestration; must address strategic allocation of climate change management area and issue of coastal retreat, including strategy for replacement homes lost to climate change; Para 4.76 inconsistent with SA that excludes strategic development on MP due to climate change; nothing in evidence base in terms of re-provision of homes and infrastructure required for climate adaptation; removal of strategic site at Selsey unsound as not justified, nor supported by evidence because:
1. Does not respect the settlement hierarchy;
2. SFRA confirms the site passes the sequential test;
3. Does not mitigate impacts on B2145

The Local Plan already recognises that climate change is an issue to be addressed and sets out a strategic approach to development on the Manhood Peninsula (Policy NE14 Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula) and requirements for new development around the coast (Policies NE12 Development Around the Coast and NE15 Flood Risk and Water Management).

As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, the primary source of evidence for defining coastal change management areas is the shoreline management plan. However, the relevant SMPs for the Plan Area do not currently require the identification of such areas.

The Local Plan also addresses achieving net zero particularly in respect of sustainable transport modes. However, viability testing showed that requiring new development to meet higher standards ahead of Building Regulation changes would not be viable even if other contributions such as affordable housing were reduced. See also response to respondent’s representation to paragraph 2.30 (5352).

The removal of a strategic allocation in Selsey followed updated flood risk evidence, which showed that the B2145 was at risk of flooding under certain climate change scenarios. The Level 2 interim SFRA recommended that the council’s Emergency Planning Officer should be consulted prior to the allocation of the site, who advised that without improvements to the flood resilience of the B2145 further residential development in Selsey south of the section of road at risk of flooding should be avoided.

Object

Representation ID: 5354

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy does not comply with national policy in respect of climate change, including NPPF para 155 a) and b); Policy is negatively worded with barriers to RE development rather than positive provision proposals that recognise the significant scale of RE development required to meet net zero, or land use implications for the commitment to carbon reduction now set out in law.

There is no evidence in the totality of the published evidence base to consider renewable energy production and how this intersects with other land use policies in the plan. The plan does not identify the quantum of additional renewable energy development requirements in the plan period and how this intersects with NE3 and NE4.

The policy is supportive of renewable energy schemes. The Council’s plan and progress made with renewable energy generation is reported in the Climate Emergency Detailed Action Plan and its Annual Progress Report, both of which have been added to the evidence base on the Council’s website and reference will be made within the supporting text. West Sussex County Council’s Climate Change Annual Report also details the collaborative working of the District Councils with the County Council in relation to climate action.
Policy I1 Infrastructure Provision seeks to safeguard the requirements of infrastructure providers including renewable energy whilst Policy P9 The Historic Environment makes provision for the use of renewable generation.
Heat is included within the glossary definition of renewable and low carbon energy that accompanies the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 5355

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object on grounds that strategic policy must reflect the NPPF to move to a low carbon economy; the extent of what is considered a significant loss of BMV Land is not quantified; policy should refer to 20ha limit imposed by Schedule 4 paragraph (y) of the Development Management Procedure Order 2015 where Natural England are consulted; temporary loss of agricultural land for temporary uses, for example ground mounted solar farms, should be treated differently as land not lost to agriculture permanently.

As referred to at paragraph 4.6, the plan takes account of and seeks to avoid and reduce the impact of development on the plan area’s natural landscape, safeguarding areas for climate change adaptation.
Reference to the relevant legislation has been inserted at paragraph 4.8 in relation to the loss or likely cumulative loss of 20 hectares or more of BMV land and criterion 4 of the policy has a small amendment to reflect NPPF paragraph 174b and paragraph 001 of the Natural Environment Planning Practice Guidance.
The temporary use, solar development, referred to is supported by the Plan’s renewable energy policy. Applications for temporary uses would still be considered against all relevant local plan policy criteria.

Object

Representation ID: 5356

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object on grounds that policy not justified in relation to delivering net zero; proposed gaps not identified in plan; needs to be examination of reasonable alternatives so that plan reflects sustainability objectives; proposed landscape gaps may contain important sites for delivery of renewable energy to allow Council to reach binding net zero targets such as solar farms; no examination in the SA of the impacts of gap designations in preventing development of critical climate adaptation development.
Policy should not proceed to Regulation 20 until the compatibility with the ability of the District to achieve net zero has been demonstrated, and this is tested through the SA process.

Gaps will be identified at a later stage in the plan process, either by way of a Site Allocations DPD or relevant neighbourhood plan and the policy itself does not prevent consideration of potential solar farms.

