Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5061

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

SWT highlights the close proximity of A3, A4 & A5. We ask CDC to consider these allocations in combination and their ability to deliver a cohesive approach to the integration of Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity Net Gain should be strongly considered by CDC. This doesn’t seem to be reflected in this policy of the broad development principles.

Such an approach is required by policy P14

Object

Representation ID: 5062

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy supporting this allocation makes clear under bullet point 6 the need to protect and provide net gains for biodiversity, as per paragraph 174 (d) of the NPPF. We seek clarity from CDC as to why many of the allocation policies say required net gain and do not specify that it must be a minimum of 10% BNG? For urbanised locations such as this allocation, there could be opportunities to deliver significantly more than 10% BNG.

Need a cohesive approach to green infrastructure and BNG across A3,4,5 (as per rep 5061).

Object

Representation ID: 5063

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We again reiterate the point made under Policy A3 about maximising the opportunities to deliver for Green Infrastructure and BNG with adjoining allocations.

Support noted

Green Infrastructure and BNG are covered by policies P14 and NE5

Object

Representation ID: 5064

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We can see from aerial photography and information that this allocation appears to already be under construction in a phased manner. It is also sited adjacent to a Strategic Wildlife Corridor. Whilst we acknowledge that the supporting policy has sought to recognise the sensitives of the habitats within it and the Strategic Wildlife Corridor to the west of the site, we question whether sufficient opportunity has been taken to adequately protect these features. For example, should bullet point 6 also reference Policy NE8 Trees Hedgerows and Woodland, given the ancient woodland on site?

Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridors provides protection for development proposals within or in close proximity to the wildlife corridors and Policy NE8 provides the necessary protection for woodland. Paragraph 1.12 states that the plan should be read as a ‘whole’ and policies will not be applied in isolation. For the sake of consistency, specific reference to Policy NE5 at criterion 6 has been removed.

Object

Representation ID: 5065

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We recognise that information supporting this allocation indicates that outline permission has already been granted for this allocation. SWT has observed on the policies map that this allocation extends into Wildlife Corridor. SWT feels that the policy wording supporting this allocation fails to adequately reflect the opportunities it has to deliver benefits for biodiversity. For example, bullet point 8 seems negatively worded. We suggest this is unsound as is inconsistent with national policy relating to biodiversity; for example, the NPPF paragraph 174(d) makes clear the need to provide net gains for biodiversity.

This allocation has been carried forward from the current adopted Local Plan/Site Allocations DPD and as is detailed at paragraph 10.25, planning permission has been granted for the housing allocation. Consequently, the site boundary cannot be amended. Biodiversity net gains are referred to in the third bullet point of paragraph 1 of the policy criteria

Object

Representation ID: 5066

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Do not consider current boundary of allocation to be sound. Do not support narrowing of Strategic Wildlife Corridor around proposed allocation (A8) since consultation in 2021. CDC to provide justification for narrowing of Corridor.? Understood from 2021 technical consultation that Corridor was shifted west to incorporate bat data commissioned in part by CDC to inform locations of Strategic Wildlife Corridors, information is available as part of the Local Plan evidence base. SWT does not consider it possible to avoid harm to priority species and habitats in current allocation boundary for A8 due to large area of important woodland habitat for birds and bats in north eastern section of site allocation boundary that would be lost as a result of development.

Objection noted. The justification for the amendment to the width of the corridor is set out in the Strategic Wildlife Corridor Background Paper. It would not be appropriate to include buffers within the red line boundary of the corridor, as the width of the buffer will need to be established through discussion at planning application stage, and will be based upon what is deemed suitable to ensure functionality and integrity of the corridor.

Support

Representation ID: 5067

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

It is SWT’s understanding that permission for development has already been granted for this site.

Comment noted

Object

Representation ID: 5068

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note that this allocation policy seeks to ensure impacts to biodiversity are avoided and that net gains for biodiversity are achieved, in line with section 174 of the NPPF. We note that again this policy doesn’t specify a minimum for Biodiversity Net Gain. We question whether the policies should be more specific, as we have seen in other Local Authority Plans. For example, the Environment Act will make a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain mandatory by November 2023, and as such this should be made clear in the policy. Alternatively, if CDC is seeking to be more ambitious by setting a minimum of 20% BNG for major development, as seen in the Adopted Worthing Local Plan, this could be specified.

The Local Plan contains the proposed policy NE5 (Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain) and is intended to be read in the round. Policy NE5 sets out the requirement for development proposals to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity.

See also response to Sussex Wildlife Trust’s representation to Policy NE5 (5043) regarding BNG target.

Object

Representation ID: 5069

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We recognise that the policy supporting this allocation contains wording to avoid impacts to biodiversity and seeks opportunity for gains to biodiversity and Green Infrastructure. As mentioned previously, we question whether the policy could provide more clarity regarding levels of BNG, as we have seen in other Local Authority Plans. For example, the Environment Act will make a minimum of 10% Biodiversity Net Gain mandatory by November 2023, and as such this should be made clear in the policy. Alternatively, if CDC is seeking to be more ambitious by setting a minimum of 20% BNG for major development, as seen in the Adopted Worthing Local Plan, this could be specified.

Comment noted. The Local Plan contains the proposed policy NE5 Biodiversity and Biodiversity Net Gain, and is intended to be read in the round. Policy NE5 sets out the requirement for development proposals to deliver a minimum of 10% net gain in biodiversity.

Object

Representation ID: 5070

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The information available in the consultation does not seem to define the area and as such, does not enable SWT to give effective feedback on the impacts on biodiversity from development at this scale in this broad location. We do note that that supporting policy wording requires impacts to biodiversity and protected sites to be avoided, and the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain. We wish to highlight that the broad location, in addition to a Strategic Wildlife Corridor, has Biodiversity Opportunity Areas highlighted within it and these are likely to be key locations in Nature Recovery Networks and emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategies, NPPG Paragraph: 010 Reference ID: 8-010-20190721

Given the clear commitment to coastal policies in the draft Local Plan, we ask if that should be highlighted within the policy requirements.

The issues raised have been considered and the evidence base and proposed development strategy continues to support this strategic allocation. Policy A12 criterion 5 addresses biodiversity requirements. Specific site allocations are due to be addressed by way of the neighbourhood plan review by the Parish Council