Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5829

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Consider this policy to be unsound due it not being effective and not justified. Generally supportive of Policy and where it states neighbourhood plans can define precise Landscape Gaps. However, having reviewed the Landscape Gap Assessment (May 2019) it is disappointing to learn that CDC only had the south of the plan area assessed and not North of the Plan Area.

The policy applies to the whole plan area; the gap study was not intended to be comprehensive across the whole plan area and only considered a small number of potential locations which may be subject to potentially higher development pressures; gaps may be considered, evidenced and identified through either a subsequent Site Allocations DPD or relevant neighbourhood plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5832

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy unsound due it not being effective and not justified. Support Strategic Wildlife Corridors and Policy in principle. Local Plan is, as far as we can tell, proposing Corridors in South of the Plan Area. Clearly these Corridors should also be planned and delivered in North of Plan Area as well. Currently no justification provided in Local Plan for excluding these Corridors from North of the District which also links to the South Downs National Park and two SACs at Ebernoe and The Mens.

Comment noted. The corridors have, in the first instance, been established to link functional habitat between and within the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB, as the east-west corridor is the location subject to the greatest development pressure. This does not preclude the future identification of further wildlife corridors in this location, or elsewhere within the Plan area.

Object

Representation ID: 5833

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Paragraph 4.16 of the Local Plan states that “these corridors do not stop at the plan area boundaries” however it fails to mention that the corridors do stop before reaching the North of the Plan Area boundary.

Comment noted. The corridors have a specific job of linking existing habitat within and between the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB

Object

Representation ID: 5834

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Question why d) specifies ‘greenfield’ sites. Is there an assumption that previously developed land cannot support commuting and foraging habitats? Policy makes no mention of Atmospheric Pollution despite this being highlighted in the HRA as having an impact on the Ebernoe SAC resulting from nitrogen deposition (arising from the A283) above the critical load for beech forest. Should be addressed in this policy and be specified as a requirement that needs to be assessed. If CDC is signed up to Protocol mentioned and it is not in ‘draft’ form, development proposals should be required to adhere to Protocol rather than just have ‘regard’ to it.

Objection and proposed changes noted. i) The policy as drafted requires greenfield sites and sites that support or are in close proximity to relevant habitats to have due regard for bats. This is considered to ensure inclusion of developed sites, as appropriate. ii) Modelling within the HRA suggests no adverse effect on the integrity of Ebernoe SAC from atmospheric pollution will arise as a result of implementation of the Plan. Additional policies and development requirements (beyond those already proposed within NE1, NE21, T2, and T3) are therefore not considered proportionate. Iii) The Sussex Bat Special Area of Conservation Planning and Landscape Scale Enhancement Protocol has been agreed by Natural England and the South Downs National Park Authority. Adherence to the protocol is not mandatory, but it can be considered within planning decisions. Having regard to the protocol is therefore considered appropriate in this context.
.

Object

Representation ID: 5835

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Policy unsound due it not being effective and not justified.
Policy relies on Policy 17 regarding Water Neutrality in the Sussex North WRZ. See representations made on HRA.

Unclear what change is sought to policy NE16. The approach to water neutrality has been developed with a range of stakeholders including Natural England.

Object

Representation ID: 5836

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Object to policy on grounds of uncertainty over enforcement of water efficiency; monitoring from LPA’s perspective impossible; LPA can't be certain measures imposed will be effective; no provisions made for circumstances in which offsetting scheme not available; offsetting within WRZ will surely exacerbate issue; Water Neutrality Statement requires full understanding of how water will be managed from consent; considerable doubt about how applications can be managed in manner suggested by Plan; See detailed representations provided in attachment.

Work is continuing on the joint LPA approach and strategy to address water neutrality.

Work on SNOWS (Sussex North Offsetting Scheme) remains on-going and further details will emerge as this work progresses.

Object

Representation ID: 5837

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

CDC does not explain what other constraints has led to reduction in housing or specifically the decrease of housing in southern plan area and increase of housing in North of the Plan Area. CDC does not explain that Proposed Submission Local Plan significantly reduced housing planned for East-West Corridor Sub Area by 1,339 dwellings, for Manhood Peninsula decrease of 970 dwellings, compared with distribution proposed in Preferred Approach. For North of Plan Area trend was reversed, amount of housing increased from 489 dwellings to 679 dwellings.

The reduction from 638 to 575dpa is due to the constraint that the A27 places on the amount of development that can be accommodated in the south of the district.
The justification for not meeting the housing needs in full is set out in the Housing Need and Transport Background Papers.
The increase in the north compared the Preferred Approach is due to the need to explore all possible means of meeting the 638dpa figure, which included looking again at the potential for development in the north east of the plan area. For further detail on the justification for the housing figure in the north east of the plan area, please see the Housing Distribution Background Paper.

Object

Representation ID: 5838

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

CDC does not justify its approach to spatial distribution of housing or why it is proposing a significant decrease of 20% in southern area of District that is the most sustainable in terms of population, facilities, services and sustainable transportation. Nor does CDC provide justification for an increase of 20% in housing distributed to North of Plan Area which is the least sustainable. CDC has failed to explain Water Neutrality issues in the North and has overstated the constraints in the South by relying entirely on an argument about the A27 which has not been clearly explained.

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 the more detail within the Sustainability Appraisal and Housing Distribution Background Paper.

The justification for not meeting the housing needs in full is set out in the Housing Need and Transport Background Papers. The latest Duty to Cooperate evidence is set out in the updated Statement of Compliance

As set out in the SA and Housing Distribution Background Paper a range of scenarios were considered in the north plan area and the final scenarios are the most appropriate for each settlement when taking into account the full range of factors needing to be considered.

Object

Representation ID: 5839

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Define small-scale housing; clarify that making 'provision' is not the same as making 'allocations' ie; some housing can be expected from windfall sites; paragraph 5.10 not reflected in policy.

Not defining small scale as it provides flexibility for parishes to meet the requirement in the best way according to their local evidence and circumstances.
Any size sites can be allocated but these would still be in addition to any windfall sites (that are under 5 dwellings) that may come forward (to avoid double counting).

Object

Representation ID: 5840

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Kirdford Parish Council

Agent: Troy Planning + Design

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Text should clarify process/mechanism for “some flexibility for minor amendments to housing numbers for individual parishes”; what is meant by ‘flexibility’ and ‘minor amendments’? Does this text mean to say ‘neighbourhood areas’ rather than ‘individual parishes’?
Disagree with text that proposes development of less than 6 dwellings not counting against ‘parish housing requirement’ due to these already being taken into account as windfall allowance from small sites - see attachment for reasoning; Paragraph contravenes NPPF Paragraph 70 which states that neighbourhood planning groups should consider opportunities for small and medium sites rather than reject them as CDC is suggesting;

Wording in 5.10 refers to ‘some flexibility’ subject to the detailed investigation and assessment of potential sites. Therefore any minor amendments to the numbers would need to be justified as a result of that process.
The term ‘demonstrable progress’ has been used to make sure that at this stage parishes progressing neighbourhood plans are not up against a hard identified deadline of reaching a certain stage by a fixed time, as each parish will be working to different timescales.