Object

Representation ID: 5357

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection on grounds that wildlife corridors have not been assessed for their impact on delivering net zero; wildlife corridors may contain important sites for delivery of renewable energy; requiring unjustified sequential testing is contrary to NPPF 158 a) where renewable energy applicants do not need to demonstrate the overall need for the development; SA not considered impact of removing BMV land within the proposed wildlife corridors which exceeds NE threshold; policy not assessed in terms of reasonable alternatives in sustainability appraisal.

Comment noted. The policy does not preclude all forms of development within the corridor. Some limited development may be acceptable and would need to be considered on a case by case basis. The supporting text to the policy will be strengthened for clarity. The policy is seeking to protect wildlife from damaging forms of development. It does not require existing uses of land, including agricultural uses, within the corridors to cease.

Object

Representation ID: 5358

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to policy on grounds that ‘Resilience and Adaptation – ICZM 2021 and beyond’ and ICZM 2011 not included in evidence base; policy should include an allocation of area of coastal change management consistent with the area of coastal retreat; SA assessment dismisses linked pathways and impacts of relocating current settlement areas; should provide vision reflecting accelerating climate change; acknowledge potential sites needed now for relocation of communities in vulnerable areas; address vulnerability of B2145; Selsey site in Preferred Approach could act as phase 1 of managed retreat and relocation of settlement with part of allocation ring fenced for occupation by relocated inhabitants.

The ‘Resilience and Adaptation’ document is for parishes, communities and environmental groups, it was not used to inform the preparation of the policy. The policy requires consideration of the Shoreline Management Plans which do not at this stage require the identification of a Coastal Change Management Area. The SA highlights the policies’ importance for climate change adaptation/resilience as well as for seeking improved infrastructure at criterion 6. This policy does not comment upon strategic allocations. The policy acknowledges at criterion 3, potential for relocation of current settlement areas. The B2145 is referred to in the SFRA and SA and the need to adapt to the impacts of climate change is acknowledged at paragraph 4.85 of the policy pre-text.

Object

Representation ID: 5359

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy has not included housing allocations to deal with climate adaptation and managed coastal retreat. Council must identify an area of coastal change management to properly plan for climate adaptation and identify a quantum of development required to meet the managed coastal retreat. As housing will be permanently lost to coastal retreat this must be replaced. Local Plan must identify broad spatial and land use requirements for this important component of housing supply. Interaction of supply of replacement housing as a result of climate adaptation and more traditional housing need as well as timeframe for replacement housing, should be considered as part of supply side calculations.

The ‘Resilience and Adaptation’ document is for parishes, communities and environmental groups, it was not used to inform the preparation of the policy. The policy requires consideration of the Shoreline Management Plans which do not at this stage require the identification of a Coastal Change Management Area. The SA highlights the policies’ importance for climate change adaptation/resilience as well as for seeking improved infrastructure at criterion 6. This policy does not comment upon strategic allocations. The policy acknowledges at criterion 3, potential for relocation of current settlement areas. The B2145 is referred to in the SFRA and SA and the need to adapt to the impacts of climate change is acknowledged at paragraph 4.85 of the policy pre-text.

Object

Representation ID: 5360

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Objection to policy on grounds that it has failed to be properly assessed in line with The Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 - Regulation 12; unjustified removal of strategic housing site at Selsey - removing site from plan condemns population of Selsey relying on B2145 to effective abandonment; reasonable alternatives not tested in SA. Supporting evidence for Selsey site attached.

The Housing Distribution Background Paper sets out the justification for the site allocations and strategic parish numbers set out in Policy H2.
The Local Plan makes provision for a limited amount of new housing development on the Manhood Peninsula. This approach takes account of the large amount of development that has received planning permission and updated technical evidence, including the SFRA which considers flood risk. The consideration of reasonable alternatives is set out within the Sustainability Appraisal, which was submitted alongside and underpins the Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 5361

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Landlink Estates Ltd

Agent: Jackson Planning Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object on grounds that policy does not include sites in Parishes to seek to meet the Council’s OAN where there are acceptable sites capable of accommodating housing to meet those needs; evidence of suitable sites has been provided in HEELA assessment; a reasonable alternative would have been to look at parishes considering allocations in Neighbourhood Development Plans (Hunston) and where planning application are well advanced (North Mundham); reasonable alternative site Charmans Field, Runcton should have been tested in SA.

The Housing Distribution Background Paper sets out the justification for the non- strategic parish numbers set out in Policy H3.
The Local Plan makes provision for a limited amount of new housing development on the Manhood Peninsula. This approach takes account of the large amount of development that has received planning permission and updated technical evidence, including the SFRA which considers flood risk. This is considered in more detail in the Housing Distribution Background Paper and Sustainability Appraisal.

The consideration of reasonable alternatives is set out within the Sustainability Appraisal, which was submitted alongside and underpins the Local Plan

Promotion of site noted.